Bro, you know which ones I'm going for, too?

Out the gate, right?

The ones with the strap that goes behind the neck that hangs down halfway on your nose.

I'm not gonna lose this.

It's staying right here.

Yeah, you're probably the guy who wears the ones that unclasp in the front.

No, I'm going.

I'm going.

Going.

Like the clear case.

Like Joe Koi style.

I don't know that you can reference Joe Koi like that.

Why.

Why can't I reference him?

I love comedy.

I.

No, I love comedy too.

Okay, but you only.

Only if you're Filipino.

Whoa.

I'm just asking.

I don't even know what that is.

What is this ethnicity you speak of?

Welcome back to the number one financial literacy podcast in the world.

This is the higher standard camp Pop.

Got it everywhere.

On your own table.

Our table.

A.

On your side.

On your side of the table.

Just trying to clean it up real quick.

Sitting in front of me is my partner in crime, in the all facts.

No cap merch that you can find@thspod.com.

It'S Christopher Nahibi, also known as a ghost energy drink rag.

Terrible humans, me.

What happened to us?

We've, like, degraded the show so much.

That's where we're at right now.

Sitting across me, my partner in time who smells like Sour Patch Kids right now.

Maybe it's the table.

The energy drink.

Yeah.

The one and only.

The man, the myth legend, the quarter king.

Say Omar, everybody.

Thank you, my man.

Sitting behind the desk in the production suite, if you will.

The fighting Fijian.

50 AK Ferrari.

Rajeel.

What's up, my guy?

Hello, everyone.

What's going on, man?

Let's get out of the way.

You plateaued a little bit.

Let's just have a conversation.

Yeah.

Okay.

So everyone was expecting 60 pounds, but 60 pounds.

We're teetering.

We're teetering.

Yeah, we're still in the 50ish range.

Hey, but listen, my guy is down 55 pounds, thanks to Fridays, where you can also be down some.

Some weight this year.

Go ahead.

To join Fridays.com to get all the good stuff right.

GLP1s, the longevity medication, testosterone.

We got to work on your pimping of the product a little bit.

Oh, you know it better than me.

I guess you can call it uppers, downers, and all arounders.

There you go.

They got the uppers, the downers, and the all arounders.

This is probably gonna be their example of what not to do with their intellectual property.

Anyway, if you're to go do any.

Of that stuff, use the code higher.

We'll get kudos for it and we'll love you more for it.

So thank you.

Great way to support the show.

A lot of stuff's been going down at Davos this week.

Davos, Switzerland, home of the World Economic Forum.

And in some years it's been sensational.

This year, I would say it's been.

A bit of a buzzkill, largely because I think what happened in Davos was not meeting the expectations of the rest of the world.

And to give you some historical context, I think it's important to go down memory lane.

But before we do, a bit of disclosure.

Okay.

This show is going to be a heavy, reactive show.

We're going to react to a lot of things that we heard in Davos from a lot of very popular people.

People like Ray Dalio, people like Jamie Dimon.

Yep.

People like the President of the United States.

They're all there.

They're all there.

They're all talking.

And.

Well, we took bits and pieces to give you the best of everything that happened.

If you saw the live earlier, we reacted in real time.

In this one, we're going to react.

Not in real time, but we're going.

To give you the meat and potatoes.

And we'll kind of give you our thoughts around some of the things that happened.

But again, before we get there, you need to understand that the World Economic Forum in Davos has always been a sounding board for the world's leaders.

Usually got 70, 80 leaders are going to speak at different time slots throughout the day, and there are multiple different speakers at multiple different times.

So there's an interesting post by Scott Galloway, Professor Galloway, he was in Davos and he had the camera on him and he's like, on a panel.

Yeah.

And he's like, I'm in Davos and super excited.

He turns the camera around, there's four.

People in the room because somebody else is talking.

And then Trump was talking at the same time in the other room.

Yeah, yeah.

He's like, well, this is.

Yeah, it's like supposed to be the TED Talk for the Economic Forum.

Right.

So, yeah, historically, you saw a lot of really common themes.

Global warming was always a big geopolitical conversation.

There wasn't a lot around that this year.

And I think that's because science has proved that global warming and cooling is part of a natural kind of cycle of the Earth.

At least that's the current resounding theme anyway.

Not to say that there isn't concern there still but certainly a lot less scrutiny on it.

Oh, how dare you.

I know Regil.

I know that hurts your San Francisco.

Yeah.

That being said, that to replace that, they've shifted the AI dialogue from.

Oh, there you go.

Computer's making all the sounds.

They shifted the AI dialogue from what was traditionally AI is going to displace a lot of workers to.

You got to live in the world you got.

And the world you got right now is changing.

So we've seen a pretty holistic pivot in AI, although it's still prevalent.

You saw a lot of anticipation around Trump's commentary around Greenland, and that moved the economy yesterday both ways, right?

Both ways, yeah.

So we're going to end this particular episode with a little bit of look at why the treasury markets moved and what's really going on with the bond market, because I don't think people really understand what's happening.

Okay.

And then there is one thing that was supposed to be the biggest sexy thing that happened in Davos, which is pictures of Regil everywhere.

I mean, it's not the big say it's slim.

The slim.

The slim sexy thing.

Yeah.

The Eminem, if you will.

Right.

Not the one you eat.

Well, I guess some people.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Anyway, it was supposed to be the housing affordability.

Trump had foreshadowed all these things happening.

Well, it was a big letdown, I think, for most people.

I think we kind of knew that.

I mean, at least for me.

And if you're a listener of the show for a while, look, the housing affordability issue has been a problem.

This isn't a new problem.

This is a problem that we've been dealing with for a greater portion of several years now.

And the first piece of policy that was presented as potentially being pushed to Congress was something that flopped terribly.

Right.

Yeah.

And we'll talk about in the show.

But let's go over a couple of the key concepts that floated the idea of 50 year mortgage that was.

Yeah.

Not.

Not so good.

They floated the idea of banning institutional investors from owning homes because those should be for consumers.

They did do something there.

But I was going to.

I'm going to explain to you on the show how that's not actually something they did.

I don't know if they floated this one, but somebody floated the idea of keeping your current mortgage rate and, you know, taking it onto your next home.

Yeah, that was equally as ridiculous.

Yeah.

Then there was.

Oh, okay, well, then we'll let you borrow from your 401k, which I thought was probably the biggest traction.

But There was supposed to be a big conversation in Davos about how this is supposed to get solved.

And you know, the president had done some things leading up to Davos saying that he was going to talk about affordability on the 21st.

And well, yeah, didn't happen.

Not so sexy.

So, Rajeel, to start the show off, I've got a list of links.

They're in order so we can go down that path.

I think there is one that's duplicative, so we'll just have to watch out for that one.

The first one, if you don't mind playing it.

I, I think is important.

This just to set the stage.

Citadel CEO Ken Griffin made some comments about kind of the macro zeitgeist as it relates to the economy.

And again, all of these conversations have an economic spin to them.

So this is all finance related.

Right.

But go ahead and make this full screen and play it.

Here you go.

There you go.

That's the sexy view.

It's a pleasure to be on the gloom and doom panel.

Yeah, we're not, we're not.

1920S were an extreme extraordinary period.

As I said at the beginning, it's not preordained that it has to hand.

Badly the end note of the 1920s, which was of course, the Great Depression.

Andrew.

So let's, let's take a step back and talk about where we are right here, right now.

The area of recklessness is the spending of governments around the world, who are all, with little exception, all spending well beyond their means.

Means.

That's the recklessness of this moment in history.

This is not a parallel to the 1920s in terms of the recklessness of the, of the private capital markets.

It's a story of the recklessness of government spending within the private sector.

There's a huge question as to where AI will take us.

And I was carefully taking notes and listening to what Larry has to say or to what Madame Lagarde has to say, because this is one of the big issues of our moment.

Will I create the productivity acceleration that is honestly this hoped for in Washington and in the halls of government around the world as a ways to overcome the profit spending that we're currently engaged in?

The world needs a savior.

And the hope is that AI is the savior that we need for productivity.

And the challenge with this is it may or may not be.

We just don't know yet.

Now there's a tremendous amount of hype around AI and in some sense the large AI companies need to create that hype to raise the tens or Actually hundreds of billions of dollars of investment that are going to the field.

Like you wouldn't be able to raise hundreds of billions of dollars we'll spend and Larry can help correct me on this, but roughly $600 billion this year in capex for data centers in the United States.

I think it's a be larger.

But does that mean that it's getting hyped up too much or it's just.

The hype is required as a, as a sales mechanism.

Go ahead.

Okay, so.

Wow.

It's a lot there.

There's a lot there.

And this sets the tone for the rest of the show because we are going to spend some time on answering that proverbial question.

Regil.

I don't have it in the show notes.

And while, while we're talking about this, pull up the Ben Affleck on Joe Rogan and you can literally type into X Ben Affleck Jon Joe Rogan AI.

Yeah.

And there's a cut that he does there, which he articulated it so beautifully.

Yeah.

And you could tell that he's definitely spent some time thinking about this.

Yes.

