It's inevitable that socialism will

happen in America, but I don't want to

lose my agency, my liberty, my freedom.

>> Do you think the US as an empire is in

decline?

>> The answer is yes. I was appointed to

President Trump's Council of Adviserss

in Science and Technology. And one of

the great lies is that the government

will save you. But the more government

has tried to create services for people

and help bring them up the ladder, the

more expensive those things get. [music]

63% of Americans live paycheck to

paycheck. People can't afford to pay

their bills and it needs to be fixed.

What will ultimately happen? So, all my

politician friends are about to chop my

head off about this, but

>> David Freeberg, what is the most

important subject of our time?

>> AI. We're entering this golden age, and

people don't realize we're in it. And I

don't buy into the narrative that

Daario, Elon, and Sam [music] end up

having all the value in AI because in

the next 10 years, there will be a

billionaire that will emerge that has

zero net worth today, downloaded open

sourced AI, and built a company that

made them a billionaire. And they're

going to be someone that's going to come

from nowhere. And there's going to be a

lot of these sorts of stories.

>> But this narrative that AI will take

jobs [music] away, you don't believe it.

So from data, from evidence over all

periods of technological [music]

revolution like this, we've never seen

jobs decline. And the average person

doesn't see it. But oh my god, the stuff

we can do is unbelievable. Right now we

have a billion people in [music] the

world that are starving. We have

hundreds of millions dying from curable

disease. These are the sorts of things

that are [music] going to get resolved

because AI unleashes this capacity for

human advancement and it's transforming

every aspect of biology and our

understanding of life sciences.

>> So I wanted to ask you, do you think

we're going to be able to live forever

soon? The truth is

>> this is super interesting to me. My team

gave me this report to show me how many

of you that watch this show subscribe.

And some of you have told us according

to this that you are unsubscribed from

the channel randomly. So favor to ask

all of you. Please could you check right

now if you've hit the subscribe button

if you are a regular viewer of the show

and you like what we do here. We're

approaching quite a significant landmark

on this show in terms of a subscriber

number. So, if there was one simple free

thing that you could do to help us, my

team, everyone here, to keep this show

free, to keep it improving year over

year and week over week, it is just to

hit that subscribe button and to double

check if you've hit it. Only thing I'll

ever ask of you. Do we have a deal? If

you do it, I'll tell you what I'll do.

I'll make sure every single week, every

single month, we fight harder and harder

and harder and harder to bring you the

guests and conversations that you want

to hear. I've stayed true to that

promise since the very beginning of the

D of Sio, and I will not let you down.

Please help us. Really appreciate it.

Let's get on with the show. [music]

David Freeberg, you're someone that

graces lots of different subjects. If

you were to sort of self-define who you

are and what you do, now this is

difficult because you've got to kind of

put yourself in a label here. What would

that label be? How would you

self-categorize yourself?

>> I would say I'm deeply curious about the

world and the universe and how it works

and why it works the way it does. And

I'm a big believer in human agency to

affect the universe around us. And

that's kind of my core kind of driving

motivation. A lot of the other stuff

ancillary is about how do you enable

that?

>> And I think that that's sort of probably

where I also spend some time is in the

enablement of those things.

>> Got a nice cute photo here of that kid

that wanted to be Einstein.

>> Yeah.

>> And then as it relates to how that

manifested into like a professional

journey, what's your professional

journey been for anyone that might not

know? I started in college majoring in

math and physics and then I changed my

major to astrophysics and it was during

the time I was in college is when

the.com boom happened in the heart of

Silicon Valley. There was a kid in my

dorm room who started a website selling

DVDs online and he sold it for a million

dollars in our junior year of college.

That was like an unbelievable

unfathomable amount of money. And so

there was this change that was happening

in the world. And I got enamored with

this idea of businesses and how do you

use businesses to change the world, not

just use scientific discovery as a

method to change the world. So I decided

to go work in Silicon Valley. I

interviewed for jobs. I didn't get a lot

of offers, but I played a lot of poker

during uh my college days. It's how I

was able to make money. I read all the

strategy books on playing poker. I

actually spent a year working in a pool

hall and the manager of the pool hall

and the bookie invited me to their home

poker game. Took all my money that I

made at the pool hall. I was making four

bucks an hour, 425 an hour. And so I was

like, I'm going to learn poker. So I

learned it. That's how I made money. And

I put that on my resume when I applied

for jobs after college. And I got

interviews with investment banks. And

the investment banks were like, oh, we

want to talk to a kid that knows how to

play poker. Cuz this was before internet

poker, before ESPN poker. So it was like

an interesting thing. And so I ended up

getting a job working in investment

banking and then worked in on tech

companies. So then I got to learn

business, finance, accounting, mergers

and acquisitions, all this sort of

stuff. And then I ended up working at

Google. I worked at Google when it was

started when it was a just under a

thousand employees and I left a couple

years later started a business uh called

the climate corporation and so I've been

in Silicon Valley my whole career

>> and that company you end up starting

does pretty well

>> the climate corporation

>> the climate corporation

>> that one we sold in 2013 so we sold it

for a little over a billion dollars

which was a great outcome for investors

and shareholders and today you know it's

software for farmers

>> and today that software is now owned by

Bayer which is the big kind of pharma/ag

company. Uh it's used across 200 million

acres every year. That's a pretty

sizable amount of farmland that uses

that software still. So yeah, it's it's

done fairly well.

>> So I'm 33 now. You were 33 when you sold

that?

>> I was 33.

>> 33. A lot of money, 1.1 billion. And

you've done lots of other things since

then, which we can go into. But you've

also, I think from March this year, you

were appointed as an adviser to Donald

Trump. Yeah, I was appointed to

President Trump's Council of Adviserss

in Science and Technology. And

>> what does that mean in reality?

>> So, if you look back in the last couple

administrations, there have been

different themes over time on who is

appointed to PCAST. In historical

context, like Bill Clinton had a PCAST

that was set up just for the internet.

>> Pcast,

>> president's council of adviserss in

science and technology.

>> And so, he set one up focused on the

internet. And this current pcast under

this administration is heavy in AI. So

it's like Mark Zuckerberg, Mark Andre,

Sergey Brin, that that's kind of the

cohort that's on this advisory council,

but it's always included folks that are

involved in things like biotechnology,

sciences, and to help guide science

policy for the administration. So it

involves having conversations with

people in the administration on things

that are happening in industry, things

that are happening on the frontiers of

science and technology to help guide

some of the policy decisions that the

administration is trying to create or

enforce. And what is the most important

subject of our time?

>> AI. And right now the big question in

the United States from a policy

perspective seems to be the regulation

of AI. What role should the government

play in determining where AI goes, how

it gets built, how it gets deployed, who

gets to use it, who owns it, where the

value lies. a lot of these factions that

emerge inside a government even today on

the same political party on whether or

not for example to allow Chinese open-

source models to be used by American

businesses. You know these

[clears throat] Chinese models are as

good as or in many cases better than

private American models and because

they're open weights you can download

them and run them on any computer you

want that works. A lot of companies want

to use those because they're cheap.

there you can pay effectively 50 cents

for a million tokens of output which is

a measure of how productive the model

is. You know this is a a token is kind

of like a word versus $50 from anthropic

which is a private model. So the

question is do we allow these Chinese

models to kind of become ubiquitous in

industry and if so what does that do to

American AI? What does that do to our

capacity to compete?

