Morgan Housel Warns AI Disruption And Debt Threaten Financial Freedom

The Diary Of A CEO

Long-term financial security requires building cash reserves, embracing index funds, and prioritizing behavioral endurance over speculative investments.

AI-assisted summary of The Savings Expert: The Truth About America Collapsing! The Cost Of Living Is About To Skyrocket! — original source. Check the original for full context.

Source published: 2025-04-28

Detailed notes

## Background Published on YouTube by The Diary Of A CEO on April 28, 2025, this video features host Steven Bartlett interviewing Morgan Housel, a financial expert and bestselling author of *The Psychology of Money*. The page description highlights Housel's insights into tariffs, economic warnings, AI's impact on wealth, and practical strategies for building true financial freedom.

## TL;DR Morgan Housel discusses how financial success relies more on human psychology, endurance, and behavioral discipline than on technical intellect or speculative risk. He analyzes the disruptive shift of AI on labor, the underlying causes of modern male financial desperation, and the immense power of simple compounding over active market timing. Ultimately, Housel advocates for high cash reserves, modest spending driven by humility, and index fund investing to achieve long-term independence and contentment over superficial luxury.

## Atmosphere & style The conversation carries a reflective, candid, and deeply grounded tone as Housel demystifies complex economic ideas into accessible life wisdom. Steven Bartlett serves as an engaged listener, framing personal anecdotes around Housel's thoughtful, cautious approach to money and human nature. Watching the interview feels like a reassuring masterclass in emotional intelligence, guiding viewers away from get-rich-quick anxiety toward long-term peace of mind.

## Key takeaways - [43:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=2588s) Perceptions of financial wealth are heavily skewed by social media and high-profile creators, leading people to pursue extreme luxury over basic financial independence. - [44:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=2658s) Maintaining liquid cash reserves and minimal debt provides vital protection against unpredictable personal and macroeconomic shocks. - [51:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=3090s) Modern artificial intelligence poses a unique economic disruption, lacking the seamless skill translation seen in previous industrial shifts. - [56:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=3371s) The most durable, recession-proof human skills in an AI era are high-level interpersonal dynamics, clear communication, and decent behavior. - [01:00:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=3635s) Desperation and labor force displacement among young men drive higher participation in high-risk crypto scams and speculative get-rich-quick schemes. - [01:08:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=4110s) Radical patience and long-term endurance are the ultimate common denominators among the most successful investors throughout history. - [01:14:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=4491s) Investing in broad-market index funds consistently outperforms active money managers due to the exponential power of simple compounding over time. - [01:20:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=4825s) Savings should be viewed as tokens of independence and future time autonomy rather than mere deferred consumption. - [01:21:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=4906s) How people manage and spend money is fundamentally driven by internal psychological needs and unique past experiences rather than pure mathematics. - [01:37:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=5848s) Increasing savings is often achieved by raising personal humility and ignoring external social performance rather than just raising income. - [01:40:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=6056s) Keeping personal financial structures simple, conservative, and low-stress frees up mental energy for long-term investment success. - [01:45:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=6344s) Homeownership should be evaluated based on family stability and lifestyle safety rather than maximum financial return or speculation. - [01:53:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=6820s) Focusing on major financial choices like housing and education generates far greater net worth impact than agonizing over small daily expenses. - [01:56:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=6963s) Abrupt retirement without purpose or social connection often triggers disorientation, loss of identity, and boredom. - [01:59:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=7183s) Rapid, unshaded growth in businesses or careers often sacrifices structural durability and increases long-term vulnerability. - [02:05:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=7548s) True peace comes from pursuing internal contentment rather than constantly measuring against external social comparisons.

## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=0s) Teaser: The Tariff Situation and Timeless Financial Truths

The discussion opens on a high-stakes note regarding the geopolitical and economic turbulence surrounding international trade tariffs. Morgan Housel emphasizes that the ongoing tariff escalations possess the potential to become the defining economic storyline of our era. A central vulnerability of the global system is that everyday consumers are already feeling the pinch, with supply chains stretched so thin that empty store shelves could be only weeks away. Yet, unlike past black swan events, this crisis stems directly from policy decisions that could theoretically be reversed instantaneously with the stroke of a pen.

Switching focus to the foundational mechanics of personal finance, the conversation shifts to how mindset dictates long-term success. Achieving true financial freedom relies less on mechanical market timing and more on behavioral discipline, which is best learned through navigating downturns and experiencing economic friction firsthand. Furthermore, wealth preservation requires a realistic view of savings. Rather than treating cash reserves as idle money that yields nothing, high-net-worth individuals maintain cash cushions to preserve control over their family’s financial destiny during recessions.

- **Patience and Endurance:** The unifying thread among historically wealthy figures is not raw analytical intelligence, but exceptional patience and resilience during market cycles. - **The Compound Interest Misunderstanding:** Compound interest remains widely misunderstood because human intuition naturally struggles to calculate exponential growth over several decades. - **Warren Buffett’s Mindset:** Illustrating the true cost of spending, a young Warren Buffett famously hated paying for haircuts; in his mind, spending $10 on a haircut meant sacrificing the $10,000 that same money could become if invested for 50 years.

---

[02:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=120s) Timeless Lessons of Greed, Wealth, and Happiness

Host Steven Bartlett recalls how his older brother Jason—a veteran finance professional with over a decade in the industry—handed him Morgan Housel’s bestselling book, *The Psychology of Money*, in 2020. Jason insisted it was the single essential read for anyone wanting to grasp how money actually functions. Steven notes how profoundly the book altered his personal framework around wealth, which prompted him to invite Morgan back to dissect the rapid shifts unfolding in today's global economy.

``` "The book does not tell you what to do... Nowhere in the book do I say, 'This is how you should invest your money. This is how you should spend your money.' Because you're different from me and everyone else." ```

Morgan stresses that the most critical driver of long-term financial success is not technical wizardry or mastering advanced quantitative formulas. Instead, it comes down to managing core psychological drivers: greed, fear, risk, envy, and impatience. While elite institutions teach complex mathematical models, real-world financial ruin rarely stems from a failure to calculate compound interest by hand. It stems from emotional missteps. Because human nature does not change, these behavioral principles remain timeless, holding as much truth today as they did a millennium ago.

---

[04:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=280s) The Current Tariff Situation in 2025

Turning to current events, the conversation tackles the intense media focus on newly announced blanket tariffs, including a 10% baseline tax on imports and much steeper duties targeting specific trade partners. Morgan frames this policy shift as potentially the most significant economic developments of our lives, drawing a sharp contrast between this policy-driven event and previous systemic shocks like the September 11 attacks, the 2008 Lehman Brothers collapse, or the COVID-19 pandemic.

Unlike those organic crises, which lacked a simple fix and required years of painful recovery, the tariff situation is uniquely artificial. The U.S. President holds the authority to dismantle these trade barriers instantly, meaning market conditions can pivot drastically within an hour. However, the broader risk lies in treating the interconnected global economy like a machine to be hit with a crowbar. Decades of trade integration mean that minor policy shocks ripple across complex supply lines, directly impacting what consumers see on the shelves of local grocery stores, Target, or Walmart.

---

[06:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=414s) What Are Tariffs?

Acknowledging that the term "tariff" is thrown around constantly in news headlines without clear context, Steven asks for a straightforward breakdown. Morgan estimates that while many people recognize the word, fewer than 5% of the general public can accurately articulate how a tariff actually operates in practice.

To clear up the confusion, Morgan uses a simple supply-chain example: when an American corporation like Apple imports iPhones manufactured in China, the U.S. government levies a tax at the port of entry. Crucially, it is the American importing company—not the foreign government—that pays this tax directly to the U.S. Customs authority upon arrival.

``` "Even if the tax is put on the seller, the seller passes it on to you, the customer... You bought something for $10 and then there is your sales tax and here's what you're going to pay in the end." ```

To clarify how the financial burden moves down the line, Morgan compares tariffs to consumer sales tax or Value Added Tax (VAT) in the UK. Even though a tax is levied at the corporate level, companies routinely protect their profit margins by passing those extra costs directly onto everyday buyers via higher price tags.

While blanket tariffs generally create friction, targeted tariffs can serve strategic national security goals: - **Medical Supplies:** During the onset of COVID-19, the U.S. found itself almost entirely dependent on foreign production for N95 masks and personal protective equipment, highlighting the peril of relying on external supply chains during an emergency. - **Defense Infrastructure:** Maintaining tariffs on military hardware, ammunition, and defense equipment ensures a nation preserves the domestic capacity to produce essential security goods rather than depending on potential adversaries. - **Economic Consensus:** Economists hold widely different views on tax rates, market regulation, and corporate subsidies, yet virtually all agree that broad-scale trade wars inflict self-inflicted damage on domestic prosperity.

---

[11:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=701s) Trump's True Reason for the Tariffs

Addressing why Donald Trump has pushed so aggressively for trade barriers, Morgan points out that this stance is not a recent political ploy, but a core belief held for four decades. Archival footage from as far back as a 1986 interview on *The Oprah Winfrey Show* shows Trump arguing that free trade was asymmetrical and that foreign nations were benefiting at the expense of the American economy.

``` "At the end of World War II, 1945, Europe and Japan were in rubble... America was not decimated whatsoever. And so we had basically a global manufacturing monopoly for a period of time." ```

This economic world order stems from a unique post-WWII dynamic that cannot easily be recreated today: - **Post-1945 Industrial Monopoly:** With European and Japanese infrastructure left in ruins after World War II, the United States stood as the sole intact manufacturing powerhouse, facing virtually no international competition. - **Surging Internal Demand:** The return of 16 million American service members created an unprecedented boom in domestic consumption for suburban homes, automobiles, and home appliances. - **Manufacturing Job Decline:** U.S. manufacturing employment peaked in the late 1970s, subsequently losing roughly 10 million industrial jobs as production migrated to emerging global markets.

[14:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=855s) Post-War Prosperity and the Rise of International Competition

Morgan Housel explains that the perceived economic prosperity of the 1950s and 1960s in America was driven by a unique manufacturing monopoly while Europe and Japan were still rebuilding after World War II. During this era, a blue-collar worker—such as an auto worker in Detroit—earned a wage that felt relatively high compared to professionals like accountants, dentists, or doctors. While a doctor drove a Cadillac and the auto worker drove a Chevrolet, they essentially lived very similar lives, fostering a strong sense of widespread economic prosperity and social cohesion.

This dynamics shifted dramatically during the 1970s as Japan and Europe successfully rebuilt their industrial capabilities and emerged as formidable manufacturing dynamos. American car manufacturers initially dismissed foreign imports from companies like Toyota, Honda, and Nissan, treating them as insignificant "lawnmower toys" when compared to heavy American muscle cars like the Chevy Camaro. However, when gas prices surged in the 1970s and 1980s, American consumers rapidly turned to fuel-efficient vehicles like the Honda Civic, quickly realizing that Japanese imports were exceptionally well-built. American manufacturers initially responded with denial, failing to grasp that external global competitors had caught up and excelled in automotive manufacturing.

* In 1955, the income gap between blue-collar factory workers and high-earning professionals was significantly narrower than it is today. * Japan and Europe fully recovered from World War II by the 1970s, disrupting the post-war US industrial monopoly. * Surging oil crises in the 1970s and 1980s catalyzed the mass adoption of small, fuel-efficient Japanese cars in the United States.

---

[16:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=964s) The Automation Reality and the US Steel Transformation

Addressing calls to bring back American manufacturing jobs, Housel argues that while offshoring to countries like China, Mexico, Canada, and India contributed to the decline in domestic manufacturing employment, the primary driver is automation. Modern manufacturing facilities, such as Tesla assembly lines in the United States, are engineering marvels characterized by armies of advanced robots and very few human workers. In contrast to the labor-intensive assembly lines of the 1950s that relied on physical labor, modern manufacturing relies on a smaller workforce operating computers to oversee automated machinery. Consequently, even if manufacturing output fully returns to America, it will never recreate the vast number of manual labor jobs of the past.

> "In 1950, there was a US steel plant in Gary, Indiana. It produced 5 million tons of steel and had 30,000 workers. Today, it's still operating. It produces 8 million tons of steel and has 2,000 workers."

Housel compares this structural economic shift to agriculture over the past two centuries, where manual labor using rakes and shovels was replaced by high-efficiency tractors and combine harvesters. While expressing empathy for workers who advocate for restoring traditional American industry, he emphasizes that the combination of history and technological automation makes a full return of low-tech, high-employment manufacturing practically impossible.

* **1950 US Steel Plant (Gary, Indiana):** Produced 5 million tons of steel with 30,000 workers. * **Modern US Steel Plant (Gary, Indiana):** Produces 8 million tons of steel with only 2,000 workers. * Modern assembly line work has transitioned from manual labor to supervising automated robotic systems via computers.

---

[18:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=1093s) China’s Manufacturing Expertise and Specialization of Labor

When discussing why China became the "factory of the world," Housel points to a recent interview with Apple CEO Tim Cook. Cook clarified that Apple does not manufacture iPhones in China primarily for cheap labor—which has largely shifted to nations like Bangladesh and Cambodia—but rather for China's deep technical expertise and concentration of specialized labor skills. China excels at low-end and mid-range manufacturing, ranging from simple inflatable swimming pools to complex, high-precision electronics.

Housel references a conversation with a CEO who noted a distinct difference in strengths: if a company provides a Chinese factory with exact step-by-step instructions to build a component, they execute it better than anyone else in the world. Conversely, American firms excel in design, innovation, and high-end engineering. This structural divide is illustrated by the phrase printed on Apple products: *"Designed in California, made in China."* America continues to lead globally in entrepreneurship, software technology, services, and advanced heavy manufacturing such as commercial aircraft and space rockets.

> Tim Cook on Tooling Engineers: "In the US, you could have a meeting of tooling engineers and I'm not sure we could fill the room. In China, you could fill multiple football fields."

* The belief that companies manufacture in China solely for cheap labor is outdated; manufacturing hubs have moved lower-wage operations to countries like Bangladesh and Cambodia. * The global economy over the past 30 years relied heavily on specialized international division of labor to keep product prices affordable.

---

[22:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=1324s) Living Standards, Product Costs, and Tariff Consequences

Addressing differences in labor costs, Housel notes that American workers expect higher wages and working standards—a sign of a high domestic standard of living that citizens should take pride in. However, this expectation directly impacts product pricing. A smartphone like an iPhone costs around $1,000 largely because of global supply-chain efficiencies; producing it entirely within the United States while paying standard domestic wages could elevate its retail cost to $4,000.

Discussing the immediate impact of proposed or existing trade tariffs—such as a 145% tariff on goods imported from China—Housel explains that two outcomes are likely: either imported consumer goods will become significantly more expensive, or trade will halt altogether, leading to empty store shelves within weeks. Importers and retailers cannot absorb extreme tax hikes without passing costs on to consumers or shutting down product lines. For instance, an entrepreneur importing a dress for sale would face a $9 loss per unit under steep tariffs unless she raises consumer prices by over 150%.

> "If the iPhone that used to cost $1,000 is now going to cost $2,500, Apple might just say there's not really a market for that. We can't really sell those. Let me just pause and wait for things to happen."

* Domestic US production with local wage expectations would dramatically increase consumer costs for tech and textiles. * Extremely high tariffs (e.g., 145%) risk causing sudden trade halts, leading to inventory shortages and empty retail shelves within weeks. * Recent weeks have seen a sharp drop in shipping container imports arriving at US ports from China due to heightened import taxes.

---

[24:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=1497s) $30 Trillion in Foreign Investment and the Trust in US Stability

Steven Bartlett and Morgan Housel discuss how severe economic friction and unpredictable trade policies threaten international trust in the United States economy. Foreign investors currently hold approximately $30 trillion in US stocks and bonds—excluding real estate and commercial office buildings. This immense inflow of international capital is driven by global faith in America's rule of law, stable economic environment, and predictable financial institutions, contrasting with less reliable markets like Russia.

Furthermore, trade deficits naturally feed into US debt markets. When nations like China sell more goods to the US than they purchase, they accumulate vast balances of US dollars. To put those dollars to work, foreign entities historically invested heavily in US Treasury bonds—federal debt promises that pay interest—which helped keep overall interest rates lower for American consumers and businesses. Subverting international trade relationships reduces both the desire and the necessity for foreign entities to hold dollars and invest in US Treasuries.

* **$30 Trillion:** The amount of capital foreign investors currently hold in US stock and bond markets. * **Treasury Bonds:** Federal government debt instruments promising interest repayments, traditionally bought by foreign countries holding surplus US dollars. * Disrupting international trade reduces foreign dollar holdings, lowering global demand for US government debt.

---

[26:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=1592s) Defining Recessions and the Necessity of Room for Error

When asked about rising recession forecasts—such as Reuters reporting a 45% probability of a recession—Housel expresses skepticism toward precise percentage predictions, noting that forecasters use them to avoid being proven wrong. Technically, a recession occurs when a country experiences two consecutive quarters of negative Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth. However, for everyday citizens, a recession simply means feeling financially insecure over an extended period—marked by job losses, hiring freezes, and widespread financial strain.

Housel compares economic downturns to natural disasters, explaining that worrying about a recession is like living in Florida and worrying about hurricanes: downturns are an inevitable feature of modern capitalism that occur roughly every four to five years. Because recessions are bound to happen regardless of specific tariff policies, individuals must build a financial "room for error" into their lives. When stock markets, property values, and crypto prices are rising, people rarely prepare for job losses or income shocks, making personal savings cushions and debt reduction vital safeguards.

> "A recession in your mind is when you are feeling worse off economically for a long period of time... It's kind of like what's the definition of being sick? Well, it's when you don't feel good."

* **Technical Definition of Recession:** Two consecutive quarters of declining Gross Domestic Product (GDP). * Economic recessions historically recur every four to five years in modern market economies. * Building a financial buffer through liquid savings and minimal personal debt is essential for navigating inevitable economic downturns.

[28:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=1735s) The Fragility of Life and the Pursuit of Independence

Morgan Housel highlights the harsh reality that life and the economy are inherently fragile. Most people refuse to confront the likelihood of life-altering curveballs—such as job loss, business collapse, divorce, severe illness, or family crises—because doing so makes it difficult to get out of bed in the morning. However, over a 30-year horizon, the probability of facing at least one of these major events is essentially 100%. Managing this reality requires both a psychological shift (accepting that good times do not last forever) and a financial framework centered on building a reserve during prosperous periods.

For Housel, the ultimate purpose of money is not to purchase luxury items like flashy cars or mega-mansions, but to secure personal independence. True independence means retaining control over where you live, where you work, and how you support your family, especially when economic downturns or recessions hit. A critical psychological skill—applicable far beyond personal finance—is identifying when conditions are abnormally favorable and proactively preparing for the inevitable shift.

- **30-year Risk Probability:** The likelihood of experiencing at least one catastrophic personal or financial event over a 30-year period is **100%**. - **Core Value of Wealth:** True financial success is measured by autonomy and control over one's life choices rather than material displays of status.

---

[30:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=1838s) Financial Freedom as a Mindset: The Story of Grandmother-in-Law

When asked how to achieve financial freedom amid high volatility—from tariffs and recessions to rapid advancements in AI—Housel explains that financial independence is primarily a mindset rather than a complex formula. To illustrate this, he shares the story of his late grandmother-in-law, who lived until age 92. For the final 30 years of her life, her sole income source was a Social Security check of $1,700 per month. She possessed zero additional savings or pensions, yet she was undeniably happier and felt more independent than many billionaires Housel has met.

Her contentment stemmed from having minimal material expectations: she derived immense joy from low-cost, simple activities like gardening, birdwatching, going for walks, and reading library books. Because her desires were even smaller than her modest $1,700 monthly income, she achieved a state of psychological wealth and genuine freedom. In contrast, many ultra-wealthy executives and billionaires are heavily encumbered by corporate obligations, regulatory pressure, board demands, and political reliance—waking up in cold sweats at 3:00 AM despite having staggering fortunes.

- **Grandmother-in-Law’s Income:** **$1,700 per month** from Social Security, with zero extra savings. - **The Financial Independence Equation:** Managing expectations is more effective than indefinitely increasing net worth. If expectations outpace wealth, independence remains permanently out of reach.

---

[34:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=2058s) The Evolutionary Drive for Status and Display

Tracing the underlying drivers of human labor, Housel cites Adam Smith's 300-year-old economic observation on why people work far past the point of basic survival. Even in the 18th century, basic needs like shelter and food were met for most working individuals, yet people continued to strive relentlessly. Smith concluded that the primary motivation was social attention, admiration, and status—the desire to be observed and envied by others.

Steven Bartlett and Housel discuss the evolutionary roots of this behavior, noting that while early human ancestors understood status (which correlated directly with survival, food allocation, and reproductive access), they had no evolutionary concept of abstract, digital wealth. This manifests in modern behaviors where ultra-wealthy individuals continue seeking status through podcasts, public influence, or attempts at biological immortality. Housel cites tire magnate Harvey Firestone, who noted in his autobiography that almost every wealthy person buys a house far larger than they actually need or enjoy. Despite the massive maintenance headaches and lack of utility in a 40-room mansion, the evolutionary urge to display success routinely overrides practical comfort.

- **Historical Reference:** **Adam Smith** (300 years ago) noted that people work beyond basic needs primarily for attention and admiration. - **Harvey Firestone's Insight:** Wealthy individuals routinely purchase oversized mansions not for utility, but as a public "calling card" to broadcast that they have achieved status. Even Henry Ford, known for his frugality, resided in a massive Detroit mansion.

---

[37:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=2243s) True Independence: Chuck Feeney, Warren Buffett, and "FU Money"

Housel presents the story of Chuck Feeney, the founder of Duty Free Shoppers (DFS), who accumulated a peak net worth of roughly $9 billion in the 1990s. While Feeney is famous for secretly giving away his entire fortune to charity and living out his final years in a modest one-bedroom apartment, his initial path was different: in the 1980s, he bought private jets, yachts, and global mansions. After trying the typical billionaire lifestyle, Feeney realized he genuinely preferred simplicity, intentionally discarding societal expectations to live on his own terms. Housel pairs this with Warren Buffett, who famously continues to reside in the same Omaha home he purchased in his 20s despite holding a hundred-billion-dollar fortune.

Steven Bartlett points out a difficult truth: most people cannot simply accept this lesson second-hand; they feel compelled to earn the money and experience the luxury themselves before realizing it does not guarantee happiness. When someone is struggling with basic bills, credit card debts, and living expenses, telling them that "money doesn't buy happiness" sounds completely disingenuous.

``` FINANCIAL PROGRESSION & UTILITY

Extreme Stress High Utility Diminishing Return Zero Net Utility (Debt, Bills) (Basic Security) (Luxury/Upkeep) (Social Liability) <--------------|-----------------------|-----------------------|-----------------------> $0 - Low Income ~$200,000 / year ~$500k - $20M $20M - $20B+ ```

Housel breaks down the actual utility of money across income levels: - **$10,000 to $200,000/year:** Massive functional impact. Eliminates existential worries like eviction, debt pressure, and basic sustenance. - **$200,000 to $500,000/year:** Noticeable lifestyle improvements, but marginal reduction in core stress. - **$500,000 to $20,000,000:** Minimal incremental impact on personal happiness. - **$20,000,000 to $20,000,000,000:** Essentially **zero difference** in day-to-day personal satisfaction, with mega-wealth converting into a social and political liability.

- **Chuck Feeney's Peak Net Worth:** **$9 billion**, all of which he gave away while choosing to live in a basic one-bedroom apartment. - **Warren Buffett's Real Estate:** Lives in the same home bought at age 27, demonstrating that true "FU Money" is the autonomy to ignore societal standards. - **Peak Net Worth Threshold:** Beyond a specific financial ceiling, further wealth accumulation acts as a social liability, inviting immense public scrutiny, donation demands, and strained personal relationships.

[43:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=2588s) The Skewed Reality of Wealth and the "MrBeast Effect"

Financial writer Ben Carlson proposed a subjective yet compelling framework: a net worth of $7 million to $10 million in the United States allows a family to live an extraordinary life—owning an incredible paid-off house, sending children to top-tier schools, taking luxury vacations, and driving brand-new cars. While some might wince at that figure as excessively high or completely out of reach for hard-working everyday people, it represents a far lower ceiling for "true wealth" than the unrealistic $100 million fantasies many aspire toward.

This distortion of what financial success actually looks like is particularly pronounced among the younger generation. Social media and internet culture have radically shifted perceptions; for instance, kids watching content creators like MrBeast come to define wealth not as basic financial independence, but as owning private islands, flying in private jets, or winning a million dollars by keeping a hand on a table. Historically, the visible stratification of wealth was far more modest—where ordinary people drove dirty pickup trucks and rich people drove clean ones. Social media has effectively replaced those grounded benchmarks with extreme, hyper-luxurious anomalies.

[44:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=2658s) Preparing for Economic Uncertainty and the Importance of Room for Error

When navigating economic volatility, high inflation, and impending recessions, the most critical lesson is acknowledging how fragile the world truly is. The necessity of maintaining a financial cushion, liquid savings, backup plans, and minimal debt is just as crucial during prosperous economic booms as it is during a crisis. People often only realize the value of a safety net when the threat of job loss or business failure becomes immediate. The true challenge is maintaining that fiscal discipline and avoiding excessive debt when everything appears to be going smoothly.

Advisors often question keeping a disproportionately high percentage of net worth in cash, asking what specific goal or purchase that money is earmarked for. However, cash provides vital protection against a fragile world where personal misfortunes and systemic macro shocks occur without warning. History continuously demonstrates that economic structures break unexpectedly. When personal stability feels guaranteed, that is precisely the moment to build reserves and retain room for error relative to monthly personal overhead.

- In March 2020, at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the average restaurant reportedly held only 14 days of cash on hand right before facing months of mandatory lockdowns. - During the 2008 Great Recession, displaced workers frequently remained unemployed for 12 months or longer, far exceeding standard safety cushions and government unemployment benefits. - A foundational rule of thumb for liquid emergency funds is simple: however much cash you anticipate needing, the real world will likely demand more.

[46:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=2805s) The Unprecedented Disruption of Artificial Intelligence

Artificial intelligence represents an extraordinary turning point in human technological history. Historical analysis of transformative innovations—such as the automobile, the airplane, and the personal computer—reveals a consistent pattern: even the most passionate optimists wildly underestimated their long-term impact. When the Wright brothers invented the airplane, they primarily pitched it to the U.S. Army for military reconnaissance and machine-gun mounting, failing to foresee commercial aviation giants like Delta Air Lines or massive passenger aircraft like the Airbus A380. As entrepreneur Peter Thiel noted, people inherently underestimate how big things can get when forces move in a positive direction.

The true scale of technological revolution is rarely determined by the original creator's vision, but by how millions of subsequent innovators manipulate and build upon the foundational technology. Modern AI language models are following this exact trajectory—evolving from basic text interfaces into autonomous AI agents capable of executing complex tasks. These shifts are already upending traditional professions, performing advanced interior design mockups in seconds or acting as sophisticated writing assistants and software developers for a fraction of the cost.

- Non-technical creators can now leverage AI agents for around $1 per day to write code, generate functional software, and build dedicated websites without prior programming knowledge. - In home design, users can upload a raw photo of a room to ChatGPT and receive instant, photorealistic architectural renderings with walls removed and custom paint applied, outperforming traditional initial design consultations. - OpenAI has maintained an remarkably small core team—historically under 100 employees—by heavily leveraging AI and preparing for Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), where systems self-reinforce and learn from synthetic data.