But so again, Ken Griffin, Citadel here, pretty forthcoming about his thoughts on things.

He suggested right off the top that spending, public government spending is outpacing the revenue.

And he suggested that we are hoping that AI and the efficiency from it helps remediate this problem.

That's an interesting spin because the problem he's alluding to is the government spend problem.

Right, Exactly.

But that really I feel like it's going to create, if that were to be the quote, savior that he's referring to, that's only going to create more problems because we've heard Bill Gates come out and say, you know, I, I could see a world within the next five years where people only work two days a week.

Well, are they getting paid the same for two days a week worth, worth of pay?

What does that do to the tens of millions of jobs out there?

What are, what are people going to do?

Yeah.

And I think that, that that's overhyped and I admittedly will say that the parabolic curve that has been the growth of, of AI was amazing.

And I think that curve has slowed a meaningful amount.

And I will say that Ben Affleck does a wonderful job of explaining how and why.

But it also explains the energy crisis issue that's on the back end of this.

We had energy limitations before.

We're certainly going to face more of those moving forward.

And I think that the part that is not lost on me, that keeps me up at night is that our human bodies operate off of 5 watts of power and our cognitive function is clearly far greater than that of the current AI.

Yet to power these things you need nuclear reactors worth of power.

Right.

And it's not even capable of thinking of one human.

Right.

Now that's how big the divide is from the technology that powers us as a species.

Right.

And the technology that powers this artificial general intelligence and we're not even there.

That's a true AGI yet.

Yeah.

So there's a pretty big divide of efficiency of resources and power that needs to be supplied to get there.

He also went on to allude that there is some salesmanship that's gone on in the AI space because we've all gone all in the proverbial poker play on this technology.

Governments have done it because they need the efficiency, because they're overspending.

He alludes to that.

He also suggests that the Capex needs to be justified by saying that it can do all these amazing things.

Right.

If you're going to bag a supermodel in bed, you're going to have to tell her that she's going to have an unbelievable experience.

Right, Exactly.

But wait, before we go down further, explain, maybe help explain to people how, you know, the spending of the Capex benefits them as the company.

Yeah.

I mean, if you're investing all this capital expenditure into your resources, number one, you're not paying dividends out because you're reinvesting into the company's growth.

Number two, you're building something that's going to ultimately benefit and provide a better return to the investor, to you, the and make everybody more money, if that spend is valid.

Right, so.

Exactly.

So if they're spending X amount of dollars every year on capital expenditures to grow the company and you think that the value of the company is low, this is only going to, you know, 2x3x4x the company, then you're getting in.

Maybe, maybe Meta is a great example of that not working out.

Meta went all in on virtual reality and it's clear society is ready for augmented reality, not virtual reality.

So Meta glasses are augmented reality, not virtual reality.

And all that Capex they spent building out their virtual reality went by the wayside.

Apple has done this too.

They're not immune to this.

They tried to build an Apple car and then they ultimately decided to trash the whole project and move away from it.

Billions of dollars were spent.

That's capital expenditure build out, at least in some form or fashion.

Yeah, but I mean, these companies have also Benefited off, you know, other projects or products where they have spent that Capex and it has paid dividends for them.

I remember, I remember bumping into a guy at somebody's house in San Francisco.

Back.

Hold on, Stop right there.

You bumped into a guy in somebody's house in San Francisco?

Yeah, yeah.

You're gonna leave.

You can name him whatever you like.

And it was his buddies, his roommate's friend that came over, right?

And he was telling me, are there.

Any non dudes in the story?

Jill, you can.

I know what happens next.

Married at the time.

You're gonna have a great night.

Yeah, yeah, I did have a great.

Was there a pink light on the door outside the room?

No.

Rubber band, though.

Okay.

Yeah.

But he was telling me how he had been working on the AirPods for four years before it ever got announced.

Yeah, that's right.

You know, and like, that's something that paid off.

Like, it's probably one of my favorite products that Apple has, you know, except.

They are not reliable.

No matter what generation, no matter what model.

It's like they're messing with you.

It's like, you know how they.

Apple got caught up in like, you know, the whole battery issue.

And you had.

People had to come in and like, get like, new batteries and their phones are slowing down out of nowhere.

It's like, I feel like my AirPods are no longer connecting as quickly as they once did.

So my wife decided that she would get, like, cerebral.

She's like, going to order new AirPods.

And I'm like, oh, God, it's not going to fix the problem.

She goes, I know these are wired.

Oh, okay.

I'm like, what?

She went backwards?

Yeah.

She lowjacked that thing, man.

It's.

It's like a cable now.

She walked around the cable and like.

All the whole thing in the ear, but she never, she never has a drop call.

Never has a problem, like, linking her phone up.

Yeah, that's the move then, huh?

Yeah, she, she, she out thought Apple.

She's like, I got you.

All right, let's get into my friends here.

Matt Damon, Ben Affleck on Joe Rogan's podcast, Ben Affleck, shout out to Jamie, who produced this.

Look how far away that mic is from Ben Affleck's face.

Exactly.

As a guy who produces audio, like, I know if it's like me doing.

The show like this.

Yeah.

Let me tell you exactly why AI sucked.

This is what he probably sounded like in the mics, but Jamie made it sound like this.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's right, that's right, yeah.

It's like every time I talk, it's so low.

Yeah.

I got to juice your audio all the time.

Just got to give him a little bit of appreciation.

All right, let's play.

This is about 3 minutes.

Get chat GPT or Claude or Gemini to write you something.

It's really shitty and it's shitty because by its nature it goes to the mean, to the average, and it's not reliable and it's.

I mean, I just can't stand to see what writes now.

It's a useful tool if you're a writer and you're going, ah, what's the thing?

I'm trying to set something up.

Or somebody sends someone a letter, but it's delayed two days and gets.

And it can give you some examples of that.

I actually don't think it's very likely that, that it can.

It's going to be able to write anything meaningful or.

And in particular that it's going to be making movies like, from whole cloth, like Tilly Norwood.

Like, that's bullshit.

I don't think that's going to happen.

I think it's not.

I think it actually turns out the technology is not progressing in exactly the same way they sort of presented it.

And really what it is is going to be a tool just like sort of visual effects and yeah, it needs to have language around it.

You need to protect your name and likeness.

You can do that, you can watermark it.

Your.

Those laws already exist.

You can't.

I can't sell your fucking picture for money.

I can't.

You can sue me, period.

It kind of feels to me like things happen earlier where there's a lot more fear because we have the sense this existential dread is going to wipe everything out.

Right.

But that actually runs counter, in my view, to what history seems to show, which is a adoption is slow, it's incremental.

I think a lot of that rhetoric comes from people who are trying to justify valuations around companies where they go, we're going to change everything in two years, there's going to be no more work.

Well, the reason they're saying that is because they need to ascribe a valuation for investment that can warrant the capex spend they're going to make on these data centers with the argument that, like, oh, you know, as soon as we do the next model, it's going to scale up, can be three times as good.

Except that actually chat GPT5 about 25 times percent better than chatGPT4.

And costs about four times as much in the way of electricity and data.

So those nicely.

That's like plateauing.

The early AI, the line went up very steeply and it's now sort of leveling off.

I think it's because.

And yes, it'll get better, but it's going to be really expensive to get better.

And a lot of people were like, fuck this, we want ChatGPT4.

Because it turned out like the vast majority of people who use AI are using it to like, as like companion bots to chat with at night.

And so there's no work, there's no productivity, there's no value to it.

I would argue there's also not a lot of social value to getting people to like, focus on an AI friend who's, you know, telling you that you're great and listening to everything you say and being sycophantic.

That's sort of a side issue, I think, for this particular purpose, like the way I see the technology and what it's good at and what it's not, it's going to be good at filling in all the places that are expensive and burdensome and they make it harder to do it.

And it's always going to rely fundamentally on the human artistic aspects of it.

Yeah, man.

And I can't remember if this was before or after the segment where they got into the rocks acting.

Oh, I didn't hear that segment.

You didn't hear.

Oh, it's fascinating because they said, like, look, AI is not going to be able to do that.

Right?

It was.

They were talking about his performance on the Eyebrow smashing machine.

No.

Yeah.

And he said, look, he.

He took two very personal events that happened in his life and he married them together.

One was when his mom got diagnosed with cancer, right.

And she just looked like a little kid in the hospital bed.

And the other was a time when his dad was battling some type of substance abuse.

And when the doctor came in or when his friend, like, you know, questioned him and the doctor came in, like he pulled the sheets over his head, right?

And he married those two things together.

AI is not going to be able to do that, right?

Those are like, you can't.

It won't be able to pick up on those real life examples and put those together.

So that's why I remember we had this conversation back in the day and I'm like, I don't know if AI is going to be able to replace that.

And look, I think there's improvements and this all ties into the financial course for Those listening like Higsfield, AI has gotten really good with things like lighting, things with image creation.

But talked about this in the live for a little bit today.

When I use AI particularly for the modeling that I've been doing lately, I use it as a sounding board.

I have found the hard way that found out the hard way that if you work with AI to come up with modeling from a data perspective, it's going to work really well.