Is there security risk? Uh so there's a

lot of this kind of debate underway. Uh

and that I think is probably the hot

topic dour. I don't know if it's the hot

topic tomorrow, but today that's kind of

the big thing. But all of this this

administration I think from a science

and technology policy perspective will

probably be viewed as on the one hand

what's the enablement acceleration

regulation of AI and on the other hand

you know there's this question still on

what is science today in an era of AI

science is also changing and so there's

this kind of I think big shift underway

>> we'll go into those subjects

specifically the subjects on AI and

everything that it interfaces with but I

think it's important also to get kind of

like a a backdrop of the economic state

and like the social state of the nation

because all of these things feed into

these big questions on AI and they also

inform everyone's biases on this subject

because if you're at a different sort of

socioeconomic position or if you're

feeling a different thing your

perspective on AI is going to be

radically different. So if we started

then first on like if we just focus on

the United States which mean in some

respects is a little bit of a proxy for

the rest of the western world. Where is

the United States at at this moment in

time in terms of is it on the rise

inequality? What are the what are the

sort of pertinent factors here that help

us understand the backdrop of this

nation?

>> The biggest drivers for this nation at

the moment in terms of what public

policy and private markets will do is

number one the unaffordability crisis.

>> What does that mean?

>> 63% of Americans live paycheck to

paycheck. They don't have enough savings

to pay for a fiscal emergency in their

household. 63% of Americans and the cost

of things is rising faster than wages

are increasing. So things feel less

affordable to most Americans. And then

there's this wealth inequality concern

which I would say is both kind of a

perception issue. There's definitely

policy issues that has allowed it to

happen and we can talk about those. But

I think America is in this kind of

crisis of classism, this crisis of us

versus them. And it manifests in a lot

of different ways. So, you know, you had

Ray Dalio on, and if you think about Ray

Dalio's kind of like cycle of empires,

you know, this is this idea that there's

been six empires in the last 500 years

and the United States is on the decline

and China's on the rise. And it can be

measured across a number of different

dimensions. One of which is this crisis

of internal struggle which manifests

often with external struggle, the Iran

war. Like why can't we stop having

external wars? Well, you know, a nation

that's happy with itself generally

doesn't go to war. A nation that's not

happy generally does go to war. And so,

um, a lot of this stuff gets tied up, I

think, in this economic distress that

the United States is feeling. My

contention

which may not be very popular is that

the more government has tried to uh

create services for people and help

bring them up the ladder the more

expensive those things get

>> i.e. socialism

>> policy in the United States and this is

one of the great lies and I think

there's a series of great lies in US

policy over the last half century but

one of the great lies is that the

government will save you the government

will help you by giving you these

essential services that you want more of

education healthcare housing and as the

government has entered into those

markets because remember there are

people making those things offering

those services and there's someone

paying for it so as the government

enables more money to flow into those

markets, the cost of those things has

just gone up. And you can see how this

plays out, for example, in education. So

higher education, if you want to go to

college in the United States, and I'll

just give you a statistic. 30 years ago,

administrative staff were like 10% of

colleges. Today, they're like 60%. In

just 30 years, give me a rational reason

why we should have 6x the administrative

staffing at colleges and universities.

There isn't a good reason why. The real

reason is that because the federal

student loan program doesn't

discriminate against a university on how

well they do with their graduating

students or the degree or the individual

that's taking out the loan. The federal

student loan program has just allowed

more money to flow in to universities.

Now, if you're a university

administrator, there's no constraint on

how much you can charge for tuition. So,

hey, we'll raise tuition 5% this year.

We'll raise it 8%. We'll raise it 10%.

And we'll hire more people. And if

people hire more people, they get a

higher salary. If you think about the

individual, I don't get to make more

salary until I'm a manager. Now I want

to be a director. Now I want to be a

senior director and the organization

grows. That's very natural for any

organization whether it's a nonprofit, a

university or a private company. You

want to grow and people want to make

more money year after year. So they

because they can collect more money can

charge more for tuition. There isn't a

natural market force that says your

tuition is too high now because the

government has provided unlimited

funding to higher education through the

federal student loan program. So, as a

result, education has gotten so vastly

expensive that everyone now looks at it

and says, "We got to do something about

this." And both parties seem to say,

"Well, here's what the government's

going to do to do more." And it's like

putting fuel on the fire. So, the

challenge right now is people are

feeling left behind. There's massive

wealth inequality. Things are extremely

unaffordable. And the solution that's

being embraced is for the government to

do more, which the facto leads to

socialism. What is wrong with socialism?

I would argue that the key measure of a

country's success is how many people are

transitioning from labor to capital each

year.

>> What does that mean?

>> That means every year I'm working

paycheck to paycheck. I'm collecting

check. I I I I graduated college. I had

$19,000 in debt. I went and worked. I

got paid. I saved up. I paid down my

debt. I was able to get out of it. Then

I worked at Google. We had an IPO.

Suddenly I had assets. I had stuff. I

had money in the bank account. And it

was like an incredible moment for me.

And I said, I could live off that money.

I don't need to live off a paycheck

every month. I now have savings. I have

assets. That is capital. And everyone

talks about capital versus labor. But

the real advantage of America is

enabling people to go from labor to

capital. Every individual that works,

saves, invests, does whatever they need

to do to accumulate enough capital ends

up in the capital bucket. And then

you're no longer stuck needing to go

paycheck to paycheck to pay your bills.

That's the dream. That's the real

American dream. It's not just about

owning a house. If you own a house and

you own a have a bunch of debt and you

got insurance payments to make and you

still got to work every month to make

those payments, you're not necessarily

living the American dream yet. The

American dream is being freed of that

burden

>> because you can live off the interest of

your assets.

>> That's right. And so you're earning

income. You like, let's say you have

$100,000,

you know, saved and you can make 10% a

year on that. That's 10,000 bucks.

Suddenly, if you get to a million dollar

saved, you can make $100,000 a year and

you can live on that. That's economic

security. That's financial security.

That's what we should give to every

American is the ability to own assets

that give them freedom to choose what

they want to do in their life rather

than be stuck in work. And the problem

with socialism is it takes away that

transition moment. It eliminates it

because it says everyone has to be labor

all the time for the rest of their

lives. And then no one has freedom. And

that's what America was founded on was

this ability to find through freedom of

choice, through agency, the ability to

transition from labor to capital. And I

think our goal as a country should be

get 2% of Americans across that line

every year, then I think we'll be

successful going forward. But if

everything's all about like give people

more stuff and have the government do

it, we're just going to keep raising the

debt, making things more expensive,

inflating the cost away, and it's

inevitable that socialism will happen in

America. It's absolutely inevitable. Do

you think the US as an empire is in

decline

>> in terms of the power of the dollar in

terms of prosperity of Americans? The

average American or majority of

Americans the answer is yes. But um the

potential hasn't been deleted meaning

decline is not inevitable to be very

clear like we are not yet at a point

where it's a runaway train. In the

history of democracies, there's never

been a place like America where an

individual like myself, you know, moving

here from South Africa, going to public

college, graduating with debt, and then

being able to work my way out of the

debt and find myself in the position I'm

in today with no nepotism, with no

handouts, with I mean, you could argue

about privilege and all these other

sorts of things that I was vested over

my life. But like, it's an amazing place

that that sort of story can be told a

million times over, that there's not

just one or two people that this has

happened to, but there's millions of

people. The problem is it's all the

other hundreds of millions that didn't

get to live that opportunity. And if we

can fix that, America is not in decline.

