we had dinner last week and sax and I

got bombed last week we had dinner and

we drank a

quadruple Kasa I've not seen jcal drink

like that before I stopped in for a few

minutes drinking I mean Kasa aul he tore

my house apart getting back in oh my God

like a bear like a bear I went Brooklyn

sth he was like a bear he was like a

drunk bear but I I spoke to the lady of

the manor and I will be staying at Sax's

house next time so I will be able to

refresh the ranch's soap and towels yeah

I'm staying in your place I need you

know what I forgot to get towels when I

was at shiman has got these amazing

embroidered towels so I'll just hit

those up when I hit your place um it's

really funny to go to jcal Ranch and

there's going to be a big S on his

towels like wait why why is there an s

on I got

the on it I've got a robe on the back it

says

Maga I took all the Maga robes from what

is What is the stand for is

grifter oh it's so funny

steals Ste he's got a bunch of towels

that say c as well

[Music]

cheap let your winners

ride Rainman

David and inste we open sources it to

the fans and they've just gone crazy

with Love Queen of

all right listen happy Halloween to

everybody and we've got a great docket

for you today but I just upfront wanted

to let people know that we will be

having the all-in Holiday

Spectacular on December 7th at the

Palace of Fine Arts in San Francisco

it's going to be amazing allin.com

events and next Tuesday that's right

November 5th if you go to our YouTube at

7 p.m. Pacific Time 10 p.m. eastern time

we're going to do an election Night Live

stream for the fans we're almost at

700,000 subscribers so subscribe to

comment and join us on our live stream

on Tuesday night there'll be guests

right there's going to be some fun

guests I think helth is still banned by

chamath for life but I may bring him on

and let give him a second chance chth is

that okay I bring him on for a second

chance sure okay so we're gonna give

helth a second chance we'll see be a

tight leash if he makes it about himself

in s seconds or less 7 Seconds to Phil

hel youth he's going to get kicked right

off the show okay holiday party did we

announce that yeah so the holiday party

go to allin.com events if you want to

come it's going to be great you guys

aren't going to be happy but we are

setting uh we are GNA spend a million

dollars on this party how do you spend a

million dollars on a party dude did you

see the s belt last time for that sounds

like a lot of founder that's a lot of

yeah about 300,000 we'll probably lose

money on the party but it's going to be

it's not meant to be call it a profit

Center but it's just going to be super

fun be a great part you cannot put a

price on a good time and you know if

you're going to get that premium founder

mode did you always want to be a party

promoter when you were like in high

school and in college so when I was in

college I had a DJ set up I had like

synthesizer setup which I plugged in and

I did live electronic music with my DJ

set I'm going to drop the beat jth

I'm GNA drop the beat here it comes a

couple of uh my startups now are doing

something interesting Athena bought like

a pack of tickets and they're doing like

a holiday party there with their top for

our event for our event they basically

bought a bundle of VIP tickets and

they're giving them to the top customers

and their top employees to come that's

cool and make it like their holiday

party in San Francisco with their

customers so that's kind of neat smart

move by them and so if you uh have a

startup and you want to bring your

startup you can buy a a pack of tickets

as it were that's actually a really good

idea a bunch of these small startups

should just co-opt our holiday party as

your holiday precisely yeah just buy 10

tickets and come hey freeberg is gonna

go below a million

bucks co-opted I'm hopeful today we're

gonna sign this DJ um which is everyone

everyone knows the DJ and it is gonna be

pretty sick if we can get degenerate

Gambler we know him we play bker with

him whatever we pay him he's going to

lose twice as much at the poker game

let's just let's call it what it is SX

can you host Um poker at your house

after the party

yeah

no what a team

player he built an entire poker building

and he's used it like seven

times f David saaks is just the absolute

best all right let's get to work you

know what's winning as well is the US

GDP here we go it grew uh slightly

slower than expected but the top line

numbers are healthy looks like soft

Landing might be baked in we'll see on

Wednesday the Department of Commerce

reported that real GDP grew 2.88% in Q3

uh that means it's adjusted for

inflation and um you know you can't look

at these things in a vacuum you have to

look at the other Western countries and

their GDP Japan 7 Australia 0.2 Germany

.2 Canada 0.5 the world is not growing

us is growing briskly and um in terms of

how the think about it 2 to 3% is uh

sort of The Sweet Spot for mature

economies above 3% positive but can also

signal overheating like we experienced

during zurp and in 2021 under 2% yeah

stagnation uh US GDP was 30 basis points

below the Dow Jones consensus forecast

of

3.1% there's your chart if you missed it

and um obviously inflation we talked

about this last week is at 2.4% very

close to to the 2% Target unemployment

4.1% close to Historic lows 10year

Treasury 4.3% and obviously stock market

at its all-time high again there's your

S&P Dow and NASDAQ as we've talked about

over in over again shth the federal debt

is the issue 35 trillion in debt we have

a trillion in annual interest payments

on that debt and freeberg your pet peeve

23.5 million directly and millions more

indirectly as we know Federal government

employees now at 3 million it's about 1%

of the country and uh state government

employees 5.5 million local governments

15 million put it all together and we

got almost 25 million people working for

our

government what do you think the

prescription here is freeberg as we uh

come up on Election Day and we look

towards next year do you believe we can

cut this crazy spending and what do you

think's going to happen to the economy

will it overheat soft Landing you're

running a company now so you have to

think about this

obviously oh well I'll separate running

a company because I think that's got to

be treated independently from macro you

can't build your business run macro but

10year treasuries are sitting at just

around 4.3% I think what the market is

telling us and remember that's off of a

low right when the the rate Cuts were

happening if you'll remember in

mid-september we got down to just around

3 and a half% the market is telling us

that with the sort of econom growth

we're seeing low

unemployment and you know call it modest

inflation this is not the time to be

cutting rates and the market is saying

we are expecting higher rates for longer

so I do think that that's one big kind

of turnaround that's happened in the

last 90 days which is really I think a

big surprise to a lot of folks is just

how robust things are relative to where

folks thought that they were about 90

days ago urging pleading and supposedly

needing a big rate cut to get the

economy moving again but I think at the

end of the day everyone's looking to the

election as kind of the next big moment

in the economy both Trump and comma have

made fiscal

proposals that would be deeply expensive

if you assume the you know these these

budgeting groups that go out and take

their policy proposals and try and build

a model against them that they're both

going to add trillions of dollars to the

debt they're going to increase deficit

spending Etc but the reality is that

neither of them are actually going to

end up theoretically being able to ex

all those policies and there will be

some degree difference

end lot of talk about Doge the

department of government uh what is the

last word efficiency efficiency

efficiency that Elon might be

collaborating on where do you think the

chances are he said there could be two

trillion in in savings that could occur

what are the chances that any meaningful

Cuts happen and we reverse the trend in

if Trump say he wins and and he and he

creates that position I think the first

question that'll inform how dramatic the

cuts are is whether

we organize ourselves around an accurate

sense of where the actual economy

is if you look at the print today it

would actually tell you that things are

pretty okay and that we are not sort of

near an unsustainable Turning Point

however and Nick if you want to just

throw up this chart if you back out the

percentage of government consumption

that is included in GDP you start to see

a very different picture which is that

over the last two and a half

years all of the economic

gains under the Biden

Administration have largely been through

government consumption what that means

is that private

industry has been standing on the

sidelines somewhat and that actually

maps to a lot of this

intuition that I've had over the last

few months when I've said I think we're

in a low-key recession because what I

could never figure out is why I would

look at the earnings transcripts of a