It's going to give you the models, it's going to explain things to you.

But if you want it to be able to break it down in a way that people are going to be able to visually matriculate, I think the problem is pretty obvious that AI can't get there.

So when I try to put together a visual component to go with the data to make it very easy to read, it became very difficult to get AI to look at an image and go, okay, that makes sense.

Yeah, you can explain the image to AI and I'll go, oh, yeah, it makes sense.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

But visually you can't feed at the image and have it really get one.

There's different AI for different things that are better.

But the general AI that I use, whether that's Claude or ChatGPT, it seems to really struggle.

And what most people don't know when they use AI is you can actually go down and click on both Claude, ChatGPT, other models.

You can click a more like data intensive, thought intensive language model.

LLM.

Yeah, I think for ChatGPT it's called Opus.

And then for Claude they have a different version which is their higher tier one.

It takes a lot longer to think, more computing power and you'll get better answers.

But it struggles in some ways.

And I think that people are an LLM to be used for data purposes inside of a financial company that probably will work.

An LLM that'll be used to be a call center to handle frontier stuff before transferring you to a human, that'll probably work.

An AI that has a human behind it to create movies will be difficult, but you could probably get it there with the human behind it.

But just generating these things on its own, as it stands right now, there's a big, big and expensive gap between here and there.

Yeah, yeah.

And that's what Davos spent a lot of time talking about.

Jamie Dimon, who we'll get to towards the latter half of the audio from Davos, because he says, I don't know what it is about him, this particular Davos trip, maybe he's Just upset because he's arguing with the President more.

Maybe.

Maybe he's just getting towards the end of his tenure where he's just feeling a little more loose.

He was a lot less democratic and politically neutral than he had been historically.

He was prepared to go to war.

Right.

Take a stance.

Right.

Yeah.

Somebody tickled his fancy in the way he didn't like.

Yeah.

And that really, really came out when the whole conversation came about capping credit card interest rates.

Right.

Yeah.

He's had a bit of a back and forth with the president, but he's, he's very clear.

And I will give this.

So he was interviewed by a woman.

She had a bit of an accent.

I don't know where she was from, but she was very sharp and she, she knew how to push him in the right ways to where she was a bit contentious, but just a healthy amount to elicit a response.

And at one point, she calls Jamie Dimon out, saying, let me get it straight.

So when it's your company that affects Jamie Dimon, like you say, this is wrong, but when it.

It's the president doing something that affects the Fed, you're taking a politically neutral stance.

Right.

Because she.

Because he.

Because his response was that it would never work.

Right.

The whole, the whole credit card industry would.

Would implode and you'd like, 80, 85% of all credit would go away.

And then she responded, say that he.

Was very slippery and he did exercise political restraint whenever.

And we'll get there.

But I want you to listen to all of this through that lens.

Whether you're driving the car, you're watching this on tv.

Yo, what's up?

I think you need to listen to this through the lens of.

Each speaker does have a base of constituents.

Yes.

Whether you're an elected official from the government in the United States or a foreign country, or you're the CEO of a major publicly held company, you've got a slant because you have a primary constituent base that you need to keep happy.

Yeah.

So your narrative will always fit that.

Yeah.

And.

And everyone is very much aware that Davos.

Right.

If you're coming here speaking at, on this stage, especially somebody like Jamie Dimon.

Right.

Or Ray Dalio, it can swing the markets.

Everyone's tuning in.

Everyone's locked in.

So this one I knew was going to bother you, and I didn't.

I didn't include it because it was going to bother you.

I. I just knew that it was something we had to talk about.

Ray Dalio.

Ray Dalio is as far as I'm concerned, he's a genius.

I, I, I, I like him as much as I like Warren Buffett, as much as I like May he rest in peace, Charlie Munger.

True story.

First person I followed on Instagram.

Yeah, Ray Dalio is a stud and he articulates himself well.

Yeah.

His book Principles is broken down in such a simple way, but you can tell there's a lot there.

He's going to talk about how the.

Financial system is breaking down and I think this does two things that you read between the lines on.

He is basically saying that cryptocurrency in the blockchain has value, value that we haven't truly assigned to it and that the gold standard and the traditional financial system is breaking.

He's not blaming one or the other, but he's certainly saying there is some type of change taking place economically that we're not cognitively watching hawkishly enough.

Right, right.

And it's something that we, we should be paying attention to because I know usually gold does not outperform the stock market.

Right.

There's only been a handful of times in history when it has and it's usually when, you know there's some type of disruption, you know, on.

Turmoil in the market.

Yeah, turmoil in the markets.

Or something's going on.

So people, right now people use it as a hedge times that gold has outperformed the stock markets.

Think of the Great Depression.

Think of the 1970s with stagflation.

You think of the great financial crisis or the dot com bubble.

Like these are major events that took place.

Right.

The pandemic.

But you had a stock market dip while gold rallied against it almost as a hedge against inflation.

Hence that narrative and where it came from.

However, right now gold is at an all time high and the market is at or near all time highs right now.

Right.

Even rallying off of yesterday.

Today is Wednesday, the 21st.

Yesterday, Tuesday.

So the bond market in Japan fall off and then that brought the entire US market down for a little bit, but it rallied back this morning.

Right.

So let's play Ray Dalio Regill.

So handsome.

Sensational.

And, and be clear about what I mean.

The monetary order is breaking down.

Okay.

What I mean by the monetary order is that fiat currency currencies as an and debt as a storehold of wealth is not being held by central banks in the same way.

And that there was a change.

The biggest market to move last year was the gold market.

Far better than the tech markets and so on.

And the US markets underperformed foreign markets.

Because, because of the fact you could see it in the numbers of the central banks and so on.

So let's just look at the fact that on the other side of trade deficits and trade wars are capital and capital wars.

And so as we're looking at that and you reported what the stock market, so on, but you didn't report that the gold market is also up 3.

We did say that earlier this morning.

It's up to record level again and.

Over if you look at what is happening and why it's happening and who's buying it.

So let's, let's just take a moment on that capital war issue.

Okay.

We know that both the holders of US Dollar denominated debt, which is money, and the those who need it, the United States are worried about each other, right?

So if you have other countries who are holding it and they're worried about each other and we're producing a lot of it, that's a big issue.

Right?

So you have to explain what is going on with fiat currencies, generally speaking.

And now if you take the conflicts, you can't ignore the possibility that capital wars, in other words, maybe there's not the same inclination to buy U.S. debt.

And so what, we at least need to talk about those possibilities and find out who is buying and selling what that is behind these market movements and.

What, you got some charts for that, don't you?

I've got a lot of charts for that actually.

If you watch the live shows, I have charts that explain the liquidity in the system at any given time.

One of the ones we've been doing is we tapped into the St. Louis Fed and we do basically a simple math equation.

You have the current Fed balance sheet, we subtract the Fed repo line and we subtract a couple, oh, a couple of elements actually, and we get a net score.

We've made it from 0 to 100 to effectively give you a frame of good and bad.

But in doing so, one of the things that's really interesting to see when you space it out this way is that the Fed balance sheet looks like it's flush with cash.

It looks like it's a loose monetary policy.

But when you net out the Fed repo line and everything else, you can see that it's actually a pretty tense cash environment.

Meaning that if you were to look just at the Fed balance sheet, you'd be like, oh, it's loose cash, money's going into the system.

But you'd be missing the bigger picture, which is kind of what he's saying that the US Needs the dollar.

Other countries hold the dollar.

They want the US to the dollar to stay up, but they also can use that to manipulate the United States.

Yes.

And if you're having a trade war and you're only looking at trade the same way you're only looking at the Fed balance sheet, you might be missing the manipulation that can be taken by somebody holding that debt.

That's true.

Debt is an equally valuable instrument to the United States as it is to somebody else.

So.

And what they choose to do with their debt may have different values.

They could have the intrinsic value of money or the intrinsic value of power.

And those dynamics are always at play.

The other thing that I think is.

Interesting to look at it no different than somebody owning a lot of stock in a company and feeling like they, you know, like you have like an activist shareholder.

Right.

That owns so much of the company that they require a seat on the board.

Now I control this whole situation.

Yeah.

Lord knows I know what that's like.

I wasn't going there, bro.

I've lived through that.

But.

What I can tell you is that Ray Dalio's words are important.

And I think that there's a narrative that's going to flow from this as we get in a little bit more specific parts of the economy that really slants towards why cryptocurrency might be more valuable.

Transparency.

Yeah.

You know who holders of US debt are.

But from a global economic forum perspective, wouldn't it be convenient to know that China has exactly this much money, the holders of these wallets.

And again, cryptocurrency can have some anonymity built into the blockchain.

But at the end of the day, you've got a general idea or an ability to find out because it's all in the public domain.

Yeah.

So there's a lot to be said for what his perspective is and what I'll tell you, and this is kind of a spoiler alert, towards the end of the show, the Fed is flooding into the market about $60 billion a month.

40, right?

Yeah, 60.

Now it's 60.

Okay.

It was 40.

Okay.

Before a billion dollars a month in this, like non qe.

Qe.

Okay.

Flooding that liquidity in.

And they're doing that for a very simple concept.

