Inflated GDP?, Google earnings, How the media lost trust, Rogan/Trump search controversy, Election!
01:30:52 Share

We had dinner last week and sex and I got bombed last week. We had dinner and we track a quite grup.

I mean, costa izu.

he tore my house apart, getting back in.

oh my god.

it's like a bear, like a bear. I went rocklin.

He like a bear. He was like a drug bear.

But I I spoke to the lady of the manner, and I will be staying at sex thousand next time, so I will be able to refresh the rage of soap and tows, yeah, staying in her place in, know what? I forgot to get toles when I was at Timothy has got this amazing embroider toes. So i'll just hit those up when I hit a place .

so we're really funny to go to jack out ranch and this can be a big s on his toes like why? Why s on? I got the IT.

I'm onta .

robe on the back and says, maga to go the .

microprobe what is? What is the s stanford is grifter.

For steel.

he's got a budget of dollars and they see as well cheap.

We open sources to the fans .

and just got. right? Listen, happy halloween to everybody, and we've got a great dog for you today. But I just up front until let people know that we will be having the all in holiday spectacular on december seven at th Epace o f f ine a rts a nd s anford s co. It's gonna be amazing, all in a calm slash events.

And next tuesday, that's right, november fifth, if you go to our youtube at seven pm pacific time, ten P M. Eastern time, we are going to do an election night live scream for the fans. We're almost at seven hundred thousands scribers, so subscribed to comment and join us on our live stream on tuesday night.

They'll be just right. This going to be some fun guests, I think. Help me with this still banned by chemotherapy, I may bring him on.

And let me give the second chance to moth. Is that okay? I bring them on for a second chance. okay. So I we're going to give how you a second chance could be on a very tight leach. If he makes IT about himself in seven seconds or less seven seconds to fill her youth, he's going to get kicked right off the show.

Okay, holiday party, do we know?

yes. So the holiday party go to all in dom flash events. If you want to come, it's going to be great.

You guys aren't to be happy. But we are setting, uh, we are going to spend a million dollars on .

this party and just spend the money too. Did you see the last that sounds .

like a lot of that's a lot of .

about three hundred thousand five probably lose .

money on the party, but it's going to be it's not meant to be call IT a profit center.

but it's just going to be super fund cannot put a Price on a good time. And you know if you're .

gna get that premium founder mode, did you know .

when I was in college, I had a set up. I had like sympathize or set up, which I plug in. And I did live electronic music with my D. J.

I'm gonna drop the beach to mah. Good to drop to be you look good. A couple of my startups now are doing something interesting etha.

IT bought like a pack of tickets, and they're doing like a holiday party there with their top for our event. For our event, they basically bought a bundle of the I P. tickets.

They're giving them to the top customers and their top employees to come and make IT like their holiday party in separate sco with our customers. So that kind of neat, smart move by them. And so if you have a startup and you want to bring your start up, you can buy A A pack. The ticket says that were .

that's actually a really good idea. A bunch of these small startups should just go up our holiday party as your yeah just .

buy ten tickets and come three .

birds going to go blow million. But so I am hopeful today we're .

going to sign this D J, which is everyone. Everyone knows the D J, and that is gonna pretty set.

Generate gamble, whatever we pay him, he's going to lose twice as much of the poker game. Let's let's call IT what IT is.

Sax, can you host poker at your house after the party?

Yeah.

no.

what? You pair. He built an entire poker building, and he's like, seven times.

like David sax is just the absolute best.

right? Let's get to work. You know, what's winning as well is the U.

S. G. D. P. Here we go. He grew slightly Better than expected, but the top line numbers are healthy. Looks like the soft landing might be baked in, and we'll see. On wednesday, the department of commerce reported that real GDP grew two point eight percent in q three.

Ah that means you suggested for inflation and you know you you can look at these things in a vacuum. You have to look at the other western countries and their G D P. Japan point seven, australia point two, germany point two, point five. The world is not grow in U S. Is growing briskly.

And um in terms of how to think about IT, two to three percent is uh sort of the sweet spot for mature economies above three percent positive but can also signal over heating like we experience ed during serpent in twenty twenty one under two percent stagnation uh U S GDP with thirty basis points below the dow Jones consensus forecasts of three point one percent. There's a chart ah if you missed IT. And obviously inflation we talked about this last week is at two point four percent, very close to the two percent target.

Unemployment at four point one percent, close to historic lows. Take your treasury four point three percent in, obviously, stock market at it's all time high. Again, there's a recipe down.

And aztec, as we've talked about over the regent timah, the federal debt is the issue. Thirty five trillion in debt. We have a trillion in annual interest payments on that debt and freeze or european pieve twenty three point five million directly and millions more indirectly as we know. Federal government employees now at three million, it's about one percent of the country and uh state government employees five point five million, local government fifty million put IT all together and we got almost twenty five million people working for our government.

What do you think the prescription here is? Freeburg, as we, uh, come up on election day and we look towards next year, do you believe we can cut this crazy spending? And what do you thinks gonna happen to the economy will IT overheat, soft landing? You're running a company now you have to think about this obviously.

well, a separate ring, a company because I think that's got to be treated independently from macro. You kept your business from macro, but ten year treasuries are sitting at just around four point three percent. I think what the market is telling us, and remember that off of a low right when the the rake cuts were happening.

If you remember the september, we got down to just around three a half percent. The market is telling us that with the sort of economic growth were seeing low unemployment and you know, call IT modest inflation, this is not the time to be cutting rates. And the market is saying we are expecting higher rates or longer.

So I do think that, that one big kind of turnaround that happened in the last ninety days, which is really A, I think, a big surprise to a lot of folks, is just how robust are relative to where folks thought that they were about ninety days ago, urging, pleading and a supposedly needing a big great cut to get the economy moving again. But I think at the end of the day, everyone is looking to the election is kind of the next big moment in the economy. Both trumped and ala have made fiscal proposals that would be deeply expensive if you assume you know these these budget in groups.

They go out and take their policy proposals and try to build a model against them that they're both going to add trillion dollars in the death, are going to increase deficit spending, it's set up. But the reality is that neither of them are actually gna end up theoretically being able to execute all those policies. And there will likely be some degree of difference that will .

we end up on spending a lot to talk about dosh, the department of government, what is the last word? And .

efficiency .

that iron might be collaborating on. What do you think the chances are he said there could be two trillion in in savings that could occur. Where are the chances that any meaningful cuts happen and we reverse the trend in trump said he wins any, any, any creates that position.

I think the first question that will inform how dramatic the cuts are is whether we organize ourselves around an accurate sense of where the actual economy is. If you look at the print today, IT would actually tell you that pins are pretty okay and that we are not sort of near an unsustainable turning point. However, and if you wanted just throw up this chart, if you back out the percentage of government consumption that is included in GDP, you start to see a very different picture, which is that over the last two and a half years, all of the economic gains under the administration have largely been through government consumption. What that means is that industry has been standing on the sideline somewhat.

And that actually maps to a lot of this intuition that I ve had over the last few months when i've said I think we're in a low key recession because what I could never figure out is why I would look at the earnings transcripts of a bunch of companies who would constantly talk about softening demand. And by the way, this is across the board. IT wasn't just C, P.

G. Companies, but drop box as an example, same sort of thing. They just laid off twenty percent of their staff and the and the memo was about weakening demand. So this is a broad base softening as far as companies experience the economy. But the high level number is positive, which would make you think that everything is fine. But when you look at that chart and you back out the percentage of the positive news that the government is responsible, poor, what that means is the economy is flat and the economy isn't growing, which means that roughly, there are all a bunch of folks that are seeing contraction. So I think that if you Normalize on that view of the world, I think the cuts that iran will effect will be meaningful and necessary.

If you pull up the shark neck of the federal net allows as a percentage of GDP.

you get a good idea the best you had a flat stalling economy. Well.

if you look at this year, we we basically have had high teens during our lifetime, clinton era, seventies and eighties, and then it's going up into the twenties now or so. That is definitely something the amount of something doing.

