I'm really worried about where we're

headed as a country. Right now

>> American system is so out of whack that

if you are a multi-billionaire, you

probably pay a lower percentage in taxes

than if you're a school teacher or a

firefighter.

>> You have levels of inequality that we've

almost never seen. There's a rise in

political violence, the collapse in

trust, and the biggest thing of all that

we're facing right now is this massive

debt. But it's now escalated to a level

that no one can ignore.

>> How How do you think this plays out?

>> I mean, you know, we're on the brink of

losing our democracy and we're running

out of time to do something about it.

>> Secretary Pete Buttigieg, Trump made a

lot of promises when he came into power.

Keen to get your perspective on the Iran

war.

>> So the president can't explain why we're

there. There's a lot of reasons to

suspect that we're just at war cuz he

wanted us to. And now he can't figure

out how to get us out of it. Troops have

lost their lives. [music] Prices are

higher. You're paying more for gas and

for food, for for mortgages because of

this war. And so the the next president

will be doing this at a big disadvantage

because so many relationships with our

allies have been burned.

>> So I'm keen to get your perspective on

the AI, good, bad? Should we implement a

wealth tax? Is there anything you

respect about Trump? But also greater

Israel, for example. What does Netanyahu

want in the region? And then be the

first person in a presidential candidate

to be openly gay?

>> Uh definitely the first person who's

considered to have a shot. And when I

finally made peace with this [music]

reality

that I was gay, I was well into my 20s

cuz I wanted so bad for it not to be

true.

And I'd like to believe we'll get to a

day when it's just

not a thing.

No one cares.

>> Secretary Pete Buttigieg, are you going

to run to be president in 2028?

>> Um

>> 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, some conversations that

you want to hear. I've stayed true to

that promise since the very beginning of

the Diary of a CEO, and I will not let

you down. Please help us. Really

appreciate it. Let's get on with the

show.

>> [singing]

>> Secretary Pete Buttigieg, how are you

feeling about the nature of

politics at the moment? But I should

probably say the nature of American life

at the moment.

>> I'm really worried about where we're

headed as a country. I think many ways

our our entire existence has been about

creating a different kind of political

system and introducing it to the world.

That's what we're about. And now that

whole project is in question. That whole

project is In my view, it's on the

brink.

>> On the brink?

>> Yeah.

>> What do you What do you mean by that?

>> I mean, we're on the brink of losing our

democracy. The whole idea of this

country, the whole idea of overthrowing

a king

was that everyday life would get better

if we set up a country where the people

are in charge of the government instead

of the other way around.

And now we're in this moment where after

all of the things we've gone through for

decades, for 250 years,

it's not clear if that's going to work

out.

I think it will. I believe it will if we

do what we have to do.

But that means reforming, tuning up,

changing that political system

because the the problems in that

political system help to explain

all of the economic problems

that I think so many Americans are

living with, where you've had enormous

economic growth and shockingly little of

it making it into people's pockets.

Where you have

levels of inequality that we've almost

never seen

in this country. And then the other

thing is

there's there's the American promise in

terms of the system, the politics, the

government, democracy, the America's

gift to the world. Creating democracy.

But there's the economic version of

that, which is the American dream.

Like the idea that no matter how you

start,

no matter who you are,

you can come out ahead of where you

started economically. That used to

happen for nine out of 10 Americans.

Statistically,

the place where you're most likely to

live out the American dream right now is

Denmark.

And I want that to be America.

>> And systemically, if we just think from

a high level, what is the what is the

essence of of why Denmark is a better

place for the American dream? What are

the systemic problems? Is it with the

current administration? Is it with the

perspective on what a good life looks

like in America? Or is it greed? Or is

it something else?

>> Well, I wouldn't say it's just the

current administration. I mean, I think

I think the current administration isn't

helping, but I I think the problem is

much deeper than that. Uh a lot of it is

the last 30 or 40 years, we've had

policies in this country

that make it harder to get ahead if

you're not already starting out well

off. Even just the way our taxes work,

they they they tax work

more than they tax wealth. That's really

catching up to us. I mean, it has

created problems. I believe it's created

problems for decades, but you feel it in

a different way now.

And when inequality reaches a certain

level,

and when the inequality of power follows

the economic inequality to a certain

level, that's when I think you start to

have earthquakes in in the society and

what it feels like to live in this

country. And I think we're going through

those earthquakes. Uh not just Trump and

everything he represents, but the rise

in political violence,

the collapse in trust in our society.

All of these things I think are related

to that.

And we're running out time to do

something about it.

>> Trump made a lot of promises when he

came into power.

>> Mhm.

>> He won in a bigger than expected

victory, I would say. Why does he

resonate?

>> Well, first of all,

I think he speaks to a lot of people who

know that the system has let them down.

And even though I think he's somebody

who really benefits from the system

as it is, it's made him rich and kept

him rich. You know, his message was,

"I'm going to blow it all up."

And I think he's blowing up all the

wrong things. But look, if if the

system's let you down, you know, you're

only going to vote so many times within

that system before somebody comes along

says, "I'm going to blow it all up." And

you say, "Well,

I I might not even like the guy, but uh

I'll give him a shot to see if that

makes me better off." Now, I also think

he lied to a lot of people. Um

you know, some people voted for him

because they believed him when he said

he's not going to start a new war.

Many people voted for him because they

believed him when he said, "On day one,

he was going to start lowering costs."

And right now, inflation's higher than

it was the day he took over.

So, these promises weren't true,

but they spoke to something that I think

a lot of people had on their mind that

that made a lot of people willing to

burn things down.

And there's a lesson for my party in

that. I'm obviously passionately against

many destructive things that he's doing.

That doesn't mean the answer is to

quote-unquote reverse the damage, put

everything back the way it was.

>> Mhm.

Because I you're right that that the

Democrats have a lot of responsibility

here.

Um for a lot of reasons. I think the

very fact that Trump was voted into

power says something about how people

felt with the previous administration,

which was a Democratic administration.

What responsibility does the Democratic

Party have for getting the country to a

place where they thought Democrats

weren't the solution?

Because that's kind of I think a lot of

people thought that's just like more of

the same. Yeah.

Maybe

people are getting increasingly I think

across the Western world by the looks of

it increasingly tired with like

politicians

saying these like cute words and like

we're going to help the working people

and blah blah blah blah and being very

polished and then you see this these

other figures that have come in and said

I'm not a politician. Yeah. And as you

say, I'm going to burn it down. And for

some reason people are choosing that.

