Brad Gersonner's here joining us hot

after crashing the stock market and

popping the AI bubble. Well done, Brad.

We're going to get into [laughter] it.

>> All of our portfolios, thank you. We're

all down 15% this week.

>> Can we ask OpenAI to just put a

moratorum on any more public statements

or appearances for another couple

months?

>> Good. Good job, Brad. You You decided

you'd be a podcaster. You're like, "Hey,

let me ask a couple of hard questions

here." And you pop the [laughter] AI

bubble.

Yeah, sound like a

>> do as I say, not as I do.

>> Are we getting into it? Because I think

it is interesting actually.

>> Oh, it's super interesting. Super

interesting. Let's get

>> So Sam uh um of course if you're not in

the industry, Sam Alman appeared on the

fabulous BG2

podcast last Friday and um it got a

little frisky when our fifth bestie here

asked what I thought was a completely

>> totally

>> legitimate

you know, mundane question. Hey, you're

making 13 billion.

>> It's actually a a softball question to

be honest.

>> It was an underhanded pitch.

>> The way that it was asked, I think you

did a very reasonable job of asking a

good question in a very fair way.

>> So, let's just show this clip here and

then I I want to go behind the pod with

you, Brad.

>> So, I think the single biggest question

I've heard all week and and hanging over

the market is how, you know, how can a

company with 13 billion in revenues make

1.4 4 trillion of spend commitments, you

know, and and and you've heard the

criticism, Sam.

>> First of all, we're doing well more

revenue than that. Second of all, Brad,

if you want to sell your shares, I'll

find you a buyer. [laughter]

>> I just enough like, you know, people are

>> I think there's a lot of people who

would love to buy OpenAI shares. I don't

I don't think you want,

>> including myself.

>> Including myself

>> who talk with a lot of like breathless

concern about our comput stuff or

whatever that would be thrilled to buy

shares. So I think we we could sell, you

know, your shares or anybody else's to

some of the people who are making the

most noise on Twitter, whatever about

this very quickly. We do plan for

revenue to grow steeply. Revenue is

growing steeply. We are taking a forward

bet that it's going to continue to go

grow. There are not many times that I

want to be a public company, but one of

the rare times it's appealing is when

those people are writing these

ridiculous OpenAI is about to go out of

business and you know, whatever. I would

love to tell them they could just short

the stock and I would love to see them

get burned on that. So Brad, um, you

asked, I think like you know, Jamath and

I were just saying the pretty mundane

question. You said it very nicely.

>> I I guess we could give Sam a little bit

of grace. I don't know if he was being a

little cheeky or maybe he's tired of

answering the question, but the internet

took this and ran with it in a very

viral way that he was angry and he was

hostile. How did you take it? And and

>> that's the interesting thing, right? I

mean I mean listen, we bust each other's

chops all the time. We get feisty with

one another. Sometimes it runs a muck.

Like we don't know if somebody's being

serious or not serious and and you know

Sam and I had a good laugh after you

know I think Sam was he was feisty but I

think he also intended it as a joke. He

knows that I don't want to sell my

shares. He knows that I would like to

buy more shares in the company etc. But

I think the reason that it went so viral

is because it is a super important

question. People are really nervous.

They're wondering, are we walking in to

an AI bubble? Like, how can these huge

numbers, how can you be talking about

1.4 trillion in spending when you, you

know, have kind of gap revenue that's

been reported to 13 billion this year.

So, I was I was a little disappointed

and I tweeted about this afterwards that

kind of the feistiness got in the way of

the answer. But if you listen to his

words during the rest of the segment,

he basically said, "Listen, we think

we're going to have a h 100red billion

in revenues over the course of the next

couple years." And you know, Jay Cali

sent the team a chart that that

basically just shows the information's

forecast for what OpenAI and Anthropics

revenues are going to be over the course

of the next several years. And like the

information is reporting that their

internal numbers are both over a

hundred, you know, billion dollar.

>> This is the information reporting on

leaked internal numbers or the

information is taking a guess. What?

>> No, I think this is I think they report

this is on leaked internal numbers

according to the information.

>> And so, you know, I think Sam's in his

head saying I believe and he says

multiple times on the pod, we're going

to have

>> revenues in excess of hundred billion

dollars and the 1.4 4 trillion. It's

super important to remember this is over

a period of five or six years. I I

estimate about half of that spending is

going to be borne by the partners. So

now we're talking $700 billion in

spending. Spread that over five or six

years. In the out years, you're probably

talking about $150 billion of capex to

open AAI. So he's probably, you know,

sitting there saying and and he said

we're going to have over 100 billion in

revenue. So if we have 150 billion in

revenue and 150 billion in capex now it

begins to pencil out a little bit more

but importantly he said and if we don't

have those revenues we've got to match

our revenues to our expenses right I

think they will just extend recut the

deals in order to make those expenses

doable for the company

>> this is an important point because we

don't know we haven't seen these actual

deals and if they have conditions or

outs or if they can push it out or they

can cancel it maybe you know they they

have and that will come out I guess in

the public filings but putting all that

aside the market was not happy about

this Microsoft Nvidia Oracle Broadcom

who all are the partners we're talking

about who are close to and when you see

these charts of all the deals Sam has

done and Sam's a great deal maker

obviously they were all down 6 to 20%.

So this has in fact been a significant

correction in terms of the AI boom. So

before we get into their CFO's comments,

Chimath, um I'd love to hear your just

general

>> I think these are

>> I think it's fun to give these guys, but

they're totally and completely

uncorrelated.

>> Okay.

>> Every now and then you have a bad day.

I've done thousands of hours on TV. I've

had a couple of really bad days. You

guys have been there.

>> Yeah.

>> I suspect that if Sam had to do it over,

he wouldn't have said what he said in

the way he said it. And even if he was

joking, he would have practiced it a

little bit more and just landed it. So

what's actually going on? I think right

now we are in a period of getting a

little risk off and rebalancing. Why?

There are two sets of things that are

happening. The first set of things is

the market is learning to digest all of

the capex that has happened and they're

all breathlessly trying to build models

that try to predict what the ROI is of

that spend. The second part of that is

they're trying to figure out how this

new spend will actually impact future

earnings. And this is less to do with

Open AI, but it has much more to do with

the big stalwarts of the Mag 7. Google's

earnings were phenomenal. Their AI

numbers were blazing hot. Facebook's was

terrible.

Apple is now in this really interesting

place where it seems like they're going

to seed their AI business to Google

and pay them billions of dollars a year

like they get paid billions of dollars a

year for search from them. I think that

that's what's happening. The second part

is as you go into year end,

there's just a little bit of all in the

market and people are like, "Let me just

consolidate. Let me book some wins. Let

me get ready for the new year. Let me

tax loss harvest. Let me do all the

things that people used to wait until

mid December." And now they are smart

enough to know that mid December the

price action is. And so now this price

action starts in mid November.

>> So I wouldn't pin this on all

>> Brad and Sam. I just think this is

natural market machinations. But to be

clear, we are very much getting into a

phase of riskoff.

>> Yeah. And this got exacerbated Sachs

because on Wednesday, uh, OpenAI decided

to be in the news again when their CFO

Sarah Frier told the Wall Street Journal

she hopes the US government, that's you

Saxs, will backs stop financing of its

1.4 trillion in data centers. Here's a

direct quote. the backs stop, the

guarantee that allows the financing to

happen. And she said that the federal

guarantees would quote really drop the

cost of financing. Of course, it would.

