Lyn Alden: Nothing Stops This Train. Not Even AI.

0:00This is an I Heart Podcast. Guaranteed Human. We believe in starting with your financial goals, not a formula. At Appenheimer, we put the full strength of our longstanding expertise to work, understanding your life and your ambitions, and designing the precise strategies that build and protect your wealth with confidence across this generation and the next. Get the power of Appenheimer thinking to work for you. Wealth Management, Capital Markets, Investment Banking.

1:02Do you love golf? If so, you should listen to Three-Put Bogie. I'm Chuck Bryant from the Stuff You Should Know Podcast. And I'm Adam Pranica from a couple of embarrassing hit start track podcasts. In each week on Three-Put Bogie, we're going to get into the bunker and get to the bottom of what is just so alluring and frustrating about the most beautiful game in the world. Whether you're someone who pipes it on the driving range, that freezes up on the tee box. Or misses that Three-Put putt when everything's on the line. Where they're to laugh about it with you on Three-Put Bogie, the podcast about two mid-handy capers, one great shot, and the three putt that spoils it all. You can listen to it now on the I Heart Radio App Apple Podcast or wherever you get your podcast. On Big Lives, we take a single cultural icon. People like Jane Fonda, George Michael, Little Richard. And we pull apart the story behind the image, discovering forgotten interviews that change exactly how we see these giants of our culture.

2:03We're here for the messy, the brilliant, the human version of our heroes. I'm Emmanuel Jocci. I'm Kai Wright. And this is Big Lives. Listen to Big Lives on the I Heart Radio App Apple Podcast or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey everybody, it's me, Debbie C'mon Bell. This season on my podcast Who's With Me, I speak with Bruce Lee's daughter, Brandon Lee's sister, and my friend, Shannon Lee. Back to your initial point of stewarding my father's legacy and giving my energy to that. You're lending your life to stewarding somebody else's life. Listen to Who's With Me with Debbie C'mon Bell on the I Heart Radio App Apple Podcast or wherever you get your podcasts. Put up this Jay Valentine co-host of the R&B Money Podcast alongside my brother, R&B Legend, Tank. Together we've built a space for artists, executives, and fans of R&B music to reminisce and tell the real stories behind the music. I have no money. I was hood famous. They think you're going to get everybody out.

3:04We lived in a project. And real love came out. They hear them music and we had nothing. From Smokey Robinson to Mary J. Blige, B2K to Jill Scott. If you're a super dedicated R&B fan, this is where you belong. It's the R&B Money from the Black Effect Podcast Network on the I Heart Radio App Apple Podcast or wherever you get your podcasts. One recent episodes of The Quest Love Show I chatted with JoJo about her music and Walu 267 about her story and everything in between. Don't invite me to karaoke. I'm going to make it weird. Someone's going to try to sing, leave get out or too little too late or baby too. Oh no. And I'm going to be like, I did okay, cool. Check out my conversation with JoJo Walu 267 and more on The Quest Love Show. On the I Heart Radio App, Apple Podcast or wherever you get your podcasts. Peace. The problem is when you have over 100% death of GDP, when you raise interest rates, you actually blow out the fiscal deficit by a bigger dollar figure than you slow down private sector bank nothing. And so the feds tools get murkier.

4:04So because of sort of the loss of productivity with aging population, we need to make up the gap. And so our death to GDP has gotten extremely high. The ways to get the deficit down meaningfully are tiny. It's kind of like, you know, trying to hold multiple like beach balls underwater. The clarity act is dead at least for now. And it seems like the regulatory agency said fine, then game on. I think the things that can be tokenized or should be tokenized will, I think trading will keep expanding towards 247. I'm not even sure it's a good thing, but it's a thing. If nothing stops the fiscal train, but if AI makes the economy more productive, what happens when those two collide? All right, Lynn. Well, thank you. Thank you for joining back here. It's been over a year since we talked and there's a lot to discuss. So thanks for taking the time. Happy to be here. Thanks for having me. I'm excited again. I have a lot of stuff I want to discuss with you. So it was a little bit over a year ago that we talked last time. And you know, you've been, you've been making it very clear that fiscal deficits, they're

5:07unlikely to disappear. Nothing stops this train. But it doesn't necessarily mean that there was immediate collapse coming. I've been focusing on more of the optimistic side, the different part of the equation, which is so much capital going into AI, equipment, industrial capacity. And so the question let's start with is if nothing stops the fiscal train, but if AI makes the economy more productive, what happens when those two collide? Yeah, it's a good question. You basically get a spectrum of price changes because productivity doesn't apply equally. It gets targeted in certain areas. And one of the closest things we can look at is, for example, what happened with electronics over the past 30 years. The combination of offshoreing and just Moore's law made it so that despite decades of money printing, a TV drilling got cheaper over time, even in nominal terms. It's one of the few categories that didn't inflate. And so what you do when you map out inflation for different categories, there tends to be

6:09a spectrum where the scarce things will generally go up roughly in the line to money supply growth because they don't really get better at making them. That's fine art or water from property, things like that. Then one notch lower is gold where we increase the supply by something like one or two percent a year, but we don't get exponentially better at making it so that historically it grows a little bit slower than money supply growth, obviously it's volatile. Then you get the things like houses, normal houses, oil, labor intensive things, like hospital services, things like that. Then you get down to textiles, grains, and then cheap plastic toys and electronics. So you get this spectrum where productivity growth pushes down prices on one side while prices are still going up with money supply growth in the other. And I think AI gives us a similar outcome here, of course, it will depend on how much more productive it makes us relative to the inputs that it takes. I mean, there's inflationary components.

7:10But in general, we should expect that various white collar services just get way more abundant and therefore cheaper, even as you have the scarce things that still exist going up with money supply. And I think that's how we can think of it in the years and decades ahead. That's good. A lot of nuance to dig into there. So what I really want to explore with you is that side of the equation, the growing ourselves out equation, something I've spent a lot of time thinking about and researching. But before we dig into that side of it, let's just set it up with maybe just a short explanation I know you've done it a hundred times. But for my audience, just give us a short explanation of the fiscal train that you talk about that won't stop running, the fiscal dominant position that we're in. Set that up for us. Yeah, so the US is running something like 7% of GDP deficits. It's kind of like 6% on a good year. And that's pretty much locked in. That's demographic. So we have a title system that's kind of designed so that with the expectation that every generation

8:14is bigger than the prior one. And that's not really happening anymore. You know, the baby generation, it's a very top heavy generation and then we have lower fertility rates. We have this top heavy, both Social Security and Medicare Medicaid. And we have the highest per capita health care cost of the world for very complex reasons. And we have very large defense budget. And then the economic kicker is that for 40 years, we had rising debt to GDP but falling into trades. And so interest expense was well contained. But once we bounce off zero and started going sideways to maybe up, interest expense exploded. And the challenge is that the Fed's tools for slowing down inflation involve higher rates. You make interest rates higher. It slows down borrowing, slows down fractures or money creation. But the problem is when you have over 100% debt to GDP, when you raise interest rates, you actually blow out the fiscal deficit by a bigger dollar figure than you slow down private sector bank lending.

