Trump, China, AI, and the end of the Iran War

Episode Summary

Alex and Shimon dive into a wide-ranging discussion covering U.S. foreign policy, Iran, China, Taiwan, military power, historical governance systems, nominal GDP, investing, AI infrastructure, and the future of markets. The episode blends geopolitical analysis with macroeconomics and long-term technological optimism.

Show Notes

00:08 — Opening Remarks

Alex and Shimon introduce the episode and discuss the rainy weather in Washington, D.C. before jumping directly into global geopolitics.

00:29 — Trump, China, and the Iran Conflict

Alex opens with criticism of Trump’s recent China trip and broader handling of the Iran situation. He argues the administration returned from China with little substance despite bringing major CEOs along.

Key topics:

• Whether the China trip produced meaningful outcomes
• Concerns about U.S. credibility regarding Iran
• Public threats versus actual military action
• The political pressure of U.S. midterms

02:33 — Iran Strategy and Credibility

Alex argues repeated military threats without follow-through weaken deterrence. He expresses concern that Iran’s leadership may not respond to traditional pressure because of ideological fanaticism.

Discussion points:

• The IRGC and religious extremism
• Why deterrence may not work traditionally
• Risks of appearing indecisive internationally
• Public opinion and war fatigue in the U.S.

07:05 — Shimon’s Counterargument on Iran

Shimon explains why his expectations were lower from the beginning and argues the media presents two completely distorted narratives.

He compares:

• CNN’s framing of Iran “winning”
• Fox News’ framing of total U.S. strategic success
• Why reality is likely somewhere in between

08:38 — Nuclear Weapons and Uranium Enrichment

Shimon gives a technical explanation of nuclear enrichment and argues that removing uranium alone does not solve the long-term problem.

Major ideas:

• Uranium enrichment mechanics
• Why centrifuges matter more than raw uranium
• Why nuclear capability can be rebuilt over time
• The difficulty of permanently eliminating nuclear programs

10:46 — “Boots on the Ground” Debate

Shimon argues the only true way to permanently stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons would require ground operations.

Topics include:

• Comparisons to Iraq and Saddam Hussein
• Political unwillingness for another major Middle East war
• Limitations of airstrikes and sanctions
• Why the world may eventually accept a nuclear Iran

12:23 — Economic Pressure vs Military Victory

The conversation shifts toward sanctions and economic leverage.

Shimon’s thesis:

• Economic pressure can weaken regimes significantly
• Growth incentives may discourage immediate nuclear escalation
• Ballistic missiles may become preferable to nuclear weapons
• Markets appear optimistic despite geopolitical tensions

16:07 — Is Iran Better or Worse Off?

Alex and Shimon disagree sharply on whether Iran emerged stronger or weaker after recent conflicts.

Alex argues:

• Iran survived a major confrontation
• Hardliners will become even more aggressive
• The regime now has greater justification for nuclear weapons

Shimon argues:

• Iran is strategically weaker than before
• Internal instability could eventually undermine the regime
• Historical parallels exist with the Soviet Union

20:36 — Ideology, Fanaticism, and Rationality

A philosophical debate emerges about whether ideological regimes behave rationally.

Key questions:

• Can religious fanatics still act strategically?
• Does not fearing death change geopolitical logic?
• Are Iran’s leaders motivated more by power or ideology?
• What happens if Iran eventually obtains nuclear weapons?

28:08 — China and Taiwan

The discussion pivots to China and U.S.-China relations.

Shimon argues:

• Trump’s China trip successfully de-escalated tensions
• Markets reacted positively afterward
• The U.S. mainly needs time to build domestic chip manufacturing
• Taiwan’s strategic value is deeply tied to semiconductors

Alex raises concerns about:

• Taiwan’s future
• China’s long-term ambitions
• America potentially conceding geopolitical ground

31:02 — Power, War, and Human Nature

The hosts discuss whether conflict is an unavoidable part of civilization.

Themes include:

• Raw power throughout history
• Male competition and evolutionary psychology
• Warfare as a mechanism for societal order
• Alpha hierarchies in nature and human civilization

34:12 — Kings, Castles, and the Ottoman Empire

A historical tangent explores governance systems.

Topics:

• Why hierarchical systems emerge
• Medieval castle alliances
• The origin of kingship
• The Ottoman succession system where brothers fought to the death for the throne

38:22 — Nominal GDP Explained

Shimon introduces a macroeconomic concept that fascinated him: nominal GDP growth.

Discussion highlights:

• Difference between nominal GDP and real GDP
• Inflation versus productivity
• Why nominal GDP growth has remained surprisingly stable
• The relationship between money supply and economic growth

41:37 — Investing, Retirement, and Market Growth

The hosts connect nominal GDP growth to investing.

Ideas discussed:

• Why markets naturally trend upward over time
• The logic behind 4% retirement withdrawal rules
• Why innovative companies dramatically outperform averages
• The dominance of technology companies in modern market growth

46:42 — Are Markets Overvalued?

Shimon pushes back against bearish market narratives.

Topics include:

• NASDAQ valuations
• Earnings growth versus price growth
• AI companies and infrastructure expansion
• Why major tech companies may justify high valuations

47:32 — SpaceX, AI, and the Future Economy

The episode closes with optimism around technological progress.

Final themes:

• Space commercialization
• Mars and future planetary economies
• AI infrastructure and data centers in space
• Why technological innovation could continue driving exponential economic growth

Key Takeaways

• Alex worries the U.S. risks appearing weak through inconsistent foreign policy signaling.
• Shimon believes geopolitical outcomes are rarely ideal and should be judged comparatively, not absolutely.
• Both agree technological innovation is accelerating rapidly and may fundamentally reshape markets and civilization.
• The hosts remain highly optimistic about AI, semiconductors, and space technology despite geopolitical instability.

Main Topics Covered

• Iran conflict and nuclear strategy
• Trump’s China visit
• Taiwan and semiconductor geopolitics
• Military deterrence
• Economic sanctions
• Nominal GDP
• Stock market valuations
• AI and infrastructure
• Space economy and SpaceX
• Historical governance systems
  
  Notable Quotes

“You can do that two or three times and be believable. When you do it six or seven times, you lose all credibility.” — Alex

"The only way to remove the threat of a nuclear weapon from Iran is with boots on the ground.” — Shimon

"International geopolitics is always bad choices.” — Shimon

“Raw power has always been the controlling boundary of humanity.” — Alex“

“Objectively, the stock market goes up over time.” — Shimon

Apple Podcast: https://tinyurl.com/36u8fmbr
Spotify Podcast: https://tinyurl.com/4zv6syfc
Hardcorefinanceshow.com

Follow us on Twitter
@MrEBITDA
@ShimonLazarov

Transcript

SPEAKER_02 0:08

Hello everyone and welcome to the Dollar Auction Show with Alex and Shimon. How are you doing, Alex?

