E56: Constitution DAO, Rittenhouse trial coverage, private sector efficiency vs the government
01:15:41 Share

Who was very interesting going to sex is kid's birthday party. Um free burden. I were there for about two, three hours. Six showed up for the last half hour.

I think I was. I think I there for two hours and didn't see sex. I M on my way up door.

but he had some .

youtube r who really, yeah, you know, they have seven million followers on youtube. Eat your heart out, jaco. How many tize bigger art is? Pop of jack .

business and podcasting on youtube is a new concept. Uh, long form and long form is not with the algorithms designed for so I ve to do time for short form and people getting to completion. So getting to completion on a ninety minute .

video we talking about .

love making against and I say completion I this we need an H R. Department at all. Yeah.

I prefer the short form format for that too.

We should call up in box. We may give.

We can sort to .

the fans.

Hey, everybody, welcome to another episode of the all in podcast is episode fifty six. We've made IT past fifty five the show. The band is still together, coming to you every friday night far too late because the rainman obsesses over every edit in the podcast with us again, the all ends core sexy himself, David rainman sacks, and the queen of kwai, the sultan of science, David freeman, is here. And with a power sweater that cost.

no, a power turtle .

neck that cost more than your mortgage payment this month, the dictator himself to mah poli hopeth ia, i'm jao IT was a pretty incredible week. I think we have to panda to the crypto currency crowd because that's just making ratings go through the roof.

Here I am absolutely inspired by what we saw this week with the constitution dao forming in about a week and going from one or two million to forty six million dollars raised through without you don't know what these decentralized autonomists organizations are. It's basically analysis to, uh, a corporate structure, but that's written in code so you can get a group of people together, typically in the discord. Then you create a song contract, they collect in a wallet a bunch of ease or typically eat right now.

And then you get some kind of governance written into the deal where people get voting power. They brought this together to bid on one of thirteen copies of the original constitution of the united states. And IT was a very controversial moment last night when eighty percent of the money was raised in in the last forty eight hours.

And there was a crazy auction going back and fourth with two representatives of southern es on the phone. IT hit forty one million dollars. Everybody thought that the dow had one, which would have meant would have meant that almost twenty thousand people who participate in this would then vote on what to do with this forty one million dollar offer.

Coin desk incorrectly, uh, reported that the dew one and then the dew uh announced that they had in fact not some other statistics. Uh their twitter has thirty six thousand followers. The group reported they needed forty million to participate, thirty million to be competitive in, forty million to have a great chance of winning.

They raised like, I think, six or seven million while they were on the air, you know, when the auction had started. And the only, uh, downside all of this is that there were huge gasses. Uh, people were spending thirty, forty, fifty box to donate two hundred, which was the average size of these.

Yeah, they should. All .

right. So here we go, walking on book again. Now we got something .

going to clip this out a lot. Copy the .

constitution.

You know.

it's so funny. I uni.

I did buy something at these options. Uh, yesterday, quite unique. Um I I will not comment on what I was.

but is that .

no but taxi taxi no, no.

I, no, no, no, no, no, no.

But no, I did so. But I I watched .

these options closely, I guess is what i'm trying to say. And I was surprised that the U. S. Constitution result so little you for a basically like the magna ara of the best start of that everything created.

But there's thirteen of them, right? So on a market cap basis, on a market cap basis, you can apply by thirteen.

Yeah, great. Thirteen times forty seven.

the printing after the original was signed.

we have a, we ve created a twenty two trillion dollar a year start up that keeps compounding by four forty five percent year. I would thought these things would be worth in a couple hundred million each.

Well, there's a lot, there's a lot of U S. member. Be a bit yeah I mean but what that .

means the U. S. Constitution, David, is not is not worth .

as much as they .

used to be.

There's a lot of documents you got the difference dependence. You got, you know, get this over a dress.

There's time A D the t party even .

I actually think citizens united, technically, guys, the citizens united, if IT was written not one time in one document, uh, by the supreme import, that would be worth much more than forty million because it's basically invalid.

most of the constitution. One of interesting things that happened. Vid.

that what I just .

said is true.

but I just said, if you had printed the citizens united verdict from the supreme court on a piece of that forty .

million dollars was I was like democracy two.

point out what you said that you .

guys are missing .

is this is a critical moment in the history of crypto currencies because the first three major use cases of cypher to currency. What kind of um you had money transfer which is not as good as payout or verma or many other solutions. Just I think when you had store value, hold on the me for a store value which is like who care is playing with a value and then N F T is got interesting. But these downs are absolutely gain changing the ability to have forty seven million dollars show up and be prepared to be deployed in .

forty eight hours and then changed.

I I really leg .

you've been banned. And because .

dows have governance. Dows have governance and it's a programmable governance, is a programmer CoOperate entity.

IT is things transfer. Owercome interest will be regulated like security course. That is a very important point. And in this particular model, the idea was that would all be kind of part of a nonprofit that .

would not be donations.

And so as soon as these days, which they should, and incredibly powerful tool, if that does actually become a security instrument, then IT changes everything.

And and IT is going to that .

metal thing is like the thing .

that outside the U. S. First right? And then there will be crp to X, U, S.

Crypto investments that are going to drive this. And that's why the us. Going to be left behind.

Here's which you are missing. These downs are pushing the envelope in the same way L B N B N uberto in terms of, you know, bending the rules about right sharing or renting your extra room. These downs are kind of breaking security laws.

They were telling people were buying the constitution. People who donated thought they were buying part of IT. Not so, okay. But here's the thing. If they bend the rules like this, what they showed to the S. C, C is that there is a huge appetite for people to quickly form groups of capital at low dollar amounts to do something important or interesting in the world. And americans now have a state of continue a ste.

I think that what IT showed is that this is yet another explanation of fractionalized ownership. That demand existed well before dawns. IT exists today.

It'll exist tomorrow. A W was just yet another on rap. But much like most fractional ownerships are terrible financial trades for crappy assets. So was this.

So said differently, if you're going to spend the time to open, uh, a Robin hood or e trade account, IT still matters whether you buy a share of lycos or a share of google, right? okay. And so whether you do add or whether you have an l sea, to me, it's irrelevant. The underlying asset didn't make any sense, had zero chance, in my opinion, of any meaningful appreciation. And so if you really want to make something work, and if you want to prove the dough, then I would have hope that they would have actually asked a few smart people, he guys, people who buy art, people who know crypto, what are some masses that I should have? Because if this thing does appreciate, you will do more to prove the questions that you.

somebody beat them out on the obviously, the value is .

greater than what is .

a created investor. This is non a created vectors who are doing this.

I know. And that that on sophistication was clear. The stupid est thing you can do if you enter an auction, okay, is to declare how you're gonna be an underbit ter. So like it's basically saying, hey guys, you know here's my top tick and i'm willing to be an act. And so now you force these guys to be the other bitter at a dollar .

over there. I the time I wonder if the reason why they chose this particular type of asset is because it's collectable and there for explicit excluded from the security laws. So basically, maybe maybe they're are limited in terms of what they can go after because they don't want to be a security.