America is a prosperous nation and has

centuries ahead of it.

>> When you look at this, you're talking

about runaway trains. When you look at

the national debt, though, it does look

very much like a runaway.

>> Want to know where inflation comes from?

That's where inflation comes from. By

printing more dollars to pay for that

debt, which is what happens, the Federal

Reserve buys the debt and they issue

dollars to the bank system to to buy the

debt from the government. Remember, the

Federal Reserve is separate from the

government. So, the Federal Reserve can

print dollars. They can send dollars to

banks and now the banks can loan money

out and it makes its way into the

economy. Now, there's more dollars in

the economy and that money was, you

know, owed back to the government at

some point, but the Federal Reserve may

never get paid back. They may just keep

adding and adding and adding and adding

and they're just printing more and more

dollars.

>> Is that sustainable?

>> No.

>> So, so I I don't understand the force

that's going to intervene to stop this

sort of compounding debt.

>> The outcome of this is socialism. That's

the moment we're in right now. That's

why we're seeing this wave of socialism.

I've been saying for five years, we're

going to face a wave of socialism. And

after Donald Trump was elected, my

prediction for the next year was that

the next wave in politics in America

will be socialism. And people thought I

was crazy. And I'm like, it is

absolutely inevitable. If you look at

this, this is where we're headed. It it

is deacto socialism when the government

employs roughly 1/ half of the people of

the United States. Right now, if you

look at all the federal, state, local

agencies, so the people that are

employed, the people that are

contractors of those agencies, and then

um the people that live off of uh some

sort of government pension or social

security system, the total amount is

close to 50% of Americans. So, we're

getting to a point where people are

like, the only place I can go is more

money from the government. And then

eventually the government becomes the

whole economy.

>> If the outcome of socialism was the

cause, capitalism,

>> it's a great question. I think it was

capitalism plus policies. Let's say you

have a million dollars.

>> Yeah. you're making, say, 10% a year.

Next year you have $1.1 million. The

next year you have $1.21 million or

whatever. And you keep adding it up.

That's called compounding. After a

couple of years, your million dollars

turns into $10 million.

>> And you never have to sell shares along

the way. You can just own the shares and

whatever's going up. Your value just

keeps going up. You've never paid taxes

along the way. Boom, boom, boom, boom,

boom. And suddenly, fast forward a

couple years, instead of having a

million, you've now got 10. That's

capital compounding over time.

Meanwhile, if you're working, every

paycheck, taxes are taken out. Every

time you get a check, every time you get

more money, more capital, taxes are

taken out. So, if you don't get capital,

if you don't get enough savings to allow

you to compound, you are never going to

get there. So, from a tax policy

perspective, labor working for your

money should have never been taxed

higher than earning returns on your

capital. So you're saying tax the rich?

>> I'm saying tax capital at a rate that's

equivalent to labor.

>> Wealth taxes.

>> Wealth taxes are asset seizures.

Definitely no. So one of the principles

of the United States and the principle

of what this country was founded on is

private property rights. If you go back

to England, right, like 500 years or

like let's just do let's just talk

Europe broadly. There were very few

places where you as an individual

citizen had rights to own private

property. There were very few places

where you could say I have this thing

and it doesn't belong to the king or it

doesn't belong to whatever the local

lord is. Like everything was the

property of the lords of the higher

class of the upper class. It was endowed

to them as vested to them by birthright

for centuries. Same in Asia, same in the

Middle East, same in Africa. I mean like

every nation started out with this

system where people didn't have rights

to private property. Those who had kind

of these systems above could decide who

got what. So the United States was

founded on one of the principles of

private property for an individual that

you you know I think when they were

drafting the Declaration of Independence

it was about life liberty and the

pursuit of property and they later

changed it to pursuit of happiness and

the pursuit of property was really the

measure of what you've accumulated as an

individual. You now have a right to

accumulate things. You now have a right

to build value to build wealth to build

a house and and have your family in your

house and have all these things. That

was a principle of the United States.

I'm all for taxes when people transact.

When they turn their stock that they've

held for a couple years into cash and

buy something with it, boom, tax. You

get taxed on that. If that's the right

model, that's when you should get taxed,

right? Then when you're able to turn

that asset that you own into another

asset. So that's what we do today.

That's an income tax or a capital gains

tax, like when you realize that gain.

But if I go into your shares and I'm

like, "Hey, I'm going to take 5% of your

shares." What are you losing? Well, you

can't use those shares to buy anything

because if as soon as you try and buy

something, you owe tax on those shares.

So, by taking away your shares before

you've actually transacted with them,

before you've actually sold them, or

taking away your private property, your

home, or giving the government the right

to come in your garage and audit

everything you own, and say, "Hey, this

year we're doing a 2% tax that is

antithetical to what the United States

was founded on, which was a founding

principle of private property." Now, if

your property goes up in value, and then

you eventually turn it into some other

property, that's a transaction. And

that's when you get taxed. That's how

the system's set up. So if we have an

issue with people having too much

wealth, that's the moment to increase

the tax rate. That's capital gains tax,

income tax on high earners. Those two

things can get you 97% of the way there.

And you're not really going to gain

much. You know, separately, we can kind

of talk about the numbers on this, but

like tax the rich, all for it, but tax

the rich when they transact, when they

sell, when they when they have a capital

gain, if they borrow against their

assets. This is another thing that's

that's wrong about our system today. If

I'm very wealthy, I own a bunch of stock

and I've never sold any of the stock. If

I borrow against my stock to go buy a

yacht, I don't pay taxes.

That should be a taxable event. We

should fix that. That's an easy fix in

the tax system. I'm not taking away your

private property, but as soon as you

borrow against that, it's effectively

like transacting on that property. So,

that's a moment to pay a tax. And if we

think that the rich aren't paying enough

taxes, you can raise income tax or

capital gains taxes to get them to pay

more. This is what I was going to say,

but you you arrived at it was most

people that own stock in big companies

will just borrow against their stock and

they never pay a tax.

>> I didn't know this until I was I'm going

to say 26. And my company had gone

public and the this bank in Europe

approached me and said, "By the way,

we'll give you 20% of whatever your your

the value of the stock you have in my

company called Ocean AG

>> is a tax-free loan." I was like,

"Explain this to me."

So, you'll just send me millions of

pounds and I don't have to pay tax.

>> You don't have to sell your shares.

>> You don't have to sell anything. I said,

"Well, look at the rest of my

portfolio." And I had some Facebook

stock at the time. They're like, "We'll

give you 50% to 60% loan to value on

that. I.e., if you have a million

dollars of Facebook stock, we will

transfer you today 700 grand taxree and

I can do without whatever I want." I

thought, "Fucking hell, this is what the

rich do."