>> Yeah. Even though when they do usually

that person makes it worse and so that's

why the president's unpopular. But the

president is unpopular. To your point,

that doesn't mean people are

automatically going to trust Democrats.

>> Yeah.

>> Right? Uh so I mean the answer to your

question is yes, Democrats have a

responsibility

to present something that is better not

just better than now, but it's got to be

better than before. The fact remains a

lot of these results have unfolded on

you know, kind of regardless of who's in

power.

>> Are you going to run to be president in

2028?

>> I don't know. Um

I would have to believe and this is how

I've approached every every time I've

decided to run for office.

It's

looking at everything that the office

seems like it needs

not just generally but in that moment.

And then looking at what I bring to the

table and asking myself, okay, am I

bringing something that's different

enough from what others are bringing

and that fits like that moment. Like

that's what led me to run for mayor

which is a pretty unlikely move in in

South Bend, Indiana when I was in my

20s.

It's what led me to run for president

when I did almost eight years ago now.

>> Oh, you're in what's here? Secretary. Um

you said politics often favors someone

who is completely different to the

current leader.

And that you could not be more different

from Trump.

I quote, an intellectual young

gay mayor from the Midwest.

You know, Amazon have this really

interesting thing when they hire people

um which we've copied. They every time

you meet someone you have to vote one of

four things. You either vote strongly

not inclined,

not inclined,

inclined,

and strongly inclined. So, you've got

four options when you interview someone.

We do the same in our company now. We

took it from them. And the whole idea

here is to prevent people from sitting

on the fence, which is like what is your

inclination?

So, if I presented you with those four

options as it relates to you running for

president in 2020 as things stand, and

this is just a balance of probability,

are you inclined,

not inclined, strongly not inclined,

strongly inclined?

>> Um

>> On these podcasts, nobody ever tells the

bloody truth. This is why it's difficult

sometimes to interview politicians, cuz

we all have an inclination, right?

>> Yeah, I mean, one of the reasons why I

hesitate to to talk in those terms is

because you know that like people are

going to run with it and it'll be this

like news of the day thing and it'll,

you know, it'll kind of dominate the

next couple of days when you're trying

to talk about something else. But

>> Does the truth just not matter more

though than the consequence of the truth

in this regard?

>> Yeah, but the truth about like what you

know, what I'm maybe going to do like

there's a there's a level of like not

even being certain

some of the things I'll have to weigh.

Like before having made a decision like

this before,

I can tell you that there's

the read

>> I need to the inclination.

>> Like I'm I'm obviously not to one end or

the other.

>> Yeah, okay. So, you're not those two.

>> I think I'm

like more inclined than not.

>> Okay. Then

I appreciate

>> Um

But there's so much we don't know.

There's so much I don't even know about

what's going to happen this year, let

alone you know, what we need to know

later.

Um

And this is not

you know, the weight of a decision like

that. And I don't just mean like the

national political weight, but just like

the weight of a decision to run for

office for you and your family,

which frankly I did not fully understand

but until I had kids. Uh that's changed

all of my equations.

>> Mhm.

>> [clears throat]

>> Um it it's just something that you

really sit with and take seriously. At

least you you should.

>> One of the big things that people are

talking about at this moment in time is

the Iran war. Yeah. And this feeds into

some of the points we were touching on

around promises kept and not kept.

What is going on

in plain terms? Cuz Americans are

getting lots of messages. We've

destroyed everything in Iran, the

military bases are all gone, and then

we're back at war and American lives

have have been taken.

>> Right.

>> Can you help us see through all of this?

>> I think what's going on is the president

has painted himself and the country into

a corner.

There was a a moment where it seemed to

him that he was better off politically

if we were at war.

Even though he promised that we wouldn't

be, even though a lot of his supporters

didn't want the war, and certainly the

the American people as a whole don't

want it. But, he was under a lot of heat

over cost of living,

over the Epstein files, which was

dominating the conversation every day,

being proven to be as connected to an

infamous pedophile

as Jeffrey Epstein, and then doing

everything he could to cover up

disclosures about it, right? This is

something that obviously was something

that was creating a ton of heat on the

president. Meanwhile, there's a lot of

people in his ear every day,

and some of them, from American

politicians to people around the world,

would really like to see him go to war.

>> Why?

>> Well, it's kind of the tradition of the

Republican Party is to generally be more

pro-war, right? That's I mean, that you

know, my coming of age was at the time

of the Iraq war.

In fact, a big part of what kind of

pulled me fully into politics was being

opposed to the Iraq war.

>> One of the things that a lot of people

won't know about you is that you did

actually go and serve

your country. I got some photos of you

here serving. And I think got your

parents I think post Afghanistan as

well.

>> Yeah, so the day I got back.

>> I just think it's important for people

to know that you can speak to this quite

accurately having served your country.

>> Yeah, man. I know what it feels like to

get on a

gray tail airplane that's taking you

into a war zone and and wondering what's

waiting for you there. Where we are now

is a lot of troops are in that

situation. They're in harm's way.

And

the president doesn't seem to have a

plan. He can't explain why we're there.

He's said it's for regime change. He's

said it's for unconditional surrender.

He's said that it's to get deal with

their nuclear program, but last year he

said they obliterated the nuclear

program.

And so it

does a lot of reasons to suspect that

we're just at war cuz he wanted us to

be.

And now he can't figure out how to get

us out of it.

And it appears that any way forward

leaves us worse off

than we were before the war.

Prices are higher.

Troops have lost their lives.

And it seems like the least bad options

still involve Iran having more control

over the Strait of Hormuz than they were

asserting. But here we go. Most

Americans shouldn't have to be worrying

about the Strait of Hormuz. They got

enough to worry about.

And a year ago we weren't. That was not

a problem. Whatever was going on in the

Strait of Hormuz did not feel like it

was a problem.

You know, where I live in Michigan. And

now it is.

>> Why though? What What was the like

domino effect that caused him to go,

"You know what?

I think we can just go in there,

decapitate the leader

>> Yeah.

>> and and that's victory."

>> Obviously this is a question for the

president, but honestly

I don't fully understand why they would

do something like this, especially

because we know

like you didn't have to be like an

expert in international affairs and

security studies to know

if we actually attacked Iran

they were going to shut down the Strait

and try to the world economy.

The It was literally the most obvious

next thing that could happen.

And yet it seems like

he either didn't understand or didn't

believe. Surely he was told this. We

know in fact it's been reported that he

was told this.

And he did it anyway.

So, how does that happen? I mean, I have

long given up trying to see into the

mind of this president.

