He's in the Rooster waiting room now. He's in the TV pan ultradom. How are you doing, Tyler? Good to see you. Happy to be back. Good to see you here in Virginia. Snowed in. Oh, are you actually snowed in? I've seen a lot of videos. I don't know exactly how bad it is. How long do you expect to be snowed in? We can get out to some places. Getting around Washington's terrible. Our driveway is fine now, but normal civilization has not yet resumed. Oh. Do you like being. Do you kind of like being snowed in? Well, I'm doing the show, otherwise I'd be out and about. There we go. We gotta root for more snow Benefit. We gotta root for more snow. I'm glad the Internet's stable. I don't know if you're on Starlink satellite or something, but it seems like we have a strong connection. Anyway, I'd love to get your reaction to the new Fed chair pick. How much do you know? How much did you see this coming? Any initial reactions? And I have a bunch of questions about the mechanics of what might coming down the pipe. It's not surprising at all that Kevin Wash was picked. It's a very difficult pick to judge. So usually you think, what does this Fed chair believe? And is it in accord with what I believe? I think what Kevin Walsh believes is that he should be chair of the Fed. So he's very good at politics. First he's for tight money. Now with Trump as president, he's for easy money. Like, that's fine. It doesn't bother me. The real question is what's the psychological and power dynamic between that person and Trump? How will he do? I'm not sure. But the fact that he's connected to the very wealthy Lauder family fortune to me says he at least has the freedom to tell Trump to take a hike. It could work out okay. It's not the end of the world. Well, he's smart enough to know exactly what he's getting into, right? I mean, he know. He knows that if he does things that Trump doesn't like and he becomes the enemy of Trump, then he's going to either have to be some type of martyr or, you know, it's not exactly fun to be on the receiving end. It's an impossible job for anyone at the current moment. But I think it'll be okay. It's no reason to panic. That's good. Stocks down a bit. Dollar up a bit. Big deal. Let's move on. You know, we can all Move on and see how it's going to go. That's good. Zooming out. What have you been reading into the massive run up in precious metals? Well, the dollar with one class of investors has lost a lot of safe haven status. But keep in mind equities have mostly done okay over the same time horizon. So to say that, you know, the US financial position has collapsed simply isn't true. But those are markets, you know, they're not super large. And some money flows in or flows out, you want something to buy, you know, Bitcoin, we've realized, not a hedge. Where else do you go? The rest of the world seems a bit crazy. Europe is still slow growth. You pick the precious metals. They're like the new meme stocks. Okay, that's fine. I don't think it has major significance, but look, it's not good news, right? What do you think about Warsh's idea of lower interest rates but also quantitative tightening? How realistic is that? What are the downstream implications of that? Does that feel like something that can actually result in a more like smoother yield curve? I guess just my, my fear is that you bring down the interest rate, but during quantitative tightening, mortgage rates actually go up and we see the 10 year yield increase. Yeah, and the question is, will wash matter at all? He has his own board, which I think is not per se loyal to him. He doesn't have too many sticks or carrots. He has to deal with Trump. Congress will probably get more active. Democrats will win the House. More importantly, they may even win the Senate or at least be close to that. So he's juggling all balls just politically to stay alive. So what he thinks about X, Y and Z, I wouldn't put a whole lot of weight in. But as I said last time on the show, we're in this new era of fiscal dominance. It's the fiscal variables that matter. US Central bank becomes a bit of a puppet to those. And that's the job Bush has. So what does that mean for how we should be thinking about the size of the Fed's balance sheet? He's sort of lamented the fact that it's grown 10x over his career at the Fed. Is 7 trillion inherently too much? Is there a logical chain of reasoning to justify quantitative tightening or easing? How should we think about the correct size of the Fed's balance sheet? If I were running the Fed, I would enjoy being in charge of the biggest hedge fund in the world. Right. So it's an easy target when you're not running the Fed. But in fact, it's done for various political reasons, whether we like them or not. And the fact that in the past he criticized that, I don't think it means much. I think he'll do what's politically expedient. Yeah, it's okay. Yes. How do you. How do you. Do you think that, like, how do you view Besson and Warsh, given their kind of shared history? Yeah, kind of Druckenmiller. Yeah. I don't know. I think Congress will become much more important again. So that's what I really have my eye on when thinking about the macro situation, that Trump's declining in popularity. The next election is approaching, Democrats will gain further ground, and that's where the action will be. Is Congress actually speaking up a lot. More specifically on fiscal. It's like, you know, you can do okay with them in those jobs again. I'm not at all panicked or unhappy, but I don't think they're going to be driving positive change either. Yeah. Can you dig in a little bit more on the foreign buyers of Treasuries? It feels like China and Japan are pulling back. We heard sort of some jockeying around Denmark over Greenland. Is there a meaningful shift in foreign participation in the treasury market? I doubt it. Keep in mind, you can buy Treasuries directly or indirectly. Sure. So everyone buys Treasuries. Instead of buying Treasuries, you can buy institutions that buy Treasuries. And it's like Modigliani Miller Theorem, same final effect. There's nowhere else to go. The real problem would be if there were a rival asset. There's nothing. The fact that gold and silver went crazy is kind of proof that there isn't. Like, where else can I go? Well, I'll buy some silver. It's a sign, actually, that there's nowhere else to go besides the dollar. Yes. There was someone that was jokingly posting, sell everything. Sell your house, sell your stock, sell your bonds, sell your dollars. And of course, the joke is, well, what are you going to buy? Then you have to put the money somewhere. It does feel like there's a demand for a store of value, and that's maybe what's driving the gold trade. That, that, that Bitcoin never really took up the mantle of the true store of value. Do you, do you buy that, that there's more people that are thinking about, you know, more durable store of value and that's what's driving all of this? I do. People will keep on looking. They look at different things. But if you want Something that does not positively covary with treasuries. I'll just say good luck, you know, send me an email when you find it. So it turned out Bitcoin is you know, super positive covariing with a lot of other US assets, which again is good news for the US may not be good news for those seeking to hedge. I worry the world is just becoming a lot more correlated. Yeah, that's my big worry. What did you ever did go down the drain? There's nowhere to hide. Yeah. So tether, tether, you know, buying a bunch of gold. Any reactions to that? Is that just, you know, good? Is that signaling or is there something more significant there? Gold backed stablecoins, essentially. Well, brilliant investing move. But if I'm the people regulating stablecoin institutions, I'm getting real nervous very quickly and whether they will be part of that regulatory network we'll see. But I think this is them a bit thumbing their nose at it and saying, well we're just going to invest in what we want to invest in and we're not going to be fully transparent and you can take your risks if you want, but I think that's the importance of it. Yeah. We were reading a 2010 Wall Street Journal op ed from Warsh about his view for getting out of the economic malaise that followed the global financial crisis. And he was taking a very political position, advocating for deregulation, clearer tax codes, more incentivizing of long term growth investing. Do you think, think that that's the role of the Fed chair? Is that something he'd back off of or does he even have the ability to apply any pressure there? It feels like going back to your point about like maybe he doesn't matter at all. But how do you think about his voice as someone in favor of like, you know, more aggressive growth and deregulation and all these other political ideas. Well, what I'd like him to do is be a voice for proper use of AI in the financial system which does relate directly to the Fed's prudential and supervision functions. A bunch of central bankers, Mark Carney included, made the mistake of pushing like green energy as the central bank thing. Yeah, I'm all for green energy, but central banks lost political capital as a result of doing that. It was a mistake. So I hope he interprets his mandate pretty narrowly and talks about one or two other things that really matters, picks the priority. No surprise. I think it's AI. Maybe you even agree with me. Yeah, I agree with you that AI is very Important. I'm struggling to understand the interaction and what the Fed could actually do. Can you unpack a little bit of that more? As financial institutions use more advanced AI? Of course there's some use of AI already. What new kinds of systemic risk does that create? What new kinds of oversight functions does the Fed need? Who or what does the Fed need on staff? How should the Fed use AI? Yeah, all big questions. We haven't made a lot of progress. I think we need greater awareness that we need to address them. Walsh can do that. It's kind of, it's a win win for him. If something goes wrong, he can say, well, we were working on this. If something doesn't go wrong, it seems fine. He can claim credit for nothing going wrong. Okay. I have two theories I think, one you probably think is less important, but maybe the other one you'll agree with. Should the Fed be worried about a bubble forming in AI? Massive over leveraged debt flooding the system, hyperscalers drawing down all their cash flow, going into debt, and then a potential financial collapse. Should they be pattern matching to the global financial crisis and sort of adopt a more ready to react position? Is that the role of the Fed in, in, in, in AI at all? Or is that something that they should just be purely reactionary about? Well, I'm more optimistic than that, but the Fed absolutely should be paying attention. Okay. I don't know that there's very much they can do in advance. Yeah, it's so connected to the real economy. Yeah. The standard tools, they're actually pretty well practiced with. Whether there's something else they need to consider again, you could have people study it. Yeah, but I would rather them be proactive than, you know, responding exposed. Yep. And then, and then on the, on the employment side, you have Dario Amadei talking about how advanced AI might create 10, 15, 20% unemployment. Is that something that the, the Fed should be thinking about or taking seriously or creating