Andrew Ross Sorkin

Well, look, I think there's a fundamental question here about whether you think there's a problem with the status quo or not. Ken Griffin is one of the biggest winners in our economy under the current status quo, and I don't think he sees a big problem that needs to get fixed. But I think like we just talked about, I think there are some big problems.

Well, look, I think there's a fundamental question here about whether you think there's a problem with the status quo or not. Ken Griffin is one of the biggest winners in our economy under the current status quo, and I don't think he sees a big problem that needs to get fixed. But I think like we just talked about, I think there are some big problems.

I mean, Freiburg just laid out the way in which trade with China is non-reciprocal. Like our companies cannot participate in their markets the same way that they can participate in ours. But it's worse than that. Like I talked about, these WTO rules gave China the opportunity to strategically annihilate our core industries that are critical in the supply chain.

I mean, Freiburg just laid out the way in which trade with China is non-reciprocal. Like our companies cannot participate in their markets the same way that they can participate in ours. But it's worse than that. Like I talked about, these WTO rules gave China the opportunity to strategically annihilate our core industries that are critical in the supply chain.

And there's one other piece of this, which I think is really important, which is the race to the bottom. I mean, if you're an American company, And you are still producing in America and your competitor is able to go to China and undercut you. Obviously, you have to do the same thing because, I mean, those are just the rules of the game.

And there's one other piece of this, which I think is really important, which is the race to the bottom. I mean, if you're an American company, And you are still producing in America and your competitor is able to go to China and undercut you. Obviously, you have to do the same thing because, I mean, those are just the rules of the game.

And so we've had this race to the bottom where if you're an American company operating under these rules, you have no choice. It's worse. But to export your manufacturing, your supply chains. So we've had these rules that, again, under the status quo, I would say they're not free trade. It's unfair trade. It has all these perverse consequences.

And so we've had this race to the bottom where if you're an American company operating under these rules, you have no choice. It's worse. But to export your manufacturing, your supply chains. So we've had these rules that, again, under the status quo, I would say they're not free trade. It's unfair trade. It has all these perverse consequences.

It's bad for middle America and this manufacturing belt of the country. And it's created massive strategic dependencies on an American adversary.

It's bad for middle America and this manufacturing belt of the country. And it's created massive strategic dependencies on an American adversary.

But this is what I think is so interesting, Andrew, is the way that Trump has already shifted the conversation. Because the truth of the matter is that before Liberation Day on April 2nd, which was three weeks ago, no one was talking about the unfair trade practices. No one was talking about the dependencies on rare earths. No one was talking about the race to the bottom.

But this is what I think is so interesting, Andrew, is the way that Trump has already shifted the conversation. Because the truth of the matter is that before Liberation Day on April 2nd, which was three weeks ago, no one was talking about the unfair trade practices. No one was talking about the dependencies on rare earths. No one was talking about the race to the bottom.

And Trump has shifted the conversation. 100%. When Jared Kushner was on the show, he talked about how the Trumpian approach is controversy elevates message. And we said at the beginning that by having this Liberation Day, by planting this flag in the ground, Trump was creating... leverage to then have these negotiations, and he completely shifted the conversation.

And Trump has shifted the conversation. 100%. When Jared Kushner was on the show, he talked about how the Trumpian approach is controversy elevates message. And we said at the beginning that by having this Liberation Day, by planting this flag in the ground, Trump was creating... leverage to then have these negotiations, and he completely shifted the conversation.

Now, where I will agree with you is that the administration has to stick the landing here, right? Besson, and it's not just Besson, also Lutnik, these are all smart, talented people. They do have to then negotiate these deals, and we have to basically stick the landing. But

Now, where I will agree with you is that the administration has to stick the landing here, right? Besson, and it's not just Besson, also Lutnik, these are all smart, talented people. They do have to then negotiate these deals, and we have to basically stick the landing. But

I think the fact that you're saying that you don't disagree with where Trump is trying to get to, but it's mostly just tactical, is a huge shift in the conversation.

I think the fact that you're saying that you don't disagree with where Trump is trying to get to, but it's mostly just tactical, is a huge shift in the conversation.

Yeah, I would just add to that that you hear this criticism of Trump a lot, which is that, OK, he's right on the issue or his instincts are correct, but there should be a nicer way of doing it. And I guess I would give that story more credence if the people making that criticism had actually been advocating for a change in the status quo prior to Trump. And they weren't.

Yeah, I would just add to that that you hear this criticism of Trump a lot, which is that, OK, he's right on the issue or his instincts are correct, but there should be a nicer way of doing it. And I guess I would give that story more credence if the people making that criticism had actually been advocating for a change in the status quo prior to Trump. And they weren't.

I mean, we had this bipartisan globalist consensus that pretty much all trade practices with China, no matter how unfair they got, was basically good for the United States. And no one was really doing anything about it. until President Trump made it this issue and made the unfair trade practices conspicuous.

I mean, we had this bipartisan globalist consensus that pretty much all trade practices with China, no matter how unfair they got, was basically good for the United States. And no one was really doing anything about it. until President Trump made it this issue and made the unfair trade practices conspicuous.

So if somebody else had been willing to take that on, then I maybe would give credence to this idea that there's some non-Trumpian way of doing this. But I just don't think that's the way our political system works. I think that the way our political system works is that you have to completely shift the conversation first to create a new consensus, and then you work out the deals.

So if somebody else had been willing to take that on, then I maybe would give credence to this idea that there's some non-Trumpian way of doing this. But I just don't think that's the way our political system works. I think that the way our political system works is that you have to completely shift the conversation first to create a new consensus, and then you work out the deals.

And that process can be a little bit disruptive.

And that process can be a little bit disruptive.

I don't know how long it's going to take. But look, I think one of the big lessons here over the past 25 years, is that you have security first. Security has to be worked out first, then you have trade. If you build your whole supply chain and all your trading relationships with countries that are fundamentally adversarial to your interests, and we can get into that part of the...

I don't know how long it's going to take. But look, I think one of the big lessons here over the past 25 years, is that you have security first. Security has to be worked out first, then you have trade. If you build your whole supply chain and all your trading relationships with countries that are fundamentally adversarial to your interests, and we can get into that part of the...

the US-China relationship, but I think most people would say that we're in some version of a new Cold War with China. Obviously, you're going to have to revise your trade relationships because, again, we can't be dependent on an adversary for core components that then go into our military, for example. So security always has to come first, then you work out trade.

the US-China relationship, but I think most people would say that we're in some version of a new Cold War with China. Obviously, you're going to have to revise your trade relationships because, again, we can't be dependent on an adversary for core components that then go into our military, for example. So security always has to come first, then you work out trade.

And I think that India is fundamentally extremely aligned with us on security because they view their biggest potential threat and adversary as being China. And that is basically the way that the U.S. sees the world as well. And so I do think that the U.S.-India relationship is just very aligned.

And I think that India is fundamentally extremely aligned with us on security because they view their biggest potential threat and adversary as being China. And that is basically the way that the U.S. sees the world as well. And so I do think that the U.S.-India relationship is just very aligned.

And I think, therefore, the investments that get made and the trade relationships that get forged will be very stable over the next couple of decades. Whereas if you make a big investment in a country that could be your adversary, you should expect that that relationship could get disrupted.

And I think, therefore, the investments that get made and the trade relationships that get forged will be very stable over the next couple of decades. Whereas if you make a big investment in a country that could be your adversary, you should expect that that relationship could get disrupted.

I just think the structural realities just make it a good place to invest because I just think that India and the US are going to be very aligned for a long time. Agreed. Again, their main security threat is China. And our main security threat is China. And that's just not going to change for probably the entire 21st century.

I just think the structural realities just make it a good place to invest because I just think that India and the US are going to be very aligned for a long time. Agreed. Again, their main security threat is China. And our main security threat is China. And that's just not going to change for probably the entire 21st century.

Smart. Smart. Look, India is a country that has two great powers in its neighborhood. China and Russia. It has a contested border with China. They've had border skirmishes. When you have a country that is much more powerful, that's actually a security threat to you, you then seek good relations, even possibly an alliance with the other great power in the neighborhood.

Smart. Smart. Look, India is a country that has two great powers in its neighborhood. China and Russia. It has a contested border with China. They've had border skirmishes. When you have a country that is much more powerful, that's actually a security threat to you, you then seek good relations, even possibly an alliance with the other great power in the neighborhood.

That has been India's philosophy. They've had good relations with Russia for a long time, even going back to the Cold War. That is what makes sense for their security standpoint. By the way, the exact same thing is true of the United States. We just haven't realized the strategic reality. China is the peer competitor. I mean, Mearsheimer made this point at our all-in summit.

That has been India's philosophy. They've had good relations with Russia for a long time, even going back to the Cold War. That is what makes sense for their security standpoint. By the way, the exact same thing is true of the United States. We just haven't realized the strategic reality. China is the peer competitor. I mean, Mearsheimer made this point at our all-in summit.