Sorry, just that again, this is where you can get a little confused by data, Jason. This is met outlet. And that's different from total growth government spending, which also includes QE.

So if you go back to the other chart, why is this one going down? And the other one represents eighty five percent of GDP? It's because that one is a more accurate sense of what the government is doing across all of its tentacles in the united states economy.

IT includes the money printer going bird, which the net outlays chart doesn't include. So just to be clear about what's happening, eighty five percent of this quarter's GDP was induced by the government if you sub, if you sub IT out. So take two point eight percent and multiply by point one five. That is the true growth acts, the united states government that exists in the united states economy today.

Sex, your thoughts here on the GDP obviously looks pretty good for biden Harris to have all these stats going in their favor. But there is the cavy out obviously about the government spending in there.

Yeah, no, I think that's right. I mean, I think that for Harris in the selection, it's probably a little too late for this GDP report to be helpful if you go back all the way to one thousand nine hundred ninety two where the whole election hinged on the economy member that was dolin running against George H. W. Bush and clans message was in the economy stupid and came .

up carbo came up .

with IT and and clinton beat bush because we had a recession, and I think ninety one, but by ninety two, IT was over already. And in the final week of the campaign, bush tried to tell a similarly positive GDP report that showed two point seven percent growth. That report would later be revised up to three point nine percent growth.

So the recession was definitely over in. The economy is growing again. And bush loss because voters impressions of the economy had already formed and solidified by the final week of the campaign.

So I think it's probably too late here for the GDP numbers to have a big impact on the election. I think the other thing is that voters impression of this economy isn't base so much on the GDP numbers. It's really based on their perception of inflation over the last four years.

And there's no question that cost of living has increased a lot of the last four years. And voters really feeling that and that, I think, is playing into their perceptions, the economy. And I don't think that heroes has a great answer for that. So so I think that the bottom line here is I don't think this reports can have a big impact on on the election in terms of where the economy is going.

The the thing that I would come back to is interest rates and this thing that freebooter was talking about, which is even though the fed has cut rates by fifty basis points, the long term rates, the ten year treasury has not gone down. In fact, it's gone up slightly. It's up to call four point three percent. And so we have this real issue where as the fed is cutting short rates, long rates are not going down. And I think that is because of the government deficit and the government debt in the fact that there is so much the death that needs to be served by the the market for treasuries.

right? The buyers are all leaving the market for treasuries that chinese we talk about this last week have been selling down their treasury position. There are just aren't res anymore, which is and I think .

this could this could ultimately have a very different mental effect on the economy. Already saw that. I think this hasn't been widely reported, but I think this should be a major piece of news, which is the prime rate in eight percent today.

So now I had a seven handle on IT before, and now an eight handle on IT. Well, this matters a lot. If you want to buy a house and get a mortgage, it's much more expensive. Then you got to think about all the people who already have debt.

Doesn't this look recessionary totally?

Because a few years ago you could get up a home loan at at three to four four percent interest rate. You and immerse ze that now your death service cost cost me twice as high, so you can just care by as much house.

It's a very bad place of the economies in the toilet. But we can't even talk about IT because there is no structural way to get an accurate read because the government just perverts the affected has in the economy like portion a distortion? fine.

You you cannot have a non profit entity representing the parity of the economic activity of a country and expect the capital markets to function properly. At some point, the capital markets will basically throw their hands up in the year and puke IT all out and say no. And I think that you are starting to see a little bit of these fishes res. So I think we're going, going to have to clean up our baLance sheet pretty aggressively here.

yeah. And if you look at the importance of that rate, that rate drives the value of bombs as the current market rate for treasuries or for the primary claims, the value of a existing bond that pays interest, that a lower rate goes down because you have to pay lower basis in order to get back to the new high rate of the market, telling you so there are several trillion dollars.

And we can pull up to the graphic neck of loans and bonds that are sitting on the baLance trees of many commercial banks in united states that are now so significantly under water where the value is now below the book that they paid for those loans or that they issued them at that those banks now have unrealized losses. And I think that this number is one of the other kind of back to see a few articles come out here and they're about this, but the number has the rates go up, the number of unrealized losses that the dollar value then realized, losses that thanks baLanced in the united states has climbed ed so considerably that IT represents a real crisis. In fact, the unrealized losses on bank baLance cheese today is higher than that was two thousand and eight.

It's the trillions buffet warned B, A, A, public.

he's been selling off, right?

But he warned B, A, A publicly, although a bit obliquely last year during his annual conference. And IT was very clear at cyclist n, this is an opportunity for folks to just market, market these security properly and or sell them and get them off the books. I don't think b of a acted quickly enough.

And so what did buffalo do? He just basically started dumping, and he's almost completely out. Be away. Be away, if not completely out altogether. So there is a lot of talk there is a lot of talk in input if you go into sort of like the the deep, far reaching bowls of of the of the fented community on acts that there is a huge credit crisis looming among some of these large charter volt banks because of this exact issue.

And the relation between the fed and the prime is typically three percent. So the fed cuts rates, and then the banks put three percent on top of IT when they give people credit worthy people mortgagees and credit cards. So as the fed cuts, that should come down. But if you went up, what explains that? I'm curious if anybody knows well.

The fed sets short rates. IT sets the the fed funds rate, which is the rate of overnight lending between banks. But IT does not set the ten year treasury, for example.

the long term, the market, the market and .

the market is now requires a higher rate of interest in order to accept you the risk of investing in those bonds or it's not really since it's A U. S. Treasury is not really risk is more about the time value of money and their expectations of inflation, how much that money can be worth in the future.

So I think what we're seeing is that the fed can cut short term rates, but IT hasn't had the impact on long term rates that everyone was expecting. I think everyone was expecting that we had this sort of percent inflation, the famous nine percent inflation rate. I think people were expecting that, that would work its way through the system and that we would get long term rates back to where they were.

But that's not happening and it's not happening for the reason we're saying, which this is too much dead out there. So now think about the impact on the real economy. Let's say that you're a home buyer and you got like a five year, interesting, the armed type mortgages for your house.

Tiktok, yes. So now you know, you probably got that in the three to four percent range. If you have to refinance IT this year at eight percent, your monthly payments going to a double that has a real impact on people's wealth and underspending power.

Maybe they can even support a payment like that. Now over to the commercial side and is very similar. There's a lot of commercial real state out there, you know buildings and saw on where theyve got dead.

On IT, you can get thirty year mortgage ages and commercial the typical commercial loan is five to seven years. okay. We're now coming up, I think, in the next few years on a lot of that, that debt will need to roll.

It'll need to be a refinance. If IT gets refinanced at twice the interest cost, roughly a lot of those buildings may be under water. I mean, may not be income people.

There may be no equity value. And a lot of people know this now, but they don't really have to mark those positions to market. If they did their equity, we were zero, but they're kind of all on borrow time right now, hoping that rates will go back down.

And what we're seeing is that the long rates are not coming back down. It's a pretty ary proposition. And then of course, you know a lot of the dead on those buildings, it's all owned by the commercial banks that you're talking about, the regional banks. So they're sitting on a lot of bad dead that they haven't had to market to market, and they're just kind of hoping that this problem will get sorted out before now before there's a default. And by the way, as these .

number is client, the cost to borrow for the federal government claims. So the new bonds, we have to reissue a good percent at nearly ten million dollars. I think of our have to be reissued in the next year.

That's going to get reissued. Now this higher rate and that higher rate means that the annual expense just to paid the interest in the existing debt is now climbing at a faster rate. And that means you got to issue more debt to pay for your interest on .

your current debt because that the fed sets that rate right.

Well, this this becomes the compounding problem when your g your dead to GDP reaches a certain level and you don't reduce federal spending fast enough, IT becomes a compounding problem you cannot get away from. And this has been the beginning of the category make economic collapse of every great empire last five or years. I not said that you guys can joke about IT all day long, but this is how IT starts.