>> Dare I say, if you are president in

2028, this could be your responsibility

to resolve.

>> I mean,

I really hope that the next president

isn't facing this war dragging on into

2029, but I mean, yeah, one thing we

have learned is that it is harder to

stop a war than it is to start one,

which is why if you have any other

reasonable choice, you don't start one.

>> So, what are you going to do if you are

president?

>> Look, the next president will face a

complicated, violent,

and challenging Middle East and world

map, no matter what.

And the next president's going to have

to deal with that

while dealing with a more assertive

China,

and a

dramatically, swiftly evolving security

landscape, partly because of things like

AI.

>> Mhm.

>> But just as you and I are sitting here

now, there's a lot of headlines about a

big safety issue created by an AI model

that was supposed to not even be able to

access the internet, managing to get

itself on the internet and hack into

another company to get the answers to a

test that it was told to solve, right?

And that's as of today

in 2026. The things that could be going

on by 2029

are surely going to change

both what we're up against and what's

possible.

Look, in the same way that there was a

nuclear hotline between Washington and

Moscow,

because it turns out

even while at each other's throats in a

lot of ways, one thing that

Americans and Soviets didn't want was to

incinerate the planet.

>> Mhm.

>> There's going to have to be some way for

countries that do not trust each other

on things like making sure AI doesn't

lead to bio weapons being made by rogue

actors or even individual actors.

Making sure that it doesn't lead to

nuclear proliferation or any number of

other problems, right? That could

happen. So, the security picture I think

will be more challenging for the next

president than it's been for

any president since the Cold War.

>> So, what kind of president in terms of

mentality or character experience do you

think can meet those challenges?

>> Well, you need somebody who's deliberate

and decisive.

Uh those two things sometimes are in

tension because deliberation means you

slow down, you look at what's going on,

and you think about it.

>> Mhm.

>> But, decisive doesn't mean that you

immediately make a call every time a

question is put to you. It does mean

that you once you feel like you've got

enough information,

you make a decision, you own the

consequences of that decision, you move

on to the next decision.

And I think in terms of kind of

character and style, we're going to need

both of those things. We're going to

need wisdom, we're going to need

judgment.

And we're going to need judgment that is

not twisted or changed or colored or um

biased

based on

corrupt reasons. And the reason I

mention that is because right now

we've got for the first time ever out of

all of our presidents

uh

a president whose family is making

billions of dollars

from things that are sometimes directly

connected to the decision

of a foreign government. Right? Uh there

was one government in the Middle East

that put hundreds of millions of dollars

into the family crypto fund of this

president.

You got Saudi Arabia investing in the

first family's business interests to the

tune of I believe a couple of billion

dollars for the president's son-in-law,

right?

And we just can't afford with everything

that's on the line right now

to have the next president be

someone who could remotely be influenced

by those kinds of considerations given

everything that's on the line for the

American people and for American

security.

>> When you look at that the picture um in

Iran, it's all well and good saying we

have to uh we have to get out of there,

but how?

>> No, the only good way to do it is to not

be there in the first place. Yes, it's

too late for that. And so, as is often

the case in difficult decisions that

executives face, it will be finding the

least bad combination of options, which

probably means engaging a lot of other

countries, a lot of regional partners,

uh a lot of allies. Now again, the next

president will be doing this at a big

disadvantage

because

so many relationships with our allies

have been burned.

It turns out you you build relationships

with allies not just out of friendliness

or cuz it's neat.

You do it cuz you're going to need each

other someday. And the worse something

is, the more difficult a problem. It's

just like life.

You know, the times I'm quickest to call

a friend are the times when I'm hurting

the most or feel like I I I need help

the most. Same is true for countries.

The tougher your situation, the more you

got to have friends you can count on. We

are in a very tough situation in Iran.

We will be for a long time. We need our

friends.

>> Cuz you know, you're dealing with a lot

of um dare I say very large ego leaders

around the world.

You got your Putins. I don't even know

who's running around at the moment. Then

you've got China.

Um

does it need a leader with a ego of the

same size?

You cuz I sometimes I think like I I I

think crazy people kind of respect crazy

people.

You know, in which way?

>> I think a lot of different ways to deal

with people like that.

But I think the the most useful is to

earn a level of credibility.

And when we're talking with allies, a

level of trust.

When you're talking with adversaries,

it's maybe not the same thing as trust,

but it is credibility. That when you say

you're going to do something or you seem

like you're going to do something,

you're going to do it.

It means less energy gets wasted on

guesswork.

And it means you have just a little more

stability. I think something all of us

are looking for in the world right now

is for it to just be a little more

stable.

And

by the way, the way to do that is not to

like rewind and imagine that we can make

the world look the way it looked in

the '90s or the '50s. It's not like

that. We're going to have to find new

ways to create a stable future.

But

look, there there are as many different

kinds of personalities in world leaders

and presidents as there are, you know,

in humanity in general. But it'll need

to be somebody who, like I said, is

deliberate and decisive, tough and fair,

and credible.

>> Yeah, the the the Iran situation is

particularly

particularly uncertain for many reasons.

In part because I don't know who the

leadership there is anymore. In part

because they it seems like they will now

control the Strait of Hormuz, or at

least use it as leverage, really

respective of what outcome takes place.

And in part because you still have this

nuclear threat.

>> Yeah.

>> Um but they are probably now more

motivated to develop nuclear weapons

than they probably were under Obama when

he signed that

that agreement with them.

>> Yes, they may have less capacity, but

they certainly have more motivation at

this point.

>> Would you let them develop nuclear

weapons if you were president?

>> No. They should not be allowed to have

nuclear weapons. Uh a nuclear-armed

Iran, I mean, look at the malevolent

activities that they already have

pursued with conventional means,

terrorist groups around the region,

around the world. Like this is not a

regime,

certainly not in its current form or

anything resembling its current form,

that could ever be trusted with nuclear

weapons. No.

Different presidents, each of the last

few presidents, had a way of making sure

that that never happened.

The best way to do that was through

diplomacy. That was the whole point of

the Obama deal.

The first Trump administration tore up

the Obama deal,

but couldn't get a better deal. And

then, when the Biden administration was

trying to get a better deal.

It was very hard to work across the

table to get the Iranians to negotiate

because they remembered that it was

Trump who tore up the Obama deal, right?

It's part of what I mean when I talk

about credibility. It doesn't mean that

people across the table have to like

you.

It means they have to have some sense

that it's at least worth dealing with

you, right?

And there's not a lot of that given that

kind of instability, that pattern that

we face. You know, I followed American

politics I think since I was about 10.