If I want to sell more long term debt, that is 10 year bonds, and I want to make that attractive to you, I've got to price it higher than a five year bond.

Yes.

Than a two year bond.

Right.

And more of a demand for it.

Right, right.

To create more value for it so more people buy it.

Which means I've got to pay debt.

At a higher number because a bond is an issuance of debt from me to you, the buyer.

Yes.

So If I'm issuing $60 billion of bonds at 10 years and I'm just using this as a general example, not, not exactly how it works and I'm increasing that number to drive more traffic to the longer duration bonds.

I've got to convince people that number one, I'm a safe bet for that duration of time.

Yes.

And I got to pay them for the extended duration of time to do that and.

Yeah, exactly.

Make sure that you're good on those debts.

That's why those credit ratings from the three major, you know, credit agencies.

Right.

Fitch S and P and Moody's.

Right.

Them downgrade in the US is, was, was such a big deal when, when we did report on it.

So that means a couple of things are going to naturally happen.

We've always talked about on the show that there's a concern over the bond market.

The muni bonds, traditional bonds from the government, everything in general, I have concerns over that market.

It started when Jane Fraser started liquidating bonds vis a vis Citibank.

Shut down the entire division, started liquidating.

I remember that.

Yeah.

But I still think there's something to be said for if you do this at the Fed level to put cash in the economy and people private markets buy this government debt.

The government is taking on massive amounts of debt which Ray Dalio was talking about.

And private companies are putting their money to work in the US Government.

That has to have long term belief in the US government succeeding.

Fine.

But then you will get things like the treasury rising.

Right now you got the 10 year rising and what is based off the 10 year mortgage rates.

Mortgage rates.

So that's going to push mortgage rates up for incrementally over time.

So all the things you were doing as a president, let's just use Fannie Freddie as an example.

You said hey, go buy 200 billion plus or hit your legal maximum 225 billion, whatever it is of mortgage backed securities you're buying in the market.

Well, we thought that was going to reduce rates about 25 to 35 basis points.

It should.

It does.

But when you're pushing up the 10 year.

Yep.

Because you're selling bonds at a premium to drive longer duration debt and flood the markets in this non qe QE to raise money vis a vis debt, you're also driving the interest Rates up counterintuitive to what the president was doing.

Right.

So there's a lot of dynamics at play and it becomes very difficult.

And this is why some of the charts we built are visually stimulating.

Rajeel, you ready for the next one?

He's like, yes, yes, yes.

Again, Ray Dalio, Sugar Ray, we call him.

Yeah.

This is obviously before the tie got loose.

Yeah, he went into straight.

I don't give a. Yeah.

Asset allocation.

What is going to protect your real after tax returns.

So you do you create that optimal mix.

Gold is a very excellent diversifier of the portfolio.

So if you would look at just from the strategic asset allocation mix perspective, you would probably have something like.

As the optimal mix, something like 15% of your portion portfolio in gold because of the fact that if you didn't even have a tactical.

Because it is the one asset that does very well when the typical parts of your portfolio go down.

Because the typical parts of your portfolio are also so credit dependent.

So anyway, I think all of this means that there should be some piece in that and gold.

If I making tactical bets.

I don't like debt assets per se.

And I would say I don't like debt assets per se.

Not just government debt assets, but also if you're looking, let's say a credit or private credit and look at where the credit spreads are.

Credit spreads are very, very low.

And so for those various reasons, my tilts would be away from those things toward gold.

But again, yes.

So more than would be a normal asset allocation mix.

No, like.

But I think you have to also say, you know, start with what is a real dollar if you're a dollar investor?

A real return.

I heard you cut it there for.

So I want to explain what he sees.

He sees the open seat for Warren Buffett stepping down.

And he's like, I'm going to take it.

He's like, I'm wearing loafs at Davos.

This is me, guys.

Yeah.

So he's like, I see your.

So your boat shoes.

I raised you mules.

Mules.

With dress socks.

He's out here.

But I'd be different, though.

I'd be coming in with those new Nike mules with socks on.

Oh, yeah.

Well, he's all blue, color coordinated, monotone because he knows he can't see the color.

He knows what he's doing.

He's like, I see you say, and.

I'm wearing the outfit so that, you.

Know, hey, 15 is crazy, though.

I mean, traditional financial planners will say somewhere between 2 to 10%.

But what he's trying to say, without.

Saying it directly is I am worried about the credit market.

Okay.

And if you've been around for long.

Enough and you might be in your.

Early 40s, you probably remember the great financial crisis which was a credit markets failure.

Yes.

Home subprime, synthetic subprime syndications on the secondary market.

People bought them like mortgages.

He's basically pointing to the private credit.

Markets again, people providing loans in private markets that banks and other traditional lenders, government backed lenders do not provide those.

Private markets, I. E. Private equity.

Yeah.

Hedge fund debt.

They're taking on more risk to get more return.

He's basically saying the credit markets don't have enough payment, they're not getting enough money margin.

Right.

And a great example of this, and.

I'm not going to name the name of the bank.

I saw this over the weekend.

How do I do this?

I get in trouble.

God, what do I do this?

So I saw a bank who shall.

Remain nameless, who's offering 3.8%.

Okay.

That's their deposit rate.

That's what they're offering on their money money market.

On their money market savings account.

I'm for sure gonna get it lit.

Up in the comments on this one.

And that same bank won alone at 5.35%.

So you do the math.

385.35.

That's not a huge spread.

As a matter of fact.

Dancing with the devil, bro.

Yeah.

That's about a 155 spread over.

Right.

So one minus the other.

That's the number you need about 2%.

To operate a bank.

Okay.

Right.

About 2% of your operating costs getting a little aggressive.

Maybe they're picking and choosing what to be aggressive about.

You're getting lean, my guy.

Yeah, Lean.

Yeah.

And yes, you can grow a bank on a thin profit margin.

Sure.

Would you do that if you thought ultimately rates are coming down?

I mean.

Yeah, but you do that in the face of the ten year rising and a lot of geopolitical unrest and uncertainty.

You got the President United States saying he's going to take Greenland.

And up until today he didn't say say without force.

Today he said without force.

Yeah, he had to.

So I'm just saying, even at a community regional bank level.

Oopsies.

That you, that you do this at.

Right.

Like it's just.

I wrote your talk good.

Don't.

Plausible deniability is good for you, not for me.

But it's a wild spread.

Yeah.

And you think to yourself like, okay man, like win some business.

Curry some political Favor, maybe, But my guy, like, you got to have some discipline around your credits.

Right.

You know, I have a feeling in I don't know how long, let's just call it 15, 20 years, it's probably going to be a lot sooner than that.

We're going to look back at credit cards and we're going to see, wait, so they accepted state stated income and they're going to look at credit cards the same way they looked at all the home loans back in 08?

Oh, no, they want that.

They.

They want that.

And they're going to be like, how did we let that happen?

No, that's never going to change.

No.

Oh, because it's such a money maker for the banks and lenders that provide credit cards.

No, I know, but it's.

It's reaching astronomical levels.

Household credit card debt right now is that.

And I know what they're banking on.

They're banking on people tapping into their home equity and they're banking on the great wealth transfer that we know they're not getting anytime soon.

Yeah.

Great wealth transfer.

That's cute.

No, I mean, we covered it on a show, right?

Like the lack thereof.

The lack thereof.

They're not getting anytime soon.

If, if anything, it's the next generation that's really going to get it, so.

That's Right.

And look, I'm not.

I don't disagree with you, and I think that, that that's a huge problem.

You want my honest opinion?

And I don't think I've ever talked about this in the show, and I'll be completely candid, I don't think I've ever talked to you about this.

So little intimate moment.

Rejeel, where's the candles?

We should probably hold some hands while we're doing this.

Let's talk, just the three of us.

Yeah.

We have a candlelight vibe in here.

I think I have a candlelight setting for the led.

Yeah, we should have that.

Yeah.

Okay.

So here's what I think is going to happen.

Okay.

Whether we like it or not, we have a problem.

And the problem we try to keep finding solutions for does not exist.

Right.

That the solutions do not exist for this problem.

We had 14 years of artificial interest rate deflation drove home prices up.

Home prices would need to come down by like 40% to get affordable again.

Or interest rates have to come down to near zero again to get home prices affordable again.

And wages need to go up.

And wages would need to go up.

Or combination of all three need to happen.

A meaningful combination of all three.

I don't see a world where all three of them happens.

Agreed.

So if I don't see a world where all three of them happens, even if the Supreme Court says hey, you know President, you can get rid of Lisa Cook.

And he says great, now I can.

Now I can have four of the three voting members voting the way I want because I put them there.

I now have a voting majority in the FOMC and I can get monetary policy where I, the President United States really want it to be.

Whereas if he doesn't get that then the voting majority will still be non president selected people.

And he may have to struggle with the reality of economic policy.

That's what's really at play with the Supreme Court.

Let's just say he wins that.

Okay.

Even if they wanted to drop rates.

Super, super, super low, they can't go to near zero again.

They just can't do it.

You rates it would, it would just incinerate the inflation situation and that's going to cause political unrest.