SPEAKER_00 0:13

I'm doing fantastic. It's a rainy day in DC, but listen, there's so much to talk about. There's so many um happenings in the space. We absolutely are gonna have a fantastic discussion today.

SPEAKER_02 0:26

Yes, I'm sure. What uh what would you like to start with?

SPEAKER_00 0:30

Well, look, I actually I would like to start with the Iran War. How about that? So, and Trump's visit to China. So I appreciate, or one of the things that I want to stand by is that we'd like to call balls and strikes. And recently we've been very pro-Trump's policies and so on. Look, to me, Trump's you know went to China with a whole bunch of CEOs.

SPEAKER_02 0:58

Just to caveat, I haven't been pro-Trump's policies. I said that we need more time to determine the outcome of this war. So not all of Trump's policies, right? Just want to put it on the record.

SPEAKER_00 1:08

Sure, fair fair enough. But uh the geopolitical moves he's been making, I think we've been we've been saying he's making the right, at least directionally they're right.

SPEAKER_02 1:15

Yeah, most of them are directionally right, but the the Iran war is quite a big one. So I I think it's just like hard to say like the policies. It's like some of his policies are great. The fact that he's pro-Bitcoin is great, you know, the fact that he's pro-growth of the economy is great. Some other things not so great, but we'll see.

SPEAKER_00 1:34

Exactly. So, so you know, in order to call kind of balls and strikes, you know, he went to China, he brought 30 top CEOs, and really didn't get much from it. I mean, I think it was a you know, there's a there's a lot of spin online, and uh even some of the counts that I follow that are fine, kind of center right, but I'm disappointed that there really isn't a lot of middle ground truth uh out there. And I I like it.

SPEAKER_02 2:00

I want to surprise you by the way.

SPEAKER_00 2:03

It doesn't, it maybe disappoints me. Maybe disappoints me. Um I like to think there were that. You know, we we I don't know, we we try to be very centered. So, long story short, I I think it was a complete dud. He came back with pretty much nothing. China's gonna buy some US oil. It's it's a complete nothing burger. They didn't talk about Iran, they didn't talk about Ukraine, he brought all these CEOs, you know. And how do you know that they didn't talk about oh, you mean publicly?

SPEAKER_02 2:28

They didn't uh they didn't have a state.

SPEAKER_00 2:30

They they announced that what all we know is what they talked about publicly. They didn't that didn't come up. Um and you know, it was it's disappointing. And and the second thing is it's what's disappointing to me is Trump's whole stance on Iran, it's very clear that when he went in, I was really hopeful, you know, and I think it's it was the right thing to do. Iran can't have a nuclear weapon. And and I thought, okay, well, he's doing it for his legacy, he's not doing it for the midterms. But it's clear that the midterms are weighing heavily on him, and this whole thing, I'm gonna bomb you, you know, and you know, hello, bridge and power plant day, and then Pakistan told me to back off, and I'm gonna bomb you, and then Pakistan told me to back off. You could do that two or three times and be believable. When you do it six or seven times, you lose all credibility. And to me, he's lost all credibility. So he either has to not bomb, but he can't because of Congress and because it's very the war is very unpopular in the states, and he keeps on threatening, well, we're gonna bomb you, here it comes, here comes the thing, and then it doesn't happen. And it's like, well, because Pakistan told us to stop, or Saudi Arabia told us to stop. And look, maybe, maybe that's a thing, but just from a uh kind of image, you know, perspective, it that I don't know. It's uh he's definitely uh if not already, but at a major risk of losing complete credibility, and the longer the I the regime in Iran holds, you know, we were like, okay, well, they're gonna the oil is gonna overflow 14 days. They're they're kind of holding.

SPEAKER_02 4:00

So if the longer they're holding and there are leaks, I I'm just asking questions not to uh undermine the points. I'm just trying to understand who said that the oil will overflow in 14 days. I heard three months.

SPEAKER_00 4:13

A lot of analysts, a lot of analysts online.

SPEAKER_02 4:14

I mean, the people I respect, the people I respect who are professors at like West Point and stuff, they're all talking about three months. Nobody that I respect has said like weeks.

SPEAKER_00 4:25

Okay, well, fine. Let's say three months. We're a month and we're a month one from now. So we maybe have a month. When was the blockade? About a month ago. Okay. About a month ago. Fine. Three, you know, three months. Uh it's just it's just he's he's kind of losing um he's losing power. And they're going now, they're going to Cuba, and it's like Cuba is next. It's you can't move on to a weaker country before finishing off this, or else and Cuba is a problem. It's good to clean that up. Uh, it would be good to kind of to have an open uh country, an open western-based country right on our border. And Cuba's been a problem forever. But you know, if you picked a fight with Iran now, I don't know, maybe there's something that we don't know, but it just uh all we know is what's public, and we've been commenting, and at least I've been saying I agree with a lot of the stuff that he's doing publicly, but now this is China and Iran right now, it's a bit, it looks like a bit of a uh of a quagmire, and uh and I just I don't think we're gonna get anything good out of it. And even the leaked memos, they keep on leaking the deal, and the deal doesn't go through leaking the deal. These are all floaters, they're just trying to see how the public is going to um is going to react to them. So they they leak it and they're like, oh man, people don't really like it. What is this? It's like we're gonna do a ceasefire and open up a strait in order to talk for the next you know few weeks for 30 days to to have negotiations. No, if you're truly the strongest party, right? You go in and you say you say, you know, surrender or not. And I think I'll finish up with this. I think where they miscalculated is that the level of insanity of the hardliners of the IRGC. I mean, these people are truly, it's very hard to put ourselves in that in their heads, but from I've talked to people from the Middle East and people who know them, and you know, we we have mutual friends from there, and these people are willing to just mass kind of die because when they go to heaven, the death is not a threat for them. It's it's not it's it's uh it's a good exit, it's a good outcome. So the whole thing is it doesn't matter how many people they sacrifice, they are religious ultra fanatics, and you know, threatening them bridge and whatever day, maybe the president who is somewhat, somewhat quote unquote moderate cares, but the IRGC doesn't care. So, you know, you're you're negotiating against a completely logical, completely uh uh with a party that has all of its uh priorities completely backwards from you. So your threats are like the sure, no problem. You know, let's well we'll the people will die, no problem. We don't care. Anyway, so I I'm I just uh that's uh it's been a bit disappointing for me.