But until that's the case, then that does limit, I think, the applicability of douse, right? Because what you want is, is to create corporations that are programmable, that you can have shareholder votes through the tokens and things like that. You know basic a digital version of what they do, analogy the rural world with and shareholder meetings like that, that nobody ever attended ah nobody ever a tensity show or meanings. And you know I get these notices of votes that are to be held. Nobody ever feels the eggs and noone feel out.

And people have super share, super voting. And so you feel like you have no say, but in this case, you do have a and they're going to do assets like imagine somebody had ten thousand acres of rain forest or a national potential national park and all the sun you pop up a doll and if the esc says, you know what, five hundred dollars or last you can back their money, how have you want? Hold on, let me finish and they take that five hundred dollars, and you get a million people to put five hundred dollars in, which is completely conceivable. Somebody could buy five hundred million dollars worth of national farms and say, i'm going to meet this into a public trust to protect .

the environment. This is .

no governance. They had no governance that was missing for the benefit. Hold on, I. C. S.

Were for the benefit of the scum bags who did those griffe and ran away with the money. This is an organization with a predetermined governance structure. This is like creating a new country or a new format for an L, O. Say, that's what you're missing.

Okay, are you done? Yes, what you're missing. You're painting the optimistic scenario of what these things could do. And you are correct.

But what's always happened in the history of humanity is descent areas have resolved to people figuring out wave to sm, other people to make money. This one looks all right. Thank you.

But just like you know, this looks like a great altruistic action. We're going to go out and buy the U. S. S. constitution. U. S. constitution. The next deal will end up being some shady r peace that's worth the hundred grand of chemo points out the buy for ten million, everyone to lose the rest and the next five hundred look the same.

And that's why we have security regulators and security laws because in the past, when these sorts of structures that they weren't digitally governed and all this sort of stuff. And people would go around, and they were put together pools of money for other people and promise them the world. And then they were turned around and steal their money and walk away.

We created security regulators that could oversee and not have independent governance but have distributed governance across the y system to make sure that this doesn't happen. And that's the slippery slip of where this goes. I'll say one more thing about the structure of this particular deal, which I know can be resolved, but IT creates a problem in that everyone is bedding or investing a fixed dollar amount without knowing how much equity they're getting.

And so when you say, hey, i'm going to put in five hundred dollars and there's currently ten million dollars that lets say those ten thousand dollars in this thing, it's like, hey, okay, i've got five percent ownership in this thing. If the next guy shows up and puts in ten thousand dollars, you now have two and a half percent owner ship in the thing and even flaid the value of the thing you're buying. And that's effectively what happened in the structure, this particular doubt, where the more money people put in, the more they were paying and the less they were owning.

And you couldn't adjust that. The correct structure in the future, for people that do care about equity and otherness will be, I want to buy one percent and I willing to pay a max of five hundred dollars to buy that one percent. And with that rule engine, which I know can be built into dows, people can then structure what they willing to bid and how much are willing to participate in.

The door was a whole can resolve what is willing to pay to go buy an asset. And everyone can feel like they know what they're getting as they get into these things. And then the third problem with this particular that as we saw, I know it's kind of the first big one like this, was the obvious point that these guys were showing the world how much they were to go bit on this asset.

And if you take forty six million dollars and you divided by one point one three or which is, you know, remember, there's thirteen percent buyers on this asset. They showed everyone what are going to pay. And of course.

they lost at a dollar over the underbit ter. I'll see something else. The only fractionalized asset that has ever been proven to appreciate reliably or stocks, every other fractionalized asset where you take something and then you divided up generally, has been a trash burger.

You need to either own the whole thing yourself or if you're gonna IT with a bunch of other people, the only thing that's reliable or equities. Now that's just a historical artifact for how money has been made. So I appreciate, Jason, what you're saying, which is I think actually, you care about the structure because I think that has huge implications to people pursuing wealth creation for themselves, for people particia paying in private markets.

But I do think that you're over blowing this one example because I don't think this showed any of that. I think that this showed how unreliable and and useless affery um is as a action layer for these things. You know the fact that these poor people now have money stuck in a doubt that they can't get out of because they would the gas ies would negate their contribution. So that didn't all .

the bombs in the what's please .

you've got to pull up IT didn't prove governance because, as David said, we had this inflationary outcome where all of a sudden I didn't know the equity that I owned. The transparency worked against them because you're beating on an asset where you were clear what the threshold max Price you could pay. So you had no pricing power and you had no, uh, opacity in in your bidding strategy.

So so I I think that this was A P R. lock. And in fact, they said, IT started out as a joke, and I took on ahead of steam.

And so I think they felt like they had to execute. What I would say is there are going to be some really amazing examples of doubts. This proved none of those things that that that the amazing ones will prove, in my opinion.

And this will invite regulatory scrutiny faster than IT will keep IT away, right? You will see, you know more of the scenario where people get screwed out of money like they did in this particular case. And I know a lot of everyone they participate in this.

I know that there's all trust degrees. Who do they see? Who do they do? The people who do they see? Who do they go after now that they lost the two hundred dollars that they contribute?

Yeah there I mean, there's there's there's no structure and I think that's part of the regulatory .

know how do we get the money back?

I can respond who's .

the person that who's the person that you want to? If that if .

that double had .

called me, I could have actually bid for them and actually won that fucking in thing for half the Price. You know what? I mean, you got anything .

you want to try?

No, I think I don't know.

I would give a closing.

Yeah, I right.

Number one, you're all speaking like a bunch of rich credit investors. Uh, we need to think about people who do not uh, get to participate. And what I see in my day job is people go to an equity crowd funding inside.

It's too arduous to allow non accredited investors to invest. IT takes months and it's tons of paperwork. So then what happens is the best deal flow, which goes to the people who are on this podcast.

We are already rich. We get to sweep up all the best deals because people who are founders and who have opportunities in corporations do not bother doing equity crop funding because the S. C, C, in their wisdom, to try to protect people, and they have good intent to europe.

For edberg has made IT so arduous and painful for people that they then don't do IT. The founders are talking about this, then keeps people down. And when we were all poor, we got to spend our money gambling or doing whatever we want with IT.

But we all would have wanted to have, when we were non accredited, the to place a bet on a startup. And you are forgetting that. And what's .

gonna happen, all of what .

you're saying, all of what you're saying is absolutely accurate and valid. And those are what you need. You need to identify the projects like this. The gas fees are a problem so people can move.

This is a you need to find out that they don't know how to do bidding, and maybe they shouldn't say how much has been raised so that they can come in a bit more intelligently. And maybe they do need to pick a Better target. But this is two hundred dollars per person there. You guys .

are acting like markets guy. I would love for there to be no regulation and everyone will come in. And the problem is society won't let that happen.