And this would allow OpenAI to borrow

more money at lower rates from a much

larger pool of lenders. that went viral

and everybody said, "Oh my god, it

started feeding I think the narrative

that maybe OpenAI is insolvent in fact

and there's no way for them to pay their

bills, which obviously is a little bit

ridiculous

and people are trying to correlate this

to obviously the dotcom bust and then

the great financial uh crisis. But on

Wednesday night, Frier walked back her

comments. I want to clarify my comments.

OpenAI is not seeking a government backs

stop for our infrastructure commitments.

I used the word quote backs stop and it

muddied the point. I was making the

point that American strength and

technology will come for building real

industrial capacity which requires the

private sector and government playing

their part. And uh she also said that

OpenAI was on pace to generate 13

billion. I'll get to you on this one

Brad because he took offense to the 13

billion revenue number and disputed

that. So we'll see if there's some

clarity there. But uh Sax, you came over

the top and tweeted that there will be

no federal bailout. There's plenty of

people available

to pick up the mantle if Open AI needed

a bailout. You got five major frontier

model companies. Gro, Claude,

Gemini, plenty of them. So Sax, you came

in. Daddy's home and you settled it.

Daddy came home. Everybody has to sit

down in the kitchen and explain what's

going on. Take us through um you know

how you think about this as our zar of

>> Well, this morning my entire feed was

full of comments by people analysts,

consumers,

business people, and politicians saying

that we can't allow Open AI to have a

federal bailout. And I think they were

kind of connecting Sam's original

comments or prickliness to what Brad

talked about like, hey, do they have the

money? Can they justify this with

Frier's comments that they need a backs

stop to say, hey, this company's not

solvent. It's going out of business and

they're demanding a federal bailout. So,

I think that's kind of how the pieces

got put together. And what I said is,

look, there's not going to be a federal

bailout for AI. Not going to happen. We

have five major frontier model companies

right now, and there are new companies

being formed all the time. And if one of

them fails, hey, it's going to go out of

business and the other ones are going to

replace it. So, nobody is talking about

a bailout. In fact, I would say that the

AI sector is maybe one of the

healthiest, meaning most competitive

sectors of the entire American economy

right now. To the extent that you just

love ruthless competition driving

innovation, that's what we have right

now. So, if one of these companies gets

over its skis and ends up going

bankrupt, the chips are going to fall

where they may. And I've never heard

anyone serious disputing that fact. Now,

I also made the point, which I think is

important, that to give OpenAI the

benefit of the doubt, I don't think

anyone at OpenAI was asking for a

bailout. If you watch the video with

Sarah Frier, she's clearly searching for

the right word to describe what she's

trying to say, and then she settles on a

word that she now regrets, which is

backs stop. Definitely not the right

word. So, I don't think they are asking

for a bailout. I don't know what she

meant by backs stop. Doesn't make sense.

So, I think this is a little bit of a

tempest in a teapot. What I think is

important and I think maybe where she

was going is that I do think that we

want to make it easier to build

infrastructure in this country and that

means making permitting easier, making

power generation easier. That's all

about regulatory reform. And I think

that the goal here is to enable a rapid

infrastructure build out without

increasing residential rates for

electricity, which nobody wants. And

that's in the process of potentially

creating a little bit of a nimi backlash

is when local communities fear that

their electricity rates are going to go

up because someone wants to build a data

center. That's the thing we have to

combat. But the way that you solve that

problem is by making it easier for these

AI companies to stand up their own power

generation behind the meter. And that

requires regulatory reform. That's what

the president has called for is allowing

the AI companies to do behind the meter.

So no one's talking about bailout.

Nobody's talking about backs stop. We

are talking about making

>> making permitting easier and making it

easier to do buildout. So build out not

bailout.

>> Yes.

>> Should be our motto here.

>> Build out not bailout. Now there was a

little bit of sort of reading the tea

leaves. There have been times when loans

were given to incentivize an industry.

So I just want to be clear with you.

There's no discussions of like Celindra,

you know, type loans.

>> Nobody's discussed any of that with me.

So, it's not even on the radar, I would

say, from the government standpoint.

>> And why would it be if there's so many

people trying to pour capitalist capital

into this, Brad, and there's so many

people trying to buy your shares in a

company making $1 billion that's

currently valued at 500 billion, which I

think is like a 30 to 40 price to sales

ratio. I mean, this company is fully

valued and people are still trying to

buy the shares. So, Brad, wrap us up

here. Yeah.

>> Yeah. I think I was brilliantly said by

David. Listen, it's a national

imperative that we accelerate the

buildout of AI infrastructure across the

country. I've said before the $4

trillion that Jensen Hang has estimated

will be built out over the next 5 years

is 10 times the size of the Manhattan

project that was totally federally

funded. Okay? And this is all being

privately funded. But it wouldn't be

possible without the government,

Secretary Wright, others Bergam etc.

clearing out of the way the regulatory

hurdles we you know you heard on the pod

same pod that power is really the gating

issue here and so it's been amazing to

see what the federal government is doing

I think that's what Sarah was trying to

get to that they need to be have a

public private partnership they're going

to do their job raise their money back

stop was not the right choice of words

but they uh I know and I talked to Sarah

this morning about this are deeply

grateful for what the federal government

is doing to accelerate the buildout of

power and infrastructure and the federal

government can do that without taking

risk on their own balance sheet. In

fact, we've seen some of the investments

they've made as a result of the Japanese

deal they got on tariffs. They can

reinvest those dollars to accelerate

some of the nuclear buildout, etc.

>> By the way, Sam just posted something

about 15 minutes ago.

>> And he was pretty authoritative in

addressing the three critical questions.

The first thing he says is that we will

we meaning open AAI will end the year on

a $20 billion forward run rate which

means December revenue will be 1.666

billion at least. So

we kind of know where the revenue is

going from 1.2 to 1.6 over these next

few months which is a pretty staggering

growth rate if they were at 13 and

they're going to end at 20. And then he

goes and addresses the whole too big to

fail and whether they want government

sponsorship. and he's he's pretty

unequivocal here. So,

>> I think this is a tempest in a deep. I

think people are people are on pins and

needles. They're agitated. Some people

have had no gains. Other people have had

incredible gains. Everybody's agitated.

I think we

>> Well said.

>> We are getting in the

riskoff phase for at least two or three

months. We will be back firmly in riskon

mode in February is my suspicion. But

these next few months, I think people

will overblow every random little thing.

>> Well, and in fairness, you know, $1.4

trillion is a very large number. I mean,

this is a number we've never seen one

company say they're going to do a build

out of.

>> Okay. Well, can I take the other side of

this? If it is,

>> if I was the US government, to the

extent that we are doing public private

partnerships, if there is a way for us

taxpayers to own a piece of open AI, I

would say great. [laughter] I mean, so

Brad, will you sell your shares to the

Trump? So, hold on. So, before everybody

breathlessly complains, whether you see

it or not,

>> there is an enormous sovereign wealth

fund that is being built by President

Trump

and it is for the benefit of all

American taxpayers. And so to the extent

the people in government could

underwrite

an investment structure like they have

done in things like MP materials which

is way up, things like Intel which is

way up. These guys are like really good

smart people. Mike Grimes, Dave Shapiro,

Steven Fineberg and his team at DoD.

They're cutting hard deals, tough deals.

So I don't know if they did do a deal

with OpenAI, I think they'd probably get

the best of it. and the American

taxpayer would win. And I wouldn't be

angry at that.