SPEAKER_02 7:05

Yeah, I will I love I love this because I completely disagree with your disappointment, uh, but not for the reasons you think. It's just because I had much lower expectations than you. So like I can't be disappointed if I have zero expectations. Uh, I agree with everything you said uh factually, um, but I have to say that so a couple of things. I I have actually quite a lot to say here uh that mostly I've uh learned from uh very interesting podcasts that I listened to, again, by professors and serious people that are very, very different from the news. And and they're not even very different in one direction. It's not like the news say one thing and the podcast say another. It's like if you listen to the news, there's pretty much two wars going on in CNN, Iran is winning, Trump is an idiot. He didn't anticipate that they would uh uh close the Strait of Hormuz, he didn't anticipate that IRGC will hold. This undermines our credibility, uh, and we're dying for no good cause. If you listen to Fox News, we're winning, Trump is the best, they've been wargaming the Strait of Hermuz, it's all four-day chess, 4D chess, their oil is gonna collapse, and everything is amazing, right? So both of these are complete, just like I don't even like dignify them with my opinion, because uh both of these are false. But here's a few points. So, point number one is that, and and this is a very serious point that I haven't heard discussed. If you do not topple the regime, getting the uranium doesn't really help you because they have enough uranium in the ground, right? So, for for those of us who haven't taken, I took a course in building nuclear weapons once, uh, I mean, like a university.

SPEAKER_01 8:54

Of course you did.

SPEAKER_02 8:55

No, no, like uh how people do it and stuff. So basically the uranium in the ground is something like 0.00%, and you have to get it up to 90%. So, and and it's very, very hard to you know to basically separate the the good uranium from the you basically have two types of uranium, uh two isotopes, and so what you have to do is like separate the isotope that is good for a nuclear bomb from the isotope that you cannot do anything with, and that's the centrifuges, and you have to just spin, spin, spin for a very long time until one of them separates, then you pick it up, you build your nuclear bomb. So if you just take the enriched uranium out of the country, yes, it removes the immediate threat. So, for example, from this from this point, they could build a nuclear weapon, let's say in two weeks and launch it. I'm just making up the the numbers, but it's it's weeks, okay? Um, and then so we think. No, no, it's this scientifically. So, and it's really also hard to uh to to discover where you do it because like all you need is a facility the size of a gym in a high school to like do that. Uh the hard part is getting the the uranium. I don't know if uh you guys saw the uh movie Oppenheimer, but it's there's a really nice uh part there where they basically work like a huge, huge, huge amount of people just to extract enough uranium. And and at some point in the movie, they're like, Okay, how much do we have? How much do we have? How much do we have? And there's just it's very hard to speed it up. But within three years, you can go from zero to 100, right? So then all the people that say, like, oh, we gotta get it out, and other people say, no, we gotta like back off and sign a peace deal with them, both of them, it's it's bullshit. So the the whole idea is like, will the regime, after the war is over, decide to rebuild a nuclear weapon? If they decide to rebuild a nuclear weapon, we have to like, and we want to stop them, we have to send ground troops, right? So, or ground operations with the crowds or the Kurds or something, but like the only way, the only way, and I want this on the record, the only way to remove the threat of a nuclear weapon from Iran is with boots on the ground.

SPEAKER_01 11:11

The only way.

SPEAKER_02 11:11

So, so Saddam Hussein, people thought he had like nuclear yellow cake, whatever, they had to like conquer Baghdad. That's the only way, okay? Now, I don't think there's willingness to do that. So, so that's point number one. It's like the I I think the world has conceded the fact that if Iran wants a nuclear weapon, they will get a nuclear weapon. But the other point that nobody talks about is like hold on a second.

SPEAKER_00 11:39

Can I just ask? You're saying that the world's conceded that if they want a nuclear weapon, they're going to get it. I think that's I think so. I think so.

SPEAKER_02 11:45

I don't think there's political will to send boots on the ground. I just don't see it. I don't see because the Americans are the only ones that can do it, and I just don't see uh don't see anybody uh basically approving an Iraqi.

SPEAKER_00 12:02

It's Europe, essentially. That Europe, Europeans, it's Americans, Europeans.

SPEAKER_02 12:07

I have zero expectations from the Europeans, right? Uh it could be Israel, for example. Israel just has no capability. So so the Americans are the only ones that can literally do something about this, and they've chosen to not do it. But okay, this is the bad news. But what are the good news? The good news is that you can apply so much economic pressure on the regime, then you could just create huge chaos in the country. Now, this chaos does not guarantee the removal of the nuclear weapons. So, like you could have a civil war like in Libya, and then you know, you have the uranium, and and like some terrorist group can get the uranium and build the dirty bomb. So it's like it's a very bad scenario, but you could threaten the regime in with just like, hey, nice regime you got there, too bad if we break it. Like, not replace it, replace it. I don't think we have the power to do it, but to break it, we could like we could just like make their life hell. And so I think what what people are saying is like this agreement that they're working on is very, very bad for Israel, by the way. Israel, Israelis are panicking. But I'm just like trying objectively to analyze it.

SPEAKER_00 13:16

Why, why is can you touch?

SPEAKER_02 13:17

Well, because because they will be able to build a nuclear weapon, and uh and and unless we have like some ability to bomb it, like once it's built, or but it's hard, it's hard. And I don't know, I don't know what capabilities like the intelligence has, but I wouldn't let's just say I wouldn't bank on the fact that Israel can stop Iran from having a nuclear weapon. But what I do think the rational thing, and I think the Iranians are very rational, you're right that like death is good for them, but like given the fact that death is good for you, you you still have choices. For example, you want to increase your power. Uh right, so it's like even if you prefer to die, uh even if you have no problem dying, you would prefer to have more power than less power, right? So if you imagine the US as having like a knob that can control their power, which we absolutely do, right? Like the more sanctions we do, the more there's many, many things we can do that reduces their power. Then they start thinking like, should we enrich the uranium? Should we, you know, and and so then the I think the optimistic scenario, which I don't know what what are the odds, but the optimistic scenario goes like this you sign an agreement that somehow neutralizes the uranium, like at least so you can sell it to the people. So either you take it out of the country or you put it in a place in Iran that's like Guantanamo Bay, that's like uh controlled by some international force, but that international force cannot remove it. For example, you don't have like a landing strip. There's many ways you can do, but the point is you basically say, okay, this threat has been neutralized, so this uranium will not be used for nuclear weapons. We reduce all the sanctions, we remove all the sanctions, the economy of Iran starts growing, and then the incentive to develop nuclear weapons goes to zero. And why is that? Because a thousand, two thousand, three thousand ballistic missiles do the same damage as like one nuclear weapon, and that's what they've learned in this war that they can like overwhelm the air defenses. So why even uh why give up all the money through through like accepting sanctions if you can just like say, okay, we'll just like keep building the missiles, and that's as good as a nuclear weapon, and one day we can also have a nuclear weapon, it just doesn't have to be now. So that's the optimistic scenario. It screws Israel big time. So I I just texted my wife. I'm like, look, like the the the way things are going, I think it's like really bad for Israel, really good for the economy. And and the thing is, look at the stock markets. Like, I don't listen to what people say, I listen to the markets, right? And I think the because the smart money is betting on the markets. Insider trading is happening in the markets, so so the market is very optimistic. You cannot deny the fact that the market is optimistic. I don't know if it's about Iran or about China, but the market is optimistic, right?