>> That's exactly right. And the truth is

that no one talks about behind closed

doors. Everyone knows that it needs to

change,

>> but no one wants to say it because

>> I'm saying it.

>> Yeah, it's

>> got to change.

>> What's interesting about that is say

that I have 10 million of Facebook stock

and I I take a loan and they give me 5

million in cash. What a rich person then

does is they take that 5 million and

they go and buy other assets.

>> Exactly. Right.

>> And then they start acquiring more and

more assets. That's what's unfair about

the system because then when you have

capital, you're accumulating more

capital while labor, if you haven't made

that cross that chasm from labor to

capital, you're still here grinding

every month, grinding every week, trying

to pay your freaking bills, and then

these guys have all these shenanigans

that are going on. Yeah,

>> it is wrong and it needs to be fixed.

The answer though is not taking private

property. As soon as you start taking

private property, those gates are open.

By the way, it's not even going to be

constitutional in the United States. The

fifth amendment has this taker clause.

you know, it's not it's legally like not

going to win in federal court. It could

work in some states. Some states there's

seven states that actually have a

constitutional ban on private property

tax like this. There's uh you know 43

states where it's game on and we'll see

how they play out in the courts as they

try to pass these wealth taxes as well.

But these are asset seizure taxes there.

You you can have a wealth tax by raising

capital gains, make high income or high

asset people pay more taxes or whatever

when they sell stuff or when they buy

stuff. There's a lot of ways to tax

wealth. But taking assets from people

after they've paid their taxes or before

they've paid their taxes is not the

right way to do it.

>> What will ultimately happen?

>> So the ultimate outcome will be that 51%

of people will say, "Hey, give me all

the stuff that the 49% have." What would

stop them from doing that? Because

ultimately you can take as much as you

want from a minority of people and

distribute it to the majority. And that

minority starts out with a few

billionaires, then a couple more 50

millionaires, then a couple more 10

millionaires, then millionaires, then

100,000. And there's no limit to where

this thing goes. And that is socialism.

>> And what what does that do in terms of

how talent moves

>> and how people, you know, move to

different places.

>> I know billionaires.

>> Yeah.

>> Many of them have moved or are planning

to move out of California. Yeah.

>> Just on the threat of this.

>> And [clears throat] people say, "F them.

Good riddance. Get rid of them. You

know, the top 1% of taxpayers in

California pay the majority of taxes in

the state. I think it's probably it's

definitely north of 40%, but it's

probably the majority.

>> The top 1% of earners pay 40 to 50% of

California's total personal income tax

depending on stock market capital gains

performance.

>> There you go. So, that 1% are the people

I'm talking about that are leaving the

state because they see where this is

headed. I don't think California wants

that. [laughter]

Those are very productive people for the

state. They're people that create

companies that hire people that pay

well, go to fancy restaurants, pay for

cars. I mean, they support the economy.

It's not just the taxes, but they're a

big part of capital flowing through the

economy. We saw this happen in France.

You know, France had this wealth tax and

then their total tax revenue declined by

more than they were making on the wealth

tax because everyone left France. Then

they stopped doing the wealth tax and

everyone came back and the income came

back. So, this is a wellstudied kind of

case. So, I don't think that a wealth

tax or an asset seizure tax is the

solution. I think we've got to fix all

the other stuff that we've talked about

and we've got to fix the government

spending problem. And if we can do those

two things, then I think we can bring

inflation down. We can bring the wealth

inequality down and give more people the

ability to make that transition. But I

do think every politician should be

talking about the focus on what percent

of people in the United States every

year are moving from labor to capital.

How many people can say, "Hey, I've got

enough cash to retire if I wanted to."

That's what we want to try and get

everyone towards. Not just convincing

people, and this is one of the great

lies, convincing everyone that the great

American dream is to own a house. When

owning a house for a lot of Americans

ends up putting all your capital in one

asset, and you've got to basically get

the price of housing to go up every year

to keep everyone moving up the ladder.

So now, fast forward 30, 40, 50 years,

young people can't afford to buy a house

anymore because we've pushed the asset

value up so much to try and make sure

that everyone's got good good household

wealth. We are told that I mean that's

the sort of central idea once you leave

university is to figure out how quickly

you can get a mortgage or buy a house.

>> Great lie. It's one of the great lies.

And there's a lot of countries where

people have been able to accumulate

capital and jump that that ravine from

labor to capital much more quickly when

they don't buy a house because they can

invest in stuff. They can buy, you know,

the the S&P 500 which you can just buy

on an Erade or Robin Hood account and

you can just own it on average will make

you 10 11% a year. You just put your

money in that you're making 10 11% a

year and it can go up every year and you

don't have to pay taxes. You don't have

to pay property tax. You don't have to

pay insurance. You don't have to deal

with repairs and maintenance. All that

sort of stuff. So, a lot of people would

have been better off, depending on the

markets that they're in. There's some

markets that that ballooned, but a lot

of people would have been better off

over the last 30 years, actually owning

the S&P 500 than owning their home and

paying for the rent on a home.

>> One of the things I see in the comment

section whenever someone makes that

point is you'll have someone who bought

a house 20 years ago saying, "Well,

listen, I bought a house 20 years ago

for this amount, and now it's worth

this." And this is every single time

that I see this this argument being made

from financial advisors or investors,

that is always the top comment is,

"Well, I bought one and I did good."

>> Yep. It actually indicates a problem,

which is if your house went up in price

so much, that house is much less

affordable to a young person that's

going to buy it next. And that's what we

fundamentally done with this asset

class, residential real estate. We've

created a system whereby residential

real estate prices go up so much and

there's a whole bunch of policies around

making this happen.

>> Got a graph here showing all the things

that have gone up and you can see

housing is one of them.

>> Yeah. The stuff on the bottom the

government doesn't touch. The stuff on

the top the government touches. And so

the more the government's involved, the

more expensive these things get. But all

of the policy around residential real

estate has allowed the middle class in

America, which has the majority of

wealth, and I'll give you the statistics

in a minute, to grow their asset base,

to accumulate more assets, to become

wealthier. All the boomers, they're so

wealthy because they owned all these

houses. And now young people graduating

college can't afford a house. It is a

bad fact that a lot of people got very

wealthy by owning a home because it

means that the next generation is going

to say, "I want socialism cuz I can't

afford a home." That's the moment we're

in. 40 million Americans graduated from

colleges in the United States in the

last 10 years. 45 million. So if you do

the math on this, that's a large number

of people that are now on average

encumbered with some amount of student

debt, facing a challenging job market.

And then the only way to buy a home is

you got to come up with a million bucks.

And you know, it leads to this problem

where everyone's like, "Man, I need mom

Donnie." So what would you say then to

people that are in that 62% was it

>> 63

>> 63% of people

>> and that statistic changes year to year

but that's roughly the number 63% of

Americans you know less than $500 of

savings and working paycheck to paycheck

and can't pay for a fiscal emergency.

>> So for those people the the 63%

who you're telling them that buying a

house is now like unaffordable it's and

also it's potentially not a good

investment if they're trying to sort of

cross that cousin and get over to the

side where they have assets. What would

what would your prescription be for

them? What should they do?