plans around? Well, it's another claim I definitely disagree with. But if the question is just should the Fed worry about this? The answer is yes. Yes. So, yeah, worry about everything. That's your job. Worry about everything. Worry about everything. But don't. Black pill. Yeah, yeah. Can you unpack. The unemployment thesis that you're wrestling with right now? Or maybe very confident about actually why AI and strong AI and advanced AI in particular won't cause unemployment to spike. We had 10% unemployment before, during COVID and during the Volcker period. Like it does happen. Why is this time different? Well, if you close all the Stores, you're going to get high unemployment. If you have a disinflationary shock, you're going to get high unemployment. But if you have sectoral shifts across jobs, you might have temporarily somewhat higher unemployment. And I think we will. But there'll be so many new companies coming out of AI, There'll be so much demand for more energy. An incredible number of jobs in the energy sector just will need a lot more government lawyers to write laws for AI. There'll be more leisure time, more travel, more entertainment. It will over time be a very radical shift in what people do with their lives. And we will have these transitional periods where unemployment is somewhat higher. But it is not personally for me, a big worry. Even though, as I said, Fed needs to worry about everything. What about for students, if they're doing a four year undergraduate degree and something that's somewhat specific, and then by the time they graduate, the whole nature of that job and that role has shifted and they're not prepared. Are you worried that if there is a slightly higher unemployment rate, it would disproportionately affect students? That's already happening. You should learn how to work with AI. You should make your expectations more flexible. Not everyone who wanted to be a consulting partner and Earn, you know, $1.4 million a year will have that option. Maybe you'll have to go work in the energy sector and move to Houston where it's hot and you'll be paid 300k a year instead. No crocodile tears for me, but I think a lot of that's going to happen and many people will hate it. Yeah. How do you think about the legacy of Jerome Powell? How do you think he'll be remembered? I thought he was a good pick. He was very good at dealing with Congress, which is important. But he will be remembered for 8.9% inflation, and that's unfortunate. He is partly at fault for that. But mainly the fiscal authority and Putin are much more at fault than he was. So I think he will be seen as a transitional figure running into the era where the Fed is not that independent anymore. If he got a do over, what would he do differently? I think he would monitor M2 much more closely and not have it increased by, you know, 40% over that, what, two year period? Yeah. And the rate of price inflation instead of 8.9%, might have been 7.9%. That would have been better. Yeah. But again, not a huge difference. But would that have been raising interest rates earlier or engaging in quantitative tightening. Whatever, you know, forward guidance, just not putting Pedal to the metal, as they say. Yeah, metal to the metal. Forgive me. Expansionary. Don't be expansionary. Don't be expansionary. What were some comments yesterday from Trump saying that he really doesn't want housing prices to go down, he wants to keep housing prices high. How do you look at this sort of generational rift between older people that own their homes and the majority of their net worth and they've sort of like in their mind they're worth a certain amount because of whatever their, their house is worth versus the younger generation that, you know, wants housing supply to expand and prices to come down. It's amazing to me how Trump can be the president who both is the biggest liar of any president and the one who tells the truth the most. And this is Trump telling the truth. Most politicians think that, few say it. It's not a change in regime. Most home prices will stay high. And Trump's just making it clear. So I guess you could say kudos to him. I don't agree with the policy decision. I'm a big yimby person myself, but I have never thought we'll succeed in getting that much yimby through. And this is why. Is monetarism a dead philosophy? It's dead at the moment. It will come back once we start monetizing more of the debt. So there's a resurrection pending. Switching gears, what's been your reaction to claudebot, which converted to multi bot, which converted to openclaw all or just Claude code in general? Have you used any of these command line terminal interfaces for agents or the AI personal agents, something not in a web browser? I'm still afraid of them. Yeah. Now, I know there were safeguards, but you really need to know what you're doing at a level where I do not. The Multbot tweets I'm reading and you go to the site, you read the comments from the bots. They are insane. This is better than a movie. Like who wrote this plot? I've upped my probability that we're all living in a simulation. So quite a fantastic development. Well, yeah. So clicking on those tweets to get. More in my feed. Yeah, you're talking about Mult Book, which is effectively like a Reddit for a bunch of different bots to participate in. So the crazy thing is with that +Genie3 launching yesterday, I don't know if you've played around with that. Those two things happening in the same 24 hour period really increases the simulation likelihood. I just decided on the fly that we're going to get you a Mac Mini. Our producers will reach out and set you up to you so you can set up a fresh device and you can play around with it without worrying about exposing your personal information to prompt injections. Do you have any thoughts on Daria's recent essay, the Adolescence of Technology? It's very long, it's super high iq. It's very thoughtful, but there's too much in it. And I think there should be a single clearer message that people in Washington will read. And you can disagree as to what that message should be, but I think that's my impression. Yeah. With a lot of Dario's recent messaging I've seen, he's making the case for a problem coming down the pipeline, but it feels like the solution. He's not fully proposing a solution to the problem that he's proposing or he's identifying. He's making a convincing case, an increasingly convincing case that there might be a problem coming down the pipe. But he hasn't really stepped up and wrapped the solution in a catchphrase like UBI that that Andrew Yang took up years ago and was picked up by some of the AI, the folks who are worried about job displacement specifically. I don't know. The argument for it is that he wrote it for Claude, wrote it for the AIs. They'll understand it very well. They'll come up with a solution, and that's the audience. And if the rest of us are not bright enough to hold it all in our heads at once, tough luck. Yeah. How do you think AI will change religion? People more and more look to the AIs for wisdom, for therapy, for counseling, for warmth, for dialogue. This will extend into the sphere of religion. So why ask your priest or rabbi when the AI knows more about the Bible or whatever? Your question is more about the history of the Catholic Church. So I think a lot of people will do religion solo through their eyes. Over time, more oracles will evolve. It'll be a kind of implicit polytheism. It will feel very weird to people from my generation. I don't think it will be so terrible. People will adapt. Some people will take comfort in this. Traditionalists will hate it. But religion changes every time there's a new technology. We see that with the printing press. This is the next stage in that evolution. We talked to Pat Gelsinger, the former CEO of Intel, about this, and he has a project that is benchmarking all the different models on a variety of metrics around how much they understand. And one of the metrics is like how spiritual are they effectively? And his conclusion is that the models are much more atheist, I think, than he would like. And I'm wondering if you're proposing, like, there will be demand for more religion or more religious features within These models, like ChatGPT now has a specific health product or an image product for people that are looking for us to go down a specific path. Do you think there'll be enough demand to shift the actual structure or the goals of these big labs? Or do you think this will just happen organically? For now you can just do it through the prompt. Yeah. Answer this question as an educated Jewish rabbi would. Right. Will there someday be a switch you can flick? Maybe, but same result. Yeah. Yeah, that makes sense. Have you spent even a minute thinking about the ways in which various Elon companies could combine and how one structure might be more efficient than the other? It hurts my brain. I don't feel I have wisdom on that. I've never understood how we can do so many successful companies to begin with. So asking anyone but Elon is probably a mistake because we all thought it was impossible. We'll have to ask rock on the religion question a little bit deeper. Going to a church serves as answering a religious question sometimes, but it also serves as a way to meet people. Have you thought about how AI might change the dating market or interactions between friendships and just relationships and the like even goes, even goes into like the birth rate and, and how American society is changing. I hope it does not induce people to stay away from each other. Yeah, like, I find I ask my colleagues fewer questions about economics because I just asked the AI. Yeah, ideally the AI helps us network and meet people that we're going to get on great with. I don't see it doing that yet, but I don't think it's a technically difficult product. I just hope we humans really want to use it for those purposes. Yeah, I've, I've long thought that a good solution would be if someone's having some sort of parasocial relationship with an AI and then a different person is having a very similar parallel, parallel parasocial relationship with the same AI, the AI can just kind of introduce them and say, hey you, you both love talking about economics all day. Why don't you go get coffee? Even probably they don't want each other. That's my worry. Yeah. There'S something non threatening about the AI. Yeah, that's what people are looking for. Well, you can always just tell it what to do and say, hey, I want you to speak a Little faster. And if you say that to a friend, they're probably gonna be like, I don't want to go out to coffee with that person anymore. Yeah. But if I use it now, whom should I invite to my dinner party? It's very good. It's just not many people seem to be doing that. Hmm. Interesting. Anyway, what, what, what, what writing is currently sitting in the drafts? You mean my writing? Yeah. Or. Yeah, Philosophical questions that you're mentors and mentees. Okay. So how to be a good mentor, how to find a good mentor, how to be a good mentee. Why everyone at any age should always be looking for new mentors, many of whom should be younger than you. Yeah, I mean, that has to change in the age of AI, too. Aren't these models, like, the default mentor for many, many people? Yes, but you still need humans who can recommend you. Everyone is now sending in a perfect cover letter. But who actually