And that's the point i'm trying to make IT me is you in the U. K, if you in australia, you can go gamble and you can go baton startups. There are different creditors as we have antiquated ones.

that in the united states, regulatory regime will be invoked because people will lose money and individuals will raise their hand and say, I put money into a dough that I lost my ass on and enough thousands of people do that. And then elisabeth Warren and aoc will get on, you know, hse, they'll say, let's, let's fix this problem. Berny standards will say, this is unfair.

The billion airs are taking the money from people. And so I agree with you, we should let people take race. We should let people lose money. We should drop all the I burden. My point is really that I think structurally, what's gonna happen is there are gonna more of these things that are going to show up that will rip people off and that will hide in regulatory interest, and people will come along and y'll start to clap down on the self.

And that's my point. okay. I also think this example has nothing to do with what you're talking about. I think what you're talking about, J, K, L is ladder.

And we should all want that because I think that the broader number of people that get to participate in the wealth creation intact, the Better. But there are different ways of doing that. I don't think we have to run full force and embrace the doll is the only way that that happens.

And I think that structurally, the the the democratic norms inside of a doll in many ways make IT much harder to govern inside a regulatory framework. And IT does set up a very binary decision by the S C C N U S. Regulators, which unfortunately they're not going to go and be support above because the binary decision to support them would effectively negate their oversight.

That's right. They got job to keep to.

They have jobs to keep. And I really think it's a cynical and accurate prediction that they will fight IT. But what you mean not aware of is that there is in the start of act from years ago, they did allow equity crowd funding. They put a lot of throttling on IT, and now they're going to let you get a credit through taking a course or like kind of having a driver's license or a gun permit. So IT is conceivable that the next time IT now happens and their .

trying to but can you stop conflicting these things together? You can. We've had iterations in the crowd funding rules. You're just trying to tag this with the double. Can keep me to separated. Keep IT hold on this second, can I just ask question, can you please just describe and acknowledge that the crowd funding rules had iterate .

vely evolved in the absence of just yes.

so just separate the two.

They're not the same thing. They are two sides of the same point because allow a global participation in this, and the capital can be formed instantly. This was done in a, that's what so powerful about IT IT. IT costs tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands, because the equity cwd funding .

this costs nothing. Because IT was for a in an eerie, superficial asset with a name that people recognized. Let me this second now, let me replace the U.

S. Constitution with. I don't know, Jason, you just sent a deal a day ago.

What was the name of IT? Let's just call IT aconites t. com.

sure. Now, what are .

people supposed to do? It's not a known asset. They're not known founders. There may be turbulent issues inside the company that are still being hammed out. What are these people supposed to do?

How are they interesting more about place a small meat, do some research, vote on IT, do collective research in a discord. You aren't. Look at, you have a bunch of researchers working for you.

You defended the gm. You have a team. Your team does research, and they are smart people, and they get paid very well. You were praising the coverage that wall street that did on G M, E on this park cast episodes ago. You were saying how was really was .

because they were analyzing public companies who are governed by the company? Yes, because there are no rules that govern disclosure gamed stop had very strict disclosure rules because they were public. That was what allowed wall street bets to understand what was going on under the hood of game stop IT was the disclosure of the funds that the S.

C. C. S. Forced you to make. That allowed people to understand the long and the short book that was building against IT. If if that was in the private markets, that data is not obligated to be provided in the in the wild, wall street bets would have had no idea. So I I think you're actually proving the opposite of what you intend, which is it's the regulatory framework that .

allowed the retail G.

M, E position to happen. I think what jake are saying is we need to create some space here for innovation so that entreats can work out the kinks of these dolls, so that one day jaw can run a syndicate on a blockchain. And founders .

that way is that we are same jaw or anybody. I mean.

here's a syndication to the .

syndicate. I didn't mention the syndicate .

that on once as competitors to your syndicate, but now you're all on the dark train.

I C, O, S, I, um, I thought we were too big. So I think you could solve this problem by looking at the bet size that people were allowed to make SHE can just say, hey, the Opera limit t is five cat. So now you've basically taking the individual craton well, because if you wanted to create a regulate environmental well.

because you would know the restaurant, you create a diminish exceptions .

and worth than one percent of others.

okay? So make IT a percent of that worth.

Now the first thing principal of portfolio construction is you need to be concentrated in the things you know, and you need to stay away from the things you know. If you kept the upside on the you can invest, what are people supposed to do? Peanut butters? Around fifty bets.

And do you know what i'll happen, Jason? Most of those will be losers because the mortality rate and start up to super high. And they will end up with basically nothing.

How do they do in vagus?

How do they do betting? How to invest? I mean, I think where we're saying is that this I mean, this where I actually great, is that the regulator should carve out enough room so that innovation can continue around this concept of douse because who knows what they could become one day? And we think we shouldn't kill this thing.

We haven't killed anything because nothing exists. There are no rules about those. The regulators have been said anything.

I think we all agree that crowd funding rules should get much more expensive. That makes sense. And with that, private companies should disclose more.

That makes sense, right? We all agree with that so that you can have more disclosure in public available data. So just in your point, communities can get into a discord like today.

If you said, hey guys, let's go and analyze a late stage investment in stripe, what do you do? Blather on about IT and just talk at each love this question. So now, are you supposed are you supposed to enter carta or some other third party platform and buy at one hundred and twenty billion?

Do you underwrite the very simple, very simple in the start of dw concept we're talking about here, you would do exactly what an Angel investor or which is say, hey, okay, we had IT, let's say, this constitution that was to invest in startups. Okay, twenty thousand people put two hundred and two. We have a forty million dot pool. okay? We're all going to simi ideas and then we're gonna and invite those founders to come pitch the out on a zoo m and will all vote on which ones we like best.

And instead of you know a venture capital firm getting access to this now, those twenty thousand people could say, you know what, we're going to make twenty, uh, half million dollar bets and then we're going to pour the thirty million into the winners of that and that is just what I do for living or any other Angel investor, early stage investor, does you invite founder come in picture and you place an intelligent bet, just like people bet on the nicks or sadly, on the jets and lose their money all the time? And i've game is idea saying, hey, maybe for the next two years will have a deal exception where you can raise, you know, from a thousand up to five thousand people, up to ten million dollars, and you just have to file that you are not a felling. And we have some basic framework to experiment with this because you could buy, you know, a building that was gonna torn down, like some movie theatre for a community. Uh, you could do non profit stuff. There's all kinds of beautiful things you could do with this instant ital formation and government structure that is programmable OK, just late to capital formation in the start ecosystem.

Here's what I say. Um you made a great point about ubn lift pushing the boundaries and forcing the regulators to react. yes. You know why that happened is because uber and lift worked.

Yes.

and I was successful and this thing was not successful. And so maybe if IT is there's an on rap, but I would say that the energy is Better served is not focusing on A P R lk, and probably just focusing on trying to improve the crowd funding laws. Rit large, which are already on the books and can be iterated upon first, is an entire new body regulation where nobody even has any idea what a starting point should be.

