SpaceX ready for launch. June 12, 2026

A listener, production. JEREN. OK. The S3, the iCheck to Stolf. This is Motley Formaly.

Welcome to Motley Formaly, the podcast is days away from filing a $1.8 trillion IPO prospectus. I'm Scott Phillips, soon to be Trillionaire, the already Trillionaire, who's of course Andrew Rampage, the man for whom, Stromi was just a stepping off point to global domination, he's going to make Elon Musk look like a tri-hop, to be honest. Mr Page, now wait. Yeah, good mate, yeah, very good. I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon.

But... I'm sorry, he's not allowed to be able to just play down. It's good to be able to continue on with the common people we appreciate. We love you for it, so I'm sorry. I don't have the ability all the guts for the motivation.

It's like, I'm trying to get out three different ways of doing that. The fascinating thing with Elon, loving my hate, is that he is either... He's just got the Midas touch, or he's just the luckiest guy on the planet. Because I'm sure people know this, but he was rich for a while. But the reason for that he's the richest person on Earth is because he just doubled down again and again.

Like, whoa, I made all of this money from PayPal. I'm going to throw it all in the Tesla. Oh, I'm going to throw that all in the rocket. Oh, I'm going to throw it all in the rocket. And it's just sort of like...

I'm entirely sure that there's a degree of luck because there always is there. Either way, it's just why I say I don't have the guts. Because if I was to even get to a thousandth of where it was... I certainly wouldn't be betting at all, right? It's also... I mean, I kid, I mean, but there is...

You've pinched it before. Maybe on the spot, Gus, on the good old one, had you on the edge of the guy. You mentioned just the kind of... You don't know what you don't know. The naivety...

And I think the other side of that is that you go and I went for that and you all passed and I went for that and you all passed. You know, you're a kind of... I'm going to go and do a thing. I think this thing is all I'm going to go and do it. And there is...

We talked about success. No, and we didn't do it, if you think... It's not going to work, but I'm going to do it anyway. It's not going to work. No, it's not.

I'm the one with the idea. They don't know anything, but I know. And the thing is... That can happen, right? Because you can't...

You know, it's the online of all progress relies on the unreasonable man, right? Because everyone's like, oh, it's funny. And I'm just like, no, I'm going to do this differently. And... And it's like, I'm at nine-and-a-half-hed with a ten-crash-and-burn, right?

You don't read their own orgographies. But you hear the stories of being in delineations for Stromain, or theoner-é-lawhands for SpaceX. But in all seriousness, it's necessary, right? And so people... We often have that conversation, but I never thought of the publisher at some point, when there's enough at a business level, right?

Like, when you kind of go, I'm not going to beat the company anymore. And, famously, it's on Carey Packer, Rupert Murdoch's story. You know, Rupert was like, I get the company I think twice or three times, going to a major by Fox in the US and any of those times say they've not come off. He's the one of that guy who had that pussy name again, and it's work right, and Kerry Packer, maybe because he was, I mean, Rupert's the son of the founder, but Kerry's the son of Sir Frank, so they are not dissimilar, but Kerry's he was always, I will never bet the company. I'll never risk the company, so I will make smaller bets.

And it's a fascinating point of which you go, I will push hard, but he's my line. And to your point of view, I'm like, I have no line. I believe so firmly what I'm doing. I'm gonna push the envelope and go hard, and you know, to hold it. We said before, he has said, Tesla would have gone, had the better recession, the other day, the Tesla business doesn't exist in you.

And when SpaceX does exist, I'm not talking about it. You know, there is, there's a lot of doors. Well, yeah, and I've been saying, it's only like, it's not three times, so there is either a lot of likes sequentially, or he has some secret sauce, and I suspect he's a mega, I don't like it. I'm not sure that I have a lot of time for his personal views and character, frankly, and I don't say that, you know, I'm not saying better than it was, I'm not liking it, that's fine. But you can't mistake the work he's done.

He didn't found a Tesla, but he made it what it is. He's literally created a company that lands rockers back on launch, that's for God's sake, that's banana is impressive, right? Who even conceives of that? What if we could send the rocket to space, let the payload go and then bring the rocket back? It's like, who, who, I don't know what you have to do to think that might be possible that you put to work into it.

And then, I put to work, I'm not gonna bet, I don't know how many millions, hundreds of millions of millions of dollars you bet on, I wonder if they actually make this work. And maybe it may be working, by the way, speak of culture and personality, they're blowing up a lot of rockets, right? And so that idea of just, put it out. I'm in on with that, right? And some eggs.

And it's not that area of life, so make sure it's absolutely safe to do with things like, I mean, there's no people on the mob, it's okay, but let's go into a thing. Let's go put it on watch, let's see if it works, doesn't want to cancel instantly from it. That ability and willingness to take the risk and make the mistake and learn from it, that's a superpower and that's kind of his story. Yeah, I actually, I make the point a lot recently, I think businesses should be failing a lot. In lots of little small experiments.

Not because I want failure, but it's got, because businesses experimentation, I, are you into it a demand or I think I can do something a bit better than others. And you might have like, an incredible rationale behind it and lots of good data, but you just don't know until you try. You just don't know. And sometimes surprise is so big with some of these things that I feel as though the only mistake is when, I mean, maybe people like anyone are the exception that proves the rule, which is like, you go all in because you're so convinced of it. As you say in a parallel universe, we just don't know his name, but I, you know what?

I like asymmetry, right? So it's sort of like, I want to, as a business, try lots of little experiments, knowing that most of them are fella, but when they fail it's gonna, it's almost like an R&D budget, if you will. Like it's not that it doesn't matter to lose money, but it's kind of like that's the ticket to the dance, because even if it's every one in 10 or one in 100, when that works, it goes really well. So you sort of dip your toe in, you try a little bit. Okay, it sounded like a good idea.

We had a lot of good reason to think that it would work. It didn't work, so we're pulling out. No, no fail. Or it's like, this is actually working better than we thought. Let's allocate some more capital, let's ramp this thing up.

Or, this is what tends to happen more often than not. It's just like, well, it's kind of working, but it's not working in the way that we thought it was gonna work. Like we thought that this would be the thing that people want, but actually turns out that that's the story of Slack, right? Like Slack was the, an internal messaging system for a gaming company, I think. It's not the lesson story, I think.

I was like, I'm getting confused. I was like, what are the lesson stories that were, they were trying to make games and that's very, it's one of the two. It's one of the two. Yeah, but the point remains, like that is so often the case and you just, you don't know until you try. And I suppose you just bring it back to the realm of us, me and Mortals, for those of us who are thinking, or listening, thinking of starting a business, you know, it is hard and you do have to risk a lot, but you know, I would very much encourage people to try and babysat towards it.

You'll never get to a point of pure certainty, but you can do lots of little things to sort of get you away. And then, more often than not, you will find, actually it doesn't work out, not because you were done or you were wrong, it's just that the realm that we live in is insanely complex. And you can't, you know, exactly. Exactly. Don't end up on the shelves, right?

That's kind of the, by the way, you're 100% right, I'm on 100% wrong. It was absolutely like, it was like, it was like a game company, originally founded 2009 as Tiny Spec, the team spent years developing a massively multiplayer online game called Glitch, when the game found the final sustainable audience and was shot down in 2012, the team repurposed internal chat to all their built for game development and launched it as, like you're absolutely right. Sorry about that. Yeah, yeah, lots of examples of all of that. So I just, yeah, I find it, I find it all very interesting.

And again, it's just, I'll bring it back to another level that's relevant to listeners. It's the same on your portfolio. I'm sorry, I've made this point before. I think I've made an original point in like four years. No, I've made it myself.

I was just messing up previous podcasts and just make it sound like a spot. I think we could just go on, yeah, down to the start, just on a beach and let the eye light do all the work. But your portfolio, I think, well, no, I shouldn't say that. You should do whatever you think is appropriate. But for me, I am, I don't think that I am trying hard enough if I don't have a bunch of dogs in my portfolio.

Not because I want it, not because it's a good thing to have, but it's sort of like, you know, if you're making a lot of calculated bets and you get it wrong and you lose 20, 30, 50%, maybe some cases, 90% or a whole lot, but the upside is a literal 10 bag or a 100 bagger. You know, it sort of like, it covers a lot of things. And I think it's that fear of failure in individual positions that causes so many people. That's right. To just add best mediocrity.

I can't see the number of investors I know who've got perfectly decent portfolios and they love it and they put a lot of work into it, but you always trail the index by a couple percent. And you know, which is why I'm just like, we'll just buy an ETF, man. And, but the strike rate is really high. In other words, there's not many, while on average it might be reasonably mediocre. And I don't mean that too negatively, but I just not, we're all trying to beat the market, right?

I don't know about anyone else listening, but that's certainly what I'm trying to do. If you're not, we need to have a conversation. But it's sort of like within those portfolios, it's like, yeah, most of them are okay. It's like, and here I am sort of like, no, you want more of them to fail. I was like, what? That doesn't make sense.

It's like, yeah, it does because the ones that are very safe while they're very unlikely to have a big loss for you, they're also at the same time very unlikely to do something exceptional. Well, this is a great, genuinely think it's a great company, but it's not gonna tend back in the next few years, right? I guess it's just not gonna do that kind of thing. And so there is this funny thing. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Well, it just is. It's a funny thing and how we approach it. And it's being too timid is its own form of risk. Being too conservative is its own form of risk. The classic example here in investing is the investor who stays all in turn deposit.

I had a guy like that, the other came around, he was like, you mentioned offhand, he's like a turn deposit, dad, what? What do you mean? Like, what do you mean? Like, it's so risky, and it's like, they absolutely walk that one back. They absolutely do have a role depending on various circumstances and what you're after and the rest of it, but they are their own forms of risk.

And how many people do we know in our lives? It's just like worked hard, saved a lot of money, but really just had any of that wealth sort of just slowly eroded over time or barely kept up with inflation. It certainly hasn't provided a positive real return because you didn't wanna have any risk, quote unquote risk. And it's actually, and irony of irony is, no, you actually took on a huge amount of risk because you were too scared of our old-frame volatility, which is not risk. Exactly.

We've done this with portfolio construction before, you know, what do you want the company to do versus what do you want to do in your own portfolio? And even things like debt, we've talked about, we've been asked about this before in the mailbag, how much debt is enough and where should the debt be? And the answers are, okay, it depends because we'd like to do that. But it is that kind of idea of what are you optimizing for? If you're optimizing for, and it's not unreasonable to say, I never want to come with a ghost bro.

That's fine, I'm not saying you should have the sale though, some people are paying that because they want to find a bag as in some go bro. If that's the extreme investing you do, then as long as it works on average, as long as it works, that's too really clear. But the idea of just, you know, where do you set the risk? Really is a portfolio decision, not a company specific decision. Unless you choose to take your portfolio management strategy, which is something I'm putting aside by my mouth, what I'm really saying is you have a collection of assets, you run, we've talked about this in a future episode, that's a pretty cool story.

But we talked about the idea of the conglomerate, and this would come up soon, so we're not talking about it. As you invest, you have your own conglomerate. That's kind of what you're doing, you're compiling your own selection. You don't have the tax advantage of an actual conglomerate that the idea of, where's the right place to put it? I think it's just like a massive mistake by assuming that the company itself has to be perfectly risk managed to be included in your portfolio rather than saying at a portfolio level, here are the assets I own.

Imagine you are running a conglomerate, right? I'm going to have a little medical device company over here with a huge financial market, but a lot of risk. I'm going to have a supermarket over here, I'm going to have whatever over here. I'm going to design this portfolio so that my overall return, my expected return, is good, and what good means to you. The matter idea of working that out, I think makes a huge amount of sense.

And that's where it's kind of chewy, right? Because we talk about the ways to think about individual companies. But if you do risk at a company level, you'll never get to a portfolio. If you never get to a portfolio, you back it, other banks, other platforms, saying cash, money, ETF, which is fine. That's what I say before, you said that, well, it's fine if you want to, if you want to release it, it has a role in your portfolio, you have to be with your friend.

Just know what you're trying to achieve, and how you're trying to achieve it. No, the role, I mentioned before, I think I mentioned the upcoming episode, the social level lasting income. Now, we are paying, we are recommending members to take out 4% plus for our current, a year out of that portfolio, it's where we're running it, right? And we think we can invest that way. Now, we have companies that portfolio that are paying dividends to less than 4%.

And we have members that say, well, why would you have to listen 4%? Well, because those companies role are as absolute stall, but dividends are not guaranteed as bloody close as you're going to get. So if something else happens over here, we have some certain cash flow. Not every company has to meet the portfolio threshold, or do the portfolio's job. Our job is portfolio management, and I mean that professionally, but I mean for every individual listening, you are your portfolio manager, right?

You have a job on your virtual door as CEO, my portfolio incorporated, your job is to say, how is my portfolio structured? Where are the opportunities? Where are the risks? What am I doing? What are the companies doing?