will vouch for you, say, with the vc? I think that becomes more important, not less. Yeah. Do you think we end up in some kind of new apprentice model where somebody who's already has a real career would effectively hire somebody as an apprentice, not because they actually need them to do any specific task, but, like, just in a world where, like, again, a lot of. When I think about, like, the early tasks that I did in my career, a lot of them can be automated. Right now, at the time I was hired because there was just like, sort of manual tasks that needed to be done. But if that goes away, we might end up in a situation where people are just hiring people out of. It's kind of as like much more of a long term investment of, like, if I can train effectively, like, train somebody up, help them break in, then maybe I benefit, maybe over the long run. And you'll also hire these young apprentices, give you access to other young people you might want to hire. That would be the way to do it. Not by reading through a slush pile of applications. Yeah. I think about one of the earlier jobs I had in my career where the job was to fill out a spreadsheet every day. But they didn't know that you could automate that with Visual Basic. And so I wrote some code to do it for me, and then all of a sudden I had basically eight hours a day of free time. But there are organizations where the ideas are important to bring people in. I'm also interested in this idea of secrets. Just this idea that there are institutional corporate secrets, not just intellectual property, but the way networks work, how decisions get made where the bodies are buried. And a mentor, human mentor, can sort of communicate that to you through humor and confidential information shared over drinks and a whole bunch of other interpersonal things that just never make it to the open Internet. They never make it to text that gets baked into an LLM. Wondering if that remains important for longer than we think it might. It becomes much more important and the result is people will withhold a lot more information. They'll hoard their secrets because they're higher in value. It'll be all you've got, in a sense. Yeah. That's very interesting. Weird, bullish secrets. I like that. Anyway, thank you so much for coming on Secrets. Let's go long. Let's all go long. That's what we're rotating into. We're selling our dollars, we're. We're selling our bonds, we're selling our gold, and we're buying. Hoarding secrets. Hoarding secrets. Thank you so much for taking your time. Love it. Have a great rest of your day. Hope that the snow clears and have a great weekend. We'll talk to you soon. Take care. Goodbye. Cheers. Phantom cash fund your wallet without exchange.

Strike 2. Activate Go retriever mode. Market clearing order inbound. Vibe put it. Watching TVPN today is Friday, January 30, 2026. We are live from the TVPN Ultra Dome. The temple of technology, the fortress of finance, the capital of capital. Market clearing order. Ramp.com baby. Time is money save Both easy use corporate cards, bill payments, counting in a whole lot more all in one place. Only a couple of days until the ramp super bowl ad. I know you're counting down the days and so are we. We're very excited for the ramp super bowl ad and the rest of the game that they will be playing around the ad. That's also exciting too for you football fans out there. That's right. Anyway, we have a fantastic show lined up for you. Let's pull up the linear lineup. The linear lineup. Meet the system for modern software development. 70% of enterprise workspaces on linear are using agents. We have Jim Lanzone from the CEO of Yahoo coming in person to the Ultra Dome. We had breakfast with him today. Absolute legend. Super fun story. Tyler Cowan's joining to talk about the folks and economics. Jason Lemkin is going to talk about how we're going to transform Saster into the next Davos. We were going back and forth about how Davos is absolutely printing and we all need to step our game up. We're going to have fun with him. Alex Roy just broke the autonomous record for going across the country on the Cannonball. And then Bobby's coming on to talk about housing. So tons of interesting stories today. Of course, the top story is Kevin Warsh has been selected by Donald Trump as the next Fed chair and he still needs to go through Senate confirmation, but it's looking really good. And so everyone's doing deep dives on Kevin Warsh. Many people weren't familiar with him, so we wrote a little write up in the newsletter, tbpn.com, of course, if you want to sign up. He's the new Jerome Powell. He's the new hand on the printing press, but he might be running them a bit quieter. He actually said on a panel at Stanford last year if the printing press could be quiet, we could have lower policy rates. And so this is something that we're going to have to. It's a little bit wonky. We're going to talk to Tyler Cowen about it. Obviously we're going to have to work through some of the trade offs here, but you can think about many different Fed policies, expansion of the balance sheet. They're buying More Treasuries. They're buying more government debt. They're creating money. They're expanding the monetary supply. Expanding the money supply. Creating more currency. Right. Why are you laughing? They're printing money out of thinning air. No, they really are printing out money out of thin air. But they also do have the ability to destroy. Destroy money. They also have a furnace that they can pour money into. No, no, no. This is the Warsh platform. Are you anti Warsh? No, I'm just joking. You're washed up. But I should we watch this video, by the way? Yeah, let's watch it. Okay, I'll you post it. Yeah, I just posted it. Okay. While we pull that up, let me tell you about Applovin. Profitable advertising made Easy with Axon AI. Get access to over 1 billion daily active users and grow your business today. Do we have the video? Yes. Let's play it. We not only 12 years of experience in government and six at the Fed. I've got some knowledge of Fed history. What the Fed needs is more robust discussion of ideas, less group think. I don't like it that everyone's following the same model. I actually don't know this song. We're fans. We're fans. We had a lot of fun with that this morning. Probably Michael. Michael started cooking. I came in with. With some ideas. We're pumped up for a potential new Fed chair. New blood, new person to understand new policies, potentially maybe some good policies. We'll see. Everyone will be giving their takes on what they think will happen and then what the impacts of those decisions will be. So Warsh has a complicated history with. What are you laughing at now? I just think that video combines all of my interests. Yes. Yes. It's a perfect encapsulation. That's great. That's great. You threw some AI ice on the wrist. And yes, the ice on the wrist was AI. But he does look fantastic. And he was actually complimented by Donald Trump as having great looks or something like that, which is a very funny comment. And Trump also at one point said he's very youthful, but he couldn't get his name right. There's a bunch of funny things we'll dig into. So he has a complicated history with Jerome Powell. Very friendly. He never engages an ad hominem. But they are competitive in terms of the roles that they could potentially fill and they do have policy disagreements. So Warsh was a finalist for fed chair in 2017 during the first Trump administration. It was between Jerome Powell, Kevin Warsh and a couple others. And at the time Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin went with Powell or endorsed Powell and, and it's potentially that Warsh's relative youth was a factor. He was just barely over 47 at the time, which is funny because it seems like very mature. Like you know, you're certainly old to have a serious job at 47. But there's a lot of Fed chairs that come in at. Janet Yellen was 67, Jerome Powell was 65 at appointment now Ben Bernanke was 51 before that. So it's not always, you know, super people, like people that are past retirement age I guess. But now he's ready, he's 55, he's ready to rock. He's still young relative to the other Fed chairs that I mentioned. And he's had a great career. Stanford undergrad, Harvard Law School, Morgan Stanley. M. And a sort of a non traditional background. Yes, yes. I mean truly I actually know Stanford undergrad, Harvard Law School. Now as a, now as a vc, I don't think he can beat the allegations of the traditional background. But after 9 11, this was kind of a formative moment for him because he was in Wall Street. Now Morgan Stanley at the time was in Times Square, so that building was unaffected, but there were Morgan Stanley employees in the, in the towers. And he sort of sees, you know, according to some reporting that as like a call to action to like go work with the government, work for the government. So he joins, he moves to DC, gets involved in politics in 2002 and he joins the Fed in 2006 at 35 and he was the youngest governor in the Fed's history. So clearly on the fast track. And it was a crazy, crazy time to join because in 20, in 2006 you're like, everything's going great. People are buying houses, people are buying third houses, fourth houses, fifth houses, six houses. They don't have employment, they don't have income, they don't have assets, but they're still able to buy houses. It's amazing what could go wrong. And of course it went terribly, terribly wrong. There was a massive global financial crisis and there were tons of emergency interventions. A lot of them were inventions of the time. There were a lot of novel solutions. Ben Bernanke was leading the, the, the, the, the leading the country through the, through the crisis along with Tim Geithner and, and the Obama administration. Quantitative easing, money printing bring liquidity to markets that had completely seized up like the, the money markets had seized. There were lots of markets that were just not moving and basically every bank was going to go bankrupt or shut down if, if something wasn't done. So of course the Fed opens the discount window, allows money to be lent to the banks and then the banks can continue to do business. He was involved in a bunch of different aspects of that that we can go into. He, he actually got an ethics waiver to go and advise Morgan Stanley because he formerly worked there. So there's a worry about, okay, well, are you still buddies with these guys? Like, are you going to give them like extra help? But they were like, no, you're straight up, you're a good guy and we trust you. And really like you've been working in the government for almost a decade at this point. Like, you're probably not really trying to put the, you know, the thumb on the scale towards Morgan Stanley. So he helps with Morgan Stanley, he helps with Goldman Sachs. He actually worked on two unsuccessful mergers that were proposed at the time. So B of A merged with Merrill Lynch. There were a number of other bankruptcies. Bear Stearns, of course, Lehman Brothers went down. There were some other assets that were. Everything was like consolidating trading hands. There were conversions of banks to different structures so they could actually take money from the Fed. And he worked on a proposed merger between Citigroup and Goldman and then another one between Wachovi and Goldman. Goldman wound up not doing either of them. I