>> I think I think as you see from Sam's

tweet, they're not looking for the

government to invest. They're not

looking for a government bailout. What

they are doing, and I think David said

it well, is they're pushing us very hard

as a matter of national security and

economic growth to go faster, to

accelerate, to build out infrastructure.

And to give a little credit where credit

is due, right? All of this buildout,

right? All of the Stargate stuff that

people were laughing about 18 months

ago, thank God as an American citizen

that we are running this fast. China has

a 100 nuclear fision plants under

construction and we were sitting on our

hands. So, I think if anything, they've

helped jumpstart that conversation and

get us moving faster and I think that's

good for all of us. Great segue, Brad.

Thank you. Jensen told the FT straight

up, quote, "China is going to win the AI

race." His argument uh is that US

state-by-state regulations and power

constraints are making it harder for US

AI companies. As we've discussed here

countless times,

whereas the CCP is obviously in just

making it super affordable to run all

those GPUs.

Nvidia put out the following statement

from him. As I have long said, China is

nanosconds behind America in AI. It's

vital that America wins by racing ahead

and winning developers worldwide.

Obviously,

>> he's 100% right. He's 100% right. I

don't know if you guys saw, but Cursor

2.0 launched this week.

>> My team at 8090 use it. It's an

incredible product. Guess what they did?

They swapped out Anthropic for an open

source Chinese model.

>> Yep.

>> Do you know what they're using? Is it

like Kimmy or what is it?

>> I think it's Quen. I think they're using

a spin of Quen. Yeah.

>> To be clear, they're cleansing these

Chinese open source models, but they are

I don't know about Cursor, but there are

a lot of companies.

>> Yes. and then running them, setting them

up themselves. Obviously,

>> my point is we are right now running

with one hand tied behind our back. We

are going to have to deal with 50

different sets of legislation from state

legislators who think they know what AI

is. They don't. Sax knows. So, there

should be a federal framework and that

should be it. And then meanwhile,

the Chinese open source models get

better and better and better and better.

And so we're making technology decisions

that tie our wagons to that steel

thread. And so Jensen is right. We need

to clean this up quickly.

>> I was a little bit disappointed to see I

thought it was reasonable for certain

politicians, especially Republican ones,

to say, "Look, there's not going to be a

federal bailout for AI. Great. We all

agree. No one's asking for it." But I

was a little disappointed to see that

some of them were associating a bailout

with a single federal framework as

opposed to the patchwork of 50 state

regulatory regimes. Because if

Republican governors think that they're

the ones who are going to be writing the

rules, they're sorely mistaken about

this. 25% of the bills going through

state legislatores are in four states.

California, New York, Colorado, and

Illinois. In other words, the biggest

blue states. Those also happen to be the

states where these big AI companies are

all headquartered with the one exception

of XAI which is in Texas. But these

companies are in California. The blue

states have the most market power and if

they end up creating the regulations, I

just think it's naive to think that the

AI companies won't write their models to

those regulations of the blue states. I

don't think that red states are somehow

going to find themselves exempted from

the blue state regulations that are

being imposed. And I've talked about on

a previous podcast how what the blue

states are going for here is to reinsert

DEI into AI models to achieve

ideological capture. And the way they do

this, they don't say we're requiring

DEI. They say that we're prohibiting

algorithmic discrimination, which means

that the model says something bad about

a protected group. You end up with the

same end result, which is again

ideological capture. I think all

Republicans should be opposed to this.

There's only one way to stop it, which

is with federal preeemption. Otherwise,

the states will do what they want and

the blue states will basically dominate.

Now, I think that part of what's going

on here is that Republicans have muscle

memory around what happened during the

Biden years. And what happened during

the Biden years is that the Biden

administration pushed for censorship and

shadow banning and deplatforming, all

that kind of stuff. They were working

very closely with the big tech companies

to push the censorship agenda. The only

push back that Republicans were able to

achieve was at the state level. And so

you had cases like Biden v. Missouri

where we had Senator Eric Schmidt was on

the pod talking about that when he was

attorney general. And so he was able to

make a states rights argument to push

back on the Biden censorship. So I think

that Republicans remember that and they

think, well, states rights is our

solution. But now we have a completely

different situation. I mean, the board's

been completely reversed where

Republicans are in power in Washington

and the states are making a bunch of bad

decisions with respect to AI. And so I

think that to be honest, I think we need

to kind of just realize that. And I

think the arguments that make the most

sense right now are the commerce clause

arguments where look, the Constitution

wants to create a single national market

for interstate commerce. AI clearly

qualifies and let's give President

Trump, not Gavin Newsome or JB Pritsker

or Kathy Hokll or Jared Polus, the

ability to write the rules. Let's have a

single federal framework that will

prevent ideological capture of AI, keep

it unbiased, which every conservative

should want. I'll just reiterate again,

if you want to see the impact of having

a state set of regulations

that basically munge a market up, just

go and use your favorite AI tool and ask

what happened when California passed

carb, which are the emission standards

that forced the entire American US auto

industry to have two sets of cars, one

for California and one for the rest of

the market. And what did it do? It

completely flipped demand upside down on

its head. And it has made it very

difficult for the auto industry to be

sustainable. And I think if you apply

that same idea across four states

instead of just one across the most

important technological revolution we've

had, I just don't think it's going to be

a good outcome.

>> The stale manif

we got rid of smog in California and

that it did an amazing job in terms of

getting rid of pollution which also

matters. And I'm trying to think of the

steel man. Are you sure that that's the

steel man that you've come up with or do

you think that the tax credits did that?

>> Um,

>> do you think making two of everything

was the way that solved smog or do you

think the $7500 federal tax credit solve

smog?

>> Well, no, but the smog regulations

predated the EV ones. Those have been

going on for decades. So, it did get rid

of smog. So, you know, putting uh better

um using cleaner gas and then having

better exhausts on those cars. That

would be the steelman of it. I'm not

saying I'm for or against state

regulations, but Sachs, have you heard

any

aside from the the federalism argument,

states rights, have you heard any great

defense of states having some say in how

AI is deployed in their communities?

Well, they can have some say there.

There's definitely areas where you don't

preempt. I mean, you have to decide how

wide the the preeemption is. But when it

comes to things like notifications about

model safety instance, things like that,

it doesn't make sense to have model

companies needing to report to 50

different states, 50 different agencies

within those states, each with a

different definition of what needs to be

reported, each with different reporting

deadlines. Like, why would you have

that? It doesn't make any sense. Why

would you allow the big blue states to

essentially insert DEI into the models

which will affect the red states too?

You're not going to be able to keep that

out. I mean, if California pushes

algorithmic discrimination, you know,

Florida and Texas and Arkansas are going

to be affected as well. So, I think we

need to use the opportunity we have

right now by the fact that we have a

majority in Washington to set a sensible

federal standard that preempts the

excesses of the blue states. And look,

the constitutional arguments you can

make either way. I personally believe in

the commerce clause, but I think when it

comes to the merits of the policy

argument, we should let Donald Trump

write these rules. Let me just say one

other thing. Part of what's going on

here on the right is that there's so

much anger towards the big tech

companies for what happened during the

Biden years with censorship and

deplatforming that I think there's just

this knee-jerk reaction where we don't

want to do anything to help the tech

companies. We just want to hurt them.

And I think we just have to have a more

nuanced approach than that because the

question is what will the result be?

Look, no one was more critical of the

big tech companies engaging in

censorship in Silicon Valley than me

when Donald Trump was kicked off every

big tech platform. I think I was

literally the only person in Silicon

Valley who was publicly objecting to

that on this podcast. So, I'm perfectly

willing to criticize the big tech

companies when they make a mistake. But

when they're engaging in healthy

competition and innovation and we want

to prevent ideological capture and

that's what we're talking about. Let's

make sure it ends up in the right place,

not just engage in this knee-jerk

anti-tech reaction which will play into

the hands of the blue state governors.