So I don't, you made the point, but I don't wanna flog that I talked so much longer, but it's a really, really important consideration to think holistically, not just company by company, I wish you missed, practically, opportunity and risk at the same time. Yeah, well said. And as you say, counter-intuitive, right? Like so many of the great ideas, it's sort of like, that doesn't sound right. And I was like, yeah, that's what's interesting about it.

Well, and that's the best one I want to write, but it was easy to follow through with, everyone doing this spectacular result. There's no podcast for... Right, right. Right, right. Right, right.

Maybe that'll do that next. Oh, go. Let's take the opportunity now to pick it, because it kind of started talking about Elon and SpaceX and other things. And of course, we're doing that in part because we just like tangents, but also in part because the buzz on, this is being listened to, depending on when you're listening to it, I believe the company's going public Friday, US time. Which means if you listen to this one, it's released, it's just before.

You're listening to it just after, as always, you have the benefit we don't have, which is the ability to know what happened in the next couple of days, we're recording this Thursday morning, the 11th of June. So I am going to make no predictions on the Sheprais movement, that rams welcome to like reckless estate predictions so if he's right, if he wants to. I'll go with the JP Morgan, he will be volatile. Exactly. He'll talk to it.

So, but it's worth talking about for a few reasons, right? The businesses still be worth talking about. I mentioned to you, only this morning, that's a story in the fiend about the NBN partner with Amazon's new lower thought, it's had a long business direct competition of Starlink. There's kind of lots going on there. SpaceX of course, I see you've got that going on as well.

You've got Elon being, Elon the chance you might be a trillionaire by the time you listen to this, it's just mind blowing, speaking of doubling down and down and down and down and certainly, certainly done a good job of that so far. The fact is now available to Australian public, as a specific prospectus for Australian investors is a hell of a thing. It's the first time I think it's been done. It means international investing is going to be more embraced by Australian investors, so it then goes all over the place there. There is the impact on ETFs of SpaceX going in.

There's lots of stuff to be brought to by the ETF impact. I'll also offer some random thoughts, but I'll let me follow up with you in the comment. Let me have a chat. That's actually a good name for a podcast. Random thoughts.

There's a good name for it. Probably the most effective use of random thoughts of US investors. At this point anyway, 1.77 trillion US dollar valuation is the number that's being given based on the float price, the IPO price. They are listing some stupid. Just a little bit.

What do you mind if I do just quick? Where does this number come from? Well, there's a company, SpaceX. You divide it by the number of shares and you multiply it by the issue price that you're offering it to the public, the initial public offering to the public. The thing to remember here is they're not listing all of the shares.

It's pretty small. That's when you said the word float. It gets thrown around a lot. I mentioned it the other day and someone looked at me and finally I realized, oh, I'm doing that horrible jargon. Yeah, so float is just the proportion that he's on the market that you can trade.

So not all of the SpaceX shares are going to be on the NASDAQ that you can trade. There's only a small proportion of them. But once you've got a market price either set in the prospectus and then set by the secondary market itself, you just take the full number of shares and do it. So no one's putting in $1.77 trillion. That much is not the sale, but that's where the number comes from.

Just to flesh that out a little bit. Continue. No, it goes the other way. The market value divided by the number of shares. You can look at it either way, but you're right.

Thank you for taking that. So it's a couple of 1.8 trillion US dollars for the final bit. That's very, very comfortable in Nicely and hopefully you'll know the answer to this. Do you know how much proportion, what multiple revenue that is? I'm going to say 100.

It's exactly 100 times revenue. $18 billion for the revenue of SpaceX last year. And do you have much money they lost last year? A lot. $5 billion.

So that's the thing. We're spending money, my friend. We're spending money. 1.8 trillion dollars for a business with $18 billion of sales that lost $5 billion last year. Now, I'm not saying for a second, it can't make money.

I'm not saying it won't be profitable. I'm not saying that you can't make money from this current share price. I'm just highlighting the size and slope of the mountain it's choosing to climb or, or importantly, shareholders are choosing to climb if they choose to buy the shares. Now, maybe it works. And by the way, the short term, we'll get the supply in a minute.

The share's going anywhere in the short term. The long term question is, can it grow its sales and profit to a point where it can justify this price and quickly enough that you can keep up with the market or eventually catch up with the market over take it at some future point because it doesn't have to justify the price in 10 years. It continues to like it might be up hopefully at an 150%. So if that's true, just for the fun, if that's true, right, it's basically roughly worth 3.6, $4.5, $3 trillion. Just to keep up with the market.

So not only do you have to have profit growth faster just by the current valuation, but if that valuation got to keep up with the market, at least keep up with the market, it needs to grow faster again because the market needs to be higher again at that point. So that's kind of where we find ourselves. The business is rather in three broad parts. It is the relatable rocket. So it's not really the space.

The rocket isn't generally. There are all the stuff in that's putting satellite to it. Hey, loads into it. Hey, loads into it. Hey, loads into it.

All that kind of stuff. It is the styling, low earth orbit satellite stuff. I'm literally recording using the styling right now. So I'm a big fan of the company as a user. And it is XAI.

Again, AI is going to be super sexy this year because it's not a couple of IPOs likely to come from AI businesses. So those are the three bits of the business. If you are buying shares, you are betting that it can grow fast enough to justify the valuation. And maybe you can. The market will be enough just for the current valuation.

That's the definition of it. Or you're happy to take them a lot. So that's you knock yourself out, but also I have a big job to send you. No one's going to find a good customer. You make a loss.

Right? Exactly. That's the size of the amount people are climbing. I also will say very quickly in passing on a throw. I find it incredibly, I find the psychology of this really fascinating, right?

People say, oh, it looks like a company. I'll just press money. I'll just go for the ride. I'm like, let's say $1000. I'm like, I'm going to say, I like the fours with their colors on their backs.

I'll throw $1000 on the back. So I throw $1000 on the back. I'll throw $1000 on the back. I'll throw $1000 on the back. I'll throw $1000 on the weekend.

Just let it right. See what happens. That's what you're doing. That's literally what you're doing. Right?

And that's okay. You can do it if you want to. Just recognise that what you're doing is effectively gambling with more zeros than you would take to the track. Maybe somehow it's justified because it's air quotes investing or something, air quotes business or air quotes productive or something else. Now, the SpaceX is more productive than the horse don't have a track.

Apologies to the horse racing fans out there, it just is. But when you use that language, you take that approach. Again, unless you throw it on the fifth of the round, don't invest that way. Don't, don't, don't. Or if you are, again, because I say don't.

I literally do in doubt in the sense that otherwise just do it anyway. That's the point. If you're gonna throw it, throw it off to the horse again. If that's the only approach you're taking, look at that. Get thrown at the horse.

I wouldn't do that. Why not? Well, because I don't know exactly right. That's a little aside. So much to say.

So the, you've got to remember too, that the, there's always two ways of looking at success for an IPO. Thank you. And I, I, I, I, I, I, feels like I'm, like, I'm, I'm making a case for investment bankers. And I'm really not. But, you know, perspectives matter.

And there are people who, private investors in the company who want to get as much of value as they can. They, a successful IPO from their perspective is getting a fully subscribed IPO offer at a 100 time revenue valuation. That's, that's success. What would you want? If you weren't shares in, you know, your local corner shop and it said, hey, listing on the ASX, and say, oh, see if you can get away from the lowest price possible.

No, you want the highest price possible. So even if it crashes and burns afterwards and shares drop 80%, that's still, that's actually arguably an even more successful IPO. Because you, you managed to convince enough people for a long enough time that this was, that this was actually worth it. It sounds a little bit negative, but it is really negative. I suppose nasty.

It's all those things. But yeah, yeah. Yeah. So I just, I just make that point, right? And, and you can, wow, that's all right.

Well, don't buy the shares. Here's the thing. Is it the right price? I would say as a free market enthusiast that if, if, if they offered it to the public and the public, and the public said, yes, please, we'll take as much as you can, then, then the price was fair. Because people, you know, of their own volition and free will, they decided to do it.

And, and... Fair is a load of what I was talking about before and probably I think I'm going to talk about soon in a, of like upcoming podcasts as well. It's a market price. Yes. Well, exactly.

That's the market. That's what we mean with the market. You know, it's just like that point at which people who own something and those who would like to own something agree. That's, that's what a market is. I'm also, I'm also, my drawer is on the floor when I look at those valuations.

Nevertheless, I'm a little older and wiser than I have been. Yes. And I am not going to go, oh, that's so silly because I did that in the past. You'll remember me 2012. I think we talked about this on a recent part as well.

I'm not saying you're going to go, you're first. So Facebook listed 32 bucks a share in 2012. Yes. That was also 100 times. Actually, that might have been a P of 100 times.

Not even a price to sales. I'll get you to look at it up while, while I chat. Either way, relative, when you consider that the average P on the market is usually around 15, 16, 17, something like that. It was sort of up there. P of 85.

So, that was a share. And the company was only over $100 billion. Which is something. In the modern era, it's kind of like, that's what's on the P of 85. It's perfectly normal.

But trust me, kids, that was very unusual for a very long period of time. And I would just say probably even at this period of time. But what happened? They floated. They listed.

Share price crashed. People like you and me went, oh, we're so clever. I told you. It was so obvious to someone with such, you know, such wise, deep understanding of how capital markets work. It was blind, Freddy could have seen it high fives all around.

Sorry, just a few hours. It's up 10 million trillion per cent, even if you bought on the float, right? No, $8 at float was the IPO price. It closed at that price. So, yeah, 23.

That was in May of 2012. Three months later. That's 19 dollars and five cents in August. 20. You halved.

Went from $19 to $571 now. $100 billion market cap, $1.45 trillion today. Now, why wasn't a story of just multiple expense? In other words, the market paying a higher and higher multiple earnings. In fact, the P is now 20.

The P is fallen by a quarter and the share price is still up 14 times. Yeah, it is a remarkable story. And the question was, can they commercialize this? Can they turn eyeballs into revenue or profits? The answer is an astounding, obvious and positive.

Yes, it absolutely has, can, will and still is. And that was kind of a huge story. I made the point the other day about that. And someone said, oh, yeah, I wouldn't buy it now. It's like irrelevant.

The point stands. I guess it's 14 years later. Who knows? I'm not saying it is or is it? I don't have a dog in the fight when it comes to the Met and Facebook.

But I can say definitively as an empirical fact of history that that was an incredible IPO to buy in on when all of the headline figures looked nonsensical. And that is touching the stove is a really good thing to do. You kind of need to burn your fingers. You always say it with the kids. It's like, well, I'm just like, I'm not going to literally.

But there's no amount of commentary from a mum and dad that's going to stop you wanting to do that thing. And obviously there are limits. But certain things are like, all right, go and do that. See how that works out for you. I was like, oh, that's a learning experience.

And that was a learning experience for me. And what these kinds of companies you have to be careful of. And again, it sounds like I've got to be careful here. You've kind of sounded like, oh, it's negative and now I'm sounding like, oh, now it's positive. Neither of us.

We're trying to sort of flesh out the full argument here. But this is a business that has a lot of irons in the fire. And we just started the... Can you say the fire? You're right.

There's multiple things going on. I didn't plan it, but now that I think about it's actually a lovely lead into the podcast. Was that idea of lots of experimentation, lots of different things. And that's what Elon has got to say. Well, it might well be that you buy shares in SpaceX thinking I love rockets.

But in 10 years time, it was like, oh, yeah, it was all about the AI. Yeah, it was all about the 16,000 Bitcoin on their iPhone sheet. Or whatever happens to V-Ride. And it's kind of like, I'm not arguing that it is a fake complaint. It is done and it is written in the stars and destined to be.

But it's possible. And it's not even like impossibly possible. It's like, yes, it could easily happen. It could not. It could not.

And very much the bit. But you've got to be careful of these very, very large numbers and large multiples. When you are looking at a company that whose total addressable market is literally 9 billion people. And this is the other mistake analysts make. The size of the market is this.

It's a tiny market. Even if they captured 80% of it. It's like me going, you know, when Henry Ford rolled off the Model T and said, well, you know, the automobile market is tiny. It turns out that only a few aristocrats have these damned contraptions. It's a tiny market.

I would do. You're going to get the top 2% of society wealth wise might be your customer. What if they take it as a small? Yeah, but what if everyone has a car? Right.

Well, if everyone is using an AI assistant in some form, these are the things that really sort of break your brain. Now, I'll show up in a minute and just sort of say, this is to your, just to, I guess, double down on your point here is that no harm, I'm the last person to criticise anyone who wants to buy in this. But just know that as you've nicely laid out, there is a bit of expectation in the price. You want to have a little bit of a view as to how likely that is. And know that even if they are as successful as the market deems them to be, you will get an average return.

That's kind of what it means. Right. Like in the sense that to get a decent return on such a high multiple means they just grew very, very fast. If you want an outsized return, it needs to go even higher than, or faster and bigger and larger than what the market is already expecting, which is possible. Absolutely possible.