9:16And so the Fed's tools get murkier for containing inflation. They're not to say that they're entirely ineffective but it's kind of like two steps forward, two steps back. And they'll affect certain parts of the economy differently. In some areas they can actually stimulate. I mean, when they boost interest rates, it basically means a cash rich senior that has a fixed rate mortgage locked in. If they have a mortgage job, let's say they have a fixed rate mortgage locked in, then they have a lot of cash and let's say a money market. They actually get a raise when the Fed boosts interest rates. They can actually go out and spend more than they could before the raise. A marginal amount, every 25 basic points makes a difference. So the Fed's just kind of more limited on what it can suppress. And the two main sources of money creation, one is fractures or bank lending. Another one is monetized fiscal deficits. And this type of inflation is more driven by the fiscal side compared to the 70s, which you know, it's almost always both, but in the 70s there's more driven by that bank lending

10:19side. So this creates a different environment. And then the kind of the kicker, like why it's even harder for the U.S. to deal with this than many other countries, is that we're so heavily financialized. We have 200% like our stock markets, we're over 200% of our GDP. We have global capital for other worlds kind of stuffed in our various assets. And our tax income is pretty top heavy because we have more wealth concentration than the average developed country. A lot of taxes are paid by the top few percent. They often, especially the top point, some percent, they often get paid in an executive compensation through shares. They pay capital gains taxes on appreciating assets. And if they even were to try some degree of pre-serious austerity, which is hard to do because of how locked in the politics are. But let's say they were to try, probably with a leg, you'd get weaker stock market prices. And then the tax receipts from that would diminish, which actually makes it harder to cut

11:24the deficit than even like the hawks would want. And so it's this very complex, gourdian knot that has less than 1% of being entangled any time in the next 10 plus year. And it's sort of an investible time horizon. And that's just like a run-it-hot, fiscal environment to be aware of, investing-wise. Yeah. The knot that's unlikely to be entangled. It is a very complex knot. And it's not easy to just sort of simplify that. But one of the factors that you're talking about is the demographics. And I remember the first Harry Dent wrote a book called The Demographic Cliff, probably over a decade ago. It was first time I sort of really dug into that. Peter Zions done a lot of talk about that. He said China is going to be gone in like 2030 because the demographic problem that they have. But then we have automation. And then we have robots coming. So things change. And he can't just hold it down to one of those things. But in this type of environment, it sounds like if I simplify it, not trying to oversimplify

12:28it, but two core problems. So because of sort of the loss of productivity with the aging population, we need to make up the gap. And then the gap has been deficit spending debt driving that. And so our debt to GDP has gotten extremely high, over 120% that did. Now you've have an amazing chart of when we got out of that similar situation in World War II through financial repression. So letting the economy run hot through inflation, repressing yields. And so we were able to sort of grow away out of that. I think through a combination of both financial repression, liquidation of government debt, and high growth because of the re-industrialization after World War II. So we didn't necessarily pay off the debt, but we got out of the high debt to GDP area that we're in. We got growth growing again, right? I mean, does that, I know it's an oversimplification, but does that sort of summarize how we got out of this in the past? Yeah, that's historically how the US and other developed countries get out of a very dead situation.

13:28Instead of nominally defaulting, they default through purchasing power in a partial sense. So yeah, they financial repression the way out of it. Combination of growth and financial repression. Yeah. Now, Scott was sent. He came out and said that 40 trillion is just a number. The 40 trillion dollars of debt that we have is just a number. It's another magical about that number. And then of course, him along with most of the Trump administration talks about growing away out of this. Now the one thing I would say I think about is the 40 trillion is a big number, obviously, but compared to what? So we often hear about the debt, but compared to what, right? So from a homeowner perspective, last couple of weeks, Robert Kiyosaki, a vanity fair article ran on him, he was getting roasted online. He has 1.2 billion in debt. People are like, oh, he should read Rich Dad Poor Dad. Sure. 1.2 billion in debt against how much in assets though, right? Is it against 10 billion in assets? And so we hear 40 trillion dollars, but against what?

14:29So is it just a magical number? Is it something that we could grow our way out of? Could we increase GDP enough to grow out of that? So those are some of the things that I want to talk about. So we saw, you know, after the, what are we called Trump, Trump introduced, the Trump admin introduced the tariffs. We saw over 10, 11 trillion dollars, Brookings papers that about 10 and a half trillion dollars of commitments to build out in the US. 10 trillion dollars, building out in the US is a lot. I mean, because that goes into moving dirt and pouring concrete and running wires. I mean, that's jobs. That's like, that's, that's, that's a, that's real growth. And if that were to happen, that's, we don't know yet, obviously. But if that were to happen, that would be a lot of GDP growth. And so we are, it looks like we are starting to see some of that, right? We saw the jobs report that came out. The last jobs report, very strong. I think it was about 65,000 of those jobs were in manufacturing. We see durable goods increasing things like that.

15:30It looks like some of that's starting to work. So if we were to get this 10 and a half trillion dollars of AI infrastructure built out of the next couple of years, that is sort of, and I think the Kobayashi layer had put out of a chart showing us will be this more money building out this boom than any other technology in history. How does that work to help offset that 40 trillion dollar, that non-magical number of percent call it? Hey, look, over 130 million in Bitcoin was just stolen from cold card hardware wallets. This is the largest hardware wallet hack in history. And the sad part about this is that the victims did it everything right. They had real devices. They kept it all offline, but there was a small, firmware update that led hackers access their Bitcoin wallets and completely drained them. Now, don't blame self-custody. Self-custody isn't a problem. It's single key custody. That's the problem. When you have a single point of failure. So here's what I actually do. I've been doing this for years because I was always afraid something like this could happen. Now, this happened before Unchained ever sponsored me. I was a customer and it's my Bitcoin.

16:30It's my parents. It's my sister. My family's Bitcoin. And it all sits in what we call multi-sig wallets. And I do that with Unchained Capital. Instead of one wallet and having one key, there's three keys on three different devices, three different places from three different companies. Okay. I hold two in different locations, Unchained Hold One. And it takes two of those wallets to move anything, which means like this exact hack right now that got everybody drained. One compromise key won't be enough. It probably sounds complicated. Don't worry. Unchained has a concierge service where they can walk you through the entire thing one on one. And they're going to build out your fault. They'll test your recovery. They'll have an expert review everything, making sure you don't have any problems. If you want to do the same thing I do, it's in there having my family do. Go to Unchained.com slash mark moss again. Unchained.com slash mark moss. Set it up right. Do it once. Don't get vulnerable to a hack like this. Well, right. I think basically you're going to get both numbers going up nominally in a very long period of time. You're going to get debt going up to 40 trillion, 50 trillion, 60 trillion, 70 trillion,

17:32and so forth. And you're going to get nominal GDP continue to go up. And the deficit partially fuels the nominal GDP. And just because the denominator is weakening over time. And the more productive that spending is, the bigger gap you can get between money supply growth and inflation. Back in the 90s, when you had the build out of the internet and you had offshoreing, you had a bigger than normal gap between how much money supply was growing and what inflation was because you had more inflationary offsets. On other periods of time, like let's say the 2000s, you don't really have as many offsets. And so you get that inflation is closer to the money supply growth. And part of the productivity growth is why I don't think we're going to average 7% inflation for the next 10 years. And we're going to get something like 7% money supply growth on average. And inflation is going to be some number below that because we're going to get most likely positive productivity unless we just blow a thing up with war or something. And we were talking before the call.