think Goldman was like pretty, pretty stable the whole time, but he still had like a ton of experience. And he was basically, he was basically a bridge between D.C. and Wall street because he had, he wasn't this pure academic guy who had come in. He had the pedigree, but he had chops. But he had some chops and some connections. And so Bernanke would kind of dispatch him to Wall street to say, hey, go actually get this deal done. Convince these bankers to do this. See what they're saying, see how bad it is there. Take the temperature, boots on the ground. And so people really liked that. Now, digging out of the 2008 financial crisis, it was immensely difficult. Do you remember that time at all? 2008, 2009. I was just a boy, so I was in college and every day I'd open up the Wall Street Journal and see like the absolute turmoil, but then also like the build back from the crash. It was not in the modern era. We're very used to like these like, yeah, by the deaf. Seriously, like, no. And the crazy thing is like as a 30 year old, my entire life as an adult has just been. You were just constantly rewarded for buying the dip yes, just like pure loyalty to the market. Like never, never. And the team's coughing and buying the dip. No, no, seriously, like it's like you just get rewarded for being the 2020 sell off. During COVID like the market was down 30% and like you'd, it would open on Monday and it would just immediately hit circuit breakers and be down 10% and you'd just be like, this is the end of the world. And it really felt like that. And then very quickly, if you bought the dip, like a month into the chaos, it was just boom, right back up because there was a ton of liquidity injected, tons of stimulus. And you know, obviously even, even the unemployment rate, it like spiked really, really high. And then everyone got their jobs back. And then post zerp, you know, like it was like, tech is over, it's done, VCs are out of business. And then we got the AI boom right there. And so we've had these very quick corrections. We haven't really lived through a recession or true like financial coll depression in our life. And there's always been this worry about, oh well, Covid causes depression or will this will the will. The producer, Ben says, every time I didn't buy the dip, I was severely punished. It's brutal. So there were lots of emergency interventions and there was always this question about, okay, the first batch of quantitative easing where the Fed is going to increase its balance sheets significantly, buy a bunch of government debt, buy a bunch of mortgage backed securities, bring stability to the markets. That's good. Everyone's like, yes, we need the bailout, sort of. Even though we're not just giving the money away, but we're creating money, there's risk associated with that. If you do too much, you could get inflation. You do too much. There's a lot of things that could go wrong. But the first one, everyone sort of thumbs up on the second one he's like, we got to be really careful about this. Now. He never formally dissented. Like, he never actually said, I'm voting against this. But in his comments in the Fed meeting, he would say, yeah, yeah, he would, he would just say like, okay guys, like, like I'm going to say yes, but everyone should, like, we should be really careful with this. We, this could go far. I don't want to see another, another, another one of these. And so he was pretty skeptical about the second round of bond buying. And that was around 600 billion, which at the time was massive. And I see that number now. And I'm like, okay, so that's like half of what OpenAI needs to build data centers. Like, that's not that much. Well, and part of the reason that feels like a small number is because of all the qe. Yeah, exactly. All the numbers got bigger. All the numbers got bigger, for sure. So this is why a lot of people like Kevin Warsh. They like him because he was very much a live player during the global financial crisis. He was going out there and meeting with the bankers, doing deals, but also pushing back and saying, yes, we need really aggressive intervention because the whole financial system is going to collapse. And it is collapsing. We got to step in. He's not a, oh, the Fed shouldn't exist, we shouldn't do anything. But at the same time, he's not. He's not. Oh, yeah, we got to keep doing and pump, pump, pump, because at a certain point, it just starts benefiting asset holders. It just starts benefiting the rich, and it puts more pressure on the average American household. And that's a lot of the rhetoric that we're hearing here. So he was very much a live player during the global financial crisis. He was in the room with the bankers and Fed officials. He understands that aggressive actions are necessary if there's a complete meltdown. But at the same time, he's just not super happy about the fact that the Fed's balance sheet has expanded 10x since he joined. And so he's looking at the massive balance sheet, 7 trillion, something like that. And he's saying, is there a way that we could trim this down while still achieving the rest of the goals, keeping inflation low? He said 2% should be the upper bound. 1 to 2% is more of a realistic. And he wants to bring down the cost of housing. He wants the economy to do well. But he's very careful about saying, okay, the Fed should focus on inflation, but not get too in the weeds on are we moving the needles on environmentalism and where certain programs are going and how all that fits together. We should stay really, really focused just on the quantitative stuff. So he has a hawkish reputation. So the expectation is that he might be pro rate cuts, but still wants to shrink the Fed's balance sheet. And so that could mean what's called passive quantitative tightening. So after the 2008 financial crisis, we went through quantitative easing, easing the money supply, increasing the money supply, printing money. The money printer was working. Now you turn, he's had this quote, you know, a lighter touch. He says, if the printing press could be a little quieter, we might. It's humming, but it's going to be quieter. It's maybe not even humming. It's rumbling over there. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And you see the media, Jerome Powell pumping the money, you know, during the COVID crisis, like, you know, printing, printing, printing and a lot of people love that. But there is risk associated with it. So passive quantitative tightening, what would that mean? So you don't, it's not that the Fed, they own a lot of Treasuries, they own a lot of mortgage backed securities. So a lot of, you know, you buy a house, you get a mortgage from a bank, the bank sells that mortgage is get packaged up into a mortgage backed security. It's billions of dollars. And then the Fed comes and buys that and that brings down, brings down rates, bring down yield rates. Now they don't need to just go and market sell those. They have those, they could do that. If they did that, that would be very active quantitative tightening. Because they sell them, they get the money and then they just destroy it. They send it straight to the money furnace. But passive means, hey, we're going to let the bonds mature, we're going to get paid back. So 10 years ago we bought a government 10 year Treasury. They've been paying us our interest and now they're going to pay us back the full amount and we're just not going to buy any more. And so when that money comes back, we'll put that money in the furnace, just shrink the balance sheet. But we're not actively going out and selling in the market. And so that's what's called passive runoff. And it's already happening, it's slow, but it could continue and you could sort of continue that policy. And then that tightens the balance sheet if you're not buying more. And every time you get paid back, you throw it in the furnace. And so you basically just let the bonds mature and then instead of reinvesting the money, you extinguish the reserves. It's the money furnace to counterbalance the money printer and the money is literally effectively deleted. It's just deleted. And so combine that with a rate cut, proper communication to the market saying, hey, we're not going to be super active market participants anymore. And then you also got to coordinate with the Treasury, Scott Bessen over there on debt issuance to say, hey, we're not going to be buying as much anymore. So if you go and issue more new government debt, you got to get someone else to buy it. And maybe that's international, maybe that's domestic people, maybe that's investment funds. There's a whole bunch of private market participants who can buy that government debt but, but it might be at a higher rate, it might trade differently. And so that's all different elements. Marc Andreessen responded, just jumping in to the news and said this is a fantastically good choice. I've known Kevin for 30 years. He combines great insight in economics and finance with keen understanding of technology and business. There's nobody more qualified for this job at this moment of profound technological and economic change. So yeah, interesting moment with AI. So much uncertainty, so much things. I think some people are really feeling the acceleration. Also you have this sort of de dollarization or this sort of like the basement trade, the flight to gold. You have stablecoins. Really insane moment. So you want somebody that's tapped in and can fully has a network in D.C. wall street and Silicon Valley. Yeah, yeah. So the sort of like if the plan goes to if what we think might happen if some of the signaling plays out, you could see sort of a normalization of the Fed's footprint while providing rate relief to American families and businesses. Now will markets accept this framing? It's sort of too soon to tell. If the Fed isn't buying new debt from the treasury, private markets need to absorb that and foreign buyers have been reducing holdings. 