bunch of companies who would constantly

talk about softening demand and by the

way this is across the board it wasn't

just cpg companies but Dropbox as an

example same sort of thing they just

laid off 20% of their staff and the and

the memo was about weakening demand so

this is a broad-based softening as far

as companies experience the economy but

the high level number is positive which

would make you think that everything is

fine but when you look at that chart and

you back out the percentage of the

positive news that the government is

responsible for what it means is the

economy is flat and the economy isn't

growing which means that roughly there

are a bunch of folks that are seeing

contraction

so I think that if you normalize on that

view of the

world I think the cuts that Elon will

affect will be

meaningful and

necessary if you uh pull up this chart

Nick of the uh Federal net outlays as a

percentage of GDP I mean you're

basically at an you're you're at a flat

stalling economy

well if you look at this you know we we

basically have had High Teens during our

lifetime Clinton era 70s and 80s and

then uh it's gone up into the 20s now so

that is definitely something the amount

of spending we're doing sorry just to

again this is where you can get a little

confused by data Jason this is net

outlays Y and that's different from

total gross government spending which

also includes QE so if you go back to

the other chart why is this one going

down and the other one represents 85% of

GDP it's because that one is a more

accurate sense of what the government is

doing across all of its tentacles in the

United States economy it includes the

money printer going bur which the net

outlays chart doesn't

include so just to be clear about what's

happening 85% of this quarter's GDP was

induced by the government if you sub if

you sub it out so take 2.8% and multiply

it by

0.15 that is the true growth X the

United States government that exists in

the United States economy today saxs

your thoughts here on the GDP obviously

looks pretty good for Biden Harris to

have all these stats going in their

favor but there is the caveat obviously

about the government spending in there

yeah no I think that's right I mean I I

think that for Harris and the election

it's probably a little too late for this

GDP report to be helpful if you go back

all the way to 1992 where the whole

election hinged on the economy remember

that was Bill Clinton running against

George HW Bush and Clinton's message was

it's the economy stupid Y and um

Carville right came up with that

Carville came up with it and and Clinton

beat Bush because we had a recession in

I think

91 but by 92 it was over already and in

the final week of the

campaign Bush tried to tout a similarly

positive GDP report that showed 2.7%

growth that report would later be

revised up to

3.9% growth so the recession was

definitely over and the economy is

growing again and nonetheless Bush lost

because voters impressions of the

economy had already formed and

solidified by the final week of the

campaign so I think it's probably too

late here for the GDP numbers to have a

big impact on the election I think the

other thing is that voters impression of

this economy isn't based so much on the

GDP numbers it's really based on their

perception of inflation over the last

four years and there's no question that

cost of living has increased a lot over

the last four years and voters are

really feeling that and that I think is

is playing into their perceptions of the

economy and I don't think that Harris

has a great answer for that so so I

think the the bottom line here is I

don't think this report going have a big

impact on on the election in terms of

where the economy is going the the thing

that I would come back to is interest

rates and this is the thing that

freeberg was talking about which is even

though the FED has cut rates by 50 basis

points the long-term rates the 10-year

treasury has not gone down in fact it's

gone up slightly you know it's gone up

to call it

4.3% and so we have this real issue

where as the FED is cutting short rates

long r rates are not going down and I

think that is because of the government

deficit and the government debt and the

fact that there's so much debt that

needs to be serviced by the bondet

market for treasuries just the the

buyers are all leaving the market for

treasuries the Chinese we talked about

this last week have been selling down

their treasury position there just

aren't buyers anymore which is and I

think this could this could ultimately

have a very detrimental effect on the

economy you already saw that I think uh

this hasn't been widely reported but I

think it should be a major piece of news

which is the prime rate hit 8% today so

it now it had a seven handle on it

before and now has an eight handle on it

well this matters a lot if you want to

buy a house and get a

mortgage it's much more expensive then

you got to think about all the people

who already have debt doesn't this look

recessionary totally because a few years

ago you could get a a home loan at a 3

to 4% interest rate you know and

amortize that now your debt service

costs can to be twice as high so you

just can't buy as much house it's a very

bad place if the economy is in the

toilet but we can't even talk about it

because there is no structural way to

get an accurate read because the

government

just perverts the effect it has in the

economy like have yeah Distortion fine

you you cannot have a nonprofit entity

representing the plurality of the

economic activity of a country and

expect the capital markets to function

properly at some point the capital

markets will basically throw their hands

up in the air and puke it all out and

say no and I think that you're starting

to see a little bit of these fissures so

I think we're going to have to clean up

our balance sheet pretty aggressively

here yeah and if you look at the

importance of that rate that rate drives

the value of bonds as the current market

rate for treasuries or for the prime

rate climbs the value of a existing bond

that pays interest at a lower rate goes

down because you have to pay a lower

basis in order to get back to the new

high rate that the market is telling you

so there are several trillion dollars

and we can pull up the the graph here

Nick of loans and bonds that are sitting

on the balance sheets of many commercial

banks in the United States that are now

so significantly underwater

where the value is now below the book

that they paid for those loans or that

they issued them at that those Banks now

have unrealized losses and I think that

this number is one of the other kind of

facts you see a few articles come out

here and there about this but the number

as the rates go up the number of

unrealized losses but the dollar value

the unrealized losses at Banks balance

sheets in the United States has climbed

so considerably that it represents a

real crisis in fact the unrealized

losses on banks balance sheets today is

higher than it was 8 it's trillions it's

trillions Buffett warned

BFA public he's been selling off he sold

off right B well he warned BFA publicly

although a bit

obliquely last year

during his annual conference and it was

very clear it's like listen this is an

opportunity for folks to just Mark to

Market these Securities properly and or

sell them and get them off the books I

don't think B OFA acted quickly enough

and so what did Buffett do he just

basically started dumping and he's

almost completely out of B BFA if not

completely out altogether

so there's a lot of talk a crisis of

brewing there's a lot of talk in fin twt

if you go into sort of like the the Deep

far-reaching bowels of of the of the

Fint community on X that there is a huge

credit crisis looming amongst some of

these

large Charter holding Banks because of

this exact issue and the relation

between the fed and the prime is

typically 3% so the FED Cuts rates and

then the banks put 3% on top of it when

they give people creditworthy people

mortgages and credit cards so as the FED

Cuts this should come down but if it

went up what explains that I'm curious

if anybody knows well the FED sets short

rates it sets the the FED funds rate

which is the the rate of overnight

lending between Banks but it does not

set the 10year treasury for example the

long-term the market set Market

and the market now requires a higher

rate of interest in order to accept you

know the risk of investing in those

bonds or it's not really since it's a US

Treasury it's not really risk it's more

about the time value of money and their

expectations of inflation how much that

money is going to be worth in the future

so I think what we're seeing is that the

FED can cut short-term rates but it

hasn't had the impact on long-term rates

that everyone was expecting I think

everyone was expecting

that we had this sort of um burst in

inflation the famous 9% inflation rate I

think people were expecting that that

would work its way through the system

and that we'd get long-term rates back

to where they were but that's not

happening and it's not happening for the