[51:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=3090s) Historical Tech Shifts vs. The AI Shock

Technological revolutions historically displaced workers, but the transition dynamics are becoming progressively harder with each cycle. During the late 1800s, approximately 80% of the American workforce was employed in agriculture. As tractors and mechanized combines emerged, displaced farm laborers successfully transitioned into manufacturing jobs because working with farm equipment translated relatively well to factory labor. Today, less than 2% of the population works in agriculture.

``` Agricultural Economy (~80% of US labor in late 1800s) │ ▼ (Mechanization: Tractors & Combines) Industrial Economy (Factory Labor & Manufacturing) │ ▼ (Automation & Tech Shift: High barrier to retrain) Digital & AI Economy (Specialized Knowledge Work & Autonomous Systems) ```

In contrast, modern economic shifts lack seamless skill translation. Industrial manufacturing workers in Detroit could not simply pivot to writing code for Google when auto plants automated. The leap required for workers displaced by AI will be even steeper. Furthermore, because global populations are already native internet users, new AI software adopts instantly without requiring users to learn fundamental new hardware skills. This dramatically accelerates the pace of disruption across major global industries, including transportation and logistics.

- The global labor force faces massive shifts as autonomous vehicles, such as Tesla's Cybercab / Robotaxi lacking steering wheels or pedals, enter real-world deployment. - Driving (spanning truck drivers, taxi operators, and delivery fleets) represents one of the single largest employment categories globally, making its potential automation exceptionally disruptive. - Historically, Luddite panics over displaced resources (such as caring for horses during the rise of the automobile) were brushed aside by free-market capitalism, but the human cost and retraining friction during fast transitions create severe social and political tension.

[56:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=3371s) Essential Human Skills for an AI-Driven Future

To ensure financial success and career longevity in an AI-dominated economy, individuals must focus on fundamental human capabilities rather than perishable technical specifics. While technical disciplines like advanced calculus or specialized engineering remain valuable, the most durable, recession-proof skill set revolves around high-level interpersonal dynamics. Mastering clear communication and developing the ability to collaborate productively with people who hold opposing viewpoints are becoming rare and invaluable traits in an increasingly polarized, social-media-driven society.

- **Mastering Clear Communication:** The ability to articulate complex ideas, persuade, and connect authentically remains uniquely human. - **Bridging Ideological Divides:** Navigating conflicts and working effectively alongside people with vastly different core beliefs is an underappreciated competitive advantage in modern workplaces.

[57:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=3425s) Timeless Skills for Success and Teaching Children the Value of Scarcity

Morgan Housel reflects on his own journey, admitting that he was never a good student; his math abilities were subpar, and his science grades were essentially non-existent. However, two timeless, essential skills carried him forward, even when he wasn't fully conscious of relying on them: learning how to communicate effectively and refusing to be a jerk. For Housel as a writer, this translated into communicating clearly on the page and learning how to get along with people so his career could advance. When Steven asks how parents can instill a healthy money mindset in their children without raising "spoiled little brats," Housel addresses the delicate balance between giving kids a good life and shielding them from reality.

Housel believes the only way to truly understand the value of a dollar is to experience its scarcity firsthand. When his son was born nine years ago, Housel published an open letter containing the counterintuitive wish: "I hope you're poor one day." He did not mean broke, struggling, or lacking healthcare, but rather experiencing a period where money is scarce enough that its worth becomes visceral. Housel credits his own parents with allowing him to be poor for a stretch so he could learn that lesson. He critiques modern "helicopter parenting," arguing that attempting to insulate children from emotional or financial downside prevents them from acquiring life's most vital experiential lessons.

- Morgan Housel wrote an open letter to his newborn son 9 years ago hoping he would experience financial scarcity. - Core non-academic skills highlighted: clear communication and interpersonal decency ("don't be a jerk"). - Critique of helicopter parenting: shielding children from every downside deprives them of essential learning experiences.

---

[59:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=3574s) Sponsor Break: Perfect Ted Matcha Lattes

Steven pauses the discussion to highlight a new launch from Perfect Ted, a company in which he is an investor. Founder Marissa spent four years refining the formula after an initial failed attempt to launch in 2021, navigating a complex development process to perfect a canned product.

- Products introduced: Canned Barista-Quality Matcha Vanilla Latte and Matcha Strawberry Latte. - Retail availability: Available at Waitrose, Tesco, Holland & Barrett, and online at `perfectted.com`. - Promotional offer: Code `STEVEN40` grants 40% off first orders. - Health context: Matcha provides sustained energy without the drastic caffeine crashes associated with other beverages.

---

[01:00:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=3635s) The Crisis of Modern Manhood and Get-Rich-Quick Schemes

Steven transitions to the societal pressures and economic challenges confronting modern men. He cites alarming labor statistics showing a steep decline in male labor force participation over the decades: among prime working-age men (ages 25–54), participation dropped from 98% in the 1950s to roughly the low 80s by 2024. In fact, 10.5% of prime-age men were neither working nor looking for work in 2024, compared to just 2.5% in 1954. Furthermore, UK studies (such as data from the Centre for Social Justice) reveal that for the first time in recent history, more young men are out of work than young women, with roughly 1 in 7 young men currently unemployed.

Despite these shifting economic realities, men remain wired with a primal urge to protect and provide. Housel quotes Scott Galloway, noting that an aspirational definition of manhood centers on three pillars: procreate, provide, and protect. When men feel those three goals are entirely out of reach, desperation sets in. Citing the late Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman, Housel notes: "When all of your options are bad, you become very risk-taking because you have nothing to lose." When men lose confidence in their ability to secure a dignified, stable job, turning to speculative meme coins or crypto scams ceases to look like mere foolishness—it becomes a desperate attempt to manufacture hope.

- Prime male labor force participation (25–54): Dropped from 98% (1950s) to ~80s% (2024). - Men completely out of the labor force (neither working nor seeking work): Rose from 2.5% (1954) to 10.5% (2024). - UK Centre for Social Justice statistic: ~1 in 7 young men are out of work, outnumbering unemployed young women for the first time in modern history. - Scott Galloway’s 3 P’s of aspirational manhood: Procreate, Provide, Protect. - Daniel Kahneman’s behavioral insight: Desperation pushes individuals toward extreme risk-taking when conventional pathways feel blocked.

---

[01:03:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=3793s) Gender Risk Disparities and the Cautionary Tale of Jesse Livermore

Steven and Morgan explore how biology, specifically testosterone, impacts risk appetite. Historically, men are disproportionately susceptible to gambling addiction and catastrophic financial overreach. On Wall Street, hedge funds managed by brilliant PhDs regularly blow up because male traders suffer from an inability to say "that's enough." By contrast, studies show female money managers tend to take calmer, more measured risks. While women may not post the highest speculative returns in a single year, they rarely destroy their portfolios, allowing compounding to work over decades.

To illustrate the fatal flaw of unchecked risk-taking, Housel shares the tragic story of Jesse Livermore, a legendary Wall Street stockbroker who operated in the early 20th century. Livermore was arguably the greatest person in human history at *getting* rich, but possessed zero ability to *stay* rich. Inflation-adjusted, Livermore became a billionaire four separate times—even becoming the richest man in the world at one point—and went bankrupt four separate times. Unable to stop taking reckless trades, he blew up his fortune repeatedly until he took his own life after going broke for the final time. Housel stresses that modest wealth preserved over time is vastly superior to explosive, unmanageable riches.

> "He was the best in the world at getting rich, and he had no ability whatsoever to stay rich."

- Jesse Livermore accumulated and lost billionaire-equivalent fortunes 4 separate times before his death by suicide following a 5th bankruptcy. - Men tend to swing for the fences, whereas women favor sustainable, long-term compounding with lower downside risk.

---

[01:05:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=3954s) Navigating Speculation: Lessons from Technological History

When asked about his stance on cryptocurrency, Housel reveals that he owns zero crypto himself. His nuanced view rejects both fanaticism and cynicism: "If you don't think that some of it is inspiring, then you're not paying attention. But if you don't think that 99% of it is a joke, then you're not paying attention." He points out that historical technological revolutions always follow this exact pattern—massive hype creates thousands of entrants, 99% of which vanish, while a tiny fraction matures into enduring titans. Steven shares that he recently consolidated his own Ethereum holdings into Bitcoin, viewing it as the primary asset attracting institutional stability.

Housel compares current crypto speculation to the American railroad boom of the 19th century and the early automotive industry. Transcontinental railroads fundamentally transformed world trade, yet the vast majority of original railroad investors lost every penny. Similarly, out of roughly 2,000 American car companies in the early 1900s, 1,997 went bankrupt, leaving only General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler. Merely being right that a technology will change the world does not guarantee that investors will make money from it.

- American automobile history: Of 2,000 car manufacturers in the early 1900s, 1,997 failed, leaving only GM, Ford, and Chrysler. - Railroad parallel: Though revolutionary, most early railroad investors lost their entire principal due to overcapacity and poor economics.

---

[01:08:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=4110s) Quantum Computing Threat and the Core Strategy of Wealthy Investors

Steven brings up Google's recent release of its quantum computer, Willow, which sparked debate over whether quantum processing power could eventually crack Bitcoin's cryptographic security system. While computer scientists note that Willow is not currently strong enough to break the system and network upgrades could mitigate future threats, the conversation highlights a broader truth: store-of-value assets change throughout history. Even gold, an objective store of value for millennia, has experienced brutal drawdowns where it fell 90% and languished for 20 years.

Looking across history at those who built lasting fortunes—whether through patient value investing like Warren Buffett or legendary entrepreneurship like Elon Musk—Housel identifies a single common denominator that regular people can apply. Stripping away complex marketing tactics or niche business advantages, the single trait shared by nearly every successful investor across time is extreme, unwavering patience.

- Google’s Willow quantum computer has reignited debates over the long-term cryptographic durability of digital assets like Bitcoin. - Historical volatility: Gold has experienced historical drawdowns of up to 90%, remaining stagnant for decades before recovering. - Primary takeaway for everyday investors: Radical patience is the ultimate common denominator of enduring wealth.

[01:10:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=4245s) The Power of Endurance in Wealth Creation

Morgan Housel highlights that massive, generational wealth almost never stems from a single brilliant idea that suddenly spikes in value; rather, it comes from keeping a "pretty good idea" going for decades. Drawing on a story from David Senra (host of the *Founders* podcast), Housel contrasts modern startup founders who dream of quickly selling their companies to tech giants like Google with legendary entrepreneurs like John D. Rockefeller, Steve Jobs, and Bill Gates, who ran their businesses for 50 years or until they died. He points out a striking statistic about compounding: 99.9% of Warren Buffett’s total net worth was accumulated after his 60th birthday. If Buffett had retired at 60 with his $2 billion net worth, he would have lived an incredible life, but by continuing to invest into his 90s, his accumulated net worth (including given-away wealth) surpassed $250 billion.

Similar stories apply across the tech world. Bill Gates could have sold Microsoft in the 1970s for $10 million, and a 19-year-old Mark Zuckerberg famously turned down a $1 billion cash offer from Yahoo! to keep building Facebook. Endurance and longevity remain the ultimate common denominator for extraordinary financial success.

* **Larry Ellison on Bill Gates:** Oracle founder Larry Ellison once remarked in a 1990s interview that while many people were as smart as or smarter than Gates, nobody possessed his relentless endurance to outwork and outlast competition. * **Buffett’s Longevity:** By continuing to invest past traditional retirement age, Warren Buffett allowed the tail-end of exponential math to create hundreds of billions in value.

---

[01:13:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=4387s) Perseverance, Nvidia's Mindset, and the Math of Compounding

When asked why perseverance is the single most critical factor in achieving results, Housel breaks it down into two main drivers: the inescapable difficulty of business and the mathematical reality of compound interest. Every venture faces inevitable roadblocks and existential threats; even Nvidia, one of the most valuable companies on Earth, operates under the unofficial internal motto: "We are always 30 days from going out of business." Maintaining that survival instinct and fighting through difficulty is necessary just to stay in the game long enough to let compounding take over.

Housel stresses that the wealthiest people aren't those who achieve the absolute highest returns in a short window, but those who earn decent returns consistently for an above-average length of time. Compounding is essentially returns raised to the power of time ($R^T$), meaning time does almost all the heavy lifting. By remaining durable and simply achieving average market returns over a 40-year horizon, an investor naturally ends up in the top 1%.

* **Nvidia's Unofficial Motto:** "We are always 30 days from going out of business" highlights the ongoing "knife fight" nature of sustaining a business. * **The Investor's Paradox:** Aiming for average, consistent returns over 30 to 40 years is far more likely to yield top 1% wealth than trying to chase high-risk short-term returns.

---

[01:14:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=4491s) Index Funds vs. Wall Street and Simple Compounding Examples

For a beginner with $1,000 a month in disposable income, the simplest mechanism to harness compounding is investing in index funds—low-cost collections of hundreds of global companies (such as Apple, Amazon, and Coca-Cola). Investing consistently in a broad index for 30 years requires zero financial expertise or stock picking, yet it almost guarantees a spot in the top 1% of investors, outperforming roughly 95% of professional Wall Street fund managers who fail to maintain long-term outperformance. Housel draws a parallel to physical health: you don't need to become an elite marathoner or bodybuilder to be healthy; exercising modestly three times a week and eating reasonably well for 30 years will make you one of the healthiest people in your community.

To illustrate how counterintuitive compounding is, Steven shares a calculation based on skipping a daily $5 cup of coffee. Assuming an average S&P 500 return of ~8%, investing that daily $5 over 40 years yields $440,000. Housel references Alice Schroeder's biography of Warren Buffett, *The Snowball*, noting how young Buffett famously hated paying $2 for a haircut or $1 for a car wash because he viewed them as "$10,000 haircuts" and "$5,000 car washes" based on what that capital would grow into over 50 years. Extending that logic, saving $5 on a haircut every month and investing it in an index fund over an 80-year adult lifespan (from age 13 to 93) grows to over $10.3 million.

* **Wall Street Performance:** Simple index fund holding beats roughly 95% of active professional traders over a 30-year span due to low fees and uninterrupted compounding. * **Exponential Thinking:** Citing podcaster Michael Batnick, human brains easily grasp additive math ($8 + 8 + 8 + 8 = 32$) but struggle to intuitively process multiplicative/exponential math ($8 \times 8 \times 8 \times 8 \times 8$). * **Negative Compounding:** Bad habits compound exponentially too—smoking a single cigarette is negligible, but smoking consistently every day for 30 years leads to "negative magic."

---

[01:20:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=4825s) The True Meaning of Savings and Debt

Discussing his book, *The Art of Spending Money*, Housel offers a complete reframing of what it means to save cash. Most people view unspent money as idle or wasted capital sitting aimlessly in a bank account. Housel views every saved dollar as "a little token of independence"—a piece of future time that you personally own and control. Saving provides immediate mental and psychological benefits in the form of current autonomy, serving as the essential "oxygen of independence."

Conversely, debt represents the exact opposite: "a piece of your future that somebody else owns." Taking on debt forfeits your future labor and time to a creditor, forcing you to work under their terms years down the road.

> "Debt is a piece of your future that somebody else owns... When you go into debt, you're saying 3 years from now this company owns a part of my time."

* **Savings as Autonomy:** Saving money isn't just about deferred future consumption; it yields an immediate increase in daily freedom and peace of mind. * **The Definition of Debt:** Borrowing money pledges your future time and labor to someone else's control.

---

[01:21:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=4906s) Money as a Window into Human Psychology

The conversation turns to the deeply personal and emotional relationship people have with money. Many individuals experience intense anxiety around finance, avoiding opening their bank accounts or reading their credit card statements. Housel argues that health and money are the only two subjects in human existence that affect everyone regardless of personal interest: "You can have a wonderful life not knowing anything about chemistry or meteorology... You cannot have a good life if you don't care about money and health."

Much of modern societal unhappiness—envy, jealousy, and the feeling of falling behind—stems from a distorted relationship with money and social comparison. Housel notes that analyzing how a person manages, spends, and talks about their money offers an unparalleled window into their true personality and values—far more revealing than knowing their political affiliations.

* **Universal Impact:** Unlike niche academic subjects, financial management and health dictate quality of life for every individual on earth. * **Personality Mirror:** How much people spend on status symbols (clothes, cars, jewelry) versus quiet savings directly reflects their internal psychological needs and vulnerabilities.

Here is a detailed, faithful walkthrough covering this part of the conversation.

[01:24:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=5049s) Prisoners of Our Unique Past and the Roots of Behavior

Morgan Housel explains that everyone is effectively a prisoner of their unique past, shaped by distinct childhoods, parents, cultural backgrounds, and generation-defining events. Even when two people share identical values on nine out of ten topics, their remaining differences mean they will view money completely differently. Heated financial debates—whether someone is spending too much, not saving enough, or investing incorrectly—are rarely actual disagreements over technical logic. Instead, they are the result of individuals with fundamentally different life experiences talking past one another and projecting their personal aspirations onto others.

To illustrate this, Housel shares a principle from his brother-in-law, a social worker dealing with disadvantaged, homeless, and foster children who often display severe behavioral issues or poor academic performance. Social workers operate under the rule: "All behavior makes sense with enough information." When a teacher sees a child failing or picking fights, it is easy to judge; however, once their background of trauma, abuse, or displacement is understood, their actions become logical. Housel applies this exact logic to financial behaviors. Seeing someone drive a bright yellow Lamborghini isn't necessarily a cause for judgment, but rather a indicator of a specific personal backstory—such as an intense need to prove their success to the world due to past experiences.

- Unlike mathematics where $2 + 2 = 4$ universally, money has no single "correct" answer because people evaluate options through their own subjective lenses. - Financial conflicts usually stem from mismatched life stories rather than flawed numerical logic.

[01:26:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=5202s) The Balance Between "YOLO" and Deathbed Financial Security

Steven Bartlett reflects on how people rationalize spending through a "you only live once" (YOLO) mindset. He contrasts his own early behavior—taking risks and figuratively "rolling the dice" at the casino—with his older brother, a stockbroker and actuarial scientist who was already budgeting his pocket money on Excel spreadsheets by age 12 and contributing to a pension by age 21. Housel responds with an anecdote from his early 20s about a 30-something coworker who had accumulated $25,000 in credit card debt at a 17% interest rate to fund trips across Europe and Asia. While Housel initially judged him as financially foolish, the coworker unexpectedly passed away at age 32. Looking back, Housel realized the man had experienced more of the world in his short life than most do in six decades, making the debt surprisingly worthwhile in hindsight.

However, Housel highlights the opposite perspective as a parent. Having saved the majority of his earnings since his first job at age 16, Housel rejects the idea that he will lie on his deathbed regretting skipped vacations or fancy dinners. For him, true peace of mind comes from knowing his wife and children will be financially secure after he is gone. Bartlett agrees, calling the thought of leaving behind a family that must sell their house or struggle to afford food the ultimate nightmare, whereas knowing one's family is self-sufficient allows for a peaceful end.

- **The $25,000 Vacation Debt:** A 32-year-old coworker died after accumulating $25,000 in high-interest credit card debt for travel, illustrating the unpredictable balance between saving for the future and living in the present. - **Parental Security:** Housel has saved most of his income since age 16, prioritizing his family's financial safety over short-term luxury spending.

[01:30:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=5450s) Regrets of the Dying and the Philosophy of Minimizing Regret

The discussion shifts to the end of life and what truly matters when facing mortality. Bartlett mentions that having traveled, taken risks, and lived fully gives him a sense of gratitude when contemplating his own mortality. Housel brings up the tragic final words of childhood actor David Cassidy, who died surrounded by wealth and fame, stating simply: "So much wasted time." This highlights how external success and fortune mean little if life is spent unproductively or unauthentically.

Housel connects this to Jeff Bezos’s foundational philosophy for starting Amazon: the "regret minimization framework." Bezos envisioned himself at age 90 looking back on his life; he knew he would never regret trying to build Amazon and failing, but he would deeply regret never having tried at all. Expanding on the regrets of the dying, Bartlett references the work of Australian palliative care nurse Bronnie Ware, whose study revealed that the top regret of terminally ill patients was "I wish I'd lived a life more true to myself," followed closely by "I wish I hadn't worked so hard." Not a single patient wished they had spent more time in the office.

- **David Cassidy's Last Words:** "So much wasted time"—a stark reminder that wealth and fame do not prevent existential regret. - **Jeff Bezos's Framework:** Projecting oneself to age 90 to evaluate whether an action (or inaction) will cause long-term regret. - **Bronnie Ware's Top Regrets:** 1. "I wish I'd lived a life more true to myself." 2. "I wish I hadn't worked so hard."

[01:33:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=5628s) Changing Debt Mindsets: Nature vs. Nurture

Addressing the struggle of breaking out of debt traps, Bartlett asks how someone entrenched in bills and financial debt can realistically recover, given that saving alone often feels insufficient. Housel notes that breaking out of financial distress is incredibly difficult because the underlying mindset that created the debt is hard to change. He draws a parallel to marriage statistics showing that the single most predictive factor of whether someone will cheat on a spouse is their number of sexual partners prior to marriage—illustrating how difficult it is for human behavior to simply "flip a switch" and transform overnight.

Housel points out that money management relies far more heavily on nature than nurture. Some individuals, like Bartlett's brother, are naturally hardwired to save and plan, while others are naturally wired for risk-taking and entrepreneurship. While people can learn new tactical ideas, fundamentally rewiring one's underlying personality remains a massive challenge.

- **Nature over Nurture:** Financial habits are heavily influenced by innate personality traits, making total behavioral overhauls difficult. - **Behavioral Continuity:** Past actions and habits tend to persist, making sudden shifts in financial discipline rare without deliberate effort.

[01:36:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=5773s) Saving as a Token of Independence

Bartlett asks for practical tactics or psychological shifts to help everyday workers—such as factory employees with very little disposable income—start saving money. Housel argues that viewing savings as an obligation to buy physical things in the future makes saving painfully difficult. Instead, people should reframe every saved dollar as a "token of independence."

When savings are viewed through the lens of autonomy, money provides options: the ability to take time to find a good job if laid off rather than taking the first available position out of panic, or the ability to seek quality medical care during an emergency. Bartlett notes that internet search data reflects how widespread this basic confusion is, with "how to save money" and "what is a high-yield savings account?" ranking among the most common Google searches regarding personal finance.

- **Shift in Mindset:** Reframe saving from "money spent later on stuff" to "purchasing future control over your time." - **Practical Freedom:** A financial buffer grants independence during unexpected job losses or medical emergencies.

---

[01:37:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=5848s) Increasing Savings by Raising Humility

Morgan Housel explains that understanding money is not merely a "nice to have" skill; everyone has a basic obligation to understand how money works because everyone inevitably has to manage it. Referencing a quote from his book, he emphasizes that one of the most powerful ways to increase savings is not simply to raise your income, but to **raise your humility**.

In the modern social media era, a vast amount of consumer spending is oriented toward putting on a performance for complete strangers who do not actually care or pay attention. People buy expensive items like a Range Rover or a Rolex expecting admiration, but others are typically too consumed by their own lives and status symbols to notice. Housel notes that real fulfillment comes from focusing exclusively on the few people whose opinions truly matter—for him, his wife, his kids, his parents, and a couple of close friends. Buying a flashy sports car like a Ferrari would not make his family love or admire him any more, so spending money to impress the outside world is a fruitless pursuit.

Instead of spending on flashy luxury goods, Housel views **independence** as his single largest expense. For 25 years, he has directed his finances toward controlling his own calendar and securing the freedom to turn down work he does not want to do. He shares a personal story about growing up as a competitive ski racer in Lake Tahoe, where he felt insecure around teammates who always had newer, better equipment. Years later, when his own son started skiing, Housel overcompensated by buying him top-of-the-line gear—only to discover his son could not care less about fancy equipment. This highlighted how much adult spending stems from childhood scars rather than practical utility.

* **Inner Circle vs. Strangers:** Housel prioritizes the opinions of roughly six or seven key people (family and core friends) over the fleeting attention of strangers on the street. * **The Role of Social Media:** Over the last 10 to 15 years, social media has amplified performance-based spending aimed at seeking attention from people who aren't watching.

---

[01:40:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=6056s) Capital Allocation and Simple Portfolios

When asked about his exact capital allocation, Housel reveals that his balance sheet is intentionally plain and conservative: * **Cash:** Roughly 20% to 25% of his total net worth. * **Real Estate:** A primary home owned entirely outright with no mortgage. * **Equities:** The remainder split between **Vanguard index funds** and shares of **Markel** (where he serves on the Board of Directors).

Housel purposefully keeps his personal financial structure simple and "boring" so that he can maximize for **endurance**. By minimizing financial complexity and stress, he frees up mental energy to focus on sustaining his investments over the longest possible time horizon.

---

[01:41:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=6103s) Demystifying Vanguard Index Funds

To explain an index fund in plain terms, Housel describes it as buying a tiny piece of hundreds or thousands of public companies all at once—essentially owning a slice of American capitalism rather than betting on individual stocks. His primary investment vehicle is the **Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund (VTI)**, which provides broad, low-fee exposure across the entire market without making speculative bets on specific sectors like AI or tech.

Comparing stock market behavior to historical benchmark data compiled by Yale economist Robert Shiller going back to the 1880s, long-term U.S. stock returns average around **8% to 10% per year**. However, Housel emphasizes that "on average" contains a massive caveat: individual years are rarely smooth, swinging wildly between +30% gains and -15% losses. While tech companies currently make up a large weight in stock indices, Housel argues that everyday consumer goods companies like Procter & Gamble (which sells Old Spice deodorant and toothpaste) often possess superior longevity. While Google might not remain the dominant search tool in 30 years, people will almost certainly still require basic hygiene products.

* **Ticker Symbol:** Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund (**VTI**). * **Historical S&P 500 Average:** 8%–10% annually over long horizons, though individual years experience heavy volatility. * **Longevity Advantage:** Simple consumer product companies can sometimes outperform high-tech firms over decades due to predictable, steady consumer demand.

---

[01:44:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=6258s) The Root Causes of the Housing Crisis

Addressing the state of real estate, the discussion points out that total U.S. home sales dropped to approximately **4 million in 2024**, marking the lowest transaction rate since 1995. Housel frames the modern housing shortage as one of the single largest societal crises today, directly fueling broader social issues such as homelessness, addiction, and despair because tens of millions of people feel locked out of middle-class stability.

He notes that the conventional wisdom of buying a home immediately upon entering the workforce is rooted in the 1950s and 1960s, an era when housing construction pace kept prices drastically lower relative to wages. Furthermore, modern expectations for a home have inflated drastically: * **Post-WWII Standards:** Homes built in post-war developments like **Levittown, New York**, averaged just **700 square feet**, featuring two bedrooms, one bathroom, no garage, and no air conditioning for families of five or six. * **Modern Standards:** The average new American home today spans roughly **2,200 square feet**, reflecting a massive shift in what society considers an "entry-level" home.

---

[01:45:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=6344s) A Personal Philosophy on Homeownership and Renting

Housel reflects on buying three homes throughout his life, noting that he never felt like he was getting a "bargain" or making a brilliant financial maneuver on any of them. Instead, he views homeownership strictly through the lens of safety, lifestyle, and family stability rather than maximum financial return. When people approach housing purely as a speculative investment—hoping prices double or waiting to time the market—they expose themselves to unnecessary risk.

Illustrating the emotional weight of a home, Housel shares that when he sold his previous house in Seattle—where prices had surged over five years—he felt completely disconnected from the large sum of money wired into his bank account upon closing. Instead, what mattered were the memories made inside the physical space: his daughter taking her first steps at the bottom of the stairs, his son's first day of kindergarten, and family holiday celebrations. You cannot store family memories inside a Vanguard fund, which is why stock portfolios are for building money, while homes are for building a life.

For younger people debating whether to buy or rent, Housel advocates for **flexibility early in life**. He and his wife rented for 10 years across five different cities, enjoying the freedom to pack up and move without real estate friction. However, the exact week his first child was born, a switch flipped in his mind, and stability instantly outweighed flexibility.

* **Renting Advantage:** Provides crucial geographical and career flexibility for young professionals without being anchored by a mortgage. * **Buying Trigger:** Homeownership should be driven by a desire for long-term family stability and freedom from landlord uncertainty, rather than chasing quick financial returns.

[01:50:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=6637s) The Hidden Costs of Homeownership and the Value of Flexibility

Many people operate under the belief that renting is simply "throwing money away," but this perspective overlooks the massive, unpredictable costs associated with homeownership. Owning a house involves far more than just paying down a mortgage; it brings maintenance burdens like replacing a broken water heater or installing a new roof, which can instantly wipe out short-term financial gains. When factoring in opportunity costs and total out-of-pocket expenses, renting can often be just as financially sound as buying, while providing a level of mobility that is virtually impossible to quantify in purely monetary terms.

``` FLEXIBILITY vs. HOMEOWNERSHIP

RENTING BUYING ┌────────────────────────┐ ┌────────────────────────┐ │ • Fixed, capped cost │ │ • Mortgage floor only │ │ • Geographic mobility │ │ • Surprise maintenance │ │ • Zero selling friction│ │ • High transaction fee │ │ • Career opportunity │ │ • "Golden handcuffs" │ └────────────────────────┘ └────────────────────────┘ ```

Unquantifiable flexibility often proves far more valuable in the long run than accumulating home equity. The ability to instantly pack up and relocate for a spouse's graduate school or a sudden career opportunity creates compounding professional upside. Having "no handcuffs" allows individuals to move wherever opportunity knocks, whereas selling a house is a lengthy, stressful process that locks people in place.

- Steven shares his personal journey of financial mobility over a four-year period: living in New York for just three days, quitting his job when the pandemic hit, and moving through Portugal, Germany, Bali, London, and ultimately Los Angeles. - A major driver of historical economic prosperity is geographic mobility; economies become stagnant and sclerotic when workers are locked down and unable to relocate for better opportunities. - Many homeowners who locked in ultra-low mortgage rates (2% to 3%) in 2021 and 2022 now suffer from "golden handcuffs"—they want to move for better jobs but cannot justify trading their low rates for 7.5% market rates.

---

[01:53:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=6820s) Asking $30,000 Questions vs. $3 Questions

To build real wealth, individuals must shift their mental focus away from minor, everyday expenses and concentrate on large, high-leverage financial choices. Originating from author Ramit Sethi, the concept of "$3 questions" versus "$30,000 questions" points out that people burn substantial mental energy agonizing over daily coffees or packing lunches. In reality, cutting out small pleasures barely moves the needle on long-term net worth, whereas making the right call on major structural decisions yields massive financial divergence over a lifetime.

``` EXPENDITURE HIERARCHY

$3 QUESTIONS $30,000 QUESTIONS (Low Financial Impact) (High Financial Impact) ┌───────────────────┐ ┌───────────────────┐ │ • Daily coffee │ │ • Housing payment │ │ • Packing lunches │ vs. │ • College choice │ │ • Small subscriptions │ • City/Location │ └───────────────────┘ │ • Car purchases │ └───────────────────┘ ```

The vast majority of an individual's lifetime expenditure is concentrated in just a few key categories: housing payments (rent or mortgage), vehicle costs, and major education decisions. Sweating the small stuff can lead to burnout without generating actual wealth, while optimizing the big four financial decisions creates true economic freedom.

- Extreme approaches to finance—such as total "YOLO" overspending on one end or extreme frugality on the other—frequently lead to deep regret later in life. - The Financial Independence, Retire Early (FIRE) movement, which gained traction 10 to 15 years ago, encouraged people to live hyper-frugally in their twenties to retire in their late twenties with around $600,000. - Many early retirees in the FIRE movement experience severe boredom or depression within six months because they lack purpose while their peers remain in the workforce.

---

[01:56:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=6963s) The Psychological Trap of Retirement

Retirement is often romanticized as the ultimate goal, but abruptly stopping productive work can carry severe psychological risks. A career provides structure, social connection, and a core sense of identity. For people whose identity is heavily wrapped up in their work, waking up with no mandate to add value to society or support a team can quickly trigger feelings of disorientation and depression.

While some individuals excel in retirement by staying vibrant through personal hobbies, social groups, and community projects, work-oriented personalities often struggle deeply without a tangible pursuit. Transitioning from high productivity to total leisure requires careful identity management, leading many retirees to re-enter the workforce simply to regain their drive and purpose.

- Morgan shares that his father retired and un-retired three separate times because he missed the purpose and social connection of his job, forcing the family to ban further "retirement parties." - A rapid cessation of hard work is one of the fastest paths to depression for people whose core identity is tied to being productive and adding value to the world.

---

[01:58:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=7080s) Timeless Books and Historical Lessons on Human Psychology

When seeking foundational wisdom on wealth and market behavior, classical text and major historical events offer far more insight than modern tactical guides. Benjamin Graham’s 1949 classic, *The Intelligent Investor*, remains the single greatest book on investment wisdom ever written. Despite being nearly a century old and written in dense, formal prose, roughly 90% of its core concepts remain completely timeless because human nature and financial markets do not change.

``` HISTORICAL LESSONS IN PSYCHOLOGY (1929–1945)

THE GREAT DEPRESSION WORLD WAR II ┌───────────────────────────┐ ┌───────────────────────────┐ │ • Mass economic panic │ │ • Severe existential dread│ │ • Extreme financial loss │ + │ • High-stakes risk & fear │ │ • Psychological resilience│ │ • Extreme emotional range │ └───────────────────────────┘ └───────────────────────────┘ │ │ └────────────────────────────────┘ │ ▼ Deep Understanding of Human Behavior Under Stress ```

Beyond direct financial literature, studying macro-historical crises like the Great Depression and World War II offers an unparalleled masterclass in human psychology. The 16-year window between 1929 and 1945 exposed the full spectrum of human emotion—from extreme agony and despair to intense elation. Learning how individuals handle panic, risk, uncertainty, and fear during these eras provides a deeper understanding of investor behavior than studying military tactics or modern technical indicators.