China is the peer competitor. It's the only country in the world that is a peer of the United States. It's the only country that's really capable of threatening our security. Russia is a distant number three in terms of the great power rankings. What you want to do if you're in a sort of heads-up competition where there's two superpowers is you want to make an alliance with that number three.

China is the peer competitor. It's the only country in the world that is a peer of the United States. It's the only country that's really capable of threatening our security. Russia is a distant number three in terms of the great power rankings. What you want to do if you're in a sort of heads-up competition where there's two superpowers is you want to make an alliance with that number three.

And what we've done is we've pushed Russia into the arms of China. What we ought to have been doing is the reverse Kissinger. We did this during the Cold War, by the way. We had the Soviet Union and we had China. And in that case, the Soviet Union was the big threat to American security. So what did we do? We had Nixon and Kissinger go to China and make a deal with Mao.

And what we've done is we've pushed Russia into the arms of China. What we ought to have been doing is the reverse Kissinger. We did this during the Cold War, by the way. We had the Soviet Union and we had China. And in that case, the Soviet Union was the big threat to American security. So what did we do? We had Nixon and Kissinger go to China and make a deal with Mao.

China was just as communist as the Soviet Union. Mao had blood on his hands to a degree that is much greater than someone like Putin has. And yet we were willing to shake hands with him and make an alliance because that was real polity. And I think in a similar way, this is what our strategy should have been with Russia for the last two decades.

China was just as communist as the Soviet Union. Mao had blood on his hands to a degree that is much greater than someone like Putin has. And yet we were willing to shake hands with him and make an alliance because that was real polity. And I think in a similar way, this is what our strategy should have been with Russia for the last two decades.

And instead, we've been foolishly pushing them into the arms of China.

And instead, we've been foolishly pushing them into the arms of China.

Andrew, I mean, what do you think about this sort of what I would call balance of powers logic 101?

Andrew, I mean, what do you think about this sort of what I would call balance of powers logic 101?

No, the enemy's enemy is your friend or whatever it is.

No, the enemy's enemy is your friend or whatever it is.

Right? I think it's dangerous to look at foreign policy from a position of extreme moralism because ultimately the purpose of our foreign policy is to ensure American security. And we can't rectify every injustice in the world. And over the past 25 years, we've become hyper-interventionist.

Right? I think it's dangerous to look at foreign policy from a position of extreme moralism because ultimately the purpose of our foreign policy is to ensure American security. And we can't rectify every injustice in the world. And over the past 25 years, we've become hyper-interventionist.

know in an attempt so we've claimed to do that right we keep saying that we we've gotten involved in all these places because we want to promote our values and spread democracy and by the way we did the opposite i mean you look at the forever wars the middle east we had interventions and occupations in iraq afghanistan libya syria how did all those things work out they did not promote our values or spread democracy so my point is just i don't think we should look at foreign policy from a position of extreme moralism

know in an attempt so we've claimed to do that right we keep saying that we we've gotten involved in all these places because we want to promote our values and spread democracy and by the way we did the opposite i mean you look at the forever wars the middle east we had interventions and occupations in iraq afghanistan libya syria how did all those things work out they did not promote our values or spread democracy so my point is just i don't think we should look at foreign policy from a position of extreme moralism

I prefer to think of neither of those countries as quote-unquote evil, and I would prefer to think of them as countries which have their own interests. I think that with respect to China, the real issue is that it is a revisionist great power. It has made clear that it wants to basically annex Taiwan. It wants to turn the South China Sea into effectively a Chinese lake.

I prefer to think of neither of those countries as quote-unquote evil, and I would prefer to think of them as countries which have their own interests. I think that with respect to China, the real issue is that it is a revisionist great power. It has made clear that it wants to basically annex Taiwan. It wants to turn the South China Sea into effectively a Chinese lake.

It does not respect international waters. It has territorial disputes with Japan. And if we don't play a role in containing China, then China will revise the balance of power in East Asia in a major way. And I think that would have, I think, profound consequences for the United States.

It does not respect international waters. It has territorial disputes with Japan. And if we don't play a role in containing China, then China will revise the balance of power in East Asia in a major way. And I think that would have, I think, profound consequences for the United States.

The United States is not going to be thrown off a roof by Russia. And that's the level at which we should think about these things. If you look at Russia's behavior, Russia actually is not a revisionist great power. What it wants is just security on its borders.

The United States is not going to be thrown off a roof by Russia. And that's the level at which we should think about these things. If you look at Russia's behavior, Russia actually is not a revisionist great power. What it wants is just security on its borders.

The revisionist power actually in Europe over the past 25 years was the United States because we pushed NATO right up to Russia's borders. despite the promises that were made to Gorbachev in the 90s. So we're the ones who've revised the balance of power in a way that was profoundly threatening to the Russians.

The revisionist power actually in Europe over the past 25 years was the United States because we pushed NATO right up to Russia's borders. despite the promises that were made to Gorbachev in the 90s. So we're the ones who've revised the balance of power in a way that was profoundly threatening to the Russians.

And I think it would be far better from the American standpoint to just work out a security architecture for Europe with Russia that gives the Russians the security they crave on the Western border and gives Europe the security it craves. And I think if we had had that mentality, as opposed to this highly moralistic mentality where we basically want to spread American-style democracy everywhere?

And I think it would be far better from the American standpoint to just work out a security architecture for Europe with Russia that gives the Russians the security they crave on the Western border and gives Europe the security it craves. And I think if we had had that mentality, as opposed to this highly moralistic mentality where we basically want to spread American-style democracy everywhere?

Right, two trillion.

Right, two trillion.

And look, just to be clear, I mean, I thank my lucky stars that I'm an American and we do have the type of government we have here. And my parents emigrated to the United States in 1977 for political reasons because we have the type of government we have here. So look, I'm a strong believer in American-style democracy. The problem is our efforts to

And look, just to be clear, I mean, I thank my lucky stars that I'm an American and we do have the type of government we have here. And my parents emigrated to the United States in 1977 for political reasons because we have the type of government we have here. So look, I'm a strong believer in American-style democracy. The problem is our efforts to

promote it or impose that style of government through regime change operations simply has not worked. I mean, this should be one of the big learnings of American foreign policy over the past 30 years. All I'm suggesting is I think it's better to model it, right? It's better to- Yeah, so how do you model it?

promote it or impose that style of government through regime change operations simply has not worked. I mean, this should be one of the big learnings of American foreign policy over the past 30 years. All I'm suggesting is I think it's better to model it, right? It's better to- Yeah, so how do you model it?

You know, Ben Stiller was once referred to as the Jewish Tom Cruise, but he has not held up like Tom Cruise. I got to say that. He should have joined the Church of Scientology. Come on, man. Keep it up. You got to represent for us a little better.

You know, Ben Stiller was once referred to as the Jewish Tom Cruise, but he has not held up like Tom Cruise. I got to say that. He should have joined the Church of Scientology. Come on, man. Keep it up. You got to represent for us a little better.

I think you model it by being the shining city on the hill, by setting a good example, by focusing on our own country and making America the best it can be so that people all over the world look to us and say, oh, we want to do that. And I actually think that what I'm describing is an American soft power. If you go back to the 1980s, we had that soft power.

I think you model it by being the shining city on the hill, by setting a good example, by focusing on our own country and making America the best it can be so that people all over the world look to us and say, oh, we want to do that. And I actually think that what I'm describing is an American soft power. If you go back to the 1980s, we had that soft power.

Okay, Zacks. Can I build on that? Please. There was a tweet two weeks ago when all this started by Nick Carter that I retweeted because I thought it was really interesting, which was, if you think a market sell-off delegitimizes Trump's presidency, you're going to give him unconditional credit when it rallies, right? Because those are the rules now.

Okay, Zacks. Can I build on that? Please. There was a tweet two weeks ago when all this started by Nick Carter that I retweeted because I thought it was really interesting, which was, if you think a market sell-off delegitimizes Trump's presidency, you're going to give him unconditional credit when it rallies, right? Because those are the rules now.

I mean, the people of places like in Russia, they love buying American blue jeans and American music. And we had that soft power. We were inspiring to the world, but it all changed. I'd say starting in the 90s, but then really in the 2000s, when we started Going into these countries with our militaries and occupying all these countries, we soured them on America. We made them hate us.

I mean, the people of places like in Russia, they love buying American blue jeans and American music. And we had that soft power. We were inspiring to the world, but it all changed. I'd say starting in the 90s, but then really in the 2000s, when we started Going into these countries with our militaries and occupying all these countries, we soured them on America. We made them hate us.

And this is the problem with this hyper interventionism is what we should be doing is setting an example, not trying to occupy these countries. Let me read something to you.

And this is the problem with this hyper interventionism is what we should be doing is setting an example, not trying to occupy these countries. Let me read something to you.

Well, the reason why Rubio canceled that meeting is because the Americans put forward a peace proposal and Zelensky dismissed it out of hand. Before the Russians could do anything, Zelensky dismissed it. And recognizing Russian ownership of Crimea, if you will, should be the easiest point for Zelensky to concede. And he dismissed it out of hand. Now, why do I say that?