You can get rates low, but how low do they have to go?

How low do you go?

Yeah.

The problem you have is one of the housing market's current status.

This locked in effect is more prevalent than people realize.

We've talked about some previous shows.

40% of homes own the cash.

60% of the homes in the country have mortgages.

Of those 6% of homes that have mortgages, 6% of those have mortgages below 5%.

That's a lot.

So you would have to get rates.

Almost 2% lower than where they are today to get people to move.

And that's the thing when, when the Fed decides to lower rates it does not impact the tenure and if it impacts the, the short term treasuries, right.

So they're, they don't have a whole lot of control over the tenure all.

At the same time while they're selling bonds into the market trying to drive long term debt because they've got, the government has issues with debt.

I honestly, I honestly think this is from like a macro level.

The biggest issue that they face so is the, the, the lack or the potential of losing the idea of the American dream of owning a home if that goes by the wayside and people no longer, you know, they wipe it out and say this isn't, this isn't for us, we're not, we can't afford it.

Right.

They, and they go into just investments.

Right.

If, I don't know if they'll, I.

Would argue that's already happening.

That's why you see the stock market outperforming real estate is.

You're already, the money is speaking via valuations of companies because that's where people are putting their money.

But here's, here's what I haven't talked.

To you guys about before.

I don't believe there is a solution.

That sounds grim.

I think you got a 10 to 20 year period of time somewhere in that window of time.

It might be 20, it might be 10.

You're going to have to just wait it out.

And I know that sucks, but you can't lower rates low enough unless you have a 40% correction.

Even a 20% quote market crash.

20% or more is a crash.

You know, a 20% correction in home values would not solve the problem.

Right.

And if you look at our home affordability chart which we have in the live shows, Supply is at 89 out of 100.

It's not terrible, it's actually decent now.

Right.

Your real issue is rates and house.

Prices compared to wages.

Yes.

Wages aren't going to go up the way they need to go.

Not why would they ever go up aggressively.

Give me a catalyst.

I don't know.

One.

Yeah.

Home values aren't going to come down 30, 40%.

Right.

And even if they do, that has a whole separate set of issues.

And you can't physically get rates low enough with all these external.

Even if the FOMC had the President's voting members, they can't get it low enough while doing the things they need to do to sustain the government debt.

Which leads you to one really shitty conclusion.

This problem is here for at least 10 years and homes are not going to be any meaningfully more affordable near term.

Yeah, I agree and I think that you, you lose the, the idea of owning a home, right.

And the idea of the American dream.

Right.

And the reason why it benefited the, the government in the US and the nation as a whole for so long, because think about it, for a long time there was like traditional households, right.

Where you know, the husband would go to work and the wife would stay home and you know, upkeep the house and tear the kids and whatnot.

And then, and when the homes got a little bit more unaffordable and they still push that American dream, that's half the population that they can force to have to go to work to get more tax dollars.

Right.

It has a trickle down effect to all the other things you need your employee.

Think about that.

When the house became unaffordable and you know, you know, wise would have to go to Work.

Right.

What would happen?

That's that much more tax revenue overnight.

W2.

Bang.

Now, you know they're going to do to keep up with the Joneses.

The Jones just moved to Bali.

I mean, they're about that vagabond lifestyle.

If the average home average.

I'm telling you, people are already having the conversation of moving.

I'm here from California.

I think about all the time moving.

Out of state and being like this, you know, this is.

This ain't for us.

This is not the life I want to live.

Yeah, yeah.

Brigitte, who you said it was that yelled at Gavin Newsom.

Scott percent shout out to Scott Besant.

I don't give a damn what he.

Did, what his political beliefs are.

We now got my support, homie.

Respect.

Put some respect on my name.

Gavin.

What kind of name is Gavin, by the way?

It could be a pretty gangster name.

Honestly, I saw from the show suits there was a Gavin on the show.

I never watched the show.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

You missed out.

Yeah, because we couldn't.

We couldn't.

We couldn't watch those shows.

They weren't hood enough for us.

Growing up, bro.

This is like five years ago.

Hey, I don't know if you guys.

Have seen the new Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, but I didn't realize that Seth Rogen was right behind that.

No, I didn't.

So Ice Cube plays the villain who is known as Superfly.

I'm not gonna spoil anything for you.

But the best part about it can't.

Be the Shredder, bro.

It can't just be Shredder.

Jackie Chan.

Jackie Chan is Splinter.

There is no Shredder in it.

I'm assuming that's the next version, but Jackie Chan is Splinter, dog.

That's great.

You got my vote there.

I'm there.

I'm in.

I'm in with that.

Hey, and I'm just gonna say right.

Now, I gotta start introducing my son to, like, Rumble in the Bronx.

You know, like old school Jackie Chan.

Start with this.

Give him the voice of Jackie.

I've showed.

I put the.

The original Teenage Mutants movie on.

This one's a new.

Ice Cube quotes himself as.

He, like.

He, like, literally.

I don't.

I don't ruin the scene, but he, like, busted in the back of a van and quotes Ice Cube from Ghetto Bird.

Stop.

As the cartoon character voiced by Ice Cube.

I was like, damn it, this is great.

This is.

This is why he's Ice Cube.

This is why AI will never win.

Ice Cube came up with that idea.

You know, he did It.

He's boom, six in the mode.

I'm like, oh.

Wow.

And they do that for the parents.

I love when movies and shows do that stuff for parents.

It flies right over the kids heads.

But the parents are sitting there like, yeah, that's Rogan.

Got all the homies in it.

Paul Rudd's in it.

I'm talking like everybody, dude.

That was the other cool thing about you said he got all the homies in it.

And I love like the actors that do that, you know, like Adam Sandler does that.

Always keeps the homies in it.

Right.

Ben Affleck and Matt Damon, they did a equity sharing thing when.

For this movie that just came out.

Rip.

The rip.

Yeah.

However well the.

The movie does, everyone gets a cut out of it.

It's hard to tell because it's on Netflix, so you don't really know how well did.

Yeah, yeah.

Is Netflix gonna share that data?

Yeah, I watched the movies.

Good.

That's it.

I mean, Marvel does way more, right?

The higher standard studio.

It's already done.

You don't got to do anything.

Our first movie, this shit.

You Matt Damon, I'm Ben Affleck.

We've already learned the riff and the shit.

You've already learned.

You got to say.

You got to say the plot points like every five minutes.

Saeed, you can't go off the gold standard.

Yeah, yeah, dude.

They actually mentioned it in the movie.

So they were like talking about how the.

The A block, B block, C block in the movies and how historically you save like the big one for the end.

Now Netflix wants you to hit.

Hit you with it in the A block just to keep people engaged.

And not only that, I guess when Netflix creates all their like, content, vital portions of the movie were historically speaking, like if you went to a movie theater, you're so tuned in, locked in, they would only need to hit you with one scene and you.

You'd catch it.

They got to do it four times.

They have to do it three or four times now.

And I'm like, that's wild.

Cuz they know your kids are running around.

You got dinner on the st. Have.

You seen the montage of the rip where they keep talking about the rip like he keeps talking about they want.

To steal the rip.

They say they want to see the rip like 17,000 times.

So somebody literally took all those statements and put them into like one continuous quote and then posted social media.

They want to steal the rip.

They want to steal the rip.

I think they want to see the rip.

Yeah, they're Embedding the rip in your head.

Wow.

So anyway, I think of the rip differently.

You know what I mean?

Rajill?

Yeah.

The rip.

I've had colorectal surgery.

I didn't know you're so public about it.

Oh, yeah, I'm very open.

Chris is open about everything, bro.

You know what he is?

He.

He saw the movie eight Mile.

He's just Eminem.

I'm gonna give you everything on me, and you can't make fun of me for it.

Yeah, yeah.

We're gonna be in depositions anyway.

Is it true you had colorectal surgery and your anus was torn in half?

I did, yeah.

Yes, it was.

I poop ribbons.

Yeah.

I was beating profusely.

I can decorate a.

Not going to hell.

You're just gonna lose a bunch of listeners.

Yeah.

A bunch of listeners are like, and that's enough Internet for the day.

Chocolate frosting.

You ordered.

But what did you think the movie the.

Was about?

Yeah.

Let's go to the next Donald's quote.

It seems appropriate to talk about the.

Now let's go straight to this guy.

Yeah.

This guy took the first dip yesterday because of Iceland.

So Iceland's already cost us a lot of money.

That was Greenland, bro.

Compared to what it's gonna.

And we have an unbelievable future in that stock.

That stock market is going to be doubled.

We're going to hit 50,000, and that stock market's going to double in a relatively short period of time.

He's struggling to stay awake.

Right.

I mean, our stock market took the first day.

This is 5:00am by the way, his time.

Yeah.

I'm just saying he's all, you know, he's already on.

Never mind.

We're not going to go there.

Yeah, don't do that.

Yeah, we've already.

So what he's trying to reference is.

Is Greenland.

Greenland, not Iceland.

Right.

So just a way of a backstory for whatever.

If listeners haven't had a chance to tune in and understand what's going on.

Right.

Basically demanding that Denmark comes up with a deal where they could sell them Greenland.