- *The Intelligent Investor* by Benjamin Graham continues to sell strongly almost 100 years after its release due to its unmatched perspective on market psychology. - The period from 1929 to 1945 represents the highest recorded range of human emotions in modern history, documenting how societies deal with existential risk and uncertainty.

---

[01:59:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=7183s) The Hidden Dangers of Rapid Growth

Unchecked, rapid expansion poses a massive threat to businesses, careers, and personal investments. Drawing a direct parallel to botany, a tree planted alone in an open field receives uninhibited sunlight and grows up to ten times faster than a tree shaded inside a dense forest. However, because it grows so quickly, it never forms dense hardwood or deep root structures, leaving it hollow, weak, and highly vulnerable to rot and wind damage.

``` TREE GROWTH ANALOGY

FAST-GROWING TREE OLD-GROWTH TREE (Unshaded / Rapid) (Shaded / Slow & Dense) ┌──────────────────┐ ┌──────────────────────┐ │ • Fast sunlight │ │ • Deep root system │ │ • Softwood core │ vs. │ • Dense hardwood │ │ • Rot-prone │ │ • High durability │ │ • Dies quickly │ │ • Long lifespan │ └──────────────────┘ └──────────────────────┘ ```

In business and career development, hyper-growth often comes at the direct expense of long-term durability. Companies or public figures that skyrocket overnight frequently collapse just as fast, as the skills required to create rapid expansion are entirely different from the structural discipline needed to sustain an enterprise long-term.

- A tongue-in-cheek theory in corporate finance states that a company's rate of growth dictates its half-life: "However fast you grow, that's the half-life for how quickly you can die." - In the music industry, songs that surge to number one on the charts at record speeds drop off the charts just as rapidly due to sudden over-saturation and listener fatigue. - Tech giants like Apple took decades to find their modern structural footing (founding in the 1970s and reaching true dominance in the mid-2000s), whereas hyper-growth companies often struggle because managing a 1,000-person organization requires completely different skill sets than founding a product.

---

[02:03:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=7390s) Redefining Happiness and Seeking Contentment

While almost everyone claims to pursue "happiness," targeting it as a primary life goal frequently leads to frustration and emotional instability. Happiness is a fleeting, short-lived emotion designed to spark briefly in response to positive events rather than persist continuously. Expecting to live in a perpetual state of happiness is unsustainable and sets individuals up for disappointment when baseline emotions return.

- Seeking constant happiness can distort financial choices, leading people to pursue short-term thrill over long-term stability. - Shift focus from chasing emotional highs toward building sustained contentment, purpose, and lasting financial durability.

> "Happiness is always a five-minute..." — Morgan Housel

[02:03:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=7429s) The Difference Between Happiness and Contentment

Morgan Housel explains that happiness is merely an emotion that comes and goes like a quick thrill, fading almost immediately—much like laughing at a joke at a comedy show for 20 seconds before the humor wears off. Instead of chasing fleeting happiness, what people truly seek is contentment. When individuals dream about a new house, a luxury car, or a beach vacation in Maui, what they are actually picturing is themselves being *content* with those possessions and surroundings.

Housel shares that his grandmother-in-law was remarkably happy because she was entirely content with her simple, basic, and outwardly "boring" life. She had very little, yet felt no need for more, inspiring a sense of envy in those who observed her peace of mind. Steven Bartlett reflects on his own 18-year-old diary goals—to become a millionaire, get a girlfriend, drive a Range Rover, and have a six-pack—realizing that he too was envisioning contentment, not just material items.

- Happiness is short-lived, whereas contentment provides lasting peace. - People mistakenly believe the next upgrade (e.g., trading a Ferrari for a Lamborghini or a Rolls-Royce) will bring bliss, when they are actually chasing the underlying state of contentment.

---

[02:05:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=7548s) Escaping the Comparison Game and Internal Benchmarks

Discussing how to achieve contentment, Housel quotes philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer: *"If you only want to be happy, that is very easy to achieve. But people want to be happier than other people and that is much more difficult."* Most status battles stem from comparison—people often don't just want a nice house or an expensive car; they want one that is better or more expensive than their neighbor's. True contentment requires shifting from external benchmarks to internal ones, focusing solely on health and family.

Housel presents a thought experiment: if everyone else on Earth vanished, would you want a flashy Ferrari, or a functional Toyota pickup truck that actually offers utility? He notes that a high-end Toyota with heated seats, a moonroof, and a great sound system is genuinely a better experience than an entry-level BMW, which people only buy for the illusory chance of influencing how others perceive them. While Bartlett points out that human DNA is hardwired for competition over scarce resources (mates, food, land), Housel references Adam Smith's writing from 300 years ago, noting that while our evolutionary drive pushes us to show off, self-aware individuals can consciously choose to step back from the game.

- **Schopenhauer quote**: Seeking to be *happier than others* makes happiness nearly impossible. - **Internal vs. External**: Asking *"If nobody else was looking, would I be happy with this?"* reveals true desires, especially since "nobody else is looking" as closely as we think.

---

[02:09:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=7741s) Navigating Global Uncertainty and Changing Life Priorities

When asked what critical perspective people facing economic uncertainty, tariffs, and AI should hold, Housel emphasizes that the world today is not inherently more uncertain or fragile than in the past. It simply feels that way because we know how historical crises ended, whereas our current story remains unwritten. He references a favorite Jon Stewart quote: *"The reason the world felt like a better place during your childhood is because you were a child."*

Answering the channel's traditional closing question—*"What is one thing you valued starting out that you no longer value?"*—Housel explains how his personal values shifted with age. In his 20s, a "failed night" meant staying at home on the couch instead of traveling and exploring the world. Now in his 40s as a father, nothing brings him more joy than sitting on the living room floor playing Legos with his children.

---

[02:10:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=7847s) Closing Reflections and Appreciation

Steven Bartlett expresses deep gratitude to Housel, noting that while he bounced right off classical financial texts like *The Intelligent Investor* by Benjamin Graham, reading Housel's *The Psychology of Money* years ago likely made him "millions and millions of pounds." It provided him with an emotional framework to avoid get-rich-quick traps and convinced him to keep his wealth in simple, safe index funds. Bartlett adds that Housel’s *Same As Ever* inspired the accessible, story-driven writing style of his own recent book, calling Housel his most admired author.

Housel returns the compliment, remarking that sustaining a compelling podcast conversation for several hours is an extraordinarily rare skill that Bartlett executes better than almost anyone in the world. Bartlett closes the episode with a message to his audience, pointing out that 53% of regular listeners are not yet subscribed, and asking them to hit the subscribe button to help the team continuously improve the show.

## Notable quotes > [01:00:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=3635s) When all of your options are bad, you become very risk-taking because you have nothing to lose. — Morgan Housel

> [01:03:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=3793s) He was the best in the world at getting rich, and he had no ability whatsoever to stay rich. — Morgan Housel

> [01:05:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=3954s) If you don't think that some of it is inspiring, then you're not paying attention. But if you don't think that 99% of it is a joke, then you're not paying attention. — Morgan Housel

> [01:13:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=4387s) We are always 30 days from going out of business

> [01:20:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=4825s) Debt is a piece of your future that somebody else owns... When you go into debt, you're saying 3 years from now this company owns a part of my time. — Morgan Housel

> [01:21:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=4906s) You can have a wonderful life not knowing anything about chemistry or meteorology... You cannot have a good life if you don't care about money and health. — Morgan Housel

> [01:24:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=5049s) All behavior makes sense with enough information.

> [01:30:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=5450s) So much wasted time. — David Cassidy

> [01:30:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=5450s) I wish I'd lived a life more true to myself

> [01:30:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=5450s) I wish I hadn't worked so hard.

> [01:37:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=5848s) raise your humility — Morgan Housel

> [02:05:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=7548s) If you only want to be happy, that is very easy to achieve. But people want to be happier than other people and that is much more difficult. — Morgan Housel

> [02:09:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=7741s) The reason the world felt like a better place during your childhood is because you were a child. — Jon Stewart

## Mentioned Ben Carlson, MrBeast, Wright brothers, U.S. Army, Delta Air Lines, Airbus A380, Peter Thiel, ChatGPT, OpenAI, Tesla, Cybercab, Robotaxi, Morgan Housel, Steven Bartlett, Perfect Ted, Waitrose, Tesco, Holland & Barrett, Scott Galloway, Daniel Kahneman, Centre for Social Justice, Jesse Livermore, General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, Ethereum, Bitcoin, Google, Willow, Warren Buffett, Elon Musk, David Senra, Founders podcast, John D. Rockefeller, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Yahoo!, Larry Ellison, Oracle, Nvidia, Apple, Amazon, Coca-Cola, S&P 500, Alice Schroeder, The Snowball, Michael Batnick, The Art of Spending Money, Jeff Bezos, Bronnie Ware, David Cassidy, Benjamin Graham, Robert Shiller, Ramit Sethi, Arthur Schopenhauer, Jon Stewart, Vanguard, Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund (VTI), Markel, Range Rover, Rolex, Ferrari, BMW, Toyota, The Psychology of Money, Same As Ever, The Intelligent Investor, The Art of Spending Money: Simple Choices for a Richer Life, Levittown, New York, Seattle, FIRE movement

[Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90)

中文简报

摩根·豪瑟警告：AI冲击与债务正威胁财务自由实现长期财务安全需要建立现金储备、选择指数基金，并将行为层面的坚守置于投机投资之上。摩根·豪瑟探讨了财务成功在更大程度上取决于人类心理、坚守耐力与行为自律，而非专业智识或投机风险。他分析了人工智能对劳动力带来的颠覆性冲击、当代男性陷入财务绝望的深层诱因，以及简单复利相对于主动择时所具备的巨大力量。豪瑟最终主张保持充足的现金储备，以谦逊的态度保持适度开支，并坚持指数基金投资，以此换取长期的独立与从容，而非追逐浮于表面的奢靡。社交媒体和高知名度内容创作者严重扭曲了人们对财富的认知，导致大众盲目追求极度奢靡的生活，而非先建立基本的财务独立。 (43:08) 保持充裕的流动现金储备并维持最低限度的债务，能够为抵御不可预测的个人及宏观经济冲击提供关键保障。 (44:18) 现代人工智能带来了独特的经济颠覆，缺乏以往工业转型中那种顺畅的技能迁移路径。 (51:30) 在人工智能时代，最持久、最能抵御经济衰退的人类能力是高水平的人际交往、清晰的沟通以及得体的言行举止。 (56:11) 年轻男性的绝望情绪以及劳动力边缘化现象，推高了他们参与高风险加密货币骗局与投机暴富项目的比例。 (60:35)

Reading summary

Author Morgan Housel argues that enduring financial freedom and security depend far more on managing expectations, patience, and behavioral psychology than on complex market timing or chasing rapid growth. Tariffs, Deglobalization, and Structural Economic Realities (6:54) Housel analyzes current trade protectionism, clarifying that tariffs are paid by domestic importers rather than foreign governments and are ultimately passed to consumers via higher prices. Using products like the iPhone as an example, he notes that producing goods entirely within the United States under domestic wage expectations could push retail prices from $1,000 up to $4,000. Under proposed measures such as a 145% tariff on Chinese imports, companies may face unsustainable margin compression, risking product cancellations or empty store shelves within weeks. Housel also challenges the assumption that trade policy alone can restore 1950s-era manufacturing employment. Post-WWII American industrial supremacy was an anomalous monopoly while Europe and Japan rebuilt. Today, the primary driver of manufacturing job loss is technological automation rather than mere offshoring. To illustrate, a Gary, Indiana steel plant that produced 5 million tons of steel with 30,000 workers in 1950 now generates 8 million tons with just 2,000 workers. Furthermore, trade deficits historically allowed foreign nations to reinvest surplus dollars into US Treasury bonds—bolstering the approximately $30 trillion in US stocks and bonds held by international investors and suppressing borrowing costs. Disrupting these flows jeopardizes global faith in US institutional predictability. Technological Disruption and the Limits of Fast Growth (46:45) Addressing technological shifts, Housel argues that modern labor disruptions from artificial intelligence will prove harder to navigate than historic transitions. When mechanization reduced the agricultural share of the US workforce from roughly 80% in the late 1800s to under 2% today, displaced farmhands could adapt reasonably well to factory assembly. In contrast, modern workers displaced by automation cannot seamlessly pivot into specialized programming or digital knowledge work. In an AI-dominated economy, durable competitive advantages will rely on distinctly human capabilities, such as clear interpersonal communication and the capacity to bridge deep ideological divides. Housel also warns against prioritizing rapid expansion over structural resilience. Drawing an analogy to botany, a tree in an open field grows up to ten times faster than one shaded in an old forest, but its softwood core remains hollow, weak, and vulnerable to rot. Similarly, businesses and speculative assets that scale aggressively often lack the operational discipline needed to survive inevitable downturns, giving fast-growing enterprises a much shorter half-life. The Psychology of Independence Versus Status Chasing (30:38) Housel redefines financial independence as a state of managed expectations rather than a specific net worth. He contrasts his late grandmother-in-law—who lived contentedly on a $1,700 monthly Social Security check with zero additional savings—with ultra-wealthy executives suffering chronic stress under external obligations. Tracing this dynamic to Adam Smith's observation that people labor beyond necessity largely to win social attention and envy, Housel points out that buying display assets like oversized mansions creates upkeep liabilities without delivering proportional happiness. True independence, Housel contends, requires raising humility rather than merely chasing higher income. While author Ben Carlson estimates a net worth of $7 million to $10 million affords an extraordinary lifestyle in the US, social media culture distorts perceptions toward hyper-luxurious anomalies like private islands. Housel views savings not as idle capital, but as 'tokens of independence' that purchase control over future time. Conversely, taking on debt effectively pledges one's future labor and calendar to external creditors. Endurance, Compounding, and Portfolio Simplicity (73:07) Long-term investment success relies on mathematical longevity rather than extreme single-year performance. Compounding behaves as returns raised to the power of time, meaning duration does the vast majority of the work: 99.9% of Warren Buffett's wealth was accumulated after his 60th birthday. By aiming for average market returns over several decades—such as through broad index funds like Vanguard's Total Stock Market Index Fund (VTI), which track historical 8% to 10% annual stock market trends—everyday investors regularly outperform active Wall Street managers while avoiding speculative traps. To withstand economic recessions—which occur naturally every four to five years—investors must build personal room for error. Housel personally keeps 20% to 25% of his net worth in cash, owns his primary home mortgage-free, and allocates the remainder into broad index funds and shares of Markel. Furthermore, he advises focusing mental energy on large financial levers (housing, vehicles, and education) rather than agonizing over minor daily expenses, while viewing a family home as a foundation for life stability rather than a speculative, liquid investment. Housel concludes that current economic and technological volatility is not historically unprecedented, but simply feels uniquely precarious because modern outcomes are still unfolding. Ultimately, financial durability requires accepting modest, consistent returns, building large cash cushions for room for error, and prioritizing personal contentment over the fleeting emotional highs of status-driven consumption.

精炼阅读摘要

畅销书作家摩根·豪瑟（Morgan Housel）指出，无论是面对贸易壁垒与技术冲击等宏观风暴，还是追求长期的个人财务自由，决定财富命运的核心均非复杂的量化计算与短期投机，而在于心理自律、生活预期管理与耐受周期波动的容错能力。真正的财务独立是将储蓄转化为时间自主权，依靠低成本指数投资与长期耐力，在充满不确定的经济环境中获得持续的内心安宁。关税本质、逆全球化与宏观波动现实 (6:54) 豪瑟强调，公众普遍对关税机制存在认知误区，其实质是由本国进口商直接向海关缴纳税款，企业通常会通过涨价将其完全转嫁给终端消费者。例如，若美国对中国商品征收高额关税（如145%），可能迫使企业提价逾150%或暂停进口，甚至在数周内导致货架断货；若完全依赖美国本土工资生产iPhone，其零售价或从1000美元飙升至4000美元。针对制造业岗位回流的主张，豪瑟指出二战后美国所享有的工业垄断源于欧日基础设施在战火中沦为废墟的特殊历史窗口，如今不可重现；且美国自1970年代峰值流失约1000万制造业岗位的核心驱动力是自动化而非外包。以加里市的美国钢铁厂为例，1950年3万名工人产出500万吨钢铁，如今仅需2000名工人即可生产800万吨。此外，海外投资者当前持有约30万亿美元的美国股票和债券，以往贸易顺差国积累美元储备并大量购买美国国债，有效压低了美国借贷利率；不可预测的贸易壁垒正威胁国际资本对美国制度稳定性的信任。豪瑟认为，经济衰退就像佛罗里达州的飓风一样，每隔四至五年便会出现一次，个人无法精准预测转折点，唯一的防御方式是在财务生活中建立充分的安全边际与容错空间。储蓄即时间自由：克制虚荣与重构财富观 (30:38) 豪瑟主张彻底颠覆将未花费资金视作“闲置浪费”的传统思维，将每一元储蓄定义为“购买未来时间自主权的代币”，赋予个体在失业或医疗危机时不被迫妥协的底气；相反，负债则是将未来的时间与劳动力质押给债权人。实现财务自由的有效途径不是无休止地推高净资产，而是主动管理物质欲望。豪瑟的岳祖母晚年30年间仅依赖每月1700美元的社会保障金生活，无额外储蓄或退休金，却凭借阅读、散步和园艺等低成本习惯，展现出远超诸多因业务重压而在凌晨惊醒的亿万富翁的心理富足。正如亚当·斯密300年前所观察到的，人类满足温饱后的辛劳多源自对社会关注与地位的追逐。然而，为博取陌生人羡慕而购买豪车名表往往徒劳无功，因为旁人更专注于自身生活。豪瑟以DFS创始人查克·费尼（Chuck Feeney）捐尽90亿美元家产归于极简，以及沃伦·巴菲特常年安居老宅为例指出，提升储蓄最强有力的方法并非单纯增加收入，而是提升谦逊度。将控制个人日程和拒绝不情愿工作的自主权视为最大支出，远比盲目追逐豪宅更能换来实质自由。耐力复利与避开暴富返贫的投机陷阱 (70:45) 豪瑟指出，代际巨额财富极少源自某个突发的惊艳点子，而是将一个“还不错的策略”持续运行数十年。复利在数学本质上是回报率的时间乘方，时间的权重远高于短期爆发力。巴菲特99.9%的财富积累于60岁之后，英伟达亦长期以“距离破产永远只有30天”的危机感维持生存耐力。对于普通个人而言，定期配置低成本的全市场指数基金（如VTI），在30至40年的长周期中获取8%至10%的平均年化回报，其表现足以击败95%无法长期跑赢市场的华尔街专业基金经理。与耐心积累相对的是急功近利的投机倾向。受工业转型冲击，美国25至54岁黄金年龄段男性的劳动参与率从1954年的98%滑落至2024年的约80%出头，退出劳动力市场的比例从2.5%增至10.5%。在体面工作匮乏时，部分群体容易孤注一掷参与加密骗局以期制造希望。豪瑟以20世纪传奇交易员杰西·利弗莫尔（Jesse Livermore）为例发出警诫：利弗莫尔堪称史上最懂如何致富的人之一，曾四次成为亿万富翁，却因无法遏制风险敞口而四度破产，最终以自杀收场。豪瑟强调，在空地上受光充足而急速窜升的树木质地脆弱易折，唯有在林荫下缓慢生长的树木才能形成致密硬木并长久存活，资本的韧性同样遵循此道。聚焦高杠杆财务抉择与追求持久满足感 (113:40) 在支出决策层面，豪瑟援引作家拉米特·塞提（Ramit Sethi）的框架，呼吁大众将注意力从消耗心智的“3美元问题”（如省买咖啡或自带午餐）转向决定财富走向的“3万美元问题”。一个人一生的支出大半集中在住房支出、汽车置办、高等教育和城市选择这四大决策上。过度纠结微小日常开销容易导致心理倦怠，唯有审慎对待大额结构性财务杠杆，才能形成长期的财富分水岭。在房产议题上，豪瑟反对将自住房纯粹视为投机套利的工具，主张从家庭安全感与稳定性出发考量。在青年时期，租房提供了高价值的职业流动性，避免了房屋修缮与交易摩擦带来的资产套牢；而拥有一套还清贷款的居所，其本质是储存家庭情感记忆的物理空间，而非追求账面投资回报率。最后，豪瑟区分了短暂刺激的“快乐”（happiness）与稳定内省的“满足感”（contentment）：追逐持续快乐容易导致投机与非理性消费，而对当下生活感到充实的满足感才是长久安宁的基石。援引澳大利亚临终关怀学者布朗妮·维尔（Bronnie Ware）的调查，临终者最常见的遗憾往往是未能过符合本心的生活以及过度透支于工作，而非未曾积累更多奢靡之物。豪瑟的论述表明，不论是关税重塑全球贸易、人工智能对劳动力市场的冲击，还是不可避免的周期性经济衰退，宏观外部风暴均超乎个人控制；然而，金钱背后的人性心理规律历经数百年从未改变。本节目讨论未提供任何特定证券或加密代币的操作策略，给读者的关键启示在于：在欲望极易被外部媒介放大的消费环境中，个体唯有依靠内在谦逊确立“何为足够”，并通过构建容错空间与时间复利，方能在风暴中守护自身及家庭的长期生存权。