Well, the reason why Rubio canceled that meeting is because the Americans put forward a peace proposal and Zelensky dismissed it out of hand. Before the Russians could do anything, Zelensky dismissed it. And recognizing Russian ownership of Crimea, if you will, should be the easiest point for Zelensky to concede. And he dismissed it out of hand. Now, why do I say that?

The Russians annexed Crimea in 2014. So this was not something that happened in 2022. It happened over 10 years ago. And if you look at what the people of Crimea want, and there's been a lot of Western polling on this, there's been man on the street interviews by NBC, the people of Crimea by something like over 80% say they want to be part of Russia, they're ethnic Russians.

The Russians annexed Crimea in 2014. So this was not something that happened in 2022. It happened over 10 years ago. And if you look at what the people of Crimea want, and there's been a lot of Western polling on this, there's been man on the street interviews by NBC, the people of Crimea by something like over 80% say they want to be part of Russia, they're ethnic Russians.

And I'd say the final point on this is that Zelensky and Ukraine tried to get Crimea back in the summer of 2023 with the summer counteroffensive. Remember, the whole point of that summer counteroffensive was to sever the land bridge to Crimea, destroy the Kerch Bridge, isolate Crimea and essentially lay siege to it. This was the whole point of that. And they got nowhere with that.

And I'd say the final point on this is that Zelensky and Ukraine tried to get Crimea back in the summer of 2023 with the summer counteroffensive. Remember, the whole point of that summer counteroffensive was to sever the land bridge to Crimea, destroy the Kerch Bridge, isolate Crimea and essentially lay siege to it. This was the whole point of that. And they got nowhere with that.

They didn't even break through the first Suravikin line. So my point is that it's militarily impossible to retake Crimea. The people of Crimea don't want Ukraine to retake it. They want to be part of Russia. And yet Zelensky cannot give this up.

They didn't even break through the first Suravikin line. So my point is that it's militarily impossible to retake Crimea. The people of Crimea don't want Ukraine to retake it. They want to be part of Russia. And yet Zelensky cannot give this up.

The basic problem is that Zelensky doesn't want to make a deal. I mean, he has rebuffed the Americans on Crimea, which should be the easiest point to give on. He's been completely unrealistic about their prospects on the battlefield. He was insulting to the White House when he visited the White House in his T-shirt or whatever. He was dressed inappropriately and then got in.

The basic problem is that Zelensky doesn't want to make a deal. I mean, he has rebuffed the Americans on Crimea, which should be the easiest point to give on. He's been completely unrealistic about their prospects on the battlefield. He was insulting to the White House when he visited the White House in his T-shirt or whatever. He was dressed inappropriately and then got in.

And that's exactly what's happened is that the market has rallied. Like you said, it's up 7% this week. But the media doesn't want to give Trump any credit for it. So it's kind of created this narrative of a Besson put. In other words, Besson is entirely responsible for it. Look, Scott is a very smart man. He understands markets. He understands the bond markets. And he is a reassuring voice.

And that's exactly what's happened is that the market has rallied. Like you said, it's up 7% this week. But the media doesn't want to give Trump any credit for it. So it's kind of created this narrative of a Besson put. In other words, Besson is entirely responsible for it. Look, Scott is a very smart man. He understands markets. He understands the bond markets. And he is a reassuring voice.

Well, I mean, he was insulting to the president and especially the vice president. He murmured under his breath a curse word to the vice president. Remember that? Yeah. I mean, it was really quite something. And remember, he's biting the hand that feeds him. I mean, he has an obligation. I think, to be respectful to his patrons in a way that his patrons may not... His patrons.

Well, I mean, he was insulting to the president and especially the vice president. He murmured under his breath a curse word to the vice president. Remember that? Yeah. I mean, it was really quite something. And remember, he's biting the hand that feeds him. I mean, he has an obligation. I think, to be respectful to his patrons in a way that his patrons may not... His patrons.

In a way that we may not to him. And he has demonstrated, I think, that he's unrealistic in every possible way. He's unrealistic about Ukrainian prospects on the battlefield, about retaking Crimea, and about who the hand is that feeds him. So my view on this is quite simple, which is if Zelensky won't see reality... Let him find new patrons. Let Starmer and McCrone support him. They say they will.

In a way that we may not to him. And he has demonstrated, I think, that he's unrealistic in every possible way. He's unrealistic about Ukrainian prospects on the battlefield, about retaking Crimea, and about who the hand is that feeds him. So my view on this is quite simple, which is if Zelensky won't see reality... Let him find new patrons. Let Starmer and McCrone support him. They say they will.

They say they have the ability to do this. But they can't.

They say they have the ability to do this. But they can't.

Well, they appear to. They can't enough. that this administration even has leverage over him.

Well, they appear to. They can't enough. that this administration even has leverage over him.

No, I don't think so. I don't think there's any evidence that he wants Poland. I don't even think he wants the part of Ukraine that is chock full of Ukrainian ultra-nationalists because you would have a massive insurgency there. He doesn't want a Gaza-type situation. And by the way, just another point on Crimea, where is the insurgency?

No, I don't think so. I don't think there's any evidence that he wants Poland. I don't even think he wants the part of Ukraine that is chock full of Ukrainian ultra-nationalists because you would have a massive insurgency there. He doesn't want a Gaza-type situation. And by the way, just another point on Crimea, where is the insurgency?

If Crimea really wanted to go with Ukraine as opposed to Russia, why has there been no uprising there over the past 10 years? So in any event, my point is there's no evidence that Putin wants Poland. Poland's part of NATO. That would start World War III. I think Putin has shown that he's a calm, rational decision maker. And I don't think he wants World War III.

If Crimea really wanted to go with Ukraine as opposed to Russia, why has there been no uprising there over the past 10 years? So in any event, my point is there's no evidence that Putin wants Poland. Poland's part of NATO. That would start World War III. I think Putin has shown that he's a calm, rational decision maker. And I don't think he wants World War III.

Now, the Russians have said what their terms are. They said it last year. They basically, in this root cause speech they gave in, I think, June of last year, and basically what it comes down to is they want Istanbul plus.

Now, the Russians have said what their terms are. They said it last year. They basically, in this root cause speech they gave in, I think, June of last year, and basically what it comes down to is they want Istanbul plus.

There was a deal to end this war in the first month, the Istanbul deal, and it required Ukraine to basically sever its security relationship with the West and to recognize that it would not become part of NATO. And they had to give up Crimea, basically. That was the deal back then. What Russia has said is that's still the deal plus realities on the ground.

There was a deal to end this war in the first month, the Istanbul deal, and it required Ukraine to basically sever its security relationship with the West and to recognize that it would not become part of NATO. And they had to give up Crimea, basically. That was the deal back then. What Russia has said is that's still the deal plus realities on the ground.

So in other words, the Russians have lost, I don't know, 100,000 plus, hundreds of thousands of soldiers now taking this territory in the east. And obviously, they're not going to give it up. So I think that the Ukrainians could have had a better deal in the first month of the war. The Biden administration rejected that. Now there's a different deal. It's Istanbul plus.

So in other words, the Russians have lost, I don't know, 100,000 plus, hundreds of thousands of soldiers now taking this territory in the east. And obviously, they're not going to give it up. So I think that the Ukrainians could have had a better deal in the first month of the war. The Biden administration rejected that. Now there's a different deal. It's Istanbul plus.

And I think that the American proposal is pretty close to that. So I think this administration recognizes...

And I think that the American proposal is pretty close to that. So I think this administration recognizes...

wisdom and just reality of that deal but the ukrainians aren't so look my view is simple if the ukrainians are unwilling to take the deal that's on the table and they want to find new backers with the europeans let them but why should we continue to support this okay let's pivot let's talk markets and let's specifically start a couple stocks because you disagree because i want to hear you disagree no i i i could but we're gonna we i think we're gonna run out of time okay

wisdom and just reality of that deal but the ukrainians aren't so look my view is simple if the ukrainians are unwilling to take the deal that's on the table and they want to find new backers with the europeans let them but why should we continue to support this okay let's pivot let's talk markets and let's specifically start a couple stocks because you disagree because i want to hear you disagree no i i i could but we're gonna we i think we're gonna run out of time okay

to those markets. And I think he's doing a great job. But I think part of what's going on with this best input narrative is that no one ever wants to give Trump or his administration as a whole credit.

to those markets. And I think he's doing a great job. But I think part of what's going on with this best input narrative is that no one ever wants to give Trump or his administration as a whole credit.

So what they do on any particular week is valorize a particular member of the administration that they can then say, well, this is the person who's really responsible for this, not Trump, because I don't want to give Trump that credit.

So what they do on any particular week is valorize a particular member of the administration that they can then say, well, this is the person who's really responsible for this, not Trump, because I don't want to give Trump that credit.

Next week, they'll be tearing Scott down and there'll be some other member of the administration they'll be trying to valorize to basically prevent the administration as a whole from getting credit for doing something good. So again, I think Scott's doing a great job. I think he's doing a great job making these deals. And he's saying a lot of correct and reassuring things to the markets.