One of the things I've never heard

mentioned so much in politics is

Israel. Mhm. It appears to me as a

objective observer that the subject of

Israel is now so central to politics.

>> Yeah.

>> Why?

What's going on with the the US's

relationship with Israel and the public

sentiment towards Israel?

>> Well, it's getting a lot of attention

because many very important things are

at stake and they've been put into

conflict with each other.

Right.

And each of those things is a valid

thing, at least in my opinion. And then

I'll name three. One, which has become

very challenging for many Jewish

Americans, is the safety of Jews around

the world and in America.

Theoretically, that could be separated

from what's happening in Israel and

Palestine. But in the real world,

there's been a relationship

between between what's going on there

and an explosion in anti-Semitism that

has many American Jewish families afraid

for their safety. Another thing

is the

safety and dignity of Palestinian people

who in Gaza, but not only in Gaza,

have been subjected to horrific violence

and in my opinion, war crimes.

And alongside that,

there is the safety and dignity of

people in Israel

who we have a security relationship with

as a country and have since the since

the Jewish state of Israel was founded.

The future and survival of Israel as a

Jewish state.

And

a country that is still responding to

the worst day of the most violence

against Jews since the Holocaust.

Those three things, I believe in

principle

can be honored at the same time. In

fact, I believe in principle they have

to be honored at the same time.

>> Is that what Netanyahu wants?

>> No. I don't think he is remotely

interested in

the safety and dignity and security of

Palestinian people. I think he believes

that uh he would be better off if they

didn't exist.

Or at the very least, he doesn't want

them around, right? And so we see a

policy which

obviously has led to what it did in

Gaza, but also in the West Bank

which gets less attention, maybe because

there's been

fewer deaths there, but uh

pretty horrific behavior and conduct and

violence

from settlers

that is part of a project of making it

impossible for there to be a

secure, viable Palestinian state.

>> So what does Netanyahu want in the

region?

>> Well, I don't know that I'm much more

capable of seeing into the mind of

Netanyahu than I am seeing into the mind

of Trump, but looking at his choices,

it seems that he wants to be able to

assert

domination of

uh any other regional player.

And something that is beyond just

security and safety for the people of

Israel, which is something that I

believe in and something I think is hard

to argue with,

but something else, which is a

project of

taking over what is called Greater

Israel uh in his ideology, in his

worldview.

>> Greater Israel, yeah, Eretz Israel.

>> Which is a vision that does not have a

lot of room for Palestinians

anywhere between the river and the sea.

He won't say it in those terms,

but

if you look at his actions,

it is hard to believe that he is

comfortable with anything less.

>> What's your take on how Trump has

treated Netanyahu in that relationship?

Is that the relationship you would have

had?

>> It's not the relationship I would have.

Um I think like all things with Trump,

it's pretty transactional. It's

instrumental. It's what's in it for me.

And I think part of how that has

developed into a frenemy relationship

now is that

you know, the relationship that maybe

served him well politically is not so

good for him now because among other

things, Netanyahu has an interest in a

continued US presence in an Iran war

that has gone from being something Trump

would thought would be politically

useful for Trump to something that is

politically dangerous for Trump.

>> How How do you think this plays out,

Secretary

What what do you think happens? You

know, I said there I sort of

hypothesized that by 2028 this will

still be dragging on because from my

perspective, you're either going to kind

of lie to the American public and say

that and declare some kind of victory,

>> Hm.

>> or you're going to stay in there. There

I can't actually see a third option

personally. So, how how do you imagine

this playing out?

>> It's going to be hard to get out of

Iran. Like we just cannot

First of all, the president has already

backpedaled a lot, even though he would

never admit it,

on what we're there to do. Cuz he said

unconditional surrender, that's not

happening. He said regime change, regime

hasn't changed. We went from Ayatollah

Khamenei to Ayatollah Khamenei Jr. At

least on paper. Who knows if the guy's

alive, but the regime is alive. But the

regime's entire ideology is based on

hating the United States, right? And now

that the United States has done this,

hard to believe that's going to change.

There will have to be an exit that is

very unlikely to be the unconditional

surrender that Trump promised.

But it has to be something that is

tolerable to this country, to our

country, to Americans, which includes

passage through the Straits of Hormuz.

And the only way to do that, I think,

is with a lot of international partners

who want the same thing to happen.

Remember, anyone who is to Iran is

feeling more economic pain even than we

are from what's happening in the

Straits.

>> China and

>> Yes, because East Asia relies on oil and

and goods that go through there more.

>> Mhm.

>> So, I think what you're going to have to

have is a regional and international

partnership

that

ensures something at least resembling

free passage of goods and security

without the US sending troops in there

or continuing to be a war. It's it's

it's seems like the only way, but it's

unquestionably worse than where we were

a year ago before the war started.

>> Did you hear recently that Trump

mentioned, I think it was at the G7

summit, we run out of reserves about 4

weeks. You know, there are reserves all

over the world and we would really run

out and there'll be time when we

wouldn't be able to get it. It would be

bedlam. And he made these comments last

month, 2026 at the G7 summit, in regards

to the amount of oil the United States

have left in the reserves. He was I

think he was framing it around why he

signed this memorandum of understanding,

this agreement with them. But, you know,

in the last week we've gone back to war

in the Strait of Hormuz appears to be

closed again.

>> Right.

>> So, when we think about oil reserves and

how that impacts ordinary Americans and

what might be around the corner. Like,

there's a real pressure here

to find a solution and to find a quick

>> Yes, I mean, look, this is why he signed

an MOU

that was frankly more on Iranian terms

than American terms. I mean, the

ceasefire, so-called ceasefire,

emerged from a deal that was really us

responding to what Iran came up with,

not vice versa. Again, he said he was

out for regime change and unconditional

surrender. We're not even talking about

that anymore. We're nowhere near that.

And now we have is a set of conditions

it's us redlining their texts, not the

other way around, right? And then he's

trying to figure out how do I go out and

sell that? And so he points out

something that is true. Sometimes he

tells the truth when it serves him. And

when he was trying to explain why he

backpedaled on his war goals,

the way he explained it was by admitting

that there was a level of economic

vulnerability

that was unleashed by closing the

strait, which is what Iran did to

respond to the US attacks, right?

But the problem is that ceasefire is not

happening, at least not as you and I are

sitting here right now.

Still a hard thing for them to admit.

You know, in the same way that

he took out a Sharpie to modify a

hurricane map rather than acknowledge

that he was mistaken about some detail

uh during a national disaster once.