reason we're saying which is there's

just too much debt out there so now

think about the impact on the real

economy let's say that you're a home

buyer and you got like a five-year

interest only arm type mortgage for your

house Tick Tock yeah so now you know you

probably got that in the 3 to 4% range

if you have to refinance it this year at

8% your monthly payment's going to

double that has a real impact on

people's wealth and on their spending

power maybe they can't even support a

payment like that now go over to the

commercial side and it's it's very

similar there's a lot of commercial real

estate out there you know buildings and

so on where they've got debt on it you

can't get 30-year mortgages and

Commercial the typical commercial loan

is 5 to seven years okay we're now

coming up I think in the next few years

on a lot of that that debt will need to

roll it'll need to be refinanced if it

gets refinanced at twice the interest

cost roughly a lot of those buildings

may be underwater I mean they may not be

you know in there may be no equity value

and a lot of people know this now but

they don't really have to mark those

positions to mark it if they did their

zero but they're kind of all on borrow

time right now hoping that rates will go

back down and what we're seeing is that

the long rates are not going back down

it's a pretty scary proposition and then

of course you know a lot of the the debt

on those buildings it's all owned by the

commercial banks that you're talking

about the regional Banks so they're

sitting on a lot of bad debt that they

haven't had to Mark to Market and

they're just kind of hoping that this

problem will get sorted out before you

know before there's a default

and by the way as these numbers climb

the cost to borrow for the federal

government climbs so the new bonds we

have to reissue a good percent I think

nearly $10 trillion doll I think of our

debt has to be reissued in the next year

that's going to get reissued now at this

higher rate and that higher rate means

that the annual expense just to pay the

interest on the existing debt is now

climbing at a faster rate and that means

you've got to issue more debt to pay for

your interest on your current debt it's

quite paradoxical that the FED sets that

rate right well this this becomes the

compounding problem when your G your

debt to GDP reaches a certain level and

you don't reduce federal spending fast

enough it becomes a compounding problem

you cannot get away from and this has

been the beginning of the cataclysmic

economic collapse of every great Empire

in the last 500 years I know I've said

this you guys can joke about it all day

long but this is how it starts is it

starts at a point where you're at

rithmetic not able to get out of your

debt spiral and uh the markets are

telling us that if the US doesn't

drastic action in reducing it spending

and reducing the deficit levels so that

we can actually address the payment

obligations on the outstanding debt that

we've already issued the US dollar is

going to have a real problem and the

creditworthiness of the United States is

challenged that's what the market says

but I know that there's other issues

with the fact that there's no other

better place to put money today and

there's not a lot of other you know

great economies out there and so on and

so forth but the stability of the United

States the hegemony of the United States

and the dollar is challenged in part by

the fact that you've got this bricks or

gation out there now that has greater

GDP and aggregate than the US and so

there may be an alternative that emerges

in the next couple years and maybe

everyone's kind of putting their assets

away in in gold and and other and

Bitcoin and other stuff while they're

waiting for the transition to find

another place to buy we'll see all right

well but what it what it implies if if

rates have roughly doubled let's say in

the last few years and they're going to

stay at that level they're not going

back down it implies there's going to be

a big deleveraging right because

you know you can't support those

interest payments I mean let's say that

you own a building right and now all

well tax that's it's actually

deleveraging or inflation because the

alternative is the fed monetizes the

debt they start buying all the bonds

which means you're pumping more US

Dollars into the market and that means

that the cost of everything goes through

the roof so you have this effect of

economic inflation which is the way that

you inflate away the debt problem

assuming people still want to use your

currency yeah well I mean that's at the

government level I mean I was talking

about the the private sector I mean just

think about it at the level of like an

individual building you've got a loan on

it now you need to refinance the loan

interest rates are twice as high that

let's say that that doesn't the building

no longer produces operating income at

that level of debt so you have to pay

down some of your debt it's called an

equity in refinancing where you're not

pulling money out you're putting money

in you have to deleverage in order to

make your sort of income statement work

right it's just too much debt at at that

new level of interest rates so if rates

stay high there's no choice but for many

people to delever whether it's on the

commercial side or the or or on the

consumer side you just can't afford as

much debt right at that higher interest

rate so think about the impact that has

on the economy when everyone has to

delever that's a very negative effect

and then of course you like you're

saying at the government level you have

to figure out what to do about that

because our interest payments on the

debt are already what 20 to 25% of

federal revenue yeah it's about trillion

five

trillion so you already see there where

there's less money to spend on current

programs because you're paying for

interest on the debt so what do you do

about that so I I think that the next

president's going to face a pretty

wicked set of problems in tradeoffs here

even though the GDP numbers are fine

they're good I still think there's like

a wicked set of problems related to

government debt and interest rates yeah

and there's no way to really skin this

without some some I think there yeah

there there I think the only path is you

have to cut spending which is

recessionary government spending which

is recessionary so you're going to

trigger an economic recession you're

going to have to have some amount of

inflation and you're going to have to

have a spike in unemployment and if you

don't do the first two things you're

gonna have a lot more inflation which is

really hard to get out of so well I I

agree agree we have doesn't seem to be a

win a win win scenario here there's

there's no yeah I agree we have to cut

government spending I don't I personally

don't think it's recessionary I think it

helps the private sector When government

gets cut right uh however because Sachs

that means seor gets to service that

function the government won't be

consuming all these resources that the

private sector could use better it also

won't have as many government

bureaucrats acting as break pedals on

the private sector so I tend to think

that the government the the real economy

will perform better with a smaller

government however I I think the reason

why it won't happen is because it's

politically difficult it's extremely

difficult to cut spending politically

right right well I mean as we saw this

cycle every single proposal seemed to be

a payoff to different constituencies it

was like right CAU in the budget somehow

right somebody somebody fought for every

single line item in the budget some

special interest and they're going to

fight like hell to keep their

appropriation it's not even special

interest it's the representatives in

Congress doing their job which is to

fight for their con getting their fair

share or their Fair shake at the money

that's being spent and that's just the

way that the legislative branch has

evolved over time if someone's getting

something in order for me to vote for it

I want to get something too and so the

whole thing over time becomes

functionally

inflationary right I think that whole

shell game might just be over now

because there's no more money left I

mean it's all been spent in fact you

know what I mean so like all the federal

government probably will end up doing in

the near future is entitlements and

defense that's it because those are the

core core functions of the federal

government I think everything else

that's that's sort of quote unquote

discretionary is probably GNA get cut

because there's no more money left

tragedy of the commons folks uh

everybody acting in their self-interest

and yeah not a lot of coordination or

ability to win office if you actually do

what's in everybody's Collective best

interest and take the medicine moving on

through the docket Tech earnings this

week Google had a great quarter let's go

over that a bit here you're all mamada

freeberg they beat Top Line and bottom

line stock popped 5% looks like cloud

and YouTube are the story here total

revenue let this sink in

88.3 billion up 15% year-over-year