Next week, they'll be tearing Scott down and there'll be some other member of the administration they'll be trying to valorize to basically prevent the administration as a whole from getting credit for doing something good. So again, I think Scott's doing a great job. I think he's doing a great job making these deals. And he's saying a lot of correct and reassuring things to the markets.

But I think if the media is going to tear Trump down every time the market goes down, you have to give him credit when the market goes back up. And I think there's just a general reluctance to do that. Where do you land, Dave?

But I think if the media is going to tear Trump down every time the market goes down, you have to give him credit when the market goes back up. And I think there's just a general reluctance to do that. Where do you land, Dave?

I think it's going to hold up. I mean, look, I just think that this investment in CapEx and the data center build outs is so strategic right now. I mean, I think that the hyperscalers, it's only good for their businesses, but I think they see it as so strategic to their survival that they just have to do it no matter what. In other words, I think they're totally inelastic on this.

I think it's going to hold up. I mean, look, I just think that this investment in CapEx and the data center build outs is so strategic right now. I mean, I think that the hyperscalers, it's only good for their businesses, but I think they see it as so strategic to their survival that they just have to do it no matter what. In other words, I think they're totally inelastic on this.

But let me just go back to Google. Nick, can you throw up this chart? I mean, I think the problem that Google has with respect to ChatGPT is that Gemini is just not getting the usage and ChatGPT is just growing like crazy. If you look at how these models perform according to the benchmarks, Gemini is actually really good.

But let me just go back to Google. Nick, can you throw up this chart? I mean, I think the problem that Google has with respect to ChatGPT is that Gemini is just not getting the usage and ChatGPT is just growing like crazy. If you look at how these models perform according to the benchmarks, Gemini is actually really good.

I mean, Gemini has made substantial progress catching up to ChatGPT, but they have not caught up on the usage side. Now, to Jamal's point, you could just make Gemini the default interface in Google search. But that is true innovator's dilemma, because if you do that, you could be giving up more than half the search revenue. So I do think Google is in a really tough spot.

I mean, Gemini has made substantial progress catching up to ChatGPT, but they have not caught up on the usage side. Now, to Jamal's point, you could just make Gemini the default interface in Google search. But that is true innovator's dilemma, because if you do that, you could be giving up more than half the search revenue. So I do think Google is in a really tough spot.

And the longer they wait to make Gemini front and center, the worse this usage problem gets. I mean, what's basically happening right now is users are learning a new habit. I mean, they're learning to go to chat GPT to get their questions answered or just their searches answered in a completely different way.

And the longer they wait to make Gemini front and center, the worse this usage problem gets. I mean, what's basically happening right now is users are learning a new habit. I mean, they're learning to go to chat GPT to get their questions answered or just their searches answered in a completely different way.

I agree that the Google interface trying to incorporate Gemini into the 20 blue links or whatever is very kludgy. But I don't know how you fix that without just getting rid of the blue links. I mean, I guess you can do a hybrid experience, but it doesn't compare to ChatGPT, which is all in on the AI experience. So I think it's a real innovator's dilemma for them.

I agree that the Google interface trying to incorporate Gemini into the 20 blue links or whatever is very kludgy. But I don't know how you fix that without just getting rid of the blue links. I mean, I guess you can do a hybrid experience, but it doesn't compare to ChatGPT, which is all in on the AI experience. So I think it's a real innovator's dilemma for them.

Otherwise, you're right, it will lose. The Google homepage where they just have the search bar and you can basically submit your search or I feel lucky or whatever. Would you replace that with that search bar with an AI chatbot?

Otherwise, you're right, it will lose. The Google homepage where they just have the search bar and you can basically submit your search or I feel lucky or whatever. Would you replace that with that search bar with an AI chatbot?

Would you, okay, Nick, can you put up this? Here's their homepage, right? This is the famous shot. I just checked it. This hasn't changed in 25 years or whatever.

Would you, okay, Nick, can you put up this? Here's their homepage, right? This is the famous shot. I just checked it. This hasn't changed in 25 years or whatever.

I mean, you could do some A-B tests. What if they replaced I'm Feeling Lucky, which is kind of antiquated now with AI? I mean, Gemini, basically.

I mean, you could do some A-B tests. What if they replaced I'm Feeling Lucky, which is kind of antiquated now with AI? I mean, Gemini, basically.

No, it isn't the novelty. I think it's just there as like a whimsical thing. I don't know if it drives revenue for them or not. If it takes the user off site, I don't see how it drives revenue for them.

No, it isn't the novelty. I think it's just there as like a whimsical thing. I don't know if it drives revenue for them or not. If it takes the user off site, I don't see how it drives revenue for them.

Dave, roughly three weeks ago, when we started talking about this, I think I made the point, Chamath made the point, that part of the art of the deal here, so to speak, is an opening salvo which is bold and some people would say maybe it's too extreme, but it's basically an opening bid to shift the conversation completely. And that would create tremendous leverage to get deals done.

Dave, roughly three weeks ago, when we started talking about this, I think I made the point, Chamath made the point, that part of the art of the deal here, so to speak, is an opening salvo which is bold and some people would say maybe it's too extreme, but it's basically an opening bid to shift the conversation completely. And that would create tremendous leverage to get deals done.

No, I don't think he's out of doge. He didn't say he was out of doge. It was just a matter of how much time he could allocate to each thing. I mean, look, I saw this before when I was part of the Twitter transition is that for the first three months or so, he was basically full-time at Twitter HQ learning the business down to the database level.

No, I don't think he's out of doge. He didn't say he was out of doge. It was just a matter of how much time he could allocate to each thing. I mean, look, I saw this before when I was part of the Twitter transition is that for the first three months or so, he was basically full-time at Twitter HQ learning the business down to the database level.

I mean, every nook and cranny of that business he learned about. Once he felt like he had a mental model and he had the people in place that he trusted, he can move to more of a maintenance mode.

I mean, every nook and cranny of that business he learned about. Once he felt like he had a mental model and he had the people in place that he trusted, he can move to more of a maintenance mode.

And I think that's the only way he can manage five companies is that he has these intense bursts where he focuses on something, gets the right people and structure in place, feels like he understands it, and then he can delegate more. And I think that he has reached that point with Doge, but he was also clear that he's gonna keep doing it because if he doesn't, there's gonna be a huge backsliding

And I think that's the only way he can manage five companies is that he has these intense bursts where he focuses on something, gets the right people and structure in place, feels like he understands it, and then he can delegate more. And I think that he has reached that point with Doge, but he was also clear that he's gonna keep doing it because if he doesn't, there's gonna be a huge backsliding

where all the corrupt interests will basically put back all this corrupt spending. So he's going to stay involved. But as an SGE, he's limited to 130 days a year anyway. And so it makes sense for him to kind of now ration his days a little more closely. But he's got the people in place. Remember, Doge... It wasn't just him. It was also the U.S.

where all the corrupt interests will basically put back all this corrupt spending. So he's going to stay involved. But as an SGE, he's limited to 130 days a year anyway. And so it makes sense for him to kind of now ration his days a little more closely. But he's got the people in place. Remember, Doge... It wasn't just him. It was also the U.S.

Digital Service, which is basically the IT branch of the executive branch, which got put under Doge. So my sense is that Doge is going to continue. It's just that Elon is shifting to a mode where he can manage it one day a week or two days a week, as opposed to being there five days a week.

Digital Service, which is basically the IT branch of the executive branch, which got put under Doge. So my sense is that Doge is going to continue. It's just that Elon is shifting to a mode where he can manage it one day a week or two days a week, as opposed to being there five days a week.

Why wouldn't we want to cut as much of this corruption as possible?

Why wouldn't we want to cut as much of this corruption as possible?

Why wouldn't they? Of course. And what we really need is for Congress to now embrace all of the corruption that Elon has found and eliminate it from the budget. Because at the end of the day, in order to capture the savings here, we do need those appropriations eliminated from the budget. And my biggest concern is not

Why wouldn't they? Of course. And what we really need is for Congress to now embrace all of the corruption that Elon has found and eliminate it from the budget. Because at the end of the day, in order to capture the savings here, we do need those appropriations eliminated from the budget. And my biggest concern is not

something that that doge is going to do or not it's not up to doge to do that it's up to frankly these old bulls in congress who control the appropriations process are they going to basically backslide and just put the spending back in because it's easier to just do that to engage in this log rolling Or do we take advantage of this, I think, incredible sacrifice that Elon has made?

something that that doge is going to do or not it's not up to doge to do that it's up to frankly these old bulls in congress who control the appropriations process are they going to basically backslide and just put the spending back in because it's easier to just do that to engage in this log rolling Or do we take advantage of this, I think, incredible sacrifice that Elon has made?

I mean, look, this has cost him enormously. One of the reasons why Tesla is down is because you've had crazy leftists engaging in terrorism, firebombing Tesla dealerships. In any event, he's made this enormous sacrifice in order to expose the corruption. And look what we've learned.

I mean, look, this has cost him enormously. One of the reasons why Tesla is down is because you've had crazy leftists engaging in terrorism, firebombing Tesla dealerships. In any event, he's made this enormous sacrifice in order to expose the corruption. And look what we've learned.