But at least have a thesis, right? I call it vibe investing. It's like you said, gambling, right? I'm fine if you want to do it, but it's not really what you're investing in. At least be able to explain to no one else because you're only accountable to yourself.

Explain to yourself why I did the thing. Even if you were wrong, if you had a reasonable rationalization, it was like, that's perfectly decent. If it was just like, as you said, I like rockets, rockets are cool. Then it's like, oh my goodness. Even if you're successful, I will still throw a shade at you.

This could be something that I've just done like. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Just for context, I do like it. I do like it.

I'm not buying it for such a long time. I think the risk is way too big and the potential is way too small. Realistically, probably something that can happen. I'm just saying if you range of outcomes, I see a bit of your point, mate. I'm not buying.

That being said, it's worth talking about. So we're talking about federal, Facebook, right? It now has revenues of $201 billion a year. That's worth pointing out only because you look at SpaceX and say, well, $8 billion, or if you feel like a big number. So how much more could you get?

And the answer is truckload for you. Now, Metar and SpaceX are absolutely not comparable at all in any way, check or form in terms of companies like I would think they do. Their market caps are not going to be that far apart, potentially market capitalization, market value, as you rightly explain to me. So that's worth just thinking about if you were able to. If SpaceX is able to capture your point, not 100 billion people, and they get anywhere close to Metas revenue.

And if they get anything close to margins, they might be able to get a single play arm. There's them and there's a Boeing, someone else doing rockets, but it's pretty much space, it's doing most of the masses. Rocket work now, right? Plus, a whole lot of independent satellites being launched. Do you want an interesting fact to it?

Of all of the satellites orbiting planet Earth from the Russians, the Chinese, the European space agency, everyone, anyone who's ever put anything up there, SpaceX owns two-thirds of them. Here's the other interesting fact to it. Two thousand satellites drop out of orbit every year. There is a tiny amount of drag up there. They have just to maintain the network.

They have to launch five satellites a day. They've got a lot of take-offs to do. They're going to be busy. As you kind of think about that, I'm not actually like, you know, but I think it's just worth, it feels like, hang on, two trillion dollar valuation, five billion dollar loss, a hundred times sales, what the hell's going on. Now, we also have the time, this is fascinating, right?

Speaking of past opportunity, when Facebook listed it was 24 times sales, when Google listed, it was five times sales, when Apple listed it was three times sales. Now, they were all considered excessive. Now, my point though is that a lot of the mistaken in Equites evaluation that was out at the time, how big could Google possibly be? How big could Apple possibly be? How big could Facebook possibly be?

With the sequential listing, that's been learned. In other words, the upside from Apple from three times to two times, yeah it was, five times to Google, that's cheap. Facebook, three times that was cheap. At some point, you realize the market's caught up and the opportunity is no longer there. And I think one of the things that have been amazing for taking investors over the past 30, 40, 40 years, 40 years, has been the guess or forecast or lack or smarts behind.

This thing could be massive, it's only really small right now. I'm going to pay up for the future growth I see. That's the Amazon sort of 20 million times. At some point though, Amazon lists today, it doesn't list at the same price listed in 997, right? Because people go, hang on, I get what it does, I get what it can do, I know what the internet's capable of now.

I'm going to ask for a lot more from that. And so the story of Amazon, if it listed today, would be far, far, far less value-graded for IPO investors and for on-go share investors, then was delivered over the past 30 years because we know, we know how this plays out. Not that we know what Amazon's going to do, we are more cognizant of the business model, of the immense ability to scale, of the amazing opportunity of a capital light business that can just grow like top-sea of network effects. Some of the things we've learned over that period, we say it regularly, nothing new under the sun, and there really isn't. But the scale, the capacity for tech to scale, in terms of the sheer size and pace, that was something we had to learn maybe in new or maybe just recognise that something scale far, some don't, and this was one that scaled incredibly quickly.

But either way, I'm not going to limit to it, Matt, because the end of history has been forecast way too many times. I will say though that each of those sequential listings, the market's gone, I will pay more for this because I see a brighter future. And at some point, in theory, you should be able to say, we will get clever enough to pay a fair price, to a pure point of fair, at listing, which doesn't leave much for the future of, well, this could be fast enough for it, because effectively, that's already in the price. The price says, this thing will grow super fast, because otherwise, the price is going to be horribly, horribly, horribly, horribly, ever valued. So at some point, we just catch up with that.

I think there is, I don't know where it is, it may not be now, it may not be 20 years or it might have been three years ago. But at some point, we learn that lesson. And the opportunity for, quote, tech investors to make money from effectively just recognising that growth can happen as fast enough that people realise, that opportunity shrinks, I think, pretty meaningfully. Yeah, it is a fascinating observation. I was actually talking about that some of the other day, and they said, welcome to late stage capitalism.

I don't know if I'm there. I just think it's, I think it's, I was just recognised. Like, when classified businesses were invented, someone went, hey, hang on, this is a thing. We didn't call network effects at the time, but if it was obviously the case that more readers met, more advertised, we kind of got the idea, right? And so, at some point, someone paid off, hang on, this could actually be really big.

Or, Coke, or Coke growing internationally. The globalisation was the last version, I reckon. The last being kind of, ah-hah-man, it was probably in the 70s and 80s. When Coke went to Europe, it was like, oh, this can be the other, just America. What if this could grow this, you know, this morally?

I think the SaaS, slightly internet businesses are kind of like global audience, capital-like, massive scale, you know, when it takes most, I should somewhat be known that. I mean, you may have to review, I don't think it is like stage capitalism necessarily. I would say this is evidence of that, if it is. Other than, I think we just learned that, the first deal meal was built, someone went, well, what if this could be, whatever, I missed that. By the fifth deal, I was like, I get, I'm going to say the economics is I pay a fair price for the steel mill.

That's why you don't get blocked by stuff. Matter of fact, we're just as IPI, right? Because we can value them pretty well. I could be right. I don't know if this is it or we passed it, but I think at some point, what has seemed to be amazing wealth creation by taking investors was just the learning curve the rest of the market was on.

And once you threw that learning curve, that simple, I was there really, I was a foreign body-house opportunity, because everyone else recognized us at the same time. I mean, I think part of the problem is, as a human, like the wet layer we're running, it's just hard to wrap your head around the numbers. Really? You know, it's just like, I'm going to be the biggest business in Sydney. You know, like, well, it's a really big business, like Australia, all this other hemisphere, all the way.

Like, at every step you go up, like, it's just, what even is a 9 billion people? What is that? Look like this. Yes, yes. I'm saying it and there are people going, do just get a calculator. You can do it.

But I mean, to conceive of it and to, as you say, to conceive of how those things scale in the sense that you can add, Facebook can add a billion users tomorrow and their fixed costs don't go up that much. It's a bit of extra provisioning from the servers and whatever. It's all much and much. We had to sort of learn that lesson. Look, I'm not buying it either, but it's not because I'm negative on it.

I'm really, I've made the point many times there's most of the things that come across in my desk just going to the two high-basket. I'm just not a smart man. I just can't. I'm really on the fence with this. And I haven't actually given it the look it deserves.

I'm always, as an individual, I'm naturally cautious of things that everyone likes. But there's an inner contrarian to my own detriment. No, it's like, I don't. No one likes it. I do it.

Almost instinctively. And it sometimes serves me well. Oftentimes it doesn't serve me well. But there is an element of that because it is such a thing. You know, it's all pervasive in the zeitgeist.

It's like, I, that's a little bit too hot. But it's more than that. It's really just, I can't handicap it. We can be having a chat in five years time. And this has just been like, everyone who bought it on the float is up a thousand percent.

And I honestly wouldn't go, oh my God, I could never have been visiting. Yeah, totally could see that happening. But I could also totally see it being down 80% in five years time. And this is, so it's just like, you don't have to force a position. This is the beautiful, what does it call it? It's a no-strike game in referring to baseball.

It's not three strikes in your room. No-call strikes. You just sit there and just wait until the pitch is nice and slow and right in the middle of your swing. And then you go for it, right? And this one to me is coming in hot. It's spinning and curving.

I was like, I'll let that one go to the catcher. I don't need to risk it. And here's the other beautiful thing. You're giving the comparison with the horse racing. You've got to play your bets before they're out of the gate.

True, true. With this, we can be halfway around the track. I'm going to bet now. You've got the chance to bet at every time of the race. I can get on and off the pony at any point.

And so there might come a point. Like, again, there's multiple realities, but there's one reality that where it's like, it comes out and then it just massively flops. Maybe there's a recession, there's other insular effect. Something sort of happens and the share price crashes 80%. It's like, ooh, okay, maybe now I'll buy it.

And also, a bit more water under the bridge, got a bit more of an idea of the revenues and the opportunities and all the rest of it. So, yeah, I guess my urging is for anyone who's excited about this and how is it? It's hard not to be excited about the world's richest man launching an A.I. It's very dark. Come on, man.

Come on. I get it. I get it. But there's a little path here of just like, I don't know, shrug shoulders. I'll wait and see.

And that is perfectly legitimate. It'll obviously seem obvious in hindsight. But, you know, it's not the world. We're not there yet. And I do want to succeed as an individual.

But I don't want to fail either. I really don't care either way. But I do want SpaceX as a business to succeed for the sake of humanity. And this is going to sound a little bit pristic and hyperbolic. But if it wasn't for Elon and Tesla, there wouldn't be EVs everywhere today.

There was too much inertia from the legacy industry. It took someone a little bit crazy because he will come in and disrupt you all. And I will be able to raise ungodly sums of money and run it at a ridiculous loss for many, many years. If you were to get your time machine and go back and take Tesla out of the picture, EVs would be a curiosity today. Maybe they would.

I think their time was always going to come. Like, you never would have to say nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come. The technology was advancing to a point where it just became a no brainer. But it wouldn't have happened as quickly and it wouldn't have happened as soon without it. And in the same way, I think that doing bold things like this, I think it's going to sound really dumb.

I'm just saying anyway. It inspires. It inspires. It's a thing you're going to go watching this. Oh, wow.

We can do that. I want to do that. That's my passion. I want to do that. And it lights the way.

It shows the path. It dares us to dream. It shows you what is at least possible. I know I cringers I'm saying is because what are you talking about? I genuinely believe it.

I think humanity is worse off if styling completely crashes and burns because what it does is it says, oh, I'm not doing that. You're going to need someone else who's a little bit crazy to come along and do it because I'm not doing that. I think that would be a misfor humanity. It would set us back a little bit. Is that for hyperbolic?

No, I like it. I think there would be other invasives, not these ones. You're right. You're right. You're in my third years away.

I'm going to do this stuff. I'm going to do this. I don't think it's. There's a parallel universe where we talk about other things. And if these things don't happen, I think it's happened.

But the broader of inspiration is really, really important. I really like that. It's like only putting me on the moon. It was kind of one of those times when I got asked where, for America and for the West, it was like here we are. We did a thing.

It's like the first place in the farm, which I'm now enjoying. The fifth season of it, at least we watched it last night. I did a thing. But it is. It is that idea of yes, I can do that too.

I think that's really huge. That's a speech gets played today. Yeah. Yeah. It runs speech from what on some platform is ever going to get played in future generations?

No, it's a technology. It's a technology. I should say that. But other than that, I'm not even picking on a particular political party. But those things are, and we need inspiration.

So I just like it works. I really hope it works. I think that's true. But again, by the way, I'm not saying this. It will work even if shareholders lose money.

Oh, true. And so that's kind of it. No, it's going down the line. It works. If it works, it'll work.

And it's still losing money. Yeah. And that's also true. I will say one thing really quickly. I listened to this hopefully around for a long time and know if you're new to the podcast.

When I'm talking about what I think about SpaceX, I'm not saying the Share Prize can't jump on IPO. It may be 300 bucks a share while the time it closes on day one. It could probably easily happen. Or by the way, the inside is going to bail out at the same point. This is a super prize.

And the Share Prize can be 90 bucks. Or it could be either a both those things and then half will double that price in three months like Facebook. So it's really, really important when we think about this. It's just really clear with our listeners. We're not doing this.

We're not saying this is what will happen on IPO day. And if it's double or halved as we like to do it, I have no idea what that one's going to do. I have no idea what you want. I have no idea what you want. I don't think I don't think you put it too hard.

I have sufficient confidence to believe I'm a long-term investor. In five years time, is SpaceX more valuable than it is now? I don't know. The business is more valuable. But will the ship will be officially valuable to just like current and future share price?

I don't know. It looks very exciting. By the way, we haven't mentioned competition. Amazon, Amazon, Sharehouse, I'm probably biased. But I was reading in the fin this morning.

But the end is partnering with Amazon's new satellite. Which is exactly the same as Starlings in concept. Low, earth and orbit satellites. I was on this service for the year, which I like. It's low with orbit.

That's a nice little name. What happens if they turn up? Where does the starlings margin? Maybe Amazon doesn't make any loses money and closes it down. Or maybe it's around 50 years and merges in the industry for the floor because they're two providers.