search was uh 49 billion of that and uh

their operating income is now up 34%

year-over-year I think the CFO is

getting some work done there 28 .5

billion and net income was

26.3 billion interestingly people are

expecting even larger profits they got a

new CFO over there who said they could

push a little further on cost cutting

and she said the company will use AI to

cut costs by streamlining workflows and

managing headcount physical footprint I

think that means more layoffs are coming

to Big Tech YouTube had a tremendous

quarter add Revenue 8.9 billion jamath

that's up 12% % but Sundar said

something interesting he said YouTube

surpassed 50 billion in total revenue

over the past year and so if you do a

little uh B math that's the back of the

envelope math for those of you at

home who haven't heard that acronym

Google doesn't report YouTube's not add

Revenue but we know YouTube had 35

billion in add Revenue over the last

year that means they're doing about 15

billion in premium paid products YouTube

TV NFL Sunday Ticket YouTube premium

which is the greatest product ever takes

ads out of YouTube and makes it usable

so 7030 split Cloud had a blowout

quarter Google Cloud I see that all the

time now 11.4 billion in revenue on 35%

annual growth with 1.9 billion in

operating profit I mean it's printing

money there are seven quasi monopolies

in the

world they're all American and if we

allow them to flourish will be good if

we hamper them a little bit and allow

other companies to pick up the whites

space will be great over to you okay

there's your that's called analysis

Cham and if we break them

up I think that you'll have a lot more

the the sum is greater than the parts I

mean clearly YouTube would be one of the

great companies right now you take the

perspective of

if you own stock in any of these

companies the some of the parts analysis

would tell you that the breakup value is

greater than the way that these

companies get discounted you can look at

the multiples that they trade at and you

can see that so if you're a shareholder

of the company you actually silently

probably want them broken up because

you'll get individual shares that are

each will be worth more separately if

you are a shareholder of the United

States economy you also probably want

them broken up because then you'll just

have many more companies creating

economic value which then drives the tax

roles which benefit the United States

balance sheet it's hard to see unless

you're an employee of the company or you

derive a lot

of ego from the existence of a company

the way it is that you would need it to

stay where how it is well let me

challenge your point on two fronts in

Google's case both YouTube and gcp

required many many many many billions of

dollars of investment over many years

same with weo by the way at this point

that took a long time and a lot of

capital to get the payback on if those

were Standalone businesses and they

didn't have the profits being derived

from search and ads over many years they

would not have been able to build those

incredible businesses so if you do break

these businesses up what you do lose is

the ability for an American Juggernaut

to be able just like Amazon did with AWS

and apple did and we can go through the

list to build these new businesses that

require the cash flows from the old

businesses as separate companies it

becomes much harder to make that degree

of an investment that that angle that

angle of belly aching is not going to

pass muster because it's all about

litigating the past and you got to play

the ball where it lies where it lies is

this business is in a position where you

can probably demarcate four or five

logical business units again I'm not

saying it should Happ but it will happen

and and the the argument of but the past

is not going to work no no no I'm not

yeah I'm not disagreeing with your point

about like hey if these things broke up

people would make money I'm just I'm

just trying to understand this point

about American dynamism or whatever you

want to call it that these companies are

all in America they've all been

successful because they've been led by

amazing Founders they've reinvested so

much of the profit they've generated

back into building insane new businesses

that took a lot of capital and a lot of

time and eventually they paid off and

they became the next generation of

ginormous new businesses that would not

have possibly existed if not for the

will and the cash flows coming from

those old businesses you also have a

companion economy in the capital markets

where there's hundreds of billions of

dollars that go and fill in the gaps and

I think the reality is the people in the

capital markets are not stupid and if

these big companies hadn't spent

hundreds of billions of dollars the

capital markets would have so I don't

gole if Google let's just play a

scenario and I'm I'm not trying to

relitigate the past but if Google did

not own YouTube what do you think would

have happened you would have gotten

funded and it would have been fine it

would have raised the billions buil the

because you do you remember YouTube had

a real infastructure serious lawsuit I

think they would have shut down the

reason is

because people are smart enough to

understand when then there's the

potential to make money okay and the

free markets do a really good job of

highlighting where that's

possible again there is no point Rel

litigating this but I

think yeah gcp AWS get funded with

billion yeah I guess that's what open is

right why does why does cor weave get

funded today how is cor weave allowed to

even exist why doesn't it all go because

investors are smart they see that

there's an economic rationale for there

being multiple players and then there's

a smart founding team that creates a

justification that gets it going so the

era of the monopolies Monopoly on

building new monopolies is

over I don't think it's I don't think

it's ever existed but I think the point

is that big businesses are there to

eventually grow at GDP so that they can

be disrupted by small companies that's

what you want because if you had the

same seven or eight companies then you

could make the argument that we should

have stopped at the East West India

company and everything would have been

great I mean it is what we did with the

railroads it's what we did with the AT&T

it's what we did with standard oil like

when when these when these monopolies

were built in the US they were all

broken up and but hold on it's not

necessarily what we did it's the

conditions that enabled other people to

then go fill the gaps and I think that

that's economic boundary conditions you

know Saks had this great tweet this past

week and I almost quote tweeted it but I

thought I don't want to create a lot

more noise where there doesn't need to

be Zach is paying attention now but he

had this tweet about taking back the

licenses for the main broadcast channels

and I thought that was an excellent

thing and I quote tweeted something

where I was like yeah we should buy that

that for all in and I said it half

jokingly but I didn't because I think

that if those licenses were up for grabs

what would happen is a bunch of private

Equity people would get behind Rogan a

bunch of private Equity people would get

behind us and we would all bid and the

outcome would be better so the point is

that these small structural changes and

I know that it may seem large to break

up Google it's not it's a small thing in

the grand course of American businesses

it's not going to really matter that

much would be good generally through the

lens of the individual shareholder and

through the lens of the shareholder of

the United States that's it sax can you

tell us about the broadcast licensing

comment that you made I thought it was

actually pretty good too yeah there's a

history to this I mean originally in the

US we had three major broadcast networks

ABC CBS MBC and they were given licenses

of public Spectrum from the FCC and

those licenses were free but in exchange

for them the major broadcast networks

had these various requirements to serve

the public interest to be fair this was

pre pre- cable and this was broadcast

this goes back like a hundred years and

just to be it's I think it's important

to be clear because I I I don't think

everyone understands that back in the

day all the TV networks only broadcast

over the air so they needed radio

spectrum allocated to them to to do that

which was a you know 100-year old kind

of that's a 100-year Old Situation

doesn't exist anymore sorry go yeah it

was the only way to get information

broadcast on TV was through this this

public

spectrum and so it kind of made sense in

a world in which there were only three

networks because that was the only way

to get information to have these

fairness requirements and public

interest requirements and so it was

heavily regulated well now it's a

century later and there's so many ways

to get information you've got cable

obviously meant that we went from three

or four networks to hundreds and then of

course you've got the internet and

you've got streaming so there's now an

infinite number of ways to get