His administration deleted four names

from the ranks of those killed in action

in this conflict

because they were afraid that listing

their names

would contradict him saying that we had

a ceasefire.

>> Really?

>> Yeah.

At least that's the only explanation I

can think of.

The crazy thing is all of us know

there's a war. We've even had moments,

remember I think it was Secretary Rubio

said in Congress

where there's

punishment for lying. You know, you're

supposed to lie to Congress.

He said the war's over.

We all know the war's not over.

>> Are they stuck?

Cuz they seem a bit stuck to me. I was

watching Hegseth in in front of I think

it was Congress. Yeah, it was Congress

the other day and they're just repeating

his quotes back to him over and over and

over and over again.

>> Yeah, cuz how's he supposed to explain

that we're in a war that supposedly we

already won?

That we're not getting any of the things

that were supposedly worth going to war

over.

And that the bill for this keeps getting

bigger in terms of tax dollars. I think

his latest number was 37 and a half

billion dollars.

It's our money, all of us as American

taxpayers.

And of course the cost in lives.

And the cost in terms of everything in

America starting with gas being more

expensive. They don't want to be

explaining that, right?

But they don't have a great way out

either.

And

they're not prepared to lead us to a

better place cuz they don't even know

what it looks like.

>> Is there anything you respect about

Trump?

>> Sure.

Um

I think he has been able to

create the impression

of a bias for action.

And I think he gets a lot of credit for

that. I think in general and especially

in government

there's a lot of hand ringing. Like, oh,

we got to have a 19-step process to get

all these things exactly. I saw this

during my four years trying to get stuff

built in this country

as Secretary of Transportation that

there were so many hoops and so much red

tape.

And he comes in and he says like, don't

not do that. We're just going to do

this. Yeah.

Often what he's doing turns out to be

illegal and it gets reversed. And

obviously I think most of his policies

are probably destructive. But I I think

you have to respect the effect that he

has had

with that kind of bias toward just doing

something. And I think we could learn a

bit from that.

>> Is that a case for less politicians in

power and more entrepreneurs?

>> Look, I I think he's a politician

through and through. I think that on

some level

every CEO is a politician.

Every general is a politician. Every

bishop is a politician. You just reach a

certain level

where part of what you're doing, if

you're being honest with yourself, is

is what is considered politics. Which by

the way, I don't mean it in a pejorative

way. I mean it's

organizing people's choices

loyalties

and organizing power in order to get

things done.

>> I think the difference I I I understand

what you're saying. I think the

difference especially with founders is

um founders got from

started at zero and got somewhere

because

they had to be like highly

have a high bias to action.

>> Yes.

>> Believe that walls were made of paper

and be disruptive in some I mean that

the reason they were successful is

because of disruption.

>> Yeah, the best thing about founders is

they see something that could be

>> Yeah.

>> and the way things are just doesn't even

bother them.

>> They just see that vision and they just

go after it and they blow through every

wall between them

>> Yeah. and getting it done.

>> That's the best thing about founders.

The worst thing about founders if from a

political perspective is that sometimes

because they were so good at one thing,

like uniquely sometimes world

historically good at one thing,

they imagine that they're good at

everything.

>> Yeah.

>> Now, that's not just a problem with

founders, that's probably lots of smart

people.

>> Yeah.

>> But politics requires you to be a little

bit humble about how much you don't know

and surround yourself by people who are

smarter than you at whatever it is

they're in charge of and not imagine

that you've got all the answers.

>> Founders hate bureaucracy.

>> Yeah.

>> This is why they often

>> I mean look, I'm pretty impatient with

bureaucracy, too. Like I I believe in

the idea of a policy entrepreneur who

can recognize

here's a problem, here's a whole bunch

of solutions and here's a window of

opportunity and let's just like line it

all up and make it happen.

>> Also, the laws exist in order to protect

people.

And when we're talking about

bureaucracy, like we're really talking

about laws. Now, sometimes those laws

need to be changed, simplified, stripped

down to the most important things. I

learned this very early on in my time in

office where sometimes I was trying to

get something done as a policy

entrepreneur and somebody tapped the

brakes on me and used a bureaucracy to

do it. You know, sometimes they were

right. Sometimes

they made me better, they made me

sharpen what I was trying to do

by fighting me.

>> The other issue you mentioned a second

ago that I think is going to be really

pertinent over the next 24 months that

is increasing in interest amongst

Americans. I'd say especially young

Americans that are thinking about

getting a job and going into the

workforce is the subject of artificial

intelligence.

>> Uh-huh.

>> Talked to a lot of AI experts on my show

over the last couple of years and I've

also reflected a lot on the different

types of comments that the CEOs of the

big AI companies have made through time

and how those quotes have changed.

>> Mhm.

>> Um if you go back couple of years, it

was doom and gloom.

>> Uh-huh.

>> Um but now that they are running

trillion-dollar companies, the quotes

seem to be a bit more optimistic all of

a sudden.

>> Huh.

>> One thing that I that I think they do

agree on is that there's going to be

significant job disruption, especially

if you look at some of Anthropic's

reports,

>> Yeah.

>> which are the maker of Claude. They

already show that entry-level positions

are at risk first, especially

entry-level knowledge jobs.

>> Huh.

>> And people are scared. First time I I

saw that um Eric Schmidt's speech where

the the crowd the college

audience are booing every time he says

the word AI.

>> Yeah.

>> This is presumably going to accelerate

this sentiment towards AI.

And in part because people are going to

find it harder to get jobs and

they're going to experience more

more of AI sort of permeating through

their life.

>> Right.

>> How do you feel about all of this? What

is the What is the balance of of AI,

good, bad, ugly, risks?

>> I think it can be all of those things

and we've got some decisions to make

about where AI goes.

And the simplest way I put it is this.

Either we're looking at a future where

because of AI we have

a shorter work week

and more money in our pocket.

Or we're looking at a future where there

is even more extreme concentration of

wealth and power in this country than

we've already got.

And which way it goes, which of those

things happen, it's actually not

something that's in the technology. It's

not a tech question.

It's a policy choice.

It's about whether we make sure these

technologies

unfold

in a way that is empowering for families

and workers and college graduates and

manage all of the harms that could come

from it.

Every technology brings good and bad

things. And we've certainly seen that

with digital technology. We've seen it

with social media. We've seen it with

the internet itself. Good and bad things

always.

AI has incredible capabilities.

I think a lot about uh something that's

not usually in the top 10 thing people

talk about, but it's self-driving

vehicles. Easy to be freaked out by

them.