Is IT starts at a point where you're rithmetic cally not able to get of your that spiral. And uh, the markets are telling us that if the U S. Doesn't take drastic action and reducing spending and reducing the deficit levels so that we can actually address the payment obligations on the outstanding debt that we ve already issued.

The U. S. Dollars is gonna a real problem and the credit worthiness of the united states a chAllenge? That's what the market says. But I know that there's other issues with the fact that there's no other Better place to put money today and there's not a lot of other, you know, great economies out there.

And so and so for but the stability of the united states, the hegemony of the united states and the dollar chAllenged in part by the fact that you've got this bricks organization out there now that has greater GDP and aggregate in the U. S. And so there may be an alternative emerges in the next couple years and maybe everyone's kind of putting their assets away in in gold and another and bitcoin, other stuff they are waiting for the transition to find place to buy .

will see implies if if rates have roughly doubled, let's say, in the last three years and they're going to step at that level, did not going back down IT implies you going for a big delivering ing, right? Because, you know, you can't support those interest .

payments. I mean, what is average or inflation? Because the alternative is the fed monetizes of the debt.

They start buying all the bonds, which means you're pumping more U S. Dollars into the market. And that means that the cost of everything goes through the roof. So you have this effective economic inflation, which is the way that you inflate away the dead problem, assuming people still want to use your currency.

Yeah, I mean that the government love what I was talking about a the private sector. I mean, to think about at the level of like an individual building you got alone on IT now need to refinance alone. Interest rates are twice high that let's say that, that doesn't the building no longer producers Operating income at that level of debt.

So you have to pay down some of your dead. It's called an equity in refinancing where you're not pulling money out, you're putting money in. You have to add leverage in order to make your sort of income statement work right.

This is too much dead at the new level of interest rates. So if rates stay high, there's no choice but for many people to deliver, whether it's on the commercial side or the or or on the consumer side, you just can't afford as much dead right at that higher interest rate. So I think about the impact that has on the economy when everyone has to deliver, that's a very negative effect. And then of course, you like you're saying at the government level, you have to figure out what to do about that because our interest payments on the debt are ready. What twenty and twenty .

five percent of federal revenue?

Yes.

about trillion, five, thirty, thirty. So so really where there's less money to spend on current programs because you're paying for interest on the debt. So what do you do about that? So I think that the next presence gna face a pretty wicked set of problems. And trade officer, even though the GDP numbers are fine, they're good. I still think there's like up wickets of problems related to government debt in interest rates.

Yeah and there's .

no way to really skin this cat without .

some I think there yeah there I I think the only path is you have to cut spending, which is recession ony government spending, which is recessionary. You trigger economic recession. You're gonna have to have some amount of inflation and you're gonna to have a Spike in unemployment. And if you don't do the first two things, you're going to have a lot more inflation, which is really hard to get out of.

So I I doesn't want to .

be a win, a win, win scenario here. there. no.

I agree, we have to cut government spending. I know I personally is recession. I think that helps the private sector. When government gets cut right. However.

because acts, that means a the might of service that function, the government won't be consuming .

all these resources that the private sector could use Better, and also won't have as many government bureaucrats acting as break pedals on the private sector. So I try to think that the government, the the real economy will perform Better with a smaller government. However, I think the reason why IT won't happen is because it's politically difficult is extremely difficult to spending politically.

right? I mean, this cycle, every single proposal seem to be a payoff to different constituencies. IT was like.

right? First line out in the budget somehow, right? Somebody, somebody fought for every single line. I am in the budget some special interest. They're going to fight like how to keep their appropriation.

It's not even special interest. Is the representatives in congress doing their job, which is to fight for their constitute and getting their fair share or their fair shake of the money that's being spent. And that's just the way that the legislature branch has evolved over time. If someone's getting something in order for me to vote forward, I want to get something to. And so the whole thing over time becomes functionally inflationary.

right? I think that whole shell game might just be over now because there's no more money left. I mean, it's all been spent. In fact, you don't mean so like all the federal government probably will end up doing in the near future is entitlements and defense that's IT because of the core, core functions. The federal government, I think everything else sets that sort of good quote directionally is all going to get cut because there's no more money left.

Tragedy of the commons folks, everybody acting in their self interest and yeah not a lot of coordination or ability to win office if you actually do what's in everybody's collective best interest and take the medicine moving on through the docket tech earnings this week. Google has a great quarter. Let's go over IT out a bit here.

You're on my model freeburg. They beat top line and bottom line stock. Top five percent looks like cloud in youtube bar of the story here.

Total revenue let us sink and eighty five point three billion a fifteen percent year of a year search was uh four nine billion of that. And h they're Operating income is now up thirty four percent year over a year. I think the CFO is getting some work done.

There are twenty eight point five billion, and that income was twenty six point three billion. Interestingly, people are expecting even larger profits. They got a new CFO over there who said they could push a little further on cost cutting.

And he said the company will use AI to cut costs by streamlining workflows and managing headcount. Physical footprint, I think that means more layoff s are coming to big tech. Youtube had a tremendous quarter and revenue a point nine billion to mh.

That's up twelve percent. But cinda said something interesting. He said youtube surpassed fifty billion in total revenue over the first year. And so if you do a little botte math, that's the back of the envelope math for those of you at home.

We have to heard that according google duser report, youtube not at revenue, but we know youtube had thirty five billion in that revenue over the last year. That means they are doing about fifteen billion in premium paid products. Youtube TV nf sunday ticket.

Youtube premium, which the greatest product ever IT, takes ads at a youtube and makes IT usable. So seventy thirty split cloud had a blow out. Coward google cloud.

I see that all the time now. A eleven point four billion in revenue on thirty five percent annual growth with one point nine billion in Operating profit. I know it's printing money.

There are seven quasi monopoly in the world. There are all american. And if we allow them to flourish will be good. If we hampered them a little bit and allow other companies to pick up the White space will be great.

Over to you OK called analysis.

What great.

And if we break them up.

I think that you'll have a lot more the the sun is greater than the parts.

I mean, clearly, youtube is one of the great. Now take the .

perspective of if you owe stock in any of these companies, the some of the part analysis will tell you that the break of value is greater. Then the way that these companies get discounted, you can look at the multiple that they trade that and you can see that. So if you're shareholder of the company, you actually silently probably want them broken up because you'll get individual shares that each will be worse more separately. If you are a shareholder of the united states economy, you also probably want them broken up because then you will just have many more companies creating economic value, which then drives the tax rules which benefit the united states baLance ship. It's hard to see unless your an employee of the company or you derive a lot of ego from the existence of a company, the way IT is that you would need you to stay where how IT is.

Well, let me chAllenge your point on two fronts of, in google's case, both youtube and G, C, P. Required many, many, many, many billions of dollars of over many years, seem with way mobile the way at this point that took a long time and a lot of capital to get the payback on if those were stand alone businesses and they didn't have the profits being derived from searching ads over many years, they would not have been able to build those incredible businesses.

So if you do break these businesses up, what you do lose is the ability for american jug or not, to be able, just like amazon did with the A W U S. And apple did. And we can go through the list to build these new businesses that require the cash flows from the old businesses as separate companies. That becomes much harder to make that .

degree and investment. That is that angle. That angle of bellic is not gonna pass muster because it's all about litigating the past.

And you gotta play the ball where IT lies, where IT lies. This businesses in a position where you can probably be market four, five logical business units. Again, i'm not, but I will happen. And the argument, but the past is not no, no, no, no.

I'm yeah i'm not disagreeing with your point about like if these things broke up, people would make money. I'm i'm just trying to understand this point about american dynamism or whatever you want to call IT, that these companies are all in america. They've been successful because they've been made by amazing founders. They've reinvested so much of the profit theyve generated back into building insane new businesses that took a lot of capital and a lot of time. And eventually they paid off and they became the next generation of genome's new businesses that would have not have possibly existed, if not for the will and the cash flows coming from those old business.