We're in this race to win uh AI globally

and one of the major concerns I have is

that AI is becoming deeply unpopular in

America, right? Silicon Valley is losing

the battle around AI. Doomers are now

scaring people about jobs. They think

all these job cuts that are going on in

America are the result of AI. And number

two, they're seeing their electric bills

go up and they think that's also the

result of AI. I've talked with a lot of

Republican senator and House members who

say they are afraid to mention the words

AI because their popularity ratings go

down. We need to get on the other side

of that because that is a losing

proposition for America. If what takes

hold here is that, you know, it's

politically popular, right, to push back

against AI, then David, I think that's

what you're seeing at these state levels

with Republican governors as well. And

so, you know, I think both of those are

false narratives,

>> but we need to get on the other side. In

China, they're not going to slow down.

>> So, if we do an own goal here and slow

down because we think somehow that this

is the the the path to greater economic

growth, it's going to be a real problem.

both national security as well as

economic security 3 five years down the

line.

>> Yeah. Can I build on that actually? So

in terms of the public discourse, it's

true that the doomer narratives have had

this tremendous effect that you can see

in the poll numbers and then the

politicians feel like they can basically

play into that in one way or another.

But where do these narratives come from?

Three big tech billionaires who are on

the left contributed over a billion

dollars to these doomer think tanks.

basically was Dustin Moskovitz, Yan

Talon and Vitalic Buterine. And from

open philanthropy and from some of these

other entities, they have spun up

hundreds of these astrourfed

organizations that are spending

literally hundreds of millions of

dollars to spread these doomer

narratives. A writer named Nerret

Weissplat on Substack has basically

broken down how this all works. It's

actually a great article I'll put on the

screen. So, people need to understand

that these narratives are coming from

somewhere. They're astroturfed. I don't

think they're true and the narratives

are contradictory. So, let me give you

an example. Right now, the two biggest

narratives that we're seeing on social

media and in mainstream media are number

one, the idea that there's a huge AI

bubble right now. In other words, it's

all totally fake. The other biggest

narrative is that AI is on the verge of

super intelligence and we're all going

to get replaced.

>> Also fake,

>> right? In other words, AI is completely

real and super powerful. Well, these two

things are contradictory. If it's a

bubble, it's not going to be on the

verge of super intelligence. And if AI

is really that powerful, then obviously

on some level this economic activity is

justified. So these narratives are

completely contradictory. I think that

it's possible to believe in neither one

of them, which is where I'm at. But it

makes no sense for people to believe in

both. And you literally have the same

people on social media and in mainstream

media pushing both of these dumer

narratives.

>> So I think we need to increase somehow

our immune defenses or our

>> antibodies. We need to improve our

antibodies to I think these memes that

are being pushed out by groups that have

these weird doomer ideologies like

effective altruism and they literally

just want progress to stop on AI. And if

we do that, like Brad's saying, China

will end up winning this AI race.

Progress in AI is not going to stop.

It'll just all be in China.

>> Brad, let's talk brass tax uh before we

move on to our next topic about Chat GPT

and their revenue. If they're at 20

billion in revenue run rate, I think

it's pretty well known their majority of

their revenue is consumer. 7 uh 5% is

the number I heard. You can tell me if

that aligns with your estimates as well.

And uh cost 20 bucks a month, 240 a

year. That's about 60 million paid

subscriptions a year. And then on the

other side, you got Anthropic, which is

kind of got the opposite, right? They're

they're mostly APIs. And do those

roughly

correlate with what you know, Brad?

>> Well, I I would just say they correlate

with what the information is reported as

leaked, you know, data from from both

companies and and that makes them both

the fastest growing companies in the

history of Silicon Valley. Let's just be

clear,

>> but specifically the 75% coming from

consumer from open AI.

>> Yeah. More I think I think it's well

known more comes from consumer and open

AI and and more comes from enterprise at

and two challenging questions for you

since you have a big bet here. Google,

Apple make these products free. They

have pretty robust ad networks. That's a

massive headwind. And then on top of

that, in the startup community, we just

talked about cursor. People are not

trusting Open AI and their API anymore

because they know OpenAI is creating

competing services. And so there is a

big movement in the startup community to

not use Open AI's API products. How

confident are you that with those two

headwinds, free for consumers and better

products, right? Gemini is a great

product, Rock's a great product,

Claude's a great product. A lot of great

product out there, and I don't think

consumers can tell the difference. Why

would they pay 240 if they can get it

for free from Google? And then second,

startups are realizing, hey, Sam has to

make a lot of money. Therefore, he's

going to do what Microsoft did. There

was a company called Lotus 123. There's

a company called Word Perfect that were

on the Microsoft platform, Windows, and

then Microsoft killed them. People right

now are experiencing that from OpenAI.

How concerned are you about the revenue

growth?

>> Yeah, I mean, listen, I'm betting in the

super cycle. This is the biggest super

cycle of all of our lives. I'm an

investor in OpenAI and Anthropic and

Google and and Microsoft and Nvidia,

etc. And so, I don't think you have to

make the call right now, one of these

uh, you know, companies winning. The

fact of the matter, as Sax said, we have

one of the most vibrant and competitive

ecosystems of in AI in the world. I love

the fact that Sundar is coming off the

mat swinging. I think Gemini 3 is going

to be great at Google. They may in fact

make it free. I think Apple I love

seeing Apple pay Google to, you know,

make Siri better. I think that's going

to be a great consumer experience. And

the only way that OpenAI wins is they

got to build a product that we all love.

You've seen those cohort curves. The

reality is they are the verb at the

moment. It's theirs to lose in consumer.

The cohort curves are things of dreams,

right? This is the retention rate, the

engagement rate as people stay with the

service longer. And then by the way,

anthropics numbers, despite cursor doing

some of their own thing, anthropics

numbers are off the charts. I think that

this market is as big or bigger than

current estimates are out there, but

it's not going to be a straight line up

and to the right. We're going to have

these moments as Chama said of riskoff

panic just as we did with internet just

as we did with mobile just as we did

with cloud. The key here is as an

investor is conviction. There is a

massive conviction tax to be paid.

Right? If you lack conviction and sell

when these things are down, I'm going to

bet on the super cycle. But I'm betting

over a much longer period of time than

most people. And the the amongst the

startups out there, they basically

believe Claude is not trying to take

their business. and Quad has been very

careful to say, "Hey, we're not going to

encroach into the application layer."

So, all right. Um, yeah.

>> By the way, the most impressive revenue

chart when you showed that leak from

OpenAI

was Anthropic. If that revenue chart is

real, what's really impressive is

anthropic is not really in a J curve at

all.

and they get to very similar points of

free cash flow but will not have burned

through near as much capital to get

there. That's my singularly interesting

observation about this chart.

>> Can can I say again those numbers are

>> if it's real as reported by the

information but but what I would say

about that is this.

I've been forecasting companies for 25

years. I know the numbers today. Sam

just told us 20 billion dollar run rate

end of the year for open AI.

Everybody who is forecasting three years

out on these companies is totally

guessing,

right? Like that's why I said time is on

your side if you're betting over a five

to 10 year horizon. But if you think

with precision that the company itself

can forecast what's going to be

happening in three years, I think you're

misleading yourself, right? So we'll

see. I think it's going to be a lot

bigger. could be even bigger than those

numbers. But, you know, those forecasts

are highly uncertain because the rate of

growth has never been seen before.