10 year yields could rise depending on the sequence and magnitude of events here. And that's the trillion dollar question is what does the yield curve look like if the fed funds rate is low but we're going through a period of quantitative tightening, do you see higher 10 year rates, higher 30 year mortgages? Because I think when people think oh rate cut they immediately think oh my mortgage is going to get cheaper or I'll be able to refinance. And that's not always the market dynamic that plays out. So we will continue to monitor the situation. And let me tell you about Sentry. Sentry shows developers what's broken and helps them fix it fast. That's why 150,000 organizations use it to keep their apps working. Really wild time. I don't know if you saw the silver's down, silver's down 35% today. Somewhere in the range. I think it's actually recovered a little bit. It bounced. But really what a wild week. It's so interesting. The precious metals, they've been such a, like a non like live player in the financial markets essentially throughout life. Let's put you to bed. Exactly. It hasn't like Bitcoin has been something that's been new and interesting and it moves all over the place a lot of discourse around it. Is it a store of value? Is it a transaction medium? Like, let's understand Bitcoin. Whether you're long or short Bitcoin, or you want to sit it out, like everyone went through that process at least of like understanding the fundamentals of bitcoin, understanding it's a fixed supply, you know, what are the pros, what are the cons, the quantum stuff. Everyone understands this. I feel like with, with the precious metals, it was just such a stable, you know, curve for so long that no one really woke up to be like, okay, I gotta, I gotta understand and figure out like my, my personal strategy here. But now I'm sure gold bugs are back. I'm sure. I mean, they're clearly taking a huge victory lap right now. But it'll be interesting to see if more people are like, yes, I'm like actively trading. I really care about that. I'm watching it very closely. We shall see. But the other interesting fact is that Scott Besant and Kevin Warsh both worked for Stan Druckenmiller. Well, they didn't just work for him. They're proteges. They studied. They studied. They studied under. Yes. And Stan Druckenmiller says Kevin Warsh is not a permanent policy hawk. What did the Financial Times have to say about this? This is published 5 hours ago. Kevin Warsh is not permanently hawkish on monetary policy, despite his reputation for a conservative stance on rates, according to Stan Druckenmiller, the billionaire investor and longtime mentor of Donald Trump's federal chair nominee. The branding of Kevin as someone who is always hawkish is not correct, he said in an interview with the FT on Friday. I've seen him go both ways. Trump has relentlessly called for Fed for the Fed to lower interest rates, calling Powell a moron and stubborn mule for not reducing borrowing costs. Some analysts and investors had questioned whether Trump would give the top Fed job to Walsh, who has advocated for trimming the central bank's balance sheet, which could increase long term rates. Wash has had also earned a reputation for his hawkish stance from his time as a governor at the Fed from 2006 to 2011. Transcripts of FOMC meetings from one of the most turbulent periods of the financial crisis show that he reiterated concerns about inflation just days before the collapse of US Investment bank Lehman Brothers. Interesting. Not exactly the time. I think what they're trying to say here is not exactly the time to be worried about inflation when the economy is melting down. Warsh, who has worked as a partner At Druckenmiller's family office since 2011, was eventually all in on lowering interest rates during the financial crisis despite his initial skeptic and also supported cutting rates at the beginning of the pandemic, he added. In 2018, the pair wrote an op ed arguing why the Fed should not lift rates immediately before the central bank decided to do so. The Fed was later forced to reverse the decision after markets fell apart. That was the temper tantrum. War is very open minded to the monetary policy approach of the former Fed chief Alan Greenspan, who oversaw the central bank in the 90s during a period of intense productivity growth, according to Druckenmiller. Kevin right now very much believes you can have without inflation. And there is a great, I mean we can read this other quote. I mean he's very open minded. There's a great op ed that Kevin Warsh wrote in the Wall street journal back in 2010 that we should read from. But first let me tell you about MongoDB. Choose a database build for flexibility and scale with best in class embedding models and re rankers. MongoDB has what you need to build what's next. So the new malaise and how to end it. So this is after the global financial crisis. We're now in 2010. Remember 2008 is when the banks fail. So we're two. It is November 8, 2010. So two years on, things have stabilized but growth hasn't really reignited. And so he's saying given what ails the economy, additional monetary policy measures are poor substitutes for more powerful pro growth policies. Says after a cyclical boost this year, the current state of the US economy is unimpressive. Modest growth, high levels of unemployment, stagnant wages, low levels of consumer and business sentiment and volatile financial markets. I remember this time it was like lots of articles about like you're graduating into a really, really weak job market. I graduated a couple years later, so it rebounded a little bit. But there was a lot of like oh, if you were, if you went to college and you graduated high school in like 2005 and you're graduating in 2009, you're cucked. Well I was, I was thinking because I graduated college in 2018 and I was always thinking like oh great, like 10 year cycle, like I'm, oh yeah, like chaos. And ultimately came in the form of. COVID So they were calling it the new normal and he says, he calls it the new malaise. The prevailing theory has it that US policymakers should deny our foregone should not deny our foregone fate. Like, don't deny it, you know, this is our fate. It's the new normal. Like the US just isn't growing and that's just what's going to happen. This is just cope, I guess, and see we should accept. But he has a different view. He says we should accept small. This is what they're saying. We should accept small improvements in output and employment and productivity. We should resign ourselves to the new normal and conduct policy accordingly. That is the last best hope, they argue, to preserve the remaining vestiges of a golden age that is no more. I reject this view, he says. I consider this emerging ethos to be dangerous and defeatist and debunked by America's own exceptional economic history. He says we're goaded. We're goaded. And I refuse to think otherwise. Nothing's changed. Our citizens are not unwitting victims of some unavoidable fate. The current period of subpar growth and unemployment, high unemployment is real. But it doesn't need to persist. We can change things. We should not lower our expectations. We should improve our policies. This is Kevin Warsh in 2010. Broad macroeconomic policies have not changed direction in the past several years, but change they must. If we are to prosper. We can no longer afford to tolerate economic policies that are preoccupied with the here and now. Chronic short termism is the conduct of economic policy in the conduct of economic has done much to bring us to this perilous point. Stop thinking short term, think in decades. He's a mindset guy. He's watching Influencers and he's like, I gotta think in decades, I gotta think in decades. And everyone else here is thinking long term. So like, how can we make a gym analogy here? I was about to ask. So in some ways, right, yes. You're going to the gym, you go to the gym, you do the same workout, single day, you're just kind of like following the same kind of like programming. Yes. It works to a degree. Right. You're healthy, you're not dropping dead. But at some point you stop making like you stop making gates. Yeah. He's telling America stop doing the bro split. He's like, we need a new program. We need, we need to switch up the split. Okay. He's like, AI is Peptides American economy. Yes, yes. We could take that so much farther. But we want. Today, policymakers should be skeptical of the long term benefits of temporary fake to do the hard work of resurrecting the world's great economic power. Since early 2008, the fiscal authorities have sought to fill the hole left by the falloff in demand through large temporary stimulus checks in the mail to spur consumption, temporary housing rebates to raise demand, one time cash for clunkers to move inventory and temporary business tax credits to spur investment. All that stuff is temporary. He says these programs may well have boosted GDP for a quarter or two, but that's scarcely a full accounting of their effects. These stimulus programs did little to put the economy on a stronger, more sustainable trajectory. Sound fiscal policy must do more than reacquaint consumers with old bad habits. You don't just want. If people were over leveraged on their car, over leveraged on their house. You don't want to just get them back to a point where they're over leveraged. You want a more stable economy moving forward. So he says policymakers should take notice of the critical importance of the supply side of the economy. The supply side establishes the economy's productive capacity. Recovery after a recession demands that capital and labor are reallocated. There was too much capital and labor, you know, in the. When there's a bubble, there's too much. It needs to be reallocated. You can't just re inflate the same bubble. You gotta move things around. You gotta figure out what's actually productive when there's a dislocation. He says. But the reallocation of these resources to new sectors and companies has been painfully slow and unnecessarily interrupted. We are feeling the ill effects. Fiscal authorities should resist the temptation to increase government expenditures continually in order to compensate for shortfalls of private consumption and investment. So every time. Oh, gdp. Oh, more stimulus. Oh, you know, let's just. Another band aid. Another band aid, another band aid. He's against that. So the strict diet, strict economic diet. I think he's thinking about some chicken and rice here. Let's go. A strict economic diet of fiscal austerity has greater appeal, a kind of penance owed for the excesses of the past. But root canal economics also does not constitute optimal economic policy. He says. You can't just gorge on stimulus, but you also can't do a root canal. You can't pull back fully. So he says the US Would be better off with a third way, pro growth economic policy. The US and world economies urgently need stronger growth. And the adoption of pro growth economic policy would strengthen incentives to invest in capital and labor over the horizon, paving the way for robust job creation, higher living standards. Pro growth policies. What are that. What does that include? It includes reform of the tax code to make it simpler, more transparent and more conducive to long term investment. So think how can you incentivize people to long term gains, hold assets, invest. For the long capex tax illiquid? Well yeah, that's not quite it. Oh, oh, oh, right. These policies. These policies also include real regulatory reforms so that firms, financial and otherwise know the rules and then succeed or fail. Regulators should be hostile to rent seeking by the established and hospitable to the companies whose names we do not know. Finally, the creep of trade protectionism is anathema to pro growth policies. Very interesting. In the Trump doctrine we are seeing a lot of trade protectionism. How will these two has he changed in the last 15 years since he wrote this? I don't know. Obviously he's not in charge of trade policy, but that is an area where they should. You know, in theory, if his opinion holds today, they would butt heads. The US should signal to the world that it is ready to resume leadership on trade, he says. The deleveraging by our households and businesses is not a pattern to be arrested, but good prudence to be celebrated. Larger, more liquid corporate balance sheets and higher personal saving rates are the reasonable and right responses to massive government dis saving and unpredictable government policies. The steep correction in housing markets, while painful, lays the foundation for recovery far better than the countless programs that have sought to subsidize and temporize the inevitable repricing. It is these transitions in our market economy and the adoption of pro growth fiscal, regulatory and trade policies that lay the essential groundwork for