We've basically learned that this whole NGO thing is a giant scam where the people in government give enormous amounts of money to their friends. probably with the expectation that when they leave government, they're going to be next in line at the trough. And I think Elon's done an enormous service exposing this, but it's not entirely up to him.

We've basically learned that this whole NGO thing is a giant scam where the people in government give enormous amounts of money to their friends. probably with the expectation that when they leave government, they're going to be next in line at the trough. And I think Elon's done an enormous service exposing this, but it's not entirely up to him.

In order for us to realize the benefit, we need Congress now to act on that.

In order for us to realize the benefit, we need Congress now to act on that.

Well, he says they're at $160 billion right now. I think that's, by the way, that's an annual number as far as I understand it. So what I always hear with spending is they always multiply everything by 10 because they assume it's going to be 10 years. So if it is $160 billion a year, that would be $1.6 trillion over 10 years, probably more because the spending always grows.

Well, he says they're at $160 billion right now. I think that's, by the way, that's an annual number as far as I understand it. So what I always hear with spending is they always multiply everything by 10 because they assume it's going to be 10 years. So if it is $160 billion a year, that would be $1.6 trillion over 10 years, probably more because the spending always grows.

And isn't that exactly what's happened? Isn't that the way it's played out?

And isn't that exactly what's happened? Isn't that the way it's played out?

And look, that's $160 billion that we weren't planning on saving before Elon got involved in the government. So if that's all it is, that would be great. I think there could be more. And it really comes down to whether Doge continues to be supported by the political process. And look, Elon can't, he can't force that, right?

And look, that's $160 billion that we weren't planning on saving before Elon got involved in the government. So if that's all it is, that would be great. I think there could be more. And it really comes down to whether Doge continues to be supported by the political process. And look, Elon can't, he can't force that, right?

I mean, ultimately it's up to legislators to take advantage of the work that he did. And ultimately it's up to the people to put pressure on those legislators to embrace what he did. He's done an enormous amount, you know, but there's an old saying that you can bring a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

I mean, ultimately it's up to legislators to take advantage of the work that he did. And ultimately it's up to the people to put pressure on those legislators to embrace what he did. He's done an enormous amount, you know, but there's an old saying that you can bring a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

If the entrenched political interests at the end of the day aren't, if they're not gonna embrace the savings that Elon has found, I don't know what we can do about that.

If the entrenched political interests at the end of the day aren't, if they're not gonna embrace the savings that Elon has found, I don't know what we can do about that.

It creates a tragedy of the commons. There's a collective action problem because like you said, each individual congressman or senator primarily wants to get stuff for their district or their state. for their special interests. And there's no one really looking out for the public interest, the overall common good.

It creates a tragedy of the commons. There's a collective action problem because like you said, each individual congressman or senator primarily wants to get stuff for their district or their state. for their special interests. And there's no one really looking out for the public interest, the overall common good.

And these appropriators are basically engaged in log rolling where they're willing to give their colleagues their pork if they get their pork. And this is why we have a $2 trillion deficit. It's a really hard thing to fix. I mean- It's really hard.

And these appropriators are basically engaged in log rolling where they're willing to give their colleagues their pork if they get their pork. And this is why we have a $2 trillion deficit. It's a really hard thing to fix. I mean- It's really hard.

I think this has been something that I remember Bush 41 in his State of the Union called for a line item veto. This was like 30 years ago. And we still need that. Because I do think that if the president had more authority over this process, it'd be less of a tragedy of the commons.

I think this has been something that I remember Bush 41 in his State of the Union called for a line item veto. This was like 30 years ago. And we still need that. Because I do think that if the president had more authority over this process, it'd be less of a tragedy of the commons.

Yeah, and unfortunately, Congress will never, I think, change its ways until they're forced to by some sort of crisis, which, Freeberg, I think is your point about eventually we'll be in a debt crisis, and then Congress will finally see the wisdom— And they'll finally appreciate what Elon did. You know, there's all these entrenched political interests complaining about Elon.

Yeah, and unfortunately, Congress will never, I think, change its ways until they're forced to by some sort of crisis, which, Freeberg, I think is your point about eventually we'll be in a debt crisis, and then Congress will finally see the wisdom— And they'll finally appreciate what Elon did. You know, there's all these entrenched political interests complaining about Elon.

I mean, again, he undertook an enormous sacrifice to try and fix our fiscal situation, which is unsustainable before there's a crisis. One day there'll be a crisis. Everyone will see that he's right.

I mean, again, he undertook an enormous sacrifice to try and fix our fiscal situation, which is unsustainable before there's a crisis. One day there'll be a crisis. Everyone will see that he's right.

sitting in this week is our boy andrew ross sorkin journalist author extraordinaire andrew welcome to the show long time listener first time caller thank you for having me

sitting in this week is our boy andrew ross sorkin journalist author extraordinaire andrew welcome to the show long time listener first time caller thank you for having me

Rain Man, David Sack.

Rain Man, David Sack.

And it said, we open sourced it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it. Love you, Wes. Queen of Kin.

And it said, we open sourced it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it. Love you, Wes. Queen of Kin.

Well, look, first of all, I wanted to say that when I'm on this show and I'm not talking about AI or crypto, I'm just a civilian, right? So I'm not a spokesman for the administration on anything but the two issues that I work on. So I don't want to come across as someone who has special knowledge because I'm not part of the trade conversation. So I can't answer your question directly.

Well, look, first of all, I wanted to say that when I'm on this show and I'm not talking about AI or crypto, I'm just a civilian, right? So I'm not a spokesman for the administration on anything but the two issues that I work on. So I don't want to come across as someone who has special knowledge because I'm not part of the trade conversation. So I can't answer your question directly.

But what I would say is that with respect to the China relationship, I think what's happened over the past few weeks has been a very important stress test. And it's basically flagged some serious weaknesses or dependencies that have evolved in this relationship over the past few decades.

But what I would say is that with respect to the China relationship, I think what's happened over the past few weeks has been a very important stress test. And it's basically flagged some serious weaknesses or dependencies that have evolved in this relationship over the past few decades.

I flagged this in a previous episode that we did with Larry Summers where I said that 25 years ago it was a huge mistake to walk China into the WTO. And I think that just to build on that thought, One of the problems with walking them into the WTO is that they got what's called developing nation status. So you can either be a developing nation or a developed nation in the framework of the WTO.

I flagged this in a previous episode that we did with Larry Summers where I said that 25 years ago it was a huge mistake to walk China into the WTO. And I think that just to build on that thought, One of the problems with walking them into the WTO is that they got what's called developing nation status. So you can either be a developing nation or a developed nation in the framework of the WTO.

And maybe there was something legitimate to that in 1978 when Deng Xiaoping began his reforms, the average Chinese person was making $2 a day, by the year 2000, it was much more questionable. And it certainly makes no sense in the year 2025. And still to this day, China gets developing nation status. Now, what is the benefit to China of that? Well, they have a whole different set of rules.

And maybe there was something legitimate to that in 1978 when Deng Xiaoping began his reforms, the average Chinese person was making $2 a day, by the year 2000, it was much more questionable. And it certainly makes no sense in the year 2025. And still to this day, China gets developing nation status. Now, what is the benefit to China of that? Well, they have a whole different set of rules.

They're allowed to have tariffs. They're allowed to subsidize their industries. They have all sorts of different timetables for doing things. They're allowed to do things that the U.S. simply can't do. Now, how have they leveraged that? They have identified strategically certain industries that are choke points in the global supply chain, and they have taken them over.

They're allowed to have tariffs. They're allowed to subsidize their industries. They have all sorts of different timetables for doing things. They're allowed to do things that the U.S. simply can't do. Now, how have they leveraged that? They have identified strategically certain industries that are choke points in the global supply chain, and they have taken them over.

And the best example of this is rare earths. So there was some good stories in the New York Times about this over the past couple of weeks, which I think were largely accurate. China identified this as a critical industry. And the rare earths, the ore itself is distributed all over the world. I mean, China has some advantages there, but they're not huge.

And the best example of this is rare earths. So there was some good stories in the New York Times about this over the past couple of weeks, which I think were largely accurate. China identified this as a critical industry. And the rare earths, the ore itself is distributed all over the world. I mean, China has some advantages there, but they're not huge.

It's the processing of the rare earths that's very expensive, very complicated. And they decide to dominate that industry. And they're responsible today for over 90% of the processing of rare earths. And then the next step in the supply chain is that those rare earths get cast into rare earth magnets. which are a critical component in pretty much every electric motor.

It's the processing of the rare earths that's very expensive, very complicated. And they decide to dominate that industry. And they're responsible today for over 90% of the processing of rare earths. And then the next step in the supply chain is that those rare earths get cast into rare earth magnets. which are a critical component in pretty much every electric motor.

And so they're a critical component of the automotive industry, but not just cars, lots of different products. And I think China makes something like over 90% of the cast rare earth magnets. Well, by the way, this issue still has not been resolved. China has now cut off the United States. And so as part of this trade negotiation, we're going to have to resolve that issue.