You also have a camp ion economy in the capital markets where there's hundreds of billions of dollars that go until in the gaps. And I think the reality is the people in the capital markets are not stupid. And if these big companies hadn't spent hundreds of billions of dollars, the capital markets would have. So I google did that .

if google let just play a scenario. And i'm i'm not trying to really get the past. But if google did not own youtube, what do you think what I have been gotten funded and I would have been to read a billions and really, you remember youtube.

I think they have shut the reason because .

people are smart enough to understand when then there's the potential to make money OK. And the free markets do a really good job of highlighting where that's possible. Again, there is no point relitigating this, but I think he .

would have got been funded. Yes, I have been.

The U. S. Get found, even exist. Why does not at all go? Because investors are smart. They see that there is an economic rationality for their being multiple players, and then there is a smart founding team that creates a justification that gets IT going.

So the era of the monopoly op is on building new monopoly is over.

I don't think it's I don't think it's ever existed. But I think the point is that big businesses are there to eventually grow a GDP that they can be disrupted by small companies. That's what you want because if you had the same seven, eight companies, then you could make the argument that we should have stopped at the east, west india company, and everything would have been great.

This is what we did with the railroads, is what we did with the A, T, N. T. Is what we did with start oil. Like when when these, when these many options were built in the U. S.

They were all broken up. And but it's not necessary. We did. It's the boundary conditions that enabled other people to then go and fill the gaps. And I think that that's very able boundary conditions. You know, sax had this great tweet this past week, and I almost quote witted IT, but I thought I don't want to create a lot more noise where there doesn't .

need to be such thing attention now.

But he had this tweet about taking back the licenses for the main broadcast channels. And I thought that was an excEllent thing. And I quote, tweet something where I was like, yeah, we should buy that for all in.

And I said at hand joking me that I did because I think that if those licenses work for grabs, what would happen is a bunch private equity people would get behind rogan, a bunch private equity people would get behind us, and we would all bid, and the outcome would be Better. So the point is that these small structural changes, and I know that IT may seem large to break up google, it's not it's a small thing in the grand course of american business history. It's not going to really matter that much would be good generally through the lens of the individual shareholder and through the lens of the shareholder of the united tes.

That's a sex. Can you tell us about the broadcast licensing comment that you made? I thought I was actually pretty good too.

Yeah, there's a history to this. I mean, originally in the U. S, we had three major broadcast networks, A B C, C B S, N B C.

And they were given licenses of public spectrum from the fcc. And those licenses were free. But in exchange for them, that major broadcast networks had these various requirements to serve the public .

interest to this prepreparation.

And this this is back like a one hundred years to I think .

it's important to be clear because I don't think everyone understands that back in the day, all the T, V networks only broadcast over the air. So they needed. Radio spectrum um allocated to them to to do that, which was you know one hundred year old kind of that's a hundred year .

old situation doesn't was the only way to get information broadcast on T V was through the this public spectrum. And so economic sense in a world in which are only three networks, because I was the only way to get information to have these fairness requirements in public interest requirements. And so IT was heavily regulated.

Well, now it's a century later, and there are so many ways to get information. You've got cable obviously meant that we went from three or four networks to hundreds. And then, of course, you ve got the internet and you've got streaming.

So there is now an infinite number of ways to get information in real time, including video and and that sort of thing. You've also got social networks you've got and all the rest. So there's no shelf space limit anymore.

There's no scarcity. And so therefore, tying up this very valuable spectrum by giving IT for free to the to the broadcast in network s IT doesn't really make sense in the same way. And what we should do is this auction of the spectrum use the money to pay down the national debt. And in in that way, you will go to its most highly valued use. The mark will figure out what that use is if the broadcast networks are the most highly valued way to use the spectrum, then though win the auction.

But I suspect not exactly. They did this auctions in twenty sixteen, right? For fifteen .

gradually action of more spectrum. But we're talking about here. This is like the most choice, valuable part of of public spectrum so for example, one of the reasons why this spector is valuables because I can even go through walls right like you can watch your TV inside your house and ah this broadcast cc was good at getting through those walls.

Imagine the types of GPS apps you could enable with that kind of precision, right? So there's many other ways in theory that the spectrum could be used and you would be able to unleash, I think, a lot of innovation in next generation wireless apps. If the spectre were available, I don't think the public would lose anything because abc, cbs, nbc, first all I mean, these new works are basic commodity. Now there's so many other ways to get use, and they'll still be available through the internet .

and through cable. Just one, two speed up these options because they do occur every fifteen years or something to that.

I think what happens is that the the licenses are actually granted to local stations, like, you know, your local a forever.

yeah. And then .

collectively, they have a lobby I called the N A B. Or national social broadcasters. And this is why they have so much power, is you've got all these local networks, this call three or four, and every geography, and they all comes together as part of the slobber.

And so this is why nothing ever changes. But this is model still make sense? No, I mean, it's completely obsolete. But those local networks will all go crazy if they lose their free spectrum.

what they pay for IT. They don't they don't pay for IT.

Now they get a lot of free license from the fcc and exchange for the fairness requirement and these .

other requirements, I think that they pay billions of dollars for these.

And I can 可能 every six years or so they come back up and they get renews by the fcc。

I was just started about the spectrum auction. I'm looking at different yeah OK. Alright, interesting.

No, look that the F, C, C has auction spectrum before, but not the spectrum that the broadcast networks are sitting on, which is some of the most valuable spectrum. Got IT. And the only reason why it's being used this way is because a legacy, because this how worked one hundred years ago.

well. And then this parallels into, I think some of the research is going on right now around legacy media and trust in media. Bunch of reports have been coming out about this. It's not shocking anybody who listen to this podcast, but confidence in institutions is tracked by a number of different organizations, gala being one of them. And if we look at how americans feel and trust is generally been going down in everything, the military .

is also being tracked in the OPPO OPEC section.

Yeah exactly that up.

J out. You have Better now. Yeah, will talk .

about yeah. But here, if you take a look at from twenty twenty one, twenty twenty two and into twenty twenty three, television news went from sixteen down to eleven and back up to fourteen, but is among the the lowest in terms of trust in, and forty percent of americans have no trust in media at all, according to this gala poll. Here's a how IT breaks down by party, republican, independent and democrats.

Confidence by the democrats, the eight percent independence, twenty nine percent publicans, eleven percent in mass media. Your thoughts and freedoms. g. As we look at just trust in general institutions, this transition ary period were in specifically the media.

I do think we talked about this a number of times in the past. So without rehashing too much, I think that many of the institutions that have offered media have had to move away from providing data and information because data and information has commoditized is available broadly through the internet and other places. So the actual gathering of information is now democratized.

You know, agencies put their data on their website. Stock stock markets are published on the internet, and the internet has democractic zed to access information. So the media companies that have historically been arbiters of information have had to become effectively content businesses.

We've had to provide more than just information. And what has happened is a iterate feedback system, whereby the more kind of angry they can make someone, the more upset they can make someone, the, the more emotive they can make A A reader, or a viewer or a listener. The more clicks they get, the more the kind of limbic system trigger that consumer to come back and consume some more of their media.

And so the iteration development cycle is that things look like there are one side versus another side in nearly every context, in every piece of media, everyone is opinion and making a position point from a side, from a perceived side that they are representing. Because IT is a motive to the readers. And the readers come back and they are line with that side and they want to have more of that because in insight olympics system.

So what happened as as as a result, when people look at IT and assume that is what I used to be, which is objective, true th fact finding, information gathering and IT is not that they're like, well, this isn't even news anymore. And the truth is it's not because information is democractic, zed, it's available to you anywhere and everywhere you want IT. You can get that through citizen journalism, via blogs, via podcasts, via twitter, via many other places.

And so the legacy media companies have effectively become a mode of content companies in order to drive lakes, drive you sell ads. That's really all this whole story is. And I don't think that, that's gona shift.

I don't think that jeff bases as attempt to try and return wap o back to being a fact finding organization is going to be successful. I think all the consumers that read walo today, they love the one sided nature. They love the bias that they read.