Right.

And if they don't come up with a.

A deal by February 1, the.

There'll be a 10.

February 1 this year.

Right.

There'll be a 10% tariff on eight countries in the European Union.

Right.

I think he backed off that little.

No, no, no.

So that was originally.

Yeah.

Right.

That's what happened originally.

And that's when the markets.

There was a huge sell off in the markets and there was a lot of fear.

Right.

And I don't think that was what the causes.

I think the, the Japanese bond markets would cause the fear.

I think, I think, I mean, it's because you're wondering if.

Okay.

Are they going to forcefully take this another country?

Right.

There's a video, it's embedded in the, in the chat.

It's Secretary Scott Besant, AKA the Gavin Killer.

Yeah, we're going to bring that up just to contradict, say real quick, the gamut.

Wait, what do you mean?

You'll see.

Okay.

Daddy can prepare for your conversation.

Okay.

You might want to put that on.

The screen there, chiefy.

Look at Jim got excited.

He got excited to shut me up.

Clicking all the things.

Yeah, I threw him a curveball.

This one is actually a video I downloaded.

Yeah.

So he's like, oh, shit, I push the bottom button.

All right, there you go.

Let's back it up.

There you go.

And three, two, one.

I believe the markets are going down because the Japanese bond market had a six standard deviation move for the past two days that would be in their ten year bonds.

I've been in touch with my economic.

Counterparts in Japan and for a second, the necessary measures.

Hey, the Gavin killer's talking, bro.

Wait, hold on.

You.

But do you really think he's going to come out the game be like, yeah, the market, the, the market took a dip because my guy.

Who, who, my boss.

My boss said some stuff and that's the reason he's not going to go up against.

Are you accusing a politician of saying inaccurate statements?

Just a little bit.

Yeah, that.

I do not want the White House to think that I'm associated with this message.

If, if that wasn't the case, then he wouldn't have come out the next day and completely changed his tune.

Come on.

Am I right or am I right?

I think you're wrong.

Really?

Yeah.

I think the Gavin kill is right.

Okay.

Okay.

Yeah, I think the game kills.

Right.

No, I, I, I think that there's a lot of stigma and people don't want to go to war.

So to your point.

Yeah, there's some accuracy there.

I do think the Japanese bond market had something to do with the, the bond markets reacting with that.

It did.

But look, there's uncertainty.

So if you follow the show and.

You watch some lives, you know that.

We'Ve got a replacement for the vix.

Known as a synthetic volatility index, AKA svi.

Let's go.

You know, I'm out here making all.

The names, dude, you know how cool it is at night to go, what am I going to Call this amazing.

Index the synthetic volatility.

I thought it would name anyone Chris.

The Chris.

Yeah, it's coming up the words to fill in the blank.

Yeah, yeah.

Or sass.

Yeah, but, you know, I don't, you know, it's nighttime.

The SVI is good because it's like, it's a play on, like, the vix, right?

Yeah.

SVI is way better.

Sv.

Yeah.

SV doesn't sound sexy.

I could have named it Vis Volatility Synthetic or something.

Anyway, we saw the synthetic volatility index drop from 90 to 85.

Still very healthy as far as risk and overall fear goes.

But you saw a change, and it largely had to do with what I think of the tops and bottom end of the market.

Yeah, the intraday range stress.

Right.

Look at you.

Yeah, I was paying attention to the lives look, honestly.

And that's what's so good about the charts because it'll break down and it'll show what's really pulling the averages down.

Right.

Well, so maybe explain to people what the intraday range stress is.

Basically the high and low of the index during the day and letting you know kind of what the delta is between the two of them.

The wider that delta, the more entry range stress there is, the narrower it is, the more confident the market is.

Right.

So if you've got people trading at $100 and people trading at $10, there's some pretty wide idea of what normal should be.

The market.

Right.

So if you compare like two days in a row and like, the market closes roughly around the same, it could look calm in theory.

But if you measure the intraday and you see the highs and lows to your point, and they're very different, then wait a minute, there's really, there's really some stress and some volatility going on that people are not comfortable with.

And you see this in a lot of the traditional candlestick charts, which I've always thought were terribly confusing for most people on the retail side.

They're like, oh, what are these weird candlestick looks?

Give me a line, bro.

Give me a line.

Yeah, yeah.

So this tries to do away with that and give you the same candlestick, like analytics, but broken it broken down from zero to 100, 100 good, zero bad.

That whole concept.

Yeah, Much better, Much better than like the Vix, where it's like, okay, a normal range is 20, and it was.

Approaching 20, so it crept up 220.

So there was some quote, volatility in the market.

But yeah, I, I look, I, I hear what you're saying I. I don't disagree with you.

I think there's a lot of geopolitical unrest.

And again, the narratives you saw during Davos in particular were gold, AI and.

Greenland and a little tiny bit of housing.

A little, tiny.

Little, tiny bit.

Yeah.

A little chef's kiss at the top.

Yeah.

Wasn't a whole lot regill the next one, if you don't mind.

Also the president, United States, djt.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So I did this for the last.

Year to ensure America remains the crypto capital of the world.

And to that end, last year, I signed the landmark Genius act into law.

Now Congress is working very hard on crypto market structure legislation, bitcoin, all of them, which I hope to sign very soon, unlocking new pathways for Americans to reach financial freedom.

Okay, so let's just.

Let's just take this right off the top.

What.

I'm unlocking all of them.

It's wild to me to see how different the narrative.

Crypto is almost like a foregone conclusion.

That the world accepts it now.

Yeah.

In previous years, they're like, I don't know.

Seems kind of risky.

Nothing back it.

Who's this Satoshi guy?

I don't know what's going on now.

Everyone's like, we're doing it.

It's part of the genius.

Bill.

I'm a genius.

It's weird.

It's a weird pivot.

And it wasn't just him.

It's everybody.

Right?

Right.

And that's why, for a long time, look, it wasn't as legitimate for.

For so many years.

And now it's just how much is being discussed and covered.

It's like.

Yeah.

There was no speculation anymore in the dialogue in Davos.

It was all, we're all rolling with crypto.

Crypto, crypto, crypto.

It was very weird.

And even.

Even Ray Dalio principles.

The guy, the man.

Yeah.

The mule slides.

I mean, so if you look at it right, okay, silver and copper are, you know, precious metals that can actually be used for building, construction, electronics.

Right.

Yeah.

Can actually be used for things.

Just looks back at you.

It really doesn't do it.

Anything other than as a hedge to inflation.

Right.

Well, no, they're also conductors.

Yeah.

I was gonna say Egyptians would disagree with you.

The original peak of the pyramid, the tip, if you will, was gold because it was rumored to be an amazing conductor.

Okay.

Rumors to be.

Right.

Not rumored to be.

It actually is gold.

That's why most of your audio acoustic stuff is gold.

You wouldn't know because you don't no, but it's not.

But.

But not like silver.

But not like silver and copper.

Copper.

Right.

So, I mean, I guess you.

You could see.

My point is, you could see a world where I guess crypto, like bitcoin, could be the same thing if everybody bought in, like, a fiat currency.

Oh, God, you're stretching so hard to sound crypto friendly.

Just.

Just embrace that you're not.

No.

Like this guy.

No, we did.

We came to terms.

We came at the end.

At the end of last year.

No, I'm not going to come out and say that.

I.

It's still not for me until this thing reaches a million dollars a coin, then it's not for me.

No, but I think that you would be.

I don't know.

You'd be missing out, and it should be a small percentage of your portfolio.

Reveal the next video, please.

Oh, boy.

Oh, boy.

Oh, yeah.

19.

Denmark said that they would spend over $200 million to strengthen Greenland's defenses, but as you know, they spent less than 1% of that amount.

1%.

There's no sign of Denmark there.

And I say that with great respect for Denmark, who.

Whose people I love, whose leaders are very good.

It's the United States alone that can protect this giant mass of land, this giant piece of ice, develop it and improve it and make it so that it's good for Europe and safe for Europe and good for us.

And that's the reason I'm seeking immediate negotiations to once again discuss the acquisition of Greenland by the United States, just as we have acquired many other territories throughout our history in 2019.

Yeah.

There'S always going to be an argument that you could always say this, right?

And anytime you ever want to get something done and passed very quickly, you instill a little bit of fear.

Right.

He did come out afterward and say that he wasn't going to use force to do this.

No, no.

No force.

But look, hey, we need to go in there and protect those people.

There needs to be strategic planning, and we need to use defense because we don't know what China and Russia could be doing over there.

Right.

It's a great place for us to be.

Look, that's crazy.

We know.

It's the.

It's the minerals.

And I think the.

The underdog theory here is you could save a lot of operating costs on data centers.

A lot.

A lot.

I'm setting you guys up for something towards the end of this episode.

But that's my theory.

Bear with me.

That's my.

Keep going.

That's my next one.

That's my conspiratorial tin hat.

No, no, it's good.

I. I think that all this conversation is important.

Jamie Diamond.

So good.

Do you think he lasered his hair off his beard or that's just.

He's just.

He gets up and does it every single day.