SPEAKER_00 16:04

Can you talk a little bit about why it's bad for Israel?

SPEAKER_02 16:06

You think if you're saying because they could push a button and kill my mother?

SPEAKER_00 16:10

No, no, hold on a second. But you're saying they're not gonna go for nuclear weapons.

SPEAKER_02 16:14

No, no, I'm saying with the agreement that we'll sign, right, they will still have the option to have no sanctions, their economy keeps growing, the the regime is more powerful than ever, and they have a button that can kill my mother. Now, it's not also as simple as that, because if they kill my mother, they will wipe out Tehran from the face of the earth. And so it's always like wars are never black and white. I was just like listening to lots of documentaries about like World War II and World War I, and it's never like it's not like Germany was erased out of the face of the earth, right? And it's like it's always like in a war, what you try to do is you try to improve your position, right, versus where it was before. Now, is the US position better now than it was a year ago? Of course. I think it's so good. It's so good that we did the war. It's good that we're like showing that we can use the military, it's good that we can inflict damage on other people, right? Uh, I think we'll get Cuba. Uh so I'm not Cuba is easy. Cuba is easy. I know, but I'm saying I'm optimistic. If you had like a scoreboard of the of the situation, right? The situation is better now than it was before. And by the way, you could say that even Israel's situation is better now than it was before, even though it's bad, right? It's bad because it's it's threatened by all these ballistic missiles and stuff, but it's better. Like only now we understand what a terrible situation was October 6th, you know, before October 7th happened. It was like terrible. You could invade Israel from all sides and do all these things. So now Israel is in a much better place. Uh, now is it is it good or is it perfect? Of course not. It's it's a bad agreement, it's it's not perfect, and I would love to get boots on the ground there, but there's just no political will to do it. So I just don't waste my my bandwidth on that. Now, uh, that's what I have to say about Iran, which is like, you know, it yeah, it sucks, but the world sucks and people are stupid. That's the other thing. Like, people are stupid. We live in a democracy where most of the people, by definition, are stupid, and they're the ones who vote. And so, like, your range is very limited. Now, the thing, for example, again, in the World War II documentary, it's like Pearl Harbor is the only thing that that uh led the American public to like agree to go to war. Uh, there were terrible things happening in 1940 all across Europe, and the Americans didn't care. So it's it's like only when America was attacked on its own soil, then so so, of course, if Iran launches a missile, right, and like 200 people die in Washington, DC, well we'll get boots on the ground, right? And just around the regime. So they're they're very smart. I give them credit, they're very smart. They like play this game of like, you know, basically what happened is Sinwar jumped the gun and and basically fucked Iran big time because like they had all this plan, but it wasn't quite ready, and then it was rushed, and then Iran started losing, and now they're trying to win a little bit more. But Iran is much, much, much, much worse off now than on October 6, 2023. So that that those are my thoughts. Before I tell you about China, I want to hear your reaction to what I said.

SPEAKER_00 19:13

I don't know if Iran is worse.

SPEAKER_02 19:15

That that I why do you think Iran is not worse? It's objectively worse on so many dimensions.

SPEAKER_00 19:22

Because the regime withstood a major attack by us. We essentially I'm telling you, so we essentially backed off. They're gonna clam down even harder.

SPEAKER_02 19:31

They're going to have what do you mean, even harder? What did they harder than killing 30,000 of their own people?

SPEAKER_00 19:37

Yes, yes, yes, of course. You can look you can go North Korea, right? They're gonna have now the case for nuclear weapon, you can have more hardliners come in. Uh you know. Um, so you know.

SPEAKER_02 19:53

That's one scenario. Another scenario is they get so spooked by by the fact of by all the destruction and by how much their people hate them that they relax and they open up and it becomes like Gorbachev and the regime falls. I see 50-50. Like, I don't know which way it will go. I agree that it's a possibility. I wish it was like that, but it's not the only possibility. You you might think it's 90-10. So 90% they they crack down, 10% they reform. I think it's 50-50. We can leave it there, right? We don't know what what the future will bring. But people say just like the war in Afghanistan uh toppled the USSR, the war in Gaza could topple the regime in Iran. It will just take a few years, so that it could happen.

SPEAKER_00 20:38

Well, yes, but there's no political will.

SPEAKER_02 20:40

We're the only country that's saying internally, like the USSR collapsed not because someone attacked it.

SPEAKER_00 20:46

I'm sorry, I thought you meant Gaza. Look, the but the USSR, the USSR had sane people who just wanted kind of power, um, but people didn't want to die. The Iranian regime wants to die.

SPEAKER_02 20:59

Or I don't think the Iranian regime wants to die. The Iranian regime wants to increase its its regional and global influence and doesn't mind dying. It's very different.

SPEAKER_00 21:11

I think that the hardliners and the IRGC don't care if people of them die. Ultimately, they are religious fanatics.

SPEAKER_02 21:17

I agree that they don't care if they die. But within the context where you don't care if you die, you have options. Option one gets you more regional power, option B gets you less regional power, you choose option one. And that's exactly the game that we're playing. We're gonna say, okay, give up like your kinetic regional power, and we'll give you monetary regional power. You know, that that's what's gonna happen over the next few years. It's gonna be like a negotiation of like of like within this new framework, you know, they will want to dominate the Middle East uh and grow their economy. We will say, no, you have to choose. Either you grow your economy and back off from threatening the Middle East. Or you threaten the Middle East and we keep choking you. That's what's happening, right? So we basically say if you want us to release the sanctions, the the blockade on Hermuz is a sanction. Forget about whether they'll they'll uh you know they can dump the oil, they've been dumping oil in the ground, they've been dumping oil in the ocean. So it's like it's a form of sanction. It's it's money at the end of the day, it's money. Nobody's getting killed currently. So like we basically say, we're taking your money. Do you want us to give it back? Back off with your threats. That's the summary of the current situation.