And frankly, internet rights are comparable. As long as the speeds are comparable, at some point, you'd be because the tech's probably much much different. It's very not different enough to be that important. It maybe comes in a price. So maybe the whole thing, another rocket maker or another AI.

In some version of the future, we'll use AI, but yeah, I can't use that profitable. Low with orbit satellites are a dime a dozen. And you're buying them for cost by 10%. You're buying them for the service. And there's 15 companies doing rockets.

And SpaceX, I remember they were the first one there. Or maybe it's the reverse. Maybe it's the only rocket company for the next 50 years of any size. And maybe Twitter's AI is the AI that takes the world by sort of like any of those are possible. This is why the range of outcomes is so massive.

But just so I don't know what happens in the short term. I don't know what happens in the medium term. Anybody that is successful as a business. And maybe it's a storage industry. Maybe it's a double and double again.

And double again after that. And maybe it goes for a loss of $5 billion to a regular profit of $10 million or $50 billion. That might not be enough just by the compromise. That's the question we have to answer. And you can say I like the business.

I like the technology that's supposed to run it like Elon. But I'm happy you're silent customer. It doesn't mean I'm going to buy the shoes. I just don't know whether they'll be worth the compromise. Really little aside here.

I don't like Elon thing. He's such a thing now. And I'm not going to defend the guy. But I always find it funny how we all do it. I don't show up and have that hang there.

And there's that rational. But it goes against the point that I'm making. I often say to people it's like I would not because Elon are like, you know, you don't. Do you know the CEO of Johnson and Johnson and Johnson and Johnson and Johnson? I don't know.

We'll give them all the top Z-Suite executives. You know what they like as an individual. I don't know. You go with the people of Johnson and Johnson and they'll be fine up standing. You don't know.

You don't know. Guess what? There's a lot of humans that are just really… And they're out there. And they're a lot of them. And once you start making decisions on moral grounds it's sort of like, it's going to be like, I won't do that because I don't like that person.

It's like, okay, but you buy that thing over there? Well, I don't know that they're a bad person. You know what it is. I feel that for me, I tend to be more pragmatic. And you obviously are because you're a styling customer.

It's like, do I like the product all the service. Do I like the product or the service? And I just said that there's a line that I won't. We're all floor humans. It's just irrational, like this.

And I'm as irrational as anyone. It's a thing. The amount of tears I see with the sticker on the back saying, I bought this before, you want to make it crazy, or whatever the sticker is. It's funny, but it's kind of, anyway. That's a very funny philosophical question, actually, about what you know about someone.

Because I'm like, I completely agree, and I completely disagree. I mean, both of those camps. I know it's not shelter time. I probably would prefer them because I'm just an animal shell. If Amazon Leo always has good estate, it's not a fairly cheap change, because it doesn't matter.

One of the came out of the Bezos was, I don't know. A lot of people already think that. That's what I said, it's fascinating. At one point, it's irrelevant. On the other hand, if there's two shops, and one's run by the mafia and one's not, they're for the same price when you shop.

And I think it's easy to see for us to all go. Of course I do that. I'm not saying there are many people that really clearly like it. I love you, don't you? But the reality is that we are making this at some point, which is just what is better for my...

I mean, all this is so random that floor humanity of where do I draw my lines, and what do I like and don't like. I will say, my wife's very kidding, and he's an ex-car. And the moment we work at Tesla, because of Elon. And it's that rational, no, but it's fairly equally, you know, we put our money where our mouth is in a whole lot of stuff and a whole lot of parts of our lives, and it doesn't, I'm not depending on it, to exactly what it is, it's like, doesn't matter, no, if the car's in the world, why do you care? Why, you know, if you're going to buy your fury, I can't stand it, just to seek out the Elon's nose.

He doesn't know. And you'll drive your worst car. Right, right? It's also, you know, people just think that there's a big factory somewhere with Elon sitting in the middle, and it's like, there's literally ten to thousands of hard work that people, you know, like, are they all bad? I'm just saying it's interesting.

It's interesting. It's a participant in that irrationality. It's like, gosh, we are an interesting creature. And that's it, right? That's one-on-one.

Back to investing. That's why investing is so bloody hard, because we're all floor to humans. We're just trying to make our way through it. We're hopefully partially where our own biases, because of the truckload, where not the research says that most of our rational ideas are emotional instinctive responses that we rationalise by putting some, you know, logical foundations, or how I do this or how I do this or how I do this or how I do this. No, no, no, no.

And people listening right now, we're like, oh, I'm not that. The research says you are. And I am. And we are horribly flawed. The best we can do is be as less flawed as possible.

But that's as good as it gets, right? And maybe there's, I mean, not be overly philosophical again, but, you know, there's a play in the room for each other if a break, knowing that we're all horribly flawed and desperately trying to swim through the evolutionary suit that we were served up, and trying to be as rational and reasonable as possible, but swimming against the tide. And, you know, maybe we can probably be fully concerned with each other, but we know that we're all that person just in different flavors. Yeah, but well said, well said. One of the other things I want to do is I just back on the with Flitspace X.

The thing that was, well, there was a gazillion things that was interesting about the internet and still are, but there was interesting things about all sort of foundational tech, if I could use that word, whether it's electricity grid or radio networks or all of these things, is it's kind of, they start and that's the business model. I'm going to pump electricity into every house. I'm going to put some wires up and connect it to it. Why don't I generate the other end of someone's house? So that's the business.

And it's actually, when you look at those things in hindsight, it's actually, no, that was just the plumbing that made everything else possible. Like, it was the platform to use the modern sort of expression of it. So what was interesting about the internet, does anyone really give us stuff about the ISPs that are out there? No one talks about ISPs. I mean, it's not like the one exception, I suppose.

But that's only because it's in space. Like, who cares? It's the most boring business in the world. We're very capital intensive. Oh, actually, it all depends.

But you know, you're basically putting a bunch of wires out there and then building people on it. That's not what's interesting about the internet. The interesting thing about the internet is Google and Amazon and Netflix and all of those kinds of things. And the other things on top of that. I very much expect in the long arc of time, whether or not it's SpaceX directly involved in that it's the platform of space travel that is super interesting.

When you start to really bring down the cost to put a ton of anything in orbit, when that cost curve falls, and cost curves always falls, you build up the capital around it, like the tools, the equipment, the know-how, you've got a foundation of stuff that you can then leverage, you know, that 100th rocket is a lot cheaper to launch than the first one. It enables other things. And so that's what I'm really grabbing the popcorn for. And I hope I live long enough to kind of see it. It's sort of like, you know, people talk about a moon base, right?

It's like, my, you know, chart is like, yes, please. I will go back that all going to Mars, right? All of these things. I mean, why don't we do that? People, why don't we do that?

People, why don't we do that? It's like, because it's really, really, really hard. And not only is it hard, it's expensive. There was an interview I caught with Elon not too long ago, and he said, what's the cost? He says it's infinite.

We just can't do it at a stage. But it won't be infinite forever. And it'll go from infinite to like, you know, ridiculously expensive to less ridiculously expensive to, yeah, let's do that. And when you get to a stage where a small media enterprise in downtown Perth can think about putting a micro-sad in low orbit to do some interesting stuff that they're doing. It's sort of like SpaceX is the least interesting thing in all of that.

Yeah, we put the rockets, we build the rockets to put the stuff up there. But then it's the stuff that's up there that becomes really interesting. And oh, actually now we can build infrastructure on them. Oh, actually there's hardly any gravity on them. And actually that becomes a really good launching point for out of solace system exploration.

Oh, like things that are laughable today, like mining asteroids actually become very tenable, very tenable with a very, very low cost lift to orbit. And now look, I'm talking probably 50, 100 years. Who knows? Off into the future direction. I think when we look back in time, assuming we don't blow ourselves up first, that will be the more interesting thing with this era is the building the foundation of that platform that allows for a much, much broader space industry.

And an industry that's offering things that I don't even, I can't even imagine what it would be. We can't really go beyond, well, we put satellites up there and maybe a bit of space tourism for the billionaires. Like, I don't know. I don't know. It could even be something as really weird as like it's actually really helpful to run experiments in low microgravity.

And so a bunch of university labs from around the planet will now be routinely doing very cutting edge science in space, which was once the purview of only NASA and it took 20 years to plan and build and design and get up there and we only had three hours to do the thing. It's like, ah, 10 grand. It turns out we can run this experiment here. Oh, turns out that we've now got room temperature superconductors and hoverboards. You know, whatever happens to be.

So as I say, I want space X to succeed, even if it ultimately fails just to shine the way and inspire others to do the same because there's a whole big solar system out there. And it'd be very depressing for me and my 12 year old self to think that this is as good as it gets. Like, I would love to see us go to the stars. And this is one of the steps along the way. Motley Fool Money.

For more, subscribe to the free newsletter at full.com.au forward slash listener. Let's try and merge a bit of macro and a bit of investing. Three things this week on jobs, which I thought were really interesting. And they kind of are joined only because they're jobs, jobs, jobs are job losses, but also because they talk to maybe the economy, maybe the way investors should think about these things. I want to get your thoughts.

So I'll throw three different ideas at you, but coming from a similar place in terms of jobs. The first was like a lute report published on, I think it might have been Sunday on Monday just gone. And the report from now, I always said predictions are worth exactly which pay for them, which is nothing and no one knows. And everyone's guessing they do it largely for a bit of PR and it was also on the paper. So you've managed it.

But news.com.au reported there are 81 different occupations that Deloitte reckon are at risk because of AI. And I reckon if I'd asked people, you would start with our technology jobs obviously, and then maybe some other stuff from there. And that may well be the case. But the list from Deloitte and it's really interesting is a very different list. Now, tech turns out Rumber 23 is where it starts.

But if we start with what they've done, again, I'm not saying they're right at all. I'm just, it's grist for them. It's interesting to think about. Then, top say 9, 10, 11 different occupations that you got at risk, all have the word manager at the end. So let's go corporate services, management number one, then HR managers two, engineering managers, production managers, supplier distribution procurement managers, commission offices and management, licensed club managers, other accommodation hospitality managers, retail managers, amusement, fitness and sports center managers, and call, context center and customer service managers.

And I thought that was fascinating for its own sake. We went, I want to feel free to, other than that, just rather than looking at accountants, number 17, Ligarians, number 19, ICT which is information, communications and technology. Wait. There are some librarians. Yeah, sales officials.

Graphic and web designers in Australia. Maybe no surprises there. there and then you get to 23, 24, 24, 26, IT, the O systems analyst web developers, applications programmers, so that stuff. Further on the list, betting clerks, speaking of the races, switchable operators, transport and dispatch clerks, court and legal clerks, or clerks, I guess they're clerks. Debt collectors, human resource clerks, library assistants, insurance agents, sales reps, pharmacy sales assistants, retail supervisors, service stations, attendance, models and sales demonstrators, ticket sellers.

And it's just a really interesting list to make. And I don't know that there's anything new in that, but essentially this to talk about. So there's that one. Second one this week was Woolies is apparently going to outsource possibly hundreds of jobs overseas and taking those out of their head offices and saying, you know what, we got a job to do here, but that job can be done as easily overseas as he can now overseas a cheaper price than he. And you kind of think, I can't do that, consulting companies do that, court firms do that, but supermarket operators, that's kind of a thing.

And the last one I was talking about, I know it's going to be a reservation, Southern Cross Media, which is the business that was in the old Southern Cross area, by the way, they at least now are part of the Southern Cross business, they produce this podcast, has nothing to do with it's talking about it other than just recognizing that there's a conflict there, it's not okay, I don't care about it, just for the sake of entirely transparent conversation. So, Southern Cross doesn't put his foot knees now, potentially. That wasn't the twine, actually, but hey, it's not, it's close to one, but you take it as you do, it's not the cross media, well Southern Cross Australia, which is the radio and podcast business and the seven news business, now part of that conglomerate, they're going to allow 300 people from that business. Now, very, very different things going on, revenue advertising, revenue on one of them, just simply cascading on the other, maybe competition, maybe profit mechanization, maybe IT allowing those jobs to be done remotely, and then AI is being AI, just potentially a sway across everything.

And I guess there's a couple of things about this, there's the issue of what it does for the jobs market, spoiler alert, coming up in a couple weeks, I'm doing an episode on the Universal Basic Income. So, listen, that one we recorded, so I was not before we knew this stuff, but it's interesting because we did talk about our little bit in that pre-record, so look out for that one. But yeah, I just think it's, it's interesting at a economic level, it's interesting at an investor level, a company level, how do we think about companies that do this sort of stuff? Is it good when someone lies off some stuff, is it bad, it'll be indifferent to it? Again, I know it's a random selection, but all jobs related, I'll just throw it in, and say what do you think, what comes to mind?