18:34I mean, I just got back from Egypt. I mean, they have 15% inflation there. And that's just that's normal background inflation for them. I mean, it's down officially from 38%. So they're big relief for them. Yeah. I was there for months. And no one's like, yeah, inflation's crazy. It's just like that's a normal one day there. And so I just think that basically going forward, there's multiple ways this can play out. But the kind of the background that we're dealing with is that just compared to the 2010s, which was a more deflationary decade, we're just kind of locked into a above kind of normal inflation environment. How much above normal will large depend on productivity growth as well as, you know, how they measure it. But again, you get that it's a spectrum. So for example, we're not getting radically better at making waterfront property than we were, you know, five years ago. But we are, you know, we, for example, translation services just got radically more cheaper. Right. So we can have AI to edit services and all sorts of things.

19:37You know, almost, you know, any sort of like a lot of white collar work and we'll see how robotics goes. And so, you know, basically the numbers just keep going up. And you know, automation is also why like dooms on Japan, like I tend to be more bullish on Japan than average because it's a very organized society. They, they obviously have very big fiscal issues. But they also, you know, they have a current account surplus. They have plenty of automation. And they are just a very productive society on average. So they've been able to kind of balance those two things. So I think China is probably going to navigate a similar, you know, kind of thread the needle as well where they're going to have decades of demographic challenges. And I think they're going to offset it by automation and other strengths that they have. And the US is, you know, just more of a run at hot type of environments. We're running bigger depths. It's the most of our peers. We're going to have bigger normal GDP growth than most of our peers.

20:38And you know, in that environment, you know, the people that are always calling for like a 80% down stock market event that just stays there. Or, you know, people that have been saying buy bonds for five years. I mean, you know, maybe now bonds are interesting, but you know, for years it's like buy bonds, not stocks. And things generally go higher than you think because we have this locked in, you know, 7% of GDP fiscal deficits that just keeps rolling along. So it's, when I phrase like that, it's not, you know, it's not doom or is it. It's just kind of reality with the caveat that when you have large fiscal deficits fueling things, generally speaking, obviously, the recipients of those deficits are going to be doing better than the non-recipients of those deficits. And the non-recipients are still dealing with the higher interest rates that those deficits are adding to. So they're kind of getting squeezed on both fronts. And that does contribute to a K-shaped economy. It does contribute to a two-speed economy. That's why you have, you know, record high stock market, but nearly record low consumer

21:39sentiment and things like that because, you know, there's, if you have assets, if you have locked in liabilities, you're on average feeling pretty good at this current time, whereas if you don't have a lot of financial assets, if you work for a living, you know, you're basically, you're getting, every time you go to the grocery store, anytime you pay, you're, you're health insurance, you're getting kind of squeezed over time and you feel like you're running in place compared to two, three, four, five years ago. You know, and you said, you know, you're not a doomer and you're certainly not. And, you know, I'll definitely give you credit. I always have loved your balance takes. Toa, toa tip you know, around staying out of politics, it's not getting dragged into, you know, the ideological stuff around this. And the doomerism, I saw you post something months ago, I think you're like, I don't want to go anymore of these podcasts where they, you know, paint it where I have this like shocking, you know, headliner or whatever. And I try to stay out of it. Unfortunately, people love that. So I'm, like I said, I'm sort of on the other side of that.

22:42So if we think about that, the 7% persistent deficits that we have, theoretically, if we could just keep spending as is and slow the pace of growth of spending a little bit, and tax receipts went up, we could lower that deficit. If GDP went up dramatically, the percentage of debt or deficit to GDP could go down. I, it's hard to model because it's a moving number, but I'm sure you're probably better at it than I am, but it seems like we need about 7% GDP growth to sort of like stop the growth of debt to GDP ratio. GDP right now, GDP now projects a 5% GDP growth. If we see this 10, 11 trillion dollars start to really come through, I think maybe getting from 5 to 7% GDP growth may not be too hard to believe. So could we slow down that 7% debt to GDP or the deficit to GDP number that you're talking about? I think slightly, I mean, it's potentially, I think it's not in the wrong

23:45possible to get down to 6% or so. I think I would take the over on getting much lower than that. Now, one thing I tend to be not as like the kind of the bullish on is, you know, people expect the debt to GDP to keep going up, that that ratio, and even congressional budget off as, you know, when they map it out, they just kind of have this like, exponentially curving thing upwards. Whereas what I keep reminding is that the deficit normally fuels GDP as well. And so you can have an active situation where the nominal debt is rising very quickly. And the debt to GDP is roughly static, you know, it might be going down slightly, sometimes it might be going up slightly, sometimes, and it's just going on for a very long period of time. And I think that's roughly speaking what we're looking at. And when I say nothing stops is trading, it goes both ways. It's saying the ways to get the deficit down meaningfully are tiny on average, because that when you can start pressing one variable down, it's kind of like, you know, trying to

24:48hold multiple like beach balls underwater. It's like you push one and so there's that. But then the other side of the coin is that it's also not going to blow up any time soon. It's not going to, it's not going to hyperflate away in like three years, like some of some people are calling for things like that. Right. So it's just, it's this long run, kind of run it moderately hot environment. And people say, well, when will the debt matter? It's like, well, it matters right now for people that, you know, the reason they have like a 7% mortgage when they're looking to buy a home and like while price is still elevated, it's partially because of that fiscal deficit, right? So it depends on where you are in the economy. You know, if you're on the receiving side or if you're an asset holder, you're protected or as if you're not, that's why, you know, there's people are disgruntled, people are upset, people, it's polarizing out there. And so I think, and I think that environment, unfortunately, it's, it's, it's going to be here for a while.

25:50Yeah, the media doesn't seem to be doing any favors to anybody in this either. I want to give it to the K-shaped economy and, and we'll dig into some of that sentiment a little bit later. But if we, if we keep kind of pulling down this, pulling on this thread that we're in right now, then on the other side of it right now, we have the 10 year running away, you know, the rates, the rates are going up. The, you know, the analysts on, on X are saying that the feds lost control, the bond market's going higher, it's signaling massive fiscal stress in the US, the credit worthiness and on, on, on, on that whole story. On the other side of that, could it possibly be that the private sector is demanding a lot of capital right now and there may be more takers of the capital than there are suppliers of the capital potentially? Could it potentially be that the market is actually looking at really strong earnings and growth and pricing that higher as well? How do you see that sort of the long end of that,