Detailed notes — zh

## Background 本期内容由 YouTube 知名播客频道《The Diary Of A CEO》于 2025 年 4 月 28 日发布。节目邀请了畅销书《金钱心理学》作者、知名投资人与关税专家摩根·豪泽尔（Morgan Housel），围绕 2025 年关税风暴、经济崩溃警告、金钱心理学以及如何构建真正的财务自由展开深入对谈。 ## TL;DR 摩根·豪泽尔在对话中拆解了关税对全球供应链和消费者的真实冲击，指出衰退是经济周期的必然特征，留足容错空间与深层储蓄才是应对危机的唯一屏障。他剖析了人类在金钱面前被“地位炫耀”与“贪婪”驱动的生物进化缺陷，强调财务自由的本质是管理期望、追求个人独立与自主权，而非堆砌数字。此外，豪泽尔还探讨了 AI 时代的技能变革、房产的情感溢价与投资边界，并倡导以枯燥但长青的指数基金定投和极致耐力来换取人生的长远安宁与真正知足。 ## Atmosphere & style 整场对话洋溢着清醒、沉静而极具穿透力的人文哲思，既有对宏观经济与政策博弈的尖锐洞察，又充满了温暖动人的个人生活经验。主持人史蒂芬与豪泽尔之间展现出极高的思想共鸣与智性张力，从关税与衰退的冷酷现实自然过渡到临终遗憾与育儿反思。聆听过程就像在浮躁喧嚣的时代接受一场深刻的精神洗礼，促使听众从对暴富与地位的虚妄执念中抽身，找回内心的从容与生活的主权。 ## Bulletin - [06:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=414s) 关税本质是由进口国本土企业缴纳的边境税而非出口国买单，若对供应链粗暴设卡，将直接导致进口终端物价暴涨或因停运断供导致零售货架迅速搬空。 - [17:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=1041s) 即便推行极端保护主义也无法召回传统制造业蓝领岗位，自动化使生产力大幅跃升的同时削减了超90%的体力工人，现代制造的核心壁垒已转变为工程师密度与工具制造能力。 - [30:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=1838s) 真正的财务自由取决于对欲望和期望值的管理，储蓄并非闲置浪费，而是购买未来个人独立与生活掌控权的无形代币。 - [01:10:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=4200s) 顶级富豪与长线赢家最稀缺的特质不是绝顶智商，而是超长周期内的耐力与复利——沃伦·巴菲特 99.9% 的财富都是在其 60 岁之后积累而来的。 ## Key takeaways - [02:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=120s) 决定投资成败的关键因素不是数理公式或宏观预测模型，而是人类基因深处的贪婪、恐惧、嫉妒与缺乏耐心。 - [04:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=280s) 关税危机与自然经济危机存在本质差异：它是人为政策选择，虽然理论上可一键叫停，但若长期僵持将严重摧毁全球化分工与国家制度信誉。 - [11:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=701s) 美国战后制造业的黄金繁荣源于欧日被毁、新兴市场尚未崛起的全球天然垄断，这一历史特殊性不可复制，无法单纯靠关税重塑。 - [18:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=1105s) 中国作为世界工厂的核心优势早已不再是廉价劳动力，而是无人能及的高密度模具工程师与专业制造执行能力。 - [26:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=1568s) 经济衰退平均每四到五年必然发生一次，理财的核心在于在顺境中敬畏债务、留足容错空间以应对脆弱的宏观环境与人生变故。 - [41:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=2476s) 收入跃迁存在极强的边际递减法则，当财富超越一定阈值后往往会异化为带来无尽舆论审判与人际磨损的社会负债。 - [46:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=2805s) 颠覆性新技术爆发时其规模往往被严重低估，但新技术颠覆世界与普通投资者能从中赚取暴利并不等同，绝大部分投机资产最终将走向归零。 - [56:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=3371s) 在 AI 时代，相较于可被替代的硬核代码技能，清晰的跨群体沟通表达能力与同意见相左者融洽相处的软实力更为稀缺。 - [01:00:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=3635s) 许多男性深陷加密投机和高风险赌博，心理根源往往不是盲目自大，而是在传统现实晋升路径受阻后感到无路可退时的铤而走险。 - [01:13:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=4387s) 普通人获取超额投资回报的最佳途径是极度耐心地定投低费率全市场指数基金，通过在超长周期内保持平庸来击败绝大部分华尔街专业人士。 - [01:24:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=5043s) 金钱并非纯粹的数学题，在信息充分的前提下每个人的金钱决策皆合情合理，因为人人都是自身独特成长背景与经历的囚徒。 - [01:32:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=5522s) 在生命终点没有任何人会后悔工作不够拼命，绝大多数临终者的遗憾在于过度透支职场，未能按照真实的自我去生活并陪伴家人。 - [01:37:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=5865s) 增加储蓄最强大的杠杆不是提高收入，而是提高谦逊并戒除演给陌生人看的虚荣消费，把资金用于买断生活的掌控权。 - [01:44:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=6252s) 买房的核心价值在于为家庭提供不可替代的情感港湾与确定性，而非用于择时套利的金融投机；租房在青年时期则提供了宝贵的职业流动性与自由度。 - [01:55:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=6948s) 工作往往承载了个体的身份认同，盲目极端的提早退休可能因失去价值感与社交纽带而迅速陷入精神空虚，唯有将评价体系从外在比较切换为内在知足才能获得恒久的平静。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=0s) 开场预告与财富的终极真相对话在一系列引人深思的快问快答中拉开帷幕。摩根·豪泽尔（Morgan Housel）指出，当前的关税局势完全有可能演变成“我们有生之年最大的经济大事件”——大批人正因此蒙受巨额损失，全美可能在短短数周内就面临货架被搬空的危机；但荒谬的是，美国总统的办公桌上其实就有一个写着“立刻终止”的按钮，随时可以一键叫停。作为颠覆大众财富认知的金钱心理学大师，摩根直言，在谷歌上被搜索最多的财务问题（比如“如何实现财务自由”）本质上都是一种心态问题；人们只有亲身体验过市场下行的惨痛，才能真正理解金钱的运作机制。谈及储蓄与投资时，摩根颠覆了常规认知。很多人认为把钱存在银行里吃利息是一种浪费，但他强调，储蓄是经济衰退时保护家庭、维持对生活掌控力的安全气囊；至于存多少才合理，他坦言自己有一个“没人会喜欢的糟糕答案”。在谈到历史上真正积累起巨额财富的人群时，他指出他们最核心的特质不是高智商，而是异于常人的耐力与耐心。以复利为例，这是投资中最常被误解的概念——沃伦·巴菲特（Warren Buffett）甚至极度抗拒去理发，因为在巴菲特的复利算盘里，如果把理发省下的钱投资并放置50年，那次理发的隐形成本高达10,000美元。随后，主持人史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）插播了一则诚恳的听众互动呼吁：后台数据显示，常态化收听该节目的听众中有高达53%的人尚未点击订阅。他承诺只要大家动动手指免费订阅支持，团队就会全力倾听反馈，邀请大家最想见到的重量级嘉宾，持续交付更优质的对话内容。 --- ### [02:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=120s) 《金钱心理学》：决定财富的不是公式，而是人性史蒂芬回忆起2020年的一个转折点：他在金融行业打拼了十余年的哥哥杰森（Jason）郑重向他推荐了一本书，并直言“如果你想真正看懂金钱，就必须读这本书”——那就是摩根·豪泽尔的畅销神作《金钱心理学》（The Psychology of Money）。史蒂芬表示，这本书彻底重塑了他对财富的认知框架，也正是促成两人再度对谈的原因。摩根深表赞同并强调，这本书最大的特点在于“它从不教你具体该买哪只股票、该怎么花钱”，因为每个人的成长背景、风险偏好都截然不同，任何标准答案都是不负责任的。在摩根看来，想要在财务上取得成功，探究人们做投资决策时的内心所思，远比哈佛商学院金融博士课程里传授的任何技术模型都更重要。现实世界中绝大多数人的财务崩溃，根本不是因为不懂数据分析、不会手算复利公式，而是败给了人类基因深处的“贪婪、嫉妒与缺乏耐心”。这种心理机制在千年前如此，千年后也依然不会改变。而当下，这种人性弱点被急速放大了：一边是暴涨的比特币让部分人一夜暴富，激起全社会的红眼病与贪婪；另一边则是关税政策引发的剧烈波动让无数人财富缩水，恐慌与焦虑四处蔓延。 - 决定投资成败的关键心理因素：贪婪（Greed）、恐惧（Fear）、嫉妒（Envy）与不耐烦（Impatience）。 - 技术公式、宏观预测与复杂的数理模型在人性弱点面前往往不堪一击。 - 当前市场两极分化极其严重：加密资产与特定股票暴涨放大贪婪，关税政策带来冲击放大恐慌。 --- ### [04:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=280s) 关税风暴：可随时按下的“核按钮”与脆弱的全球机器针对当前铺天盖地的关税新闻（如特朗普对不同国家加征10%乃至更广泛的全面关税），史蒂芬询问这究竟会不会对普通人的日常生活产生实质影响。摩根给出了肯定的回答：关税极具破坏力，但它与以往的历史灾难存在一个本质区别。回顾2001年的9·11事件、2008年雷曼兄弟倒闭引发的次贷危机，或是2020年的新冠疫情（COVID-19），这些系统性冲击一旦发生，人类只能被动承受整个灾难周期的漫长阵痛，白宫桌上根本没有一个能瞬间结束疫情或逆转恐袭的开关。然而当前的关税危机完全是人为选择。理论上，总统只需要一分钟签署命令就能全盘撤销，尽管它已经对国际间的信任度与国家信誉造成了难以逆转的残留伤害。更严峻的是，现代全球经济并不是一个可以随意折腾的结实物件，而是一台精密到令人发指的复杂机器。以往决策者就算把机器上的某个旋钮轻轻微调1度，都可能引发连锁爆炸；而如今推行的关税政策，粗暴程度不亚于“拿着棒球棒和撬棍狠狠砸向这台精密机器”。无论是走进本地超市、沃尔玛（Walmart）还是塔吉特（Target），货架上的日用品产地遍布全球，一旦供应链被人为设卡阻断，恶果将在极短时间内集中爆发。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 关税危机与自然经济危机的区别对比 accDescr: 对比传统不可抗力危机与人为关税政策在可控性及传导后果上的差异 subgraph HistoricalCrises["不可抗力危机 (9/11 / 2008金融危机 / COVID-19)"] A["冲击爆发"] --> B["无即时终止按钮"] B --> C["全社会必须承受漫长出清周期"] end subgraph TariffCrisis["2025年关税危机 (人为政策摩擦)"] D["政策发力 (棒球棒砸向全球机器)"] --> E{"总统办公桌上的开关"} E -->|"理论上可随时取消"| F["1分钟内叫停行政命令"] E -->|"若长期持续僵持"| G["信誉受损 / 物资断供 / 货架搬空"] end ``` --- ### [06:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=414s) 究竟什么是关税？谁在真正买单摩根观察到一个荒谬的现象：过去几周里，他身边大量受过高等教育、事业有成的高知朋友，纷纷发短信或打电话私下问他：“到底什么是关税？天天看新闻提，但我完全不懂它是怎么运作的。”史蒂芬附和道，大众对关税的理解存在巨大鸿沟，大概50%的人对其一无所知，全社会真正能清晰准确表达关税逻辑的人恐怕不足5%。摩根用通俗的语言拆解了这一机制。首先，关税并非现代发明，它在历史上存在了数百年，在特定保护阶段有其合理的经济功用；但美国当下的粗暴做法无疑是灾难性的昏招。大众最普遍的误区是认为“美国向中国商品加征关税，就等于中国政府或中国厂商在给美国财政部掏钱”。然而在现实中，承担关税的直接主体是**进口国本土的企业**。以科技产品为例，苹果公司（Apple）在中国组装制造了一大批iPhone，装上集装箱货轮运往美国本土港口。当货轮靠岸清关时，向美国海关开出支票缴纳高昂关税的，不是中国工厂，而是作为进口商的美国本土企业苹果公司。虽然在某些极端博弈中，海外代工厂可能会被迫降价来分摊部分成本，但税款的法定支付方自始至终都是本国进口商，这笔凭空增加的巨额税负，最终必然会沿着供应链层层向下转移。 - 关税的核心属性：它不是海外出口国支付的罚款，而是本国政府向本土进口商征收的边境税（Import Tax）。 - 典型链条：中国代工组装iPhone $\rightarrow$ 货运至美国港口 $\rightarrow$ 美国企业（如苹果公司）在港口向美国政府缴纳关税。 - 最终代价：尽管海外供应商可能会微调定价以作缓冲，但暴增的进口关税最终会由进口企业承担，或直接转嫁为本土消费者的终端物价上涨。 ### [08:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=513s) 关税的转嫁机制与合理使用场景贸易在过高的关税壁垒下最终只会停滞。如果苹果公司在 145% 的关税税率下进口一部 iPhone，当货物运抵美国口岸时，苹果就必须先行垫付这笔巨额关税。然而，这笔成本绝不会由企业自行吞下。这与美国大多数州收取的 6% 至 10% 的消费税（Sales Tax，相当于英国的增值税 VAT）完全相同——税款虽然名义上由商家向政府缴纳，但最终买单的全部是终端消费者。小票上清晰地写着：商品价格 10 美元，加上消费税，总计就是消费者必须掏出的数额。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 关税转嫁与经济传导机制 accDescr: 展示海外制造商品通过高关税进口后，税负最终全额转嫁给消费者的过程。 subgraph ImportChain["进口清关环节"] A["海外代工厂 (如富士康)"] -->|"运抵美国口岸"| B["进口企业 (如苹果公司)"] B -->|"海关征收 145% 关税"| C["商品到岸成本激增"] end subgraph ConsumerMarket["零售终端环节"] C -->|"全额转嫁税费"| D["终端售价飙升"] D -->|"买单"| E["美国普通消费者"] end ``` 关税本身并非非黑即白的议题，在特定极端情况下确实存在战略必要性。以新冠疫情暴发之初为例，美国当时几乎 100% 依赖中国和韩国制造的医用口罩和 N95 口罩。当医疗危机突然降临、全美急需数以亿计的口罩时，所有产能却都在海外，国家瞬间陷入被动与瘫痪。在这种关乎国家安全的战略物资上加征关税，迫使企业因海外进口成本过高而回流本土制造，是完全合情合理的逻辑；军工国防领域亦是如此，任何国家都绝不可能在战时依赖潜在敌国供应子弹、炸弹和坦克等核心军备。然而，战略物资的定向保护与无差别全面关税存在本质区别： - 战略保护针对口罩、弹药等关键供应链，目的是防范国家安全被卡脖子。 - 全面无差别关税则不加区分地对全球所有国家的进口商品统一加征 10%，甚至对特定贸易伙伴征收高达 145% 的惩罚性关税。 ### [10:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=619s) 经济学界的共识与贸易战的历史警示营养学界对于人类究竟该采取哪种饮食结构争执不休——生酮饮食、纯素食还是介于两者之间的流派各有支持者；但所有营养学家无一例外都达成了一个绝对共识：加工糖有害健康。在经济学界，关税扮演的正是“加工糖”的角色。经济学者们可以在最优税率、产业补贴机制、自由市场还是政府干预等问题上吵得不可开交，但没有任何一个严肃的经济学家会认为挑起全面贸易战是明智之举。贸易战从来不是新鲜事物，人类在过去几百年的历史中反复吞下其苦果。最典型的教训莫过于 1930 年代大萧条初期出台的高额关税法案，决策层原本天真地以为加征关税能筑起保护墙，结果却直接导致全球贸易陷入停滞瘫痪，反而加剧了经济崩溃的深渊。许多人陷入一种直觉误区，以为只要把关税高高挂起，昔日流失到海外的汽车工业与制造业岗位就会如潮水般涌回本土。但现实往往演变成“以牙还牙”的报复性循环： - 本国率先对贸易伙伴加征高额关税。 - 对方迅速出台同等力度的关税进行对等反击。 - 双方陷入你来我往的拉锯博弈，最终形成经济学层面的“相互保证毁灭”（Mutually Assured Destruction）。 ### [11:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=701s) 特朗普的贸易执念与制造业“黄金年代”的真相针对特朗普为何执意推行高关税政策，客观而言，他在过去 40 年里在这个议题上保持了惊人的一致性。早在 1986 年特朗普接受奥普拉·温弗瑞（Oprah Winfrey）的电视采访时，他就公开宣称“自由贸易并不免费”，指责日本等国家在经济上占美国的便宜，并坚信关税是解决这一问题的唯一良药。加征关税是他贯彻一生的坚定信条。很大一部分美国大众对 1950 和 1960 年代充满怀旧之情。在那段作为“世界制造业超级大国”的岁月里，工人们的生活水平切实可见。自 1970 年代末制造业就业岗位达到历史峰值以来，全美已经累计流失了约 1000 万个制造业岗位。对于身处铁锈地带或经历过那个辉煌时代的普通蓝领而言，渴望回到过去的繁荣无可厚非。然而，1950 至 1960 年代美国制造业的空前繁荣，是一个几乎无法复制的历史特例： - 二战结束时（1945 年），欧洲与日本均已沦为一片焦土瓦砾，基础设施与工业体系被彻底摧毁。 - 中国、韩国、印度、孟加拉国等新兴制造基地在当时完全没有进入全球工业版图。 - 战后近 20 年间，美国在全球制造业领域实质上享有绝对的天然垄断地位；欧日当时自顾不暇，仅能勉力维持温饱并着手重建战后废墟。 - 1600 万美军士兵解甲归田，催生了对住房、洗衣机、汽车、收音机的巨量消费需求，而当时全球仅有美国工厂具备供应这些产品的生产能力。 ### [14:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=845s) 平等感错觉与日系车带来的产业冲击战后美国社会的幸福感不仅来自于绝对的物质繁荣，更来自于相对平等的收入分配结构。在 1950 年代，白领阶层的薪资相较于之前或往后并没有拉开惊人的差距。当时底特律的一名汽车装配线蓝领工人，如果把自己的周薪与当地的牙医、会计师或医生对比，并不会产生过大的阶层落差： - 医生虽然赚得更多，但差距完全在可以接受的范围内。 - 工人开一辆雪佛兰，医生开一辆凯迪拉克，凯迪拉克虽然更高档，但大家在衣食住行上过着大同小异的中产阶级生活。这种建立在垄断红利之上的繁荣在 1970 年代戛然而止。经过数十年休养生息，欧洲与日本不仅完成了战后重建，还成长为极具竞争力的工业重镇。丰田（Toyota）、本田（Honda）和日产（Nissan）三大日本车企大举进军美国市场。起初，底特律三大巨头傲慢地将这些日本小轿车戏称为“割草机玩具”，认为轻薄小巧的初代本田 Civic 根本无法与雪佛兰 Camaro 这样的美式大排量肌肉车相提并论。然而，1970 至 1980 年代石油危机的全面暴发彻底逆转了局势。高企的油价让省油耐用的小型车瞬间成为市场刚需，当美国车主开始购买日系车后，惊觉这些车的装配工艺和耐用度极其出色。长达二十年的全球垄断让美国汽车巨头陷入严重的自满与否认之中，未能及时正视海外竞争对手在制造水平上的崛起。 ### [16:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=964s) 自动化重构制造业：回不去的劳动力时代即便通过高额关税等保护主义手段强行将工厂迁回本土，也绝不可能重现昔日的蓝领就业盛况。制造业岗位大幅减少的根本原因除了全球分工（将生产转移至中国、墨西哥、加拿大、印度等低成本国家）之外，更核心的驱动力在于不可逆转的工业自动化。 - **1950 年代的装配线**：完全依靠工人的臂力与脊背，车间内挤满了推拉搬运钢材和零部件的蓝领劳动力。 - **现代超级工厂（如特斯拉组装线）**：生产线上由成排协同作业的工业机器人占据绝对主导，现场几乎看不到普通流水线工人。 - **用工形态彻底转变**：现代化车间里的少数现场人员，其工作本质已演变为坐在电脑前监控自动化系统与机器人运转的技术人员，对体能型传统蓝领劳动力的需求已被大幅压缩。 ### [17:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=1041s) 制造业流失的真相：自动化与产业分工摩根·豪瑟（Morgan Housel）指出，许多人渴望“让制造业重回美国”，这种对往日荣光的怀念完全可以理解，但现实中的技术与经济逻辑让这种愿望极难实现。他举了印第安纳州加里市（Gary, Indiana）的一家美国钢铁厂作为典型例证：在1950年代，该厂拥有30,000名工人，年产500万吨钢铁；如今该厂依然在运转，年产量提升至800万吨，但雇佣的工人却骤降到了2,000人。产量大幅增加的同时用工减少了90%以上，因为曾经需要依靠工人的二头肌、后背和肩膀完成的高强度体力劳动，如今已全部由机器和机器人接管。这与农业的演变如出一辙——两百年前的农场依赖耙子和铁锹，如今则是拖拉机和联合收割机。这种由自动化带来的生产力跃升，注定了劳动密集型组装岗位不可能以旧面貌回归。当主持人史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）问及中国是如何崛起成为“世界工厂”，并以极低成本生产全世界日常用品时，豪瑟引用了苹果公司CEO蒂姆·库克（Tim Cook）近期的观点。库克明确指出，外界普遍认为苹果在中国组装iPhone是因为廉价劳动力，但这一认知早已过时。如今廉价劳动力早已转移到了孟加拉国、柬埔寨等地区，中国真正的核心优势在于“专业制造能力”（Expertise）。豪瑟强调，无论是国家、企业还是个人，都必须承认术业有专攻：中国在低端制造（从充气游泳池到基础电子元件）的执行力上无人能及。曾有一位CEO告诉豪瑟，如果给中国工厂一份明确的图纸和一二三步的操作规范，他们能拿出全球无可匹敌的高水准产品；但如果让他们从零构思并设计一个新零件，这便不是他们的强项。这种分工正是全球化效率的核心。豪瑟总结道，美国真正的优势在于企业精神（Entrepreneurship）、高科技（Technology）、高端服务业（Services）以及尖端制造（如飞机和火箭制造），而非低端制造业。这也解释了为何每台iPhone背面都印着“Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China”（加州设计，中国组装）。过去30年全球经济体系的高效运转，正是建立在这种劳动专业化分工的基础之上：你负责设计，我负责制造，双方皆大欢喜。 ### [20:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=1225s) 库克的洞察：工具制造工程与生活标准的鸿沟主持人播放了苹果CEO蒂姆·库克此前引发广泛共鸣的一段采访原声。库克在采访中直言，大众对中国制造有着根深蒂固的误解： > “大众的普遍观念是跨国企业来中国是因为劳动力成本低。我不知道他们去的是中国的哪个地方，但事实是，很多年前中国就已经不再是低劳动力成本国家了……我们选择中国的原因是这里的技术工人技能（Skill）、同一区域内高技能人才的密度以及技能的专精类型。” 库克进一步解释，制造苹果产品需要极其先进的精密工具制造技术（Tooling）。在美国，如果召集全美顶尖的模具与工具制造工程师开会，参会人员恐怕连一间普通的会议室都坐不满；然而在中国，这类高技能专业工程师的人数足以坐满好几个足球场。这种深厚且高度集中的产业工程底蕴，是其他地方难以在短期内复制的。豪瑟接着探讨了生活成本与薪酬预期的差异。美国人拥有值得自豪的高生活水平，社会共识绝不会接受每天5美元这类极其微薄的工资水平，但这也必然推高了本土生产的成本。倘若完全在美国本土按照符合美国薪资预期的标准组装一部iPhone，其售价可能会从目前的1,000美元飙升至4,000美元。全球专业化分工的本质，正是通过资源优化配置大幅压低了消费品价格，使普通大众能够享受到平价而先进的科技产品。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 全球化分工与关税冲击传导链 accDescr: 展示中美产业分工如何带来消费红利，以及高关税如何破坏该链条导致涨价与断货。 subgraph 分工模型["成熟的全球化分工体系"] US["美国核心优势 创新设计 / 软件 / 高科技服务"] CN["中国核心优势 高密度模具工程师 / 先进组装能力"] Product["平价高品质终端产品 （例：1,000美元 iPhone）"] US --> Product CN --> Product end subgraph 关税冲击["高额关税介入（如 145% 惩罚性关税）"] Tariff["进口端面临极端高税负"] OutcomeA["终端零售价暴涨 （消费意愿冻结）"] OutcomeB["进口商无利可图 停运断供 / 货架见底"] Product -.-> Tariff Tariff --> OutcomeA Tariff --> OutcomeB end ``` ### [22:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=1374s) 关税风暴的现实冲击：天价账单、空置货架与企业停摆面对持续升级的关税政策与贸易战，豪瑟指出，虽然贸易政策瞬息万变、充满不确定性，但一旦惩罚性高关税（例如部分商品面临的145%关税）长期维持，普通人将直接面临两大核心恶果：要么进口物价暴涨，要么贸易彻底停摆导致货架空空如也。豪瑟举例说明： - 如果一双原本从中国采购价为1美元的拖鞋，加上145%的关税后瞬间变成2.45美元，进口商将根本无法维持原有的商业逻辑； - 如果原本1,000美元的iPhone因关税被迫涨至2,500美元，市场需求将会迅速萎缩，苹果可能会选择直接暂停销售，观望政策变化。这种踩刹车的现象已经成为现实。豪瑟透露，随着关税重压落地，近几周从中国驶向美国的集装箱航运量已经出现雪崩式骤跌，“如果一套100万美元的房子突然被加征145%的税，你肯定会停止买房，现在进口商也是同样的心态。” 主持人史蒂文对此深有感触，分享了自己前一天与一位女性CEO的对话。该CEO的大部分产品都从中国进口，她算了一笔账后发现，如果按现有零售价继续销售，每卖出一件衣服就要净亏损9美元。面对这种局面，她唯一的自保手段要么是直接停售，要么将终端零售价大幅提高150%转嫁给消费者。豪瑟总结道，除非决策者按下办公桌上的“停止键”叫停关税战，否则物价飞涨与商品断货将是难以避免的演变趋势。 ### [24:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=1497s) 30万亿投资的基石：信任危机与资本循环谈及贸易摩擦带来的更深远次生灾害，豪瑟认为对“美国信誉与制度信任”的破坏是最致命的隐患。豪瑟感慨：“信任是最难以捉摸的东西，因为在彻底失去它之前，你永远不知道它有多昂贵；而一旦失去，你才会意识到它曾是所有一切的基石。” 豪瑟列举了一组震撼的数据：不包括房地产和写字楼等实体资产，海外投资者仅在美股和美国债券市场的投资规模就高达30万亿美元。过去80年间，全球资本之所以毫无保留地将美国视作资产避风港的第一选择，是因为美国始终代表着稳定、透明、依法治理和具有高可预测性的经济体，这种确定性与俄罗斯等国家形成鲜明反差。此外，这种资本注入与贸易逆差紧密相连：由于中国长期向美国出口大量商品，手中累积了数以万亿计的美元外汇储备，这些资金必须重新配置，最终大多通过购买美债等方式回流至美国金融系统，支撑了美国的资本市场繁荣与借贷流动性。破坏这一互信与资本闭环，将从底层动摇全球金融体系的稳定。 ### [26:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=1568s) 美债信任危机与衰退的必然性外国持有大量美元后必须为其寻找投资去处，历史上这一向是购买美国国债（Treasury bonds）。这种资金回流压低了美国的利率，对所有人都有利。所谓国债，本质上就是联邦政府发行的债务凭条，投资者把钱借给政府，政府则承诺连本带利予以偿还。然而，一旦外界对美国的信任度下降，或者因贸易萎缩而不再拥有那么多需要投资的美元储备，愿意购买美债的人就会锐减。谈及宏观经济前景，针对路透社（Reuters）等媒体报道称“受关税影响，美国经济衰退的概率飙升至 45%，创 2023 年 12 月以来新高”这一论调，摩根·豪泽尔（Morgan Housel）展现出了特有的清醒与审慎。他笑称，预测者把概率定在 45% 是一种“立于不败之地”的话术：即便未来没有发生衰退，他们也能辩解“我们当时只说了有 45% 的可能性，并没断言一定会发生”。在豪泽尔看来，如果有人问“我们是否正走向衰退”，他的答案永远是绝对的“是的”——哪怕一年前或五年前被问到，答案也毫无二致。在现代经济史中，衰退平均每四到五年就会发生一次，这绝非什么天外飞来的突发怪事，而是经济运行中不可避免的内生特征。从技术指标来看，衰退通常被定义为国内生产总值（GDP，即整体经济产出）连续两个季度出现负增长。但豪泽尔指出，普通人根本不需要在乎这种晦涩的技术定义；现实生活中的衰退，其本质就是你长期在经济体感上陷入困境——当你自己、身边的邻居或合租室友都找不到工作，生活开始真正感到切肤之痛时，衰退就已经发生了。这就像判断自己是否生病一样，除了严苛的医学指标，最直观的体验就是“你感到身体不舒服了”。豪泽尔对衰退并不麻木，但他打了个比方：这就像住在佛罗里达州的人面对飓风一样，你当然会担忧飓风，但你也百分之百确信飓风终究会来。如果你在佛罗里达生活四十年，被飓风击中的概率就是 100%。无论有没有关税，经济衰退都必然发生。 ### [28:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=1708s) 容错空间：承认生命的脆弱与对“独立”的追求面对必然发生的经济周期，个人在财务层面最关键的应对策略就是留出“容错空间”（room for error）——建立充足的储蓄缓冲，并对债务保持敬畏。当一个人事业顺遂、薪水丰厚、股市一路高歌、比特币不断大涨时，所有人的感觉都好极了。在那种春风得意的心境下，极少有人愿意主动去想象自己失业的惨状，更不会预设自己可能长达六个月找不到工作，或是面临被迫搬家、婚姻破裂、突患重疾的至暗时刻。然而冷酷的现实是：在未来三十年的漫长岁月里，重大失业或生意受挫、离婚、癌症、子女走入歧途，这些打击中至少发生一项在自己身上的概率到底有多大？豪泽尔给出的答案是“100%”。对很多人来说，甚至可能会经历上述所有打击。无论是生命、宏观经济还是主权国家，本质上都极其脆弱。人们之所以抗拒承认这一点，是因为如果每天早晨醒来都直面这种残酷，往往让人难以鼓起爬出被窝的勇气。但这种必然性其实并不可怕，前提是你在心理和财务上做好准备： - **心理建设**：在顺境时清醒地意识到好日子绝不可能永远持续，世界并非按照线性永动机的规律运转。 - **财务防线**：在行情大好时克制消费、积攒储蓄，为未来的逆境储备充足的弹药。 - **终极目标是“独立”**：金钱带来的最高价值从来不是招摇过市的名车豪宅，而是“独立与自主”（independence）。当经济崩盘、深陷衰退时，拥有独立性意味着你依然对自己在哪里工作、生活在何处、如何供养家庭拥有掌控权。 - **认知优势**：超越单纯的财务数字，人生最核心的一项心理能力，就是在顺风顺水、形势异常优渥之时，保持清醒并做好局势随时急转直下的准备。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 应对经济脆弱性的容错框架 accDescr: 展示了从外部必然冲击到建立财务与心理双重缓冲，最终实现个人独立与控制权的逻辑闭环。 subgraph Shocks["不可避免的现实冲击"] A["周期性经济衰退 (每4-5年必然出现)"] B["个人不可抗力风险 (失业/重疾/家庭变故)"] end subgraph Defense["核心防御机制：容错空间"] C["财务缓冲： 深层储蓄 + 极度敬畏负债"] D["心理认知： 在顺境时清醒预判均值回归"] end subgraph Outcome["终极人生价值"] E["个人掌控权与独立性 (自主选择工作、居所与生活方式)"] end Shocks --> Defense Defense --> Outcome ``` ### [30:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=1838s) 重新定义财富：92岁祖母的1700美元与亿万富翁的困境面对关税摩擦、衰退阴影以及 AI 浪潮对全球秩序的急剧重塑，普通人究竟该采取怎样的财务策略与思维模式来捍卫自身的自由与独立？豪泽尔坦言，这个答案听起来或许有些“务虚”甚至像陈词滥调，但其中蕴藏着极深刻的真理：财务自由在很大程度上是一种思维方式（mindset），而非单纯的资产数字累积。为了阐明这一点，豪泽尔分享了自己已故外祖母（grandmother-in-law）的人生故事。老太太几年前以 92 岁高龄安详离世，在此前的三十年岁月里，她完全仅靠每月 1,700 美元的社保金（Social Security）生活。她没有任何私人储蓄，也没有任何企业退休金，按传统标准来看在财务上一贫如洗。然而，豪泽尔表示，自己这辈子见过好几位身家亿万的富豪，却没有一个人的幸福感能够企及他的这位外祖母： - **极低的物质欲望**：她每天最大的乐趣就是在花园里翻土劳作、观察窗外的飞鸟、外出散步、在公共图书馆借书阅读。每月 1,700 美元对她而言已经绰绰有余，她的金钱极少，但她的欲望更少。 - **极致的精神自由**：相比之下，拥有十亿美元的富豪往往被自己的庞大帝国所绑架——他们被员工、供应商、客户和股东团团包围，凌晨三点因一封危机邮件而惊醒冷汗涔涔。甚至为了维系商业机器的运转，很多超级富豪不得不沦为政客与监管机构的奉承者。 - **独立性的反差**：那位靠着微薄社保金过日子的 92 岁老太太，实际享有的个人独立性与心灵宁静，远远超越了那些受制于资本与权力的超级富豪。 ### [33:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=2020s) 欲望管理与亚当·斯密的洞见：我们为何如此拼命？豪泽尔强调，绝大多数人其实都有机会享有某种程度的财务独立，这并不意味着你明天就能原地退休，而是取决于你能否明白一个底层逻辑：实现财务自由的核心，在于“管理你的期望值”，而不仅是拼命堆积金钱的绝对值。如果一个人的欲望膨胀速度超过了其净资产的增长速度，那么无论他赚多少钱，都永远无法感受到真正的独立与自由。拥有上千亿美元的身家，若内心的贪婪永不满足，便永远觉得匮乏；相反，如果你的快乐来自观鸟和阅读，那么一个月 1,700 美元就足以让你享受长达三十年的富足与自由——在财务上或许清贫，但在心理层面上却是一个彻头彻尾的富翁。关于人类为何永无止境地追逐金钱，豪泽尔援引了现代经济学鼻祖亚当·斯密（Adam Smith）在三百年前提出的深刻洞见。亚当·斯密曾提出过一个看似简单却直击本质的疑问：“人到底为什么工作得如此拼命？”在斯密生活的时代，即使是穷人，大多也能拥有基本的栖身之所和果腹的食物，因此人们拼命劳作绝不仅仅是为了维持基本生计。斯密最终得出结论：驱使人们疯狂积累财富的根本动力，是“渴望被他人看见”（to be seen by other people）。人们拼命获取财富以换取更大的房子和更体面的行头，其核心诉求并非为了使用价值，而是为了从外界获取注意力、认可与羡慕。 ### [34:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=2086s) 摆脱生存本能：财富、社会地位与进化的诅咒亚当·斯密大约三百年前在苏格兰便曾指出，人们早就不只是为了遮风挡雨和填饱肚子而奔波了。在基本生存物资早已充足的情况下，人们依然拼命劳作、不断创新，其动力早已超越了单纯的“生活独立”。史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）借此引出了纳瓦尔（Naval Ravikant）的一个深刻洞见：从进化生物学的角度来看，人类的大脑根本无法真正理解现代意义上的“财富”，因为在原始狩猎采集时代，财富最多也就是双手能拿得动的那点石器与兽皮；相反，人类对“社会地位（Status）”有着刻骨铭心的敏锐感知。在远古部落里，地位的高低直接决定了食物配给、交配权乃至生死存亡。这种深植于基因中的地位渴求，导致现代富豪在赚尽世间财富之后，往往急不可耐地转向地位的再生产——比如去开办一档播客，或者倾注全力去追求长生不老。正如摩根·豪泽尔（Morgan Housel）所指出的，活得更久本质上也是地位的延伸，因为在进化长河中，极高的地位往往等同于更强的生存几率。百年前美国汽车工业爆发时期的轮胎巨头哈维·凡士通（Harvey Firestone）在其自传中就无奈地坦白：他认识的每一个富豪，一旦发迹都会去买一栋大得离谱的豪宅；那房子不仅远超其实际所需，甚至远超其真实所想。大宅子维护起来简直是场灾难，屋顶漏水、各项设施频繁损坏，毫无实用价值可言，就连以抠门著称的亨利·福特（Henry Ford）也在底特律置办了奢华庄园。他们之所以自找苦吃，仅仅是为了向外界出示一张证明自己“功成名就”的社会名片。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 财富积累与边际幸福感变化 accDescr: 展示从生存需求到地位炫耀再到社会负债的财富心理演变路径 subgraph Survival ["第一阶段：生存与解脱"] A["极度匮乏状态 （负债/账单危机）"] --> B["达到舒适收入 （约年薪20万美元）"] end subgraph StatusTreadmill ["第二阶段：地位陷阱与炫耀"] B --> C["过度物质消费 （40居室豪宅/豪车）"] C --> D["极高资产净值 （千万至数十亿美元）"] end subgraph DiminishingReturns ["第三阶段：边际效应归零与反噬"] D --> E["社会负债与舆论审判 （逼捐/人际关系异化）"] D -. "觉醒反思".-> F["夺回自主权：践行极简生活 （查克·费尼 / 巴菲特）"] end ``` ### [37:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=2240s) 查克·费尼的真正独立：当千亿富翁选择“重回平凡” 既然炫耀地位是写在人类基因里的程序，普通人是否还有可能打破这种循环？摩根坦言，他一生中最钦佩的人往往不是聚光灯下的显赫名流，而是那些在平凡岗位上把生活过得通透彻底、主动脱离社会既定评判体系的普通人。而商业世界中最令人震撼的反叛者，当属全球免税店巨头 DFS 的联合创始人查克·费尼（Chuck Feeney）。在20世纪90年代的财富巅峰期，费尼坐拥约90亿美元身家，但他最为人津津乐道的传奇，是晚年将几乎全部身家捐赠给慈善机构，自己仅栖身于旧金山的一间单卧室公寓，出门坐经济舱，开最普通的小车，过着近乎苦行僧般的生活。但摩根强调，外界往往忽略了费尼故事中最关键的转折点：在1980年代初尝巨富滋味时，费尼曾完全照搬过典型的富豪模板——他购置了成群的私人飞机、散布世界各地的奢华庄园与超级游艇。然而纵情享受了几年后，他得出了一个无比清醒的结论：“我讨厌这一切。”他发现自己真正热爱的依然是朴素简单的日常，于是毅然抛弃了整个上流社会的物质束缚。摩根直言，费尼的可贵之处不在于“像僧侣一样生活”，而在于他有底气对外界的期待说不：“去他的，我才不在乎这世界规定我该喜欢什么。”这与沃伦·巴菲特（Warren Buffett）至今仍住在27岁时买下的奥马哈老房子里如出一辙——拥有数千亿财富却依然选择与老友在客厅打桥牌，这才是“FU Money”（去你的钱）的真正至高境界。 - **查克·费尼的财富轨迹**：从手握90亿美元、拥有私人机队和跨国豪宅，到看破奢华、捐出全部财产并住进一居室出租屋。 - **真正的生活自主权**：不被外界给“有钱人”定义的模板所绑架，按自己的真实喜好制定生活规则。 - **巴菲特的居住选择**：尽管资产高达千亿美元，数十年如一日居住在老宅，用最简单的方式保持社交舒适区。 ### [39:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=2381s) 体验幻灭的必经之路：为什么穷人无法直接参透“金钱买不到幸福” 史蒂文由此提出了一个残酷的问题：难道每个人都必须先赚到一亿美元、买下梦寐以求的豪宅，亲自尝到幻灭的苦涩之后，才能领悟人生根本无关豪宅吗？摩根给出了斩钉截铁的肯定回答：“是的，这确实极其艰难。”当名人或富豪（比如威尔·史密斯）在镜头前声称“我富有时的快乐并不比贫穷时多，甚至穷的时候更开心”时，处于贫困中的人只会觉得这是纯粹的鬼话，并在心底反驳：“那你先把钱给我，让我自己去体验一遍！” 史蒂文分享了自己早年的真实经历以佐证这种难以跨越的认知鸿沟。当一个人推开家门，映入眼帘的是带有鲜红警示字样的催缴信、信用卡被停用的法院传票；当饥饿感在腹中翻江倒海，连给孩子买个铅笔盒、给屋里开暖气或与朋友喝杯咖啡都掏不出钱时，生活中面临的每一个尖锐痛苦都直接且确凿地与“缺钱”挂钩。