They actually have enormous potential to

save lives. That's just one example of

how we could be better off if we

responsibly develop these technologies.

But if we don't,

I'll tell you what I think could happen.

And I come at this based on where I grew

up, right? I'm from the industrial

Midwest, northern Indiana, a place

dominated by the auto industry.

And starting in the '60s, but definitely

in the '90s when I was growing up in the

early 2000s, there was a huge amount of

job loss because the economy was

changing.

What happened was there were a whole lot

of people who

didn't just lose their jobs. Often they

would lose their jobs, maybe find

another job, maybe be trained to find a

new career even,

but never recovered their sense of

identity.

You're an auto worker, you're in a tool

and die shop, and it's your your whole

sense of belonging revolves around your

job.

Not just your paycheck. It's

how your spouses know each other from

the union picnic. It's it's it's how

you're sponsoring Little League. It's

what you explain, you know, at least in

the US.

We don't even say like what's your job.

We say what do you do, right? What we

mean is what do you do professionally,

but we say what do you do basically as a

way of saying who are you.

And that's true for blue-collar workers.

That's even more true

for white-collar workers.

And so I think that there is a

generation of workers who are about to

have

their

identity, not just their job, their

identity,

disrupted. Whether we can come up with

new sources or better sources of

belonging

than what your job is

could decide everything about what it

feels like and is like to live in this

country within the next few years.

>> And I just think about what you said

there about growing up in the Midwest.

Um

people working in the auto industry

making cars. And you also used the

example of full self-driving vehicles

being a net positive. But when I put

those two things together, I thought,

"Okay, so the people in the factories

are at risk of being replaced by

robotics now." Huge acceleration in

robotics, both humanoid but just

generally intelligent machines, which is

right here. It's not theoretical. It's

not sci-fi anymore. They're building

them right now. And Sam Altman said, "On

the current trajectory, we believe we

may only be a couple of years away from

early versions of true

superintelligence. If we are right, by

the end of 2028 more of the world's

intellectual capacity could reside in

inside of a data center than outside of

them." Dario, who's also the founder of

Anthropic, said,

"If the exponential continues, then it

cannot possibly be more than a few years

before AI is better than humans at

essentially everything." And the quotes

go on and on and on. Dennis from Google

said, "We're only a few years, maybe

within a decade, away from systems that

have general human-level intelligence

across the board." And Elon Musk in an

interview this week talked about how

with robots being physical and

disruption and AI being intellectual

disruption, you now have the perfect

combination where work will become a

choice. What does that mean for those

people in the Midwest? Because Dara, the

CEO of Uber, sat there in front of me

and said the 9 million drivers he had

would be replaced.

And but also now you if I think about

the production line, the people making

the cars as well, theoretically could be

at risk. There's always going to be

something

worth doing with our time.

We need to arrange an economy that

rewards things that are worth doing with

our time, especially things that only

people can do.

Some of that is creative work.

Some of that is very human work like

caregiving. I'm thinking about this more

and more because I belong to this

sandwich generation that's taking care

of kids and aging parents at the same

time.

But whether those kinds of things are

rewarded or not is what I worry about. I

mean, imagine a a world where

just for the sake of imagination

you've got a machine that can make more

and more things. It's like the

replicator from Star Trek. You know, I

love Star Trek as a kid. Captain Picard

goes up to it and he just says like,

"Give me a cup of tea, Earl Grey, hot."

And like,

it happens. Right? Imagine a

some combination of artificial

intelligence and robotics

that

leads to factories where you can kind of

do that.

Over time you need fewer and fewer

people in them.

And that means that

less and less in the economy depends on

the wages that those workers can command

because you need fewer of them.

That means more and more is going to

depend on well, who actually owns

the machine.

By which I mean both the intellectual

property, the AI

and the the physical plant, right?

And that's where we've got to make sure

that the American people own enough of

this or at least to own enough of the

value that's being created

that people's needs can be met.

>> How?

>> Well, there's a lot of ways you can do

it. Uh I think some version of a

dividend makes sense. What I mean by

that is there's some public share.

We can argue about whether it should

come with like a vote like being on a

board or whether it's kind of closer to

a tax. By the way, I think this is also

fair game. I mean, these things trained

on data that all of us put in the world

for free.

These things are based on the internet,

which was created by the American

taxpayer basically free of charge in the

1960s when DARPA uh the Defense Advanced

Research Projects Agency created what

became the internet.

And and now it's time to return more of

that to the American people. If you do

that, we really could have a shorter

work week and more money in our pocket.

But there's a big butt here, which is

it hasn't always worked out that way

with labor-saving technology. 100 years

ago, the economist John Maynard Keynes

wrote

an essay called Economic Possibilities

for Our Grandchildren. He wrote this in

1930, and it was all about what the

world would be like 100 years from then,

so 2030.

And he predicts that the productivity of

our economy

because of automation, technology, all

these things

will go up something like five to

eightfold.

And because of that

really, we're not going to have to work

more than 10 or 15 hours a week.

And so far, we are on track to almost

perfectly match his prediction about

productivity.

But we're nowhere close to that. If

anything, we're working more

right now. So, how does that happen?

Well, it turns out that it has to do

with policy choices about what is or

isn't a good use of time.

And it has to do with social choices,

too. Right? I mean, one question I think

about a lot is

if we go into the best possible

scenario, we get the policy choices

right, we make sure the companies act

right. This is saying a lot, but imagine

that we do.

And we do in fact have, you know, most

of us have a shorter workweek

and more money in our pocket.

How do we know we're going to use our

time well?

Because in many ways, I think many of us

are aching to have more time to use

well. I know, just doing my thing, I

wish I had more time with my kids. This

is always the lament of a politician,

but like anybody in an intense job

wishes they had more time with people

they love.

Well, you know, also a lot of our time

right now is being absorbed by

right? Scrolling.

Things where you spend an hour doing it,

and an hour later

nothing sticks. It's exactly as if you

hadn't. You regret Put your hour Yeah,

or you feel worse, but the hour is gone.

So, we need to figure out how to also be

be stewards of our own time. These, by

the way, are not

just not This This sounds like a very

21st century problem, and in one way it

is. But, you know, the Stoic philosopher

Seneca, the Roman philosophers, writing

about this kind of stuff more than 2,000

years ago, talking about how we are so

careful about who can get our money.

And and and are very up in arms if

anybody looks like they're cheating us

or taking our money.

But, then our time, which is the one

thing where we have every reason to be

uh even more stingy about it than money,

cuz you can get more money, but you

can't get more time in your life,

we let it get wasted in all kinds of

ways.