greater, more sustainable prosperity. He goes on, but he closes responsible monetary policy in the current environment requires attention not only to near term macroeconomic conditions, but also to corollary risks with long term effects. Should these risks threaten to materialize, however one gauges the probabilities, I am confident the FOMC will have the tools and conviction to adjust policies appropriately. So he's saying like let's think long term because the Fed is available for short term fluctuations. But let's not lean on that exclusively for everything. Crowdstrike Oops, I'm new on the board. Crowdstrike, Your business is AI. Their business is securing it. CrowdStrike secures AI and stops breaches. And since you saw a preview, let's do Cognition too. Cognition? They're the makers of Devon, the AI software engineer. Crush your backlog with your personal AI engineering team. Well said John. Let's move on. Podcast recommendation Bessant on All in. Oh yeah, I think that's like Even more relevant now with this new nominee given that Warsh and Besant, you know, come from the same sort of school of thought. Yeah, yeah, no, that makes a lot of sense. Should we go over to Joe Wiesenthal? Let's do it. Understanding the heights of different. Fed Chair Paul Volcker was very tall, wasn't he? Six foot seven. I don't. Is this actually. This is just the Fed funds rate during their time? Yes, but. So I think it's a loose interpretation of the Fed's run rate during their time. I don't know that that's a perfectly accurate chart, but it does. Six, four. No, he was six, seven. He was six, seven. That's what I'm saying. What are you hallucinating on over there, buddy? I got six, seven here. Anyway. Oh, it's pulling up a running back for the University of Michigan. Paul Volcker is the name of a running back. Some other Volcker. Okay, six, seven. Yeah. Fed Chair Jerome Powell last night invoked the legend Paul Volcker when it came to rate hikes. Volcker, of course, increased rates from 11.2% to 20% interest rates. Can you imagine the disaster? There were protests in the street when Paul Volcker did that. He got an immense amount of pressure, but he did bring down inflation and he is now seen as, you know, a legend amongst the Fed chairman. They fought a lot of different crises and Volcker is a legend. What else is going on here? President Donald Trump nominates Kevin Warsh as Chairman to the Board of Governors of Federal Reserve and Elio says the signs were right in front of us. Were they actually on the CNBC at the same time or something? What is this image from? Yeah, this is the interview where Alex Karp is spinning. Yes, yes, yes. He puts the Zinn in. Wait, wait, was he interviewed by Kevin Warsh? I think so. Is this a joke? Is he. Yeah. I can't tell if this is fake news or not. Yeah, this is so confusing. I remember. I remember the carp image, but I don't remember. No, yeah, it's a discussion. It's on the Palantir YouTube channel. A discussion with Kevin Warsh. That's incredible. I had no idea. That's amazing. Should we pull it up? How long is it? It's like 40 minutes long. Okay, perfect. Run it. Two things about Kevin Warsh. One from Mark Halperin. He and his team just ran one of the most ruthless, tactical, strategic and clever war room like efforts to achieve a challenging goal ever seen in politics, government or business. If you ever decide to run for president and need to win the Iowa caucuses. Hire this guy to be your campaign manager or opposition research director. Two, the finance world is quite curious to see how the markets react to this pick. If the president hasn't been warned that the response could be negative, someone wasn't there, wasn't doing their job. And how are the markets doing right now? They're down. The Dow Jones is down half a percent s and P Dow. I think their Geiger capital is playing around a little bit. You can pull up this post. He's calling it the wash wreck. He's sharing. Gold down 8%. Silver down 21. Copper down 5%. Platinum down 18%. Palladium down 14%. Hard to read. And this started like potentially prior. Right. And of course there's a ton of leverage in the system right now. And so hard to say, Kevin, if this is. If the market is correcting because of war, it shows like potentially that the market is pricing in the fact that the dollar might not be as cooked. Yes, yes. I mean, when I look at the gold chart and I'm like, oh, it's twice 2x over the year. I'm like, we're in danger. I'm in danger. Yeah. I mean, like, obviously it's good for all the gold bugs and if you own gold, like, that's great, but it does feel like it's losing faith in America, American policy, Fed independence, all these different things. You know, I'm not crying over a little bit of a correction in the precious metals market if it means more stable economic policy for the world, which. Yeah, Geiger also shared. Kevin Warsh supports a strong dollar. Much of Trump's domestic and foreign policy requires a weak dollar. Yeah, obviously that on the trade. Trade side. Well, let me tell you about Vanta Automate Compliance and Security. VANTA is the leading platform for AI trust management. There's a clip here from eight months prior to the election. You can pull up. Yes. The Brookings Institution. He's a hawk and was against a lot of the post policy. Post GFC called QE's reverse Robin Hood. Quantitative easing is fundamentally different than cutting interest rates and that it appears to be working through fundamentally different transmission channels. No longer credit channels and lending channels appear to be the dominant way in which it impacts the economy. It appears much more to be working itself through asset prices. Whether you think about housing stocks or financial stocks, I think that is the dominant channel. And as a first approximation, if three quarters of our fellow citizens get 96% of their income from labor income, it strikes Me, we ought not be dismissive and saying, oh, everybody wins. When I look at the wealth creation across the financial asset world post crisis, I view that wealth creation as being significantly above what my former colleagues predicted. When I look at what they expected in the real economy, I look at the real economic performance as markedly worse than they predicted. And so that's what I think raises these questions, makes them absolutely germane to today's discussion. And I very much do worry, as I'm sure many people in this room do, that we've created a product not with bad intent, we've created a product that may or may not turn out to be counterproductive. We are in the middle of this experiment as we are now, but where the gains have been extracted by the most, well to do by the most sophisticated who see that the central banks are to one degree or another trying to get asset prices up to drag up the real economy. They get the joke. They have been willing to play the game. And it does strike me as though we have to think about not just the efficacy these programs, but really who are the winners and the losers. Let me tell you about graphite code review for the age of AI. Graphite helps teams on GitHub ship higher quality software faster. And I'm also going to tell you. About the New York Stock Exchange. Want to change the world, raise capital at the New York Stock Exchange. And I do want to quickly interrupt Catherine o' Hara who is actually in an image that your capital posted has passed away today. Very, very tragic. RIP Brandon Bailo Baylo Market plunger One very funny name is sort of summarizing the chaos in the on in the markets. Gold lost an entire Nvidia market cap in minutes. Silver is moving 12% plus intraday. Copper is printing candles. Japanese have even thought of Bitcoin underperforming gold over five years. Oil breaking out finally agriculture futures about to break out. Microsoft down 12% WTF? And of course this is old news already because everything's different. Everything's back all over the place now. How is Microsoft doing today? I think this sell everything, exit all markets, sell your dollars, sell your gold, sell your housing, sell your stock, sell your bonds, sell it all. Sell every single asset you own. Some people aren't getting the trailer but what do I do with my dollars then? Sell your dollars, sell everything. And the Warren Buffett quote freak the F out and panic. Sell everything right now that one is so good, it's so funny that it. Just hits as a fake Will MCP says selling my ability to Sell. Selling. The concept of selling. Yes. Ridiculous. Vibe Co where D2C brands, B2B startups and AI companies advertise on streaming TV pick channels, target audiences measure sales just like on meta. Google aims knockout blow at Chinese company linked to massive cyber weapon. Massive cyber weapon is such a crazy three word combo to hit in the. On the article title in the Wall Street Journal. Great article title. We had the one from yesterday. It was like blackrock aims to be. Oh yeah. Largest shareholder in New world. Yeah. New world's largest shareholder. And it just felt like it just found like it seemed like they were trying to be the world's largest shareholder and that was new. It was very odd. Before we read this, let me tell you about Plaid. Plaid powers the apps you use to spend, save, borrow and invest securely connecting bank accounts to move money, fight fraud and improve lending. Now with AI. Okay. Google targets global network employed by hackers that often use devices running in homes of everyday Americans. Google took steps to seize control of dozens of domains operating by IP Idea Chinese company accused of installing unwanted software on millions of devices. Yeah. On Wednesday, Google used a federal court order to get dozens of domains belonging to. I can't pronounce this. Ipadia. Ipadia. Ipodia. Ipodeia. Ipodea. Remember the Internet? Google and security researchers say the mysterious company. If you're going to be a hacker collective building a massive cyber weapon build, pick a name that no one can pronounce and where you just won't go viral. Yeah, yeah, yeah. If it was like, you know, like evil corporate, like there's some, there's some really crazy hacker collectives that are called Anonymous or like there's another one that was called like, like Black Sands or like Dark Wind and you're just like oh, okay, sounds ominous. I'm definitely going to talk about that. This is much harder but we will call it iPodia. Ipodeia. Ipodeia. IPodea. Throw a Texas accent on it. So Google and security researchers say the mysterious Chinese company is an unsavory enterprise that sneaks unwanted and dangerous software on millions of phones, home computers and Android devices. Control of the domains allowed Google to both shut down the public websites and technical back end of the company which oper using more than a dozen brand names. Google has also taken steps to remove hundreds of apps affiliated with the company from Android devices. It said the actions are expected to knock more than 9 million Android devices off iPodia's network. They target a little known but important part of the Internet that has increasingly worried cybersecurity experts. It's Called residential proxy networks, these online services are built out of apps that are installed on virtually any type of Internet connection device. IoT devices are joining these networks. Among them media players, PCs, mobile phones. Companies such as iPidia then rent out access to the devices to paying