在那种生存压力下，任何有钱人关于“金钱买不到快乐”的真诚感悟听起来都极其刺耳甚至虚伪。即使前人反复告诫那是虚妄的终点，处于泥潭中的人也必须硬着头皮去撞一次南墙，因为很多人生教训必须由肉身亲自试错才能真正吸收。 ### [41:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=2476s) 收入跃迁的边际递减法则：从解决生存到沦为社会负债在探讨金钱与幸福感的关系时，必须严格区分收入的层级。从食不果腹、面临被房东驱逐的年入1万美元，跃升到年入20万美元，给生活带来的改变是天翻地覆的——它能瞬间抹去生活中绝大多数慢性焦虑和无力感。然而，从年入20万美元提升到50万美元，边际改善已经相当有限；从50万美元跃升至2000万美元，幸福体验的提升更是微乎其微；而从2000万美元到200亿美元，幸福感的增加基本为零。甚至可以说，每个人一生中都存在一个“最适净资产上限”，一旦越过这个拐点，金钱将迅速从赋能工具异化为沉重的“社会负债（Social Liability）”： - **顶级巨富的舆论审判**：埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）、比尔·盖茨（Bill Gates）或杰夫·贝佐斯（Jeff Bezos）等人承受着全球范围的严密审视，不仅面临巨大的捐赠道德绑架，而且稍有差池便会遭遇全社会的口诛笔伐。 - **微观人际关系的异化**：在日常生活中，当朋友们知道你发了大财，聚餐结账时那句半开玩笑的“今天你请客对吧？”，虽是小事，却会像砂纸一样逐渐磨损人与人之间原本纯粹的信任，让人时刻怀疑他人接近自己的动机。 - **不断上移的心理预期**：大部分人根本不知道自己满足的“数字”是多少。19岁时以为达成某个资产目标便能快乐终生，可一旦真正跨过门槛，目光又立刻盯向了下一个更高的阶梯，陷入永远无法停歇的心理拉锯战中。 ### [43:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=2584s) 对财富的扭曲认知与所谓的“去你的资金”（FU Money）讨论从人们在社交媒体上对“去你的资金”（FU money，即能让人有底气对不喜欢的工作或人说“去你的”的财富门槛）的定义展开。每个人心中的数字差异极大。摩根·豪瑟（Morgan Housel）提到他的好友、知名财经作家本·卡尔森（Ben Carlson）曾给出一个极为主观的数字：700万到1000万美元。卡尔森认为，在美国只要拥有700万至1000万美元的净资产，就能过上令人惊叹的生活——全款买下一套极好的房子、送孩子去顶尖学校接受教育、享受奢华度假、开着全新的豪车。虽然有些动辄幻想要赚上亿美元的人会对这个数字不以为然，但卡尔森指出，这比许多人预想的要低得多，尽管对绝大多数辛勤工作的人而言，七八百万美元依然遥不可及。摩根感叹，特别是对当下的年轻一代而言，他们对财富的定义已经被互联网严重重塑。他常常想到自己的儿子——孩子是知名网红 MrBeast（野兽先生）的忠实粉丝。在儿子眼中，真正的“有钱”意味着拥有私人岛屿、私人飞机，或者在桌子上一路把手贴到最后就能赢走100万美元的豪赌。这与摩根成长年代的财富感知形成了极其强烈的对比：在摩根小的时候，社会阶层的划分朴素得多，“普通人开沾满泥巴的脏皮卡，有钱人开洗得干干净净的皮卡”。而如今在社交媒体的狂轰滥炸下，孩子们对金钱与财富的概念早已严重脱离现实。 ### [44:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=2658s) 面对经济危机与衰退的真正建议：冗余与现金缓冲当话题重新回到关税、潜在的经济衰退以及眼前的动荡时，主持人斯蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）询问对于不懂经济学的普通人而言，该如何做才能避免被现实灼伤。摩根直言，与其说这是给当下的建议，不如说是给未来上一堂深刻的教训：如果你现在正为裁员焦虑，或者作为一个小企业主正因濒临倒闭而惶恐不安，你必须明白，**容错空间（Room for error）、应急缓冲、储蓄以及后备计划在平静时期与在危机时期同样重要**。很多人只是在危机降临时，才后知后觉地意识到它们有多关键。摩根向所有人发出挑战：当这场风暴彻底过去、经济重新向好、你的工作与事业再次稳定繁荣时，请务必记住现在的痛感。正是在经济繁荣期，你才最需要拼命留出容错空间、保持储蓄并坚决远离债务。摩根透露，自己在个人净资产中持有的现金比例高得惊人，许多理财顾问看后都会困惑地质问：“你存这么多现金到底是为了什么？”摩根的回答很简单：“我不知道具体为什么，我存钱是因为我深知这个世界极其脆弱。我无法预知个人命运或宏观经济会遭遇什么，但凡对历史稍有涉猎的人都知道，事物随时随地都会崩盘瓦解。” ### [45:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=2744s) 应急储蓄到底需要存多少？针对个人每月固定开支（Overheads），到底留出多少应急储蓄才算合理？摩根坦言，受众的收入水平跨度极大，很难给出一个放之四海而皆准的公式，他的答案可能大家不爱听，但却是残酷的真相：**在能力范围内尽可能多存**。他列举了两个极具说服力的历史实例： - **2020年新冠疫情爆发初期**：数据显示，美国普通餐馆手头的现金储备平均仅能支撑14天，然而紧接着迎来的却是长达6个月的全面封锁。 - **2008年全球金融危机期间**：大量失业者失去工作的时间不是两周或一个月，而是整整12个月以上，微薄的失业救济金根本无法填补家庭开支的巨大缺口。摩根指出，要求所有人随时准备好支撑整整12个月开销的储蓄或许并不现实，但现实的残酷法则在于：“无论你预估自己需要多少储蓄，实际需要的往往比你想象的还要多。” ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 经济冲击下的储蓄缓冲与现实差距 accDescr: 对比企业与个人在危机爆发前的心理预期与实际遭遇的时间跨度差距 subgraph Expected ["常规心理预期 / 准备"] E1["餐馆常规现金流 支撑约 14 天"] E2["普遍预估的求职过渡期 2 到 4 周"] end subgraph Reality ["真实历史危机冲击"] R1["2020 疫情黑天鹅 长达 6 个月封锁"] R2["2008 金融危机失业潮 长达 12 个月以上断崖"] end E1 -->|被动面临| R1 E2 -->|被动面临| R2 ``` ### [46:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=2805s) 人工智能的浪潮：连乐观主义者都会低估其规模谈及当今世界的另一大核心变革力量——人工智能（AI），斯蒂芬分享了自己数日来在房间里的深思：作为内容创作者、播客主播和投资人，AI 究竟意味着什么？摩根承认自己绝非 AI 领域的专家，但若从技术演进的历史长河来看，有一条铁律清晰无比：**每当一项足以重塑文明的颠覆性技术出现时——无论是计算机、汽车还是飞机——哪怕是当时最大胆的乐观主义者，对其未来的预测都往往大幅低估了上百倍。** 摩根以航空史为例：1920年代莱特兄弟发明第一架飞机后，他们最初主要将其推销给美国军方，因为他们当时根本看不到飞机在军事侦察和挂载机枪之外还有什么商业用途。莱特兄弟纵有天大的想象力，也绝不可能预见到日后达美航空（Delta Airlines）的全球航线，或者阿联酋航空（Emirates）翱翔天际的双层空中巨无霸空客 A380。摩根借用彼得·蒂尔（Peter Thiel）的核心观点指出：“当事情变糟时，你会低估它能糟糕到什么地步；而当事情走在正确方向上时，你往往会低估它能变得多么庞大。”新技术的真正力量不在于原始发明者做了什么，而在于后续全人类各行各业在此基础上进行无数次重新组合与操控，从而催生出超乎想象的庞然大物。 ### [48:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=2935s) AI Agent 与颠覆性的生产力变革：从编程到日常现实斯蒂芬结合自身经历对此深表认同。OpenAI 不仅创造了底层的通用大语言模型，更催生了智能体（AI Agents）的爆发。斯蒂芬表示自己完全没有任何编程能力，但最近两周他仅需坐在卧室里与 AI Agent 自然对话，就能指导它为自己的播客搭建专属追踪软件、待办清单工具或全功能网站，而这一切每天花费可能仅仅只有1美元。大语言模型已经能够独立生成视频、图像、音频软件以及数字化产品，如果沿着指数级曲线推演，这种颠覆性在短期内就将重构诸多产业。摩根随后分享了两个发生在他身边的真实案例： - **家装与室内设计**：摩根家里最近在装修房子，他们直接拍下房间的照片上传给 ChatGPT，并输入指令：“刷上这个颜色、拆掉这面墙、这里放上这件家具”。AI 在短短几秒钟内生成的视觉方案，“比任何专业室内设计师做得都要出色”。摩根感慨，这个简单的例子可以轻易乘以一万倍，映射到全社会一万种不同的职业场景中。 - **写作与编辑辅助**：作为一个坚守自己动笔写作的作家，摩根偶尔会将自己写的某一章节上传并要求 AI 给出修改反馈。仅仅一年前，AI 的反馈还显得笨拙，但如今它的水准已经非常惊人。尽管许多中学生和大学生完全依赖它来代写论文属于滥用，但如果将其视为助手，它几乎是当前世界上最卓越的写作导师。短短几个月前人们还觉得不可撼动的职业壁垒——从软件工程师、室内设计师到图书编辑——如今已经全面感受到了剧烈冲击。 ### [51:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=3084s) 历史的震荡：从农场、流水线到 AI 时代的技能断层当一项每天仅需一美元的 AI 工具能够替代高薪专业工作时，社会财富的分配机制与普通人的生存路径必然面临重构。回顾历次工业革命与技术变革，技术颠覆往往伴随着剧烈的阵痛。在 19 世纪末，全美有高达 80% 的人口从事农业，当拖拉机和联合收割机普及后，原本需要铁锹与钉耙完成的工作被机械瞬间取代，大批农场劳动力失去生计。然而，当时的农业工人向工厂流水线的转型相对直接——因为他们本身就习惯于体力与双手劳动，虽然过程坎坷，但这依然是一次能够走通的职业迁徙。相比之下，从传统制造业向信息技术的跨越则残酷得多。底特律流水线上的汽车装配工不可能轻易去“学习写代码”并直接入职 Google。摩根·豪瑟（Morgan Housel）指出，过去 150 年间，产业被颠覆后寻找新出路的难度呈指数级上升。眼下 AI 带来的技术冲击更为严峻，数以亿计的现代人早已是互联网的原生用户，使用 AI 软件完全不需要像当年“从机械转向 iPhone”那样跨越巨大的认知鸿沟，这意味着 AI 工具的渗透速度将远超以往任何时代，被替代者的再就业转型也将前所未有地艰难。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 历次技术革命劳动力转型难度演变 accDescr: 展示从农业革命、科技革命到AI时代劳动力技能转型的断层与难度逐步递增 subgraph S1["19世纪末：农业到工业"] A["农场劳动力 (占人口80%)"] -->|拖拉机/收割机普及| B["工厂流水线工人"] B -.-> C["依靠双手体力劳动 技能重叠度高，转型可实现"] end subgraph S2["20世纪末：工业到信息时代"] D["传统制造业工人 (如底特律车工)"] -->|计算机与自动化冲击| E["科技/软件工程师"] E -.-> F["面临认知鸿沟 无法轻易学会编程入职Google"] end subgraph S3["当下：AI与智能自动化"] G["司机与各类脑力/白领岗位"] -->|大模型与具身智能| H["高门槛AI前沿技术岗位"] H -.-> I["技能断层极大 头部机构极简用人，吸纳量极低"] end ``` --- ### [53:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=3221s) 自动驾驶、极简员工制与资本主义的残酷重构交通驾驶是目前全球规模最大的职业群体之一，涵盖卡车司机、网约车与出租车司机等数千万人。史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）提到，特斯拉即将在奥斯汀推出完全没有方向盘的无人出租车（Cybercab），而他当天录制节目时就是乘坐特斯拉 Cybertruck 前往现场，全程无需触碰方向盘或脚踏板，点击按钮即可全自动送达。原本需要雇佣人类司机（如 Uber）的场景，已被 AI 算法彻底接管。面对如此庞大的受冲击群体，指望货车司机“转行去 OpenAI 应聘”荒谬得近乎讽刺。更令人警惕的是，像 OpenAI 这样的顶尖 AI 机构长期维持着极低的全职员工规模（甚至不足百人）。其背后的逻辑在于，他们本身就在全面使用 AI 替代人力，随着通用人工智能（AGI）与自我强化合成数据技术的发展，未来运营甚至可能缩减至寥寥数人。资本主义的历史虽然表明，新技术淘汰旧行业（如汽车取代马车时人们也曾担忧马匹饲养员该何去何从）最终总会催生出人们意想不到的新职业，但正如摩根·豪瑟所言，这种“社会最终会自我修复”的论调掩盖了过程给个体与家庭带来的巨大创伤，这正是当代社会焦虑与争议的核心来源。 - 农耕人口占比从 19 世纪末的 80% 锐减至如今的不足 2%，劳动力虽被工业吸纳，但经历了漫长阵痛。 - 驾驶作为全球最大单一就业类别，正在直面完全无人驾驶技术带来的颠覆性冲击。 - 头部 AI 企业依托算法自我迭代，追求极小规模团队模式，彻底打破了传统科技巨头创造海量基础岗位的模式。 --- ### [56:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=3371s) AI 无法取代的核心能力：沟通表达与求同存异演播室外，摩根·豪瑟 9 岁的儿子正在贵宾休息室注视着录制现场。当被问及如果希望下一代在瞬息万变的未来持续拥有立足之地、无论身处何种行业都能创造财富，必须具备什么底层技能时，摩根·豪瑟没有推荐高等微积分或硬核工程代码，而是给出了两项极为质朴却历久弥新的能力： 1. **学会如何沟通（Learn how to communicate）**：无论是文字表达还是人际陈述，清晰传递想法的能力是所有商业行为的基础。 2. **学会与意见相左的人融洽相处（Learn how to get along with people you disagree with）**：在当今社交媒体极度极化、价值观剧烈冲突的时代，放下傲慢、与不同立场的人共事并保持友好，是极其稀缺的软实力。摩根·豪瑟拿自己作为反思样本，坦言自己学生时代成绩平平，在数学和科学方面毫无天赋，甚至连中等成绩都难以维持。但他之所以能依靠写作建立成功事业，关键就在于两点：“学会清晰地写作沟通”以及“在职场中不做令人讨厌的人（don't be a jerk）”。在高度协作与网络化的现代社会，善待他人、维系良好人际关系往往是推动职业生涯向上跃迁的核心杠杆。 --- ### [57:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=3465s) 育儿与财富哲学：“我希望你将来真正体验一次贫穷” 在金钱观的塑造上，摩根·豪瑟探讨了许多中产与高净值家庭共同面临的育儿悖论：“作为父母，我渴望用金钱为你提供优渥的生活，但我绝不希望你被宠坏成一个自私傲慢的巨婴。”要在富足的环境中让孩子真正理解金钱的真谛，唯一的途径就是让他们亲身体验到“一美元的稀缺性”。在儿子九年前出生时，摩根·豪瑟曾在博客上发表了一封给儿子的信，里面写道一句看似严苛的话：“我希望你将来穷过一次（I hope you're poor one day）。”这种贫穷并非陷入绝境、流落街头或丧失基本医疗保障，而是在父母构筑的安全底线下，真正体验预算紧绷、每一分钱都不可替代的真实滋味： > “理解一美元价值的唯一方法，就是亲自体验它的稀缺力量。” 摩根·豪瑟强调，在当今“直升机式育儿（helicopter parenting）”盛行的环境下，家长往往竭尽全力为孩子屏蔽一切情绪与现实波折，但无论是理解金钱还是认知世界，最深刻的教训往往只能从切身体会下行风险中汲取。随着对话推进，话题在结尾轻松切入到创业产品，史蒂芬顺势提到了由玛丽莎（Marissa）创立、历经数年研发并克服重重困难才正式落地的罐装抹茶拿铁。 ### [59:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=3594s) 中场插播：Perfect Ted 抹茶饮品在深入探讨严肃的社会与财务议题之前，Steven Bartlett 提到了自己投资并日常饮用的能量饮品 Perfect Ted 罐装抹茶拿铁（包括香草拿铁与草莓拿铁两种风味）。该产品历经四年时间的研发与打磨，旨在让消费者从易拉罐中直接喝到咖啡馆现做水准的香甜丝滑口感。Steven 解释道，与很多导致血糖骤升骤降、精力大幅崩溃（crash）的传统能量饮料不同，高品质抹茶能够提供持久稳定的体能与专注力。 ### [01:00:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=3635s) 男性困境与暴富心理：当所有现实选项都恶化时谈话迅速切入现代社会深层的男性危机。Steven 援引了一系列触目惊心的数据：在黄金工作年龄（25岁至54岁）的男性群体中，劳动力参与率已从1950年代的 98% 骤降至2024年的 80% 多；与此同时，处于该年龄段既不工作也不主动求职的男性比例，从1954年的 2.5% 激增到了如今的 10.5%。英国社会正义中心（Center for Social Justice）近期的调查也揭示，近代历史上首次出现了年轻男性失业率高于年轻女性的现象，大约每七个年轻男性中就有一人处于失业状态。然而，生物进化遗留下来的原始本能，依然牢固地将男性的自我价值锚定在“保护者与供养者”（protector and provider）的角色上。纽约大学教授斯科特·加洛韦（Scott Galloway）曾精辟地总结，男性最深沉的志向始终是“繁衍、养育与保护”（"procreate, provide, and protect"）。Morgan Housel 指出，当全球范围内越来越多的男性深感这三项基本追求已可望而不可即时，巨大的焦虑便滋生了铤而走险的赌徒心态。已故诺贝尔经济学奖得主丹尼尔·卡尼曼（Daniel Kahneman）曾有一句名言：“当你的所有选项都很糟糕时，你就会变得极其爱冒险，因为你觉得已经没有什么可输的了”（"When all of your options are bad, you become very risk-taking because you have nothing to lose"）。这正是年轻人疯狂扑向加密货币、迷因币（meme coins）等各种“快速致富方案”（get-rich-quick schemes）的心理症结所在。如果社会能给他们一条清晰且有尊严的晋升路径——去学习一门扎实的技能，付出勤奋工作，换取稳定体面的薪资以养家糊口，一百个人里有九十九个都会坚定地选择这条正路；唯有当人们坚信现实选项已被彻底封死，才会选择把身家性命押在虚无缥缈的代币狂欢上。 - **劳动力参与率暴跌**：美国 25–54 岁黄金工作年龄男性的就业参与率从 1950 年代的 98% 降至 2024 年的 80% 多。 - **放弃求职比例**：处于该年龄段既不工作也不找工作的男性比例，由 1954 年的 2.5% 飙升至现今的 10.5%。 - **英国失业现状**：年轻男性失业率历史性反超年轻女性，约有 1/7 的年轻男性处于失业状态。 - **风险背后的心理根源**：高风险金融投机往往不是由于盲目自大，而是源于对通过体面工作获得稳定收入能力的严重缺乏信心。 ### [01:03:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=3793s) 风险偏好与不知止：华尔街对冲基金与杰西·利弗莫尔的悲剧面对 Steven 提出关于“睾酮是否驱动男性成为赌博主力与激进风险承担者”的疑问，Morgan 指出男性在财务管理上的最大死穴是“缺乏知止的能力”（the inability to say that's enough）。华尔街历史上屡见不鲜的对冲基金爆仓丑闻，操盘手往往不是泛泛之辈，而是拥有麻省理工学院（MIT）博士学位、智商超群的亿万富豪交易员。这些人之所以彻底毁灭，并非不够聪明，而是赢了一次还想押更大的赌注，层层加码直到资金链断裂。相比之下，女性在资产管理上虽然单年回报未必惊艳，却极少在财务上“引火自焚”（blow themselves up）。男性总想着“全力挥棒击出全垒打”（swing for the fences），而女性更倾向于稳健、轻松的长期挥杆，正是这种持久性让女性在跨越一生的财富长跑中表现更优。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 财富获取与守成的心理分歧 accDescr: 对比男性激进冒险导致爆仓与长期稳健守成复利致富的两种行为路径 subgraph Aggressive["激进毁灭路径（典型案例：利弗莫尔）"] A["卓越的赚钱能力"] --> B["追求极致暴利 / 全力挥棒"] B --> C["无法说出『已经足够了』"] C --> D["持续放大杠杆与风险"] D --> E["彻底爆仓破产 / 走向毁灭"] end subgraph Prudent["稳健守成路径（长期复利）"] F["获取适度合理的收益"] --> G["建立安全边际 / 适可而止"] G --> H["规避毁灭性风险"] H --> I["长期复利延续一生"] end ``` Morgan 讲述了其著作《金钱心理学》中详述的传奇投机家杰西·利弗莫尔（Jesse Livermore）的故事。利弗莫尔在20世纪初至1920年代活跃于华尔街，堪称人类历史上最擅长“变富”（getting rich）的天才，甚至在1929年美股大崩盘中大肆做空成为世界首富。经通胀调整后，他曾四度坐拥十亿美元级的巨额财富，但同时他也由于不知节制而四度彻底破产。在第五次破产陷入身无分文后，他最终在绝望中饮弹自尽。利弗莫尔拥有连史蒂夫·乔布斯（Steve Jobs）都难以企及的吸金天赋，却毫无“守富”（stay rich）的能力。Morgan 强调，人生的最佳财务策略绝非追求成为世界首富，而是赚取足够支撑家庭体面生活的适度财富，并牢牢守住它，拒绝为贪婪承担可能摧毁一切的风险。 ### [01:05:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=3954s) 加密货币的未来与铁路泡沫的历史启示当谈到加密货币时，Morgan 坦言自己没有持有任何加密资产，并给出了一个平衡而尖锐的论断：“如果你看不出这门技术中有令人振奋的创新，那说明你没有看清时代；但如果你看不出其中 99% 的东西纯粹是个笑话，那同样说明你盲目无知。”大众舆论往往非黑即白——要么将其斥为彻头彻尾的庞氏骗局，要么将其捧为人类历史上最伟大的发明。但纵观科技发展史，99% 的新玩家、新公司和新代币在十年后都将荡然无存，最终只有极少数能够蜕变成如同当年的福特汽车（Ford）或微软（Microsoft）那样的产业支柱。 Steven 分享了自己的持仓转变：他曾长期持有以太坊（Ethereum），但近期已全部兑换为比特币（Bitcoin），因为机构资金的持续涌入让比特币确立了作为整个市场最稳固资产的地位。Morgan 对此总结了一个常被投资者忽视的商业历史悖论：**一项新技术能够彻底颠覆世界，与投资者能从中赚到巨额财富，两者并不对等**。 - **19 世纪美国铁路的历史对照**：贯通美国东西海岸的铁路网络堪称美国历史上最具革命性的基础设施，它彻底改变了物流、贸易和整个经济格局。然而，当时绝大多数投身铁路狂潮的早期投资者最终血本无归。 - **对加密投资者的启示**：即便加密技术或分布式账本在未来 20 年的全球经济中占据不可或缺的地位，目前市场上绝大部分加密资产也必然归零，绝大多数参与其中的投机者“几乎注定赚不到什么大钱”。 ### [01:08:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=4087s) 新技术泡沫与加密货币的安全隐患从历史上看，革命性新技术的出现并不意味着人人都能靠它致富。摩根·豪泽尔（Morgan Housel）回顾了 20 世纪初美国汽车工业的惨烈洗牌：当时全美先后涌现出 2000 家汽车公司，但其中多达 1997 家最终宣告破产，最后仅剩下通用（GM）、福特（Ford）和克莱斯勒（Chrysler）这“三大巨头”屹立不倒，其余公司几乎全部灰飞烟灭。这揭示了一个经典规律：一项技术彻底改变世界与“每个人都能靠这项技术大发横财”之间，存在着巨大的现实鸿沟。谈及加密货币时，主持人史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）提到了谷歌最新发布的量子计算芯片“Willow”。外界普遍担忧，未来量子算力一旦足够强大，理论上有可能破解比特币的加密安全系统。尽管业内许多聪明人认为可以通过技术升级（如抗量子密码）来抵御风险，甚至对此并不担心，但现实是人类历史上所有被当作价值储存（Store of value）的物品——从郁金香到其他资产——并非每一个都能永久存续。比特币作为价值储存手段，同样可能存在其生命周期。豪泽尔对此表示认同，并补充道，即便是拥有数千年共识的黄金，也经历过价格暴涨后狂跌 90%、并在低谷沉寂 20 年的周期。因此，就算某种资产具有坚实的历史地位，也绝不意味着任何人能预测其下个月、明年甚至未来 10 年的走势。 - **汽车业淘汰率**：20 世纪初美国有 2000 家汽车公司，1997 家破产，最终仅存 3 家。 - **谷歌 Willow 芯片**：新一代量子计算芯片引发了对未来破解比特币底层加密协议的广泛探讨。 - **黄金的历史波动**：作为公认的硬通货，黄金历史上也曾经历过暴跌 90% 并长达 20 年无起色的极端低谷。 --- ### [01:10:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=4200s) 顶级富豪的共同特质：耐力胜于智商当探讨历史上那些创造并守住巨额财富的人有何通用策略时，豪泽尔指出，许多顶级企业家的营销手段或非凡直觉普通人根本无法复制，但他们身上却有一个人人皆可借鉴的最大公约数——**无与伦比的耐心与持久力（Endurance）**。播客《Founders》的主持人戴维·森拉（David Senra）曾犀利地吐槽过：很多年轻创业者听完播客后兴奋地表示“我打算明年把公司卖给谷歌”，但他们完全忽视了洛克菲勒（Rockefeller）、史蒂夫·乔布斯（Steve Jobs）或比尔·盖茨（Bill Gates）等巨擘的经历——这些人经营自己的公司长达 50 年，甚至鞠躬尽瘁直到生命尽头，绝不是为了成立一家公司转手卖掉再换下一家。真正的巨额财富几乎从不来自于凭空爆发的某个绝妙点子，而是源于一个“还不错”的点子被持续深耕了 40 年或 50 年。豪泽尔引用了他在《金钱心理学》中写到的惊人事实：沃伦·巴菲特（Warren Buffett）99.9% 的净资产都是在他 60 岁之后积累起来的。巴菲特 60 岁时拥有 20 亿美元，如果当时退休，他足以享受极尽奢华的晚年；然而正因为他坚持不懈投资到了 93 岁，即便算上捐赠出去的善款，其总资产已达到 2500 亿美元。同样地，比尔·盖茨本可以在 20 世纪 70 年代将微软以 1000 万美元卖掉过清闲日子；马克·扎克伯格（Mark Zuckerberg）在 19 岁时拒绝了雅虎（Yahoo!）开出的 10 亿美元全现金收购。正如甲骨文（Oracle）创始人拉里·埃里森（Larry Ellison）当年评价宿敌比尔·盖茨时所言：“世上比盖茨聪明的人多得是，但没人有他那种耐力。他每次都会在工作强度上击败你，只要能赢，他会永远熬下去。他的核心天赋不是智商，而是耐力。” ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 商业长期主义与复利积累路径 accDescr: 对比短期套现与坚持数十年长期主义在商业成就与财富积累上的巨大差异 subgraph QuickExit["短期套现模式（平庸收益）"] A["创业/投资初始点子"] --> B["追求快速套现"] B --> C["高估智力与单次爆发"] C --> D["过早退出，错失长尾复利"] end subgraph LongTerm["超级赢家模式（复利奇迹）"] E["尚可的点子/普通资产"] --> F["极致耐心与超长运营（40-50年）"] F --> G["承受挫折，度过每一次生死关头"] G --> H["复利指数效应爆发（前1%顶级财富）"] end ``` - **巴菲特资产构成**：99.9% 的财富是在 60 岁生日之后积累的；60 岁时净资产为 20 亿美元，93 岁时累计达 2500 亿美元（含慈善捐款）。 - **扎克伯格拒绝收购**：19 岁时断然拒绝雅虎 10 亿美元现金收购要约。 - **拉里·埃里森评价盖茨**：“他的技能不是聪明，而是耐力（It's not intelligence, it's endurance）。” --- ### [01:13:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=4387s) 复利的数学法则与普通人的指数级跨越豪泽尔将毅力（Perseverance）在商业与投资中的关键作用拆解为两个底层逻辑： 1. **生存维度的必然挑战**：任何回报丰沛的事业都不可避免会遭遇路障、挫折甚至濒临崩溃。全球市值最高的芯片巨头英伟达（NVIDIA），其内部非官方座右铭就是“我们离破产永远只有 30 天”。哪怕强如英伟达，也深知商业本质就是一场残酷的肉搏战（Knife fight），唯有坚持才能活下来。 2. **复利的底层数学机制**：财富的核心发动机是复利，而复利真正的秘密在于——发大财的人往往不是那些赚取单年极高收益率的人，而是在极长时间内持续获得“不错”回报的人。复利公式的核心是“回报率的**时间次方**”，在初中数学中，位于指数位置的“时间”承担了所有的重任。针对每月仅有 1000 美元可支配收入的普通工薪族，豪泽尔提出了最接地气的破局方案：定投指数基金（Index funds）。指数基金以极低的管理费用打包了苹果、亚马逊、可口可乐等成百上千家优秀企业，它是最无聊、最普通、收益看似最平庸的投资途径。然而，如果你毫无选股天赋、不听任何内幕消息，只是极度耐心地坚持定投 20 到 30 年，“你几乎铁定会跻身前 1% 的顶级投资者之列，击败华尔街 95% 试图自作聪明跑赢大盘的专业人士”。 > “如果你能在超长的周期内保持平庸，你最终将成为传奇。” (If you can just be average for an above average period of time, you'll be amazing.) ### [01:16:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=4565s) 复利的魔力：平凡坚持与反直觉的力量摩根·豪泽尔（Morgan Housel）指出，投资与保持健康有着惊人的相似之处。在健康领域，你并不需要成为全世界最顶尖的健美运动员或马拉松冠军；只要能在长达 30 年的时间里，每周保持适度锻炼两到三次，并且长期坚持健康饮食，你就会成为身边或者小镇上最健康的人之一。投资亦是同理：表现最出色的往往不是绝顶聪明的金融天才，而是那些能够在极其漫长的时间里持续做着平凡之事的人。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 复利与长期坚持的机制对比 accDescr: 展示健康习惯与资金投资如何通过长期复合产生巨大回报 subgraph Health["健康领域"] H1["每周适度锻炼 2-3 次"] --> H2["坚持 30 年健康饮食"] H2 --> H3["成为最健康的人之一"] end subgraph Finance["投资领域"] F1["每天省下 5 美元小钱"] --> F2["投入指数基金获得 8% 年化"] F2 --> F3["数十年后累积成巨额财富"] end ``` 史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）顺着这个逻辑算了一笔账：手中一杯日常咖啡售价大约是 5 美元，如果遵循复利规律，假设将每天省下的这 5 美元投入年化收益率约为 8% 的标普 500 指数基金（S&P 500），40 年后这笔小钱将滚成惊人的 44 万美元（$440,000）。豪泽尔笑着补充，在爱丽丝·施罗德（Alice Schroeder）撰写的沃伦·巴菲特传记《雪球》（*The Snowball*）中，记录了巴菲特成年时期的一个经典心态：巴菲特极不情愿去理发，因为在他眼里，一次 2 美元的理发实际上等同于“花掉了 1 万美元”——只要把这 2 美元按照他擅长的方式投资并放置 50 年，它就会成长为上万美元；他也同样不想洗车，对妻子抱怨那是“一次 5,000 美元的洗车”。巴菲特思考问题从来不是看一件东西在今天标价多少，而是看这笔钱在未来能成长为多少。史蒂文进一步推算：现年 93 岁的巴菲特如果从年轻时开始，80 年来每次省下一笔 5 美元的理发钱并买入如今在手机上就能轻松买到的指数基金，80 年后这笔钱将变成 1,030 万美元。豪泽尔表示，这正是巴菲特如今坐拥上千亿美元身家的核心秘密——90 年如一日的复利思维累积出了天文数字。 - **为什么复利被称为“魔法”**：人类的大脑天生不具备指数思维（exponential thinking）。正如朋友迈克尔·巴特尼克（Michael Batnick）所举的例子：如果问你“8 + 8 + 8 + 8”是多少，你能迅速心算得出；但如果是“8 × 8 × 8 × 8 × 8”，大脑便彻底短路。人类并非为了乘法或指数级思考而进化。 - **正向复利与“负向魔法”**：进化论和自然界也是复利的产物。但同样，坏习惯也会复利累积——偶尔抽一根烟无伤大雅，但如果每天抽一根连续抽 30 年，或者每天两包连续抽 30 年，就会在身体上带来毁灭性的“负向魔法”。 --- ### [01:20:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=4806s) 储蓄的本质：购买未来的独立与自由谈及即将出版的新书《金钱的艺术》（*The Art of Spending Money*，预定于同年 10 月上市），史蒂文询问豪泽尔对“存钱”的真实看法：既然他也赞同人们应该享受咖啡、正常理发，那么储蓄的意义究竟是什么？豪泽尔直言，许多人把存钱误解为“闲置浪费”——认为钱不花掉就是躺在银行账户里发霉。但他本人从未这样看待储蓄。在他眼中，每一块存下来的钱，都是一枚象征着“独立”的代币（tokens of independence）。你今天省下的一美元，就是预先买下了自己未来的一小段时间，并牢牢掌握对它的控制权。 > “储蓄就是延后消费。我把储蓄视作独立。今天我每存下一美元，今天我就多了一美元的独立性。我并不是单纯为了未来把钱花掉而存钱，我当下立刻就能感受到这种独立带来的好处。” 豪泽尔强调，他在财务上的终极目标——也是绝大多数人内心真正渴望的目标——就是**独立与自主**（independence and autonomy），即能够按照自己的意愿去生活。如果说独立是人生的空气，那么储蓄就是维系独立的氧气。而储蓄的对立面则是负债：当你借债时，你等于向外界签下卖身契，预先将未来 3 年或更久的一部分时间与劳动力拱手让给债权机构；存钱则是把消费力和自主权积攒在自己手里，未来想做什么都可以由自己说了算。 --- ### [01:21:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=4906s) 金钱心理学：窥视人性最真实的窗口史蒂文提到，很多人对金钱的态度充满了回避与恐惧，甚至连每天早晨查看 Revolut、Monzo 等银行应用或信用卡账单的勇气都没有，处理财务问题首先必须建立健康的金钱心理。豪泽尔对此表示高度赞同，并提出了一个核心原则：在整个人生中，有两件事无论你是否喜欢，都必然会深刻影响你的一生——**健康与金钱**。你可以对化学或气象学毫无兴趣，这丝毫不影响你过上幸福美好的生活；但如果你对金钱和健康漠不关心，就绝不可能拥有良好的人生，因为“即使你对它们不感兴趣，它们也对你极感兴趣”。因此，每个人都有义务弄清楚自己与金钱的关系。现代人所遭受的焦虑、嫉妒以及“落后于他人”的挫败感，归根结底往往都是财务问题在作祟。即便一个人宣称自己不在乎股市、只想和朋友开心玩乐，他也无法脱离社会中时刻运转的财务与社会学法则。金钱不仅是一套数学公式，更是一面极其深刻的镜子： - **观察人性的窗口**：了解一个人的政治观点或许能让你知道他的一部分想法，但如果深入剖析一个人的财务细节——挣多少钱、把钱花在什么地方、在乎什么、多大程度上喜欢炫耀、在豪车珠宝名牌服饰上投入多少精力去吸引眼球——你就能洞悉他最底层的性格与心理防御机制。 ### [01:24:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=5043s) 过去的囚徒与“只要信息足够，一切行为皆合情合理” 关于金钱心理，摩根·豪瑟（Morgan Housel）认为创伤确实是影响因素之一，但更普遍的本质是：“无论过往经历如何，我们每个人都是自身独特过去的囚徒。”每个人成长的国家、父母、家庭价值观乃至年龄都各不相同，所见识到的世界切面不同，被塑造的价值观与人生渴望自然大相径庭。即使像史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）和摩根这样在很多大方向上能达成90%共识的人，在个体追求上也依然存在差异。因此，强求别人的金钱观与自己一致毫无意义。人们在投资或消费问题上争吵不休，斥责对方“投资方法错了”、“花得太少”或“花得太多”，往往不是单纯的观点分歧，而是拥有截然不同背景的人在各说各话。为了阐明这一点，摩根分享了他身为社工的姐夫（妹夫）常说的一句行业箴言：“只要信息足够，所有的行为都是合情合理的（All behavior makes sense with enough information）。”在社工工作中，很多无家可归或处于寄养家庭的弱势儿童在学校表现极差、打架斗殴、成绩垫底。老师很容易不耐烦地训斥：“这有那么难吗？规矩点，别闹了。”但一旦深入调查这名孩子的家庭背景——可能长期遭受父母家暴，或是流离失所的孤儿——所有反常的举止立刻变得可以理解。这一逻辑在金钱领域同样适用。当你看到街上有人开着一辆亮黄色的兰博基尼（Lamborghini），这背后往往有一段深刻的人生故事，比如“我渴望向全世界证明自己赚到了大钱”。摩根强调这并非批判，因为每个人管理金钱的方式都被自己的往事深刻烙印。在数学世界里，“2 + 2 = 4”对所有人都是永恒唯一的正解；但金钱并非数学，世上不存在普适的唯一标准答案，所有人不过是在透过各自的生活棱镜，探寻契合自身的那套生存解法。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 金钱决策背后的心理机制 accDescr: 展示个体的独特成长背景如何转化为特定的金钱与消费行为 subgraph Context["个体过往与环境背景"] A["独特生活经历 / 创伤 / 家庭环境"] --> B["独特的价值观与人生渴望"] end subgraph Perspective["认知棱镜"] B --> C["金钱并非绝对数学题 (没有统一正解)"] C --> D["行为合理化 (信息足够时皆合情合理)"] end subgraph Behavior["具象财务行为"] D --> E1["极度储蓄以求安全感"] D --> E2["购买炫耀性资产 (如黄色兰博基尼)"] D --> E3["活在当下、激进借贷体验世界"] end ``` ### [01:26:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=5202s) 金钱与死亡率：及时行乐（YOLO）对决终身储蓄面对金钱与人生的权衡，史蒂文抛出了关于死亡率（Mortality）的拷问：许多人信奉“人生只有一次（YOLO）”，认为人生苦短，不如尽情享受。史蒂文坦言自己更偏向这一派；相比之下，大他一岁、后来成为股票经纪人与精算师的哥哥，在12岁时就会用 Excel 表格来规划自己的零用钱，甚至在21岁就早早开始投资退休养老金。而当年的史蒂文则热衷于在人生的“象征性赌场”中豪赌掷骰，他的心理逻辑很简单：“反正人生只有一次，为什么不尽情享受人生？复利确实很好，但我现在就想享受生活。” 针对这种心理张力，摩根回忆起自己二十岁出头时遇到的一位年长约十岁的男同事。那位同事欠下了2.5万美元的高额信用卡债务，承担着高达17%的年利率，这在当时的摩根看来完全匪夷所思。这位同事将所有借款都花在了周游欧洲和亚洲的旅行中，享受了极致的美好时光。摩根当时暗自腹诽：“你真是个白痴，难道不知道这会彻底毁掉你的未来吗？”然而，这位同事在32岁左右突遭变故去世。这彻底颠覆了摩根的看法：“我当时转念一想，太庆幸他去旅行了，太庆幸他背了那些信用卡债务。事实是在32岁去世时，他所看过的风景、体验过的人生，比绝大多数活到62岁的人还要丰富。” 摩根指出，生命长短是无法预料的，谁也无法确知自己会活到110岁还是明天突然离世。作为父母，摩根从16岁拿到第一份工作起，一生中无论赚多少钱都会将绝大部分收入存起来。很多人可能会问他：“如果你明晚躺在临终病榻上，难道不会后悔没去那些昂贵度假、没吃那些顶级大餐吗？”摩根斩钉截铁地回答：“绝不可能。” - **临终的最大宽慰**：摩根表示，如果今晚就要离开人世，知道妻儿能凭借他留下的积蓄衣食无忧、安稳生活，是他最大的欣慰。 - **终极噩梦**：世上最痛苦的事情，莫过于躺在病床上看着身边的家人，心里明白“你们彻底完蛋了，我留给你们的只有一屁股债，你们得为一日三餐发愁、不得不卖掉房子”。 - **人生阶段的演变**：储蓄的动力会随着生命阶段变化；当未来孩子们真正实现财务独立后，这种紧迫储蓄以供养幼子的心态也可能会随之调整。 ### [01:30:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=5450s) 临终病榻上的无憾心态与戴维·卡西迪的临终绝叹围绕临终心理，摩根提到多项关于死亡临终的研究：许多身患绝症、自知仅剩六个月生命的患者，却能表现得格外平和、安详。探究其心理根源，核心支柱之一正是“确信家人失去自己后依然能过得很好”。家人拥有独立生存的经济与心理能力，不再完全仰仗他的照料；反之，若自知离去会让伴侣和孩子陷入无尽的生存苦难，那将是人间最极致的折磨。史蒂文对此感同身受，他表示自己有时也会设想：如果今天突然被确诊不治之症，内心会作何感受？史蒂文觉得自己会带着微笑与感激面对终点，因为他感到自己全心全意地活过了这一生——走遍了世界、饱览了风景、经历过万事并结识了各色人群，毫无虚度之感。然而，在“背负卡债尽兴而亡”与“倾尽所有只顾储蓄”之间，存在着极为残酷的另一面——一生从未真正活过。摩根提到了著名童星出身、演艺事业极其辉煌且坐拥财富与声望的戴维·卡西迪（David Cassidy）。他在临终前留下的最后一句话令人心碎：“浪费了太多时间（So much wasted time）。” - **戴维·卡西迪的悲剧对照**：即便拥有名利双收、令世人艳羡的人生，临终遗言却是对自己虚度光阴的极度痛悔。 - **生活的动态平衡**：既不能为了虚无缥缈的未来而完全剥夺当下的生命体验，也不能盲目透支导致家人深陷财务深渊。摩根随后引入了杰夫·贝佐斯（Jeff Bezos）在商业与人生决策中极具代表性的哲学——著名的“遗憾最小化框架”（Regret Minimization Framework）。 ### [01:32:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=5522s) 贝索斯的遗憾最小化框架与临终回顾杰夫·贝索斯（Jeff Bezos）在决定创立亚马逊时，采用了一套著名的思考模型——想象自己活到 90 岁躺在病床上时，如何才能让一生的遗憾降到最低。贝索斯当时笃信，如果自己不跨出创办亚马逊这一步，老去时必定会深感懊悔；相反，即使全力以赴后失败了，他也绝不会后悔。这种在行动前预判未来遗憾的思维方式，构成了理解“风险”最广义、最深刻的哲学定义。每个人面对生命突如其来的终点假设时，固然会为曾经放手一搏而欣慰，但往往也会不由自主地反思：如果能重来，自己是否本该以不同的方式对待某些人、多给亲朋好友打几个电话，或是少花一点时间在无休止的工作上。