>> Bernie has this proposal where he

believes we should terminate I was

reading about, you know, you discovering

Bernie I believe in college, right?

Wasn't it you

>> High school, actually.

>> In high school. He has a proposal where

we should take 50% of the stock of these

AI companies, gives the general public

50% ownership and board voting seats to

block job-killing decisions, and

redistribute AI profits directly to

citizens for health care, education, and

housing.

Viable proposal?

>> Part of that overlaps with what I'm

talking about. I do think a public share

of the profits, which could mean a

public share of the ownership, can make

sense. And again, for reasons that I

shared earlier, I I think that would be

fair. I do think we need to weigh

whether the right way to make sure the

public has a say in how these companies

behave is to be on the board

>> Mhm.

>> versus

just have some rules to make sure that

the rules are such that the companies

can do what they do best, create value,

innovate,

but they can't do it in a way that hurts

people, which is generally how

regulation's supposed to work. I mean, I

say this having been in the cabinet of

the Department of Transportation, where

our job was to

regulate companies. So, what that meant

was we have something like the FAA,

right? The Federal Aviation

Administration.

You know, it doesn't create aircraft, it

doesn't invent

uh aviation technology. Uh what it does

is it sets a very elaborate set of rules

to make sure that aviation is safe.

And the consequence of that is actually

an incredible unsung civilizational

achievement. And just in the time I was

Secretary of Transportation, we had 4

billion people get on an airplane. 4

billion passenger airplane minutes on

commercial airplanes. The number of

fatalities was zero.

Zero out of 4 billion.

>> Crazy.

>> There are very few things you can do in

life. I mean, all the way down to like

crossing the street or eating a

cheeseburger.

>> Right.

>> They would have a zero to 4 billion

fatality rate. So, that's an amazing

achievement that happened because

there was is the right framework with

technology and rules. Where you have a

lot of innovation. I mean, the aviation

aerospace sector is known to be very

innovative. But, also you make sure it's

safe.

And it's worth considering that when

we're saying, "Okay, how do we make sure

that these AI technologies develop so

that we can have safer vehicles or you

can get a better

uh uh screening of a

uh of a radiology scan for for cancer or

all any of these other things all the

way down to like, you know, these

amazing ideas about curing cancer,

figuring out nuclear fusion.

Which are urgently important things to

do.

>> Mhm.

>> Without having the kind of AI equivalent

of a plane crash.

>> I've got 60 seconds and I'm going to

show you how much I can get done because

of our sponsor called Whisper Flow. And

for those of you that don't know what it

is, it's a business I invested in that

turns your speech into text in any app

or device. I'm going to post into our

Slack channel which rewards whichever

team member conducted the most

experiments this week. Hi everyone. Here

is this week's experiment of the week.

Congratulations to the Diary of a CEO

trailer team, which is Ant, Liv, Dom,

and Cam. You guys [clears throat] have

won.

Okay, now I'm going to open Gmail. So,

here is one of our founders on an email

chain that I want to connect my team

with. All I have to say is, "Add my

team's emails." And Whisper will do

exactly that. Now, a quick message to

Juan who does my schedule every single

week. "Hey Juan, can I record on

Wednesday at 2:00 p.m. Actually, no. Do

you know what? Let's record it 3:00 p.m.

on Wednesday.

WhisperFlow is four times faster than

typing, and it is incredibly easy to

use. So, if you want to give it a go,

all you have to do is head to

whisperflow.ai/steven

to download it today.

I want to speak to the business owners

listening and watching right now. I know

what it's like to be personally

responsible for every decision. I

founded my first company at 21 years

old, and honestly, the pressure can be

immense. It's the kind of mental load

that takes its toll below the surface. I

recently did some tests through our

sponsor, Function, which got me thinking

about that invisible impact. I found

that I had low levels of omega-3s. I had

deficient levels of vitamin D, probably

because I sit inside this dark room all

day, and that has totally changed how I

construct my day going forward. I would

get up in the morning, and the first

thing I now do is I go for a walk

outside in the sunshine, in part to help

my vitamin D levels increase, but also

because it helps to reset my circadian

rhythm. With Function, you can check

your brain health, your aging, your

stress, and so much more. They provide

over 160 lab tests for what is equal to

a dollar a day, and member pricing on

advanced imaging. Head to

functionhealth.com/doac

to join, and use code doac25

for a $25 credit.

There's There's also just a broader

debate, which I guess in some ways

connected to this at the moment in

America, but actually also across the

Western world. It's happening in the UK

as well.

Around capitalism, socialism,

and um I think a lot of it's driven by

the inequality Yeah. that people are

experiencing. And if my if my memory is

true,

the US has more extreme inequality. It

has more growth GDP growth, but it has

more extreme inequality than a country

like the United Kingdom.

>> Yeah.

>> Um so, socialism is often considered to

be the solution to this inequality.

Mamdani's now the mayor of um New York,

and we're seeing, you know, in the UK,

socialist parties are are becoming more

and more popular. The idea of taxing the

rich is becoming very popular. Big

debate that actually this week in the UK

is,

should we implement a wealth tax on

people who have wealth above 10 million?

>> Mhm.

>> Keen to get your perspective on this.

Yeah. Is socialism, is wealth tax is the

right solution to some of these

problems, some of the inequality?

>> Look, I find socialism is a word that

means less and less the more people use

it. It gets thrown around as a label and

it means different things to different

people. And and I'll I'll I'll take your

example

uh, to illustrate this.

You know, higher taxes for very wealthy

people is an idea that

is broadly popular.

I think it's the right thing to do.

And importantly,

we have a tradition of doing that

already in the United States.

Some of the highest tax There was a

point where the income tax

for the wealthiest tax bracket in the

country

was around 90% in the United States. I'm

not saying we need to go back to that.

I'm just saying

then that was happening in the '40s and

'50s and '60s

when the Cold War was going on and the

US represented capitalism against

communism or some would put socialism

would lump it in with that, right? So,

there is a tradition of the US being a

fully capitalist country

and also doing a better job of heading

off this inequality. And the point of

dealing with the inequality wasn't to

punish the wealthy, it was to make sure

that that level of wealth didn't go off

the rails and that it didn't turn into a

level of political power

that could bring down the whole system.

Which, by the way, is the problem I

think we're facing now. First of all,

our tax system

taxes wealth less than it taxes work.