I mean, I'm always very skeptical of delight reports or reports from any of these big, full firms. And again, it's not just a game, not me. I think there's a, there's what's it called? The Truth Defense, so I'm not, I'm not, predicting the future is hard, so I'm really not trying to be too critical. I mean, it's the same reason why I'm critical of various central banking predictions.

It's just like, and after you, there's a certain track record that's there, and it just behooves us to kind of acknowledge it. It's like, if you and I were catching up for a drink at the pub and you're going, oh hey, Jerry just predicted that everyone's doing this, like what, the dude who's literally wrong and everything, I'm like, go, I don't care. Whereas like, oh, Sally said this, oh yeah, well actually she's been on the money for most of the time, you know, I pay attention. So it's great, it's great, quick play. They do it for a reason, right?

So this might, this might cynical take out of the way. They also tend to lean very heavily into sort of directional trends that are self-evidently true and undeniable. So yeah, AI's a thing, it's getting bigger, it's gonna have an impact. Well done, how much of that report costs? Right.

But they do what we all do, which is they overestimate the timeline and they overestimate the specifics. So it's, it's- Or under its attention, right? Yeah, or potentially, yeah, yeah, but usually it's sort of like, you know, the flying car by 20, you know, 2003, well, I've got it, not yet. And I mean, we won't, but it's- I'm still shocked about that, by the way. I still have my car.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Don't get me started. And so, I think for a lot of, who was it? Someone said it recently, it was at Mark Andreessen, one of them, it's just like, it's just an excuse. For a lot of these companies, particularly in this, he was, I think, talking in the startup world, it's like, you over-hire it.

You over-hire it. And now you've got an excuse to fire a bunch of people. I've spoken, I mentioned it on the pod before, I've spoken to several CEOs now who aren't getting rid of a damn person. Yeah. And that is because, and not because they're not using AI, because they're using AI, they can do 100 times more than what they did with the existing stuff.

So it's sort of like AI, I mean, we all use it, I'm as big a fan as anyone else, but it's not as good as a human being in a lot of areas. Yeah, I feel as though it's an excuse for some of these big, slow institutions that are just not agile and not creative. And they are very stodgy old enterprises that are very, very slow. Please, please, please. Not that they're not doing it.

I don't remember an organization even having a fellow excuse for making people who were done at the past. Oh, they shouldn't. I think it's up to you. You're cool. If you want to get- But that's my point.

I find the- But they feel as though they do need an excuse. I mean, they're not going to do it anyway. I mean, we're like, coming to Firefall. Yeah, totally we're going to do it anyway. This is a meeting somewhere going, we're going to get around my gosh, they're in control, we're going to use that going.

Oh yeah, and then the PR people get their hands on it. Should we help some medicine go down? Sure, sure. I just want to make the point. I don't know if you're second believe it's- They are only doing the AI off because AI is a thing.

The same thing I'll let them do the AI off. They're doing it anyway. Maybe it's a nice cover story. I don't think it was needed to be- Well, thank God we've got an excuse now we can let these people off. So we're going to do it anyway.

So people have very strong opinions until it's their business. Job losses. Yes, I will, but it will also create a bunch of jobs. Here's a full of experiment. It's a little bit odd, we want you asking, but I was walking along the fire trail the other day and I was pondering this exact thing.

And let's go west end. Let's see what I thought experiment, right? Let's say that this age of abundance is on our doorstep. We, through a combination of AI, robotics and that we are just going to find everything becomes insanely cheap. And that means, so Andrew, that sounds great.

I agree. I think it sounds bloody brilliant. But you get a lot of pushback on that because people will go, well, if people are spending less than there's less income for jobs, if there's less jobs, there'll be more unemployment. Now you are. Okay, that's a bit harder now.

Well, now what do I think of it? And I think we've got to try a bit more first principle thinking with all of this stuff. And again, remembering this goes back to a little island analogy, right? You mean 100 other people out there saving away, catching fish, chopping down fire with all the usual good stuff. You know, knitting baskets have reeds and whatever you do on an island when you don't have all the cool tech and capital that we take for granted today.

But then someone comes along and says, actually, which is like one of the bots from my robot just lands on the shore. It's like, yep, I can charge up, I'm solid powered, I'm good to go. I can replicate myself. I'll do whatever you want. Now, what's going to happen to all of the jobs?

The jobs are all gone. It's not a bad thing. Why is that a bad thing? You've got nothing to do. Yeah, well, I've got plenty of it.

I just don't have to work for it anymore. I used to spend eight hours a day desperately trying to catch a fish. Now I'm lying on the beach, working on my tan and having a beautiful fish delivered to me steamed and covered with a little bit of garlic and ginger. It was lovely. You know, and it's like, this is not a bad thing.

So prices, there's two sides to this coin. Yes, it means a loss of jobs, but it also means a lower requirement for a job in the first place. Why do you could sustain all your material desires working one hour a week? Now, call me crazy. I'm probably missing something here.

But I'm calling me crazy, but why is that a bad thing? I don't get why that's a bad thing. Yes, you don't, you're used to work 40 hours a week. Now you only work one hour. Like, go on.

I'm not saying the problem here. Oh, you mean that I used to work 40 hours a week and now I work one hour a week and now I can't get all the nice stuff that he's the boy. Oh, no, you can still have it all. Mm-hmm. Okay.

What am I missing, mate? I don't know anything, mate. I don't have a strong view on the future. If I was to... But it's a thought experiment.

Let's just say, let's talk about it. That's not pondered alike. It happens. It happens. We've got robots and AI and they just brilliant.

Oh, no, no, there's nothing wrong with that. If you took your issue, you might do this. You took your step, that works, right. The question is, no, it's not you took your bit of it. Why is it like there's a well-divided aspect to it?

The actual capital is absolutely the key. Well, it's a couple of things. I suspect I don't get too ideological or philosophical or ethical or moral or religious. The process of work ethic means something deeper down. It's not just a person being out there, that kind of thing.

I think purpose is important and I don't know what that looks like in a world where there is no effort required to sustain yourself or to be in some way useful. I think we know a lot of people don't have those... A lot of people lose hope. A lot of people when they retire lose all sense of who they are and what they're trying to achieve because I was so close to social with their thing. I don't know how much of that is cultural, but I don't know how much of that is personal or how much that is just deeply in our DNA.

We just have forever foraged for food and got enough food and done the things. Most of us are having a week or a half of a week, like, oh my God, I just got to find something to do. I don't know. Again, I don't have to get rid of that. I want to answer that question.

Just on that before you move on, I agree, purpose is everything. I think that of all the studies on happiness, it's people with purpose, the happiest people on earth. I guess where I push back is this, like, if you're telling me the only way I can find purpose is sitting in a 2x4 cubicle staring at a spreadsheet all day. That's what I challenge. It's like, I agree, purpose is important.

But digging a ditch in the hot midday sun is the only way for me to find purpose. Join me now. This is depressing. I think so. But again, we're not talking about every job or list of jobs.

I don't necessarily agree with the characterization. I don't know they're almost a ditch in the midday sun, but I also think that being productive in those ways is still to some degree. I'll say life of them, which is going to be a bit weird. That kind of idea. I think there are low-paid hard jobs that at least in our nostalgia and rose colour classes.

At the time, we can be surprised, maybe it's just because we have to believe it so we can get through. That's the idea of, you know, I might be doing a lot of things, but I mean this little thing well. I take pride in the work that I do, and I like digging a ditch to some, but man, I dig a good ditch. I like the people that I work with, and it gives me somebody to go and something to do. Again, I'm not saying I'm not anywhere near qualified, but I don't know how that plays out.

But I would say that's something to think about, and I don't want to be an artist. Some will go, I'll go and dig a veggie garden, some will go and paint something. I'll just do something else. I'm not going to do it. I'm not going to do it.

I'm going to spend time with them. I'm going to do that. That's my thing. That's my purpose. There's a thousand different varieties.

It's not that I 100% agree. It's just that when people use that as an excuse as to why drudgery must exist for purpose, I just think, well, purpose can be found in a whole bunch of different ways. I've never met a Garbo, I've never met, because I say who's one powerball and continue to do it for purpose, right? I'm not an artist. I don't think we should have scattered it.

I don't think we can say there is no one out there who would feel less satisfied with their lives than a productive occupation to have. I'm not saying everyone does. I'm not saying everyone does. I'm not saying we should make people do it. I'm just saying, what would the answer be?

For some people I suspect, maybe it's 5 people, maybe it's a million people, maybe it's 5% of us, maybe it's only 5% of us. At some point it's like the thing that I do is the thing that I do and without it. I'm not, I'm not saying. Just none of us making horseshoes today and no one goes, oh, we don't have any purpose in the modern age because there's no barrel makers and blacksmiths. They're not, they're not, they're not, they're not, they're not, they're not, they're not, they're not, they're not.

Exactly, they're not, they're not, they're not. I think it's each to their own. I think if you want to go and dig a hole because it fulfills you, then you should go and live your best life. If you feel as though you prefer to travel and engage with family and friends or be an artist, or whatever it happens to be, then that is your choice too. This is a great journey we're all on to figure it all out, find purpose in life.

But I just, I think the thing is too, I think you can say, people would obviously find other works so work, so I don't think that says blank a statement as everyone needs to work. I don't think we do recognize some people, some people, that is purposeful and that's what they do and that's how they do it. And you know, whatever those things are, there are people who are studying. You're only living your own humanity, I think. It's a tragedy in a way.

I know, I guess I might, might, might, might be. I, I, it's the word for it. It's like, it makes me sad that you can only find purpose in doing that thing. And not that that thing is important and that you shouldn't take pride in it, but there is a whole world of experience to be had out there and it's like, okay, one door closes. I think this technology means another million doors open.

You know, so it's like, I don't get to do, I don't get to be a HR manager anymore to go back to your initial list. But now I can do the thing I always wanted to do. Whatever it happens to be, each of us will find our own fulfillment. It's usually someone at Glass Tower somewhere or high ranking politician or bureaucrat who makes the door. No, you have to work because you'll be unfurfilled if you don't.

So keep doing that thing. How do I say, do you want us to? I think I go off. Do you don't know who actually gets the funds value in doing what they're doing as a child? I think it's a lot of people.

Yeah, yeah, totally. I'm pretty sure that a whole bunch of other interesting things reveal themselves. You're not working with them. You're not working with them. You're not working with them.

That doesn't automatically pre-suppose that you're just watching Netflix all day, right? You now have free time to do other things. Those other things could be for feeling productive whatever is. Whatever it is. I don't think we can say work is not that for people.

And there would be no loss of purpose without work at a Gorista. It's going to be worth it. I'm just asking you what could go wrong. Next point. The situation is huge.

Again, we're talking about the cons of the concept. I'm much more than all the two at the time. I'm not sure what the pre-recorded one has done. But yeah, who owns the stuff matters in terms of the same type of art. So if everyone can work one hour a week and have the things that we have now, then no dramas.

If one hour a week comes because of your crews to the owners of Capital rather than the current providers of Labor, then it's a very, very different world. And I think that's a question mark. Again, I'm not sure about that. I'm not saying it. That's what I've done.

I think that's the only one I had. Back on my mind. Yeah, do. Back on my mind was. Oh, yeah.

Well, you think of it just like I would say is, you're not too much living standard for. I know what it's a difficult ground. But we took a house price. We all agree on this house price extraordinary. And if you said, when you buy a house that goes somewhere else, there income, so you can't just remove that from the economy, pretend that just lowering house prices, nothing else changes.

But imagine a scenario in which we have everything we have today, but houses were $x cheaper. We could work probably half maybe less the average person. If house prices were four times income, almost by definition, you could work half the amount. And you can always say start a business with your much lower threshold for profit as well. So I think about.

Yeah, I'm thinking about. Yeah, you're right. Yeah, you're right. I'm just thinking about what the tangent here of. So my point of that is, what do we do?

We've got rich and we put it into other things. We find things to spend the money on. And I don't, I can't. I am entirely up in the entire human history experience, right? But at any point during that period since the Industrial Revolution started, we've managed to find enough stuff to buy.

So we choose to continue to work full time. What does that choose to? There's a big background property price. No one chooses to buy a needle for a dog box. You have to.

That's the price. It's not an individual choice. It's all about the cost of the stock. That's the price. And that's actually the price, right?

Right? So it's kind of like, what do we do? We said, I'm going to go and capitalize that in my house. Or I'm going to go and buy the second car second TV, take the international holiday. Our living standards improved.

As I should. But we could have a fairly short change of food for the path where we have, I don't know, 80s living standards and working 20 hours a week. And we did individually choose to all go. We didn't have a vote. I do it in the absence of everybody else.

But the reality of the way that has netted out is we capitalize and consumerized that extra income into more stuff. more stuff. So I would say, you said that you had to happen with that. So I'm not, maybe I'm breaking the question a little bit. I think about now, I might have taken a little tangent.