澳大利亚姑息治疗护士布朗妮·维尔（Bronnie Ware）曾系统记录过临终病人的心声，其调研结论与此完全吻合：在生命走到尽头时，没有任何一个人会感慨“真希望我当年工作更拼命一点”，但几乎所有人都会后悔自己没有花足够的时间陪伴孩子和家人、后悔没有善待自己，更后悔没有按照真实的自我去生活。维尔发现，临终者最普遍的遗憾正是“没有过属于自己的人生”，这一发现恰恰印证了亿万富翁查克·费尼（Chuck Feeney）所奉行的生活信条——按自己的意愿生活，不被外界定义绑架。无论个体的出身和抱负有多大差异，追求独立与掌控自主权始终是全人类最根本、最普适的核心诉求。 - **贝索斯的决策逻辑**：“如果我不去创立亚马逊，我一定会后悔；但如果我尝试了却失败了，我不会后悔。” - **布朗妮·维尔的临终心声洞察**：绝大多数临终者都在懊悔过度透支在职场上，并渴望能够活出忠于内心的真实生活，将时间留给亲人。 - **独立自主的核心价值**：能够依循自身意志掌控生活节奏，是人类跨越文化和阶层最本能的幸福根源。 --- ### [01:33:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=5628s) 摆脱债务陷阱：金钱心理中的天性与重塑对于深陷账单、负债累累而毫无财务独立可言的普通人来说，单纯依靠省钱往往难以彻底翻身，因为导致一个人陷入财务泥潭的思维模式和行为惯性极难被外力打破。正如行为学中那个关于婚前伴侣数量与婚后忠诚度高度相关的统计现象所暗示的：人很难仅凭头脑中的开关一拨，就在一夜之间脱胎换骨成为另一个完全不同的人。绝大多数长期超前消费、对金钱漫不经心的人，即便痛下决心，也很难迅速扭转自己的行为轨道。在探讨人与金钱的关系时，许多人难以承认却不得不面对的一个事实是：在“先天秉性（Nature）”与“后天抚育（Nurture）”的博弈中，相当一部分理财特质偏向于先天基因与天性。有些人天生就具备精打细算、未雨绸缪的储蓄体质，而另一些人则天生拥有强烈的企业家冒险精神，敢于承担常人不敢碰的风险。后天的阅读、学习与认知提升确实能够拓展视野，但我们无法假装自己可以彻底推翻底层的天性底色。对话中还提到了《CEO日记》（The Diary of a CEO）每期嘉宾传递的对话卡片，该卡片设计了从“破冰（Warm-up）”、“敞开（Open-up）”到“深度（Deep）”三个梯度的 51 个深刻问题，旨在促使人们正视那些平日里习惯逃避的底层心理议题，帮助人们在董事会、私密卧房或初次约会中撕开伪装，进行最本真、最直接的自我审视与沟通。 --- ### [01:36:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=5773s) 将储蓄视为“独立代币”：大众对存钱的认知误区当被问及对于收入微薄、几乎没有结余的工厂工人或蓝领阶层有何存钱诀窍时，问题的症结在于大众对“储蓄”这一概念的狭隘理解。如果人们单纯将存钱理解为“攒钱去买未来的某样具象物品”，这种延后享受的痛苦往往让人半途而废。必须完成关键的心态转换：**每一笔存下来的钱，都是一张购买个人独立与自由的“筹码”或“代币”**。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 储蓄认知的两种心智模式对比 accDescr: 对比为了消费目标而储蓄与为了独立自由而储蓄的心理收益与抗风险表现 subgraph Trap["具象消费导向"] A["为了购买具体物品而存钱 (例如新车、奢侈品)"] --> B["推迟享乐带来心理匮乏感"] B --> C["遇到突发冲击极易断裂 抗风险底气不足"] end subgraph Freedom["独立主权导向"] D["将储蓄视为独立的代币 (构建安全垫与缓冲期)"] --> E["失业时从容挑选下一份工作 面对医疗变故保有选择权"] E --> F["买断生活控制权与从容心态"] end ``` 如果有了这笔缓冲储蓄，在遭遇意外裁员时就不必惊慌失措地去抓眼前第一份糊口的工作，而是能从容评估、重新挑选；当面对突发的医疗健康危机时，也会拥有更多的治疗渠道与选择权。谷歌（Google）上关于个人理财搜索量最高的问题常年是“如何存钱（How to save money）”，紧随其后的则是“什么是高息储蓄账户（High-yield savings account）”。这些基础搜索看似浅显，却揭示了一个残酷的现实：理解金钱的运作机制以及管理财富的规则并非可有可无的兴趣爱好，而是每个人无论出身、无论喜好都必须履行的生存必修课。 --- ### [01:37:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=5865s) 提升谦逊以增加储蓄：为真正在意的人而活《金钱心理学》中有一句广为流传的名言：“增加储蓄最强大的方式之一，不是提高你的收入，而是提高你的谦逊。”当一个人真正意识到“根本没有人在像你自己那样审视你”时，消费观念就会发生剧变。现实中没有人会在意你开的是揽胜（Range Rover）还是戴着劳力士（Rolex），旁人之所以多看一眼，仅仅是在透过那些光鲜外物投射对他们自己的幻想。过去十几年来，伴随着社交媒体的推波助澜，现代人的大部分消费支出都在沦为一种演给陌生人看的行为艺术，试图吸引那些根本不关心自己的看客的注意。要戒除这种无意义的炫耀，核心在于梳理清楚自己究竟渴求谁的认可。真正值得倾注全力去维系关系的，往往只有身边的六七个人： - 妻子或伴侣 - 自己的孩子 - 亲生父母 - 两三个推心置腹的挚友对于绝大多数在街头擦肩而过的陌生人，他们对你的生活毫不关心，而为了取悦他们去购置一辆法拉利（Ferrari），既不会让妻子多爱你一分，也不会让孩子们多崇拜你一点。被问及自己最大的开销究竟在何处时，真正的财富特权并非奢华的物质享受，而是买断时间与生活的控制权——把资金投入到掌控日常日程、拥有向不喜欢的工作坚决说“不”的自由中，这才是财务独立能够赋予一个人的最高形态。 ### [01:40:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=6001s) 童年伤疤与消费心理：滑雪装备背后的补偿机制摩根·豪泽尔谈到自己在过去二十五年里一直努力追求的目标——做自己真正想做的工作并拥有自主权。在聊到日常开销时，他分享了一件不久前与儿子有关的触动。摩根早年在太浩湖（Lake Tahoe）作为高山滑雪竞速运动员长大。在青少年时期，滑雪队里总有些队友家境优渥，穿着更新款的雪靴、扛着最新型号的雪板，全身都是顶级行头。那种强烈的物质落差让年轻的摩根内心充满了自卑与芥蒂。这种童年留下的“心结”，在几年后他的儿子也开始学滑雪时突然爆发。摩根暗下决心一定要给儿子配齐最顶级的装备，试图以此弥补自己当年的遗憾和自尊心缺失。然而戏剧性的是，他的儿子对这些昂贵高档的装备完全无动于衷，“根本不在乎这些花哨的东西”。摩根借此指出，许多人在成年后的消费决策，表面上看似理性，实质上却是在为童年时期的某段经历买单，是在试图抚平昔日留下的心理伤疤。 ### [01:40:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=6056s) 摩根的极简资产配置：追求持久耐力而非复杂策略当被问及眼下的整体资产配置比例时，摩根透露自己持有的现金比例高得惊人，大约占到总资产的 20% 到 25%。他的全部净资产结构极其精简，甚至到了枯燥乏味的地步：一栋完全付清贷款的自住房产、大笔充裕的现金储备、先锋领航（Vanguard）的指数基金，以及由于他担任董事会成员而持有的马凯尔公司（Markel）股票。摩根直言，他的财务组合是常人能想象到的最无聊、最单调的模式，但这种极度简单的结构背后有着深层的战略考量。他唯一想要最大化的核心变量是“持久耐力”（Endurance）。极简的资产组合免去了跟踪各种复杂投资标的的心力消耗，让他能将全部的心智精力和注意力集中在如何让这个系统长期、稳定、心安理得地持续运转下去。 - **现金储备占比**：约占总资产的 20% 至 25%，用于提供绝对的心理安全感与流动性缓冲。 - **核心底层资产**：无按揭房产、高流动性现金、先锋指数基金、任职董事的 Markel 股票。 - **核心哲学**：不追求短期收益率最大化，而是最大化财务体系的生存耐力。 ### [01:41:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=6103s) 先锋指数基金与长线逻辑：为何老牌日化可能比科技巨头更具韧性为了向大众通俗解释指数基金的概念，摩根将其比作“打包购买美国资本主义的一小块切片”。买入指数基金，意味着投资者同时持有了苹果、亚马逊、谷歌、Meta 等成百上千家上市公司的极微小份额。摩根自己主要投资的是先锋全股票市场指数基金（Vanguard Total Stock Market Index，美股代码：VTI）。该基金覆盖了几乎所有可买入的美国公开上市公司，管理费率极低，既不押注特定的人工智能风口，也不单赌某个热门赛道。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 投资标的持有逻辑对比 accDescr: 对比押注单一科技公司与持有全市场指数基金在业务持久度上的差异 subgraph TechSingle["单一科技巨头押注"] A["高权重科技股\n(如 Google / AI 概念)"] --> B["面临技术迭代\n与被颠覆风险"] end subgraph BroadIndex["全市场指数 (VTI)"] C["老牌日用消费品\n(如宝洁 P&G)"] --> D["需求恒定持久\n(30年后仍用 Old Spice)"] E["各行业成熟企业"] --> F["平均年化约 8-10%\n平滑个股归零风险"] end ``` 在谈到预期回报时，摩根引用了耶鲁大学教授罗伯特·希勒（Robert Shiller）追溯至 1880 年代的美股历史数据。从百年跨度来看，标普 500 等大盘指数的长期年化名义回报率平均在 8% 到 10% 左右。但他强调，这个“平均值”极具欺骗性：在现实中的任何单个年份里，市场极少正好上涨 8% 或 10%，投资者遭遇的往往是暴涨 30% 或暴跌 15% 的极端混乱行情，只有拉长时间跨度才能体现出均值回归。针对“为何不直接单挑科技股”的疑问，摩根给出了逆向视角：科技股在指数中的权重固然很高，但像宝洁（Procter & Gamble）这种生产牙膏和 Old Spice（欧 old spice）除臭剂的企业，其创造的长期价值往往被严重低估。他敢下重注打赌三十年后人们依然会使用除臭剂和牙膏，却不敢保证三十年后谷歌依然是人类获取信息的主导入口。能够长年销售同一款产品的公司，其超长生命周期和抗风险能力恰恰是复利得以成立的关键。 ### [01:44:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=6252s) 买房不是为了暴富：住房危机、情感寄托与安全感话题转向房地产市场。主持人提到 2024 年全美成屋销售量仅有约 400 万套，跌至 1995 年以来的历史低点。摩根指出，这已远非单纯的经济或房产议题，而是当今最严重的社会顽疾之一。过去五十年间，美国及全球多地未能建造足够数量的住宅，供应短缺推高了房价，导致原本属于少数边缘群体的购房困难演变为大范围的中产阶级生存危机。居无定所带来的绝望感，直接催生了游民潮、阿片类药物成瘾以及自杀率攀升等一系列系统性悲剧。面对普通人是否应该买房的困惑，摩根回顾了自己人生中买过的三套房子。他坦言自己从未在任何一次交易中“捡漏”或拿到所谓的划算价格，他买房的唯一准则就是财力完全能够负担，并且能在理想的社区为家人提供一个安全稳定的居所。他严正告诫，买房时千万不能带着投机心态，企图押注未来三五年房价翻倍或试图通过预测六个月后的房价走势来择时，过度加杠杆赌房价上涨往往是财务灾难的开端。摩根分享了一个动情的亲身经历：大约八个月前，他们卖掉了位于西雅图的旧房子并搬入新家。由于西雅图过去五年楼市大涨，卖房确实让他们赚了一笔钱。然而，当交易达成、大笔房款电汇进银行账户的那一瞬间，看着手机屏幕上冰冷的数字，他心中没有一丝波澜。相反，那栋被他们卖掉的老房子却装满了无可替代的情感记忆——女儿就是在那处楼梯口迈出了人生的第一步，儿子是在那里迎来了幼儿园开学的第一天，还有无数个难忘的感恩节与圣诞节。面对“买房与买先锋指数基金该如何对比回报率”的提问，摩根给出了极具温情却直击本质的回答： > “在我的先锋指数基金里，可没有我女儿迈出人生第一步的记忆。” 他总结道，指数基金是纯粹为了随时间增长财富而进行的理性投资，但买房绝不该被视为冷冰冰的金融交易；只要财力允许，房产的真正价值在于为家人筑起安稳的生活港湾，沉淀属于彼此的生命记忆。 ### [01:47:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=6465s) 买房执念的破灭与居住标准的代际膨胀对于刚步入社会的年轻人而言，最根深蒂固的财富建议往往是“尽快买房”——大学毕业、找份工作、省吃俭用攒够首付。然而，这一在老一辈眼中颠扑不破的真理，如今却面临着现实的巨大挑战。在20世纪50至70年代，社会营建了大量房屋，即便当时利率更高，房屋的实际可负担性依然远好于今天。更常被公众忽视的根本原因，在于人类对“合格住房”的定义已经发生了翻天覆地的代际膨胀。二战结束后纽约兴建的标志性中产社区莱维敦（Levittown），曾是无数人向往的“白篱笆中产梦”的起点。然而，当时莱维敦建造的普通房屋平均面积仅有约 700 平方英尺（约合 65 平方米），两间卧室通常要挤下一家五六口人，共用一个卫生间，没有空调，也没有车库。放在当代人的眼光下，这种房子甚至会被戏谑为“简直像个瘾君子窝点”（crack house），根本不会被认定为体面的中产阶级住宅。时至今日，新建中产阶级房屋的平均面积已经激增至约 2,200 平方英尺（约合 204 平方米）。随着人们对“入门级住房”门槛的无限拔高，住房负担加剧并不仅仅是市场供给的问题，更是期望值水涨船高的必然结果。 - **Levittown 历史住宅数据**：平均面积仅 700 平方英尺，2 居室，1 卫，容纳 5-6 口人，无车库及空调配置。 - **当代新建住宅对比**：中产标准新房平均面积达到 2,200 平方英尺，居住期望翻了三倍以上。 --- ### [01:49:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=6573s) 租房的自由度与买房的情感转折点面对 25 岁年轻人攒下两三万美元现金是否该付首付的疑问，租房往往被污名化为“替房东还贷、白白扔钱”，但事实恰恰相反。回顾自己的生活经历，在真正买下第一套房之前，夫妻二人足足租了十年房子，期间辗转生活过五个不同的城市。这种随时可以打包行李、毫无拘束奔赴下一个目的地的灵活性，是年轻时期最宝贵的资产。决定从租房转向买房，往往不是出于理性的财务计算，而是源于家庭生命周期的剧烈转变。直到大儿子出生的那一周，脑海中的开关被骤然触发：单身或丁克时期所珍视的“四处流动的自由”，瞬间被对“极致稳定性”的渴望所取代。人不再希望接到房东通知驱逐或卖房的信件，而是需要一个真正属于自己、能给孩子遮风避雨的安全港湾。此外，针对“租房是浪费钱”的论调，房产拥有者都心知肚明——买房绝非仅仅支付月供，昂贵的热水器损坏、更换屋顶等高昂且不可预测的维护支出，才是真正让人切身体会到什么叫“把钱扔进无底洞”。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 居住模式与人生阶段决策路径 accDescr: 对比租房的灵活性与买房的稳定性在人生不同阶段的适用性 subgraph YoungAdult["青年探索期（无子女）"] A["高流动性租房"] --> B["低固定维护支出"] B --> C["随时抓住跨城职业机会"] end subgraph Parenthood["组建家庭期（育儿）"] D["置办自有住房"] --> E["排除房东驱逐风险"] E --> F["追求确定性与家庭安全感"] end YoungAdult -.->|人生角色转换：孩子出生| Parenthood ``` --- ### [01:51:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=6675s) 机会成本与低息房贷构筑的“金手铐” 灵活性的价值是极其难以量化却至关重要的隐性资产。当另一半考上外地研究生时，租房者可以毫不犹豫地拔营启程，免去了房屋出售过程中繁琐折磨的噩梦。回看个人奋斗历程，25 岁时听取兄长建议保留灵活性而不置业，才使得后续数年能够跟随事业机遇纵横四海：从纽约经历疫情突发辞职，到移居葡萄牙、德国、巴厘岛数月，再重返英国伦敦，直至最终搬往洛杉矶。在这短短四年内，无论是播客业务的飞跃还是参与商业节目录制，每一次乘势而上的跃迁都建立在“没有被房产拴在原地”的前提之上。反观 2021 至 2022 年间购房的群体，当时锁定了 2% 到 3% 的超低房贷利率，自以为“中了人生的超级彩票”。然而到了当下，这笔廉价房贷却演变成了沉重的“金手铐”。当其他城市出现薪水更高、前景更好的工作机遇时，他们却因为无法割舍超低利率而动弹不得——一旦卖房重新贷款，新利率已飙升至 7.5% 左右。纵观数百年经济发展史，人口流动能力向来是衡量经济活力与财富创造的核心指标；当劳动力被沉重资产死死锁死在特定坐标，整个经济体便不可避免地面临僵化与停滞。 --- ### [01:53:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=6820s) 警惕“3美元问题”与反思 FIRE 极端早退知名理财作家拉米特·塞提（Ramit Sethi）曾提出一个极具洞见的法则：太多人在耗费心力纠结“3 美元的问题”，却对真正致命的“3 万美元问题”视而不见。日常生活中，人们一谈到省钱就陷入“不要喝星巴克、上班自己带盒饭”的琐碎微操，但这根本无法从实质上改变财务状况。真正左右个人财务命运的是那些重大的战略决策： 1. **高等教育路径**：选择昂贵的私立院校还是高性价比的公立学校？ 2. **定居城市选择**：留在生活成本高昂的超级都市还是迁往成本更低的新兴区域？ 3. **住房方式决策**：选择长期租房还是承担沉重房贷买房？ 4. **大件资产支出**：购买何种价位的汽车及其贷款结构。在理财心态上，必须警惕两个极端的误区：一端是今朝有酒今朝醉的“人生仅此一次”（YOLO），另一端则是过度严苛于每一杯咖啡开销的苦行僧心态。过去十年风靡一时的 FIRE 运动（财务独立，提早退休）就是这种极端倾向的体现。许多年轻人极尽苛刻之能事，试图在 20 多岁攒下 60 万美元并在 27 岁彻底退休。然而现实中，大量践行者在退休半年后便陷入了极度的无聊甚至抑郁。当同龄人都在社会中工作拼搏、产生价值并建立连接时，他们每天醒来面对空虚的日常，只能茫然自问“除了去打高尔夫，我还能干什么”，最终在极端的自我限制中品尝到空虚的苦果。 ### [01:55:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=6948s) 退休的危险：工作与身份认同的剥离过分极端的“人生得意须尽欢”（YOLO）生活方式——把所有钱花个精光、成天派对与旅行——极有可能让人在未来抱憾终身，因为当你想退休时却缺乏足够的资金储备。然而，退休本身也是一把双刃剑。斯蒂芬（Steven Bartlett）提到他和朋友杰克讨论过退休对个体的剧烈冲击；大量研究数据表明，许多人在退休后生活状况急转直下，失去了生活的目标、意义感与社交联结，这甚至让人对退休产生恐惧。面对退休是否应该作为人生终极目标的疑问，摩根·豪瑟（Morgan Housel）分享了自己父母截然相反的经历。他的父亲先后退休又重返职场多达三次，家里人甚至不得不对他立下规矩：“不许再办退休派对，你这辈子只能办一次。”父亲每次退休一个月左右，就会忍不住感叹“我太想念工作了”，幸好他的行业允许他转为兼职。父亲的经历让他清楚意识到很多人忽视的一点：一个人的工作往往承载了他绝大部分的“身份认同”。当第一天退休醒来照镜子时，那种“我不再是过去的我、我不再是那个身份”的失落感令人难以忍受。工作中固然有无数令人痛苦、压力巨大且恨不得立刻摆脱的琐事，但人类从灵魂深处渴望在世界上保持生产力、为家庭与社会创造价值。在长期保持高生产力后突然戛然而止，往往是走向抑郁的最快途径。当然，并非所有人皆是如此：摩根的母亲退休后就从未回头，她用丰富的朋友圈与兴趣爱好把退休生活经营得充实饱满。然而，对于那些将自我价值深深建立在职业成就上的人而言，骤然退休无异于一场精神灾难。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 退休对心理状态的双向影响路径 accDescr: 展示依赖职业认同与拥有丰富个人生活两种人在退休后面临的不同走向 subgraph IdentityInWork["以工作为核心认同"] A["高产出与职场身份"] --> B["戛然退休"] B --> C["身份剥离与价值感丧失"] C --> D["精神空虚乃至抑郁"] end subgraph MultiFaceted["生活多元发展"] E["职场工作"] --> F["平稳退休"] F --> G["社交圈与兴趣爱好承接"] G --> H["充实丰盈的晚年生活"] end ``` ### [01:57:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=7078s) 经典著作与历史巨变中的投资智慧与人类心理当被问及若不能推荐自己的书，会向大家推荐哪本理解金钱与财富创造的必读书籍时，摩根·豪瑟毫不犹豫地指出了本杰明·格雷厄姆（Benjamin Graham）在 20 世纪 30 年代撰写的《聪明的投资者》（The Intelligent Investor）。虽然这本书带有 30 年代的英文文风与大学教授略显严肃的学术腔调，并非适合睡前轻松阅读的消遣读物，但摩根坚信，“在过去 100 年出版的关于投资的书籍中，这本书所蕴含的智慧比任何其他书都要多”。即便成书已近一个世纪、部分技术性细节略显过时，其 90% 的核心法则依然历久弥新，这也是该书至今畅销不衰的原因。除了投资经典，摩根认为真正塑造自己认知的宝库是对 1929 年至 1945 年间大萧条与第二次世界大战历史的研究。这长达 16 年的岁月记录了人类历史上情绪跨度最大的极限体验——从最深不见底的绝望、痛苦与折磨，到战争结束时席卷全球的狂喜与解脱。研究二战并不仅仅是学习军事战术，更是一场关于人类心理学的终极课程：观察人们在极端的不确定性、恐惧、怀疑、风险与焦虑面前究竟如何决策与求生，其深刻程度超越了任何金融教材。 - 本杰明·格雷厄姆的《聪明的投资者》不仅是价值投资的奠基之作，更凭借其对市场人性的洞察跨越了近百年的时光考验。 - 1929–1945 年的历史跨度（大萧条至二战结束）展示了人类在绝望与欣喜两大极端情绪摇摆中的真实心理应对机制。 ### [01:59:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=7183s) 盲目追求快速增长的隐患：树木法则与组织的耐用度斯蒂芬特别提到了摩根在个人播客中探讨过的“迅猛增长的潜在危害”，他甚至将这期播客的内容转发给了自己公司的首席执行官（CEO）与首席营收官（CRO），以此告诫创业者们不要陷入不计成本、盲目追求规模的狂热。摩根用自然界中的树木生长做了一个极具启发性的类比：如果一棵树独自生长在开阔的田野正中央，没有任何树木为它遮阴，它就会贪婪地吞噬所有阳光，其生长速度可以比林荫下遮蔽的树木快上十倍。然而，这种疯狂拔节的代价是致命的——它没有充足的时间去形成高密度、坚硬的年轮与木质纤维，也无法扎下极其稳固的根系。这类速生木材内部往往软弱松散，极易遭受腐烂病的侵袭，寿命极为短暂。现代农场快速收割的木材与原始森林里的古老硬木相比，品质不可同日而语。在商业与投资领域同样存在一个带点黑色幽默的金融法则：“你的增长速度有多快，你走向死亡的半衰期就有多短。”速度往往是以牺牲耐用度（durability）为代价的。斯蒂芬对此深表赞同，并结合自己在书里写过的流行音乐现象补充道：一首单曲冲上音乐榜单榜首的速度越快，它跌落榜单的速度通常也越快，因为全天候的高密度轰炸会让听众在极短时间内产生严重厌烦感。摩根进一步分析，像苹果公司（Apple）这样持续创造巨额现金流的伟大企业，早在 20 世纪 70 年代就已创立，但真正迎来爆发式飞跃却是在 2000 年代中期，经历了数十年的打磨。尽管像 Facebook 或 OpenAI 这类公司展现出了几乎在一夜之间完成爆发式产品市场匹配（PMF）的罕见奇迹，但极速扩张对于绝大多数企业来说是致命陷阱：打造一款能极速裂变的产品所需的专业技能，与有效管理一家拥有 50 人乃至 1000 人规模的组织所需的管理技能，完全是云泥之别。许多才华横溢的产品型创业者最终都倒在了管理组织能力的匮乏上。 ### [02:03:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=7390s) 财富的终极归宿：幸福与人生的追寻斯蒂芬将话题引向了所有关于金钱与资产积累探讨的核心归宿——“幸福”。无论观众在最初被吸引进这场对话时是在寻找理财诀窍还是赚钱捷径，归根结底，每个人内心深处的诉求都是过上幸福的生活，金钱只被视为通往幸福的桥梁。基于摩根阅读历史巨擘、洞察财富人性的多年思考，斯蒂芬抛出追问：“在经历了这一切研究之后，你如今对如何过上幸福生活有何见解？”摩根笑着指出，“幸福”是一个没人会拒绝的词汇，每个人都在追逐它，但人们拼命奔跑的底层动力与误区恰恰隐藏在定义幸福的方式之中。 ### [02:03:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=7423s) 追求“快乐”还是“知足”：物质欲望与幸福的真相摩根·豪泽尔（Morgan Housel）深刻剖析了为什么许多人在追求幸福时屡屡受挫：问题的根源在于“快乐（Happiness）”本身并不是一个应当作为终极目标的情感状态。快乐往往是一种“五分钟的情绪”，就像在脱口秀演出现场听到一个好笑的段子，放声大笑 20 秒之后，那种兴奋感便迅速消退。金钱固然能够买来良好的生活品质，但当人们幻想拥有更大的房子、豪车或是奢华度假时，脑海中真正渴望的其实是“知足（Contentment）”——即坐在毛伊岛的海滩上对当下感到由衷的释怀与满意。很多人拼命追求快乐，却发现生活并没有变得更好，正是因为他们忽视了知足的力量。豪泽尔再次提及自己的外祖母，她一生过着极其简朴、甚至在旁人看来略显枯燥的日子，却因为对自己拥有的一切感到满足，从而展现出令所有人羡慕的幸福感。史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）对此深有共鸣，回忆起自己 18 岁时在日记里写下的目标：成为百万富翁、交女朋友、开路虎揽胜（Range Rover）、练出六块腹肌。当他当年憧憬这一切时，内心向往的也是那种“知足”的终极状态。豪泽尔指出，这正是人性的陷阱：你以为开上法拉利就会满足，但真正坐进法拉利的那一刻，转头看到旁边驶过一辆兰博基尼，你又会觉得别人的车更好，继而转去渴望劳斯莱斯。这种对欲望的无尽追逐，反而让人永远与真正的知足失之交臂。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 欲望循环与知足心态对比 accDescr: 展示了通过外在比较追求刺激导致的无穷欲望循环，与建立内在基准实现知足的对比路径。 subgraph Trap["虚妄的快乐循环（外在比较）"] A["设定外在物质目标 (法拉利/豪宅)"] --> B["短暂快感 (约5分钟) 快乐迅速消退"] B --> C["横向对比他人 (看到更贵的兰博基尼)"] C --> D["产生不满与匮乏感"] D --> A end subgraph Peace["真正的知足心态（内在基准）"] E["向内审视真正需求 (健康与家庭)"] --> F["摆脱他人目光 (注重真实效用)"] F --> G["恒久的内心平静与知足 (Contentment)"] end ``` ### [02:05:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=7548s) 比较游戏与人性的进化基因面对“如何才能获得知足”的疑问，豪泽尔引用了哲学家阿瑟·叔本华（Arthur Schopenhauer）的名言：“如果你只想幸福，这很容易实现；但人们想要的是比别人更幸福，这要困难得多。”大多数人的物质欲望本质上是一场残酷的“比较游戏”：人们并不是单纯想要一栋漂亮的豪宅或昂贵的名车，而是想要一栋“比你的更大”、一辆“比你的更贵”的车。要打破这种心理枷锁，关键在于将评价体系从“外在基准（External benchmark）”彻底切换为“内在基准（Internal benchmark）”——问问自己，如果全世界只剩下自己一个人、没有任何观众，自己还会买那些东西吗？豪泽尔打趣道，在这种假设下，人们绝不会选法拉利，而是会选一辆实用皮实、能让生活更轻松的丰田皮卡（Toyota pickup truck）。现实中也是如此：一辆配置顶级的丰田（带天窗、舒适座椅和高品质音响）往往比一辆入门级的宝马更加舒适好开，但许多人之所以硬买入门级宝马，仅仅是为了向外界虚张声势地展示地位，并且严重高估了别人对自己的关注度。史蒂文提出，追求卓越与超越他人是否本身就是刻在人类基因里的本能。豪泽尔完全认同这一进化心理学视角：人类历史本质上就是一场对有限资源的竞争，无论是食物、土地还是伴侣，生存下来的关键从来不是“我是不是一个优秀的猎人”，而是“我是不是比你更优秀的猎人”。亚当·斯密早在 300 年前就曾指出，如果人类仅仅为了满足基本温饱，社会生产早就足够停下了；但竞争刻在 DNA 里，人类不断追逐更多财富，是为了向竞争对手证明自己更有价值、更具吸引力。尽管聪明的人能够意识到这场游戏的荒谬并主动选择抽身，但这种竞争天性永远不会彻底消失。 - **叔本华的幸福悖论**：单纯获得幸福并不困难，难的是想要“比别人更幸福”。 - **丰田与宝马的隐喻**：顶配丰田提供真实的舒适与效用，入门级宝马购买的则是虚荣与对他人评价的妄想。 - **进化的资源争夺**：人类天生具备横向对比和竞争基因，现代人需要主动用理智设立内在边界，退出盲目的社会攀比。 ### [02:08:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=7736s) 历史的脆弱感与时代的确定性谈及在关税风波、经济动荡和人工智能（AI）浪潮席卷的当下普通人该如何自处，豪泽尔分享了一个极具启发性的历史视角。人们往往觉得今天的世界比以往任何时刻都要脆弱、更加充满不确定性，但这其实是一种认知偏差。历史上许多时期的危机远比今天严峻得多，之所以过去显得平稳，仅仅是因为“我们已经知道了过去的故事结局，却不知道当下的故事将如何收尾”。豪泽尔援引了乔恩·斯图尔特（Jon Stewart）的一句名言：“之所以你觉得童年时的世界更美好，仅仅是因为那时候你还是个孩子。”每个时代的人都觉得当下的世界风雨飘摇、过去的世界岁月静好。认识到这种心理偏见，有助于投资者和普通大众在面对当下的关税冲突、技术迭代和经济杂音时保持清醒，明白当下的动荡不过是历史长河中的常态。 ### [02:09:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=7799s) 价值观的演进与理财智慧的传承节目迎来了标志性的闭幕提问环节。上一位嘉宾留下的盲盒问题是：“什么是你初入社会时非常看重、而如今不再看重的东西？”豪泽尔坦言，这并非推翻过去的认知，而是人生阶段的自然蜕变。在他二十几岁的时候，最看重的是外出旅行、探索世界，那时的他觉得如果晚上独自待在家里沙发上就是“虚度人生”；然而人到中年、为人父之后，他视家庭与孩子为一切，现在最幸福的事莫过于趴在客厅地板上陪孩子们搭乐高。史蒂文随后向豪泽尔表达了由衷的敬意与感谢。他提到本杰明·格雷厄姆（Benjamin Graham）的传世经典《聪明的投资者》（The Intelligent Investor），坦言自己当年读起来极其晦涩艰深、难以卒读；而豪泽尔的著作（如《金钱心理学》）却在史蒂文年轻时彻底改变了他的财富认知，甚至间接帮他赚取并守住了数百万英镑的财富。豪泽尔的书没有兜售市场上那些诱人且浮躁的“快速致富”暴富神话，而是深刻揭示了人在储蓄、消费和投资过程中的心理与情绪诱因，为读者构建了一套经得起时间考验的长青框架。史蒂文直言，正是因为领悟了这种质朴乃至“枯燥”的投资哲学，他才坚定地将自己的大部分资产配置在极其稳健的指数基金（Index funds）之中，换取了真正的内心富足与从容。 ### [02:11:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=7900s) 故事的蓝图效应与写作风格的共鸣史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）动情地分享了摩根·豪瑟（Morgan Housel）的作品给自己带来的深远影响。他指出，阅读书中那些具体人物的真实遭遇与起落，其价值不仅在于获取知识，更在于当读者在现实中经历相似的情绪波动或陷入类似境遇时，大脑中会立刻浮现出一副清晰的“行动蓝图”（blueprint）。读者会下意识地警醒自己：“天哪，这就像书里的那个人一样——即便赢了钱也无法停下赌博的冲动，或者曾经精准预测过一次股市崩盘，但在下一次错误预判后彻底崩溃甚至走向自杀。” 史蒂芬坦言，无论是在自己涉足加密货币投资、过去挑选特定个股，还是投身创业的无数关键时刻，摩根书中记录的人性法则都为他提供了绝佳的决策认知框架。谈及摩根的著作《一如既往》（*Same As Ever*），史蒂芬赞不绝口，直言这是“我多么希望由自己亲笔写出的书”。他透露，广大听众熟悉的自己的上一部畅销书，在很大程度上正是受到了摩根写作风格的启发——那种门槛极低、极度易读（accessible）、以生动故事为核心驱动力的叙事手法，横跨多元题材却无时无刻不在切中事物本质的穿透力，令人叹服。史蒂芬由衷地赞叹：“在我结识过的所有作家中，你是我最为钦佩的一位。” - **真实案例的警示价值**：史蒂芬特别提到了书中因侥幸做对一次市场预测而滋生傲慢、最终在随后的失败中自绝性命的悲剧案例（映射华尔街传奇投机客杰西·利弗莫尔），以此作为抑制非理性冲动的情感锚点。 - **写作风格的传承**：摩根·豪瑟擅长将庞杂的心理学、历史学与经济学议题化为通俗易懂的叙事散文，这种“极简且具普适性”的风格直接启发了史蒂芬本人的图书创作。 --- ### [02:12:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=7976s) 互致敬意与深度对谈的艺术面对史蒂芬真挚的赞美，摩根·豪瑟深受触动，坦言这句评价“对我而言意味着一切”（That means the world to me）。随后，摩根毫不吝啬地向史蒂芬表达了同等分量的由衷敬意。摩根认为，史蒂芬在主持和访谈领域毫无疑问是“全世界最顶尖的存在”。摩根指出，将一场面对面的深度对话持续维系两到三个小时，并且始终保持高度的启发性、专注度与张力，是一项极其罕见且难度极高的专业技能。在这个星球上，几乎没有人能在这项技艺上比史蒂芬做得更好。两人在互相致谢、推荐作品并约定下一次重聚的融洽氛围中，圆满结束了本次长谈。 --- ### [02:13:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=7993s) 尾声：致常态听众的订阅约定访谈结束后，史蒂芬·巴特利特面向广大收听节目的受众做了一个坦诚而直接的呼吁。他透露了一组令自己始终感到不可思议的数据：在长期定期收听《CEO日记》（The Diary Of A CEO）的听众群体中，竟然有高达 53% 的人尚未点击订阅频道。史蒂芬恳请那些喜爱本节目、认可制作团队所付出的心血、并希望给予支持的朋友帮一个小忙——只需随手按下免费的“订阅”按钮即可。作为交换与承诺，史蒂芬代表整个团队立下誓言：只要大家支持订阅，他们将竭尽全力确保每周的内容品质不断提升，认真倾听每一条听众反馈，竭力邀请听众最渴望听到的各界重磅嘉宾，将高质量的深度分享持续做下去。 - **核心数据点**：长期固定收听该节目的听众中，有 53% 尚未订阅频道。 - **团队承诺**：以提升每周节目品质、针对听众反馈优化选题、邀约听众心仪的重磅嘉宾，作为对订阅者的实质回馈。 ## Notable quotes > [20:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=1225s) 大众的普遍观念是跨国企业来中国是因为劳动力成本低。我不知道他们去的是中国的哪个地方，但事实是，很多年前中国就已经不再是低劳动力成本国家了……我们选择中国的原因是这里的技术工人技能、同一区域内高技能人才的密度以及技能的专精类型。 — 蒂姆·库克（Tim Cook） > [24:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=1497s) 信任是最难以捉摸的东西，因为在彻底失去它之前，你永远不知道它有多昂贵；而一旦失去，你才会意识到它曾是所有一切的基石。 — 摩根·豪泽尔（Morgan Housel） > [46:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=2805s) 当事情变糟时，你会低估它能糟糕到什么地步；而当事情走在正确方向上时，你往往会低估它能变得多么庞大。 — 彼得·蒂尔（Peter Thiel） > [57:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=3465s) 理解一美元价值的唯一方法，就是亲自体验它的稀缺力量。 — 摩根·豪泽尔（Morgan Housel） > [01:00:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=3635s) When all of your options are bad, you become very risk-taking because you have nothing to lose — 丹尼尔·卡尼曼（Daniel Kahneman） > [01:05:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=3954s) 如果你看不出这门技术中有令人振奋的创新，那说明你没有看清时代；但如果你看不出其中 99% 的东西纯粹是个笑话，那同样说明你盲目无知。 — 摩根·豪泽尔（Morgan Housel） > [01:10:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=4200s) 世上比盖茨聪明的人多得是，但没人有他那种耐力。他每次都会在工作强度上击败你，只要能赢，他会永远熬下去。他的核心天赋不是智商，而是耐力。 — 拉里·埃里森（Larry Ellison） > [01:13:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=4387s) 如果你能在超长的周期内保持平庸，你最终将成为传奇。 — 摩根·豪泽尔（Morgan Housel） > [01:20:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=4806s) 储蓄就是延后消费。我把储蓄视作独立。今天我每存下一美元，今天我就多了一美元的独立性。我并不是单纯为了未来把钱花掉而存钱，我当下立刻就能感受到这种独立带来的好处。 — 摩根·豪泽尔（Morgan Housel） > [01:24:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=5043s) 只要信息足够，所有的行为都是合情合理的 — 摩根·豪泽尔（Morgan Housel）的姐夫 > [01:30:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=5450s) 浪费了太多时间 — 戴维·卡西迪（David Cassidy） > [01:37:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=5865s) 增加储蓄最强大的方式之一，不是提高你的收入，而是提高你的谦逊。 — 摩根·豪泽尔（Morgan Housel） > [01:44:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=6252s) 在我的先锋指数基金里，可没有我女儿迈出人生第一步的记忆。 — 摩根·豪泽尔（Morgan Housel） > [02:05:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=7548s) 如果你只想幸福，这很容易实现；但人们想要的是比别人更幸福，这要困难得多。 — 阿瑟·叔本华（Arthur Schopenhauer） > [02:08:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90&t=7736s) 之所以你觉得童年时的世界更美好，仅仅是因为那时候你还是个孩子。 — 乔恩·斯图尔特（Jon Stewart） ## Mentioned 摩根·豪泽尔（Morgan Housel）, 史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）, 沃伦·巴菲特（Warren Buffett）, 蒂姆·库克（Tim Cook）, 唐纳德·特朗普（Donald Trump）, 亚当·斯密（Adam Smith）, 纳瓦尔（Naval Ravikant）, 查克·费尼（Chuck Feeney）, 本·卡尔森（Ben Carlson）, 彼得·蒂尔（Peter Thiel）, 丹尼尔·卡尼曼（Daniel Kahneman）, 斯科特·加洛韦（Scott Galloway）, 杰西·利弗莫尔（Jesse Livermore）, 戴维·森拉（David Senra）, 比尔·盖茨（Bill Gates）, 拉里·埃里森（Larry Ellison）, 马克·扎克伯格（Mark Zuckerberg）, 杰夫·贝索斯（Jeff Bezos）, 布朗妮·维尔（Bronnie Ware）, 戴维·卡西迪（David Cassidy）, 拉米特·塞提（Ramit Sethi）, 本杰明·格雷厄姆（Benjamin Graham）, 阿瑟·叔本华（Arthur Schopenhauer）, 乔恩·斯图尔特（Jon Stewart）, 《金钱心理学》（The Psychology of Money）, 《一如既往》（Same As Ever）, 《聪明的投资者》（The Intelligent Investor）, 《雪球》（The Snowball）, 《金钱的艺术》（The Art of Spending Money）, 苹果（Apple）, iPhone, 特斯拉（Tesla）, Cybercab, Cybertruck, OpenAI, ChatGPT, 谷歌（Google）, Willow, 先锋领航（Vanguard）, Vanguard Total Stock Market Index (VTI), 标普500（S&P 500）, 马凯尔公司（Markel）, 宝洁（Procter & Gamble）, 英伟达（NVIDIA）, 沃尔玛（Walmart）, 塔吉特（Target）, DFS, 比特币（Bitcoin）, 以太坊（Ethereum）, Perfect Ted, Revolut, Monzo ## Video description Morgan Housel, is a tariff expert, investor and bestselling author of ‘The Psychology of Money’ and ‘Same As Ever’, is one of the world’s top experts on financial psychology, economic collapse warnings, and building true financial freedom. His life-changing insights have transformed how millions approach money, investing, and wealth-building. 00:00 Intro 02:00 Timeless Lessons of Greed, Wealth, and Happiness 04:40 The Current Tariff Situation in 2025 06:54 What Are Tariffs? 11:41 Trump's True Reason for the Tariffs 18:13 Why Is China the Factory of the World? 20:25 China Stopped Being a Cheap Labour Country 22:54 What's the Impact of the Tariffs? 24:57 America's Trust 26:32 Are We Heading for a Recession? 29:20 The Importance of Backups During a Recession 30:38 How to Be Financially Free in 2025 35:49 The Evolutionary Desire to Show Off — Status 40:32 Salary Differences 42:58 We Have a Distorted View of Financial Wealth 44:18 Advice for the Economic Crisis 45:44 How Much Money Do You Need Saved? 46:45 The Impact of AI in Our Wealth Building 56:11 The Skills You'll Need in the AI Era 57:45 How to Have a Money Mindset 01:00:35 Why People Get Stuck in Crypto Scams 01:03:13 Women vs. Men: Who's Better at Saving and Taking Risks? 01:05:54 Crypto 01:07:02 What History Tells Us About New Technologies, Wealth, and Failure 01:08:30 Could the Crypto Security System Be Broken? 01:10:00 The Strategies Wealthy People Use 01:11:34 Intelligence vs. Endurance 01:13:07 Why Is Perseverance Key? 01:14:51 The Best Way to Have a Big Investment Return 01:16:40 The Power of Compounding in Your Savings 01:21:46 How Money and Psychology Are Linked 01:26:42 You Need to Change Your View on Savings 01:30:50 Biggest Regrets of People on Their Deathbeds 01:37:00 The Most Asked Questions About Finances 01:40:56 Where Are Your Investments Allocated? 01:41:43 Vanguard Index Fund 01:49:33 Where to Invest Spare Cash? 01:56:04 The Dangers of Retiring 02:03:10 How to Live a Happy Life Ready to think like a CEO? Gain access to the 100 CEOs newsletter here: https://bit.ly/100-ceos-newsletter The 1% Diary is back - limited time only: https://rebrand.ly/r0ogao4 You can purchase the The Diary Of A CEO Conversation Cards: Second Edition, here: https://g2ul0.app.link/f31dsUttKKb Get email updates about Diary Of A CEO here: ⁠https://bit.ly/diary-of-a-ceo-yt You can follow Morgan, here: Twitter - https://bit.ly/3RzBBSc Website - https://bit.ly/42LM4PD Instagram - https://bit.ly/449vnQp You can pre-order Morgan’s books, The Art of Spending Money: Simple Choices for a Richer Life, here: https://amzn.to/3GmHRu4 (US) / https://amzn.to/3EEy5mE (UK) You can find out more about the books mentioned, here: ‘The Intelligent Investor’, Benjamin Graham: https://amzn.to/4iwqHHW Follow Steven: https://g2ul0.app.link/gnGqL4IsKKb Sponsors: Perfect Ted - https://www.perfectted.com with code STEVEN40 for 40% off [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxu37dqVR90)

Source quotes