customers who want to use the Internet anonymously. So it's sort of like a distributed VPN for anyone who wants an anonymous. Last year Google sued the anonymous operators network of more than 10 million Internet connections, televisions, tablets and projectors saying they had secretly pre installed residential proxy software on them. That is sketchy. Wednesday's action was a continuation of an order Google received. It's gotta be so annoying to sue an anonymous person. You're just like I sue you. Yeah, you have been served, whoever you are. So interesting. Ipodilla does have spokeswomen. A spokeswoman acknowledged in an email that the company and its partners had engaged in, quote, relatively aggressive market expansion strategies and conducted promotional activities in inappropriate venues, that is Hacker forums. They just shared this. She said that it had since improved its business practices. There are legitimate uses for iPodIA service which can be used to surf the Internet anonymously or scrape websites for data. But from the time the companies first gained prominence in late 2022, it marked its services in criminal marketplaces. It marketed the services in criminal marketplaces which tracks. So residential proxies have become a go to service for criminals and state sponsored hackers that want to cover their attracks. It's a consumer issue and it's a national security issue. At the same time it's enabling some of the most serious threats to our country. So less about you install some app and then it's stealing all of your data. More like it's stealing your bandwidth and enabling. Enabling criminal activities. Criminal activity which could just be a business that wants to scrape a big tech company. It could just be somebody who wants a friendly bot farm maybe. Yeah, I mean all sorts of things that are like violations of TOS or you can get really dark with the dark web, but everything in between and the problem centers around them. Like actively marketing to dark web participants or hacker collection collectives potentially. The company operates at least 13 residential proxy brands with names such as iPodIA, 922 proxy, PY proxy, 360 proxy, all of which were taken offline with Wednesday's action. The spokeswoman, she just can't stop talking to the Journal. She said the company has always explicitly opposed any form of illegal or abusive conduct. Okay. With compliant operations. At its core, the company provides stable and Reliable data services for enterprise across various industries. Just the most. The most criminal company that you've ever heard of saying. With compliant operations at its core, our company provides stable and reliable data services enterprises across various industries. These services are mainly applied to legitimate business scenarios. Mainly just like not exclusively. Fully. Fully exclusively was right there. You could have taken exclusively. She's just like digging, digging the whole. These services are mainly applied to legitimate business scenarios such as data collection, market intelligence analysis, ad verification and anti fraud. Most people get put on the networks by installing mobile games or desktop software that has secretly included the residential proxy code. You can take your phone to work. You'Re going 150 miles an hour. It's like, officer, I was mainly going the speed limit. I know. You caught me going 150. Yeah. Last fall, a group of hackers discovered a security flaw in millions of devices on iPodia's vast network of devices. By leveraging that bug, they seized control of at least 2 million of the systems. They built a botnet of their own and used it to launch a distributed denial of service or DDoS attack. So you download some kind of sketchy mobile game. In the terms of service, it says, hey, look, we're going to piggyback on your bandwidth. Because you installed this, you're agreeing to that. Maybe, maybe that's okay. Pretty sketchy, probably shouldn't be happening. But you know, clearly, like, they went way too far. We're marketing it. And then also, you know, if it's insecure and then a separate hacker network steals the access to that, then they just have 2 million devices that they can just blast at whoever their enemy is and bring them down. Anyway, fascinating story. Let me tell you about Shopify. Shopify is the commerce platform that grows with your business and lets you sell in seconds online, in store, on mobile, on social, on marketplaces. Now with AI agents, the comments on the Journal are kind of going off on this. Steve C. With 174likes on this says, thank you, Google. I wish you great success on this operation. That just seems earnest. It is. I feel the same way. I feel the same way. Thank you, Google. This is what modern warfare looks like. You don't have to have a physical battlefield to experience an attack. Blow these digital terrorists to smithereens. Yes, yes. Thank you, Google, for blowing the digital terrorists to smithereens. And thank you for Gemini 3 Pro, Google's most intelligent model yet. State of the art reasoning. Next level, vibe coding. Deep multimodal understanding. So, should we head over to the mansion section? Harry Macklow. He lost his 4, 3, 2, park spread. Now. Now it's selling for over $50 million. He was an owner at the Midtown supertall, and he's agreed to buy the full floor spread from CIM Group. He's the developer of the embattled Manhattan condo tower, 432 Park Avenue. And he's made a deal to sell a full floor spread that once belonged to its partner on the project, legendary New York property magnate Harry Macklow. The deal for more than 50 million caps a saga that has captured the attention of New York's real estate world. CIM Group is selling the two 78th floor units to a buyer who already owns an apartment in the Billionaires Row building, According to two people familiar with the matter. If it closes at this price, the deal will be one of the priciest to sell in Manhattan in the last year. Macklow, who worked on the design and development of 432Park alongside California based CIM, bought two units in the supertall for himself for $47 million in 2022, financing the purchase with loans provided by CIM. Hey, no one's blinking an eye at this circular deal. It's fine. See, it's not just AI companies that do circular deals. They're doing it in Manhattan real estate too. The deal included a third smaller unit on the 28th floor designed for staff. It isn't clear if it's included in the current sale. Macklow, perhaps best known for his role in developing the Apple cube on fifth Avenue. If you've seen the Apple store in Manhattan, is this glass cube very cool? He filled the spread with modern art and minimalist furniture. He had sculptural egg shaped bathroom custom designed in blue glass. He likes glass. But CIM initiated a foreclosure on the units in 2023, alleging that Macklow was living lavishly while defaulting on those loans. Macklow was forced to move out of the spread and in June 2025 surrendered his equity in the entities he used to buy the apartments to a lender tied to cim, bankruptcy records show. Shortly after surrendering the equity, Macklow tapped real estate brokerage firm Douglas Elliman to list the apartments for 75 million. Even though he didn't own them. The listing never happened. The spread is currently configured as two separate apartments. A fully furnished, roughly 7,000 square foot unit has four bedrooms while the raw space is about 12,000 square feet. Well, a raw space is about 12,000 sq ft. The smaller unit was originally intended for Macklow's then wife, Linda Macklow. But she chose not to close on the purchase amid their divorce battle in the 2010s. The apartments have the building's signature design flourishes, including a series of 10 by 10 foot windows with recessed seating nooks. Meanwhile, Macklow is still trying to sell his Hamptons mansion, which doesn't have a certificate of occupancy, meaning it can't legally be lived in. You got a squat. He recently increased the price to 38 million from 35 million. I love that. Yeah. This house is not selling price. Maybe. Maybe it's a veblen good. Maybe I got a chance. Maybe I got to get the price up. 35 is not getting. Not getting people interested in maybe. 11 labs build real, intelligent, real time conversational agents reimagine human technology interaction with 11 labs. Speaking of 11 labs, Rianne Kimmel. Oh, yeah. Joined 11 labs. Congratulations. Some trade deals, personnel news. She's going to be building out their creative platform. She says today, voice is one of the best ways to interact with technology. People are tired of slop, brain rot and doom scrolling, which means every company needs to find its voice and adapt to the changing needs of their customers. Creative platform is how they'll do it. In my new role, I'll focus on our newest product. Our all in one solution for enterprise teams to create lifelike audio, original music and end to end video experiences. Whoa, whoa. We're already powering audiobooks with character consistent voices, voiceovers for YouTube and podcasts, game studios with original character voices, localization. So very excited for this move, Brianne. If you do go into video, make sure you get on restream one livestream 30 plus destinations. If you want a multi stream brand, go to restream.com. so lots of people are tracking the Oscars. Lots of people are tracking the Super Bowl. Lots of people are. Who's gonna win? Who's gonna win the Emmys, the Grammys, all these things. What are we tracking? Never crossed my mind. We're tracking the Wall Street Journal House of the year. And it's here. And it's a cottage. It's a storybook. Storybook cottage. And it got a fairy tale ending. That's right. The M.J. murphy designed home in Carmel Highlands sold for 4 million before our readers voted it their favorite. I love it. When Floor Mora. When Floor Mora closed on her new home for 4 million in November 2025, she knew she was acquiring a piece of California history. What she didn't realize was that she was also buying the future house of the year. Let's Go floor. Congratulations. What a pick. It's really it is the super bowl of real estate and architectural design. The Property, built in 1925 and located in the Carmel Highlands, is an example of early 20th century storybook architecture characterized by features such as curved roofline and stone chimney. The style is synonymous with the neighboring city of Carmel by the Sea, which is known for its fairy tale aesthetic. Maura, who works in healthcare and owns an avocado ranch in San Diego, spent years admiring the home when she that's raining. Wow. Yeah, every time I drove down that street, this home has always stood out to me, said Maura, 49. I would admire it and quietly hope that one day it would be mine. The dream materialized last year, but with an unexpected twist. After Maura purchased the property, which, unbeknown to her, had been featured as a House of the Year Week House of the Week pick in September, readers had already voted to crown it the House of the Year in the Year End poll. It came as a complete surprise, says Maura. The path to the winner's circle was paved by a significant transition. The home, who was designed by famed builder M.J. murphy, who is largely responsible for Carmel by the Sea signature look, had been owned by John and Beth needle since 1986, quite a long time. For the couple, the house represented four decades of historical preservation. Beth, who's in her 80s, and her extended family were no longer able to use the home as much as they'd like to. John died three years ago, and his estate placed the property on the market last June. Media exposure from the initial figure feature generated market traction, according to listing agent Ashley Whelan. Three different people reached out to her after the article ran. One ended up in a showing, she said, but it didn't end up being the right fit for them. While the home's architecture drew interest, a price cut from 4.77 million, how much. Do you think winning Home of the Year actually adds to the property's value? Yeah, I would guess if she relisted it now, it'd go for at least. 