No, I think he has somebody shave him.

There are three parts to trade.

LeBron's barber.

Yeah, this, this video stalled last time too.

Some require tariffs.

Okay.

One part is national security.

We should do what we have to do to create national security around rare earths, you know, around advanced active pharmaceutical ingredients and some that may require policy that is not typical, like tariffs or pay, you know, long term dated contracts so you can build the stuff here you need.

And some advanced manufacturing category.

These companies cannot succeed if there aren't barriers, quotas, tariffs, or pay for play.

Absolutely sine qua non.

I would do what I had to do to protect American nascar.

The second one is unfair trade.

She's against.

I would not be that confident.

Furniture or T shirts are important trade, but you know, there is unfair fair trade.

It's not some places blown out of proportion.

But, you know, if you are subsidizing China in this case, or anyone, you know, subsidizing their cars, their batteries, this, that.

So anyone who tries to compete is going to get sunk because of subsidies, you know, and the subsidies can come in various forms.

Then you should counter that.

You can counter that with quotas.

A lot of countries have quotas.

You can counter that with tariffs.

Perfectly fine, as long as there's a reason for it.

So.

But I'm not a tariff guy in general.

But I don't think in general it's a great idea.

But, you know, it is what it is.

And so.

But the president is a tariff guy in general.

He loves tariffs.

Yes.

So this is an area where you would disagree.

I would.

Okay, look, there's no.

She is a gangster, bro.

I don't know who she is, but.

She is good, dude.

The market took three downturns last year in 2025.

Right?

Here we go.

Ended the year.

Ended the year up 16%.

Yeah.

Okay, but the.

But the three times they took a downturn was every time tariffs got announced.

Of course.

Jamie, dimes gonna be like, I don't like this.

Yeah, of course.

I think there is a time and a place for tariffs that could be used strategically the right way.

I don't agree.

Not like this, but they're not always supposed to be bad.

But tariffing the European Union, our biggest trade partner, not A good look bro.

Or it generate look, we got a debt problem here.

We need to come up with a solution.

It might require an unorthodox strategy.

I am not saying that tariffs are that strategy, okay.

I'm just saying like we got to try some stuffs, you know what I mean?

Like I don't have the answer bro, but I know what we've been doing ain't been working.

I know, but don't worry, your boy Uncle Jamie took a spin as it relates to him.

Regil, if you don't mind.

Of course.

Again with this.

This lady is so brilliant.

I love her.

I don't know who she is.

I got so gangster.

Yeah.

Recent proposals that would does the pause thing.

I don't know, it's affect you.

He's making sure you to improve affordability is to impose a 10% cap on credit card rates.

Is that a bad idea?

It would be a economic disaster.

And I'm not making up because our business, we would survive it.

By the way, in the worst case they have a drastic reduction of the credit card business.

I mean drastic, I mean like 10%.

I mean like 80%, 80% of credit.

80% of Americans and that is their backup credit.

And huge disagreement.

She asked the question between Republican.

He was ready.

He looked at the crowd tested economic disaster.

I can't do this, you know, because it be antitrust.

But the government can do it.

They should force all the banks to do it in two states, Vermont and Massachusetts, red and blue states and see what happens.

And then I think the left will learn a real.

Everyone who thinks manipulating price will learn a real lesson.

And the people crying the most won't be the credit card companies.

It'll be the restaurants, the retailers, the travel companies, the schools, the municipalities because people will miss their water payments, their this payment and that payment.

It would be, it would be something else to watch.

I think they should test it.

Well, President Trump may be be determined to test it more broadly.

Well then okay, whatever it is, we'll deal with.

I think it's wrong for the government to get involved extensively in pricing of stuff but you know, I got to deal with the world.

I got.

It's kind of interesting.

They're going to, we're going to give them at one point real analysis on the effects of this.

We've given some but not a lot.

It's kind of interesting when I ask you something that directly.

And by the way, Morgan, you say it will be a complete economic disaster.

When I speak more broadly about geopolitics, you're very reluctant to criticize one.

I know exactly.

The other one is, is.

Is more qualitative how it's going to work.

What are the pieces, what's their intent, how are people to respond?

They're not the same thing.

But, but, but the economic.

When you believe somebody.

True, you should say that.

And so the economic.

Of the car thing, we'll see.

Do you think, See the other thing.

I've not seen anyone really.

Republicans, senators, businesses, banks, credit unions, community.

Bank, bro, he got full court press there for a second and he just spun right out of it.

So let me tell you something that he said that he didn't say.

Okay, first of all, he came prepared for that statement.

He knew it was coming.

He knew it was coming.

He was going to Davos.

He's like, I'm gonna ask this question.

The first thing I'm gonna say is economic disaster.

So he was on the PJ practicing that.

Yeah, yeah.

Two shades.

Virginia, Massachusetts.

Yeah, he knew he was ready.

Yeah, he came ready.

Both.

Right.

So.

And then he said 80% and he slipped it under the tongue a little.

Bit, you know, gave you the reach around 80% of credit cards that go away, people wouldn't be able to pay.

So you're telling me, you know, the main users of your credit cards are so dependent on that debt that they will not be able to pay their water bill in your own municipality, example.

Yeah, but to his point.

But what he's thinking when he's saying that is, you're welcome.

And he's also not mentioning you don't like tariffs.

Okay, fine.

I get it.

All right, cool.

Cool.

Because you think that taxing our partners and getting involved in pricing is not appropriate.

But on the other hand, when the president says, not that you can't have credit cards, not that you can't charge a high interest rate, just cap your interest rate at 10%, which, by the way, is a whole hell of a lot.

That's a lot.

Okay.

When you cap it 10%, you're like, oh, then we're going to pull back 80% of our business.

No one's going to have credit access anymore.

We're not involved.

But why, though?

You're still making 10%, right?

I'm making enough.

Saeed, we're not.

It doesn't make.

Honestly, that makes zero sense.

It doesn't justify the risk side.

Yeah, I feel like it does, but that's still there.

It's not disappearing.

Yeah.

What he would argue if he were.

In the room with me again.

Oh, flex, let's go.

What he would argue is, he would.

Say that the default, the risk of default, people not paying back the credit cards is so high that unless they're making the money to cover for that lost debt that it would be an economic loss leader for them.

They would not be making money at 10% because the percentage of the credit cards still out there with outstanding balances would default at a higher cadence.

And we know that because it's non.

Secured consumer debt which has one of the highest default rates in the country.

And it is not uncommon.

We've all heard the story of some, a hole out there running his credit.

Card up to the top, leaving, going to a different country or just not paying it back, whatever it might be, right.

And then guess what?

The bank gets left holding the credit card back.

What if there's a. Yeah, so that, that theory makes sense.

What about this?

What if there was an option to.

Where if you negotiated with your credit card company to cap your interest rate at 10% but you would have, your, your credit would have to get dinged.

What do you mean?

So like they're, they, did they do that now?

Right?

That's the thing.

I know they do.

So it's like not everybody who does it.

Right.

And if anything, if somebody gets to that point where they're, they're pushed up against the limit.

Look, you're.

I'm about to default on the whole thing and I'm a claim bankruptcy, right?

You still would collect interest.

I mean it's like a workout, right?

I'm about to lose some friends.

What I'm going to say.

Oh, okay.

Debt consolidation companies, credit management companies, they.

Are all completely full of shit.

Okay?

Do not use them.

Learn to manage your own credit.

They do not help you.

It all impacts your credit score.

If they're negotiating the balances down, you can do the same thing.

There is no proprietary strategy.

There is no secret sauce.

It is all a hustle to get you to pay them 2500 bucks.

You don't have to negotiate debt.

You can negotiate down so that you.

Feel better about yourself.

Your credit scores still get impacted.

They're not doing anything magical for you.

It is a street hustle.

Do not fall for it.

Yeah, yeah, good.

Yeah, sorry.

Everybody used to be my friend.

I know lots of people in that business.

They make a whole lot of money because they just get 2,500 bucks from you.

2,500 bucks from you.

Two thousand five hundred bucks from you.

And it's just, it's the hustle.

Yeah.

It's a Nasty hustle.

Yeah.

Uh, and.

And I know some people listening to this that listen to the show are devout listeners who own companies who do that.

And I.

This is not disrespect to this.

It's a little predatory.

There.

There are ethical ways to do it, I'm sure.

And maybe I'm just not educated on it, but for the most part, I'm not a fan.

Yeah, I agree.

Again, love and respect all the homies.

Rejeel, you ready?

Ooh, yeah.

This is awkward.

What's the source here?

Oh, it's Bitcoin.com news.

Ooh, ouch.

Is everything we all do that's been true my whole life, my whole career.

So we've always had the head of technology at the management table, and we do any kind of business review.

What are you doing in tech?

And it could be for finance or hr.

It says, what are you doing in tech?

How are you going to improve your ops?

What are you doing?

What's better?

What other people do?

AI.

We took it out of tech.

They worked close with tech, now has a seat at the table.

And so whenever we meet, there's a list of AIs.

What are you doing, AI?

So any one of you, if you worked at JP Morgan, you have your list of what are you doing in AI?