I guess I'm a little bit skeptical of, unless I was so good, no one can work in that value with more than one hour a week, because it's not a job to be done, which is possible. I suspect every bit of incremental living standard we're offered, we take with two hands and continue to work and spend more on the stuff. We don't get more stuff for it necessarily, maybe just inflex away. But either way, I think it's, he's definitely inflates away under the current system. Yeah, but history says that's what we've done. Every time we've had the opportunity

to work less or continue more, we try to continue more. There's something there. Yeah. You've made the point before, and I know it's a good point because it has spurred many a shell thought, or a flat-trial thought. It's like, yeah, I take what you say very seriously, but I very much do. No, I do. You know my whole deal

is I just, what am I missing? And if someone's got a different point on things, it's like, if I can't articulate it or if I can't robot it, then they're probably right. And you've made that point, we're not just you. A lot of people have made that point before. Here's where I push back on it though. And again, I do say it with full expectation that you've

got this and then I go, oh, yeah, that's a good point. That's a good point. I think the argument that you make there, we need to separate away what our productivity has afforded us. So we have got global supply chains and manufacturing and production capacities that just make things super, super, super, super cheap. Right? And you sort of say, yeah, but I assume they

get cheaper just by more of it. It's like, actually, no, no, that's true. I think what has happened is there's been a, there's two paths here. There are the things that all of that technology and process has enabled. Let's just be derogatory and just call it plastic crap from China.

Right? So yeah, I can now get, oh, it's talking about Ferris. I got a new laptop the other day of really cheap. It's just like a miracle in a box. It's like, I got my old, got my old laptop around. You know, it's just brick. It's useless. And inflation adjusted

terms was like five times more expensive. Right? Right. I had a global laptop. So people, no, by the same amount of laptops, they're just much better and cheaper. And you say, but where's

the money gone? Now, this is the interesting thing. Where the money is gone into things that do not avail themselves of these processes, namely property and land, right? And this is where the AI thing is really interesting in the abundance. Let's go with the abundance thought experiment. Yep. Robots everywhere, everywhere, whatever you want this term. Doesn't matter how

good it gets. There's only sort of, there's only, but it's point, only has so many mansions on it. Right? That they will always scarcity is, is valuable. Right? And there are some

things that the production can't increase more of. This is not going in the direction you're probably missing. But, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, it's, it's hard as we ever can, but it's like it's just less and less and less towards the plastic trinkets and the consumer goods, and more and more and more towards the important stuff. The house, you know, housing and healthcare, fuel and these kinds of things. And I don't think, I don't think any kind of technological miracle changes the fact that if I had the ability to, I would leave somewhere really, really nice. Right? I just, I just, I just would.

That that's, that that's where the money goes and that's partly why prices have gone so globally, mainly because we decided to, you know, multiply the money supply by an ungodly amount. But why do we do that? Because of jobs, because of this. And then here's the irony of our own. It doesn't actually work.

Because that stuff is absolutely scarce. It's just been dead and nullified to a good degree, not nearly enough to offset all of the silly bugginess, because we're all dealing with the cost of living crisis. But nevertheless, they're very much nullified by the fact that while all housing and all these other things are going to the moon, I can satisfy certain base once very, very easily now. Because you've got these different things pushing in different directions. On one hand, back to our island analogy, it's just like it should be really, really good.

Except that all we did is in the effort to make sure that people keep working, because working is inherently good for its own sake. And we've pumped all this extra money, and it's just gone to the things that the robots on our island can't make more. I've still got the best hut at the top of the hill that overlooks the harbour. They're lagoon, right? Like, I've got it.

But the robot can catch fish. Like, eh, eh, I've got the land, right? And that will always be true. So I think even if you get, there is a definitely a wealth distribution kind of thing. But it's all arbitrary at a point.

It's just like whatever the numbers are, whatever the technology is, the richest person's going to have the nicest house. And that's just the way it is. Whatever the nominal value of that house is, that relativity will always exist. But even then, it's just like, is it necessarily a bad thing if the bottom 3% still live like Midas? So like, I don't know.

I don't know. It's not that well, mate. I guess that's what I'm saying. I think if you think about the benefits of AI, is the shims, the stuff is cheaper. And the stuff is cheaper because the owners of AI slash the users of AI are prepared to turn that into cheaper stuff.

Sure, something like AI. Because what's the value of the capital if you can't sell the stuff? It's a question. I've got a robot that can do anything. Yeah.

All right, I'm going to charge a gazillion dollars for it. I was going to buy it. It's not as much as the amount of air, which is the current price. Absolutely. But as that trend plays forward, what the market can bear will reduce and reduce and reduce.

As long as it's still profitable for me to do it, I will do it. And that's the history of everything. That's why in real inflation adjusted, in terms of things like a car, it's just so ridiculously cheap these days. Because of all of that. But it hasn't.

So I think it's two thoughts. I think you've got a point about the land and property which is where the money goes. I think that's fair. I do wonder, though, the scarcity is also the access to the brain surgeon for example. Anything that's limited in supplies where the value goes.

Well, the value doesn't even go. It's a nominal thing. It's more as where the price goes. Because it must be revealed there. But on a relative basis, it's not complex.

What? That, if that? I'm trying to think through the. I'm not saying that. I get tripped up on it too.

But it's all I can tell you is it's a lot more complicated than what the talking heads make out. So two things. I think firstly, I don't agree with you that we have the same things as we always did in the difference occurring to land. And I think only land. If you look at the things that I have, and this is a happy example, right?

When I was growing up, we moved to a newly built house that had no carbon on the floor of my latte sheets and windows. We had a push button color TV in the lounge room. And about five years later, we bought a second black and white. Small tiny little TV for the family room so that I could watch the Kingswood Country or Mrs. was watching the other room.

We had one car. We didn't take a single international holiday as a family other than my aunt who worked. And wanted us to get us cheap tickets to go to my auntie. Other people in the US. I think, so if we write sized, not write size this bad boy, if we same sized, like sized, common sized, these were the common sized financial statements.

If we common sized our current lifestyles back to whatever. Whatever period I'm going to choose, there would be enormous amount of money left over. Now, I could either save that or I could spend that somewhere else. And we know from generations of humanity post-industrial revolution, our savings rates really change much. Now they shouldn't be getting to the value of saving like I said, it'll be kind of less like that.

But it's gone to housing. That's where it's gone. It's gone to the scarce thing. We're not saving less than courseware. But it's gone to, it's gone to, it's gone to, literally has gone to consumption because I'm not just having a single Catholic rate shoe Calitiva in the, I could tomorrow personally, me personally, and you could live in a life style, have money left over.

And that would make no difference to housing process. Now, if we all did it, it's a good way to get us with the money. But my point is it hasn't, because we have chosen to do those things. So our, a lot of it has gone, it hasn't completely grew with you. But nowhere near the whole amount, otherwise we would only have one Catholic rate TV tube and one second hand car and one, no, obviously.

You're saying, I've got two TVs in my house. You're saying if I only had one TV that I wouldn't be living in an affordability crisis? No. I'm saying the money will either be saved or saved. Yeah, but it's not, whether I buy a second TV or not is the difference between me getting ahead in life.

Like it's maybe, maybe a free one. Maybe a free one. I'm not saying that at all. I'm not making any argument or any value judgment at all. I'm saying if I lived, if I lived my life, why am I apparently their lives, I would have money left out.

I would either save that money or it finds a way else to spend it. And we know from history that the answer at a community level is at the end, not at all. We've absolutely done it. I have two cars. I have three TVs.

I have a laptop. I never left. I have a laptop. I have computers. We've chosen to make those consumer choices as well as, and again, we, is a, is a, is a, is a, is a, is a different one because part of it is choice of part of it is getting up with the Jones and part of it is that's the process of housing.

I'm saying I'm saying it's more than just that. So that is, that is objectively. Yeah, but it's a rounding error relative to the, to the big ticket items, right? But that, that's my point. But let's not, let's not stop here.

Because I'm not saying it's not, what I'm saying is we haven't, we have also done these things. So the, we've had more money available to us. We've chosen not to work less. I could, you know, in such a fictional world, I could live the life of my parents and work for the Motley Fill Four, picking up 20, 38, where number hours a week, and it's a penny. I decided, we decided family, we're going to live that life and work your hours.

We could, we all, we all could do it. I'm not saying, I'm not saying it's not, I'm not saying it's not I'm not making any value judgement or making relative housing at all. I'm just saying objectively true. If I say I don't want that, I don't want Netflix. I don't want the computer.

I don't want my Starlink. I don't want the second car. I don't want whatever. I mean, Reggie on the car insurance on the car. That saved me a couple of grand a year.

Starlink cost me $150 a year. I'm saving $800 a year. That money would either. Pile up my bank account and go, hey, look, I'm sorry, you saved. Or if I was supposed to spend it.

I'm saying that's that. That is just so we have chosen to. Well, we could have chosen to work less. We've chosen to spend more. Now, the choice as well as house price is going to be more than requiring more spending because that's the market price.

I'm not disagreeing with that bit of it. I'm saying it is just simply true. Or obviously the household savings right all the time. We have chosen to have more things than we could choose to have. We could have more savings or spend money else if we wanted to.

It's not that you're wrong. It's a question of degrees there. Let's do the maths on some of those things. Get rid of the Netflix subscription. Only don't have a laptop at all.

Only have one TV. Again, I'm sure anyone under the age of 35 right now is more resonating with them than the people who aren't a house. They're going. It's the classic avocado on toast argument. It's like you could have all these nice things but you have avocado on toast.

It's like it's spurious. It's not. You're right that it does make a difference. It's just not the difference that people make out. I think you're a bit of a little bit because I'm not saying that.

You're talking about other people who say the same things. If you're saying that, that's okay. You're talking about the one I've worked my argument is we don't ever choose to work less and spend less. We choose to work more and spend more. Humans have 400 years.

We're talking about it. We're going around here. This is exactly what I'm saying because I don't think anyone is choosing to spend more. I think people are spending more. I think people are spending more.

I think people are saying you're the work less or you can buy the thing. That choice is obviously true. I don't know how it's not. Back to my original point because there's two tracks here. There's cheap stuff that we get better and better at making and there's these scarce stuff that we can't really push.

Every single thing that, again, the 32-year-old is not choosing to spend more on households. They have to. If you wanted to live in a dog box in the middle of the desert, you could be fine. I tell you the other problem with the argument too is that it assumes that this increasing living standard was all a function of the system that we designed. I would say it's absolutely nothing to do.

It's entirely the technology advancements that we made as a species. That's why we've got a laptop. That's why I'm watching Netflix. It's not because of some central banker or finance. I think you're saying with other people's views.

I'm not saying that I did what this is. I didn't say it was just doing it. I'm not talking about how it got here. What is worth, what value judge I'm making? I don't know how it doesn't do it.

I'm just making the very simple mathematical observation that any of us could choose to work less or work less or less stressful job, have less stuff. That's what that doesn't. I don't know. I don't know who bought it. If we're choosing to have not a house, then yes.

No, no, absolutely not. Absolutely not a house. We're not going to agree on this one. That could not be true. If you buy less stuff, you've got money left over.

That is not, that is evidently true. How many people are saving enough? They're not. They're all that spending and buying the extra things they want to have. That's fine.

I'm making the point of the reality. If humanity is, when you go to extra dollar and you pocket, you spend it. Look at how saving is for the last 50, 60 years. They've been effectively not unchanged. You know, income has gone through the roof.

Even allowing for housing. It's just, I'm not too early. I'm not just saying the other stuff is just a voluntary choice. And the entire time we make that choice, we say, I want the thing more than I want to work less. That's what I'm saying.

That's where we go to the one I'll week of. We could be working less now, had we chosen to, even with my housing. I'm not saying we couldn't work on our week. I'm saying maybe it's a four days a week. Maybe four and a half days.

Definitely metal the numbers. Or I can work on a stressful job. Honey, I decide I want to take a job. We'll use package shelves. It's going to be we have fewer cars, less TV.

It's like, oh, it's going to really run these things. It's going to be like, fill if you don't mind, please. Because I really like things we have. That's what I've got turned around to these works in education. It's not that I'm, yeah, I'd like to, I'd like to package it.

I was like, we can, but we then can't do this stuff. Which is where the house is going to happen, by the way. But we could make a lot of choices tomorrow. A lot of inflation is just, it is, right? The thing I think about everything you've bought as your income went up over the last 40 years, I had to work with my working 30 years.

I said before, I couldn't spend my first full-time paycheck. I could not spend it. And obviously now I'm not talking to that. I'm like, oh, I can't really, I'm not saving the most I should be. So why is that?

Well, because I bought better houses and better car on a laptop on a computer. And I bought Netflix and I paid for that. I bought a lot of mine. People work less. The evidence is we don't choose to do that.

We always choose to say rather than spend less on these things, that we can't choose to scratch myself on a lot of housing. You're on a unique ticket on housing. It just, it just obtains to how it automatically can be that. It is true. It's just not, it's just not, it's not needle moving when there's a massive 4,000 pound gorilla over there called housing, which is sucking up every single spare ounce of capacity into any way.