information in real

time including video and and that sort

of thing you've also got social networks

you've got X and all the rest so there's

no shelf

space limit anymore there's no scarcity

and so therefore tying up this very

valuable Spectrum by giving it for free

to the to the broadcast networks just

doesn't really make sense in the same

way and what we should do is just

auction off the Spectrum use the money

to pay down the national debt and and in

that way it'll go to its most highly

valued use the market will figure out

what that use is if the broadcast

networks are the most highly valued way

to use this spectrum then they'll win

the auction but I suspect they won't

exactly they did this auction in 2016

right for 15 years they've been

gradually auctioning off more Spectrum

but we're talking about here this is

like the most Choice valuable part of of

public Spectrum so for

example one of the reasons

why the spectrum is valuable is because

it can easily go through walls right

like you can watch your TV inside your

house and yeah this broadcast spectrum

is good at getting through those walls

imagine the types of GPS apps you could

enable with that kind of precision right

so there's many other ways in theory

that this spectrum could be used and you

would be able to unleash I think a lot

of innovation in Next Generation

Wireless apps if the Spectrum were

available I don't think the public would

lose anything because ABC CBS NBC first

of all I mean these networks are

basically a commodity now there's so

many other ways to getting used and

they'll still be available through the

internet and through cable so you're

saying

to speed up these auctions because they

do occur every 15 years or something to

that I think what happens is that the um

the licenses are actually granted to

local stations like your you know your

local ABC

whatever yeah and then collectively they

have a Lobby called the NAB or National

Association of broadcasters and this is

why they have so much power is you've

got all these local networks let's call

three or four of them in every geography

and they all come together as part of

this Lobby and so this is why nothing

ever changes but does this model still

make sense no I mean it's completely

obsolete but those local networks will

all go crazy if they lose their free

Spectrum well they pay for it they don't

they don't pay for it now they get a a

free license from the FCC in exchange

for the fairness requirement and these

other requirements I think that they pay

billions of dollars for these and like

hundreds

no every six years or so they come back

up and they get renewed by the FCC H I

was just talking about the Spectrum

auctions I'm looking at it right now

that's different yeah

okay all right interesting no look the

the FCC has auction Spectrum before but

not the spectrum that the broadcast

networks are sitting on which is some of

the most valuable Spectrum got it and

the only reason why it's being used this

way is because of Legacy because this is

how it worked 100 years ago well and

then this parallels into I think some of

the research that's going on right now

around Legacy Media and Trust in Media

bunch of reports have been coming out

about this it's not shocking to anybody

who listens to this podcast but

confidence in institutions is tracked by

a number of different organizations

Gallup being one of them and if we look

at how Americans feel and Trust has

generally been going down in

everything the military

it's also being it's also being tracked

in the wapo upad section yeah exactly

are you g pull that up jcal do you have

that or no uh we'll talk about that yeah

but here if you take a look at from 2021

2022 and into

2023 television news went from 16 down

to 11 and back up to 14 but is amongst

the

lowest in terms of trust

in and 40% of Americans have no Trust in

Media at all according to this Galla

poll here's uh how it breaks down by

party Republican independent and

Democrats confidence by the Democrats

58% Independence

29% Republicans

11% in mass media your thoughts fredberg

as we look at just trust in general in

institutions this transitionary period

we in and specifically the

media I do think we've talked about this

a number of times in the past so without

rehashing too much I think that many of

the

institutions that have offered media

have had to move away from providing

data and information because data and

information has commoditized it's

available broadly through the internet

and other places so the actual Gathering

of information is now democratized you

know agencies put their data on their

website stock stock markets are

published on the internet so the

internet has democratized access to

information so the media companies that

have historically been Arbiters of

information have had to become

effectively content businesses they've

had to provide more than just

information and what has happened is a

iterative feedback system whereby the

more kind of angry they can make someone

the more upset they can make someone the

the more emotive they can make a reader

or a viewer or a listener the more

clicks they the more the kind of lyic

system triggers that consumer to come

back and consume some more of their

media and so the iterative development

cycle is that things look like they're

one side versus another side in nearly

every context in every piece of media

everyone is opinionated and making a

position point from a side from a

perceived side that they are

representing because it is a motive to

the readers and the readers come back

and they align with that side and they

want to have more of that because it

incites their limic system that's what

happened and as as a result when people

look at it and assume that it's what it

used to be which is objective truth fact

finding information gathering and it is

not that they're like well this isn't

even news anymore and the truth is it's

not because information is democratized

it's available to you anywhere and

everywhere you want it you can get it

through citizen journalism via blogs via

podcasts via Twitter via many other

places and so the the Legacy Media

companies have effectively become

emotive content companies in order to

drive clicks Drive views sell ads that's

really all this whole story is and I

don't think that that's going to shift I

don't think that Jeff bezos's attempt to

try and return wapo back to being a

fact-f finding organization is going to

be successful I think all the consumers

that read wo today they love the

one-sided nature they love the bias that

they read it makes them feel good I

think that the people that work there

love the bias they love writing those

opinion pieces it makes them feel good I

don't think anyone actually wants boring

news anymore because you know what they

can go to a website from the government

itself or from a company itself and just

read the information and frankly if they

want to get unbiased honest factual

information there's a hundred other

sources well and then here the

commentary the comment yeah the

commentary about off the cuff Etc you

know what that is that's called

authentic conversation that is how

people speak when we all get together we

are not journalists we are not

necessarily well-versed let's be honest

we mess things up a lot we say off the

cuff comments that are wrong very often

but that's just how people speak and it

feels authentic and when we do have

signal I think that listeners and

viewers are smart enough to separate

that signal from noise and they are

going to make their own decisions about

what they find to be truth and factual

and what they're going to use to make

decisions in their life and that's I

think how people want to consume

information now it's not being told what

the truth is by some fake Authority and

here is a clip from the podcast last

year podcast could play a huge role just

like in 2016 social media broke through

and played a huge role I think in 2024 I

think that podcast could break

through the way that unorthodox

candidates get their message out could

be the way all candidates get their

message out we're moving from

traditional media defining these

candidates to direct to Consumer direct

through Twitter SLX direct through

podcasts this podcast included what

we're witnessing right now is the

transition from traditional media and

the establishment defining who the great

candidates are to the public and the

people on podcast in social media who

are the tip of the spear and the

Vanguard they're going to pick the

winners I love you both you guys totally

nailed it look at that sax your thoughts

on this sort of transition

interestingly as we know Rogan had Trump

on over 40 million views now I think

they're up to 100 million views now for

that Rogan Trump interview oh including

the fact that you literally could not

find it if you search for it in Google

or YouTube it's quite amaz well we'll

get to that in a second yeah that's an

interesting one I got to take on that

but what do you take from

Rogan getting let's say many more views

than the last two presidential debates

Trump Harris 67 million viewers Trump