SPEAKER_00 22:38

I'm I wish that the world evolves or the the things in the world evolve exactly the way you're talking about. I'm nervous that it's not 5015. I'm nervous that it's not your ten. I'm nervous that the the people the Iranians are actually I should say, I'm fairly convinced that they are uh fanatics and that they don't care about death. I know maybe some people want power, the president and others, but the IRGC, it's like a it's a it's a matter of pride. And I don't think they care if they go down in flames and but others go down with them. I think it's an it's absolutely a good outcome for them. And in that case, when it's a good outcome for them, then what do you do? You know what I mean?

SPEAKER_02 23:21

But no, but this is I think this is your mistake. You're just like everything you just said is framed as binary, all or nothing, right? So completely either we die and everybody else dies with us, or we don't, and because we don't care to die, we'll choose to die. It's not like that. It's like we don't mind dying, but given the fact that we don't mind dying, do we want to like bomb the UAE now? Or do we not want to bomb the UAE? What's better for us, right? They have an ideology, it's like the USSR, right? The difference between Iran and North Korea, and I'm very happy we're having this conversation because this is exactly the conversation that nobody's having. So, like, if you think about like the difference between Iran and North Korea, but you can lump the USSR and Iran on one side and North Korea in the other side. North Korea doesn't want to convert anyone to their ideology. Okay, both the USSR and Iran have this idea that the world is a better place if it adopts their ideology. So the USSR thought the world is a better place if everybody's communist. Iran, the core belief of IRGC is that the more of the world is controlled by Islam, the better it is. That's literally what's written in the book, right? So if now you give them a choice, forget about dying. But like option one, you control more of the world. Option B, you control less of the world. Their religious duty is to choose option one. And then if you put a very hard dilemma on them, it's like, okay, you can control a lot of the world at 50% control, or you can control less of the world at 100% control, which is basically by removing the uranium, by hurting their missiles, by all of these things. It's basically you can't control it totally. You can just influence, but you can't like threaten with a gun, you know, to some. It's it's like they had a gun to someone's head, and now you say, okay, we'll take the gun, we'll give you a knife, and you have to stand 10 feet away. Okay, so you still can run towards that other person with the knife, but it's much a weaker threat than holding a gun to their head.

SPEAKER_00 25:22

So I think I think they're gonna still so to me, I I get I take your point. There's a lot of logic, and and I take it, I think it's still to me, it's much more binary. You're right. I I I I think that um I I just think that your your points are again are valid, are great, a little bit more theoretical. I think when it comes down to it in practical terms, when you're the first of all, there is there are factions that are fighting within Iran, specifically called the president and foreign minister versus the IRGC. IRGC wants total control and they're hardliners. They think that you know the Ayatollah was not hardlined enough because he had a fatwa, which is a religious edict, against creating a nuclear weapon. So they're gonna say, these guys attack us, we want a nuclear weapon. I don't care what you say, you can say we can shoot the ballistics. No, we want a nuclear weapon because this is gonna happen again. I think they're going to force the binary decision because once Iran starts going after the nuclear weapon, then there has to be some sort of there has to be an attack. I don't think the world is not a good idea. I don't think the world, I don't think.

SPEAKER_02 26:24

I don't think the world will accept a nuclear Iran. I actually think if you had to tell me, hey Shimon, like 50 years from now, uh, will Iran have a nuclear weapon or not? I could see a scenario under which they have a nuclear weapon and still everything's okay.

SPEAKER_00 26:37

I I could well, yes, I could see.

SPEAKER_02 26:40

If they don't launch it, that's what I'm saying. It's like there's one, it's one thing like to have a nuclear weapon, it's another thing to launch the nuclear weapon. So, like, what will happen if they have nuclear? Pakistan has a nuclear weapon, North Korea has a nuclear weapon, both really bad regimes.

SPEAKER_00 26:54

No, no, I know, but they're very different. Pakistan doesn't have uh Pakistan, North Korea doesn't want to convert the world, right, into the USSR had nuclear weapons. I understand, but the USSR didn't have worn religious fanatics, they didn't care about they cared about dying. The Islamists and RGC don't care about dying.

SPEAKER_02 27:12

That's I don't think okay, that's fair. It's a fair disagreement. I don't think you do you think that if they have a nuclear weapon, they'll just launch it willy-nilly?

SPEAKER_00 27:21

I don't think they'll launch it willy-nilly, but I think they will use because it's not I think we have this nuclear weapon. You have you can have small modular nuclear weapons, small you know, like like suitcase nukes you can can knock out uh um internet cables underwater. Okay.

SPEAKER_02 27:35

Let me ask you because I really want to move to China. So I will just ask you a question and I want comment. Let's say the worst case scenario happens. So Trump chickens out, the IRGC takes over completely the country, and they build like 20 nuclear weapons. Okay, what are you afraid of then?

SPEAKER_00 27:51

They're gonna launch a nuke at Israel.

SPEAKER_02 27:52

Launch a nuclear Israel. Okay. I don't think it's gonna happen because like the the retaliations will annihilate, annihilate them, and I think their regime survival is more important to them than erasing Israel.

SPEAKER_00 28:05

Fair enough. Agree to disagree.

SPEAKER_02 28:07

Awesome. No, it's great, and and hey, listeners, uh viewers, tell us what you think. There is nothing is objective, and we don't know what's gonna happen. So, like, nobody predicted the collapse of the USSR, by the way. So it's it's really um, you know, I I don't think anybody knows what's gonna happen. Now, uh China. So the only thing I'll say about China is again, China, China, China. I look at the markets, I think it was very good. The the trip was very good in the I think so, yeah. I think it's very good. Also, some professors that I listened to also think the trip was very good. It was very good because it's just de-escalating the tension. So it's de-escalating the tension on tariffs, on shmariffs, and all of these things. NVIDIA is gonna sell them some stuff.

SPEAKER_00 28:51

Well, but hold on a second, hold on a second, sorry, sorry. I know I interrupted just one thing. NVIDIA is not gonna sell them shit because Trump said NVIDIA could sell them chips, and she said, Thank you, no, thank you. We have our own chips that we're making. That's the that's the issue.

SPEAKER_02 29:03

Have you looked at the stock of NVIDIA since the trip?

SPEAKER_00 29:05

For sure I have, but it has nothing to do with China.

SPEAKER_02 29:08

Okay, but I mean I'm just destroyed earnings and they guided it up. I'm looking at the markets. If if there was a problem looming, the markets would go down. The markets have been going only up since the China trip. And so my point is regardless of the public statements, regardless of any particular company or whatever, I think things are moving in the right direction with China. And I think what's gonna happen in five years from now, which is the time we need to build our chip building capacity. Uh basically, if I had to guess what was agreed in this trip, was Trump said she, hey, give me a break for five years, then you can take Taiwan. I'll take like my hemisphere, you take your hemisphere. I just need if you attack Taiwan before I can manufacture my chips, I'm gonna have to fuck you over. But if you don't attack Taiwan, uh, but but but if I already have my chip building abilities, then do whatever whatever you want with Taiwan. That's what I think they agreed.