And so they're a critical component of the automotive industry, but not just cars, lots of different products. And I think China makes something like over 90% of the cast rare earth magnets. Well, by the way, this issue still has not been resolved. China has now cut off the United States. And so as part of this trade negotiation, we're going to have to resolve that issue.

And I trust that it will be. I mean, what you've heard from the president and the treasury sector over the past week is that they're They've indicated a desire to engage in bilateral negotiations with China and to essentially deescalate this trade war. But I think it's been very useful, again, as a stress test to reveal our critical dependencies on China that we've exposed.

And I trust that it will be. I mean, what you've heard from the president and the treasury sector over the past week is that they're They've indicated a desire to engage in bilateral negotiations with China and to essentially deescalate this trade war. But I think it's been very useful, again, as a stress test to reveal our critical dependencies on China that we've exposed.

We never should have let this happen. Just from a national security standpoint, We worshiped at the altar of this free trade god to the point where we became dependent on China for these critical components in our supply chain. I think that was a catastrophic mistake. And I think that it's exposed these dependencies we've created on a nation that is not our ally and that we can't count on them.

We never should have let this happen. Just from a national security standpoint, We worshiped at the altar of this free trade god to the point where we became dependent on China for these critical components in our supply chain. I think that was a catastrophic mistake. And I think that it's exposed these dependencies we've created on a nation that is not our ally and that we can't count on them.

It's a country of concern. So I ultimately think that we're going to need to learn from this experience and very rapidly make some major corrections here.

It's a country of concern. So I ultimately think that we're going to need to learn from this experience and very rapidly make some major corrections here.

My wrap?

My wrap?

My wrap?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And by the way, people didn't believe that because they could see what they could see.

Give in to the fact that he had that his biggest mistake was not taking this on in a more meaningful way earlier.

You know, there was just so many there was a series of mistakes that were made after the crash.

That really led to the Great Depression.

I think of the crash as almost just the first domino in a whole bunch of things that he did.

One of the things he tried to do was raise taxes at a time when the economy was flailing.

That was a wild idea.

The other thing that he did was he decides – by the way, like now – to –

put tariffs on, the Smoot-Hawley tariffs, 1930.

He had pledged to do that during his presidential campaign in 1928, trying to get farmers to vote for him.

And he said, my goodness, I need to make good on my pledge.

Meanwhile, every economist in America is writing him open letters, by the way, the same way they're writing letters to Trump, saying, I beg you, I beg you, don't do this.

The CEOs were going down to the Oval Office, getting on their knees, saying, please don't do this.

And of course, he does it.

And what happens?

Twelve months later, global trade is down by 60 percent.

By the way, meantime, you have the Federal Reserve sitting on their hands the entire time.

They're not flooding the system with money because they are worried about the politics of the moment, too, which I think also, by the way, interestingly relates to now when we talk about the independence of the Fed and all of these things.

So there was sort of this series of dominoes.

And I think at the point that we're now talking about where Hoover is talking to Roosevelt about the banks, he would have to capitulate.

He would have to almost admit that he didn't do the right things before.

And so he was trying to put it on Roosevelt and Roosevelt was trying to put it on him.

Right.

He's on the Mount Rushmore of Pod Save America here.

So I don't know if there was ever like a project 1932 or 1933.

But yes, I think there might have been some kind of project behind the scenes, if you will, to think through what were the levers that a president could pull that maybe hadn't been pulled before.

And you're right.

History has looked quite fondly.

on the powers that he ultimately took, but they look fondly upon them, I think, because they worked.

There was an effectiveness about him.

And I would also argue that it didn't seem... Now, at the time, if you go back, some people thought it was a power grab,

But it didn't seem like it was a capricious power grab for the purposes of their own power.

However it was communicated to the public, it was communicated in a way that I think the public did believe that he was doing this at their behest for them, not for him.

And it's an interesting sort of –

distinction to make.

And maybe it's a distinction without a difference.

I don't know.

I'm curious what you think.

So the other thing that I found fascinating about Roosevelt, also Hoover to some degree,

But given Roosevelt's public commentary about bankers and about wealth, he doesn't get really into a sort of larger question about capitalism, I think, the way we are discussing those questions today.

But he did have a relationship with all of these business leaders.

I mean, these business leaders, in an almost Trumpian way, were making these pilgrimages to the White House to sit in the Oval Office and to plead their case to him.

And he had a

a somewhat, it seemed like, friendly relationship with the leaders of these institutions.

I will say one thing, though, about all of these bankers and wealthy individuals in the 20s and even now.

And by the way, back in the 20s, not inflation adjusted, for real.

There were two billionaires.

People were making tens of millions of dollars.

There was a magazine article called Our Second Billionaire, which was Henry Ford, 1929.

One of the great lessons, at least for me, that I've learned just I think in reporting all of these years and even just reporting on the current milieu of billionaires in America, it doesn't matter how much money you have in your bank account or what title you have on your business card.

It is not emotional armor.

It just isn't.

And I think that the public, including myself, often think, well, they've got so much money.

What do they have to worry about?

Someone writes a nasty article about them or the president goes after them on television.

What do they care?

They can just go back to their yacht and they don't have to worry.

And I think there's truth to it in the sort of financial sense, right?

It's not that they have to – they're losing their home and are now out on the streets.

But it's almost like anti-armor because – like, you know, I don't know if you read Us Magazine occasionally, but there's the page This Is Us.

They're just like us.

Like emotionally, they're just like us.

I'll take the second part first.

He was a terrible orator.

I mean, ultimately, that's the truth.

He just was he didn't whatever you think the it factor is in politics.

He did not have it in that regard.

It's sort of surprising that he won the election at all.

I think his ability to stir the public the way some of the great presidential presidents who have been great orators have was just not a talent that was in his, you know,

in his talent drawer.

Like he just didn't, it was not something he had.

So I think his ability to, but the other sort of psychological piece of this, and you can even think about it in the most recent decade, even now, actually.

So, you know, we had a whole period of time in our country where there was remarkable inflation going on.

And President Biden used to tell everybody,

Like there isn't inflation.

It's fine.

I mean, Biden tried to do a little bit of what Hoover was doing.

And the people were on TikTok saying, that's not true.

Have you seen the price of eggs?

I don't understand what you're trying to tell me.

By the way, I would say the same thing is happening now with Trump.

Yeah.

Which is Trump is out there saying the economy is great.

And yet if you look at some of the polls and you definitely look at some of the economic data, there's weakness there.

Oh, I don't disagree with you.

I'm just wondering, I'm very curious if they actually did some real polls.

I've seen only a couple of polls on this where people really talk about how they feel about the economy today and for reasons that I think are inexplicable.

So I look at the economic data and what's going on with inflation.

And I would say there's some underlying weakness, at least for large pockets of the country.

And you would think that they would be on TikTok screaming the way they were screaming a couple of years ago in the last administration.

And I think there's some screaming going on, but I don't think there's nearly the same kind of screaming.

And I wonder why that is.

Very obvious.

And I'm so glad that you made the parallels.

You know, it's funny when I was writing the book, I used to have these big debates with my editor about whether we should actually make the connection for the reader.

So I, when you read the book,

you're hopefully inside this narrative and just, you know, listening or reading this almost tale of what happened.

So look, in the 1920s – and I don't know if people appreciated this.

But as you're doing that, and I'm not trying to lead you to a place, but I imagine that there are readers who are going to go, oh, well, that's like this and that's like this and that's like this and that guy's like Elizabeth Warren and that guy is like a little bit like Elon Musk.

And so, yes.

This was, I would even argue, the first time that people really were playing the market, like that the ordinary person was doing this because it was the first time that –

What's your take?

I'm no longer surprised because one of the things that I've decided I've learned is that the investor class, whatever that even means anymore, is a group of people who are effectively professional optimists.

And the truth is that actually, if you look over time,

Being a professional optimist or being predisposed to being optimistic has actually been the right choice.

So I remember years ago, you'd hear about a war breaking out in the Middle East or something, and the market would falter and fall to pieces.

And the truth was that if you had bought when that happened, you would have made a small fortune.

And I think over time, people have seen that

Most of the time, it works out.

Frankly, the banks – I don't want to say the banks sucked them in, but the banks were basically lending people extraordinary amounts of money to go and make your bet.

The problem is some of the time, it doesn't.

But as a result, I think there's always this predisposition towards –

there's going to be some semblance of rationality to what will ultimately happen.

And so you have President Trump out there making some grand claim about the tariffs.

The market freaks out because they're like, should I believe him?

Am I supposed to actually listen to his words?

Or am I not?

I mean, this goes, but this happens every day.

And so then you have this sort of back and forth with China.

I'm of the view that ultimately,

I don't know if it's the taco trade or whatever they call it these days, which is Trump always chickens out.

Yeah.

Ultimately, I think he's trying to push it as far as he can push it.

But the truth and maybe it's the only governor thus far, actually, on this presidency has actually been the markets, weirdly enough.

Right.

So when he announced the tariffs back in April, the sort of big shooting the moon plan, the bond market went crazy and he softened his stance.