I think, I think be very hard to get get those convening laws expanded and with the under the court regime and serve a minor miracle that they even got what they got several years ago, right, was in that happened .

under obama when the two thousand and eight, yes, the jobs in two thousand eight, with the market crash, we said, nobody starting companies work fruit here. We need to get the economy going again. So we are just going to allow more capital formation.

And so the ninety nine rule for L C S. Went to two fifty. They just kind of losing things a little bit.

And now the Mandate is the sec has to have a certification test for people to do private market investing and also people who work at V C firms, right? We have people who work for us who are not accredited. They don't get to participate, but they get an exception if they work at a venture firm. So this is probably .

simultaneously true that this thing was massively overhyped um while also being the case that is a worthwhile experiment that may lead to no useful innovation in the future.

What would I always look at when I see new technologies is doing something as I just imagine if a ten next and what I would look like and if IT worked, and then I just ten next at one more time. So what we're going to see, I predict this, this forty million dollar will turn into a four hundred million one in the next two years, and then a four billion one in the next ten. And people are going to do something extraordinary.

They're going to do something. So other world is changing. What if a million people, or ten million people around the globe decided they were gonna put money in to do a solar farm, or something that would help?

Society can already do that, jack out. I mean, that's like a .

manager. Someone's someone's .

got to manage IT is about how bigger everybody. And it's also because the, well, the problem is you can only have two hundred fifty people and that's the problem.

We can t to that way.

I'm obs, you reading .

a talking.

I mean.

we talked about IT in the change avoid biggest .

news day of the the biggest .

not guilty y of all IT happened within half an hour of us beginning .

to record this case. I don't know, trying to keep the freeburg ratio up.

We had a nice, strong, emotional moment from freeburg. He obviously going to have some to say about that on science. But okay, he's going to walk off the show to talk when you start talking.

Did last week. He walked off, walked off. You gotta beverage.

You left like, go, I have to go 屁 N I to .

be during politics a cat。 Now when I break exactly audience called IT now charges well, a person jury in the covert now child reached the decision. Uh, after over twenty six hours of deliberation, he shot three people.

Uh, he killed two of them and he was found not guilty. He was seventeen at the time of the shooting with charges were killing the two men and a third uh, during the protest in uh, genocide was constant in August of twenty twenty. This was during the protest uh, over the police shooting of jack Blake claims he traveled from milano y within A R fifteen style rifle to help protect business ses and provide first day he he .

didn't he did state line. He did not cross state lines with the rifle. That's one of the many inaccuracies have been report by the media over over again.

Because his dad lived there. I guess his dad lived in canobia.

I think he went to school, actually worked in the osha. You got to understand like this, is there few minutes apart where from his brother's house and they got and he never, he never Carried the gun across state lines. The gun was bought from by a friend who was eighteen who could possess IT and he was kept his house.

which is in conoco.

got IT he was apparently in conoco earlier that day um and you clean up graphite I at the school and checking out the downtown and then you know obviously when he went out at night, then he got the gun, but he didn't transport across state lines. That's I think, one of the most .

what do you think what is your most important insight into this case and what that represents for american society and the justice system? sex?

Well, I think the cases become a lot of air shock test of how you see america. I mean, there's clearly A A group of people in the, I say, that dominate the mayor, media and house party later down to celebrities and figures lebron James to .

i'm i'm spacing but .

there's a lot of like somebody to come out putting forward this view that america, that this trial somehow is that the californian house of White premises, and that this not guilty verdict is an example of water prema y in amErica somehow that became the narrative. And so that I think it's become I think there's a couple levels to IT. One is the trial itself and what you think about the legal case.

I don't think that is that complicated or. Interesting you have here that the state was required to prove be on a reasonable doubt that written house did not act reasonable and self defence when three violent attackers came charging towards him. That was, I think.

a pretty tough case .

to make into all had long history's. The first one to attack him was daring him to said that he was gonna ill IT in house. The second one bash over the had with escape board.

The third one was rushing towards him when written houses on the ground had a gun trained on him. Looks like he's going to bring IT to his had kind of execution style. I mean, all these, I think, cases, if you saw the video from from the first time, IT seemed pretty clear that he had a strong claim of self to fan. So I don't think the case itself was that legally interesting. The question is why I got blown up and to being this like huge thing.

And it's really because the media wanted that is so badly to be to feed into this narrative of somehow that this is you know a White who premises violent attacker who was a viginti cross eight lines with this fifteen to go seek out trouble um to confront people the protest and you know that case that that narrative is completely fell apart at the trial you he didn't cross state lines know in that way he didn't with the gun when he went to this protest, he went, there is interesting. I mean, he was a cada in the emt cda. He was in this like junior firefighter program.

I'm not saying that he showed good judgment. I think he was poor judgment firms to trying to sert himself into that situation. But I don't think he went there to kill in.

And I want to get into a confrontation. He bought a first day get for for Better or worse. He thought he he's going to help people. And so any of them that the story really is about the media constructing this narrative that fell apart so quickly as soon as all the facts came out .

free berk trump. Yeah I think the I read that there was um an analysis of the media and how they tried to portray this in that I think i'll build on what David said, which is was really concerning like them there was they really wanted this to be a White kid who killed black people during A B L M. Protest which was, as I turned out, the further from the truth.

I'll just tell you my experience, when I first saw IT, that's what I thought I had read, and i'll be really honest with you. Initially I was incredibly biased, and my I had a violent reaction inside me, a anger towards this kid, because my thought was, my god, this White kid showed up at a black lizer materially, and killed, you know, three of of of my brothers. You know, like, literally, that's how i'm feeling.

I was so angry because they didn't really give the facts. There was an example where, in germany, IT got so out of hand that the articles were written, that called written house, had actually killed three black men, or two black men. And and I think that that's very dangerous, because we need to have the truth in the fact, so we can really figure out what's going on so that we can address what's broken, we can hold people accountable, and then we can move forward together and hit.

But dislike is the opposite of feeling IT just fraught. S people up to make a lot of judgments with misinformation. And I think that that's very unfair.

I didn't, to be honest with you, after I saw the fact I stopped paying attention to this case because I literally excelled. I would have been much more hurt, and I won't probably paid more attention if this wasn't White on White violence. Quite honestly.

I think people, I think we were from a lot of people over when written houses, testimony kind of went viral and sorry, going reported on. There were a lot of people who were surprised to learn that all the victims were White, that this was an example of White, White violence, because IT had been portray by the media as some sort of racial episode, and and IT wasn't. And IT IT shows how the media is fueling this polar ization and region, our society, by concocting these narratives, which aren't true.

It's really that that I think is the dangerous thing. I don't I didn't follow the case to know whether this kid was right or wrong, but I do think if the media uses these opportunities to not just tell the facts and then raise, raise people on both of the left and the right and gets some rough top, they are doing a real to america.

Because I think IT takes good people and IT puts them in a state like me for a while at the beginning where am I was really angry and I didn't know how I fell ten that's I am a luted person you know ninety nine point nine nine nine percent of times. So and and so IT just goes to show you how dangerous this stuff is when they can take a narrative and run with IT. And then there's no accountability for IT.