26:54of that, that 10 year running away? And which side would you put that in fiscal stress? Or do you think it'd be a growth story? Hey, do you know that instead of sending your tax money to the IRS, you could buy Bitcoin miners with it instead? Here's exactly how I do it. You see, mining hardware is five year property. And under bonus depreciation, which was dying, it was down to about 40% last year and it was going to zero. The one big beautiful bill has reinstalled it back to 100% and made it permanent. So I can deduct the full cost of the machines in year one. Now look, billionaires have run this play for over 40 years. They do it with real estate, oil and gas, rail cars and it's the same provision in the code, but the only difference is what you own when it's done. So you see, I own the machines that produce the Bitcoin, but I don't have to do the work, block where it does all that. Blockware sources, the hardware, they secure the power, they run the sites and my tax team, they structure it so the deduction actually works. You see, that's how I turn my taxes into Bitcoin. So if you want to try and do the same thing, check out Blockware today to get started. Just go to blockwaresolutions.com slash market disruptors again, blockwaresolutions.com slash

27:58market disruptors. I think it's somewhere in the middle, which is the boring answer, but I think that's the correct answer. You're so full of knowledge. Well, here, because so for example, the yield curve right now is actually flatter than average. So when the long end is running away, that implies a steep yield curve. Like the basically you have a, you know, the long end is flying away compared to the short end, whereas right now the market is actually pretty, it's demanding not that much higher interest rates for long end than short end historically. I mean, you know, that's spread. It can go up to three to five percent, depending on what part of the yield curve we're talking about. And right now it's pretty modest. I mean, it's a positive yield curve, but it's not a very steep one. Right. So in long term interest rates are kind of roughly where they should be compared to short term interest rates, maybe even on the lower side, maybe maybe six percent wouldn't be insane. Now, the part that I think freaks people out is that, you know, when you have interest rates that high and you have a hundred twenty percent that the GDP and no, you know, realistic play in the slow

29:00that down in time soon, they're kind of doing the math and saying that, I mean, the interest rate is going to keep blowing out, the nominal debt levels are going to keep blowing out. And, you know, if you're, you know, if you're a long bonds, you know, it's like, would you want to be long gold when they just kind of like found the biggest deposit ever and it's like super close to the surface and it's going to, there's going to flood gold out into the world. That's what's happening if you're a bond holder right now is like, hey, you, you have bonds. Well, here's two trillion more bonds every year. It's going to, going up exponentially. And so that's, and the bond market is kind of demanding higher rates to be paid for that. And then also, to point that there's a, there's somewhat of a crowding out from, you know, like mega cap companies that are also issuing bonds, you know, before they were buying back their own stock and building fortress balance sheets and things like that. And now they're deploying all that. So they're actually competing with Uncle Sam. I would generally say that's a smaller figure because, and this goes back to what is fiscal dominance. So in monetary dominance, the private sector is generally doing the majority of, of

30:03borrowing lending, meaning that if you look at kind of net new bank loans in a given year, or let's say the sum of net new bank loans and net new corporate bond issuance, that sum will be bigger than the fiscal deficit, kind of the increase in public debt. And that's how it, on average, the US is most of the time. Now, in, in, since roughly 2018, 2019, when we kind of entered fiscal dominance, we entered this kind of demographic's cliff. We've been in a situation where, where public deficits generally exceed the entire sum of net new bank lending and net new corporate bond issuance in the US. And, you know, you can get an uptick, you know, you can get a few hundred billion extra. But again, the other side of that is two trillion. So, you know, you've, you know, a trillion plus and total, you know, private sector leverage increase in a given year, and you have two trillion in public debt increase. So I think a lot of it is just the, the, the bottom market, you know, it's just saying that, hey, if you're going to, if this is, if this is

31:06the fiscal behavior you're going to do, and if money splice is going to grow at 7 percent a year, if things are going to run hot, then the bottom market wants five or six percent yields on the long end of the current time. And then you have the Doomer crowd that says, well, that automatically should then be repricing equities. And so we should see, you know, multiples get compressed because of that. And that's not happening. And so is that because of the stronger earnings and job earnings and growth numbers that are coming out or that that that are anticipated? I think that's part of it. I mean, you pay up more for stocks that are growing than ones that are not growing. But also the, again, the fiscal deficit feeds back into that. I mean, earnings are growing partially because money splice growing partially because the fiscal deficit is running on. And, you know, so if we were to environment where deficits were low, and, you know, most of the most of the money creation was on the private sector, if they have interest rates super high, then usually that would put some downward pressure on valuations,

32:08as all is being equal. It would put some downward pressure on private sector bank lending slow it down. But when you have over 100 percent of debt to GDP, when they have five percent interest, again, that means there are entities in the economy getting a raise. That makes the higher rates. And I mean, there are corporations in that position too. I mean, there are corporations that locked in 20 years of debt at a fixed rate. And they've got cash and they're kind of like net debt neutral. And so the Fed increases its rates. They just get a raise. I mean, they're kind of opposite of a bank there. And so I think that it's just kind of, it's that middle of the road situation. And, you know, it's notable to see kind of the yield breaking out like they are. But again, I mean, we've not seen the treasure market to get super liquid. I mean, in recent weeks, it did get a little wobbly. It's not been as wobbly as it was in say 222 back when the yield market broke and the US treasure market got kind of messy. It's not nearly as broken as it

33:08was in March 2020. I mean, the treasure market just outweighed broke until the Fed came and fixed it. Repo facilities are not really being tapped. The move index is high, but not insane. And again, the yield curve is kind of roughly where it should be if anything maybe on the lower side. So it's, I mean, it's kind of, it's sort of almost business as usual. It's just that business as usual means extremely high industry spends and extremely high or moderately high nominal debt growth levels. That's kind of where we're at. And so it's not Doomer. The sky's not falling. The market's not crashing tomorrow. We're sort of in the middle, as you said. And we have growth, but we have high debt. And so we're sort of in that in that frame of the market. I also think back you mentioned how in Egypt, I mean, they came, I think he said 35% inflation down to 15%. And you can even look at places like Venezuela when, you know, have, have much higher Argentina. And like they just kind of just keep going. It just kind of keeps going. It's not good necessarily, but it keeps going.

34:09But I want to talk about the other side of things now a little bit. So let's jump onto the tech side because technology changes things. And I think it's changing the monetary system and the economic system as well. And I think that might change sort of the, some of these fixed constraints that we've been looking at. So let's just start with talking about technology and specifically around the Clarity Act. So the Clarity Act is dead at least for now. And it seems like the regulatory agencies said fine, then game on. What's your take on the Clarity Act dying and what that does for this next stage of this economic system being built out? Yeah, I mean, I think it's technology jelly moves things globally while obviously regulations can shape things around the margins. They can it can moderately accelerate and moderately slow it down. You know, there's still the genius act. So there's still is a change compared to years ago of kind of entrenched regulation. And then of course, as you point out, you know, regulators can interpret things differently and

35:11be laxed or be tight. And so I think we are seeing that the banking system is gradually shifting. It's a slow regulated old industry that has global connections and it deals with people's money. So it's kind of like, you know, it's like it's very conservative compared to something faster moving. But over time, we're seeing more and more stable coin integration. We're seeing obviously more and more neo banking. But on top of it, in just more seamless ways. And you know, if the old ones are not innovating, they're just kind of stagnating in terms of user count and people are going over to the newer better ones. And I think that that trend is going to keep continuing. I mean, anyone who who like anyone who sends international wires on a regular basis just knows how how antiquated terrible it is. Yeah, the global yeah, it's still silly. And and stable coins can address that. I mean, sometimes you'll I'll be asked by an American. I mean, what is stable coins do? It's like, well, for an American in America, sending money in America, I mean, we're already