>> How do you think about expenses then

because you're going to have to have

some sense of whether this spend is

accurate or reasonable.

>> I think you have to build in an expense

structure that has the flexibility so if

the numbers don't show up that you have

the ability to extend your, you know,

your obligation. So, that's why I was

saying I don't think this 1.4 4

trillion. I think it's kind of this the

red herring out there. I think it's kind

of a fake madeup number. It's all of the

obligations of all of the deals that

have been announced. And the the truth

of the matter is only a portion of that

is born by OpenAI. And I'm certain

there's flexibility in all of those

deals to match the expenses with the

revenue side. But listen, let's deal the

opposite case, Chima. Let's just say

that all of these revenues start

flatlining uh for Anthropic, for X, for,

you know, for Google. people aren't

willing to pay for these products, then

our then our capex buildout for AI is

going to be a lot slower because at the

end of the day, there's got to be

somebody either in the enterprise or a

consumer willing to pay real money to

pay back all of this infrastructure

buildout or it doesn't happen.

>> Well said. And um hey, just a quick plug

here. We're going to have an amazing

holiday party. Come spend another

Christmas with your besties at the AllIn

Extravaganza

>> with Kill Tony.

>> Yeah. Thank you. You got the

announcement. We're burning it down this

year. Joining us on stage, it's going to

be a show. The host of Gil Tony is going

to mercilessly roast everyone in Silicon

Valley and the besties. Tony Hingcliffe

is coming to the Bay Area. We're going

to have the same great stuff we always

do. Casino nights, poker, DJs, open bar,

food, cocktails.

>> You guys have the courage to go up there

and do a little set. I'm going to do a

set. That's what we're going to do. It's

going to be the four of us. People are

going to come up and do a set. We're

going to roast each other. It's going to

be absolutely brutal and fun. So, uh,

you can

>> I'm gonna have to bring in some

firepower. I'm going to have to bring in

my

>> Oh, I know exactly what you're doing.

You're calling Kevin Hart, aren't you?

[laughter]

>> That's fine. I'm going to get Chappelle.

I got a I I got a way to get to

Chappelle. So, uh, I'm going to get my

own writing team going.

>> You guys were all there. I mean, that

threw a birthday party for me. What was

it? Five years ago?

>> Yeah. three, four years ago and Kevin

and Sky and Diego, they all flew up from

LA. Al Roble, we all did speeches. Sax

did a great roast. Jal did one. Freeberg

did one. Nat did an incredible one. And

then Kevin just adlibs and destroyed

everyone.

>> Singularly destroyed [laughter]

everybody in the room one by one.

was about.

She said, "I'm going to do a quick tight

five minutes on Europe, which is a so

small and pathetic."

>> And so go to allin.com/events

and you get to come make jokes about

Shimat's tiny penis. Join us [laughter]

for the allin spectacular. That's worth

the price of admission alone.

>> allin.com/events.

It's going to be off the chain. If you

want to do something fun, you know, it's

hard to throw a holiday party. Why not

buy 20 tickets? You bring your whole

company and you can buy a group ticket,

individual tickets available, group

tickets available, and uh you know, you

get your your logo on the step and

repeat. All kinds of great stuff.

Outsource your holiday party to us.

We'll make it better.

>> Okay, I'll I'll do that at 8090. I'll

>> get 8090. Uh you know, just outsource

it. Sachs, you could outsource it for

your 370 domestic staff. They can all

come and give you the [laughter]

All right, listen. We got to talk about

markets. We got Brad here, our fifth

bestie.

Stock market uh pulling back as Chimath

just said. Hey, we're going to be risk

off. And we have been getting a lot of

data, a lot of hand ringing going on,

Brad. Uh GDP growth. Hey, maybe that's

mostly due to AI. The unemployment rates

ticking up, inflation's ticking up.

Lots of concerning signs. Help us make

sense of this, Brad. I think it, you

know, Chimat teed this up perfectly,

which is, you know, let let's rewind the

clock a little bit to April of this

year. I think on an intraday basis, the

NASDAQ was down 20%

year to date in April. We're now up 20%.

So, a 40% move higher in a few months.

Same with the S&P. I think it was down

over 10%, now it's up 14% on the year.

So, we've had some pretty massive moves.

And I think you have to, you know,

reflect on where we are, you know, and

we used to do this on on on market

checks when I was on and you used to

say, you know, where is altimter? And so

early in the year when we're worried

about tariffs, al alttimeter was

positioned small, right? By May, we

thought they would land the plane with

the best consensus, you know, uh, on

trade. We'd get the big beautiful bill

passed and we went to kind of extra

large positioning and we've been there

most of the year. And so now we're back

to kind of Chimathat just nailed it. You

know, we're back to kind of medium

medium small positioning in the market.

And I'll I'll walk through a couple

slides as to the reasoning for that.

Maybe we can kick it around a little

bit. The first one is just there's

growing signs um you know, the consumer

is pulling back. And you know, you heard

it out of uh Chipotle, you heard it out

of Cava, you heard it out of NCO, you

heard it out of JetBlue. And and you

know, the the nature of it is we have

this two-tier economy. The low-end

consumer is faltering. The higherend

consumer is hanging in there. But the

consumer thing is making people nervous.

Now, uh compounding that is US credit

card delinquencies are now uh uh back to

two, you know, 2009 levels,

>> right? And so you have okay, consumer

cracking a little bit, delinquencies,

you know, and now we're seeing regional

banks roll over, etc. We're seeing the

credit markets beginning to crack a

little bit, credit spreads blowing out a

little bit. And then if you go to this

next slide, you know, this goes to what

Sachs has has talked a lot about on this

pod that we're still in highly

restrictive territory. When you look at

the 10-year tips, you know, uh the Fed

is still, you know, got the market tight

because they're seeing, you know, the

market at all-time highs. They're seeing

AI stocks rip, but under the surface, I

think there's a lot of concern and

question about what's going on. The good

news about this is we still have

firepower.

So what's gone on in this earnings

season you know this next slide

basically earnings have come in really

strong you know so we have 70% of

companies that are beating they're

beating by wide margins

you know in earnings

but if you look at the forecast you know

basically earnings have come in about

11% higher than last year and the stocks

are up about 13 or 14% but the real

question is as we roll into next year

and So, you know, Scott Besson on the

one hand is saying, "Listen, in Q1,

we're going to have some big tax refunds

because of no tax on tips, no tax on

overtime, and he thinks that'll give it

a boost." But clearly, you hear them

pounding the table that we need to get

rates down. I tend to agree the low-end

consumer who pays a lot on their credit

cards, on their car loan, etc., is

clearly hurting. We see these layoffs,

these layoffs are are hurting some of

these people as well. And so when you

look at the multiples of the market, how

do we look at it from an alttimeter

perspective? We still believe that

owning all of compute like we have for 3

years and a this AI trade has room to

run, but there obviously multiples have

come up a lot. I talked about a 40% move

from the bottom this year. And so you

can just take your position size and

make it a little bit smaller. So in the

world of less or more, I think Chamas

exactly right. there's a pause as we

head in over the course of the next

couple months reflected by the stuff

that we're doing,

but I do think the economy is set up as

we head into next year. There's been a

total decoupling.