IT makes them feel good. I think that the people that work, they love the bias. They love writing those opinion pieces as IT makes them feel good.

I don't think anyone actually wants boring news anymore because you know what? They can go to a website from the government itself for, from a company itself and just read information. And Frankly, if they want to get unbiased, honest, factual information, there's one hundred other ressources.

But and then here and the commentary the the commentary about off the it's said a you know that is that's called authentic conversation. That is how people speak when we all get together. We are not journalists.

We are not necessarily well, verse, let's be honest, we make things up a lot. We say off the cuff comments that are wrong very often, but that's just how people speak. And IT feels authentic.

And when we do have signal, I think that listeners and viewers are smart enough to separate that signal from noise. And they are going to make their own decisions about what they find to be truth and factual and what they're are going to use to make decisions in their life. And that, I think, how people want to consume information now it's not being told what the truth is by some fake authority.

And here is a clip from the podcast last year.

Podcast can play a huge role, just like in two thousand and sixteen, social media broke through and play a huge role. I think in twenty twenty four, I think that podcast .

could break through the way that .

on earth candidates get their message.

That could be the get their message up. We're moving from traditional media defining these candidates to direct to consumer direct through twitter, slash acts directly, podcasts. This pocket included. What we're witnessing right now is the transition from traditional media and the establishment defining who the great candidates are to the public and the people on pockets and social media who are the tip of sphere on the vanguard. They're gone to pick the winners.

I love you both. You guys totally nail that.

Look at that sex, your thoughts on this sort of transition. Interestingly, as we know, rogan had trump on over forty million views. Now I think they're .

to one hundred million views now for that rogan trump interviewer.

哦。

including you rely, could not find IT if you search for in google or youtube. It's right.

What will you get to that in the second? Yeah, that's interesting. When I got got to take on that, what do you take from rogan getting, let's say, many more views than the last two presidential debates? Trump are sixty seven million viewers. Trump out in fifty one million viewers. I think maybe brogan, combined with his two episodes, will get more than the first two debates yet.

Look, I think this is the first podcast election where you can make the argument that podcasts will decide the election. And there's a couple of reasons for that. One is power has gone big enough that there's enough audience that they just have the reach now to play a big role.

Second, the format is is highly informative to viewers. You get to see a candidate expound in long form, being ask questions and having to go for potentially hours at a time. I mean, trump went for three hours with rogan impress is very hard to hide who you are when you're going for that period time.

In an unscripted environment, I would argue even the hour that transplant with us demonstrated that he knew a lot more about policy issues that people were giving him credit for and and IT also showed his personality was a lot different than the media had portrait him. So I think that pauca have been a great advantage for trump. He's been willing to do them, and I think he does them quite well.

I think it's particularly helpful to him in a context where the legacy media has been trying to portray him as a very extreme figure, as as literally a osa, or literally the reincarnation IT of hitler, when the media is is telling the audience that you're that and then you can go on rogan for three hours and show that you are a Normal, funny guy who actually knows a lot about policy, is is such a different impression than what the media is trying to portray. That has been incredibly, I think, useful and advantages for trump. By the same token, com Harris has not been willing to do broken and at least not on rogan terms. Apparently he was willing to sit down for one hour with him.

but but not in Austin course.

but not in Austin. What rogan said is, no, we have to sit down in our studio for three hours. So far, he hasn't been won to do that. I think that speaks volumes internal itself is that SHE hasn't been willing to subject to herself to the same sort of alcohol interrogation, are really just long form conversation that trump has been willing to.

But in any event, just I think my bottom line on this is that I think trump's biggest chAllenge in the selection is just to get people comfortable with the idea of a second trump term, to get people comfortable with him. And I think that him going on all these podcast, including hours, including I thought the Andrew shells was really good to as helped him. I think to get your comfort with the idea of trump, which I think this is his biggest of school in this election, because people definitely wants to change. They're not happy with by areas you know.

The one thing i'll say is before you go on rogan, there is a sense of anxiety that I had, which was, do I have enough interesting things to save for three hours? That was really at the top of my mind.

I I think this, and I talk to you right before, yeah, I went on and that was a big thing for me and then you go and you get in the seat and he's incredible in the way that he kind of like moves the conversation along and then you end up you're like, oh, it's already been three hours. That's his superpower the reason that he should find a way to go to ocean and do IT is because he has the ability to allow you to be your true self over a long period of time. And I think, again, just going back to the basics, SHE deserves for herself, for the american people to vote up or down, who SHE really is. And all the campaign strategies aside and all of the other nonsense aside, I would want, if I was running for president, one shot at people being able to see me for who I really, and that's why she's go on rock.

I think she's afraid of that. I mean, he has mostly ducked media interviews and duct any podcast that would be perceived as .

he was friends stopped .

and I think fair .

to her like maybe after he was like in the third of fourth way.

he started on how we just she's done the ones that .

you you would be super friendly course prompted our show because .

he had and why would you do like decision .

went trumped. I me, we were on the first podcast.

He went on. He did fox news for twenty .

six minutes freeburg and her staff was waiving, but they're on the sidelines waving frantically to get her off for there. But the event was, were we the first podcast interview from second? Enough boys were first. I guess we were second.

I think .

that IT was really unclear what would happen when you, you know, put a major canada president on a podcast for an hour at the time he did IT, I think he took a little bit a risk um and I think he worked out from and then he's on a lot more than that.

I mean, other than rogan, rogan and us have consistently tried to get everybody on all sides to be on the podcast. I think we did a really good job looking back on. We've .

gotten everybody accept one person calmly er, yeah I mean.

I wish I had time to credible republicans .

and to is created for R.

F, K.

right we are the first, the first dors first routine phillips team.

phillips and faveh first, the first for veck. And so yeah, give you some some credit. They're on the search issue. I looked into that there. The v or I always get that wrong.

The search issue there was some complaints that youtube might have been, like, I don't know, hiding the video, which didn't make much sense to people. So I did a an investigation of that sex. Your blasting, good.

Well, finish what you're saying. I have a different point of view you on this, but I know, I know I i've seen around here.

but keep you going. I A search on and .

defend google.

I know. No, i'm not defending google. I'm just explain to people how search works independent of IT. I went to being doc doc o search ched a bray of doc com, google, youtube, google video.

And what people don't understand about how the search algorithms work is they are designed to increase advertising dollars. And freeburg will back me up as he worked at google and session line. That's the goal. And I correct freeburg with algorithms, whether it's tiktok, youtube success.

Re, yeah I reed session of I know more about search results. I don't know much about the video stuff.

So when you look at that, it's it's a very nuances thing, but joe rogan doesn't. Monti's IT does not make any money for them and then clips do make money for youtube. And the clips have, what did the zone?

So if you do a search on any search on whether it's being or brave or doctor, go google or youtube any of them. What you'll find is the clips beat out the main episodes all the time. This happens to our podcast.

When people clip our podcast, they will do keyword stuffing and they'll beat us and IT will beat the algorithm because the algorithm wants to get ads, and we don't have ads turned on either. So people have this frequent frustration with this week and start off of my other podcast all in here, Angel rogan, that anything that's not monotoned on youtube doesn't. And if you look all .

of the clipsed and .

this makes sense, you just think logically, the clipsed will generate more engagement because you get to watch the highlights. So let's kind of sport highlights sex. Would you like to conspiracy there in this and tell us that surge sandbagging for the democrats or something .

by hiding the you experts y theory, you can just give me if you go to google every single day and this type and trumped search term versus a comment related search term, you'll see the difference in coverage. But back to the the rogan thing. Look, google is a search engine.

This is what there's also be good at. You have an interview between the biggest pod casters in the world and a former president who's probably the most famous person in the world. It's massively trending is got to me like a hundred million views at the time that people noticed that you could find IT on youtube, but already had to me like thirty four million views.