>> Man, that's a great question. People

will challenge it, but I would have

never thought that podcasting would be

such a massive business. I would have

never thought that being an Instagram

influencer would be such a massive

business or a Tik Tok influencer. I

would have never thought that individual

artists could publish online and make

money without getting a record deal. I

would have never thought that individual

artists would be able to sell their work

and make a living on eBay and Etsy. I

would have never thought that crafts

people would be able to find jobs

through the internet. I I think the

internet has been this incredible

enabler of millions of new ways to work,

of new ways to earn an income. And a lot

of people will roll their eyes and say,

"But that's not what the system was

supposed to have set me up for. The

system failed us." Maybe the system did

fail you. And maybe the government's

solution wasn't the right solution, but

human agency is what got all these

people there. They all got to this

place. Did the government give you your

job as a podcaster? Did the government

teach you how to podcast and build this

incredible media empire that you've

built? I don't know if the government

played much of a role in it. I think you

played the role in it. I don't know. You

tell me if I'm wrong. But I think that

this is really important for a lot of

people to observe firstly, which is the

government isn't going to save

individuals.

The government's going to make things

harder for individuals to find their

path. If I have to go and start a barber

shop, I got to go get all these

cosmetology licenses. I got to go figure

out a way to go to school, pay thousands

of dollars, get health inspections done.

There's a lot of government layers that

stop me from doing that work. There's a

lot of ways that the government actually

inhibits people's agency and makes it

harder for them to do the things that

they want to do and progress. I think

that's just fundamental for me, one of

the observable truths. But I think the

second thing is I never discount human

agency. There was this great um podcast

done years ago by those guys at the

Hoover Institute where they talked about

the success of China and a lot of

people, you know, where China grew GDP

per capita from like 3,000 to 30,000 or

whatever it was and they're like, "Man,

Chinese central planning is brilliant.

They're so good at this." And these guys

made the argument which I discounted at

the time but I often think about

nowadays that it was actually the agency

of the individual choice, the

entrepreneurship, the drive, the

motivation of the population of the

individuals in China, not central

planning, but basically the government

enabled free markets. They allowed

people to work. They allowed people to

trade. They allowed people to create

value for each other to do something

that someone else might want. They

looked around and they said, "I think

you want this." and they started making

it and when the government loosened the

shackles on individuals that population

grew the economy and the government

still has a big role in central planning

in China but it was a really important

point if you think about all the success

that's come from the United States it's

not a central message that the

government said let's do this and then

we're going to do this and we're going

to do this it's individuals making their

own choices you've seen what people want

to learn what people want to watch what

they're interested in and you give it to

them you create value for them you

deliver that value and you've you've

earned something from that people are

willing to pay for that. And I think

that that's core to kind of where we can

go from here. And I don't think we teach

it in schools. I don't think we teach it

as a value. We've lost that value of

agency. The importance of the individual

taking their own action. Every

conversation we have in every frigin

context is all about the freaking

government. Government this, do this, do

this, do this, do this. For me, what

individuals can do is limitless. And

that's where I think we fall short.

Every day someone should ask themselves,

I tell my kids this, but what did you do

today that someone else valued? And if

you focus on figuring out something that

you can do that someone else can value,

then you do that over and over again,

rinse and repeat. I think there's paths

for people.

>> So, couple of counter-arguments here.

Yeah.

>> So, we can stress test this thinking.

Um, you pointed at me and said I was,

you know, I started podcasts, I started

businesses, those businesses grew. Um,

and it was, you know, you were very

generous in giving me probably more

credit than I deserve there. But if I

was to, if I was to rebuttal that, I

would say, I was born in Africa. Would

that have been possible in Africa? Would

that have been possible in like Nigeria,

where my mother's from, or would it been

possible in Botswana where I was born?

Is it the fact that I moved to the UK

where I had this sort of foundation of

stability because of the government

where school was free for us? Healthcare

is taken care of. So I never had to

think about those things which allowed

me at 18 years old to like not go to

university, take a risk, drop out, be in

that room. No. When I was sat in that

room in Manchester, I actually at one

point printed off the jobsekers

allowance forms, which are basically the

government will give me free money if I

if I get to the point where my

shoplifting of pizzas um is no longer a

reliable way to feed myself.

>> Yeah.

>> But I had that form on my desk and it

was there. And there's maybe something

psychological about knowing that I had

this sort of like underlying safety net

where I could rush back a 300 mile round

trip to my parents in Plymouth and I

could like live in the house or I could

fill out this form, this job seekers

allowance form and they would like pay

me money that allowed me maybe at some

deeper level to go and take that risk.

And I never even realized the privilege

of like, oh, there's like healthcare and

there's laws and there's roads and

there's like this Wi-Fi thing that

allows me with this laptop in my room to

like build this website that I built.

Um, so that's the government's

involvement in my success. They gave me

this great foundation of stability and

infrastructure.

>> Great. Great role for government to

play.

>> But the problem is that's a slippery

slope, right?

>> That's right.

>> And so there's balance here. There's

nuance of like personal agency, but then

also the government, do you need to give

me a good foundation?

>> That's right.

>> And it's and it starts

>> and the government shouldn't employ you.

And that's the slippery slope that we

end up on. And that's where I worry

about our ability to come back from that

because if you do end up with 40 50% of

Americans getting paid some check from

the government, it becomes very hard to

get off of that check. And then people

vote for that check to get bigger and

bigger.

>> The other point I wanted to point out of

maybe a counterpoint is just like, and

you know this cuz I've heard you say

this before, but like there is a

privilege that we both have in terms of

our just

>> nature. Yeah. Nature, nurture, whatever

it might be. Yeah. And I I said nature

because yeah upbringing implies that our

parents were great to us and that's what

made us whatever. But also the opposite

can be true if you think about someone

like Elon Musk. You go his dad wasn't

that nice to him. So not necessarily a

lovely upbringing but the circumstances

>> he was never without a meal and neither

was I. And I mean you know those are

important facts of privilege. the

circumstances of the of our upbringing

and maybe our nature, maybe our biology,

maybe set us up to be the certain type

of person where agency, however that's

defined. And again, I I pause there

because

>> I think you're exactly right and I think

that that's what education should be

teaching that value that that's that's

where I think this role of like what's

the role of a public school? What's the

role of this infrastructure that

government's building around us? If it's

teaching you that your next job is to

come and work for the city or come and

work for the state, it's not teaching

you that you have agency. It's not

telling you if you if it's telling you

that the only path you're going to have

coming out of this rural school is to go

work in the military, it's not teaching

you about your agency. And I'm not

saying it's wrong to do civil service or

to do military service. I think those

are very important parts of what all of

us should strive to do is to support the

government that makes our society

possible. But I think that this idea

that we should all be proposed as like

the government role, the government

path, the government work is what we

should all be stuck doing for the rest

of our lives is the wrong setup.

>> The opposite is though also probably the

wrong setup which is that we should all

start a business or become a creator.

>> I think that's a mistake too. But I

think that this idea that you can find a

path where you can provide value to

someone as part of an organization as as

an individual as a leader you can choose

your path. But the idea that you should

be accessing your capacity that you can

create value for someone else should be

the objective.

>> Do you think there's always going to be

inequality?

>> Yes. I mean it's either inequality

or it's lack of progress. I think those

are the

>> that's the dance.