36:15have efficient payment systems. I mean, stable coins only around the market do do things around the margins. Yeah. But we have Africa with 40 currencies or a lot of America with 30 currencies. Or even if, you know, if I'm sending money back and forth from Egypt or even back to Europe or something, I mean, it's just slow and expensive. And stable coins can make that more fish over time. It can reduce the ribbons cost. It can make just ease of doing business in any sort of international sense, especially if you're based aside of the US or often do business with entities outside of the US can just be more efficient, which can mean you unlock you, you may be less capital requirements to just keep the money because it can just turn around quicker so you don't have like money locked up through the financial pipes as much. And that's all, you know, that's all good around the margins. Okay, so I got to tell you what I've been doing with my money lately. I moved my cash over to River. And before you ask, yes, I still pay all my bills and dollars. Everything works the same, but here's the real difference. You see, River pays me 3.3% on my cash and they paid

37:16in Bitcoin. So my money that was just sitting there doing nothing at all in the bank, it's now stacking Bitcoin while I sleep. And I started thinking like, my bank takes my deposits, they loan those deposits out. They make 12 17 24% and they pay me 0.04%. I mean, honestly, that's kind of a shake down when you think about it. Now, rivers, FDIC insured, they use full reserve, they charge no fees. So I don't know why I didn't do this sooner. So click the link down below, get $100 in Bitcoin just for getting started. So, I mean, the stablecoins is one piece of it, which I think unlocks the bigger topic that I want to talk about, which is this tokenized future. And stablecoins obviously are part of that. And to your point, the banking system is old and antiquated and man, there are, there's a real threat to them with stablecoins. But specifically on the tokenization side of things, it looked like as soon as the clarity act was sort of shot down, you saw the SEC come out and expand their crypto rules. The CFTC chair, Selig also came out right away and said that he said to prepare quote for mass tokenization, including tokenized collateral 24 seven trading.

38:24And then right after that happened. So both the SEC said, hey, game on tokenize everything, basically, NASDAQ is going to start trading stocks and tokenized for them. The CFTC said 24 seven, tokenize everything, mass tokenization, they said, you had three black rock funds get tokenized this last week. Robinhood chain went live. So they're tokenized in their stocks, 120 countries have access to that. Even the DTCC is launching a tokenized service next month, October 2026. Larry Fink of course, black rocks says tokenize everything. And so it looks like clarity, I did CFTC and SEC says game on and it looks like we're full sprinting into tokenization. How much does that change things specifically around creating more velocity to the amount of money that we have, the wealth that we have? Well, I would separate payments from securities in that sense. So I think that when we look at how the stock markets function, I mean,

39:28it used to be able to call your broker to make a stock trade. Then of course, when we got online discount brokers, you could do it yourself, but a stock trade of like $15. I started trading internet stocks in the late 90s before there was the internet. It was terrible. Yeah. And it was expensive and slow. Of course, now trading is nearly free for a lot of people. It's very efficient. Overall, settle the times are getting faster. Again, I think the bigger benefits are those outside of the US. In the US, you have all these financial instruments opening a brokerage account is easy. It's very easy to trade. If you're trying to trade good stocks in another country, especially in the developing world where the most most population is, that could be a challenge, especially if you're not wealthy and you can just open account kind of wherever you want. And so kind of like how stablecoins take the basically the idea of an off-road bank account and just put it into your smartphone for nearly free.

40:33Tokenized assets can do that for equities and other types of assets. And I think that things that can be tokenized or should be tokenized will, I think trading will keep expanding toward 24.7. I'm not even sure it's a good thing, but it's a thing that happens. I don't think we look around and say, you know, it'd be great for society if we just had more things to trade more hours of the day. But that's where things go. Something that doesn't treat any value. Yeah, or like limited. I mean, obviously, there's value in liquid capital markets up to a point. And beyond that, it's kind of marginal. I think real productivity growth, I mean, going from, it used to take like two-thirds of the population to feed everyone. And then with hydrocarbons and tractors and things like that, one or two percent of the population can feed everyone. Then they go into manufacturing and over time robots, not even the humanoid ones, but just the robots we've had for decades. They made it so only

41:35small percentage of people have to work in manufacturing and then they can go into services. Now, obviously, AI is going to make services more abundant. So just the number of things that are abundant keeps going up. I think that's a bigger factor than financial modernization. In many cases, unless again, you're in Africa or Latin America in some places and you're doing a lot of cross-border stuff where you want more options of what currencies you're holding and things like that. I mean, that could be game-changing. Or if you had trouble accessing equities before, you wanted to own Apple and you couldn't and now you can. And so I think that's where the biggest gains are. But what about, so when we look at the economic, the health of the economy, the government uses the velocity of money. And so during the pandemic during 2020, their velocity of money basically stalled out. Nobody wanted to spend any money. They sent out the stimulus to try to stimulate the velocity going again. And so if we can get one dollar to create two dollars or three or four or five dollars of economic growth off of a single dollar. And so

42:36we have the money supply. It seems like everybody's screaming for more liquidity, more liquidity, the Fed's going to have to print, whatever more liquidity. And that's the money supply. But it's in times V. Right? So it's money is one side of it, but then there's the velocity side, which I think we're at about 1.4 right now. And so if we move money faster, but even more specifically, if we tokenize assets and we make the equity or the capital in those assets more liquid, and we increase the velocity of that even just a little bit, if we go from 1.4 to 1.6 or 1.7, that could add 10% to GDP. Obviously, it depends on where that money gets moved into. So if it's just into more trading, it's not productive. But if I were to mobilize some of my equity that's locked in my home, for example, and put into a productive asset, I mean, that could be very stimulative. And so, you know, obviously, Fortune 500 companies have a treasury person in house. Wealthy people have family offices, and that treasure is managing their equity. Most investors never even think about what

43:42my return on my equity is. They just think they return on their assets. They don't even think about the capital, the equity that they have available to them. And so I could see this future in the next couple of years, 24 months, potentially, where everybody has their own AI treasure. And if my assets are tokenized, I could be a 65-year-old retiree with $2 million equity in my home, but very low cash. So it's a case for a lot of people today. I have a lot of equity. I have a lot of assets, but I don't have a lot of income. And that AI, CFO, AI treasure agent could mobilize some of my tokenized equity into our funds or digital credit funds and could move things. And, again, even just a small increase in velocity could make a big difference to GDP. And it seems like that future is rapidly coming. Yeah, and again, I was separate a couple different things. So one is obviously more leverage is one thing. I mean, if things are just not levered now and they could be levered, and if certain tokenization makes it easier to lever things. I mean, if it becomes