And we really have to stop in and check ourselves. IT just speaks to this ongoing fat pattern where the media is at a point where they are at a very much a low point in their trustworthiness, their ability to fact check, their ability to stick to the truth. Um I think it's been on done just this past week.

You know I think elan even tweet out like we know he in exasperation. He said, where can I find like thoughtful news, right? He was asking twitter, like what websites? And the question wasn't that bad. But if you read the answers, IT was really sad. Nobody had a good answer. You know, one person was like, oh, there's a browser extension that will show you how you know how much lying is happening inside the article and I thought to myself, my god, like their browser extensions, like a lioness, you know, like this is insanity that that in twenty twenty one, that's what we are faced with, which is very smart people, all of us, everybody listening, Normal people just, you know, out on the street. We can all come to the right conclusion with given the facts, and we're not given the facts anymore.

Jack, how do you think we're missing something here? Because you, I know you thought this this solve housing was crazy, right? Which I was. This view.

I think, first of violent protests and violence is immoral. And all of these protests, whether is B, L, M, on the left, on the right, they should all be non violent is a reason my marm with the king and gandhi you know, said that the rules, if you want to come to the protest, you have to be on violent and then I think the rhetoric that was traded during the trump era um and that he exacerbated and that he caused uh from a lot of his policies in the way he spoke as the leader of the free world in our country, then polarize zed things. I blame him for a lot of that.

And if you put a bunch of people who are on the far extreams into a situation like this, uh, and then you insert guns, and you insert Young people who have not developed their frontal lobes, who do not have long term thinking, which is seventeen year old, does not you a long term and freedom will back me the up on this. In terms of science, long term thinking is something that develops in humans into their early twenties. And so Young people with guns in a violent situation with trump on T.

V. During this time, both good people on both sides, whatever you know, the border is all that stuff that he was staring the pot on. All of that eventually resolves to somebody who's going to get killed, whether it's on january six or it's A B, L, M.

protest. And that is why he had such a failure of leadership while he was so disgusting and horrible and loser, because he was taking all of this heat and reti c up, up, up. And the person who ones of suffering in this are these stupid kids, and they're really dumb parents and mother who allow them to go to a protest.

And you could stop them with a gun. Somebody needs to stop these kids from going to a protest with a gun. And I think there's a very difficult question here that can be asked.

And IT probably is true. I think that I was an open in showcase, David, that I mean, I saw the video as well. Trough, the guy puts a gun on, what are you going to do? You've got a gun.

This guys morning A N at you. Whoever fires first arrives IT itself defense. And that kind of undeniable, I I think. But if you have.

I would hope that the number of people that rely focus on this case, look at the numerable number of cases of black and Brown people that have been killed. The amount arbery trial is going on right now. Yes, i'm sorry, but i've seen one article in the model break for every fifty about ka written house.

Yeah, I just hope a mother arbery gets his fair trial on a tail. And let me say again, bring on a Taylor. Not a single thing is still been done OK. So i'm not that synthetic to all of this talk right now because there are a lot of black and Brown men and women who have been killed in this country as where none of you guys care as much.

Oh, I care. And that was exactly where's about to get to the question I was about to a future mouth is if power write house had been a black man and he had shot those three people, what would the outcome of this trial? And won't have been the same justice system.

And I don't think that anybody can answer that questions, say IT would have been fair justice. I don't think IT would have been. I think the chance would be very love and in this situation would have just .

just you saying that makes me want to cry, okay.

if not, I didn't save for that reason. But IT is the truth. And I I think that's what you know. We in this country race is something that is our biggest weak point and we need to get well, a leadership .

to work on the al justice? Don't know because that's a hypothetical that we can't know the next two right now. And you're ignoring the justice. The injustice is right in front of your face, which is that this was a political prosecution from the beginning fuel by a media narrative that was completely bogus.

This is why I think David is right, and we have to go to this would cause issue that we can all fix. Yes, you know we can we shouldn't debate these hypotheses because they're hurtful. Like even now, like you've seen have emotional I. Things to right. So let's get the hypothetical off the table because David.

you write is the hypothetical. I mean, this case probably never this case never been brought. I mean, you do you see the video if you look at the definition of self defense, okay, you you just have to have a reasonable belief that your life is in danger and then you're allowed to use force.

And, you know, written house was running away. These guys were attacking him. They were chasing after him that a gun trained on him.

They're bashing on them of the skate port. I don't know how any prosecute looks at this and says we to prosecute this. So the caijing ever been brought. And then the media fuels thing .

this what i'm saying, that's the thing that we can all change, which is our reaction to that media portrayal. The media can be held accountable for how they like.

well.

people are not trust them.

I think we get yeah quote and quote is and isn't saying I think that's like after years news. I mean those those guys have lost credibility. You can see IT in all the peer research and all the gala research that um what used to be called, and it's still by a lot of people called the mainstream media, is no longer mainstream and it's become kind of outskirt where people are finding the um the sources of information is direct from the source, from people that they know to be reliable trust for the speakers of the truth and speakers of facts and they're getting them direct through social media platforms and other systems of self publication and that the a of having centralized media systems that get to have their own editorial and narrative over whatever facts they may be kind of gathering and presenting to us. It's an old school doing things, and I don't think we we have to worry about that too much anymore.

Whether or not individuals will resolve to truth seeking or emotion seeking is the big question for the twenty first century because as we've seen the media that the the things that we do click on to the things that we already believe and that confirm our bias and that create an emotional incentive versus the things that may be not what we believe and not what we want to hear, but may actually be factual. And that's the big kind of chAllenging question here. I think it's less about these evil media people, and it's more about where individuals going .

to make choices, say, alternative media voices have no bit more important. And now you can get a lot of them on substances .

like link.

Green world, man other. Will you do someone very wise? I mean.

they all have wear.

they are. They all have very good coverage of this. By the way, I couldn't help notice that the same week, that is, written house narrative collapse, the whole steel dossier narrative collapse.

K, you had, I don't want to get two people and drag back to the trump thing, but you had you john juran is a special prosecute and traveling this whole phony fake steal S A with multiple endicott. You now have retractions by the washington post main publications, and that whole narrative that feels like an entire year of media coverage is completely collapsing. And this is another example of you, the media, running with these narratives that turned out to be completely he, to use worth fake but I mean, IT is, I mean.

it's things in the were fake but paul manifest again.

I would encourage everyone to stop using the term the media or even the term mainstreet media. Just recognize that there are specific outlets that are on their way dying yeah, these are companies that they used to be the monopoly and they no longer. And you know they're like yesteryears news and it's just um you know like complaining about you know whatever pick any industry that's been disrupted. But they are and will be further disrupted by a kind of direct source that gathering the big ultimate question is water consumers going to choose um and that's the thing that scares me the most, to be honest. I think either way, you can either find Better seeking or you can find Better emotion, more emotion seeking and that that's going to more za and more ugly.