>> That's the dance. So China's very good

at this. If you watch their their

policy, they just recently shifted to a

free market policy. They literally just

have like a throttle. Uh, I always

vision AI has this lever in his big room

where he goes like free market, not free

market. Like he's just kind of like

rolling it back and forth. When you have

a free market, people push the frontier.

They discover new things. They make new

things that have never been done before.

They create new value and the economy

grows. The problem is it doesn't grow

evenly initially. So like let's say that

you came up with a goose that lays

golden eggs and AI

>> AI and you've got this technology

And this technology is making golden

eggs. And you're getting very wealthy

with these golden eggs. And then that

goose makes two geese and three geese

and four. It starts breeding and you

start selling the goose. And it takes a

number of years before everyone has a

golden goose. During that time, you've

raced ahead cuz you've got now dozens of

geese making lots of golden eggs for

you. And a lot of people are like, I

want a golden goose. By the time they

get a golden goose, you've now got a

million golden geese. And it feels like

inequality. But the truth is now

everyone here has a golden goose. And if

you told them 30 years ago you would

have a golden goose, they'd be like, "No

way. That'd be amazing." So every day

they're making the golden goose, they're

printing the money, they're buying stuff

with it. That's the problem with

progress, whether it's medicine. You

know, a lot of medicines today are

million dollars a dose for like CARTT

therapies, for example. These can save

you from cancer. Only 50,000 people in

the US can get them every year. And

there's hundreds of thousands of people

that die because they don't have access

to these therapies. So it's limited in

terms of its availability. There's

technology like AI. Not everyone has

access to it. Not everyone owns a piece

of a model, etc. Not everyone's using

it, and the people that are using it are

getting ahead faster than the people

behind.

>> In your golden goose analogy, by the

time that the golden geese get down to

the sort of lower end of the

socioeconomic ladder

>> or def I would I would use the word

diffuse. Yeah.

>> Those those golden eggs or whatever, buy

less

>> because something happens along the way.

>> That's right. So along the way, the

government says, "Let's give everyone

that. Let's give everyone access to more

stuff to make up for that difference."

and then things get more expensive.

>> Is this in part because when the nation

becomes prosperous because the GDP is

high uh when you have four-year election

cycles, politicians get in by offering

you lots of free stuff. And that is the

nature of the four-year election cycle.

>> I always said the the kid that got

elected president in middle school was

the kid who said he's going to make the

vending machines free. That's always

going to be true in any election. And at

the end of the day, that's how the

system grows. We don't talk about this

fourear election thing enough as maybe

as being a bit of a causal factor that's

causing short termism amongst these

leaders where they're all just spending

more money to

>> I cannot tell you how much it drives me

nuts when I go to Washington DC and I go

to Washington DC

every couple weeks or whatever and I

meet with Congress people senators and

representatives literally all of them

just talk about getting stuff for their

constituents. Yeah, that's all that

they're there to do. just get stuff for

their people. That's their job and

that's how they get elected. And the

incentive is I'm going to get you

something. Vote for me. Now, the

founding fathers kind of had this idea

that they would rotate into public

service and rotate out and go back to

private life. There's a lot of writings

about this, you know, in the early days

of the formation of this republic. And

it was like, we should all go do our

tour of duty. We should go in. There was

never this belief that America would

evolve to a world where you have career

politicians. People that are just

constantly trying to get elected and

their job is to be a politician. It's

just such a mind-numbingly crazy idea to

think about. And all my politician

friends are about to chop my head off

about this, but I think it's nuts. I

don't think a person should be a

politician. I don't think that job title

should exist. And I'm sorry to all the

politicians out there. I think the

people that represent the people should

have the best long-term interests of the

people in mind because they should be

constrained to serving for a limited

period of time and then they go back to

private life. That means that we should

have term limits. So you should never be

able to be elected more than two terms

as a senator or you know four terms as a

representative or whatever it is. And it

should be the case that if you're in one

public office, maybe you shouldn't go

transition to other public offices under

those same limits because at the end of

the day, you have created a system

whereby you've proven that you can get

stuff for people and your job is to go

get stuff for people and that causes the

government to inflate, be mismanaged,

you know, and then there's all the

waste, fraud, and abuse stuff that

happens along the way.

>> Everything is a trade-off, right? Even

in that example, if some people did 8

years in government and they know

they're going back to private life, they

could be dealing their friends. I'm

going to do eight years in government.

I'm going to run the transportation

division. I'm going to serve some nice

benefits to my friend who runs Boeing

and then when I step back in, I'm going

to step in as the chair.

>> That's a law to make sure that doesn't

happen. And he goes to jail if that

happens. That's a pretty easy fix. You

can't buy stocks. You can't own stuff.

You can't trade. I mean, there just so

many obvious things. If you're going to

go serve in government, you can't do

stuff that you can do as a private

citizen and you shouldn't be able to

enrich yourself as a private citizen. If

you do, you should go to jail. But we

should also make sure that the incentive

structure is set up right so that good

people come and work in government and

that we have good rotation between

public and private life.

>> It's a hard problem though, this problem

of how you fix this incentive structure

so that you don't just get I mean this

stuff inevitably happens cuz we we hand

out lots of free things and we don't

think about the long-term consequences.

Has anyone fixed it globally? Is there

any nation you look at as a model for a

better

>> you know a lot of people will point to

Denmark they'll point to places like

that and say hey these guys do a great

job and you know there's a lot of public

services and people pay high taxes but

you know there's not a lot of great

progress there's no entrepreneurial

success coming out of those places what

happens in America the freedoms that

were afforded the individual agency and

liberty and rights to private property

creates an incentive structure that says

go try and do crazy stuff that could

work And if it works, there's tremendous

return. So it's worth taking the risk.

And that level of risk is what pushes

the boundaries. It's what discovered

CARTT therapy, what discovered gene

editing that can lead to curing human

diseases. It's what's discovered new

advances in agriculture, new physics,

new engineering, AI. All of these things

came from this risk-taking system that

we've set up in the United States that's

built around these individual

incentives. And it works. So you can

have great comfort for a great many

people in Denmark and people will be

very happy living there and they will

have a good life, but you will not have

progress like you have in the United

States. And we push the frontier because

we create this incentive structure and

that's where progress comes from.

>> Would you say the vast majority would

choose to live in a place like Denmark

if it, you know, I'm looking at some of

the stats here. They have higher

societal trust in government, police

institutions, and strangers. They have

standard 37hour

work weeks, 5 to six weeks of paid

vacation and cultural emphasis on

balance. They have lower ceiling of

extreme wealth but a higher floor so

less poverty and financial ruin. And

according to global happiness metrics,

Denmark consistently ranks significantly

higher than the United States. Most

people would choose that, right?

>> Absolutely.

>> So central planning, it might stop a

few, you know, very high agency

ambitious people, but the vast majority

would theoretically be happier with a

Denmark model. the vast majority maybe.

>> And do you think the vast majority of

this country actually would if there was

two buttons and they had to press they'd

press Denmark.

>> One of the things that I think makes

American culture different from Denmark

is this idea of individual progress.