You know, here we are again.

He's trying to figure out what to do with China.

He softens his stance.

And they're the only people he seems to be willing to listen to.

And brokerages are appearing on the corners of streets like Starbucks, and you could just go walk in and do this.

The through line in my reporting about Trump is simply leverage.

It's how can he get leverage over somebody else?

It's not about – and the relationship is always going to be transactional.

He would argue to you, I think, if we were sitting at this table with the president, that all of these quote-unquote relationships, these friendships, these special relationships we've had with European countries was never really a relationship at all.

And so –

He would say we were actually paying them all off to be our friends, frankly, and that that was our leverage.

if we had any leverage with them.

And I think now he's saying we have leverage in a different way, which is that we're basically going to tariff them.

You have this period of time where everybody's watching the market go up and they're all thinking, you know, if so-and-so is making all this money, I should be making the money too.

My only point is that I think what he's looking at are the numbers, not that anybody's doing anything in a kumbaya way for the United States, nor that the United States should be doing kumbaya way things for them.

And we will see whether we really have leverage or not.

And I think that's that is the ultimate question.

And I do not think we know.

And I will say when it comes to China, I think ultimately it's going to be very hard for us to have demonstrable leverage with them, given their size and their scale.

And the fact that I think President Xi is just watching this whole thing.

And I imagine laughing to some degree because he sees the president come out and decides announced some crazy thing.

tariff number.

And then the market goes crazy.

And what happens?

He steps down, steps away from it.

Because leverage towards control, leverage.

And look, look at what's going on with the universities in America.

Look what's going on with the law firms going on in America.

Look what's happening with the companies in

It's all – there's leverage, leverage over somebody else, power over them so that when you need to ask for something, the answer is yes.

That is basically what I think is going on here.

It's all this sort of psychology of I don't want to lose out.

Well, that's – yes.

I would also say they can become –

And I'm not arguing that this is a good strategy.

And I don't think anyone thinks you are.

Just to be clear.

This whole thing becomes a chess piece.

They're all chess pieces on a board.

And I think he thinks to himself, I now have a chess piece over X. They are paying this tariff now.

I'm collecting money from them one way.

At some point, if I need them in some other way, maybe I can lower the tariff.

By the way, maybe I can raise the tariff on them.

Right.

And the whole thing is just a sort of grand leverage negotiation.

The train's leaving the station.

I got to get on the train.

And yet the big Cassandra in the room was a guy named Carter Glass.

I mean, I guess it's history.

You can't really spoil history.

You can't really spoil history.

So,

Charles Mitchell effectively gets indicted for tax evasion.

By the way, that case brought against him by Roosevelt, effectively signed off by Roosevelt, who had a chip on his shoulder about Mitchell.

Carter Glass was a senator in Virginia.

And that was part of the politics, too.

So this gets back to the strange parallels in life, Democrats and Republicans, for better or worse.

And he goes to trial.

Everybody expects that he's going to be convicted.

Everybody thinks he's going to be convicted.

Right.

He had, by the way, engaged in what was demonstrably a sham tax transaction with his wife.

He was like –

And you get into I mean, you really get to see what was going on in the moment when he's literally in the room with his wife, you know, planning this whole tax strategy out.

the Elizabeth Warren of his time.

And the jury comes back and finds him not guilty.

And this goes to exactly maybe what people thought about after the financial crisis of 2008.

Nobody really went to jail.

And when people discuss this with the jurors, when you read all of the sort of articles and opinion pieces about this at the time, the view was that –

He did basically what everybody else just would have done.

And they did not consider that to be criminal.

Interestingly, he had done it with the blessing of his lawyer, which was also sort of from a legal perspective, a very interesting defense, which was that he went to the lawyer, got the lawyer to bless it.

He was frankly a racist Elizabeth Warren of his time.

Arden segregationist.

Arden segregationist, but he was screaming from the rooftops about how he believed that Wall Street, in particular, a guy named Charlie Mitchell, he used to call it Mitchellism,

Completely corrupted process.

So that was, by the way, one of the great surprises for me as I was going through the letters and archives of this period, which was I think we all have this impression that this great Bill Glass-Steagall, which broke up the banks, was sort of driven by...

Carter Glass and this idea that the bank should be broken up and this was to make the system safer.

Correct.

You were dividing the casino from the actual bank.

But the truth was that this entire process had been corrupted.

And the only reason I would argue this bill even came about was because the Rockefeller family, which effectively owned a big chunk of Chase, which was a major competitor to Citigroup, wanted to break up Citigroup, but also more importantly, wanted to break up J.P.

Morgan.

and that the Rockefeller family had it out for J.P.

Morgan.

And as a result, they went to Roosevelt, who, by the way, wasn't so excited originally about passing this bill.

And Charlie Mitchell ran a bank called National City, which ultimately becomes Citigroup, was upending America because of all of this speculation and lending that they were doing that was inciting just a violent upward trend in the stock market that he said was going to go wrong.

This bill had been sitting around for a while, and he was slow walking Carter Glass in so many different ways.

By the way, interestingly, Roosevelt was not really for the FDIC, which was also a piece of this bill, effectively insuring bank deposits.

Roosevelt originally wasn't even for that either.

But there was a whole bunch of sort of efforts afoot to put all of these pieces in place to the point where I found a letter that Carter Glass had written that actually walked through the whole thing where he was basically complaining that the bill wasn't really his and had been effectively taken over by the bankers.

And there's a section of the bill that was physically written by the son-in-law of Rockefeller.

You know, first of all, Andrew Mellon was a capitalist with a capital C in just every way.

You know, if you had great success, God bless you.

If you had great failure, God bless you.

He did not – he wasn't there to pick up the pieces in any way, shape or form.

I would argue, by the way, that the American dream shifted in the 1920s.

I actually think that the dream that shifted in the 1920s, for better or worse, is the dream that exists today in America here today and I would argue on TikTok and everywhere else.

Which is – I think prior to 1920, it really was more of a Horatio Alger kind of story that people were pursuing.

And I think in the 20s, in part because of the stock market and everything else and industrialization and going to big cities and everything else with the sort of elites that they saw, it became about the lottery ticket.

It became about – I don't know about a get-rich-quick scheme, but it became about getting rich.

Getting super – it wasn't just about having a better life than your parents.

You've been to the Plaza Hotel in New York.

It was about something else.

It was about sort of reaching for the stars in this other way.

And that was partially, by the way, a function of the media.

This is the first time big magazines were all of a sudden putting CEOs on the cover of these magazines.

They used to have Babe Ruth and Charles Lindbergh on the cover.

Okay.

And now Charlie Mitchell is on the cover of these magazines.

So there's that, the famous Oak Room.

And so I think that we –

as a culture, almost turn these people into heroes.

And here we are close to 100 years later, and you're seeing it almost in the exact same way.

The Oak Room, because of prohibition had been shut down and EF Hutton had opened up inside the Oak Room.

Well, it's interesting because I think the modern conversation about the American dream today

often is actually not probably look back 100 years.

It's probably look back to the 50s.

But yeah, you would be getting, people would be getting tips literally from the doorman and the elevator men, you know, wherever you went and you would just go in and place your bet as if it was like a normal thing to do.

People would call it what I describe as the leave it to beaver American dream.

That was a very white dream, but it meant that you could buy a house, you'd have two kids, a dog, and everything would kind of just work out.

And by the way, this was a period where unionization was a huge part of the economy.

We were protecting labor in a remarkable way.

And I think people look back now at that period fondly.

But I also think today, again, in this sort of social media driven universe, you know, everybody wants to be Mr. Beast.

They all want to be you, John.

I mean, they all want to- I don't think so.

I don't think that can be right.

But I have a very unpopular explanation for why that was the case.

All right, let's hear it.

And Paul Krugman disagrees with me vehemently about this.

So just I want to want to posit that so you can throw your tomatoes if you like.

I worry or I'm concerned that this sort of 1950s to call it 1980 period where we had this sort of utopia that we think about.

I don't know if it's really utopia because there was all sorts of civil unrest and other things that took place during that period too.

Right.

It was also a function of the fact that the U.S.

was a monopoly power in the world during that period and was able to effectively charge monopoly rents.

So effectively, the rest of the world after World War II was out of business.

We were not competing with anybody.

We were it.

We were the entire game.

And so we could charge remarkable amounts of money.

There was no competition.

And so because this sort of

Period was taking place.

You could charge an extraordinary amount of money.

You could afford, if you will, to pay labor what I think we all hope that labor deserves.

But it was partially because we didn't – there was not –

a competitor.

In 1980, when you start to see how wages stagnated in America starting in late 70s, early 80s, and you go and you look, all of a sudden, Germany's back.

Japan's back.

Everybody's now competing against America.

And by the way,

That competition is forcing the cost of labor down.

It's forcing the cost of everything to go down.

And that's what to some degree I would argue breaks the unions or at least makes it much harder from – this goes back to capitalism and socialism.

But from a capitalistic perspective to compete –

when you're effectively competing against competitors that have much lower costs.