>> Yeah, it used to be the case that as

goes Main Street, so goes Wall Street or

vice versa. The unfortunate reality is

that there's a handful of companies that

have bids that are, as you said, totally

speculative and well into the future,

but they are so well bid and they're so

highly valued that they drag the entire

indices forward. Even though underneath

the waterline, you're leaving 493

companies behind. And the reality is

that those companies that more

accurately reflect what's happening to

middle inome America

are not doing so well. And so we need to

find some visible wins

in the domestic policy arena. I think

that that's what we need now because if

you think of each year of a presidency

as an act in three parts, I think act

one was tariffs. I think act two has

been foreign policy. And now it's an

opportunity for act three to refocus on

domestic earnings and the domestic

wealth effect of middle inome Americans.

I think that's what has to happen. And

there's a lot of clever ways by the way

that we can do this. I I've mentioned

this before, but I think the really

interesting opportunity for us is to use

the money that's been committed by all

of these countries as part of their

trade negotiations. It's like if you add

up the money that was committed from

Japan to South Korea to the Middle

Eastern countries, you're talking

trillions of dollars. I think it's like

3.2 trillion is the number. So, it's an

enormous amount of capital that can

improve the state of earnings of the

middle class. And I think we need to

figure out a way to more aggressively

put that money to work. Now, I think

that that's that's what needs to happen.

I think if you look at some of these

other markets, it's really incredible.

Bitcoin is about to break through a

100,000 to the downside which I think is

a psychological barrier that probably

has another five or 10% more to run.

There's a dispersion happening in the

MAG 7 as of this past quarter earnings.

So I think all of it has to get sorted

out.

>> You nailed it. 29 days ago I talked to

you guys a little bit about the net

approval rating here and how the country

is feeling. And you can see Trump's net

approval rating 9.4. We're going to get

into the election as well because it

dovetales really nicely with this

discussion. Um, it's gotten worse.

Here's the numbers from November. It's

gotten 30% worse. Now Trump's down 13%.

I attribute it, I think, to the fact

that we've had all this layoff news.

Inflation ticked up to 3%, everybody

knows it was down at 2.3. We had made

great progress on it, but now it went

back up. And there's a lot of survey

data going on right now. And I think if

you look at this next chart, it's super

interesting. What gets all the press is

the foreign policy, right? We're talking

about wars ending and great job in the

Middle East uh for Trump and Jared and

the and the team. Border security,

immigration, of course, a big win in

terms of shutting the border. Bit

controversial on ICE, but uh that's my

personal stuff, so I'll leave it out

here and we'll just talk about brass

tax. If you look at where

the country feels Trump has fallen

short, it's where he's strongest or

where he was elected for being so

strong. Look at these last three here,

Chimath. The economy, 63% believe Trump

has fallen short. Uh looking out for the

middle class, this is the one that

should be the most disturbing. 65% of

the country believes he's fallen short

and inflation and the cost of living,

66%.

If you look at this next chart, this one

has been trending online

and I've been talking about unemployment

and I've been attributing it to AI. I

know some people think I'm crying wolf

here or I'm the boy who cried wolf, but

the statistics are starting to trend

towards my position, I believe. And if

you look at people who are aged 20 to

24, they're at 9.2% unemployment and it

is spiking. Why is it spiking? I can

tell you from the front lines uh you

know hiring young people and being at

startups with young people in them and

talking to them about their

contemporaries

as companies cut and they use AI to

solve problems they're saying hiring

young people and training them is not as

rewarding or efficient as training an AI

to do the same task and

>> why do you keep thinking it's AI even

the Amazon cuts Andy Jasse on the

earnings call said this is not AI, this

is us digesting all this hiring through

ZER and DEI.

>> Yeah, I can answer that. Yeah, for sure

he uh he did say that. He did also say

in his memo before that that he thought

there would be a lot of changes because

of AI and they had the leak memo that

they would not be hiring those. But I'm

talking here specifically about youth

people. And so I'll I'll take Jasse at

his word. Those 30,000 people are just

redundancies. But what I'm seeing on the

ground because I work with startups and

I work with young folks who are in them,

their contemporaries are not finding

jobs and the companies that we see and

the companies that are selling the

technology solutions are getting rid of

what I'll call the like entrylevel white

collar work. In addition to this,

student loan delinquencies also going up

massively. They had a big hiatus.

Doesn't this indicate that there's no

ROI to this expensive degree in a lot of

cases that these kids are being sold?

They're being forced all this debt. This

has been going on since before November

of 2022 when Chad GBT launched.

>> I don't think AI has had enough time to

have a huge impact on this.

>> Yeah, you're in this case, I think

you're wrong, respectfully, even though

you're the ZAR of AI. I I'm seeing it

with young folks and I'm seeing it with

the software that the companies I'm

investing in are deploying in other

companies, but we'll see who's right in

the coming months. And that inflation

back up to 3%. And so this is going to

make it particularly hard to cut rates

because

the reason when we go back to slide

number three there, the reason why

people feel Trump has fallen so short on

the economy and taking care of the

middle class is because of inflation.

Trump said over and over again and some

people in the administration have been

very publicly gaslighting in my opinion

the country saying, "Hey, inflation's

not happening. Inflation is happening."

And Trump sold people that prices would

go down. We're back up to 3% inflation,

folks. Not only is it not going down,

it's going up. And I think when you put

together what people are seeing this

focus on a big a ballroom being added

focus on tariffs things that Americans

are not seeing hit their wages and

they're seeing their kids not be able to

get jobs that 9% this is what's

concerning Americans. Trump has failed

the middle class. That's the bottom line

here.

>> I don't think that that's true.

>> The country does 66% of them. I think

everybody can find a piece of data to

hang their bias on.

And I think that what this most recent

spate of elections show is that most

people are looking for some form of a

price break. And so if you're a New York

mayoral candidate and you offer

giveaways, you get a lot of attention.

If you're running for governor and you

offer giveaways, you get a lot of

attention.

The question is why is that happening?

And I think it's fair to say that the

reason why that's happening is that we

have now spent

a lot of time setting the table

for a wave of domestic policy

initiatives and I think now is just the

opportunity to follow through on those.

I I think that what we need to do is we

need to just figure out where the

pressure is and I think Trump is doing

this. So, for example, today he

announced the Eli Lilly and Nova Nordisk

would be selling GLP1s for like $149 a

dose. I think like that's that's good.

Is it as expansive? I think it could be

probably more expansive, but there are

all of these other programs that I think

need to get addressed. The student loan

thing is a key one. It's time for

legislation that says we're going to

stop federally underwriting these

things. Force it into the public market.

Force it into the open. allow

transparent pricing of loans and risk

and you can stop that curve dead in its

tracks.

We need to clean up the AI stuff. So

there's a bunch of things now where when

the government shutdown ends, we just

got to get to its legislative agenda and

start to fix domestic policy. But you

can't do that when [snorts] folks won't

even come together or folks won't even

end the shutdown. So I think Jason, part

of this is a frustration that's going to

keep brewing that I think is less a

reflection on him, but more a reflection

on the point where we're at is that

people want these structural problems

fixed. That can only happen through

legislation that but that can't happen

if the House and the Senate are not even

convening because there's still a

shutdown.

>> Yeah. And and people are seeing equity

holders like us, people in crypto get

rich. We're all up 20 30% this year. And

the working man in this country and the

working woman is not. That's the truth

of it. And I think that's why and 60% by

the way, 60 65% of the country blame the

Republicans for the shutdown and people

aren't getting food stamps and you know

people aren't getting paid and people

see their healthcare prices are about to

spike. So we're doing all these tax

cuts. It's great that the economy is

ripping for equity holders, but there's

a reason why twothirds of the country

feels this administration has failed the

working man. It's time to get back to

work. It's time for Trump and his group

to get focused on the people who put him

there, not just the people like us who

are extremely affluent already. What do

you think, Brad? If you're right and

we have inflation over 3% next November

and you have higher youth unemployment

and the economy is only growing at 1 and

a.5% and interest rates stay high, then

I think uh it'll be a rough midterm for

the Republicans. I don't actually think

that's the flight path for the country.