You don't really. Well, there's a theoretical choice to be made. It's just the avocado and toast. Like, yeah, you would actually get to a house faster if you didn't have less avocado and toast. But it's such a small factor as to be like, it's insulting almost.

I find it's kind of like, yeah, that is a factor. because it is a factor because it's mathematically a factor. But in the same way that, you know, smoking is bad for you, but it's like, yeah, I had a puff when I was 16 versus I'm a two-packer day smoker. They're technically true and there's actually, there's more like, so yeah, so it depends on what you want, on how you want to frame it. All I'm saying is, so let's go back to the, we can finish off this episode.

We go back to the original thing here is like, if all of these jobs go because of AI and because of increasing productivity, I would say, A, that people will find other stuff to do, and that's just the much of progress, and that's always been the case. And B, if it wasn't as a thought experiment, even if we decided that we didn't want to do that, that we could have a better lifestyle because of this sheer abundance. There's actually been loads, I mean, any time people do the numbers on this, it's just really hard to take housing out of it, and it's hard to take housing out of it because of scarcity. And even when they do, like, you know, people talk about the reason for it, and I'll point to money creation, people will talk to it, immigration, other people will talk to it, other things, but one of the things that come up in all of the studies that have been done is it's actually the red tape and the bureaucracy.

It's a classic example, like, it's straight, it's got a ton of land. We've got a ton of land. And you know what, when it comes to building a house, it's a lot of education and better at it. But the cost is all in the regulation and all the other stuff. So I am saying that there is, you've got to talk about the system to some degree because there is a, in a world of, again, everyone's got a robot and a genius in a box.

It's sort of like, we really could have a ton of really high quality housing all up and down everywhere. And again, that's a whole other separate debate about what we could, right? And if we were to do this, we would have, and it's a choice, right? Absolutely, right. But we would be able to have not only better, more enriching lives, more fulfilling lives, not even just more material lives with less labor work.

And it's one of those things that only reveals itself when you, again, the brain has trouble with scale, but back on the 100% island, it just becomes so obvious because how else would it work, right? How else could it go other than everyone either just deciding to do something else entirely or not doing the thing that they were doing before? Because you don't need to do it because of all of these technological advancements. Like it just has to be, like you say, maths like mathematically, that's the mathematics of the situation. It won't go that way, I'll very quickly hasten the way, because anytime there's a problem we'll print up a bunch of money, we'll throw it at it.

And that's why we get these incredible productivity enhancements and get the price just keeps going up. What about two times the other day? Everyone needs to be 12, 10, 10 in a packet. There was eight in there and there was space twice as far apart. A bunch of contribution.

It's gonna be time of inflation, but that's inflation, right? And it's sort of, anyway, I guess what I'm saying is, my broader point is, I am questioning, not necessarily, I'm at the verge of rejecting, but I'm very seriously rejecting the proposition that with an increasing productivity explosion and age of abundance, that that's a bad thing. That's where I'm really coming there. Because that's how, whenever I come across it in the mainstream, that's how it's being framed. And it's kind of like, you gotta slap yourself on the face.

Why are we talking about here? We're talking about being able to do so much more with so much less, and that's a bad thing, because the blacksmith doesn't have anything to do. I think it's narrow in scope, and I think it's short-sighted in vision, in the sense that, where if I was to explain that to a group of 12-year-olds, there we go, yes please, I'll have that. Do you know what I mean? Do you know what I mean?

I'm, yeah. The thing is, it's a beautiful, it's really true, right? You go, no, I wanna work, and I feel like, do what I do? I'm just not, I'm not as convinced as you are that AI won't make wealth or income inequality worse. I'm not sure it will, but I'm not convinced that won't, so I think I'll still- It will, but that's, that's, because it's housed within a inflationary monetary system.

If we take that away, then things would get insanely cheap. I'm not sure, equally though? Yeah, yeah, well, it's fairly. I suspect the owners of the capital end up better off in that world, than the plus- Like, let's, okay, we're into weeds now, settle in, everyone. Okay.

No, no, no, no, with, I'm not a huge man's company, I'm very happy to talk me out of it. I'm not gonna, I'm not sure, I just, the, maybe AI, again, maybe I was entirely parroting, breaking, but broadly speaking, we know over the past we have a period of time, the returns to capital have been, I've accepted to the return to labor, and it makes, I'm no revving communist, by the way. You know that well, but I do worry about the owners of the productive means, particularly in a labor-free world, who, you know, if I can work one hour a week and get enough money to fund my current lifestyle, trust me, I'm there. Do I think that's likely to be delivered to each person in the context of the proportion of their current lifestyle? I find that unlikely, almost by definition.

I have a very unlikely, I'm not gonna talk about that later, but that's just me, you guys are. So I invent something that's just incredibly great, and everyone buys it and becomes the same rich. I'm the richest person in the world, right? Now, the current world that we inhabit, it's just like, I have a huge amount of capital to borrow against, I borrow against, I create freshly created shackles, those shackles I go out and I acquire more. I have an unfair intrinsic systemic advantage over those without, and that is gonna compound in my favor in a very aggressive way, in a way which is almost hard to sort of stop, right?

And I don't mean to bring it back to a hard money system, but I kind of have to because the money is how we judge value and we measure value and we distribute value. So all I'm saying is you take that away, and let's say I can't do it back. We're on an island and we've just got the 100 cokelets that we started with and that we're trading, right? Now each coconut's buying me more and more because there's just more stuff to buy. There's here is the stuff, and here's the stuff that represents the stuff.

There's 100 coconuts that represents every single thing on this island. When we landed on the island, there was nothing there. So the 100 coconuts didn't really buy you much. After 20 years of our AI buddy and robot running around building Hudson, catching fish, and doing all the great things, there is all kinds of incredible things on this island. They still only 100 coconuts.

So each coconut proportionally buys me a crapload more. So in that world, right? I've got that, I've created the same amount of verna, I've got all these sort of coconuts. Okay, now I've got to, what am I going to do with it? I can't eat the coconut.

I can't actually do anything with the coconut. All I can do is just use it as some kind of way to store my wealth and exchange it for other things. And so I don't get that ability to use this as a magic ticket to make more of the stuff that I want, right? That's the pernicious evil, crappy thing that keeps the common man under the foot of the owners of capital. If now it's just like I've created this thing, I'm just the richest man on the island.

All the coconuts is like, okay, I'm sitting in my hut on the top of the hill with my coconuts. It's absolutely pointless to me. I probably want to spend some of my wealth. You know what, I wouldn't mind someone to clean the hut for me. Someone can go and do this.

Or get the other way. So I'll probably have to spend it. We know the way I'll redistribute that. Well, that will exchange something I have created in the past, something that you will give me now in the present. And my point is is that I only got there because everyone knows what I did.

And now that I've got it, the only way I can expend it is by giving back what I received from you voluntarily. I will now give to you voluntarily. And we'll have more and more and more and more stuff. And things get cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper. And if I happen to be the lazy bum at the end of the island, it never really did anything.

And not because I couldn't, not because I was disadvantaged. I just couldn't be bothered. I tried to sat under the palm tree when Scott was building the hut and Sally was out there catching the fish before the robot came along. You know, and I just don't have much. I was like, yeah, it's going to be unequal because you didn't do anything.

But let's say you decide, I'm going to change my ways. I want to, I want to now contribute now. I'm going to go and shine Andrew's shoes every morning for half a coconut because I need some money. It's like you'll very quickly get it. And you will never disadvantage.

The only reason you're going backwards and backwards and backwards and backwards and backwards in the current system is because we talked about shared dilution the other day. And buybacks and buybacks are so wonderfully accretive. There's a few more questions to record. I'll just ask. Well, that's the argument.

That's the argument. In a world where you're only doing buybacks and you're not doing share issuance, those shares just get more and more and more and more valuable. So I was just like, well, I'm maybe I'm only working for a tenth of a coconut where in the past I may have worked about half a coconut. It just turns out that the tenth of the coconut buys twice as much as a half a coconut did before. If you know what I'm sort of saying.

And if I just choose to put my coconut barrier somewhere on the island and come spend it 10 years later, it's actually increased in value for any productivity gains that have been had in between. It's so beautiful. It's so fair. It's so consistent. Will there be wealth disparity?

100% there will always be wealth disparity. There's two types of wealth disparity though. Those that are unfair and those that are absolutely fair. And I think people get their niggas in a knot because oh, it's going to be unfair. It's like it's already brutally unfair.

It's like let's make it less unfair to me. I'm not having a trincy. How does that happen? Let's put the point the craft thought though. Yeah, yeah.

I can't say I question they can't be answered that. OK, we'll put it aside. Let's say there's no money. We just bought it. All I know is there's a lot more stuff.

A lot more stuff, a lot more effort. Now we are richer. We are far richer as society. Yes, as a side, but the dish we should matter is that right. So I don't want your example except where the money isn't spent.

And it's just haunted. So you say, well, I know I've got to do. I disagree with that. There's no such thing as hoarding money. It's a silly, it's a silly question.

You've put more into it. You've created more value for society than you've extracted. And you've chosen not to redeem your gift card. And that's hoarding, that's selfish. That's selfish.

Selfish. Hoarding has connotations. Hoarding is sort of like a selfish. No, you should not spend it. I don't know.

Let's choose a different word. Gina's not spending everything she earns. OK. She saves her. So in that version of the world, you're not getting the job to shoot.

She's not having a shoe shunt. And she doesn't have a shoe shunt. She doesn't have a shoe shunt. She doesn't have a shoe shunt. She doesn't care because she's got enough stuff.

She's happy with a lot. She's got a shoe with the extra coconut in the economy. So there is a wealth. Is there still stuff in the economy? Yeah.

But the distribution. There's less coconuts in circulation because she's just buried. So she's never going to spend it. So what happens to the rest of the value of the coconuts? The distribution of poor man Bill under the bridge who only manages to scrape together 100th of a coconut there.

Poor Elle Gina hoarding all the coconuts. It's actually made his coconut store a little bit more valuable. Yeah, because you guys aren't going to be expensive at all. If he has nobody coats, then he's going to try to earn another coconut, which you can't get. I think if your version was the reality, we wouldn't have growing income in the economy.

It would be possible to be able to be possible to have growing income in the economy. A wealth of quality. Because that model would play out such that it wouldn't happen because Bill would have more money. We don't have it. No, I just said there's always inequality.

There's definitely inequality. Right. It won't be an unfair inequality. The only way, the only mathematical practical, just possible way to have more money is to have created more value. Where's the crime there?

He went round and he mowed everyone's lawns for like 10 years. He's like, oh, that bastard. That's the best way to take all the money for that? No, he's not a fatty judgment. I think he's going back to it.

It's not that. It's literally, if inequality gets worse, I would say that's a bad side of outcome. And inequality could get worse. It could get worse in an AI world where the returns are magnified to the owners of capital because labor is less valuable. So proportionate, if you think about what happens in an AI, whatever world.

I think people are going to say, whether it's genuine that AI or not, maybe that's the case. But in a world where you're saying there's not enough work to be done by enough people because the machine's doing it all, those who own the machines, I don't know how it wouldn't be the case. I think it's true. I think we're coming from. Let's play that through.

I made the observation 100 years ago before there were minimal wage laws. He paid his workers incredibly well. And it was like, why is because they're my customers? So let's play your example for I own the cost of capital. I own all the capital.

I can make all of the things. Everyone's unemployed. So I've got a productive fleet of robots or factories or whatever capital I think it is that can turn out a gazillion units for a cent. And no one can afford them. So it's actually, it's circular, right?

It's all actually that capital is definitely worth a lot less because it's just not creating any cash flows. It's not creating any of that. No one's buying the stuff. I need, I need consumers to do it. So what will I do as a rational business person?

I will do whatever I can do to provide value for others as long as I can wash my own hands with you. As long as I can deliver value to you at a price that covers my cost and allows for the risk to be worth taking in the first book. They're as huge risk. I might not work. I might build a robot and collapse and I just wasted all my savings.

So I need to cover my costs and I need to get a respectable return on capital otherwise I'm not going to do it. I'm not even making a value joke. I'm just saving a fact of logic and relation. I don't want to do it. So what we've got to remember again is this reflexive nature of economies and just human beings interacting is that, we assume that the owners of capital can charge whatever they like and that people must pay it.

Well, if they can't, they won't. If they won't, then I don't have, then the capital, I've overbuilt the capital. The capital's not worth that much. Therefore, I'll probably scale down on my capital. And we will reach a new equilibrium until it gets to the price.

Actually, now I can afford it because Scott, who has owned all the capital and built all the space stations and the rockets and everything, sent himself broke by over building all of this stuff. He couldn't pay his dues. The capital came back onto the market. Someone else picked it up and now is able to do it in a different form. It corrects, it adapts.

It's fluid. It's elegant. It's beautiful if I can use that word. It's not a static thing. It's not a static thing that I can just charge.