44:45easier to, for example, use your home equity as collateral, then it is currently. I mean, it's generally fairly easy now, and it could just get cheaper and faster over time. That could encourage more leverage, which has obviously advantages or disadvantages when we're talking about the macro economy as a whole. I think the biggest advantages show up in businesses because cash turnover is a really big deal in businesses, you know, you're in coming money, outgoing money. And, you know, you have to basically, the money is kind of locked up in that environment when you have just, you know, kind of days of settling things. And the faster that all moves, the less you have to have locked up, and it does over around the margin, increase velocity. I think that the overall, the biggest factors on velocity are going to be things like demographics or wealth concentration, because, you know, if you have a fairly small older percentage population that has a lot of the cash, it's not mobilizing because they're storing it. Even if you give them a stimulus check,

45:49they're not like, if the government sends me a stimulus check tomorrow, it's actually not going to affect my spending at all. I'm already going to spend on what I'm going to spend. Whereas, if I was living paycheck to paycheck and I get a stimulus check, that's going to radically affect my spending in the coming weeks. And so, generally speaking, when you have an economy that where the money is more spread out, it tends to circulate quicker. Whereas when it kind of pools, it tends to circulate more slowly. In addition, I mean, obviously failed currencies of generally very high velocity because nobody wants to hold it longer than they have to. So, they'll hold it, make a payment, get out of it, you know, hold it again, briefly get out of it. Whereas, something like a dollar or a euro, people are generally fairly fine holding a decent amount of it for intermediate use. And so, yeah, I think that velocity, we'll see what happens. And I think around the margins, you said like the home, like so the example that I gave, you said that there's already sort of solutions out there for that. And of course, there are, I mean, especially in America, other countries, maybe not as easily. But in America, I could get a

46:52home equity line of credit. I could refinance it, sure. But I might need 47,000. And it's very hard to get 47,500 or 86,000 out of my home. I'm probably going to have to get my tax returns out. I got a file paperwork. It could be a 60 day process. And I can't get to 87,000. I might need to get 120. I don't want 120, right? So, it's a very slow and efficient process where if that was tokenized, and I had an agent managing it instead of six months, or I'm sorry, two months, 60 days, it could be six seconds or six minutes. I mean, that's that's velocity. Same with a business, right? Like, I might have a lot of equity in my business. I might have a lot of capital locked up and inventory things like that. And sure, I can go get a business line of credit. I could bring on an equity investor. I mean, there are options. I could get purchase order financing, factoring, sure. I mean, there's those things, but it's slow. It takes a long time. And so, again, if I could do it in seconds, if I could be all managed in real time, I don't know, it just seems like getting it from 1.4 to 1.6. Maybe isn't that big of a stretch, which could radically change

47:53the GDP number. Yeah, I think that could speed up quite a bit. I agree. And, you know, when we look at other economies, I think the gap can be even bigger. But yeah, even in the US, I think that that, you know, it's a decent impact. I think, again, compared that, compared to the gains of AI, you know, like, for example, how much easier it is to do many tasks compared to how it was three, even three years ago, I think that's probably a bigger overall impact than financial optimization, but it doesn't mean financial optimization is small, especially those of us that are working in or around finance. I mean, I, from the venture side, I even invest in some of this stuff, tokenization, things like that, various kind of collateralization services and things like that. So, I'm with you on that. I think that that isn't even more efficient. And AI is going to keep helping people find inefficiencies. I mean, right now, a lot of, you know, bank accounts don't earn a very high yield just because the switching costs are high. You know, it's like the big banks,

48:54you don't have to pay as much. The little banks, you only have to pay you more. And there's a lot of money that just like, you know, I have money sitting in a bank account right now and just I could move it and just, it's just I haven't. Whereas if you have just AI doing it for you, we're telling you exactly what to do. It says, okay, we'll take, take it out of this, put it here, take it out of this, put it in here. Then all the ones that are kind of just coasting are going to be pressured, because there's more optimization happening at corporate balance sheets, personal balance sheets, and so forth. This is a paid advertisement for Rumble Wallet, but the question is, why did your grandmother keep cash under the mattress? Well, because it was hers. There was no bank hours, there was no holds. If she wanted to hand somebody 50 bucks, then it was just done. They had the 50 bucks. And Rumble Wallet has rebuilt that for the internet with their new self-custodial wallet. So you hold the keys, so it's not Rumble's money and it's not the bank's money, it's your money. And there's no processor that could freeze it, block it, prevent it, and I take tips right through it with no middleman. Now right now, Rumble wants to pay you to try it. So if you set up

49:57with the code, Moss 10, Rumble would drop $10 in stablecoins, USAT, into your wallet for free, just for activate it. Not only takes a minute, go ahead and scan the QR code right here or go to wallet.rumble.com slash moss, enter code moss 10, and then fund it with a card or bank through MoonPay. And then claim your $10, right? Then you can hit pay with Rumble Wallet and you could send some my way if you want. But note, this is only good for the first 500 wallets that do it, so you can do it really fast. Okay? So scan the QR code right here, use moss 10, claim your $10, terms and descriptions are at Rumble.com slash promo official rules. So if anybody's listening that's into FinTech and AI coding, shoot me a message. We got some stuff to build here. Goes, this is coming quick. So yeah, I think that's a big driver. I think about, as you said, like I have money, I have multiple bank accounts and within multiple bank accounts, I have multiple, or I'm sorry, multiple banks, and then multiple accounts within those banks and brokerage accounts,

50:59and there's sort of money sitting all around everywhere. And to your point, it's kind of a lot of work. I could just go move it in the state and make 13%, but like, man, I don't have the time for that, and so if you had this AI treasure bot, it could be managed pretty quickly. And it's just a small modest increase. The funny thing is, Lynn, I'm sure you're experiencing this. I'm curious you take, but it's sort of like, Jevin's paradox, right? The cheaper things get the more we use of it. And, man, I'm, I mean, I'm like a power user of AI. I have like my brain set up and I have like all these automations, and it's doing so many things that I used to do manually or had people do. But yet, I'm still working more than ever. I don't know if you're seeing the same thing. We're just doing more, right? That's, I mean, that's the decades ago, people were like, oh, the work, the work we could go down to from 40 hours, 30 hours to 10 hours. And instead of we just work more, that's kind of how things fill out. For some people, they have to. Just, you know, they,

51:59like one income kind of buys them less, so they have to work more. For people like us, a lot of it's there's so many interesting things you could be working on. So if we save time in some place, we often just go out and find something else to do. I mean, I just, I write another sci-fi book or something, because with this spare time, I just, instead of just, you know, lounging on the beach, but it is what it is. Yeah. Now, let's talk about, I want to come back to, you know, you mentioned earlier, sort of like the tax concentration at the top, the K-shaped economy, those types of things. And, you know, you said that maybe it's a little bit more extreme, maybe in the US than it is in some other countries. It seems like I would say that other countries might be more extreme, where you have a few people that are very wealthy and most people aren't wealthy. But, you know, the US had used to have a very strong big middle class, and we've talked, you know, extensively about how that's been hauled out for any type of reasons, you know, and industrialization, but then, you know, shipping jobs over to China, things like that. And as far as that middle class, which continues to