And by the way, we're seeing this now in terms of why the president wants to implement tariffs, because he's looking and saying to himself, look, BYD in China, if we let BYD in China sell cars into America today, we would have no car industry.

We just wouldn't, because the cars are better made and cost less.

This is like total deadpan.

And for a moment, he had me.

I'm just saying, whether you want to listen to Elon Musk or not, he's always said, if you do not have these tariffs, that the American car market would be in trouble.

And I think there's truth to that.

There's truth to that.

And we actually, as a country, have to decide, do we want an automobile industry?

I mean, I think these are real questions.

And then the question is, if you want an automobile industry, how do you get it?

Right.

I mean, our tariffs going to help us.

I mean, right now, the way the tariffs are structured, I think it's going to become very complicated.

But I will say I talked to a CEO of a big U.S.

carmaker and they're not a lot of them.

So you can make your guess about who this is.

And they said, look, in 10 years from now, given all of the tariffs and everything else, most Americans are going to spend more for less quality cars than much of the rest of the world is likely to get.

And Groucho Marx was playing it.

And maybe we should be cool with that.

Maybe we shouldn't.

I don't know.

But I think about this stuff.

Yeah.

Yeah.

By the way, that part I agree with you 100% on too.

And by the way, ended up having to mortgage his home when all was said and done.

In the head of the comments.

Okay, so I am going to, I don't know if I'm gonna channel him, so do not blame me.

Don't blame the messenger.

This is what I think is going on.

This is like mind reading inside Tim Cook's head, which is probably unfair to Tim Cook, but I'm gonna try.

Trying to lighten it up at the end.

What I think is going on here is I think that he is somebody, and as I think most of these CEOs, I think they are playing trade-offs in their mind.

This whole thing is a trade-off for them.

They're saying to themselves, I could raise my hand right now and say, this is all wild and completely nuts.

And I disagree with everything that's going on here.

And if I do that, what's the upside for me to do that?

And what's the downside for me to do that?

And I think right now in this moment, the upside in truth is probably not a lot.

I think that a lot of people at this table and a lot of listeners would applaud those people, but it's unclear to me unless it's done as a collective that it would have any real impact.

Right now, given what's happening in Washington in terms of the Republican control of the White House, of Congress, of the Senate,

having even the business community come out in any meaningful way and say, excuse me, we don't like it this way.

It's unclear that that would have some kind of impact.

The downside is,

I assume, is that you sit there and you say, if I don't do this, or if I raise my hand and say this, is that I'm going to be slaughtered.

That that's what's happened in America.

And by the way, it depresses me to say this.

That's where we are.

It's like a mafioso thing.

It's like, if I raise my hand and say there's a problem, I will be slaughtered.

That's what I think is, I mean, hopefully not literally slaughtered, but I think that is the calculus.

And I think the calculus is all of these people are thinking,

I want to be here.

I want the company to be here in not just tomorrow, but in two and three and four and five and 10 years from now.

And can I just play this out?

Can I just stick this out long enough to get to the other side, whatever you think the other side looks like?

So I do think that behind the scenes, there is consternation and anxiety and all sorts of things about what this administration does.

No question.

I mean, I think one of the reasons they don't speak out

um is because they're scared and privately they will tell you i am scared again this goes back to it almost doesn't matter how much money you have in your bank account or what's on your business card emotionally you're still you're still in that that scared place and that's terrible and that's the case and a generosity to them though perhaps unearned they are responsible for people's jobs they're responsible they have they have real responsibilities so i think that they think about that right

I think they think, and maybe they'll be wrong about this, that if in fact there's sort of a red line moment, and the question is what is that red line moment, that there's gonna be some button that they're gonna push

that they would push the button if this sort of red line moment happens.

Now, there's obviously a lot of people, I imagine, who are listening to us now saying, hasn't the red line moment already happened?

Or if you think the red line moment is coming, don't you need to get in front of it before you ever get there?

Because by the time you get to that line, you won't even have an opportunity to touch the button because you'll be so far away from it because somehow you'll be in this sort of terrible place.

I don't know the answer.

And I think this is what everybody in the business community who does have these worries is grappling with.

Okay, so first of all, let's take one step back, which is speculation we all think is, I don't want to say we all, but a lot of people use as a dirty word.

I think they're sitting there saying, I know there's a red line at some point.

I don't know if we've gone over it.

I don't know when we're going to get there.

And I don't know when we get there, what we're going to do about it.

Yeah.

Well, it's hard, right?

I was at a meeting recently with a number of business leaders where

A bunch of people said, you know what, we should write down right now what the red line is so that the line doesn't move.

By the way, I think it would be very valuable for business leaders today to write down on a piece of paper, have a plan.

If you think there's going to be a day you're going to raise your hand and say, I don't like this and we've got a problem, write down what are the parameters and the metrics with which you would actually do that.

Because what keeps happening is the line that you thought nobody would cross seems to get crossed almost every day.

You don't want speculation.

And

we become to some degree a nerd to what's happening.

And so I think that's part of the sort of psychological question that we all probably need to face a little.

But there is part of me, especially actually after writing this, that thinks that speculation is

is almost like the twin of innovation.

Well, it'll be very interesting to see if, in fact, Democrats come into power, how they how they use that power.

And by the way, it's going to be very interesting to see now that we're in this moment where the president's going after Comey and he's going after Bolton.

Whether every successive presidency, depending on which political party is in place, is going to be sort of using these powers in these different ways and whether that then either puts a stop to the politicization of all of it or whether this just –

You do need a little speculation in the system.

becomes sort of a spiral out of control.

I'm very curious to see, but you're right that nobody in the moment right now, especially in the business community, feels pressure from the quote-unquote other side.

You don't want no speculation in the system.

By the way, they always hated Elizabeth Warren making comments about their business, trying to raise taxes on them or implement wealth taxes or other things, but they never really took it seriously.

And so here we are.

Hey, what's the money saying about Mom Donnie now?

Now that it's getting real.

Oh, he's gonna, I mean, the money says that he's gonna be the mayor of New York.

And I only say that because if you think about the great technological advances of our time, the first people to invest in Tesla years ago, when it seemed like an absurd and crazy idea, effectively were speculating.

No question.

So I think that,

The business leaders dislike him.

I mean, they genuinely dislike him.

Sure.

And it's not, by the way, just because they think he's – forget him being a Democrat, being a socialist or even raising taxes.

I actually don't think that that is the thing that has them up in arms, just to be totally transparent with you.

I think that they think there's three things that –

Are on their minds.

I think they are worried about how he's going to approach policing in the city.

I think that's for them a big, big issue.

I think they.

There's an anti-Semitic question that is definitely on their minds.

And then there is.

And this gets to maybe the the Democratic Socialist piece of it.

You know, I think they all believe that we need more affordability in terms of New York City, especially when it comes to rents and real estate and the like.

And I think they look at what he's, at least the plan to rent stabilization and say to themselves, at least as classic economists, that that is not really the answer.

That the answer ultimately is what Ezra Klein would tell you, which is abundance.

We need supply.

We need more supply.

It has been zero days since we've talked about abundance.

Reset the sign back to zero.

Continue.

And I think that they look at all of that and say,

That's a problem.

Having said that, they think he's very charming.

They recognize that he is likely to be the mayor.

And I think you're starting to see a bunch of them

I don't want to say fall in line, but fall in line.

And so you're seeing some people come out with sort of more positive comments, hoping, knowing that maybe, you know, if he's the mayor, that if they're friendly early, that he'll be friendly later.

I mean, I think that's and and this is fascinating because it's by the way, this does happen on both sides of the political aisle.

Right.

It's a very interesting moment.

So I'm not...

We need a lot of both.

here to say that speculation unto itself is a bad thing.

In fact, I would argue you need a little bit of it, but I think you need to do it in a way where it's not toxic.

I think the answer is we will look at what's happening in AI, which, by the way, I'm super excited about.

And I think it'll be like the internet.

It'll be a massive technological change.

But you'll look at the valuations of some of these companies right now and the way they're getting financed and all the debt and leverage in the system.

And you'll say, this doesn't make sense.

Look at companies that don't have enough money, are not making any money.

They're making no money today.

They're losing money.

And yet they're making massive commitments to buy data centers, to buy all sorts of things that they can't afford to buy on a hope and a prayer and a dream that this will be the future.

Some of them will be right and they will be the future and some of them will be Amazon.

And what was happening in the 20s is there was a toxicity to how this was all being run, which is to say that there were no rules, no guardrails.

But a lot won't be.

And we will look around and we will say, that was a mistake.

And what's happening today is

is that we are taking the guardrails away.

So I think it's probably a good thing for the American public to have access and to be able to invest.

You just need to do it with transparency, without the leverage, without the manipulation efforts and the charlatans and the frauds that invariably emerge every single time we have one of these booms.

And I would say right now, you look at what's happening in crypto, and yes, there are frauds and charlatans everywhere.

You know,

There was this thing called a SPAC boom, a blank check boom, just a couple of years ago.

Everybody said, oh my goodness, I can get access to the lottery ticket early.