Biden 51 million viewers I think maybe

Rogan combined with his two episodes

will get more than the first two debates

yeah look I think this is the first

podcast election where you can make the

argument that podcasts will decide the

election and there's a couple of reasons

for that one is podcasts have gotten big

enough that there's enough audience that

they just have the reach now to play a

big role second the format is is highly

informative to viewers you get to see a

candidate expound in long form being

asked questions and having to go for

potentially hours at a time I mean Trump

went for three hours with Rogan impress

and it's very hard to hide who you are

when you're going for that period of

time in an unscripted environment I

would argue even the hour that Trump

spent with us demonstrated that he knew

a lot more about policy issues than

people were giving him credit for and

it's and it also showed his personality

was a lot different than the media had

portrayed him so I think that podcasts

have been a great Advantage for Trump

he's been willing to do them and I think

he does them quite well I think it's

particularly helpful to him in a context

where the Legacy Media has been trying

to portray him as a very extreme figure

as as literally a Nazi or literally The

Reincarnation of Adolf Hitler when the

media is is telling the audience that

you're that and then you can go on Rogan

for three hours and show that you're a

normal funny guy who actually knows a

lot about policy it's just such a

different impression than what the media

is trying to portray that it's been

incredibly I think useful and

advantageous for Trump by the same token

KLA Harris has not been willing to do

Rogen at least not on Rogan's terms

apparently she was willing to sit down

for one hour with him but but not in

Austin according but not in Austin but

Rogan said is no we have to sit down in

our studio for three hours so far she

hasn't been willing to do that I think

that speaks volumes in and of itself is

that she hasn't been willing to subject

herself to the same sort of you could

call it interrogation or really just

longform conversation that Trump has

been willing to but in any event just I

think my bottom line on this is that I

think Trump's biggest challenge in this

election is just to get people

comfortable with the idea of a second

Trump term to get people comfortable

with him and I think that him going on

all these podcasts including ours

including I thought that Andrew Schulz

Swan was really good too has helped him

I think just get people comfortable with

the idea of of trump which I think was

just his biggest obstacle in this

election because people definitely want

to change and they're not happy with

Biden Harris you know the one thing I

say is before you go on Rogan there's a

sense of anxiety that I had which was do

I have enough interesting things to say

for three hours that was really at the

top of my mind I think Jason I talked to

you right before yeah I went on and and

that was a big thing for

me and then you go and you get in the

seat and he's incredible in the way that

he kind of like moves the conversation

along and then you end up you're like oh

it's already been 3 hours that's his

superpow the reason that she should find

a way to go to Austin and do it is

because he has the ability to allow you

to be your true self over a long period

of time and I think again just going

back to the

basics she deserves for herself for the

American people to vote up or down who

she really is and all the campaign

strategists aside and all of the other

nonsense aside I would want if I was

running for president one shot at people

being able to see me for who I really am

and that's why she should go on R I

think she's afraid of that I mean she

has mostly ducked media interviews and

ducked any podcast that would be

perceived as ever she's definitely gone

with the friend but she sto she stopped

ducking them I think In fairness to her

like maybe after she was like in the

third or fourth week she started yeah

she's done call me daddy she's done

Howard

Stern knew would be super friendly yeah

of course yeah doing adversarial is

don't you think that Trump did our show

because he thought it would be friendly

yeah he started with friendlies yeah

yeah why would he do opposition when

Trump did I mean we were one of the

first podcasts he went on went on that

fox she went on that Fox News thing she

did Fox News for 26 minutes freeberg and

her staff was waving they were on the

sidelines waving frantically to get her

off of there um but any event was was

were we the first podcast to interview

Trump second nek boys were first I guess

we were

second I think that it was really

unclear what would happen when you you

know put a major candidate for president

on a podcast for an hour at the time he

did it I think he took a little bit of a

risk um and I think it worked out for

him and then he's done a lot more since

then I mean other than Rogan Rogan and

us have consistent tried to get

everybody on all sides to be on the

podcast I think we did a really good job

looking back on we've gotten everybody

except one person K yeah I mean I wish I

had time to have asked January that get

to on my question we had all The

Independents and we had all the credible

Republicans and to his credit we were

the first for RFK right we were the

first

with first for Dean Phillips Dean

Phillips and V

were the first for V and so yeah I give

us some some credit there on the um

search issue I looked into that there VI

sorry I always get that wrong the search

issue there was some complaints that

YouTube might have been like I don't

know hiding the video which didn't make

much sense to people so I did an

investigation of that sax you're

laughing go

ahead well finish what you're saying no

no no I have a different point of view

than you on this but I didn't get my

point I know I've seen it on Twitter but

keep going oh well no I did um a search

on you're going to defend Google I know

no no I'm not defending Google I'm just

explaining to people how search works

independent of it I went to Bing dock

Dogo search. brave.com Google YouTube

Google video and what people don't

understand about how the search

algorithms work is they are designed to

increase advertising dollars and

freeberg will back me up this he worked

at Google and session link that's the

goal am I correct freeberg with

algorithms whether it's Tik Tok YouTubes

Etc yeah

I I know more about search results I

don't know as much about the video stuff

so so when you look at that it's it's a

very nuanced thing but Joe Rogan doesn't

monetize his search he does

not make any money for them and then

Clips do make money for YouTube and the

clips have flooded the zone so if you do

a search on any search engine whether

it's being or Brave or duck ducko Google

or YouTube any of them what you'll find

is the clips beat out the main episodes

all the time this happens to our podcast

when people clip our podcasts they will

do keyword stuffing and they'll beat us

and it will beat the algorithm because

the algorithm wants to get ads and we

don't have ads turned on either so

people have this frequent frustration

with this weekend startups my other

podcast all in here and Joe Rogan that

anything that's not monetized on YouTube

doesn't rank high and if you look all of

the

clips and this makes sense if you just

think logically the clips will will

generate more engagement because you get

to watch the highlights so it's kind of

like sports highlights sax would you

like to conspiracy theory this and tell

us that Sergey is sandbagging for the

Democrats or something by hiding YouTu

conspiracy theory you can just I mean if

you go to Google every single day and

just type in a trump related search term

versus a Comm related search term you'll

see the difference in coverage but back

to the the Rogan thing look Google is a

search engine this is what they're

supposed to be good at you have an

interview between the biggest podcaster

in the world and a former president

who's probably the most famous person in

the world it's massively trending it's

got something like 100 million views at

the time that people noticed that you

couldn't find it on YouTube it already

had something like 34 million views what

I'm saying is you have to work pretty

hard as a search engine for your

algorithm to be so bad that you can't

find that interview okay when I went to

YouTube and tried to find it at first I

typed in Trump Rogan interview couldn't

find it then I typed Trump Rogan

interview podcast couldn't find it it

was just Clips then it was Trump Rogan

full interview full po podcast still

couldn't find it there's no question

that just is a factual matter this

episode was suppressed in YouTube search

if you went to the main Google search

engine and did a similar search what you

would have found as the number one

search result was an article from the

Arizona Republic which is a publication

I've never even heard of that would have

told you that the Rogan interview with

Trump was a brain rotted waste of three

hours that's the number one result

somehow Google decides that his number