What i'm saying is you have to work pretty hard as a search engine for your algorithm to be so bad that you can't find that interview. Kay, when I went to youtube and tried to find IT, first I typed in trump rogan interview, couldn't find IT. Then I typed trump rogan interview podcast couldn't find IT was just clubs there was trump rogan full interview, full pocket still can find IT.

There's no question that this is a factual matter. This episode was suppressed in youtube surge. If you went to the main google search engine and did a similar search, what you would have found as the number one search result was an article from the arizona republic, which is a publication of you heard of, that would have told you that the rogan interview with trump was a brain rot.

Waste three hours. That's the number one result. Somehow google decides that is number one result for the rogan interview with this arizona republic story.

okay. I I mean, that is not a search in doing his job. So it's pretty obvious to me that they're using other factors in deciding what to surface here. And somehow the results end up being almost univerSally negative towards trump and almost univerSally positive towards cma. I think you've got at this point of your head buried really deep in the sand not to think that google is incredible biased in the selection against trump.

Let me pull up some facts to show how wrong you are. If you pull up youtube here, here's an image of the youtube search results that adjusted for the trump rogan. And what you'll see is, as I explained previously, clips perform Better and make money.

They make money. So the algorithm favors, though so well. You will see here as fox news acedera and all these clips. And then eventually you get to the geo rogan interview.

And if you look at being search results for rogan trap interview, what you'll see is all the search and put news up first, then they go to organic. So it's is the fundamental misunderstanding of how search is designed for users. They start with news on every searches in today, and then here's google.

Same thing. And then what you'll see here is on the google and on the being images, you have a collection, you know, typically five or six news stories, then they go to the first organics. So people just don't understand how search works.

It's always news first when you type in a politicians name. And then when you look at the news, or you at IT has new york post right leaning, you have people who are dead center like ap in there, and you have fox news there in the google one. So of the first five, two of them are right leaning.

An ap is obviously in the middle. Forbes, I don't know. Maybe forbes is writing to freeburg over you.

Well, I was going to say, I read somewhere, so I have no direct knowledge about this. I actually paint several people at google to ask them what was going on. And I did not get a clear response. I did.

I saw like, I have no insight as to what actually happened but what I read online somewhere I was that someone reported that someone at google said that they were there was kind of a uh, whole budget people that click inappropriate content flagging on the video. So like anti trump people went to the video, click IT was inappropriate. And uh, when youtube gets that many people clicking that this is an appropriate IT automatic yes.

it's much is a technique people will use have used that on our program here where they .

if you get a million people that say. Like here, there's an appropriate content in here, the default to high hide the video what hide the video from search results while it's investigated. But clearly, there's something messed up here because they should have been on top of that and responded immediately where the video that has such a large number of views and such a large audience to allow that to happen and and drag on for so long. But someone said that, that may have been what happened and then they fixed IT. I saw, I don't know, but I just want to point that out that IT may not necessarily have been uh kind of avert action by google but just the way that the system is set up that anyone can flag and .

if the flag and I can tell you, I know first time that google is aware of the claims of bias and I think you're starting to see IT just like CNN is aware of the claims of bias. Added A I A I .

mean all super or so facebook marmaris or is very sensitive to IT I know soon or himself is very sensitive to IT. I don't want to kind of hide the fact that these people think that they are going out and being biased, that they have these kind of information empires because they know that you're gna lose trust, they're going to lose customers and revenue.

And it's A C N N is done, I think, an exceptional job. I don't know if you watch IT at all sex, but they have been having trump supporters and rightwing commentators in CNN on the death every yes, it's really changed the nature of IT from being like M S N B C or fox, you to something in the middle. I've never, I never watched, I never watch the shows.

But like before we go off in this topic, people throughout this election have been posting google search results when you just type in trump verses, Harris, and i've done IT every single time. It's mastless biased. I mean, this, let's go through.

This was a search as old I got months ago, where I just typed in Donald trump. And the first care sel was about coming heroes, a member of joking on the pod that if you want to find the latest news about a herr's, just search for Donald trump, and then you go down. And the first care of sol, that's about trump is negative stories.

This one is about project twenty twenty five, which is nothing to do with trump. And done Ethan less. This is a major democratic talking point at the time, is that somehow that project twenty twenty five is what .

trump to do in a second term. I did, and now obviously few months old.

I ve been on a occurring basis over the last few months. And the point is that whenever ver you search for the candidates, the use is very positive towards Harris and is very negative towards trump. And even when you starch for trump will give you positive news about earth. Now go to the go to the podcast .

and fact you don't think this is a function of the fact that so many media outlet are being so negative about trump and positive .

about Harris and so therefore the racial just public first choice for rogan trump there not like pyrran can explain that there is not a major publication they're not being linked to by a lot of people doesn't make a new sense. Here's another example. Okay, stay on this one.

First second. This was after trump in on the injury shot podcast. That podcast was a very positive experience for him as we just talked about health this campaign a lot.

What's the number one result when you look at for that new republic? Pauca s laughing from face as he struggles to defend gramley. That's when you have that hilarious story about the weave.

If you actually watch the clip, the pok as host, where they were definitely laughing with them. They were not laughing at him. That was a ridiculous this characterization. The news republic is not the objective of source for anything.

I don't know how you could say that objectively, page rank should get you to the europe public as number one source for the Andrew shultz interview of trump. That is bias. I mean, as as bias, there has been so many examples of google giving these ridiculous results and they find obscured publications and obscure articles. They have no basis in the truth to to elevate to the top. It's almost like they are trying to find the most negative article they can find on trump and make that the .

number result yeah it's not the surge engine. It's just the corpse of media that's being indexed. Um if you look here at google.

why to get your times then the number one thing but I mean.

just you know here, if you look at Donald trump, you know if we were to look at these new sources, there's nbc, npr, politico in new york times or left leaning, if you were to do this on um I think I have been as the next one, you can open and you can look at the next one neck, which is ducked up to in all of these cases. The problem is only three or four percent of journalists at publications today are rightly anning.

And most of the right leaning publications are opinion publications like fox, eta. And so you just you don't have a lot of representation in the index republicans. And that's a big opportunity thing for republicans is to make more republicans or take more republicans over like we're seeing with the L A times and washington.

Those things are going to serve publications if google would choose to surface them. But I decided that IT doesn't one two.

It's on a percentage basis is very small. Lest the problem.

here you go. This is an arizona republic rocketing to the top of search results for joe rogan trump interview. That's a publication that is local arizona that no one's ever heard of, that has no basis being that no one result in google.

New york times in the second. Okay, I can see the logic at that because neurotics a big publication. Then you go down one row to the curse l but there is new republic again.

why? Cause it's calling trump appearing on joe rock shady. And then you've got another one, another one there from the independent calling trump pretor may come on. This is ridiculous.

Okay, so you've shared these examples. Um what I what I would recommend is I think we get someone from google on the show, we could arrange and they can talk about the algorithm works because I don't think any of us are going to be able to provide a reasonable counterpoint or understanding of what's going on and if there is bias um and there's some kind of manual intervention in this in this process, maybe you can be kind of discussed and talk about why and how and you know what the automation is, the causes this to happen and what is trying to the government.

So so i'll i'll take that is to do and i'll trying to find someone that can talk with you. They do. I look and i've talked with a lot of people over there, and I ve heard from a lot of folks that this is a real issue that folks are trying to address internally is that there's this perception of BIOS that they are trying to get rid of and they really want to address IT.

This is what i've .

heard from people at google. So I want to give them a chance rather than having .

to or I don't will just if you do IT as an exercise, that's always the way to find the objective truth there is to try the independent search engine or other search engine ductor.

you .

will see. But anyway, if you look here, this being one, if you take out amazon com USA today, charley observer, seattle times, washington in post, I think these are all left leaning. So that is more to my point, that like the entire corpus of news reportage, is ninety five percent left leaning.

That's what's happening here. And so they need to, they're gonna need to manually sacks, say, these five percent should get represented fifty fifty in the search results to please the other side, even though that's not what the purposes. The number of stories written by left leaning just is probably fifty to one to write meaning .

of an alternate explanation. We just pop this has got some data if I just pop this data for good you look at employee donations to party I tech companies. It's all ninety something percent goes to democrats. That's a pretty simple explanation for why the google search results are harvey bias in one direction.