53:01exacerbate that problem, you mentioned that, you know, the economy isn't working for a lot of people, and consumer sentiment is very low. It seems to me that, I mean, certainly we have the problem with inflation making it harder for the working wages to pay for things, but it seems like a lot of the, hollowing out of the middle class is because of technology. And so, in the industrial era, you know, through 1908 Henry Ford created automobiles, but mass production, we had assembly lines and smart people and dumb people were equal on the assembly line. So, it took smart people brought them down, dumb people brought them up, and we had this massive middle class. But when we went to the information age, then you started to get that separation where people that want to work harder and want to develop their skills, they just start pulling ahead. And now with AI, you know, we have 10 billion dollar companies, 20 billion dollar companies, potentially one person building our companies, because now we have with intelligence age, if I want to work harder, as you said, we fill our time with more stuff, we just keep going, going, going, we're starting to pull

54:02ahead further, further, further. It seems like no amount of trying to bring jobs back is really going to rebuild that because we're out of the industrial age and we're into this new intelligence age. How do you look at that? I think a lot of that's true. I think the thing that often goes unmeasured or undiscussed is when you have wealth concentration, is it because the richer getting richer faster than the bottom, or is it the worst situation where the bottom's getting worse off? Because if things are generally booming up, people are complaining less than if things are kind of stagnant. And so I think that on one hand, it is more competitive now. The peak of US middle class was also in a world where the rest of the world was devastated after World War II. And so competition, like you had China and the Soviet Union were largely not in the same labor pool. So competition was literally walled off. And with globalization, there's more competition out there

55:06now. If you're doing something that doesn't have to be done locally, you're competing with the world now. And that's a change, large due to technology and just other factors. And then in addition, obviously the information age is so that certain people can do a ton more. AIs can make you radically more efficient. And I think the thing to measure is the average person, are they in different ways to measure apart from just sentiment, are they better off than they were three to five years ago? Extreme case in Egypt, when you have that 15% in place and we're talking about, you can measure in terms of how many hours of work does it take to buy the same car it did three years ago? Or you can look at in terms of how much energy does the average person consume? When those numbers stagnate for years, you get this kind of simmering frustration because there's

56:08some sort of inefficiency in the economy, this debasement that's just kind of like siphoning some of that value away. And in the US, when you measure it in various ways over the past five years or so, kind of the lower middle class is kind of treading water. And that's where I think some of the frustration grows, which is that there's always more tools available. There's official unemployment is pretty low. And it's less about high unemployment or things like that. It's more just like people are working. And then they're not finding that the productivity benefits are talking about are necessarily flowing to them. They say, well, where's all this productivity growth? Why can't my hour of work buy me more than it could three to five years ago? Of course, in some areas, it can it can buy you more AI than it could, it can buy you more electronics than it could. But on average, a pie by you've less healthcare than it did, five years ago. And I was a domicare, but maybe that's where you get frustration. Yeah, got it. So when their quality of life is going

57:16down because their wages are buying them less than they used to buy them. So they got to work longer to get that the median house or longer to get the median car things like that. Yeah. And the biggest factor, I think a lot of it can be the home buying because if you're already have a house and it's locked in mortgage, you're like, I mean, it's fine. If you're a young family looking to buy, you're the combination of high house income ratios and fairly high mortgage rates, meaning that they amount of house taken by currently is just low. And on average, a young young family's not, that's not where the deficits are flooding toward. So they're getting kind of the brunt of the higher rates, but not really the fiscal side usually. The problem with real estate, too, is you started out in the intro. You started talking about the waterfront property. And really with real estate, we have a real scarcity of location. And so people want the waterfront properties. They want the downtown walkable properties. My brother, I mean, I live in California, my brother moved to Missouri. And he got a four bedroom house and his payment was 500 bucks a month.

58:20And like he's in Missouri, like there's plenty of affordable housing, just not where people want to live. And so the areas that are in demand, obviously, have a lot of competition. And that's something else. But I know we're kind of short on time here. Let's sort of bring it back to the nothing stops this train, so to speak. I've often like to say just dummy things down to cliches, but the two things in life that are certain are death and taxes. And now we have the third, which is money printing, which is sort of the nothing stops this train. So some people are calling for the biggest bloat in the world. If we don't get oil tankers moving through the hormones, then the whole market's going to crash. The feds losing control is going to crash. Some people are calling for a really big print. If I understand your thesis, then you can clarify it for me. You're just more of like just a steady ongoing print, which just means probably continued inflation and continued asset price appreciation. Is that sort of the way you're viewing things? Yeah, and I've called it the gradual print is kind of in a contrast, which is that it's

59:22generally flat to up, but it's not a gigantic print. I mean, there are situations they can cause a really big print. So a long enough time frame, sure, we'll get another burst somewhere. But in the time horizon I'm looking at, I'm expecting a gradual print. When they are in war, what is that time? Just so you can clarify that for us. The time you said the time you're looking at. I mean, I started calling for that last year, and I was like the next year or two at least, and we're a year in. And I think it's still, I mean, the next year, I don't see a big print. What about the next five years or so? If you get five years, maybe you do get it blow up somewhere, and you get another kind of rapid balance sheet increase, which it can handle. You get a burst of debasement and kind of go back. But I think on average, it's probably more than that gradual frame. And when they're in war, broke out, some of the questions I got is, hey, so you have this gradual print thesis. I mean, is that going to be revised now that the straight-over removal is closed and there's war breaking out?

1:00:23And I was like, well, certainly the probability of a big print has increased compared to just no war. But I was like, it still wouldn't be my base case. And with this many months in, we still don't have a big print. Because the things that are actually breaking are not really the types that require a really big print. And so I think we're still, I think there's, it's pretty locked in toward a gradual print with kind of only edge cases where I would adjust that view and say maybe student expected we're going to get a big print. But whether we have just a sustained continual moderate print or we do get a big print because of some big shock that we don't see a gray swan or black swan that potentially happens, would you chalk that up to still nothing stops this train, meaning they can't afford a recession, they can't allow the market to crash. And so if there was this big shock, then the big whatever size print would come to help offset that so that nothing would stop this train. So it's just that continued sustainable up into the right. I think partially, but a lot of it is not even a choice. A lot of it's just like automatic. I mean,

1:01:27basically if you get a recession, tax receipts will generally suffer. The deficit will blow out. And you know, if you're kind of pre-stimulating at 7% of GDP deficits, it makes it challenging to have a recession. The recession you are going to get are probably going to fill milder and more stagnationary than the deflationary bus. We're kind of geared toward. And I mean, that the banking system is not that levered. I mean, I keep fading the idea that like private credit is going to blow up the entire banking system. It doesn't mean that you want to obviously pockets of problems. There certainly are pockets of problems, but it's not nearly as systemic as things were in 2008 in terms of like total banking system leverage. And a lot of it is, you know, when private debt bubbles pop, it tends to be this kind of more deflationary chalk. Whereas when public debt bubbles pop, it's only one, it pops over very long period of time. It's just kind of like debatement pop. And it just, it generally means things run hotter and either either if you get hot and growth, then it's, you know, it's that kind of run