What are you implementing?

It could be coding.

It could be OpenAI.

It could be limited Systems.

You have 500 use cases, and you got to get better at it.

It's very fast.

It's changing rapidly.

We have an LLM where 150,000 people use that internal data every week.

And you just got to make it more to your psyche.

And I still think it's the tip of the iceberg.

I think this one is faster, is massive.

It is like the Internet or electricity is not going to roll out over 20 years.

It's, you know, it's more parabolic for now.

And when you.

All right, so I think Ben Affleck would disagree.

And.

But this is the problem, right?

You take somebody who's a trusted resource.

Like Jamie Dimon, who knows the financial.

Markets, and I love Jamie Dimon, but.

You don't know what you're talking about, dude.

Yeah, exactly.

And he also says, okay, we've got.

Basically a head of AI.

Now we're streaming Morgan.

Great.

Good for him.

Her that's got to seat at the table.

Awesome.

Cool.

Fine.

This one, this one, this one.

This one moves faster.

Yeah, I heard that.

And I thought, oh, you mean this bubble?

Yeah.

Uhhuh.

The Internet bubble.

Right.

This one Moves faster.

Right.

That was an interesting way of phrasing it.

That was weird.

We can skip the.

The next one.

Re.

It's more Jamie Dimon on AI Because I want to be a mean person.

But I do want to cover.

There's an article at the bottom there.

It's from Resi Club, Lance Lambert's team over there.

They did an interesting analysis.

There's a couple of things I want to hit.

Real card.

So you heard the White House, right?

They were going to come down, they were going to slam down on the table this bill was going to ban institutional home buyers.

Oh, yeah, they did it.

Did.

They came out and they did it.

Then I didn't qualify Exactly.

What was 100 units or more?

1,000 units or no more?

We don't.

What do you mean by that?

Well, you could be an institutional home.

You can own, you know, 100 units.

Is that institutional?

Is it?

You own a thousand units.

Like, like if I, if I have an LLC that, you know, is building out all.

You own 30 something units.

Is that institutional?

Yeah.

Exactly.

At what point do you cross from investor to institutional?

I don't know.

There's no, there's no written rule for that.

You'd have to.

You have to put that in the policy.

But here, Build to Rent is exempt from White House's order to ban institutional home buying.

Rental housing.

Economist Jay Parsons.

The order doesn't actually ban institutional buyers, presumably due to legal limits.

Because there's a question whether this is even legal.

Right.

But if it does, it looks to limit it through various means, like blocking Fannie and Freddie loans.

Okay.

I'm going to be the guy.

Be the guy.

Fannie and Freddie loans are not the only source of capital to market.

As a matter of fact, if you're an institutional buyer and you're buying thousands of properties, Fannie and Freddie probably aren't your best source of capital.

Right.

So is this a headline?

Sure.

Yeah.

Say, guess what?

What?

I banned you.

All right.

Yeah.

From standing up and peeing at your house.

Okay.

I put that I'm banning you right now.

You will not do that ever again.

Because I banned you.

Okay?

Now, anybody listen to the show knows you don't pee standing up at your house.

Don't sit down.

That's just your personal rule.

Clean.

Yeah.

I mean, you may.

If there's a catastrophe, why no sitting down?

But what would happen?

How could that be?

Take my piece away.

Yeah, so your bees my piece.

In any event, look, that's what this headline is.

All this rhetoric, all this build up to Davos.

All these conversations.

Cryptocurrency.

Right, right.

Greenland or Iceland depending on how you look at it.

Right, right.

All this stuff happening, all the conversation Gold the markets bonds in this.

This is supposed to be the big reveal.

It was a big donut.

Nothing, nothing.

Nothing.

Built to rent is exempt.

I know that.

I think JP Morgan Chase did like a whole.

You want to hear this whole neighbor.

A whole neighborhood down in somewhere in.

SoCal I can't remember they probably had so banks have a duty to serve.

They have a CRA Community Reinvestment act and community development requirements.

So it probably was low income housing that fulfill that need.

But yeah.

Rejeel, let me just.

This came.

This article came out the exact same day the next article, same website, Resi Club, Lance Lambert.

The literally the exact same day that order came out this was another headline.

Oh Understanding Institutional Landlord Invitation Homes new housing market bet.

Invitation Homes, which wholly owns about 86,139 single family rentals announced Thursday that it is acquiring a build to rent developer Rez built.

Here's why that matters because it gets them around the exemption.

Yeah.

What the actual.

Yeah.

I mean damn man.

So all that headline was a big nothing.

And we're getting late in the show.

I want to, I want to cover.

I want to say one thing that.

Really blew me away.

The more I'm not going to have a major impact.

Right.

I mean they only make up 2 to 3%.

No major.

Even if it did have an impact.

On the institutional buyers, it wouldn't have major.

And again if you look at the.

Affordability index that we put put up.

Yeah.

Supply ain't the issue, bro.

Right.

It's rates and pricing.

So this ain't the issue.

It's not even.

What am I looking at here?

J.P. morgan is actively involved in Southern California housing through commercial real estate financing focusing heavily on affordable, affordable housing.

Biggest lender in the state of California.

Community development banking team has financed financed 25.3 billion for affordable housing.

Yes.

Shout out to Mr. Robini.

So again, not to get political, not.

To get too far down this rabbit hole, but I thought it was really stunning.

God.

I'm gonna have this conversation.

I have been heavily criticized for not commenting about Iran enough to all of my fellow Iranians.

And I have always said that I'm a bit hesitant to be vocal and support.

Not that I think what's happening there is not a tragedy.

It is.

But I've seen it multiple times over my life that there's been an uprising against the regime And I've always had, like, the mindset, okay, what's going to change the government now?

Because they are afraid of nuclear wars happening.

Yeah.

And I think a lot of people will try to virtue signal by pushing out, like, hey, you need to comment on this because you're close to it or you're related to it, or they're trying to say, like, I'm supporting people, you should, too.

Whether that's Israel or Palestine.

Yes.

Or that's Russia, Ukraine or Darfur.

I mean, there's plenty of examples of this all over the world at any given time.

Right.

And what I've always said is, is if you go publicly and protest in the streets, you're giving the people hope, which I hope literally has something behind it to push and meaningfully change.

Yes.

It was stunning to me.

I didn't hear a single bit about that in Davos.

This is the World Economic Forum.

Yeah.

And if the US Government was going to move and this, I mean, they talk about in previous iterations, global warming.

Yeah.

This wasn't a global conversation.

Right.

Like, there was literally no dialogue about it.

So this is one of those things where I say, look, I hope that the US backs and pushes things differently, but when I see situations like this and I watch the news all day long and I've got 80 global leaders and finance leaders all over the world talking about things, not a single person that I saw brought that up.

And you could say it's not the environment for it, but it has been.

Historically.

Yeah.

We've talked about Russia, Ukraine, historically, we've talked about, you know, Israel and Palestine in some circumstances.

But to see completely nothing was.

Was shocking.

So shocking.

Yeah.

So I would tell you that for those people who are listening and want to see the government involvement there, I think that's very telling to see that you're unlikely, unless something changes meaningfully in the.

In the months and weeks to come, to see that there's government support there.

Yeah.

And in the show, in a bit of a weird spin, I recognize, but it caught me off guard today.

I expected to hear more here.

Exactly.

I did, too, actually.

I didn't get a chance to tune in as much as I wanted to, and I was planning on checking out over the course of the rest of this week, but I'm glad we covered it on the show for everybody.

Rajille, anything?

No, no, no.

He looks surprised.

We've talked to him.

He's like, oh.

Oh, yeah, I'm here, guys.

Hi.

How you done?

You got anything else?

No, I'm gonna Go decorate.

I mean, we got, we got.

It's Fed meeting.

Oh, yeah, I pulled up the calendar at the very end.

It's 28th, I want to say.

Yeah, this month, right?

Yeah, yeah, it's the end of the month.

It's one week from today.

Yeah, one week from today.

So by the time this episode comes out, it's Fed week.

So I'm not, not expecting a whole lot.

Don't expect Fed rate cut.

Yeah, I don't see a rate cut happening.

I do expect there to be some interesting conversations and some more political rhetoric leading up to it, but I don't think we're going to see a Fed rate cut.

As a matter of fact, JP Morgan Chase has said there will be no rate cuts in 2026 and a rate increase in 2027.

Yeah.

But I am excited to see what.

JP Morgan Chase's David Kelly does say when on CNBC.

He tends to join those things.

He's got a very astute and sharp perspective on these things.

I'm super interested to see it.

Leave us a review.

Make sure you share the show.

If you're on YouTube or Spotify and you're liking the visuals, leave a comment.

If you're on YouTube, bring that notification bell.

Do all the moist goody good stuff.

We really appreciate it.

It'll do a lot for the show.

We appreciate every single one of you listeners if you're sticking around this long.

Thank you so much.

We love you.

Go to thspod.com get yourself some merch.

Get your merch.

Get your merch.

Get your merch.

Get your merch.

All right, man.

Got anything?

Old school, new school, how are we doing this?

How you want to do it?

Okay, bye.

Okay, bye.