SPEAKER_00 30:03

But so, so uh so what do you think about Taiwan? Um, you said you could do whatever you want. Do you think it's okay for us to let go of Taiwan? Because Trump publicly is saying he's standing behind Taiwan.

SPEAKER_02 30:15

Yeah, I think it's okay once we can manufacture our own chips. I don't think it's worth, and again, politically, forget about what I think. I don't think I I think now, if they attack Taiwan, it will be very easy to sell to people like, hey, they're gonna get AGI artificial general intelligence before us, and they're gonna dominate all the robots and like terminate our scenario. So we have to defend Taiwan, right? But if we can make the chips on our shores and then they attack Taiwan, I don't think the public is gonna give a shit. The US public.

SPEAKER_00 30:45

No, US public, of course, not gonna care. I don't know. Yeah, Taiwan, Taiwan is an issue.

SPEAKER_02 30:54

What people need to understand is that international like geopolitics, it's always bad choices. It's all you always have bad choices. Why? Because like it's like imagine, it's just like normal politics, right? If you think of like where you have the Republicans versus the Democrats, the people that will rise to the top of the party by the time you become the nominee, and on both sides, you're already like you owe so many favors to so many people that got you there that as a voter you have two bad choices. And you could argue that one is much worse than the other, or that both of them are called. There's the same in the geopolitics. It's like you could have two bad choices, and it's like it could be like I don't care, or like, oh my god, we have to do this because it's so much worse than if the other thing happens. But like, there's no good choices. I mean, because people are idiots and they're like, I mean, look, if nobody fought each other, we could all have an amazing life, but people still fight each other, and so like it sucks. It's the same with with countries. If everybody just respected everybody else's borders and didn't do shenanigans, our world would be much better. But guess what? They're still invading other countries, Russia's invading Ukraine. Look, you know, it's like, what the fuck? But that's just the situation. It we have to accept the situation as it is, not as we would want it. No, for sure. First, I would love to defend Taiwan because I hate communism and China are communists, and fuck them, but like I don't decide.

SPEAKER_00 32:18

Look, I think there's another element of this is that the world's always been decided by raw power. Even even if you think about just traditional roles like evolutionary men, the fighters, they're going out there. How do men get along? Right? So we we let's say hang out as as boys. Uh forget like the current age. Traditionally, how do we get along? We you hang out as boys and you play as boys, and then the testosterone kicks in, your ego kicks in, you start talking shit, or you start talking smack, I can run faster and you jump faster, and you this and that and that. How are you shown where the boundary is when you're with boys? You get your ass beat, you know? You get in a fight, you get your ass beat. Like, okay, well, maybe I shouldn't speak so much, or I need to get stronger, and then I can exert more power. So, this the the power, especially with men, and I I don't want to get into this feminist BS like men have been the warriors traditionally, men have gone out and and kind of fought wars. Raw power, nothing wrong with women. We love women, women bring their own magic to the world, and they're they bring life. That's the most power they that can ever happen. But men, you know, go out and and and fight these, um uh and and kind of and fight. So raw power has always been the controlling boundary of humanity. It's like you get too far out of line, there is raw power, there's death, there is destruction, there is, you know, what whatever, there's a there's a rebuild of a new system. So um so I think wars are kind of a natural way for humanity to find the right path. We're a violent species, but so are monkeys, you know. It's uh like there are many animals that are exactly like this, too. And the whole animal kingdom, the the alpha male, the alpha wolf, the alpha lion, the alpha this, you know, the alpha female, the males dance for them, you know. I forgot.

SPEAKER_02 34:12

And by the way, the alpha situation, as someone who studied biology, right? It has it has been chosen by natural selection, uh, this this whole kind of system of governance because it's more efficient than otherwise. Because imagine if people would always fight and always fight and they would have factions and there wouldn't be like one guy that decides everything, then you will get eaten by the other pack that has one guy that decides everything. So it's like a stable equilibrium, right? It's just like with kings and stuff like that. You know, we spoke about that. Who was the king? It was like a bunch of nobles came together and they said, You have a castle, I have a castle. Let's make a pact that if my castle is attacked, you come to help me. If your castle is attacked, I come to help you. Once you have 20 castles, what happens if two of them disagree? So then they're like, Okay, we can either like fight each other or we can appoint one of the castle guys to just arbitrate, and that's the king. And so, and then the king cannot do whatever he wants because if enough of the castle owners, if enough of their like elites uh think that they're not doing a good job, they're gonna kill them. And it's happened many times in history.

SPEAKER_00 35:14

Off what the happened many times, it happened very, very, very, very many times by history. In fact, when you're king, you're hunted constantly because the god for you don't do something right, and you know you don't lead in the right way, there's no voting you out, you just die.

SPEAKER_02 35:28

Yeah, and by the way, fun fact the Ottoman Empire, and and I want to move to some economic data after this, but the Ottoman Empire, the way an emperor or the however it was called, the Khalif or something. I I don't remember the name, but the Sultan, the way the Sultan was selected, do you know how? No, all the Sultan's kids fight each other to the death, whoever survives becomes the new Sultan. Wow, can you imagine? It's crazy, and that lasted 500 years, dominated like half of Europe. Crazy. It's insane. It's like, can you imagine being in a family where it's like literally either kill or be killed by your brothers?

SPEAKER_00 36:03

Listen, but I cannot imagine. I think it's barbaric, but and we should move on to the economic data. But if you if you're crude about it, and you think like to become a king, to make these decisions, to protect your kingdom, you have to be ruthless.

SPEAKER_02 36:16

Yeah, that was the idea. That's exactly why they did it this way, because they they're like everybody supported the system because they're like, how are we gonna choose which brother is best? It's like the idea is like you can either pick the oldest, you know, or you you need to pick something else. And so they said instead of picking the oldest, what if the youngest kills the oldest? We accept it as a legitimate thing. Versus in Europe, they didn't accept it as a legitimate thing, right? If if the there it was much more hereditary. So it's fascinating. And and and by the way, the Ottomans lost. So, like the the European system of just like seniority, just like the oldest guy gets everything.