Who is eighteen percent? Alright, let's go to our final segment here will talk a little bit about the election. Want to us up your river?

Our guys all quickly, uh, introduce our final political election update before our live stream on tuesday. Obviously, a lot of daily freak out, daily efforts of having an october surprise that will take down the other side, all sorts of drama, all sorts of insult, not a lot of love in amErica right now, super depressing and sad. All sorts of stuff happen this week. Jack, I wants you kick us off what he thinks to happen on tuesday. What are the things that you think you're .

gona move people between now and then to to I an that's everybody saying just so I think .

gonna a sa sex agreed. Are we sixty five? Thirty five as Polly market predicts? Or we hundred percent trip, or we ninety percent como Harris. What are we definitely can say.

can one hundred percent anyone? I mean, but if again, if you look at all the data, the data is definitely pointing towards trump having an advantage. It's obviously the prediction markets are almost two to one in favorite trumpet.

The polling shows that trump s ahead nearly in the, in all the string states. I think every single one of them, even the sort of blue wall states of pencil anian msi, must concern that Harris must win. I think in order to have a path of Victory, whether michigan was constant are very, very close, like one percent less in the spring.

Staples pensylvania polling shows that trump is ahead by, I think, two or three. That's why i've seen today. So IT is looking good for trump in. If you look at the numbers that elon's group that amErica pack put out, IT looks like the early voting in pensylvania is trending five hundred or thousand votes Better for republicans in the early voting then four years ago.

But that is that just pulling .

votes forward to some of 也可以 比 一下。

instead of showing up at the ballot box on tuesday, a lot of folks are doing millions and making sure they get their vote in in in mail .

instead of going in person to this, then you've ttl look at polling of people who say they're onna vote but haven't voted yet in pencil, who say they are going to vote on election day. And I think those numbers are running about eighteen points ahead for trump, which is about double what he needs to went. So he, just to be clear, the early voting favors Harris, but not by the same percentages that I did four years ago.

So right now, IT looks like trump is cracking to win that state. But look, I can guarantee IT or not representing that. You know, that's exactly what's onna happen.

But right now the numbers looking good. Remember biden only one pencil ia by eighty thousand votes. And again, the swing so far is republicans are doing five hundred thousand votes Better than they were doing four years ago.

So there's a lot of stories coming out on twitter, on independent media and on mainstream media, legacy media we might call IT now talking about, hey, I live in a house. I got fifteen ballots mile to me, all with different random names. And these sort of anecdotal stories are being pushed and then amplified by folks that are involved in the election. champ.

Is this kind of dangerous? Do we think that there really is a lot of this kind of election medical happening? And if not, or if there is, is this kind of a dangerous thing to happen where a lot of people are talking about this, where no matter what happens on tuesday, people start to question the results of the election, how much should we become of worried about this?

Rarely, I think there are two things. There's the substance, and then there's the strategy. The substance is that does IT really make sense, that the most advanced in important country in the world doesn't have a uniform system where one ballot is given to every single american citizen who is eligible to vote.

That probably makes sense. So we should probably just figure out how to do that separately. The strategy of IT is for both sides to lay the ground work to say that this thing somehow wasn't totally right down the middle.

I am hoping for a very clear, decisive Victory, and Frankly, whichever candidate wins, I hope that is very clear and decisive so that everybody is forced to the escalate. Move on. Now that I think what the early voting data shows is something that you haven't seen in the past, which is that there are a lot of republican people that are voting early.

I don't know what that means for election day, but typically it's the democrats that dominate these early voting processes, and they build what's called the firewall. And in the swing states, these firewalls become very important going into election day. And a sax said a bunch of states are different than they've historically been in the favor of the republicans.

I saw an article today that just said that theyve basically considered nevada now in the republican camp because like there's been so much really voting that it's about sixty percent of the total votes they they have really been cast since they have a very clear republican lead going into election day. So there's all kinds of stuff here that's new. I just hope that it's just an absolutely crushing Victory in one direction with the other so that we did especially get get on to the business of running the country.

So i'm going to break with my most, my republican brother and on this and say, I think IT early voting actually a good thing. It's a very convenient, right? Like why forced people to only vote on just one day? Because what if you get sick or a kid get sick, you have to pick up from school.

There's lot of things you can go wrong. IT is more convenient to have, say, two or three weeks to build a castle boat. I actually think that's not a bad thing. And in terms of who IT helps them, not sure.

But I think that as a publicly to become more of a popular party and the democrat become more the latest party, I think higher turnout might actually might benefit republicans regardless. I think it's a huge convenience for voters, and I think early voting is something that we should keep. The thing we got a change is in the states where you don't to present any voter ID to show who you are.

This is crazy. I mean, just you go up to the polling place and you give your name and I guess you're address and they look up in a computer in the hand you a ballot and there's no verification that you are who you say you are. That to me is crazy.

The other thing that's crazy is that you can even get registered and added to the voter roles in a lot of states without any professional. So there are states where you can go get a driver's license without prevent. And this is a checkbox to be added to the voter roles.

And no one ever checks your citizen. And now you're on the voter role and you can go pick up your ballot without any voter ID. That's is crazy to me. So I think that after the election, there should be some sort of bill that gets passed and signed by the president that IT sets a minimum standard for .

for voter integrity, federal election for fear federal states .

can do what they want, right?

Point out that each state effectively voting for the folks that they want to have go to the electro al college. And that's really where the vote for president .

is cast that affects all of us if if there is cheating in several states and in a close election, by the way, i'm not accusing that of happening, okay? I'm just saying that if we have several states that don't have basic voter integrate that affects the outcome of a national election, that is a huge act on all of us.

Let's just talk about this really important point, which I think a lot of folks ignore. It's not a direct democracy. It's not like everyone in the united states votes for the present. What happens is the states sent a bunch of electors to go vote for the president. The each state casts of vote for the president. How each state ultimately decides who they're going to vote for for president is through this kind of process that we've kind of standards across the states, each state is making a vote. So shouldn't the states be able to kind of decide how they want to make their kind of voting process run internally to determine who the electoral college yeah I mean.

I think the constitution specifies the states around elections and and i'm fine with that. But what i'm saying is really be a minimum standard to me. The minimum standard is voter ID, improve the system, ship to get registered.

have strong agreement sex on this front. And i've actually done a ton of research into IT that I would like to share because I think this is an important service we can do here on the all in podcast, I think I had, hm, so as a die hard moderate, you agree with sex. I I mean is an american know, you know, putting political parties aside, I had husban bukowski of the heritage foundation on this week and start up last tuesday.

You can watch IT, and they have spent a ton of money and time on election fraud. And obviously there a partisan organization. They found sixteen hundred cases in forty years is about forty a year.

They found twenty three cases in twenty twenty, none of the marine georgia. You can go start those cases, fine cases like this one here, that nick will pull up Mandy Allen jumper, who voted twice. And the database is amazing.

Anybody there there like crowd sources. And so putting all parts in aside, the heritage foundation is doing great work here because sunlight is the best disinfectant. And what's really important for americans to understand is IT is impossible right now, absolutely statistically impossible to swing the presidential election with fraud.

The brennan center, they're on the other side. They did a report about voter fraud um and they put at that point O O O three percent and point O O two five percent and basically you've got a much greater chance of being struck by lightning. And let us do a little bit of math here.

Hundred fifty eight million people voted in twenty twenty. We have about one hundred and sixty million mtier. If the estimates are correct. And if you look at swing states, right, that's where I think a lot of people are concerned.

Oh, what if they could swing IT in, George? right? And we all know from the famous phone call to brand rain, sara, who's a republican secretary state, and truth said, hey, you know, we got to find these seven thousand, seven hundred votes. That was the winning margin.