I actually think you are going to get

three to four rate cuts. I actually

think you are going to see a

reaceleration of GDP. I don't think that

these job cuts are the result of AI. But

that's what makes a market. I think you

heard the president say after the

elections this week that you know that

there are a lot of things around

affordability that got to be delivered

that aren't being delivered. And that

number one affordability issue starts

with interest rates being lower. And

he's been pounding the table on that all

year long. But listen, I think a big

mistake by Republicans in this uh last

election cycle is they weren't talking

about affordability and the people they

lost to were talking about

affordability. So I think on that uh

score, you're correct. But I I happen to

think that inflation uh is going to

continue rolling over. I think you see

some one-time effects in here. Um, and

so I'll take the under, Jason,

with you and you can I can have a little

side wager. I'll take the under next

year. So, can I respond?

>> Of course. Yeah, that's why we're here.

>> Yeah, you're really good at finding

these cherry picked charts. So, let me

show you a couple of them. So, with

respect to

>> how are they picked?

>> Well, you find like Jamal said, you find

charts or polls that support the point

you're trying to make, which is fine,

but let me just show you a couple other

ones provide some balance. So US white

collar jobs as a percent of total

employment in the US very steady line

you see a blip there around co because

so many blue collar jobs were lost so

that created the percentage of white

collar to bounce up but postco it's been

on a very stable trajectory if it were

true that we were seeing massive AI job

loss you would see the percent of white

collar jobs dropping in the economy that

has not happened okay and every time

there is some sort of job loss story you

glom on to it being AI related like you

did with Amazon and then Andy Jasse

comes out and refuts that then you're oh

no no I'm talking about something in the

future so like about your chart here

about your chart

>> is that chart ends in the first quarter

of 2025 so it's missing the last two

quarters

>> so

>> so now you're saying that all of a

sudden this this has just happened in

the last six months

>> no it's just it's flat you can see it's

flat there for the four years the

percentage on your own chart and it's

that only goes to Q1 but sure keep going

>> I don't see a big change here in the %

of white collar jobs.

>> Yeah, I'm not even sure this is relevant

without the last of data.

>> If there was some sort of job shock in

the economy, it would be white collar

jobs who'd be affected, right?

>> Well, I think the white collar jobs

amongst young people this narrative

>> whenever we point out very clear, I

think it's happening with young folks

and then the number of layoffs right now

is the largest number of layoffs we've

had in a quarter since 2003. So, this

has been a a lot of layoffs. I know it's

hard to hear, Saxs, but this has been

the largest number of layoffs in 20

years.

>> It's not hard to hear. I think, look,

you keep bringing up these anecdotes,

and the plural of anecdotes is not data.

So, in any event, when I look at this

chart, [laughter]

I see that there is no job loss shock in

the economy. And that's what you've been

claiming. And every time we specifically

refute your anecdote, you're like, "Oh,

no, no, that's going to happen in the

future." So, you don't know what the

cause of that is. The cause of that

could be the fact that all these kids

graduated from college are woke and

majored in degrees that don't have

economic value. You don't know what the

problem is. You're just glomming onto

this AI story because you just like it.

You like this narrative and you're just

I do narrative that's been fed to the by

the media. Okay.

>> No, no. I I I told you what it is. I'm

just see the anecdotal stuff I see on

the front lines is what I base it on.

It's it's not just me glomming on to

random data.

>> Okay. The second chart I want to bring

up, what you see here is median real

wages earnings are going up. Now, if

it's true that inflation is high and

wages don't increase, then people's

purchasing power will go down. But what

we're seeing here is purchasing power is

still going up. And we have seen that

during the first year of the Trump

administration. So, look, it is true

that Republicans need to focus on

affordability.

the price of gas and eggs, for example,

has gone down and we need to keep making

progress in that area. And I don't know

if you saw the tweet by JD Vance, but he

basically said that Republicans need to

focus on the domestic picture and they

will. Now, if you're talking about the

election, one thing I want to point out

is that all the major races were in blue

territory and we got blue results. So,

this wasn't like unexpected. And

furthermore, Trump wasn't on the ballot.

Now, I concede to you that Republicans

have a problem that when Trump is not on

the ballot, our voter turnout is lower.

So, in this election, the only thing

that was a little disappointing, I

think, was the gap in excitement between

the Democrats and the Republicans.

Democrats were able to turn out their

voters. Republicans were not. And again,

that's a problem that Republicans are

going to have to solve for the midterms

and in 2028, which is how do we turn out

our base when Trump is not on the

ballot? But you can't really lay that

problem at Trump's feet. I mean, when

he's on the ballot, he turns out the

base and he wins. And that is the

problem that we have to solve. So, I

agree with that part of it and

>> okay,

>> I agree with the part of it that said

that Republicans now need to focus on

the domestic picture. But look, one of

the biggest problems we have right now

is the government is shut down. Who does

the public blame for that?

Unfortunately, they're going to blame

the party that's in power, not realizing

that the reason why the Democrats are

able to shut down the government is

because of the filibuster. So

unfortunately I think the public

perceives that they gave power to

Republicans but the government is shut

down. The reason for that is because

Democrats can shut down the government

with just 41 votes basically. And

President Trump has called for getting

rid of the filibuster if the Democrats

won't reopen the government. I think we

should do that. By the way, just to go

off on this tangent for a second, most

people don't understand the filibuster

or how it works or why that's even a

part of democracy. Basically what it

says is that for votes where the

filibuster is in play, you need 60

votes. You know, super majority in the

Senate as opposed to 50. If you ask most

people in the country, what is

democracy? They would say it's 50 plus

one in the House, 50 plus one in the

Senate and the presidency. That's all

you need. But that's not true. And the

question is, if Democrats won't reopen

the government, then I think Republicans

are within their rights to get rid of

this filibuster. And we know the

Democrats will do it. The next time the

Democrats have the trifecta, they will

absolutely get rid of the filibuster.

>> We know that's true because when we

interviewed Joe Mansion, he was very

clear. He was asked by Schumer and

Biden, let's vote out the filibuster,

and he drew a bright line in the sand

and said no. But you're right, they

would have. And we're getting to a place

where if these folks in the Senate and

the House don't get back to work soon,

there will be no domestic policy agenda

that gets passed. There's critical

crypto legislation, AI legislation,

there's domestic healthcare and other

legislation that has to have a chance to

see the light of day. And so if you're

not going to show up, then it doesn't

leave many other options except to get

rid of the filibuster. Now, that has all

these downstream effects for when you're

not in charge, right? Just because then

it'll be a simple majority for the other

team as well,

>> right?

>> But you're right, Sax, like we're

getting to a point where

>> there are two Democrats who are opposed

to getting rid of the filibuster was

Mansion and Cinema. are now both gone.

So, the moderate Democrats are are

largely out of the caucus now. And if

and when because at some point the

Democrats will at some point return to

power. You know, they're going to get

rid of the filibuster. And here's the

crazy thing. You can get rid of the

filibuster with 50 votes in the Senate.

I don't think people realize that. So,

basically, you've got this custom cuz

that's all it is is a custom or

convention or tradition in the Senate of

having this filibuster vote, but the

majority can just get rid of it. and the

Democrats already said they're going to.