[20:25] 蒂姆·库克（Tim Cook）: 大众的普遍观念是跨国企业来中国是因为劳动力成本低。我不知道他们去的是中国的哪个地方，但事实是，很多年前中国就已经不再是低劳动力成本国家了……我们选择中国的原因是这里的技术工人技能、同一区域内高技能人才的密度以及技能的专精类型。 [24:57] 摩根·豪泽尔（Morgan Housel）: 信任是最难以捉摸的东西，因为在彻底失去它之前，你永远不知道它有多昂贵；而一旦失去，你才会意识到它曾是所有一切的基石。 [46:45] 彼得·蒂尔（Peter Thiel）: 当事情变糟时，你会低估它能糟糕到什么地步；而当事情走在正确方向上时，你往往会低估它能变得多么庞大。 [57:45] 摩根·豪泽尔（Morgan Housel）: 理解一美元价值的唯一方法，就是亲自体验它的稀缺力量。 [60:35] 丹尼尔·卡尼曼（Daniel Kahneman）: When all of your options are bad, you become very risk-taking because you have nothing to lose [65:54] 摩根·豪泽尔（Morgan Housel）: 如果你看不出这门技术中有令人振奋的创新，那说明你没有看清时代；但如果你看不出其中 99% 的东西纯粹是个笑话，那同样说明你盲目无知。 [70:00] 拉里·埃里森（Larry Ellison）: 世上比盖茨聪明的人多得是，但没人有他那种耐力。他每次都会在工作强度上击败你，只要能赢，他会永远熬下去。他的核心天赋不是智商，而是耐力。 [73:07] 摩根·豪泽尔（Morgan Housel）: 如果你能在超长的周期内保持平庸，你最终将成为传奇。 [80:06] 摩根·豪泽尔（Morgan Housel）: 储蓄就是延后消费。我把储蓄视作独立。今天我每存下一美元，今天我就多了一美元的独立性。我并不是单纯为了未来把钱花掉而存钱，我当下立刻就能感受到这种独立带来的好处。 [84:03] 摩根·豪泽尔（Morgan Housel）的姐夫: 只要信息足够，所有的行为都是合情合理的 [90:50] 戴维·卡西迪（David Cassidy）: 浪费了太多时间 [97:45] 摩根·豪泽尔（Morgan Housel）: 增加储蓄最强大的方式之一，不是提高你的收入，而是提高你的谦逊。 [104:12] 摩根·豪泽尔（Morgan Housel）: 在我的先锋指数基金里，可没有我女儿迈出人生第一步的记忆。 [125:48] 阿瑟·叔本华（Arthur Schopenhauer）: 如果你只想幸福，这很容易实现；但人们想要的是比别人更幸福，这要困难得多。 [128:56] 乔恩·斯图尔特（Jon Stewart）: 之所以你觉得童年时的世界更美好，仅仅是因为那时候你还是个孩子。

Source quotes

[60:35] Morgan Housel: When all of your options are bad, you become very risk-taking because you have nothing to lose. [63:13] Morgan Housel: He was the best in the world at getting rich, and he had no ability whatsoever to stay rich. [65:54] Morgan Housel: If you don't think that some of it is inspiring, then you're not paying attention. But if you don't think that 99% of it is a joke, then you're not paying attention. [73:07] We are always 30 days from going out of business [80:25] Morgan Housel: Debt is a piece of your future that somebody else owns... When you go into debt, you're saying 3 years from now this company owns a part of my time. [81:46] Morgan Housel: You can have a wonderful life not knowing anything about chemistry or meteorology... You cannot have a good life if you don't care about money and health. [84:09] All behavior makes sense with enough information. [90:50] David Cassidy: So much wasted time. [90:50] I wish I'd lived a life more true to myself [90:50] I wish I hadn't worked so hard. [97:28] Morgan Housel: raise your humility [125:48] Morgan Housel: If you only want to be happy, that is very easy to achieve. But people want to be happier than other people and that is much more difficult. [129:01] Jon Stewart: The reason the world felt like a better place during your childhood is because you were a child.

Original transcript

[0:00] How important is this tariff situation? [0:02] It has a potential to be the biggest [0:03] economic story of our lives. People are [0:05] losing a lot of money on tariffs and [0:07] you're probably a matter of weeks away [0:08] from empty shelves. And there's a button [0:09] on the president's desk that says end it [0:11] right now. So, can you tell me what a [0:13] tariff is? I'll keep this very simple. [0:15] Morgan Housel is the money mindset guru [0:17] who's shaking up everything you think [0:19] about wealth and how to achieve it. I [0:21] looked at the most Googled questions [0:22] around money and one of the most popular [0:24] is how to achieve freedom financially. [0:26] It is largely a mindset. You have an [0:28] obligation to understand how money works [0:30] and how to manage it. And it's one of [0:32] many topics in which you're going to [0:33] learn the best by experiencing the [0:35] downside. [0:35] We'll come back to that. [0:37] question is how to save money. So, most [0:39] people view saving money as it's just [0:41] wasted sitting there. But you need the [0:42] cushion so that when the economy goes [0:44] south and there is a recession, I want [0:45] to have a level of control over my [0:47] ability to support my family. [0:49] So, how much money do you think it's [0:50] sensible to have to save? [0:51] This is a bad answer that no one's going [0:53] to like, but [0:54] When you look at all these people [0:55] through history that have generated [0:56] great wealth, are there like certain [0:58] strategies they've deployed? [0:59] One thing that virtually everyone [1:00] listening this could learn from is they [1:02] were way more patient and had way more [1:04] endurance than anyone else. Also, I [1:05] wanted to understand investing and this [1:07] idea of compounding interest. [1:09] So, compound interest is the most [1:10] misunderstood thing about investing [1:11] because that's what builds wealth. If [1:13] you look at like Warren Buffett, he [1:14] wouldn't want to get haircuts because if [1:16] he invested that money and leave it [1:17] alone for 50 years, in his mind a [1:19] haircut would cost $10,000. And then, do [1:21] you recommend people try and buy houses [1:23] or is it just to rent those houses? [1:25] So, the truth is [1:28] This is always blown my mind a little [1:30] bit, 53% of you that listen to this show [1:32] regularly haven't yet subscribed to this [1:34] show. So, could I ask you for a favor [1:36] before we start? If you like the show [1:38] and you like what we do here and you [1:39] want to support us, the free simple way [1:40] that you can do just that is by hitting [1:42] the subscribe button. And my commitment [1:44] to you is if you do that, then I'll do [1:46] everything in my power, me and my team, [1:47] to make sure that this show is better [1:49] for you every single week. We'll listen [1:51] to your feedback, we'll find the guests [1:52] that you want me to speak to and we'll [1:54] continue to do what we do. Thank you so [1:56] much. [2:00] In 2020, my older brother Jason came to [2:03] me after spending more than a decade [2:05] working in the finance industry and he [2:08] said to me, "Steven, there is one book [2:11] you need to read to understand money." [2:14] And that was your book, The Psychology [2:16] of Money, and that's how I came into [2:18] your world and understood who you were, [2:21] what you think, and [2:23] really this book has shaped how I think [2:24] about money ever since. And this is why [2:26] I loved having you on the show last [2:28] time, but I was insistent to speak to [2:30] you again with everything that's going [2:32] on with the in the world right now. [2:35] Morgan, what is the most important thing [2:37] we should be talking about at this [2:38] present moment based on, I guess, the [2:41] subtitle of this book, Timeless Lessons [2:43] of Wealth, Greed, and Happiness? [2:46] Thank you, Steven. So, it's so so good [2:47] to be back. I think what's what I like [2:49] about what you just said, and thank you [2:50] for for that, is that you said the book [2:53] changed how you think. [2:55] And that's important because the book [2:56] does not tell you what to do. Nowhere in [2:58] the book do I say, "This is how you [2:59] should invest your money. This is how [3:01] you should spend your money." Because [3:02] you're different from me and everyone [3:04] else. We're all different. I've always [3:05] just been interested in how people [3:07] think. Like, what's going through your [3:08] head when you're making investing [3:09] decisions? And if you can understand [3:12] greed, fear, risk, envy, jealousy, those [3:16] topics, that is way more important than [3:19] anything they will teach you in a PhD [3:22] finance course at Harvard. Not that the [3:24] the technical stuff doesn't matter, but [3:27] the psychological stuff with money is [3:28] everything. I mean, so much so many [3:31] money problems in the real world have to [3:33] do with impatience, envy, [3:36] greed. That that's it. It's not that [3:38] people don't know the formulas, don't [3:39] know the data, don't know, you know, how [3:41] to calculate compound interest by hand. [3:43] None of that matters. It's envy. It's [3:45] It's impatience. And so, that as a [3:47] writer, that's what I was always [3:49] interested in. [3:50] Like, I'm tired of people giving advice [3:51] and saying these are the stocks you [3:53] should buy and here's what the economy's [3:54] going to do next quarter. I was like, no [3:56] one was any good at it. But I was always [3:58] just fascinated in what's going on in [4:00] people's heads. And you asked, "Why is [4:02] that important right now?" Well, I think [4:03] it's always important. Like, those [4:04] topics of, you know, the the subtitle is [4:07] timeless lessons because I think a lot [4:09] of these things were as true a thousand [4:11] years ago as they will be a thousand [4:13] years from now. Like, greed and envy and [4:15] impatience is just ingrained in how [4:17] people think. It always has been. And [4:20] so, you see what's going on right now [4:21] with [4:22] tariffs, and the economy, stock market's [4:25] gone up a lot, Bitcoin's gone up a lot. [4:27] So, these points have always been true, [4:30] but a lot of them are magnified right [4:31] now. A lot of people made a lot of money [4:32] on Bitcoin. A lot of people are losing a [4:34] lot of money on tariffs. So, greed, [4:36] fear, envy, it all kind of just collides [4:39] that it is right now. How important is [4:42] this tariff situation that we find [4:43] ourselves in? Because we're seeing it [4:44] all over the news everywhere, tariffs. [4:46] Trump's done this, 10% here, blanket [4:48] tariff here. [4:50] Does it matter? And maybe even more [4:51] specifically, does it matter to the [4:53] average person? It has a potential to be [4:56] the biggest economic story of our lives. [4:58] It doesn't have to be. One thing that's [5:00] very interesting about the tariff story [5:01] is that if you compare it to 9/11 or [5:04] COVID or 2008, the banking crisis, the [5:08] tariff [5:09] issue that we're going through right now [5:11] can be ended in 1 minute. There's a [5:13] button on the president's desk that says [5:15] end it right now. And even you know, if [5:17] that did happen, there would still be [5:18] some lingering damage in terms of trust [5:20] and reputation, but there was no button [5:22] on the president's desk for COVID that [5:25] said end this all right now. It didn't [5:27] exist. And 9/11 and Lehman Brothers in [5:29] 2008, once those risks hit, we just had [5:32] to deal with them through their finish. [5:34] This is different because it it can and [5:37] is changing by the day. So, when people [5:40] have a take on what's going on right [5:41] now, that might that take might be stale [5:43] an hour from now. But it's absolutely [5:44] true that the global economy, to an [5:46] extent that I think people don't [5:47] appreciate enough, is a very complicated [5:51] intricate machine. And most economic [5:53] problems come when people like try to [5:55] fiddle with that machine a little bit. [5:57] They're like, "Oh, let's turn this dial [5:58] by 1° and see what happens." And then [6:00] like, "Oh, it blows up. Oh, I shouldn't [6:01] have done that." Tariffs is like, "Let's [6:04] hit with a baseball bat a couple times. [6:06] Let's hit it with like a crowbar and see [6:07] what and see what happens." Like, the [6:09] global economy is so interconnected and [6:12] if you go to your local grocery store, [6:14] Target, or Walmart, whatever it might [6:15] be, [6:16] and and go around and look at where that [6:18] stuff was made. [6:19] It's I mean, and it's all over the [6:21] world. It's like very like it's it's [6:23] everywhere and once you shut that down [6:25] and put barriers on that, it can become [6:27] a a big problem very quickly. One thing [6:29] I've noticed in the last couple weeks [6:30] that I think is very interesting are the [6:32] number of educated and smart friends [6:35] that I have who send me a text or a call [6:37] or an email say, "Hey, [6:39] can you explain what a tariff is? I see [6:41] this word, but I don't really know what [6:43] it is. And I think that's important [6:45] because I don't think the average person [6:48] understands what can happen to the [6:50] economy if this persists for a long [6:52] period of time." [6:54] I'm so glad you said that because I've [6:56] been waiting for weeks now to ask [6:59] somebody like yourself who studied [7:01] economics [7:02] to explain in a simple way what a tariff [7:05] is and feel free to use an analogy. I I [7:08] think about 50% of people have no idea [7:11] what a tariff is. [7:11] Yeah. And then on a sort of an [7:13] incremental scale, um people's clarity [7:15] gets better and better to I I would [7:17] estimate about 5% of the general [7:19] population could articulate what a [7:21] tariff is, 5% or less. So, can you tell [7:23] me what a tariff is? [7:26] The first I would say is tariffs have [7:27] been used for hundreds of years and [7:28] there is there can be a very good useful [7:31] purpose for them in the economy. I think [7:33] as they're structured right now in the [7:34] United States, it's a huge mistake. It [7:36] has a potential to be a catastrophe. But [7:38] they can be a useful thing in the [7:40] economy. This is not a black and white [7:42] thing. What a tariff is is let's keep [7:44] this very simple. The United States buys [7:46] a bunch of computers that are made in [7:48] China, bunch of iPhones that are made in [7:50] China. They're on a container ship, they [7:52] ship them to the United States. When [7:53] they get to the port in the United [7:54] States, the importer, which is Apple, [7:57] bring the iPhones in that were made in [7:59] China. An American company. [8:01] has to pay the tariff Oh, that's okay. [8:03] on it. And a lot of people, and it's [8:05] it's very understandable why they would [8:06] think this, would say, "Well, no, in [8:08] that situation China pays the tariff." [8:10] And there could be a situation where [8:11] China starts discounting the iPhones, [8:13] the the the the company that's making [8:15] the iPhones would discount it. Like, [8:16] there can be some offset. But the person [8:18] who's paying that tax is the importer. [8:20] So, often we think about we've applied [8:23] the tariff to China. Right. [8:25] So, what's happening is China having to [8:27] spend the 10% or I think the tariff [8:30] is like 125, 100 [8:31] 145. It It The number doesn't matter [8:33] because trade will eventually will just [8:34] stop at those levels. It just won't [8:36] happen. So, if Apple import an iPhone [8:38] now with that tariff level, then Apple [8:40] would have to pay the 145% when it [8:42] arrives at the shore [8:43] Correct. [8:44] United States. And here's here's an [8:45] example that most people will [8:46] understand, sales tax. You know, in in [8:48] most states in the United States, it's [8:50] uh 6 to 10%. If you go to the store and [8:51] buy something, you would add the sales [8:53] tax to that. [8:53] VAT in the UK. [8:54] Ex- yeah, fair. But who pays that is not [8:57] the store, it's the customer. So, even [8:59] if the tax is put on the seller, the [9:01] seller passes it on to you, the [9:03] customer. And says right on your [9:04] receipt, you bought something for $10 [9:06] and then there is a there's your sales [9:07] tax and here's what you're going to pay [9:08] in the end. And so, it's similar from [9:10] that. Now, the the let me explain this, [9:12] why there would be a very useful case [9:14] for tariffs to show that this is not [9:16] black and white and this is not, "Oh, [9:17] all tariffs are bad." This this happened [9:20] in the United States during COVID. We [9:22] were virtually 100% reliant on masks and [9:24] N95 masks uh that were made in China and [9:27] Korea and not in the United States. And [9:29] so, when you have a medical crisis in [9:32] the early days of COVID and we're like, [9:33] "We need hundreds of millions of masks [9:35] yesterday." They're all made somewhere [9:37] else. We do not want to be in that [9:39] situation. So, it would absolutely make [9:41] sense to have a tariff on masks to make [9:43] sure that they are so expensive to [9:45] import overseas that we have to start [9:46] making them in the United States. That [9:47] makes sense. Same with military [9:49] equipment. You do not want to go to war [9:51] with a country and be reliant on that [9:53] country to make the your military gear, [9:55] your bullets and your bombs and your [9:56] tanks and whatnot. Absolutely makes [9:58] sense to have a tariff on that to make [9:59] sure they're made in the United States. [10:01] That said, so it's not black and white, [10:03] but to have a blanket tariff and say [10:05] everything that comes from any country, [10:08] anywhere in the world, and China's going [10:10] to be this to an extreme degree, is [10:13] going to have a tariff on it. And [10:14] whether that's between 10% for all [10:16] countries or 