one result for the Rogan interview was

this Arizona Republic story okay I I

mean that is not a search engine doing

its job so it's pretty obvious to me

that they're using other

factors in deciding what to surface here

and somehow the results end up being

almost universally negative towards

Trump and almost universally positive

towards kamla I think you've got to at

this point have your head buried really

deep in the sand not to think that

Google is incredibly biased in this

election against Trump let me pull up

some facts to show how wrong you are if

you pull up you

here's an image of the YouTube search

results that I just did for the Trump

Rogan and what you'll see is as I

explained previously Clips perform

better and make money they make money so

the algorithm favors those and what

you'll see here is Fox News Etc and all

these clips and then eventually you get

to The Joe Rogan interview and if you

look at Bing search results for Rogan

Trump interview what you'll see is all

the search engines put news up first

then they go to organic so it's just a

fundamental misunderstanding of of how

search is designed for users they start

with news on every search engine today

and then here's Google's same thing and

then what you'll see here is on the

Google and on the bang images you have a

collection you know typically five or

six news stories then they go to the

first organic so people just don't

understand how search works it's always

news first when you type in a

politician's name and then when you look

at the news or you it has New York Post

right leaning you have people who are

dead center like AP in there and you

have Fox News there in the Google one so

of the first five two of them are right

leaning and AP is obviously in the

middle Forbes I don't know maybe Forbes

is Right leaning too freeberg over to

you well I was going to say I read

somewhere so I have no direct knowledge

about this I actually hanged several

people at Google to ask them what was

going on and I did not get a clear

response I I so like I have no insight

as to what actually happened but what I

read online somewhere was that someone

reported that someone at Google said

that there were there was kind of a a

whole bunch of people that clicked

inappropriate content flagging on the

video so like anti-trump people went to

the video clicked that it was

inappropriate and when when YouTube gets

that many people clicking that this is

inappropriate it automatically fling yes

it is a technique people will use

they've used it on our program here

where they right so if you get like a

million people that say at once like hey

there's inappropriate content here the

default is hide the video to hide the

video from search results while it's

investigated but clearly there's

something messed up here because they

should have been on top of that and

responded immediately with the video

that has such a large number of views

and such a large audience to allow that

to happen and and drag on for so long

but someone said that that may have been

what happened and then they fixed it I

so I don't know but I just want to point

that out that it may not necessarily

have been kind of overt action by Google

but just the way that the system is set

up that anyone can flag and if enough

people flag you get this s and I can

tell you I know firsthand that Google is

aware of the claims of bias and you I

think you're starting to see it just

like CNN is aware of the claims of bias

added CNN is aware of the claims super I

mean like all these companies are super

sensitive to so Facebook Mark

Zuckerberg's very sensitive to it I know

Sundar himself is very sensitive to it I

I don't want to kind of hide the fact

that these people think that they're

going out and being biased that they

have these kind of information Empires

because they know that they're going to

lose trust and they're going to lose

customers and revenue and Etc CNN has

done I think an exceptional job I don't

know if you watch it at all saxs but

they have been having Trump supporters

and right-wing commentators in CNN on

the desk every yes it's really changed

the nature of it from being like MSNBC

or Fox did you know being something in

the midle I've never I never watched I

never watch these shows but like before

we go off on this topic people

throughout this election have been post

in Google search results when you just

type in Trump versus Harris and I've

done it every single time it's massively

biased I mean let's just go through them

this was a search result I got months

ago where I just typed in Donald Trump

and you the first Carousel was about

kamla Harris I remember joking on the

Pod that if you want to find the latest

news about KLA Harris just search for

Donald Trump and then you go down and

the first Carousel that's about Trump is

negative stories this one was about

project 2025 which has nothing to do

with Trump nonetheless this was a major

Democratic talking point at the time is

that somehow that project 2025 is what

Trump would do in a second term I just

did this and it's different now

obviously this is you said this is a few

months old I've been doing this on a

recurring basis over the last few months

and the point is that whenever you

search for the candidates the news is

very positive towards Harris and it's

very negative towards Trump and even

when you search for Trump they'll give

positive news about Aris now go to the

go to the podcast se you don't you don't

think this is a function of the fact

that so many media Outlets are being so

negative about Trump and positive about

Harris and so therefore the ratio is

just off how does the Arizona Republic

end up being the first choice when you

search for Rogan Trump they're not you

know like page rank can't explain that

they're just not a major publication

they're not being linked to by a lot of

people doesn't make any sense here's

another example okay stay on this one

for a second this was after Trump went

on the Andrew Schulz

podcast that podcast was a very positive

experience for him as we just talked

about helped his campaign a lot what's

the number one result when you look at

for that new Republic podcast host

laughing Trump face as he struggles to

defend rambling that's when he had that

hilarious story about The Weave if you

actually watch the clip the podcast

hosts were they were definitely laughing

with him they were not laughing at him

that was a ridiculous

mischaracterization the new Republic is

not the objective uh source for anything

I don't know how you could say that

objectively page rank should get you to

the new Republic as the number one

source for the Andrew Schultz interview

of trump that is bias I mean it's just

biased you there's been so many examples

of Google giving these ridiculous

results and they find obscure

Publications and obscure articles that

have no basis in the truth to to elevate

to the top it's almost like they're

trying to find the most negative article

they can find on Trump and make that the

number one result yeah it's not the

search engine it's just the Corpus of

media that's being indexed um if you

look here at Google why is New York

Times then that's the number one thing

well I mean just you know here if you

look at Donald Trump you know if we were

to look at these new sources there's NBC

NPR Politico and New York Times are left

leaning if you were to do this on um I

think I have bang as the next one you

can open and you can look at the next

one Nick which is duck Dugo in all of

these cases the problem is only 3 or 4%

of journalists at Publications today are

right leaning and most of the right

leaning Publications are opinion

Publications like Fox Etc and so you

just you don't have a lot of

representation in the index of

Republicans and that's like a big

opportunity I think for Republicans is

to make more Publications or take more

Publications over like we're seeing with

the LA Times and Washington Post think

going to Publications if Google would

choose to surface them but it decides

that it doesn't want to it's it's on a

percentage basis it's very small as the

problem here you go this is Arizona

Republic rocketing to the top of search

results for Joe Rogan Trump interview

that's a publication that is local to

Arizona that no one's ever heard of it

has no basis being the number one result

in Google New York Times is second okay

I can see the logic of that because New

York Times is a big publication then you

go down one row to the Carousel oh

there's new Republic again why because

it's calling Trump appearing on Joe

Rogan shady and then you've got another

one another one there from the

Independent calling Trump a predator I

mean come on this is ridiculous okay so

you've shared these examples um what I

what I would recommend is I think we get

someone from Google on the show we could

arrange that and they can kind of talk

about how the algorithm works because I

don't think any of us are going to be

able to provide a reasonable

Counterpoint or understanding of what's

going on and if there is bias um and

there's some kind of manual intervention

in this in this process maybe it can be