So why would the Republicans foolishly

abide by this sort of gentleman's

agreement that doesn't exist anymore,

hold themselves to a 60 vote majority?

The country gave President Trump a

mandate. They gave him a sweeping

reelection. Seven out of seven swing

states, the House and the Senate, and

they want results. And those results are

being thwarted by a government shutdown

and more generally by this crazy

filibuster rule. Why wouldn't we get rid

of it now and actually pass the reform

that the country wants and then let's be

judged on that in the midterms and in

2028

>> and if it ends up if it ends up not

being good then we'll pay the price.

>> That's the calculus.

>> So we should get to the election results

and then just as they just with the

chart I was mentioning Sachs here's the

layoffs

for any October highest since 2003. So

hey listen we're all trying to figure

things out in real time here. Uh, but

it's not just the all- in pod talking

about what's going on here with jobs.

Uh, it's a big discussion on CNBC and

everywhere in between social media.

>> I know. And I remember that article that

got pulled up when we discussed for

Amazon was basically automating its

warehouses. And you were saying that

this is like all AI related job loss.

And then the article itself said that

they bought a robotics company a decade

ago and this was all on trend for what

they've been planning for a decade and

the humanoid robots aren't even here.

And then [clears throat] you're like,

"Oh yeah, yeah. I'm talking about the,

you know, the Tesla Optimus robot

that'll be here in a few years. It's

like you keep pivoting between what's

going to happen in the future and what's

happening now.

>> Trying to win the debate club, but you

you're you're misconstruing my point.

You're trying to spin like my point of

view. And you're the greatest debate

club captain. I'm not trying to debate.

I'm just putting out facts here for the

audience.

>> You are debating me.

>> No, no, no. I'm just putting out facts

here as the world's greatest moderator.

>> You're putting out spin. It's okay.

Spin. Go ahead. Spin.

>> Okay.

>> Spin away.

>> Take it easy. Debate club captain. Don't

pretend you're not debating when you're

debating,

>> okay?

>> Just debate. It's okay. Don't be a Say

it.

[laughter]

>> It's okay to debate. Just disagree with

me. Don't pretend you're not.

>> Here's the thing. The the 600,000 jobs

is what they were saying in a leaked

document, Amazon, that they were not

going to fail. The automation group,

>> you want to be a defender of the weak

and the plighted. And the problem is,

>> once again, you're trying to diminish me

by saying this is what I'm trying to do

is balance out the fact that you two

guys are captured and are no longer

objective on this podcast.

>> I'm the objective voice company where

the CEO said the exact opposite. And you

won't take them at your word.

>> He said that a week later.

>> Okay. So, you get a week to make up your

own Doesn't make it right. He

was very

>> tell they literally were saying in the

leaked documents that they had a PR

crisis on their hand and they were going

to try to spin the AI job losses. part

of what he said trillion dollar public

company said on the record and filed

with the SEC that the reason he did

these layoffs was because of Zer and

DEI.

>> There's two sets of layoffs. One of them

is the 30,000 white collar people. Sure,

we'll take him on his word. The other

one is that they're cancelling jobs

explicitly because of the AI that

they're planning to deploy and that

they're making PR plans to cover

themselves for how bad that looks to

them. Let's move on to Mandami.

>> I want to read you something from Morgan

Stanley this week on this question of

are the job losses caused by AI or are

they caused by something else and the

title of this section is flatter is

faster. It says you know the cynical

take has always been that this just

wouldn't last that companies wouldn't be

able to maintain this level of

discipline and that they were doomed to

repeat the mistakes of the past. It's

never different this time as they say.

But the cynical take seems wrong again.

And the number of examples of companies

that have adopted this mindset, culture,

behavior of efficiency, and getting fit

appears to be growing quarterly. Guess

what? It's cool to have fat margins, no

debt, maximum flexibility, and be

efficient and more faster. Credit Dash

and Curtis. But they're saying, you

know, they're out there talking to the

companies. I'm not saying that there's

no AI effect, but the idea that you're

going to hang all of these layoffs on AI

hang them all on AI. I think there's

Hold on. I'm going to be very clear. I

am not hanging them all on AI. I'm

saying for the young folks,

>> that's what I suspect is happening

there.

>> For the existing pros, I do agree that

they're all getting rid of excess fat

and they want to be a leader and they

want to juice their earnings. That those

are two different things. Okay, now

let's go on to Mandami because it's

getting boring. We're starting in a

circle here. The Zoron has won New York

City. The Dems won across the board.

Zoron won every burrow except Staten

Island. You finished with 50.4% of the

vote. Nine-point lead over Cuomo.

Curtis uh was a distant third at 7%.

No surprise if you're on Poly Market

because they have been saying this for

months. Pull up the chart. Producer

Nick. Thank you.

He's been a big favorite since he

crushed Cuomo in uh the primary in June

and he's held the lead the whole way.

He's self-proclaimed Democratic

socialist. Some people think he's a

communist. Um and he's the first Muslim

mayor and the youngest in over a hundred

years. Big promises seem to have

resonated with young folks, especially

women in New York. affordability, rent

freezes, free public transit, higher

taxes on the rich. You're going to pay

an extra 2%. I think it'll be 54% will

be the highest tax rate in New York, the

highest tax rate in the nation. And

hilariously, he added super villain Lena

Khan to his transition team. And she's

going to go break up the bodeas. Um, and

shout out to our friend who's not here

today, the Sultan of Science, David

Freeberg, predicted the rise of

socialism on this very show, about 6

months before anybody knew who Zoron

was. Here's the clip. Give him his

flowers. He's not here. The party line

is that socialism was defeated in this

election cycle and that there was a

resounding kind of vote from the

American populace against socialism. And

I actually think my my contrarian belief

is that we'll see a rise a dramatic rise

in socialist movements in 2025 in the

United States. We're going to see an

unleashing of uh economic growth because

of deregulation and AI. There's going to

be some parts of the economy that are

going to be big winners and some parts

of the economy that are going to be big

losers. When you have this sort of a

change this fast, there are often large

contingents of people that are left

behind. And when that happens, I do

think that the socialist policies and

the socialist movements gain steam.

Growth does not mean that it benefits

everyone equally. And I think that some

folks will see people go from being

billionaires to 100 billionaires to the

world's first trillionaire. And it will

also start to fuel this rise. So I think

that we will see an increase in the

breadth and depth of socialist movements

in the United States.

>> Shamath, what can we learn from the

Mammi effect?

>> Peter Teal predicted this in 2020. There

was a bunch of leaked memos between

Peter and Zuck and Andre, but he put his

finger on it in January of 2020. I

retweeted it out. Basically, what Teal

said was, "From the perspective of a

broken generational compact, there seems

to be a pretty straightforward answer to

me, namely that when one has too much

student debt or if housing is too

unaffordable, then one will have

negative capital for a long time and or

find it very hard to start accumulating

capital in the form of real estate. And

if one has no stake in the capitalist

system, then one may well turn against

it.

This has been floating around for years

and I think Teal yet again has seen the

forest from the trees many years ago. So

yeah, what is happening? I think that

we've put our finger on it. We need to

come back and now focus on domestic

policy and fix some of these core

pernicious issues. One is clearly that

we now need to address how student loans

are underwritten. We cannot allow

generation after generation of people to

graduate from degrees that they don't

quite understand with hundreds and

hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt

that they have zero chance of paying

off. That is a horrible way to start

your life. And we have not done right by