SPEAKER_00 36:50

Well, I'm not sure that's necessarily why the Ottomans lost, but I will say, look, uh, and and I could be wrong. I just last point, let me just make. This seems barbaric, but it continues to this day, and we very much live the modern version of it. When we think about a Navy SEAL, who are Navy SEALs? You think they're like lice, plush, you know, teddy bears? They can just know these are men with Delta Force, are our most elite soldiers who we all look up to. You know, it's all nice when they're af afterwards in the NTV, they have these great enemies. These are killers, these are men who have tasted blood, you know, they they they've seen it, they've taken lives, they've these are it's it's a different mindset to be able to. I don't think I will be able to do it unless you know maybe somebody's attacking the family and I would have to out of self-defense, but that's a different mindset. It's a mindset that I don't have. I am not cut off for this, for for example. I just know it, but you know, they are, and so it makes sense to say if you're a ruler and you're gonna guide your people through war and you're gonna be responsible. By the way, same thing we have in the military, right? The more you get into elite units, all of this DI, Shmi, all this shit goes out the window. Because if you don't perform your job, your people will die, you know? So every single person has to be lethal and ruthless in their job. Okay, if you're a king and you're and you are governing hundreds of thousands of people, a lot of lives are a risk if you can't make ruthless, quick, and sometimes very, very kind of uh you know, bloody decisions. And that that's I don't know, it's just the way it is.

SPEAKER_02 38:21

Yeah, anyway, let's go to the 38 minutes in. I want to talk about a magical concept. Uh, it's a it's a rabbit hole that I went deep into and that I haven't been thinking enough about because it's uh it's it's a leftist usually metric, but I'm fascinated by it. And that metric is called nominal GDP. What do you think about nominal GDP, Alex? Well, everybody's talking about real GDP, everybody's talking about interest rates. So so for our view for our listeners, right? Like the nominal GDP is just the dollar value of your GDP, and and the the whole idea is like you know, you can have high inflation and high interest rates, and then uh basically the it's not good, or you can have low inflation and low interest rates, and it's better. But the nominal GDP can be the same in both scenarios, right? So you can have like a high nominal GDP with high inflation, or you can have uh a high nominal GDP with low inflation, and you know they have different different just shows that the driver of GDP is an inflation, or is it actual productivity? Look, are you gonna that's a much better way to put it?

SPEAKER_00 39:26

Uh GDP, the real GDP, right, is the like no, it's supposed to measure productivity, real GDP versus and and take out inflation.

SPEAKER_02 39:36

Yeah, the real GDP is productivity plus money printing, uh minus money, but it's productivity minus money printing, and the normal GDP is just like money printing, uh, plus productivity. So that's the difference. Do you subtract more or less?

SPEAKER_00 39:52

I agree. There's some funny for our listeners, there's some funny ways of measuring CPI versus money printing, and one is like four percent, and the other is yeah, I'm just trying to be very, very highly.

SPEAKER_02 40:01

So, what is my my my interesting insight, and how does it uh uh matter? Why does it matter? Why the fuck do we care? So if you look at the nominal GDP growth rate since 2019, it's a flat line, it's been super stable. So it's like around six percent. Now it bounces around, right? But the point is there's no trend.

SPEAKER_00 40:22

There's no, like, yeah, after COVID, it went or listeners, Shimo took the first derivative of yeah, like the change of GDP.

SPEAKER_02 40:30

It's like I don't want to tell you, like, oh, in January we made $20 trillion and in February $21 trillion. I'm just looking at the difference, right? Of of how much growth, but in dollar terms, not in real, not in purchasing power, but just in dollar terms. And so, like, if I look at the line, and I'm sorry I can't share the screen here, but I use Gemini, it's basically very flat. So it's like in 2019 it was like around 5%, 2020 it fell to negative, 2021 it went to 13%, and then since 2022, it's stable at 5%, right? So Trump took office in 2025, it was like 7%, then it fell down because of the tariffs to 1%, then it bounced again to 7%, now we're back to 5%. So it's basically been at 5% nominal GDP forever, call it. And I also looked back, I looked back into like if you look at it, I I literally have a chart here that goes back to 1980 or whatever. And it's like, yeah, in in the 70s, it was like 12%, but apart from that, it's pretty much stable at five. It's literally a flat one. I guess great financial crisis goes down, with COVID, it went down, other, you know, after COVID it went up. What's my point? They basically want to keep it at 5%, right? So this is like if if it goes above 5%, they cut the money supply, and if it goes below 5%, they increase the money supply. And that is a fascinating thing to me because that's where the retirement calculators come from, right? So if you think of like you can withdraw 4% or 5%, and it depends again, because of the volatility, right? You can have more margin of safety or less. But basically, you can invest in anything, any literally anything you invest in will grow at 5% uh year over year. Now, if you invest in really good things, it grows at 10%. If you invest in really bad things, it goes at you can lose money. But like the average, average, average is five percent, and that just makes me feel very good in the sense that you know, Bitcoin, stock market, all of that is like growing at 10%, and but it it's not crazy to me. So, like I thought, oh, to get 10%, you have to be like amazing, right? No, to get to 10% yield, you only have to do double literally the average that happens always. Like, if you compare a crabbing company here at the Chesapeake Bay, that all they do is like pick crabs from the bay, sell them at the market, they grow at 5% nominally on average. How crazy is that? And that's why people can withdraw 4% of their portfolio and retire, and and it will work.

SPEAKER_00 43:14

You're basically saying on average everything grows at 5% nominally.

SPEAKER_02 43:17

Nominally, yes. But but that also means that you can grow at 10% easily if you build a self-driving car company or if you make chips that do AI. You know what I mean?

SPEAKER_00 43:27

But what's the point? Is the point is the point that you can this is why you can retire 4% and you can just pull money out, but your money becomes but your money becomes less and less. It's worth less and less.

SPEAKER_02 43:37

Maybe I don't understand the point. Yeah, so then then the question becomes like, okay, you can outperform it, but like I inflation is not five percent. I think it's a little bit less. So like I I because I think definitely you can make money like just by investing in random stuff. And again, I don't even care if you do. Let's say you invest in I don't know if there's an ETF that invests in everything that just five. 500 is stocks, but imagine you had a uh an ETF that did like stocks and bonds and real estate and metals and commodities and everything, just like perfect, perfect diversification across everything. What I'm saying is that the money grows at 5% nominally and inflation is less than 5%. It's maybe like two when times are good and three when times are bad, and like eight when there's COVID, but then they shrink it. But my point is that's a very interesting, and then and then you can say, okay, can I outperform by 2x the just like average of everything? Hell yeah. I mean, what what are we doing if we're not outperforming by 2x the average? Like if you look at the average student, you know, can you be better by 2x than the average student? Of course you can. Like you specifically. But but if you look at people like Bears and Naysayers and people that say that the stock market is overheated, they will say, oh no, this can't go on, you know, we're overheating. It's like, how are we overheating? It's like seven, eight companies driving the whole stock market, and these companies are doing like amazing things that are far from average. So, like, of course, they're growing really nicely. Like, I thought when when I when I uh went to business school, I really thought it's two percent, it's not five percent. Like, if you had if you had to ask me like what's the what's the growth rate of the just average economy or whatever, I would say two percent. I would say it's just the population growth or productivity growth or whatever. But no, it's actually five percent. And uh so I don't know, that's that's my insight. Maybe, maybe you think it doesn't matter because uh why do you think it doesn't well? I mean, I don't know, what do you have? What what insights do you have?