So I think if you ask the majority of

people, you can have that, but you don't

get to progress. Meaning you don't get

to earn more next year and you don't get

to earn more next year. You don't have a

shot at becoming a millionaire. You

don't have a shot at building something

great. You don't have a shot at buying a

second home. You're limited. But you get

that over here. You don't get anything

guaranteed to you or you get some stuff

guaranteed to you, but you don't get

much more guaranteed to you. But you

could have the world.

You could make a million dollars. You

could own a second home. You could buy a

second car. You could pay off your kid's

college tuition debt if you earn well.

There's more options here. There's more

guaranteed here.

>> You think the 63% would pick? I think

even within the 63% there would be some

percent that would say this. But I do

think this is why we're headed the way

we're headed in the United States.

People want more of a guarantee. The

question is, do you want to maximize the

number of people that are happy or do

you want to maximize the number of

people that are truly free? And by being

truly free increases the rate of

progress across the whole population.

And that rate of progress may be

asymmetric. It may be diffuse. Starts

with some makes its way to others over

time.

I think that that's what America's

chosen to be for the last 250 years. I'm

not sure we're choosing to be that for

the next 250 based on what's going on

across the country right now.

>> Maybe because people aren't happy and

actually maybe that was always the more

important thing versus progress.

>> Important in an aggregate way. Again,

I'll come back to the individual.

We choose to live in a society because

it gives us that foundation that you

described, that ability to have the

safety, the security to take risk, to

make our own decisions, and potentially

build a media empire as you have done.

And maybe you would have been happy in

the other context where you didn't have

that, but would you have reached your

potential as a human?

>> I'll be honest, I'm not sure I would

have been happy because again, that goes

back to my own nature. It's just the way

that I am. If you put me in a room, I'll

try and create something and build

something. But I I've come to learn with

time that not everybody has that bias or

those desires. Not everybody has that

loerty trauma from their childhood of

being the only black kid in all white

area and thinking money was really

important and it was freedom and it was

selfish. Like not everybody has has

that. So I I realized that when I design

solutions, they shouldn't probably be

designed for me. Yeah. You know, it's

taken me a long time to get to that

place cuz I kind of I was very much

>> the challenge with America in this

moment is can you give what you're

describing the Denmark answer to enough

Americans without taking away the

liberty that the Americans that want to

have that liberty have today. And I'm

not sure the answer is yes. As soon as

you start taking private property from

these people, the ones that are

successful in this bucket,

>> then you're sort of taking away the

incentive for them to be in this bucket

in America.

>> And I'm seeing that.

>> Yeah. I see people want to leave and so

you're not going to solve for everyone,

but if you solve for this Denmark

solution, I think you lose a lot of

this.

>> Well, the UK is quite an interesting

example here for this very reason. I

mean, one of the big subjects of

conversation in the UK is that the the

millionaires are all leaving or at least

in high volume and they're coming to

other places. If you look at the

millionaire access maps that they

publish often, they're going to Dubai or

they're coming to America. A lot of my

friends that are building technical

companies in particular have come over

to America.

>> Yeah. for this reason.

>> Yeah.

>> And I do think we might have a little

bit of a we have a bit of a spending

problem, it seems, but also I think we

might have a bit of a productivity

problem

>> in the UK.

>> In the UK.

>> Yeah.

>> Well, do you think the productivity

problem is related to the spending

problem?

>> Oh, yes, of course.

>> Right. If you're collecting checks or

getting services provided to you, the

incentive to be more productive as an

individual goes away. But also as a

system, it becomes a lot harder to

create economic incentives for

productivity gains when tax rates are

very high and you don't actually get to

reap the benefits of the risk you take

and and so on. That's the economic

argument.

>> Listen, I've been catfished by furniture

my whole life where something has looked

fantastic in the picture, whether it's a

sofa or whatever it might be, and I

order it and I get so excited and then

it comes and it's something entirely

different. the quality was significantly

different to what it said or looked like

online or the the texture was different

or or it it didn't hold up in the same

way. And so one of the things that I

love about our sponsor Wayfair who have

helped us fit out our green room which

is in the room behind me is they have

this system called Wayfair Verified.

Wayfair Verified takes away all of that

second guessing. Products are handetted

by Wayfair specialists for quality so

you can feel more confident when you

found the thing that you love. So, if

you're looking for furniture for your

house, whatever it might be, any room of

your house, go to wayfair.com to start

your home refresh today, and make sure

you use Wayfair Verified. It is amazing.

Hello, I wasn't able to make that

finance meeting. Can you tell me what I

missed? What I have in front of me is

Whisper Flow's new notetaker. And for

me, it's been an absolute game changer.

I spend most of my life sat in very,

very long meetings with lots of

different teams and lots of different

departments. In any given week, I could

have 40, 50 meetings and sometimes more.

but also I sit in podcasts where lots of

very interesting things get said and I

need to focus on the conversation. What

Whisper Flow's notetaker does for me is

it captures the entire context of

everything that's happened throughout my

entire week. It labels who the people

are that said what and I can ask it for

things that I might have forgotten for

actions things that I said I would do

that I haven't yet done. It's building

this sort of broader context of

everything that's happening in my life.

And it's an incredible incredible

superpower. I love the fact that so many

of you come up to me in the street

because you know I'm an investor in

Whisper Flow and tell me how much it's

changed your life. It is the worstkept

secret in productivity. If you want to

give it a go, head to

whisperflow.ai/stephven

to download it right now and give it a

try. And once you try it, I think you'll

realize why we let them sponsor this

podcast. It's amazing. I mean, this kind

of does tie into the subject of

artificial intelligence and where it all

fits in part because the narrative of

artificial intelligence is that it's

about to take our jobs. And you think

about the that's why I wanted to start

with the backdrop. Think about that

backdrop of I'm already struggling. I'm

I'm in the 63% and now you're telling me

I'm going to lose this job

that's paying me and I'm already living

hand-to-mouth. And what's the offer? We

might get UBI. We might be sent checks

in the post at some point. Well,

actually, I like my job. It's a

community, a sense of purpose. It gives

me something to do. And that's the

narrative.

>> Yes, that is the narrative.

>> You don't believe the narrative.

>> I believe what everyone's feeling. But

this narrative that AI will take jobs

away, you don't believe it.

>> I recently pulled up and you you guys

can go to archive.org.

There's a Newsweek article about

computers will take all the jobs from

1963. So the main frames are what got

put in the basement in the '60s and

everyone like had to walk past the scary

mainframe on the right. It's like

blinking lights and buzzing and making

sounds. And it's like the main frame is

going to destroy all the accountant

jobs, all the typing jobs, all these

things that we all do that we get paid

to do. And I like working in my office.

I like my colleagues. I like coming in

every day having lunch. That's a good

life. This mainframe is going to ruin my

life. And so there was this effort to

legislate against these things at the

time that didn't get through in

Congress. And then in the 80s there was

another wave on computing where it was

like, hey, now we're all getting desktop

computers. it's going to replace the

workers and it's going to be a desktop

computer and a worker and like 50 people

disappear out of the the workforce. So

empirically, meaning from data, from

evidence over all periods of

technological revolution like this,

we've never seen jobs decline. We've

always seen jobs go up and we've seen

demand go up and therefore incomes rise

when new technology enters the

workforce. That's because the new

technology makes an individual more

productive so they can do more per hour

with their time and as a result they can

get paid more for doing that work. So

imagine instead of having a painter

painting a wall, what if he was in

charge of the five robots that are

painting the wall? Okay, great. Now he's

going to get paid more because you can,

you know, get so many more homes painted

in a day. He's going to get paid more to

do that work. People are going to be

like, well, there's only so many homes.