5, 6, 30, maybe 45. I was talking 5, 6 billion. Yeah, yeah, yeah, for sure. No, it is interesting. 3. Three different people reached out after featuring in like as a House of the Week. That feels like low. Like it feels like it should be much higher given that, you know, this, this physically ships to people. Like, like a lot of people see this and if you're in the area, you're probably going to to at least, you know, say, hey, I want to take a look if you're down the street. But I don't know, who knows? Maybe she says, I was very honored to purchase an M.J. murphy home. I definitely want to keep the original structure, but just update it slightly. What do you think she's going to do, John? She's going to have Alec Monopoly come. Yeah. He's like, I'm going to keep the. I'm going to keep the footprint. Yeah. Yeah. I'm going to just make some slight updates. It's like Alec Monopoly wallpaper everywhere. Have you seen the graffiti house? Are you familiar with this? No. So there's this graffiti artist who is. Sounds like a nightmare. It's insane. We have to find this, like, graffiti, graffiti house. So the graffiti house. This Guy is a YouTuber content creator, and he will do the whole house, like, as supreme or something like that and, like, paint the whole thing a bunch of different ways. I saw a video with him and who's that guy that does the. What do you do? What do you do for a living, Daniel? Oh, yeah, I found the video. You found the video? Okay. Send that in. I'll tell everyone about Fin AI, the number one AI agent for customer service. If you want AI to handle your customer support, go to Fin AI. Do we. We actually have the video? Because we can. We found the video on. On none other than Facebook. No way. Okay. Yes. This is it. Yes. And a hilarious intro too, if this is the one that I'm thinking of. Hilarious intro because Daniel Mack randomly at my gate, unplanned, Like I'm not even miked up. Yeah. Let's see the mansion. He's like breaking the fourth wall there. I really like that. Oh, he's got rolls rolling by. Yeah, just a random. Random rolls in. Yeah. Wow, that's crazy. Let's see it. Let's see it. This is all paint. Yeah. Well, first we paint, then we party. Then we party and then we paint. What's the craziest version? Look at. Look at how he painted this house. It looks like cartoon Supreme. Look at the supreme house. Hey, he wasn't kidding. Well, you know, there was that one. And then there was. Oh, you just popped him a chop with a. That one was crazier than the first one. And then this one time there was like. Oh, my God, all the foam stuff. All right, let's get. Let's get in here. Can you imagine being the next door neighbor? Can you imagine being in Carmel Highlands? And the storybook cosmic gets a fairy tale ending. Daniel Mack showing up. This is the ending. This is the Ending it just, she's. Like, I'm just gonna, I'm gonna leave the original footprint. I'm gonna turn it into the Carmel supreme house. Look at all the LEDs. This is, this is understated. This is quiet luxury for sure. This is loud, opulous. What do you do with all the. Cans in your d? No, funny enough, actually, we never throw away any cans. Fan cans do one with you. You sign it. If you're watching right now, you can win a fan can from Dan. Yeah, very, very fun. Anyway, console. Console builds AI agents that automates 70% of it. HR and finance support giving employees instant resolution for access requests and password resets. The co working market is roaring back to life. Yeah. A new breed of co working is fueling an industry comeback. The pandemic and the office markets collapse slammed the shared workspace business. Now growing economic uncertainty and the rise of AI are compelling firms once again to embrace when selecting office space, embrace flexibility when selecting office space. President Trump's proposal to restrict Wall street landlords from buying existing homes sent chills through the institutional investor community. What? How is, how is everything a political story? It's ridiculous. Are you a co working guy? I've never been, I've never been into that whole world. Co working the. Yeah, never, never. Never was that into it. Except like, remember that random crossover where I, I worked out of the Soylent office? Oh, yeah. It turned into a co working space. Basically bought way too much real estate. Yeah, they just had way too much space. It was really cool concept. They just said like, hey, we're gonna make like a kind of a startup zone. The problem with co working spaces is, I mean it's fine if you, if you get an office and then you can go there and like close the door and lock in and it's just like a place with wi fi and it's like your own little like monk mode zone. But if you just have a floating desk, a lot of the co working spaces will wind up with just a lot of people that are there to network and chat and talk your ear off and you just get nothing done. And they can quickly turn into like, oh, there's beer on tap. I'm just socializing, I'm not actually grinding. And so it can be difficult. But when done correctly, I'm sure you can have a good time. And who knows, maybe it's coming roaring back. Let me tell you about TurboPuffer, serverless vector and full text search built from first principles on object storage. Fast 10x cheaper and extremely scalable and I want to go through this $140 million mansion in Saint Tropez on the French Riviera, a waterfront estate that overlooks the Mediterranean. Look at this. In an exclusive enclave in one of the world's most famous playgrounds for the wealthy, a waterfront estate on the Mediterranean Sea is seeking well over $100 million. Art collector Andrea Priest is asking 115 million euros or almost 140 million USD for roughly 2 acre property located in Les Parks of Saint Tropez, most the most exclusive community there. The coastal town on the French Riviera has long lured the rich and famous, including billionaires Ken Griffin and Bernard Arnault, who both own properties there. The Priest estate was completed in late 2025 and took about eight years to build. Wow. Thinking in decades there overnight success. Pries is the founder of Priest Fine Arts, an art photography gallery in Vienna. I was just in Vienna. I don't know if I actually saw this when I was walking around, but I'm shocked that art photography. We need Dylan. We need Dylan to chime in here because this might be one of those things where it's like, you know somebody who like owns an NFL. Yes, yes. Who are they? They also own all of the gas, every chemical, every stone. They own all the stones in the world. They own all the minerals in the ground. And then they start started a gallery that does $2 million a year in. Sales and now they've rebranded, loses $2 billion a year. The gated estate includes a roughly 10,000 square foot main house, a pool house and a 90 foot swimming pool. A partially completed one bedroom studio was intended for a security guard. They couldn't even finish it. What? But the new owner said they would use it as they wish. I guess they leaving it unfinished that you can choose what you want to do and you can still move in and then just polish that up. The property includes a private tennis court which is rare over there. Attached to the main house is a roughly 8,600 square feet of terrace space. Wow. Inside, all of its eight bedrooms have views of the Mediterranean. Amenities include a chef's kitchen, secondary kitchen designed to handle large scale culinary preparations and events with a dumb waiter that transports items to the main kitchen area. There's also a spa with a steam sauna and a mosaic hammam. I don't know what that is. As well as a gym with around $200,000 worth of equipment. I wonder if they have any 45 pound plates in there or they skipped on. Is funny hearing hearing that. That's including the context of the $140 million home. Yeah, because it's like, it doesn't. You can go up. You don't have to go that far in your house to like end up with like a couple hundred grand. For two hundred grand you can have the. Just the bathtub is probably $200,000. There's 165 residences in this community which are rarely available for purchase. Many homes in the community are sold privately rather than listed for sale. Ken Griffin in 2024 spent more than $90 million on an estate on the Tahiti beach, which is a roughly seven minute drive from this new house that hit the market. Lambda Lambda is the super intelligence cloud building, AI supercomputers for training and inference that scale from one GPU to hundreds of thousands. I can't wait anymore, John. Let's bring him in. Let's bring in our first. We have our first guest, Jim Lanzone. He's the CEO of Yahoo. And he's. Live in the TVP ultradome. We had breakfast with him earlier today, had a great chat. We're very excited to have you live in the studio. Welcome, welcome to the show. How are you doing? I'm doing great. You guys got me, you know a. Reason it's a green blazer. Said it's hard to get you in a. Any blazer but the green one, even. I need, I want to, you know. We'Re gonna be following up after the show. That's fantastic. Anyway, introduce yourself since this is your first time on the show. Let everyone know who you are, what you do. Jim Lanzone, CEO of Yahoo, which been doing now a little bit over four years. Everybody knows Yahoo is the 30 year old, you know, original guide to the Internet. But we are the turnaround team who've been kind of putting it back on the mat. Yeah, I want to get into the turnaround, but first let's back up and start with a little bit of your career. What led you to CEO of Yahoo? I don't know how it happened, but I kind of became the turnaround guy. I had a startup in the 90s, consumer startup. We wound up selling that to Ask Jeeves. I joined there as the head of product and became CEO. That was the first turnaround in search. I did my first 10 or 12 years in search. We sold that to IAC and I worked for Barry Diller, then there for a few years, left to do a startup again that the investors were Bill Gurley from Benchmark, Jeff Yang at Redpoint, and we wound up selling. That was a video search engine for, like the original, you know, first few years of TV and video on the Internet. We sold that to cbs, where I joined as the head of digital, and that wound up turning into an eight year adventure. We founded what was called CBS All Access at the time. It's now called Paramount Plus. That was our baby. No way. Yep. I'm user number one in the logs for that thing. We wound up eventually having our own show, Star Trek. We brought that back. That was really fun. Time period. Hey, or do you still get a free account? You get to watch UFC for free now. I don't know if you're still tracking. Hope they're not listening. I find.

NEWSMAX