So if we were to talk about that, right? And we compare to what the heritages foundation found, sixteen hundred cases documented in forty years, about forty years now, there could be a multiple of that freeze, or ten times, a hundred times, but to find eleven thousand ballots, this would require in georgia, for which has voter ID. And by the way, voter ID is in thirty five of fifty states already after the selection, it's gonna IT forty because it's just obvious that we all want that. Georgia requires you to have idea to the voting person, and you have to water, and they've water mark the baLance. So in order to map for somebody to do this, they would have to fake twelve thousand watermark ballots and have fake ideas, and have those twelve thousand people not show up to vote and have two votes there then well.

looks like George has got a great system. But we're talking about the states that don't liking california. They just pass the law saying that you're not allowed to look at voter I D.

right? And so that obviously should change. But the point is, even in california, which is a california do that.

why do you guys think such a law is past? What's the justification for that?

They want to not have somebody who had a chance to vote, vote. And IT obviously benefits democrats if you believe that minorities don't have ID in some greater population, which people have rightly called out is racist. And there is this concept that black people, or her spanning people, might not have ideas to the same extent, and they would lean democrats.

That is the cynical approach that are people have taken. But if we if we look at this IT is impossible, impossible to spring. It's A D sorry, jessy.

You're saying it's A D, E, I thing.

That's that's what people claim.

I'm not saying I think I think that's condescend a nonsense to act like minorities don't .

have a drivers'.

license or form of IT.

I think it's .

absolutely question tomorrow. I don't think there is A A good justification. There's for rejecting vote, idea and the laws even worse than that, because IT literally makes IT illegal for someone to ask. So if you go to a polling place in california, they can look at your ID. Even if you say why I lost my ballot or something they just have to take your word for, they give you a new ballot.

There's a legal requirement for every employer when you hire some to make sure that that person is eligible to work in the united states. If you're going to pay them legally, right, do you get a nine nine and they need to, you know, justify that they have a social security number that typically tells you whether you need on in a supplement to work authorization or not. So if you do that for Normal functional employment, why won't you do IT for voting as well? Of course.

you need to get on a plane, I think to buy a beer, right? You need an need to do all sorts of things in our society, right? So it's it's lucas. I mean, and voting is something where you shouldn't in ID because you have to say you, you have to match up that the person who's standing in front of you at the ballot box is the person on the voter rules.

But why is that more important to make sure that the person sitting in twenty three b on the united flight, it's who he says he is, but it's less important for someone to just walking off the street and vote for the president united. It's, why is that?

Because people believe that certain communities may not have ID and then they would be. And why don't vote?

Why don't? Why don't you allow people to just get on the airplane .

and just why don't yeah or or drive one yeah .

yeah I mean, it's i'm not saying I agree with that and i'm telling what people have said is the reason .

I think it's it's cover. I think that's total nonsense. So I think it's actually if you think about this, insulting to minority groups to imply the capable .

of getting, when you say people, you're saying people in charge, the people in charge in california.

this is what they think. yes. And IT turns out the only you don't have for we, I. They wanted not every state has government idea .

that isn't a drivers.

Is that right? So this is gaverick.

It's obviously see what the effect of this is going to be, which is IT. IT makes IT easier to engage and cheating.

Do you guys think if Gavin new son was on an airplane, and we said half these people here have just bought a ticket, but we didn't check the ideas, would he get off the plane or stay on the .

plan to think right? And T, S, A requires ideas that they can do a check on that everybody. I think you can kind of think about a, there's a do not fly list, and there should be a do not vote list. Like if you're not a citizen, you should be on the do not vote list, meaning you have to be on the icon vote list in order to vote. The pretty reasonable, you know, the fact that we've got a lot of federal agencies checking ideas .

to the most important experience, there is no way to swing the election even if there is a material amount that that is the most important for people to take out you right? conclusion.

If people can cheat, then you can strain election.

You can draw statistically based upon what i've just said, which is the small alist race is eleven thousand seven hundred and seventy nine. Remember when trump asked them to find those votes, to remember that you are talking .

about the state of georgia, which I think actually has great support, integrity.

We're talking about the state is the right in your mind. In your mind. Logically, think about what I would take to get eleven thousand seven hundred seventy nine people to fragment tly do that and that they would go to jail to be a felony.

So this is mean like how you finding one thousand votes ever doesn't that hard. If .

there was, it's not possible. Where would you get eleven .

thousand hours even currently?

Where would you get a eleven thousand .

thousand second? California, a huge state, they about harvesting and theyve eliminated voter ID. So how we know that's impossible for someone to cheat?

Nothing cheat IT. We all agree cheating exist. Like credit craft for ud exists. What i'm saying is it's so manageable that IT is farcical le, for anybody to think that we could swing the presidential election because trump try to swing the presidential election by asking to find eleven thousand and he filed fifty eight or suits and lost all of them.

It's not possible, do you think so then what is the value that of having voter I D J? And if the cheating is so hard.

because IT would add more trust to the system and it's always virtuous to add more trust. I think they should also give you a receipt when you vote to make sure there's no sani gans. And we want to build as much trust in the system as possible.

But the point year receipts reduce fraud IT would .

reduce people believing that their vote was changed after they left the box. So if we all had to receive and then there was some debate in a smaller area because of, you know, hanging chats, like in florida, everybody would have the receipt. And if you remember the hanging chats case, there were people who said, I voted for gore, I voted for bush and my voca counted.

wrong. People don't remember this way. He had to push through a card, and IT popped a chat out of a little circle.

And there are people who did IT wrong because the instructions were a physical thing. You have to punch a hole into another. Who came up with that system is supposed to drawing a circle.

but that was four years ago. I'm sure that just .

there is a guy in chat yeah but no.

now they are giving receipts to people. So the gold standard is giving a receipt, showing ID, then having multiple weeks to do IT. So if anybody y's taking anything away from this, there can be cheating, but he can not swing the present OK.

So Jason's going in.

can I make A A point? So you mentioned, uh, I think fraud rates, credit card fraud rates didn't know. I think one of the things you well.

the same way we don't worry about credit crown ford because there is a certain tiny amount of IT in the system. Now in this case, IT would be a magnitude de more than voter fraud. Voter ford is the right because there is no there's no incentive to cheap that would be worth going to jail for. And that's why people generally don't cheat in these elections .

because the I C O O of a payments company that's good.

he makes plain how this actually works. Since I was founding C O A.

to be clear, we do and .

not a credit card fraud. Can I explain this to the audience? sure. okay. You can create all the models you want and can create an expectation of future fraud based on the prior fraud rates. However, if you change your verification standards, that data is no longer levant.

If you create a looper big enough for a Foster to drive a truck through, then if a Foster figures that out, you could have infinite amounts of fraud. In other words, the historical fraud rate may not be predictive of future fraud if you change the verification standards. And I would say that the state, california, signing a bill that prohibits voter ID might be such a looper. So I don't see how you can say with this kind of certainty and confidence, you're saying that no fraud could ever swan election. Of course, frog could swing in election .

wing the presidential election IT could swing a tiny election in a state or in a local place. Of course you could, because i'm finding .

out what I believe .

you're talking about. logic. How would you to eleven thousand? Is the question.

He would be incredibly difficult to do. Eleven thousand. Trump, try to swing a enough.

Lula IT doesn't sound that hard to me IT just is a matter common sense. I don't think you can say that something is impossible. What we should do is simply .

tighten up these requirements where no.

I think .

in this election, voter ID in this .

election, you don't have to worry, thirty five, fifty law.

hundred percent. We all agree on that. Yes, i'm just saying in this election, practically thirty five out of fifty states have voter ID.

And the ones that don't, the closest margin is one thousand seven hundred. This nine weeks not see tuesday night would fill how youth on a short leach for the dictator to my pi appetite. You're so in the science and the architect. I am the world's greatest moderate moderator and see you next time.

your.

World, man.

And we open sources to the fans and just .

got crazy with.

We should all just get a room big, huge because.

Sexy tension .

to release.

get more.