kind of discussed and talked about why

and how and you know what the automation

is that causes this to happen and let's

just try let's try let's try and

cover I'll I'll take that as a to-do and

I'll try and find someone that we can

talk with listen to have a conversation

they do I I look I mean I've talked with

a lot of people over there and I have

heard from a lot of folks that this is a

real issue that folks are trying to

address internally so that there's this

perception of bias that they're trying

to get rid of and they really want to

address it this is what I've heard from

people at Google so I want to give them

a chance to come talk pull up the look

rather than having us all debate it or I

don't even have a strong point of view

on this I'd rather just bring someone in

and talk about it so just as a counter

point here Nick pull up the B I just did

for Donald Trump and we'll just if you

do it as an exercise that's always the

way to find the objective truth here is

to try the independent search engines or

other search engines duck ducko

bravex perplexity do that as well we'll

see but anyway if you look here this

bing one if you take out MSN well

no woke woke search.com J MSN USA Today

Charlotte Observer Seattle Times

Washington Post I think these are all

left leaning so that is more to my point

that like the entire Corpus of news

reportage is 95% left leaning that's

what's happening here and so they need

to they're going to need to manually

Sach say these 5% should get represented

5050 in the search results to please the

other side even though that's not what

the Corpus is and the number of stories

written by left leaning just is probably

50 to one to right leaning moving on I

have an alterate explanation can we just

pull up this this it's got some data I'd

like to just pull up this data if I

could if you look at employee donations

to party we've tech companies it's all

90s something percent goes to Democrats

except for that's a pretty simple

explanation for why the Google search

results are horribly biased in One

Direction Uber's 18%

all right let's go to our final segment

here we'll talk a little bit about the

election why don't you te us up here

Freer all right guys I'll quickly uh

introduce our final political

election update before our live stream

on Tuesday obviously a lot of

daily freakout daily efforts at having

an October surprise that will take down

the other side all sorts of drama all

sorts of insult not a lot of love in

America right now super depressing and

sad all sorts of stuff happened this

week jcal why don't you kick us off what

do you think's going to happen on

Tuesday what are the things that you

think are going to move people between

now and then it's a tossup I mean that's

what everybody's saying it looks like

Trump's got a slight lead and so I think

it's going to be a tossup saxs agreed

are we 6535 as poly Market predicts or

are we 100% Trump are we 90% K La Harris

what are we uh looking well you

definitely can't say it's going to be

100%

anyone I mean but if again if you look

at all the data the data is definitely

pointing towards Trump having an

advantage it's U obviously the

prediction markets are almost two to one

in favor of trump the polling shows that

Trump is ahead narrowly in this in all

the swing States I think every single

one of them even the uh sort of blue

wall states of Pennsylvania Michigan

Wisconsin that Harris must win I think

in order to have a path to

Victory whereas Michigan and Wisconsin

are very very close like 1% or less in

the swing state polls

Pennsylvania polling shows that Trump is

ahead by I think two or three that's

what I've seen today so it's it is

looking good for Trump and if you look

at the numbers that elon's group The

that America pack put out it looks like

the early voting in Pennsylvania is

trending 500,000 votes better for

republicans in the early voting than

four years ago but is that just pulling

votes forward some folks have said it

could be instead of showing up at The

Ballot Box on Tuesday a lot of folks are

doing mailin and making sure they get

their vote in in mail instead of going

in first there's so then you got to look

at polling of people who say they're

going to vote but haven't voted yet in

Pennsylvania who say they're going to

vote on Election Day and I think those

numbers are running about 18 points

ahead for Trump which is about double

what he needs to win so he just to be

clear the early voting favors Harris but

not by the same percentages that it did

four years ago so right now it looks

like Trump is tracking to win that state

but look I can't guarantee it I'm not

representing that you know that's

exactly what's going to happen but right

now the numbers are looking good

remember Biden only won Pennsylvania by

880,000 votes and again the swing so far

is uh Republicans are doing 500,000

votes better than they were doing four

years ago so there's a lot of stories

coming out on Twitter on Independent

Media and on mainstream Media or Legacy

Media as we might call it now talking

about hey I live at a house I got 15

ballots mailed to me all with different

random names and these sort of anecdotal

stories are being pushed and then

Amplified by folks that are involved in

the election chamat is this kind of

dangerous do we think that there really

is a lot of this kind of election

meddling happening and if not or if

there is

is this kind of a dangerous thing to

happen where a lot of people are talking

about this where no matter what happens

on Tuesday people start to question the

results of the election how much should

we be kind of worried about this

rhetoric I think there are two things

there's the substance and then there's

the strategy the substance is

that does it really make sense that the

most advanced and important country in

the

world doesn't have a uniform system

where one ballot is given to every

single

American citizen who is eligible to

vote that probably makes sense so we

should probably just figure out how to

do that separately the strategy of it is

for both sides to lay the groundwork to

say that this

thing somehow wasn't totally right down

the middle I am hoping for a very clear

decisive

Victory and frankly whichever candidate

wins I hope that it's very clear and

decisive so that everybody is forced to

deescalate and move

on now that said I think what the early

voting

data shows is something that you haven't

seen in the past which is that there are

a lot of Republican people that are

voting

early I don't know what that means for

election day but typically it's the

Democrats that dominate these

early voting processes and they build

What's called the firewall and in these

swing States these firewalls become very

important going into election day and as

saak said a bunch of these states

are different than they've historically

been in the favor of the

Republicans I saw an article today that

just said that they've basically

considered Nevada now in the Republican

Camp because like there's been so much

early voting that it's about 60% of the

total votes they think have already been

cast since they they have a very clear

Republican lead going into election day

so there's all kinds of stuff here

that's

new I just hope that it's just an

absolutely crushing victory in One

Direction or the other so that we

deescalate and get get on to the

business of running the country so I'm

going to break with my most my

Republican Brethren on this and say I

think early voting is actually a good

thing it's it's very convenient right

like why force people to only vote on

just one day because what if you get

sick or a kid gets sick and you have to

pick him up from school there's a lot of

things that can go wrong it is more

convenient to have say two or three

weeks to be able to cast your vote I

actually think that's not a bad thing

and in terms of who it helps I'm not

sure but I think that as the Republicans

become more of a populist party and the

Democrats become more of an elitist

party I think higher turnout might

actually might benefit Republicans

regardless I think it's a huge

convenience for voters and I think early

voting is something that we should keep

the thing we got to change is in the

states where you don't have to present

any voter ID to show who you are that's

just crazy I mean you just you go up to

the polling place and you give your name

and I guess your address they look you

up in a computer and they hand you a

ballot and there's no verification that

you're you are who you say you are that

to me is crazy the other thing that's

crazy is that you can even get

registered and added to the voter roles

in a lot of states without any proof of

citizenship so there are states where

you can go get a driver's license

without proof of citizenship and there's

just a checkbox to be added to the voter

rules and no one ever checks your

Citizen and now you're on the voter Rule

and you can go pick up your ballot

without any voter ID that's just crazy

to me so I think that after this

election there should be some sort of

Bill that gets passed and signed by the

president that sets a minimum standard

for for voter integrity and federal