Well, look happening right now. You're right that the that let's call the corporate media, the big media corporations their prestige and a steam in the american people have their credibility has never been lower as got, absolutely, I mean, got. And people should be crushing them and stop listening to them.

And you have to diversify your information diet. And you got to be described to some alternative journalists on places like sub stack. But here's the thing that concerns me.

You know you've got the media narrative of indicated by mm, bc, and then IT trickles down to lebron James and Chelsea handle. Sorry, that was the name that I forgot earlier. They were perpetuating this.

Why to provinces narrative around cow written house, by the way, there was they look at his phone as text messages. everything. There is no connection.

There is no proof whatsoever of a connection between him. And White supremacy was completely made up by the media. And yet these major figures in our culture who have this outsize impact, we're tweet about this. And so the problem is, you know, like people like us diverse our information diet, but there are a large parts of the country they are just receiving this information. And IT gets basically passed down from the media to hollywood .

to the culture here. And it's it's toko causing to Scott IT is .

fueling tremendous device's of polarization on culture. And I would say that, you know, jc brought trump and he was a polarizing figure bit. I don't think he is the root cause of this polar ization. I think he .

is a reaction to IT.

I think he is a manifestation of IT. And ultimately, the root cause is the complete and collapse of journalistic standards in the media, in the major .

mainstream .

corporate .

media track in the past, which I don't know if if you make IT sound and other people make IT sound like an a directed editorial initiative to take things in a direction. And I think that the reaction process is really about what do consumers want to consume. What they choose to consume is what they sell more of and what they produce more of and that the cycle is driving this. And you know, that doesn't mean that these folks are not complicated or not making good kind of ethical decisions that could be actually be argued either way. But at the end of the day, their businesses that are selling content and if consumers want content of one form.

they're going to choose that form. okay. Look, you have a point that wants to publication goes in certain direction and source subscribers that there are some positive enforcement there that has them keep pushing that direction.

That being said, I don't think this is commercial in nature primarily. I think what's going on is fundamental ideological. You saw, for example, in new york times, they ran up very wise.

They want to take the room. No, no, you're on sex. When the new york did this, they realized fox pick aside, M.

S. MBC picks aside. And they, they benefit from mat by picking aside in the trumPeter. So the new york times picked aside they when M, S, B, C. Side, and they got got rid of the right, because the right people drove away the anti trump subscription. So I think freeboard right on this.

When I will say another thing to build on what you were saying before, sacks about the media's responsibility here, we also have to think about the the cable news media responsibility when they put these protests on wall to wall and they send people there, that then inspires people to go there. And you know, when you do this world to our coverage across five networks and you obsess over something, people are gone to obsess over, and they see people out there riding and people model other people's behavior. And I think they need to think, like, how much coverage do we exactly .

have to give even, even now they are bring up the national guard in anticipation of possibly riots and protests in, well, in reaction, no, I don't know, do but in in reaction to this verdict, in the ridden house trial that bring out the troops to basically quel any, you know, riet before gets started. But why would that ride even to happen? Because the people have been fed this narrative that is completely bogus. And in that sense, the media been incredible irresponsible. And they're playing with fire.

They really are. I could I say again, and we've fAllen into the same trap. Look how much time we just spent talking about covert. Now I mentioned the more arbery and we've just gloss over.

And is his trial being is happening.

right? No, no.

But is that on video? Because that is another major issue here. When the trials are on videos.

they should never do TV again on these trials, just never again. I mean, like porters in court room, but do not put IT on T V.

like very nose is not allowing a video in the courtroom and it's not getting covered to the extent. And I think the video.

the room does drive this maircy breaking news.

Cita doc E, O krieff in, outbid a group of crypto investors will copy the U. S. Constitution according to the world. And so we knew some .

of this.

But now, I mean.

he was the central villain, basically, in that whole Robin hood fiasco, pe for payment, for order flow. And now a bit the cyp to crowd, he is going to enemy number.

Basically, there is no more sophisticated market participant in kenric fin. And on a silver platter, this group of people unfortunately showed, show them their strategy and show them exactly how .

to come back in.

Kenyan knows that now this .

is an objective interest that people are basically willing to pay anything for you to buy IT now. And one year he'll have for twice as much as a valuable asset. But by the way, I want to make a point on this.

I disagree, by the way, he's a, he's a buyer.

He's not a 点。 He's but look, markets don't work with this much transparency. Markets only work when people have different information than other people that are participating in the market.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

Everyone, everyone else going to do same data. But if everyone, you and everyone else different opinions, but if everyone, you, everyone else is opinion on what something is worth, the market doesn't work and that's the problem. So here's what I value and ask that.

And now if you know that, you know how to play against me in the market and I point I said, yeah, exactly and one thing one thing i'll take note of that I that I kind of realized yesterday when I was thinking about this, which is this like transparently and markets leads to this inflationary problem. Why do you think everything that the government buys inflates? Because everyone already knows what the government is gonna spend on that thing.

When the government enters into a market like health care or education or defense, the amount that they're gonna spend is published in a bill and congress says, here's your authorized budget. Here's how much you're going to spend. So there is no natural market force that says a bid and and ask, what are you willing to pay and is there a walk away Price? There is no walk away Price when the government is is told to go spend some amount of money. And as a result, the Price of everything inflates to that walk away to that Price.

to that budget.

Can I build on that? Anyway, that in my opinion, based on everything i've worked at, the primary reason for the increase in education cost because the government funds all the student loans, the increase in health care, um the increase in defense, all of IT is because the government is the customer and they tell the person that servicing them up front, they tell the market what they're willing to pay and so the market just inflates to that amount. And it's it's really the reason why the way that we budget things and the government is opposed to saying, look, this is the R O Y metrics or this is the I R metric key to be shooting forward this government spending. It's all based on a fixed doll amount .

of a budget. But it's it's it's actually worse than that because then the procurement process is is not is the further thing from a free market where you essentially have these licensed people that are allowed to provide services. And so if you actually had the key critical input to making something possible, you have to get bundle in through contractors and subcontractors and general contractors who each take their five and ten percent. And then that's what you that's when you have like.

And and there are really coffees, all balloon, just a little, just a little, just a bit. And sudden the balloon costs of everything .

matches exactly the the perfect example of this is the space program. There is a, there is a rent. By berny Sanders yesterday, basically, how could we have allowed jeff bases mr. BIOS and mr. Mosque to basically take over our national space program? We take IT back and body h and then something, and then somebody thought fully went, somebody thoughtfully went back and actually look, because, again, as David said, everything is transparently published. They went back and they actually counted how much money NASA spent in, like the last seven, eight years in the number of three hundred and sixty odd billion dollars and then they counted how much money, uh, space access spent and IT was, if you count revenue between seven and eleven billion to. And so you have this incredible disparity, which space was .

tired to get to space until space had the rockets?

I mean, and think about how many people died on this.