That's always the argument is you always

think about the fixed pie argument that

the pie doesn't grow. But what always

happens is that the pi grows, the

economy grows is the way to think about

it. And so as automation or technology

is used to give individuals more

leverage to do more things with their

time, then more things get done. People

come up with these new product ideas

with hey, we've got excess capital.

Let's build new homes. Let's build a

building.

>> But who gets who benefits from the

expansion of that pie?

>> In all cases, it's been there's been

deep economic value created for the

entire workforce all the way down to the

lowest level. It doesn't happen

overnight. And that's where during that

period of time when you see the new

technology, oh the main frame's in the

basement or the desktop computers on my

uh my colleagueu's desk and you're like,

"Oh my god, I'm going to lose my job."

To the time that your company is growing

considerably their revenue and giving

everyone raises and everyone bonuses and

adding more product lines and doing more

stuff, you're like, "Oh man, okay, I

feel better." And and I think that would

be the argument from the 60s and 80s and

even back in the industrial revolution.

The question today is how does work

change? Cuz remember in the industrial

revolution, people moved from farms, 60%

of labor was in farming. Today it's like

2%. Into factories and they got paid a

lot more and they lived a better life.

They actually were able to afford

healthcare, yada yada yada. And the the

the transition in any sort of like

technological revolution is net

beneficial for all parties involved. But

there is a transition. So what's it

going to look like? Are we all going to

lose our jobs? AI is definitely

different, but I don't think that AI is

this world where humans are going to

look around and be like, none of us have

anything to do anymore. [laughter] Like,

I don't believe in that narrative. And

the reason is I already see

extraordinary creative things being done

with AI that were not possible years

ago. People are creating TV shows, one

person, that they would have needed a

staff of 20 people to do. and they can

use AI to create AI generated content

and put these shows out on on YouTube or

Tik Tok or Instagram. I mean, look, you

may not like how it looks today. There

may be a lot of AI slop out there, but

as this stuff gets better and better,

the creative output of people using AI

on creative channels where we're all

consuming media is only going to go up

and people are going to make money that

they weren't able to make before from

that output as other people consume it.

My ability to do work, I don't have to,

you know, think about my, you know, four

hours a day that I'm writing documents

today. I can get all that work done in

10 minutes or 15 minutes and then I can

spend the other three and a half hours

doing other things that create new value

for my company.

>> If we go back to the top of this um the

robot painter analogy.

>> Yes.

>> You said a guy might have had five

people painting, now they can have five

robots painting.

>> No, I was saying the guy instead of

painting on his own, he can now have

five robots painting.

>> Yeah.

>> And then he can now produce five times

as much with his time. Think about what

we saw with the desktop computer

revolution, right? Adobe Photoshop came

around and everyone was like, "Oh my

god, like photographers are out of work

because a big part of being a

photographer was all the post editing

and cleaning up of your and airbrushing

and all this sort of stuff." And they're

like, "That whole industry is destroyed

with Photoshop." What ended up happening

is a ton more media was created and

print media was created because

Photoshop created leverage to create

many more beautiful images and then all

these magazines took off and it like if

you look at magazine circulation, they

grew considerably as Photoshop came out

because it allowed much more production

on you know highv value photography. I

think the reason why it feels different

is because that's I mean the industrial

revolution example is kind of like

physical work moving to cognitive work

that was cognitive work creating a new

type of cognitive work the the Adobe

analogy if AI takes the cognitive work

and from what you said about robotics

robotics takes a lot of the physical

work what is this third type of work I

think it's cognitive and physical it's

it's it's no different than what we've

seen in the past but it doesn't mean

that there isn't an individual who's

going to program the robot on what rooms

to paint how to paint them how to do the

detailing correct. The homeowner doesn't

have the level of skill that the painter

does, right? So the painter

>> and I couldn't do that.

>> Maybe at some point, I mean, you could

make this argument on a continuum where

eventually everything nothing exists,

but along the way there are new things

that are emerging. Think about going

back 50 years. There was no yoga

instructor. There was no dog walker.

There was no Instagram influencer. There

was no podcaster. I mean there's a

million versions of new work that

emerged along the way as the internet

took hold and people could start to

spend their time or market themselves or

market their capabilities in other ways.

So I think it's a pessimistic view to

assume that robots replace all humans

and then humans have no logic, no

agency, no capacity for creative work

anymore. I have an optimistic view on

this which is that AI and robotics

enables individuals to do far more

things than they ever could have

contemplated and that's going to give

everyone much more ability to realize

their potential with their agency. I

mean, even the podcast, I think a game

is going to be significantly disrupted

in some some part. We we ran a test a

couple years ago to figure out if a

synthesized voice of me could have the

same average view duration um as me and

uh it was just me reading out the

stories of founders through history. So,

I'd do I did like a Steve Jobs episode

where it was my voice. AI had written

the script. AI had synthesized my voice.

So, I had no involvement. And the amount

of people that got to the end was 40 to

50% of an hour. uh and they knew it was

AI because it said at the top this is an

air podcast and so I thought okay there

is a lot offormational part of what we

me and you do where we're sharing just

in pure play information that will be

taken away however what I hear through

listening to your answer about creators

and art you're saying that there will be

this human sort of irreplaceably human

component yoga teachers yoga teachers

aren't telling you yoga it's also

community and gathering in real life and

being there amongst other people

>> I think the IRL job is going to explode

and I think it's going to be extremely

valuable I always had this view like,

oh, coffee shops will be automated. But

I actually think the opposite is

probably true. I think there will be a

premium on coffee shops. I'll pay $40

for a latte because that human is making

the latte and I get to go be with other

humans. I get to go to a workout class

with humans. I get to go spend time at a

concert. I get to go spend time at

dinners. I think this like event live

space experiential part of our world

that we kind of think about as luxury

today, maybe it becomes more core. Like

maybe it becomes more of how we spend

our time. Maybe we spend 30 40% of our

time, you know, in these sorts of spaces

and automation is generating income for

us and supporting us in, you know,

whatever pursuit we're interested in in

work and we spend far less time doing

work and far more time paying a premium

in the economy in the live space

economy.

>> It's hard, isn't it? Because we don't

know what these jobs are.

>> We just don't. And that's

>> I mean imagine telling someone that

worked in a factory in 1923

that fast forward a hundred years

there's going to be people making X

dollars as personal trainers

or there's someone that has a job dog

walking in their neighborhood. I don't

know if that would have been like grock

fully.

>> But the pace of disruption here seems to

be different than like the industrial

revolution. It's targeting cognitive

work. It's built on this platform called

the internet who which has this

>> I'm telling you I just don't see it. I I

like at my work everyone's using AI and

everyone's just doing more and then they

ask for more employees. You can kind of

think about a business having two sides,

revenue and costs. Revenue is I'm making

stuff and people are paying me for the

things I'm making or doing. Cost is how

am I operating the business? Like what

am I spending? And the argument has

always been like, okay, you're going to