1:02:33a hot environment. If you get running into hot while you have stagnation of some sort, then you get that more stagnationary type of environment, something closer to like Egypt on a per capita basis. And so, and I think that's that's largely locked in. And it's not going to be as explosive as some people think. And yet it's going to be very hard to also untangle that and prevent that anytime soon. So I think it's kind of like the background north star we have. And you know, if actually it's going to over their skis, they can absolutely have one to two three year corrections. You know, when, when cost goes up at like 60 times earnings, I was like, I mean, this, this thing could tread sideways for five plus years as earnings catch up. So you still have to worry about overpaying, you know, gold when, when gold goes from 2000 to 5000, it can absolutely correct as it has so far. And that could keep correcting for a period of time until just that, the fast money's out and it kind of forms its new base. And then you can start grinding higher again. Bitcoin can get over its skis for periods of time, housing and a given area can get over its

1:03:37skis. So you just kind of, you're long scarce things that are leading in their categories. You're careful about overpaying. You're not worried about every 10 or 20 percent pullback. I mean, these things, these things happen. And, and you just kind of, at least the way I do it is I'll gradually shift away from things that think are a little bit heated. And I'll gradually shift toward things that are maybe a little bit unloved until that they pop up and then I might shift back into the thing that that is no longer overheated and now is fine. Well, I think that's a perfect place to end it. Obviously, that's a dozen more questions we could get to, but I think that's a good place to end it. You mentioned getting back to writing more sci-fi. I think you just came out with a sci-fi book. Is that right? Yeah, back in March, it came out with sci-fi and we got a walker and Carla did the audio version in May. And then I have another one in the pipeline. I don't have a date for it yet, but that's kind of my new hobby, I guess, is writing sci-fi. So if people are into it, check out the Stolegard incident. All right. We'll put a link to that down below. Of course, your newsletter is one of my favorite stories. We'll link to that down below as well. Anything else

1:04:40you want to shout out? Speaking of AI, we found it orangejuice.com. It's, you know, and we are acquiring businesses. And then we hired a kind of world-class AI expert. And we can help kind of businesses that require streamlined their back end. So if someone is looking to sell a business, or they find that an interesting investment opportunity, they can check out orangejuice.com and see what we're working on. Sure. You guys, I mean, it's like it's like PE. So you're acquiring the business and then trying to sort of revitalize it using AI automations, I guess, to sort of bring the profitability up. And then it ends up exiting. Yeah. So it's a sort of like fixed influx. That's actually where we're different than PE. So this is more of like the Berkshire model. We're looking to buy something and then hold it indefinitely. So it's not a fund. It's a permanent capital structure, meaning it's a company. So it's a company that acquires other companies. With no kind of plan to have them keep building cash for us. And then we'll, you know, we'll have treasury management where we expect to have some percentage of our treasury in Bitcoin.

1:05:45So on average, we'll be short-fit long Bitcoin, long cash flow and companies. And unlike PE, because we're not trying to flip it in the kind of maximize like a three year ROI, we're looking for, you know, what is this business going to look like in five, 10 plus years. We're looking to keep the company culture intact. We want it to be a great place to work. But we do want to help help the owners and the employees find efficiencies. So you can do more with less. You know, the parts that are administrative back end, who can be simplified. And, you know, if you buy, for example, a healthcare company, the doctors can keep doing what they're doing. And they, you know, they can, all the all of stuff we just talked about, streamlining the back end can just be done to make that business more efficient without really harming anything. Yeah, that's one of the big failures of PE is they want to run the business on a spreadsheet and they lose the soul of the business. They lose the founders. They lose the soul. And you can't run a business on a spreadsheet. It pencils out. But that's just not how the real world works. So I think maybe your idea works a little bit better,

1:06:46although I have somebody who's exited a couple of businesses. Typically when I get the cash, I want to exit. I don't know if I want to stick around. But, but certainly if you can retain them, that would definitely help out. So that's exciting. Where do people find out more about that? orangejuice.com. We got the domain. Wow. Wow. I must have been a hard one to get. Okay, we'll link down below as well. Would that wrap it up? Thanks so much, Lynn. Thank you. Kevin Hart here in this cashbacking season. I'm getting scary amounts of cash back on all my Halloween stuff. Hello, Kevin. No, no, no, no. I know what this is. Do you like scary movies? Well, have you seen my movies? Yeah, big fan. Just wanted to know what you cash back down with Chase Freedom. Oh, man. Now I cash back on pumpkins, cash back on costumes, cash back on candy. So are you having a Halloween party? I am. But I'm definitely not inviting you. Yeah, I get that. All right, scary guy. I'll see you around. It's cashbacking season with Chase Freedom. Cards issued by JP Morgan Chase Bank, any member of FDIC. This is the story of the one. As a

1:07:47shipping manager, he's running the dock, stocking supplies, and making sure every order goes out on time. And Granger helps him stay prepared. From shipping supplies to PPE to hand tools, he counts on Granger to keep products moving and trucks rolling. So his operation runs smoothly, no matter the shift, call 1-800-GRAENGER. Click ranger.com or just stop by Granger for the ones who get it done. Do you love golf? If so, you should listen to Three-Put Bogie. I'm Chuck Bryant from the Stuff You Should Know podcast. And I'm Adam Pranaka from a couple of embarrassing hit Star Trek podcasts. And each week on Three-Put Bogie, we're going to get into the bunker and get to the bottom of what is just so alluring and frustrating about the most beautiful game in the world. So whether you're someone who pipes it on the driving range, that freezes up on the T-Box. Or misses that Three-Put putt when everything's on the line. Where they're to laugh about it with you on Three-Put Bogie, the podcast about two mid-handy capers, one great shot, and the Three-Put that

1:08:50spoils it all. You can listen to it now on the iHeartRadio app Apple Podcast or wherever you get your podcast. On Big Lives we take a single cultural icon. People like Jane Fonda, George Michael, Little Richard. And we pull apart the story behind the image, discovering forgotten interviews that change exactly how we see these giants of our culture. We're here for the messy, the brilliant, the human version of our heroes. I'm Emmanuel Jochi. I'm Kai Wright. And this is Big Lives. Listen to Big Lives on the iHeartRadio app Apple Podcast or wherever you get your podcast. Hey everybody, it's me, Debbie C'mon Bell. This season on my podcast who's with me, I speak with Bruce Lee's daughter, Brandon Lee's sister, and my friend, Shannon Lee. Back to your initial point of stewarding my father's legacy and giving my energy to that, you're lending your life to stewarding somebody else's life. Listen to who's with me with Debbie

1:09:53C'mon Bell on the iHeartRadio app Apple Podcast or wherever you get your podcasts. They hear them music and we had nothing. From Smokey Robinson to Mary J. Blige, V2K to Jill Scott. If you're a super dedicated R&B fan, this is where you belong. Listen to R&B money from the Black Effect podcast network on the iHeartRadio app Apple Podcast or wherever you get your podcasts. One recent episodes of the Questlove Show, I chatted with Jill Jo about her music and WALO-267 about its story and everything in between. Don't invite me to karaoke. I'm going to make it weird. Someone's going to try to sing, leave get out or too little too late or baby too. And I'm going to be like, okay, cool. Check out my conversation with Jill Jo, WALO-267 and more on

1:10:54the Questlove Show. Listen to the Questlove Show on the iHeartRadio app Apple Podcast or wherever you get your podcasts. Peace.