But bernie is saying, which is what I think scary to me, is if you take the difference between three hundred and sixty billion and seven, so three hundred and, you know, fifty three billion dollars, and divided by the number of people in the united states, you're basically talking about a thousand person. But thousand dollars a person, would you and I sit around the table and give berny centers a thousand dollars out of our own pocket to go and basically implement of, uh, a half a space program? No, I rather i'd rather give you on musk ten cents, which or one cent, which is the the equivalent alternative or .

raises a really serious issue, which is who is the Better capital allocators of resource society, private markets or the government. And let me give an example. So today the house is voting out that reconciliation bill they've got.

There's finding two point one trillion. This is one example. This is one example that caught my eye, is I ve got two point five billion dollars going to tree equity whenever that is.

So I equity, tree equity.

This is three equity.

I think that might mean that .

like these more trees. And I think that means some some communities have more trees and others they got rectify that. I don't know. I mean, this is like the jump, the shark moment for the word equity, because I think now everything is equity.

But but what struck me about this two point five billion dollar number, okay, is that my craft ventures, which i've been doing for last four years, we've raised and will be deploying a total of about two billion overcall IT five years into hundreds of startups that will pave the way for the next generation of the economy. So two billion versus two and a half billion as one line item. This is a foot note that an astracan in this bill.

I mean, what is the Better couple allocation decision? And what you have to understand is, you know, all this money that get spent, get sucked out of the private economy somehow IT either, you know, comes from taxes or get added the the uh national debt. But either way, IT comes out of the private economy and resources that could be allocated to the next generation of innovative companies and squandering the money like that on all these programs that no one even knows what they do when we're almost thirty trillion in debt is just unbelievable.

okay? The one percent are going to be going to space. And taking away the moon from the other ninety nine percent here rolled the clip.

Unbelievably, this bill would provide and authorize some ten billion dollars and taxi of money, the jeff daou, the second wealthiest person in amErica for his space race with iran mosque, the wealthiest person in america. This is beyond the affable, and I will be introducing an amendment despite this position.

Frankly, IT is not acceptable, not an issue that we have discussed terribly much, but IT is not acceptable that the two wealthiest people in this country, mister musk and mister bazas, take control of our space, efforts to return to the moon, and maybe even the extraordinary accomplishment of getting to the moon. This is not something for two billion as to be directing. This is something for the american people to be determining.

The all the people have to be to go to the moon before two people can go to the moon. And that the idea.

if there was a go to the moon now, he would get more function.

Call back, look, the school learning.

enter, the more money, more the senate bill.

Additionally, I would like to report that stalling does not work at my lake house, and amazon prime takes three to four days at my beach house on the cape, and that these two companies are oppressing the three percent of the top three percent, which I am not part of the one percent.

And some people don't have enough trees, and I did in .

my community, there's only small trees. And we want the red woods from safran. Cisco, why happy red ods that you .

guys remember? Uh, one of our very earliest pots, I made a statement, which is equity is this danger word that the progressive left uses the steel power. we.

We should always want equality, but not equity, because equity is zero, some right? You know, a capable when you give somebody else quality is deluded, everybody else. But equality is infinite.

You can have unbounded equality. yes. And when I hear these guys talk about this stuff is so scary.

The second thing is, i'm a little confused by what berny saying, because on the one hand, he wants to cancel the american government's effective know support of these programs. On the other hand, he wants us to take back the responsibility for IT. But I think he must realize that he would cost fifty times more or one hundred times more.

He he's, he's not he's not spending sensitive. And because you have noticed.

I also think this is a virtue signalling like he was attacking bassos about like minimum wage and then bezos came over the top and like doubled IT and then gave people college education that was party Sanders platform for president was like give people free college and give people like a Better fifty thousand or minimum wage. Basic has done more for burner's platform than anybody he should be thanking. You should be telling people all companies should be, ask amazon.

But actually, to your point, can I build on that? Amazon is now doing more to actually unwind duopoly and monopoly in markets. Then the government in the ftc is the thing that amazon is now doing in the U.

K. With VISA, where they basically shut VISA off and people are speculating. Now that is a step in this direction of amazon.

In amazon domestic in the united states suggested this big deal with a firm. And so they are looking at end date. There's a rumor that they may switch the amazon credit card off a VISA rails and put them my master card rails.

But there is another example is in your point of like you know, bernie in the left, progressive left would probably rail against the duo's practices of a VISA mastercard. They can't get anything done. Jeff bezos has actually done more than a button, process is a button.

and has done more now to build on yours. Who's doing? I mean, body senders cares about global warming as one of his key issues whose don't needed more to the global warning then champain. So nobody know who's doing one hundred thousand electric vehicles for his delivery. Jeff bazo, jack bazas took bernie Sanders platform that he failed to get into office on, and he made IT amazon's s platform.

Here's a third example, nick, you tweet, nick, or you can find this thing that I wait up but I was a little mean and IT was IT was um IT was basically um toby mosque and Christian does right there's a me know there are looking at each other and basically the joke is like, you know every time you protested, you know, to shut down a nuclear plant, the resulting effect forty years later was another hundred megatons of C O two was put into the air and IT just goes to yet again another example of we virtue signal nuclear reactors and nuclear power.

We go and we get them all shut down. IT turned out that we injected or we, uh we uh, put out, as a result an enormous amount of more C O two than had to be put. And then now who's helping to step in and solve another private citizen books?

Ts, look, even for these private companies, we can even get astronaut space. impossible. The government has actually .

lost the capacity IT would they would .

have been impossible. And who are we up against for space? I mean, china, not just china, just just china.

Economy is such a dichotomy between. And this is like a recurrent theme of the show between what the private sector and specifically, and not like the fortune five hundred, not those old stodgy companies are in the also being disrupted, but what the sort of entrepreneurs conomo is able to accomplish, verses like how statists ed and calcified and in content, the governments become.

I mean, to your point, facebook, I think sam and uh let this the fusion energy start up million, like five hundred million dollars. I mean, by the time these nt z you know in the political office figured these things out, we're going have fusion reactors, aren't we? Is that real science? Is that coming close? What do you think, river?

I mean, bill gates just did this, uh where they got Terry power announcement this week. Um he's got a company that he's been funding for years. They're building a five hundred megaworld um uh fusion plant in uh wiling I think yeah and yes, in wyoming and he got two billion from the government and two billion uh that was funded by the company and the shareholders, which I think is majority owned bill gates but IT certainly feels and seems to me, let me go this one like we have said, a lot of these infrastructure deals, these big infrastructure deals for things like power and active manufacturing and what not you know .

could use the .

could benefit from the boost of you know government subsidies or you know government share cost to get these things off the ground over time as you get scale and reproduce the ability of them. The cost per unit comes way, way, way, way down. Um and so you know IT seems to be the case that there are enough of these programs.

I think I know the least half a dozen nuclear power companies that are you know in advanced stages of doing um you know first installation design right now. And so IT seems like this is gonna a reality. I think that would be an incredible um boom to uh to clean energy, united states and globally if we can get more of these build.