SPEAKER_00 45:38

I mean, look, it this is like you this is kind of like Deadwood. A lot of uh well, uh you know, maybe the local crab shop is growing 5%, but a lot of companies in SP are growing at less than that, they're just kind of growing at monetary inflation or less.

SPEAKER_02 45:51

In fact, I was a lot are growing by more, and that's why the SP gives you 10%.

SPEAKER_00 45:56

Only the tech companies, which is our thesis originally, only the innovative companies, everyone else is Deadwood. So and they're actually kind of growing at less. They're going at some sort of nominal two or three percent rate and not really expanding. So look, it's it's an interesting observation, I would say. I don't know if it strikes me as it struck you because I I didn't say it's special or anything, I just thought it's very interesting.

SPEAKER_02 46:20

It's interesting, it is very interesting that it's stable at 5%, recessions, money printing, whatever, whatever, whatever. You can bet that the dollar amount will grow by 5% euros.

SPEAKER_00 46:30

You can bet your bottom dollar that tomorrow they'll be 5%, I love you, bascent.

SPEAKER_02 46:42

Well, anyway, that that's I I found that to be interesting. Another thing that I found to be interesting is that uh, and and I I don't know if we spoke about this, but I want to put it on the record. People that say that the NASDAQ is unsustainable don't know what they're talking about because the price to earnings is actually very much in line with previous basically the earnings are growing really fast, and unless you can show me how Anthropic gets less money and how SpaceX gets less money a year from now than today, unless you have that scenario, and and not a year from now, but like on average, like for a very long time, gets less money, then shut the fuck up because we're not overvalued.

SPEAKER_00 47:23

I think this has to be the end of the episode. Like, this is just such a like much line. Unless you can show that SpaceX is gonna grow SpaceX. There'll be a dump on SpaceX, by the way.

SPEAKER_02 47:33

There's a huge forget about the dump, it's more than the railroad.

SPEAKER_00 47:37

I know, but but hold on. What I was gonna say is no, what I was gonna say is we're revolutionizing space. It's like forget this planet, the tab of Mars and our nearby planetary system. It's like, what is the tab of that? How many trillions of dollars, you know? A hundred billion trillion, you know, like it's this we're getting into numbers that sound funny, you know, like uh, but it's gonna happen. It's like I completely agree with you. This is the interesting part is like how much more value can we bring? Well, we discover whatever on Mars, and we have these things on Mars, and then we have this, you know, we have uh city-states on Mars. Like there's just so many possibilities, so many new possibilities. Of course, everything is gonna grow and we're gonna have more value.

SPEAKER_02 48:18

I know, and also like it's it's just like people are so close-minded. I love this guy that basically says, don't listen to bears, bear in terms of people who are pessimistic about stock markets, don't listen to bears because they're retarded. That's it. Like object because they're retarded, because objectively the stock market goes up over time. So any person who tells you that we're not gonna short-term traders. I don't know. I mean, people say, Oh, the Nasdaq took 20 years to recover from the peak of 2000. It's like, first of all, yeah, if you put all your money on the absolute day, you know, then you waited for 20 years. Second of all, so if you put it like a year before, it's like five years to recover. And guess what? It's not five years, it didn't go to zero, stay at zero, zero for five years, and then went back. It was like down, down, down, down, down, then up, up, up, up, up. So you can excel along the way. And and and the other thing I'll say is like people are so uh so I really recommend listen to the podcast of Gavin, I think he's no Gavin Baker. Basically, invest like the best, uh about data centers in space. It's so fascinating. So he said he he made something, uh, he made me think about something. So he said, you know, when most people think about a data center in space, they think of a Pentagon or a Walmart kind of block that just is roaming around space. But no, all you have to think of an NVIDIA rack that's like flat, it has these wings of solar panels, they're pointing, you can know exactly where they will point, so they're always gets sun, perfect cooling because it's like space, and they connect to each other not through wires but through lasers. So you can launch like an arbitrary amount of them. You can launch 10, 100, 1000, 10,000, a million of these guys, and they all talk to each other through lasers. And each of them has these wings, and you can send like a satellite with like 10 of them that shoot in all different directions, and you know exactly where they're gonna go because it's space, it's a vacuum. You can literally, from the moment it leaves Earth, you know exactly where it will end up. How can you not be bullish about this? And forget maybe SpaceX doesn't do it, maybe Amazon does it, like uh Blue Origin, maybe there'll be a new company. You know, the first car company wasn't necessarily the one that took over the industry, but how can you be about technology? And then when you have it, it's so cheap then because it sits there forever and it operates for free and it beams its insights down. Yeah, infinite cool. You have zero cost to operate it, it doesn't destroy because again, it's a vacuum, there's no wear and tear, nothing hits it, there's no dust. How can people be bearish? Now, well, things could be overvalued on the IPO, maybe. I don't care. That's why I don't invest in individual stocks. But like, will the Nasdaq be much, much higher 20 years from now? Of course it will. Of course, a hundred percent. So, okay, even if you don't like Bitcoin, then put like 10 in Bitcoin, 90% in NASDAQ, not investment advice, just my feverish musings. But like, seriously, how can people be bearish? Even if you think it's a little bit overvalued. I agree. What how should I act on this information? Should I like sell my Nasdaq holdings because it's a bit overvalued and wait for it to go down? What if it doesn't go down? What if we have robots now that walk all over and do a bunch of stuff? So it's like, I don't know. I'm just like, I hate listening to pessimists.

SPEAKER_00 51:40

Michael Berry, that's what I say. Uh on this note, my friend, this is a really good episode. I really think it's a good episode.

SPEAKER_02 51:49

I'm trying to bring kind of new things because I think that when we were just focusing on Bitcoin, it was more like, okay, yeah, like we're repeating ourselves and also like we don't add a lot of value. But like I've been hearing feedback from people that the recent episodes really add value to them, even if they disagree with us, it makes them think. So, like, that's our goal, guys, to make you think.

SPEAKER_00 52:07

Think people think. All right, Shimon. Well, I'll probably see you later today for some delicious pizza.

SPEAKER_02 52:14

Yes, don't dox us because like uh I don't want to be kidnapped. No, this is not France, this is Washington, DC. Have a great weekend.