I mean, the biggest bugger in the world, he can't want your satellite and say it's $2,000 a month to get on Starlink. He's like, okay, great. You don't have any customers and the IPO is not going forward and you're not the richest man in the world anymore. In fact, we're going to come in right down the value of all your assets because they're not producing any cash. Did you see the corrective mechanism?

Except that was true already happened and there would be no world in which they were growing inequality for all the reasons. Yeah, that's back to the hard money. That's back to the hard money. Sorry, because it's still in this, it's still in the owners of cash. It's interesting to make more stuff and maximize more profit and sell more cheaply to sell more things.

If businesses are truly profit maximizing and they need to be more production and make them wealthy or better off, then we wouldn't have grown in the quarter. There is a... When people can't afford stuff, we give it to them, print it up and give it to them, and then we add more money into the economy. That's where it comes from. Oh, now I've got more nominal values, not real values.

I've got more nominal. What do I do with that? I put it in the bank, I buy more stock, I buy more land, I buy the things that are actually genuinely valuable, I buy those kinds of things and I've got collateral for more money creation. That's the pernicious nature of this whole affair. It's not that my point is we can't point to productivity as a bad thing.

Productivity is a wonderful thing. We should obviously want and to go, no, we can't do that because someone will lose their job and they'll be wealthy in equality. It actually misdirects the problem, misdiagnosis the problem isn't the productivity. Doing more or less is always and everywhere in all circumstances possible a good thing. Obviously it is, right?

But then to say, well, it's not that now. You're looking at through the lens of what we have at the moment, which is every time something goes bad. It's like, there you go. There's another trillion dollars to spend. If that fixes anything, it actually makes the problem even worse.

I don't mean to bring it back to that same argument, but it's like, I don't know how to talk about the sky being blue without talking about ozone. It needs, it is so central to the conversation and to the calculus that it's so hard to see because it's like oxygen or it's like water to a fish. It's just sort of, the fish is there going, why is all this happening? It's like, it's the water, bro, it's right there, it's all around you. And that's what's, you know, and in that marketing world, why is the mechanic not the same?

Because it's all every incentive to go on some more stuff and more customers make more money. Like that. I don't even disagree with the methodology you're outlining. Other than even in that world, the same incentive in the hard money world would apply, which is go and make more stuff, find more customers, so it's almost stuff. That same idea should still play out.

It gets me increasing that to funny money, but overall that's still play out. There's no benefit in hoarding saving, keeping, investing with your, you want to call that that thing. Saving is the word. Saving is the word. What do you call that thing?

There's still no value in it, because you're not spending it. I'm saying the model of the way you're working, I just don't know that it describes the way that it's objectively not true. People are then going, hang on, I've got too much money, I'm not having enough fun. I spend a lot of money, at some point you get to a point where it's like, I've got enough money and I'm having enough fun and I'm making my life choices. And that savings always growing for you.

But it's creating growing inequality. It's actually giving more to the people without. So why is the gene you're going to fish and getting worse? I've looked at them from World Bank, right? So 1981, it was 31, now it's 34, back to 33, in Australia now.

So that is direction, and the direction, what does that tell you? We can't say it. A lot of it is up to the right. How about that? How about that?

I didn't imagine something else that's going up until the right. What do you think it was? Why would that? Well, I'm not sure what. I don't understand how that's different in the money printing world.

It's still true to spend the money, do the things, get the customers. How much, what about the donut there is? The theory, the idea should be the same, and the outcome should be the same. And in that world, there's growing inequality. There's always inequality, there's no inequality, there's no inequality to grow.

Unless there's a way to be back, that's impossible. So yes, the back, yes. But the back-makers shouldn't be the same, such that inequality exists, but it doesn't get worse. The idea that gets worse is my challenge. I'm not so much understanding you, the level of inequality will be largely unchanged over time because of the mechanics of the going back and the economy spending money, the money getting the shoe shined.

The guys on the bridge with a sense of coconut. I like the model of that. I just don't know whether the evidence backs up that idea. It feels like it is. It's strongly back.

So you're assuming that the only way that any inequality is purely downstream of an entrenched unfanness or a – what's the word for it? The only way you can get ahead is by almost nefarious means in a way. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, you're paraphrasing the common talking point here. People, very good, beautiful people with well-meaning intent look around and go, the world is horribly uneven and unfair. They've got these buggers, billionaires out there living the life of Raleigh and in the modern world with all of our advantages, more and more people living in college.

Something is fundamentally wrong here, but it is not because someone was able to work hard and create a bunch of value for everyone else and save somebody. That is not the reason for the inequality. The reason for the inequality is that someone did all the things to your point because they wanted to get ahead. They convinced other people of the value that they created, just bought the thing that I was offering or whoever was offering. And then I now use that as an advantage because that's the way it's constructed.

I use that to further multiply my gains. I can make money in two ways under the current system. I can work hard and do all the good things which we should want to do. Or I can use my collateral to create more money indirectly and with the help of various parties and then go off and acquire the other scarce things that are in the world. Now, is that growing inequality?

Yep. Is it a wrong or is inequality bad if the only – if those at the top have only got there by humble service to the rest of humanity? Or is it evil to be undone if they have got there by playing a system that is rigged for the rich and the owners of capital? That's where I'm coming from. So you're right in everything you say, but you can't deny it, dude.

You can't deny it. If all of a sudden I float storm in for $100 billion, now because I know how the system works, what do I do with that matter? I tell you what I do. I don't sell my shares. I borrow against my shares.

Poof, new money comes into existence. And I buy hard assets or I buy productive assets and I buy other things that make more money. I take that money. I put that in. I've now got more collateral to it.

And now the division of wealth is magnifying from financial engineering, not from value creation. That's the difference. That's the number of the problem. Inequality, yeah, okay. That's the state of the world.

On one world though, it's just sort of like I can't regret your success. On the other it's like you're just playing a system that's rigged and designed for you. And it sounds like – I cringe when I say the system because you kind of sound like every tin foil wearing kind of person. What kind of thing do you really like? Broomey, broomey, broomey, broomey, broomey.

This is always the point you've got to ask yourself, why does someone like Mark Zuckerberg have debt? Why does Coca-Cola have debt? They don't need it. They've got all the capital and cash in the world. They do it because they're not idiots and they've got very, very competent financial planners and accounts go, dude, you know what you can do here?

And it's not even coming at it from a conspiratorial angle. It's just like this is the one – in furris there. So this is how this is – you have a much cheaper source of capital, freshly printed out of nothingness capital. You, not Sarah the Nurse or Bob the hairdresser, you, the owner of the car – you have – you want to – oh, you're a nurse in Blacktown. You want to borrow money?

You want to borrow money? You want to borrow money? You want to borrow money? You want to borrow money? You want to borrow money?

You want to borrow money? You want to borrow money? So it's a thing. Like, that's unfair! That is unfair.

And that's just the point I'm making. And I think what, the thing I'm railing about is that that gets muddied with legitimate value, creation, and productivity gains. And I'm just saying, insane world, and all be at a world that still has the vision of wealth. That's, that's far less of a, of a worrying thing, right? It's sort of like you'll almost celebrate the richest people in the world because it's sort of like a, the only way to get international value without financial engineering.

And then second to that – the flip side of the coin is the only way to benefit from your your wealth is to redistribute it back into the economy. Not borrow against it and use free money to borrow it, but spend back into the economy. Do you see the difference? It's very hard to see. I do.

I just think there's not, that's not where the money is. We're just really spending the economy rather than say, effective perpetuity. I think that's where the money is. You're wrong on that too, man. I got a thought experiment.

I'm going to do it. That's the world, right? Am I sorry, am I a hard money? Well, am I not? Hi, money?

Can I have a money? Well, I'm sorry. I don't know the reason I say that is not for an ideal idea. I don't know. It makes the thought experiment so much cleaner.

Because as soon as I start messing with the price and the volume of it, it distorts everything. I think what I have to do that, what I would say is, I think we need to discuss the issues in the world in which they are most likely to exist. And so it's either both or the hard version. That's a sick version. But yes.

What's going on with AI? There's AI. We've talked about the whole thing. The whole thing. Yeah, let's say I've done that.

Yeah, that's because you can hold, save whatever. I don't know the other words. In a hard money or in a hard money standard world. And there will be different or the same outcomes, in which case. If you're sure you might have done that.

Like every conversation or it's be equal. And I think assumptions are going to happen. OK, what if you're such a nut right? Well, then something else happens. So I'm not trying to, both is probably the answer in some form where they differ.

If everyone wasn't saying that's OK, too. But it matters in the sense that if we're saying what happens if everyone works one hour a day and I know what time it might be a minute. So I just make that point of where does the money get saved? Who saves the money? If we're in a hard money world, there's one answer.

We're not in a hard money world. There's one answer. We're not in a hard money world. There's one answer. We're not in a hard money world.

It's relevant to the AI bit without assuming the other stuff that goes with it. So I'm not in a hard money world. Maybe it's the most important way. I think it matters. No, I agree.

In the current system, AI very massive productivity gains very much risk accruing incredible, unfair advantage to the owners of capital. So we're on the same page there. But the reason I'm trying to work into a world that will never exist sadly or at least not in my lifetime, because it separates, it's important for the discussion to separate the financial engineering component from the productivity component. So that's all I'm saying. If AI comes before hard money, then we have to recognize that's the one which would happen.

And that then is maybe an issue which would be sold by your solution, if your solution is implemented, then we're still dealing with the consequences of that. It'll be implemented because it's my solution. It's people gravitate towards people. It's up to gunpowder because you're in trouble if you didn't. If I guess they before had money, we have to do AI in that world.

If it makes me have a hard money saying that maybe things get fixed at some point, but the implications of AI are still real in the world in which they exist at the time they exist. I was all sorry. So we've got to close it out. But I just was going to make the point. I do bristle against the AI because everyone says that saving is almost in a moral act.

And because it turns like hoarding, I'm getting a little bit sensitive to the term because it does have connotations. But it's like, again, let's play the thought experiment out. It's just like if I've hoarded all of that money, then who's the victim? It's me because I've created all these coupons that I could redeem for actual things that provide value, real things. And I'm choosing not to.

Here, society, I create for you immense value. And then in return, I ask for nothing. And then we're going to turn around and go, oh, that's bad. You need to, you're hoarding it. If you need to spend it, you need to spend it in the economy.

It's like now we just get to like, this is where we're at. We get to this hedonistic consumerism culture. It's just got to spend, spend, spend for the sake of the environment. It's bad for the economy. It's bad for the soul.

It's bad in every number of other ways. I don't want to sit in my, I want to scrooge McDuck the hell out of this thing and just sit in my vault with my money. It's like, I am, again, it's very hard thing to comprehend. But if I am sitting in my vault with my gold coins, it's like, I've got a bunch of shiny little metal coins. I have definitely given more than I have taken.

I don't know how else I can make the point. I just don't know how it's a bad thing to save, right? And then if I don't save, I'm now, I am now giving someone else an income. And it's like, it's the only way for me to not enjoy my wealth is to shoot myself in the fort and if someone wants to choose it. Let's say I do that, actually.

Let's say I scrooge McDuck it and I put it all in my vault and then I just happen to build my vault on a sinkhole on the earth, swallow it, hold on an eye, and my vault of money is gone forever, forever, never to return to circulation. Rest of society, again, remember, the stuff is the stuff. The money is just the ledger. The money is, it's very, you know, it's actually secondary to everything. The stuff that exists in the world, except for me and my vault is still there.

Now, there's just a whole lot less money. We go around. So again, mathematics, mathematics would say of the remaining money that didn't get swallowed up in the sinkhole, including, you know, poor man, Billy lives under the bridge. He's purchasing power. Just went up.

We are two hours and ten minutes away. Listen to this podcast. We're probably done. I don't want to, I don't want to micro-fist our way, but I will say that the very which dictionary says holding is the practice of collecting or accumulating something. I'm taking the right is that this one.

I'm claiming order. I'll play that. I'll take the point there. I'm trying to make it, I'm trying to make it. I didn't mean it that way at all.

I literally just kind of. I'm trying to make it that way. No one says to the plumber is holding when he saves. It's only when the billionaire saves that they're holding. I think that's kind of the point.

It's the degree to which it's a cumulative. There's a difference size element to it, whether it's in terms of majority or a, you know, more than you will ever need. It's probably the majority of that point. It's probably the three parts of the same thing. Anyway, this may be a couple of hours of time, but I don't want any time to say.

Thank you for listening. We will come back on Sunday. I know it's here. It's close to me after two hours of talking. I'm really obnoxious and funny and probably swear.

One of those things I'm not going to do is. Three parts, yeah. A trasp of 25 years I'll be in trouble. I will simply say thanks for listening. And for long.

Cheers. The Motley Fool and people appearing in this program may have positions in the companies mentioned. General advice, only. Please speak to your financial professional to understand how it may pertain to your situation. Subscribe to the free newsletter at full.com.au forward slash listener.

The Motley Fool operates under financial services license 400691.