I mean what IT was the staff china's building one hundred and fifty nuclear power points. Commissioner, one hundred fifty equate power points. I mean no brainer that that's what we need um in the twenty first century is the best renewable source uh very small footprint, very reliable, can run twenty four seven uh doesn't depend on some you know sun or wind or what have you. You can plug IT into a great so the .

government little does not need to get involved. And aside from writing a check and chopping up fifty, fifty, split the pot with, think there's an .

important role that the government can and should play here, which is if we want to talk about what infrastructure this country needs. I set ted on the last couple shows we don't need yesteryear is infrastructure. We don't need less centuries infrastructure, new bridges and you know toll bridges and whatever nonsense is uh you know going to get inflated as a result of this recent infrastructure.

But what we need this next generation raw cure and not charging stations because the free markets already they're doing that um and you know not internet, because the free markets already they're giving everyone internet. We see thousand ample es of that. What we need is this stuff that the free market cannot afford to fund and stand up like next genuine AR power stations, like bio manufacturing, like large scale on demand three d printing systems.

These are the sorts of infrastructure programs that the united states and our workforce could benefit from government subsidies to help private force. The private markets gets set up. And as these things gets stood up and the fly wheel gets going and cash starts getting generated, they can cell fund and they can grow and they can install more.

These and the cost come down for the next one. The things where the government is the only customer, the only person buying, the cost only go up on overtime. Whether the things of the private market is building, the costs will go down over time.

And in some of these cases, where there's a big kind of hurdle to get over the first build or the first build cycle, you know the government has an important role to play. I did. And so you know what I mean? It's clearly not going to happen with this current infrastructure build.

Is a few nugget in there that might be useful and helpful. But generally speaking, you're right. I mean, over time, we want the cost of things to come down, not go up. And so we need the private market to play critical role in being the majority driver you know, of these kind of systems.

Alright, seems like a good place to end.

Pete Davidson is now dating kim cardan.

How jealous are you?

I'm not .

jealous. A.

I am, I am shocked that pete, David and has dated some of the most incredible, we famous, popular women you are.

Well.

i'm a little, I am a little curious. I mean, you put a picture. P, I mean, there's GTA be .

something happening .

there is put IT out there.

So i'm good remember that from science field where cramer was like doing all these beautiful women. And because he explained at the kavos a.

he's got a Better finishing movie.

This is an article that viral this week em rata koki. How he pronounced me a breaks down, breaks down why women find peak Davids and so attractive and so this was like, you know, I saw all over twitter this week, but I was all about.

know what is the answer?

Just give me the headlines. I don't know. It's some he's got, uh, super charming, his vulnerable, his lovely, his fingernail polish is awesome.

He looks good. You have a good relationship with his mom. I mean, I just think he comes across as a good guy. Might be the appeal.

Um what do they want to take here? I think because he's got .

like his did you guys missing a .

more I don't know what you're talking you to explain. Maybe .

you .

could expand .

is A. Said they want to like around him and yeah I mean also came cardigan. I I think you know he just got the gensec.

I think SHE was probably go in the way of paris shelton like maybe aging out of her a you know uh celebrity and now he will canyon kind of J X, right. And now she's going down to G Z. She's got a whole new hate to .

be cynical about IT. But I know takes so much I want takes so much flag for saying this. But um I was a little short data, but i've listened to dana now a couple times in my god, is IT just pretty fucking in good.

I mean, kindleth is one of legitimately one of the most incredible artists of of all time. I mean, the way is blind growth, the music, the beats. It's outrageous. I think if you have done that, like two or three shots.

always registration, college drop out and aoa and heart breaks.

I imagine my dark Christian fantasy because that's .

the thing is I think with his later work, like I didn't get into my beautiful doctor of list.

Sometimes I get amazing. I .

like that. But guys. talking. David, do you know .

is that like pinker .

that is like, yeah, wow.

sex. You listen to music. Actually, this is your favorite artist.

Stn, you like your work out tracks. So berry manalo, I I like apple. Like, what are you listening to? Like spotify, like what he likes, the closing.

no music, I don't listen music I work out then I list to really listen music is when i'm like a car on a plane, whatever.

But do you have music, for example, like download on your phone, like a face and .

put your phone ah yeah I do.

You should just give a couple names.

Yeah honestly, it's going to be recent hits because I just downed with my kids. Tell me to download.

I understand. Just give me a couple .

albums that you've down the recently that okay. So IT looks to me like a recently added college.

yes. OK good. And .

there's a goga song. CalLori and miley, sirs. OK killer y and Justin .

bieber.

doda cat. My kids, great.

Here's what i'm doing for my kids. This is my new parenting strategy. I was let they love listening to the eighties playlist on spotify, but now is like, what who are like? Great seminal artist.

I have them doing, tom petty, David boy talking heads and bob mary and I get the whole greatest test album. And I explain to them every song. And they are like, totally getting your dollar. You focused .

on yourself and you're trying to make them a loser.

No, i'm trying to get them to understand .

what actually you want your kids to walk into school. And when somebody else like I do.

you like do jc, they're like in my kids favorite arrest and and he's become if in yes James album Richard d James album is is probably one of the best albums of all time and I play and my kids go free gen nuts for now and they ask for non stop and all my god, my god, I love you here my .

kids it's a Better I try to get my kids into the my favorite movies and that is .

too hard because to watch movie .

is is hard.

They want to watch.

They can watch movies.

They're they only watch a marvel movie.

They are the vie dos cut one.

I was like, what is the loss? Are you gonna love this? So like, this is so boring. I'm like, radars of the loss are table to boom, are boring, like crazy, terrible.

But I remember watching charter development.

They want to cut the first act. But he, he .

loved IT. Do you have ever watched like A M. C, and you watch the old school movies of the thirties and forties? They are impossible to watch like they are so watching a play. And I know. So I gotten more and more kind of um short form as we have kind of age, but know that's like, oh, no, what .

happened.

guess.

I took.

You don't take the food, you don't ad .

you are everybody.

Another .

exciting, amazing episode of the in the for the dictator I not to mop haiti .

and .

the sult n of science. David freeburg will see you all next time sex.

I have a wonderful time with us. He came .

by for is a swiss tonight in a cocker reception fun raiser for him. We got huge turnout. I mean, I tweet to this thing and we're going to have, I think, at least sixty people at the reception, at least twenty people for dinner.

are letting .

redos in your house from printer of security. They have to pay five times.

Yeah, yes. But one of your enemies.

one of your .

enemies .

will. There's a lot of people. I mean, look, if you want to let everybody. And there are at least one hundred people who replied to my tweet saying, I can't, dm u, but I want to go and .

open your dams for a day.

You can do that. Ah Francis came by yesterday with the team. He was in top form. He looks great. He's excited about the next term.

Alright, i'll see you all next time. Bye, bye.

your winter.

Light man.

We open sources to the fans and they .

just got crazy with.

Should all get a room one big, huge because.

your. Pending 我 一定。