That's a problem. That's an even bigger

problem now that AI is coming for jobs

because there's basically a thumb on the

scale, a subsidy in effect, from the US

government saying

giving you a little more reason to

automate a job than you otherwise would

because things like capital gains taxes

are coming in lower than things like

income taxes. Now, wealth tax, which is

a property tax by another name,

can be part of the menu of taxes you

have to get enough revenue

and to make sure that outcomes are fair.

You can argue about where to draw the

line. I think some people have proposals

that set it too high. You can also argue

about whether you have to have a wealth

tax or whether you can get the job done

with capital gains and income and other

taxes.

>> But what we know right now

is that our system is so out of whack

that if you are a multi-billionaire

you probably pay a lower percentage of

what you make

in taxes than if you're a school teacher

or a firefighter. We even in percentage

terms, generally tax billionaires less

than we tax millionaires

because again of this system that kind

of favors wealth. So, the more you have

uh the more you make and the less it's

taxed.

Surely we can do better than that.

>> So, you supportive of wealth taxes? And

I'm defining that as

um not taxing income, but looking at the

net worth of somebody and taking a

percentage of their net worth.

>> Yeah, again, to me that's just a

variation on the idea of a property tax.

I think it's legitimate. There are some

problems with doing it uh

in in practical terms.

>> Yeah, this is why it's hard, right? Like

how do you

>> tax like somebody's art collection? Are

there things that can make it tricky?

>> One of the things that I learned when um

I

I had this company it was a public

company, so I had public stock. And

someone came along and said, "Steven,

you know with your your public stock

that you have?" So, started this company

when I was 21, does well, by 27 the

stock that I have is public stock, which

means it's on a stock market. Someone

came to me and at 27 and said, "Steven,

do you know you can just take a loan

against your public stock?" And I went,

"What?" They went, "You can just get a

tax-free loan. So, if your stock is

worth $50 million right now,

they will give you a 50% loan without

paying tax on that on that stock. So,

they will crazy low interest rate.

Like not almost nothing. They will just

transfer you today 25 million dollars in

cash and you will have to pay no tax.

And guess what? If the stock comes down,

they'll just sell it. So, you'll never

really have like a a real sort of tax

liability there.

I couldn't believe this was possible. I

was like, is this what all the rich

people do? And they told me, yes, this

is what how it works. This is what

Elon's doing. Elon is taking a tax-free

pretty much tax-free loan against his

Tesla stock and they're transferring him

a billion dollars in cash. And he can

live off that, start new companies with

that, and never have to have a tax

transaction. So, I thought, why don't

politicians tax that?

>> There's always going to be a cat and

mouse, right? Whenever we figure out a

way to make sure you can't hide all of

your wealth from or all of your income

from being fairly taxed, very wealthy

people will figure out some other place

to hide it.

>> Yeah.

>> And then we'll have to develop a new

policy to deal with that. Well, I guess

my point is that's okay. Too often we

have just

to do anything because it might be hard

or because it might not last.

>> Yeah.

>> But if if the idea that somebody will

figure out a way around this law meant

that you shouldn't have the law, that

would be an argument against having any

law.

>> Mhm.

>> So, it's messy. It's hard. But I am sure

that if we had a more reasonable

rate of taxation on capital gains

and on corporate income, and if we made

it harder to pass along wealth without

especially inherited wealth without

paying any taxes on it, or some of these

other maneuvers like this borrowing

thing you're talking about,

>> Mhm.

>> we would have a fairer country because

we'd still have capitalism. There'd

still be lots of motivation and lots of

reason to innovate and build a business

and create jobs and do all the things

that very wealthy people

have done.

And also, we would be out of this doom

loop we're in where they're saying,

well, we can't possibly have as good

health care as other countries. We

couldn't possibly do something like, I

don't know, fast trains here in the

United States. We couldn't possibly have

rural hospitals be properly funded or uh

public education. Of course we can.

We're the wealthiest economy in the

world. It just doesn't add up

that we can't have nice things.

But,

if we aren't

collecting a fair level of taxes, then

then of course we're going to come up

short when we're trying to fund those

things. And the biggest thing long

uh that numerically that we're facing

right now is this massive debt.

Now, it's not fashionable on the left to

talk about deficits and the debt. Partly

because you know, I think Democrats are

pretty sick of that being invoked as a

reason not to do things like roads and

bridges and schools and hospitals that

we believe in.

But, it's now escalated to a level that

no one can ignore.

It turns out, you know, if some analysis

has suggested or shown that if

you start the clock at the beginning of

this century with the big Bush tax cuts

in I think 2001,

and then you go through the Trump tax

cuts for the wealthiest, you add all

that up, if it weren't for all those tax

cuts,

the debt would actually be going down

right now.

So, they can fully account

for what's happened to the increase in

the debt.

And it we just don't have don't have to

accept that.

>> Got this

graph here of US national debt growth

over that one on the screen between 1970

and 2026.

It looks like a rocket is taking off.

>> Yep.

>> And I sat here with Ray Dalio just a

couple of days ago. He talks about the

sort of big economic boom and bust

cycles. He talks about how every 80

years

>> or so you you kind of see a great power

>> falter and struggle. And we are 80 years

into the American power. And he says

that the writing is on the wall as it

relates to what happens next when you

let that go like this and you start

getting sort of internal conflict and

you start trying to please the world and

>> Yeah. And what's going on with the debt

is both evidence of it and part of the

problem. I think it's a symptom, but in

some ways it's a cause. It could be a

cause of a currency crisis or force us

to

redo our whole tax code within the next

few years. One thing I learned about

recently

uh

is a principle called Stein's law. It's

named after uh Reagan era economist,

actually the father of Ben Stein from if

you remember Ferris Bueller. The

principle is very simple.

If something cannot go on forever,

it will stop.

It's one of these blindingly obvious

things

that we don't think about enough in a

moment like this where everybody agrees

the debt can't keep going up like this.

This is almost definitely definitionally

impossible.

Pretty much everyone agrees our politics

can't go on like this.

And

if something

can't go on forever, it won't.

So then the question is, okay, then

what's going to happen? I believe one of

two things can happen.

Reform

or catastrophe.

And the whole reason I'm involved in

public life is to try to make for make

sure that it's reform

and not catastrophe. Can I

>> ask a question on this? So, on this

Stein's law thing, and and why,

irrespective of what you've just said,

which makes perfect sense to me, this

line keeps going up of national debt? Is

it in part kind of like musical chairs

with politicians where you come in for 4

years

and the music is playing, and you're

kind of hoping that the music doesn't

stop during your term because you want

to spend money because that's

politically

positive. If you're helping people's