145% from China, that you [10:19] know, I I've used this analogy before [10:20] that if you talk to dietitians, [10:23] there is a huge amount of debate over [10:25] what's the best diet should you eat. [10:27] Should you be [10:28] uh keto, should you be vegan, like [10:30] everything in between. They don't [10:31] There's so much debate. [10:33] All of them agree that processed sugar [10:35] is bad. [10:36] Nobody Nobody thinks processed sugar is [10:38] good. And tariffs are that with [10:40] economists. Like there are so much [10:42] debate among economists on what should [10:44] the tax rate be, what should subsidies [10:46] be, should we you know, like what you [10:48] know, like a free market versus you [10:49] know, versus subsidies. There's so much [10:51] debate. [10:52] No serious economist thinks that you [10:54] should have a trade war. [10:56] And the thing is this is not new. We've [10:57] been doing this for hundreds of years. [11:00] And it's very well known that in the [11:01] 1930s, the Great Depression, we took put [11:03] huge tariffs on in the early days of the [11:06] Great Depression. Uh they didn't know it [11:08] was called the Great Depression back [11:09] then cuz we put them on and it shut down [11:10] global trade. [11:11] And it's easy to think that [11:14] if you put tariffs on your own country, [11:16] that will make it easier to manufacture. [11:19] Like all those jobs that we shipped [11:20] overseas of building cars, they're all [11:22] going to come rushing back to America. [11:24] And it it very rarely happens like that [11:27] when you have a trade war. But what I [11:28] mean by trade war is we put tariffs on [11:30] China, they respond to put tariffs on [11:32] us, and you just go tit for tat, and [11:34] it's and you go back and forth, and it's [11:36] like mutually sort mutually assured [11:38] destruction in economic terms. [11:41] So why is Trump doing it then in your [11:42] view? Because he's given lots of [11:43] reasons. He said that they're ripping us [11:45] off. He says lots of countries have been [11:47] ripping off the United States. How do [11:48] you unpack what he's saying there, and [11:50] what do you believe the true reason is [11:52] underneath there? [11:54] To his credit, Trump has been very [11:55] consistent on this for literally 40 [11:57] years. You can go Go on YouTube. He gave [11:59] an interview in I think it was 1986. He [12:01] went on Oprah in 1986 talking about how [12:04] free trade wasn't free, and that Japan [12:07] and other countries were ripping us off, [12:09] and that the the solution to it were [12:10] tariffs. So he This is not a new view. [12:12] This has been a lifelong quest that he's [12:13] had. [12:14] I would say not necessarily Trump's [12:16] views, but I would say it absolutely [12:18] makes sense that there is a large chunk [12:19] of America that looks back to the period [12:22] of 1950s, 1960s when we were a [12:25] manufacturing powerhouse and says [12:28] that was better than what we have now, [12:29] and we should go back to that. I get why [12:31] people would say that cuz it's true that [12:32] we have lost a lot of manufacturing jobs [12:35] in the last 50 years. I think [12:37] manufacturing jobs peaked in the late [12:38] 1970s, [12:40] and we've lost something like 10 million [12:41] manufacturing jobs that we had you know, [12:43] versus what we had back then. And I get [12:46] why if I was in that situation, I would [12:47] probably feel the same. [12:49] Where I'd push back [12:50] is [12:51] the situation that we had in the 1950s [12:54] and 1960s where it was just America [12:57] manufacturing powerhouse, were a very [13:00] unique period that I think is virtually [13:02] impossible to bring back. And I'll tell [13:03] you why. [13:04] At the end of World War II, 1945, [13:07] Europe and Japan were in rubble. They [13:09] were decimated from the war. [13:12] America was not decimated whatsoever. [13:14] And so we had basically a a global [13:17] manufacturing monopoly for a period of [13:19] time. China was not in the equation. [13:21] South Korea was not in the equation. [13:23] India, Bangladesh, those they were not [13:24] in the in the equation. It was basically [13:26] Japan, the United States, and Europe, [13:27] two of which were just struggling to [13:29] feed their citizens, and once they got [13:31] that under control, it was like we have [13:32] to rebuild the damage from the war. So [13:34] America had about 20 years from 1945 to [13:37] the mid-1960s of [13:39] we have a manufacturing monopoly. And [13:41] then we had 16 million US soldiers come [13:44] home from the war. And there was so much [13:46] pent-up demand for them to buy homes and [13:48] washing machines and cars and radios and [13:50] all these things, and all of them were [13:52] built in America because nobody else [13:53] could build them. [13:54] And that created a really special time [13:57] when like because we had a manufacturing [13:58] monopoly, it was just like factories [14:00] everywhere. We built up so many [14:01] factories during the war. There was [14:03] endless demand for those products. And [14:05] this is This is an important part, too. [14:07] White-collar workers during that period [14:09] didn't make that much money relative to [14:11] what they did before or since. And that [14:14] was important because the wages that the [14:15] blue-collar manufacturing workers were [14:17] earning felt great by comparison. So if [14:21] you were an auto worker in Detroit, and [14:24] you compared your wage in 1955 to the [14:27] local accountant or dentist or doctor, [14:30] by comparison relative to today, you're [14:32] like, "Oh, that's it's pretty good. [14:33] Yeah, the doctor makes more than me, but [14:34] not that much more than me, you know? I [14:36] drive a Chevy, he drives a Cadillac. His [14:38] is a little bit nicer, but we're living [14:39] mostly the same lives." And so I think [14:42] that was a lot of the feeling of [14:44] prosperity in the '50s and '60s was this [14:47] very unique period of [14:49] manufacturing monopoly as Europe and [14:51] Japan were rebuilding, and by comparison [14:53] to other workers, it felt amazing. [14:56] And then at about the 1970s, Japan and [14:58] Europe had gotten themselves back [15:00] together from the ravages of World War [15:02] II, and they became manufacturing [15:04] dynamos in their own right. And I don't [15:07] think we really understood this in [15:08] America until three companies came in, [15:11] which were Toyota, Honda, and Nissan. [15:13] And they started selling cars in [15:15] America. And at first, it was very easy [15:17] to be like, "Look at these little like [15:19] lawnmower toys that they're importing." [15:21] Cuz you you compared like a early Honda [15:23] Civic to like a Chevy Camaro in the [15:26] '70s, and it was like you can't even [15:27] compare them. So at first, the reaction [15:29] of American car companies were like, [15:31] "These guys are a joke. No one's going [15:33] to buy these little cars." But then gas [15:35] prices surged in the '70s and '80s, and [15:38] all of a sudden, the cars that Americans [15:39] wanted was the tiny little Honda Civic [15:42] that got really good gas mileage. And [15:44] then once they started buying them, they [15:45] were like, "Hey, this Toyota, this [15:47] Honda, this Nissan, it's actually a [15:48] pretty good car. It's actually pretty [15:50] well built." And I think there was a lot [15:52] of denial among that among [15:54] American manufacturers [15:56] that other these other nations that we [15:58] that didn't exist for 20 years in terms [15:59] of a global manufacturing source were [16:02] actually pretty damn good at it now. [16:04] And then one other thing happened to to [16:06] wrap to wrap this up, and this might be [16:08] the most important part of it. [16:10] The reason that you cannot reasonably [16:12] expect the manufacturing powerhouse to [16:15] come back as it was [16:17] is yes, we did ship jobs to [16:20] China and Mexico and Canada and India [16:23] that used to be in America, and that has [16:25] contributed to the massive decline in [16:27] manufacturing employment. But a bigger [16:30] factor in there is automation. [16:32] And if you look at a like I I I would [16:34] challenge people to do this. Go on [16:35] YouTube and look at a Tesla assembly [16:38] line in the United States. [16:39] I'll put it on the screen. It is What [16:41] you will see, it's amazing. It is a [16:43] miracle of engineering. What you will [16:45] see are armies and armies of robots and [16:48] very few people. [16:50] And if you compare that to the 1950s [16:52] assembly line, what you see are biceps [16:54] and backs and people hauling around [16:56] material. So because we got so good at [16:59] automation, [17:01] even if we bring manufacturing back to [17:02] America, and then we still do a a lot of [17:05] manufacturing in America, it doesn't [17:06] require the amount of employment that it [17:08] used to. It doesn't require the amount [17:10] of manpower. And the people who do work [17:12] on Tesla manufacturing lines by and [17:14] large are working on computers [17:16] overseeing the robots. [17:17] I mean, here's one stat that I thought [17:19] was always interesting to me. In 1950, [17:21] there was a US steel plant in Gary, [17:23] Indiana. [17:24] It produced 5 million tons of steel and [17:27] had 30,000 workers. Today, it's still [17:29] operating. It produces 8 million tons of [17:31] steel [17:32] and has 2,000 workers. [17:34] So it's producing more steel today than [17:37] it was in the 1950s, and it went from [17:38] 30,000 workers to 2,000. Because what [17:41] used to be done with biceps and backs [17:43] and shoulders is now done with machines [17:46] and robots. [17:47] And it's no different than what happened [17:48] in agriculture, where a farm 200 years [17:51] ago was [17:52] rakes and shovels, and today it's [17:54] tractors and combines. Like that same [17:56] thing happened to assembly. So to wrap [17:58] all that up, like I understand and I [18:00] empathize with people who say, "We need [18:02] to bring back manufacturing to America. [18:04] We lost what we once had." I get that [18:06] and I respect it. But I think the unique [18:08] circumstances and automation makes it [18:11] just extremely unlikely to ever happen. [18:13] How did China get in that? And [18:16] why are they the factory of the world? [18:18] What are the cool components that went [18:19] into them being able to produce all of [18:21] the things that we use on a daily basis [18:23] at a fraction of the price that they're [18:24] able to produce them here? Tim Cook of [18:26] Apple gave a really interesting [18:27] interview a couple weeks ago, and he [18:29] said, "You might think that we [18:31] manufacture iPhones in China because [18:33] it's it's cheap labor." [18:35] And he said, "That's not really true [18:36] anymore. It used to be, but China is not [18:38] the cheap cheap labor country anymore. [18:40] That's moved on to Bangladesh and [18:42] Cambodia and other places. The reason [18:44] they manufacture in China is expertise." [18:46] And I think it's okay to admit, and [18:49] people should admit, that your country, [18:50] and also your company and you [18:52] individually, [18:53] can be very good at some things and not [18:55] very good at others. China is just [18:57] extremely good and extremely talented at [19:00] particularly like low-end manufacturing. [19:02] Low-end can be anything from, you know, [19:04] inflatable swimming pools to on up to [19:06] like basic basic electronics. They're [19:09] They're extremely good at it. I was [19:10] talking to a CEO a couple weeks ago, and [19:12] he said, [19:13] uh and he's generalizing here, but he [19:14] said, "If you go to a a Chinese factory, [19:17] and you say, 'I want this part made, and [19:20] here's step one, step two, step three on [19:22] how to make it,' they will do it better [19:23] than anybody in the world. Nobody can [19:25] beat them at that. But [19:27] if you go to that same factory and you [19:28] say, 'Please go design me a new part,' [19:31] they're not very good at it. Americans [19:33] are way better at that. And that's why [19:34] the back of your iPhone says designed in [19:36] California, made in China. Like it's [19:38] just specialization of labor. And I [19:40] think America is the best in the world [19:42] at a couple things. [19:44] Entrepreneurship, [19:46] technology, [19:47] services, and like high-end [19:49] manufacturing like planes and rockets. [19:51] And we're not the best in the world at [19:53] low-end manufacturing. And that's okay, [19:55] that's not an insult, that's not a [19:56] put-down. There's specialization of [19:57] labor. [19:58] And and so I I think that I think China [20:00] just got very good at one thing during a [20:03] time when we've always been very very [20:05] good at at at different things. And I [20:07] think that is why global is like why [20:09] for a lot of people, not for everybody, [20:11] so if you disagree with this, I I get [20:13] it, but why the economic system works so [20:16] damn well over the last 30 years is cuz [20:17] we really got good at specialization of [20:19] labor. You design the iPhone, you make [20:22] the iPhone, we're both better off for [20:24] it. [20:24] I want to play that clip you're talking [20:26] about with Tim Cook because I remember [20:27] seeing it as well and it did it was a [20:29] bit of an aha moment for me. For anybody [20:31] that doesn't know, Tim Cook is the CEO [20:34] of Apple and he's been at the helm of [20:36] Apple for more than a decade and as you [20:37] know, most of Apple's products from what [20:39] I understand are made in China. There's [20:41] a confusion about China that uh and let [20:44] me at least give you my opinion. [20:48] The the popular conception [20:51] is that companies come to China because [20:53] of low labor cost. [20:56] I'm not sure [20:57] uh what part of China they go to, but [21:00] the truth is China stopped being the low [21:02] labor cost country many years ago [21:05] and that is not the reason to come to [21:08] China from a supply point of view. The [21:11] reason is because of the skill [21:14] and the the quantity of skill in one [21:18] location and the type of skill it is. [21:20] Like um [21:22] the products we do require really [21:24] advanced tooling. [21:27] And the the precision that you have to [21:29] have in tooling and working with the [21:31] materials that we do are state of the [21:33] art. And the tooling skill is very deep [21:37] here. [21:38] You know, in in the US you could have a [21:40] meeting of tooling engineers and I'm not [21:43] sure we could fill the room. [21:46] In China you could fill multiple [21:48] when I watched that, I think that I I [21:49] can understand why there'd be a natural [21:51] reaction for people to be like, "No, if [21:53] they can do it, we can do it, too." And [21:55] again, I I don't think it's an insult [21:56] when it to say like countries are like [21:59] we're really good at some things and [22:01] less good at others. How could that not [22:03] be true? [22:04] Are they on a different living wage? [22:06] From what I understand is that they have [22:08] to [22:08] I mean, so much of it is, you know, in [22:10] you know, if if you asked Americans to [22:13] work those for those wages, they they'd [22:15] absolutely refuse to do it just because [22:17] of the expectations we have and that's a [22:18] good thing. We should be proud of that [22:20] that we have a standard of living which [22:21] does not does not allow or or people [22:24] would not put up with earning [22:26] $5 a day or whatever it would be. Which [22:28] means that the products can be made [22:29] cheaper. Yes. Significantly cheaper. [22:31] Right, right. And you know, this is [22:33] where I I understand why people might [22:35] raise an eyebrow at this, but so much of [22:37] why [22:38] of what the modern system how it's [22:40] supposed to work is when you have that [22:42] specialization, products become cheaper. [22:44] And then the iPhone costs $1,000 when in [22:46] any other world it would cost $4,000 if [22:49] we're building it in the United States [22:51] at you know, paying wages that people [22:52] would put up with in the United States. [22:54] So, what's the impact on the average [22:55] person listening to this now? [22:57] And [22:58] if this trade war continues, if these [23:00] tariffs continue, [23:02] what is the impact they're going to see [23:03] in their life? It's so unpredictable cuz [23:05] as I said earlier, it can literally [23:06] change an hour from now. So, anyone [23:08] giving firm predictions of oh, here's [23:10] what's going to happen next, that that's [23:11] not how any of this works, but you can [23:12] you can say though that if the tariffs [23:15] last, one of two things will happen or [23:17] both of these two things will happen. [23:18] Things that we import will get much more [23:20] expensive or what's more and more likely [23:22] in places like China if it's 145% is [23:24] well as the the trade just stops. And [23:26] then you're probably a matter of weeks [23:28] away from empty shelves at at certain [23:30] for for certain products in certain [23:31] cases. I mean, if you're buying, you [23:34] know, a pair of slippers from China for [23:35] $1 and now all of a sudden they're [23:37] $2.45. If you're if you're an importer, [23:39] for a lot of the situations they'll say [23:41] like we're just it's just not going to [23:42] work. Or if the iPhone that used to cost [23:44] $1,000 is now going to cost $2,500, [23:46] Apple might just say there's not really [23:48] a market for that. We can't really sell [23:49] those. Let's just pause and wait for [23:51] things to happen. We're already seeing [23:52] that. Um I'm sure this news will change [23:54] by the time this airs. This is moving so [23:56] quickly, but our shipping container [23:58] imports from China have plunged in [23:59] recent weeks, which is exactly what you [24:01] would expect when you put that high of a [24:02] tax on it. I mean, if you were buying a [24:03] house for a million dollars and all of a [24:05] sudden they put on a 145% tax on that, [24:07] you're probably not going to buy the [24:08] house. And that's what's happening now. [24:09] You'd be dumb not to wait. [24:11] Right. [24:12] I was sat here yesterday with the CEO [24:13] and she said to me that she gets [24:17] the majority of her products, pretty [24:18] much all of them from China and when [24:20] she's looking at the tariff situation, [24:22] she's figured out that if she buys those [24:24] products and sells them at her current [24:25] price, she's losing money on every unit. [24:27] So, she's like, "I'll lose $9 on [24:29] importing a for example like a dress. [24:32] It's like I So, I have no incentive now [24:35] to continue to sell that dress and if I [24:37] the money choice is to [24:38] raise the price by like 150% to my [24:41] customer." [24:41] Right. [24:42] The two likely outcomes if it persists [24:44] are much higher prices and empty [24:46] shelves. And then and then I don't think [24:48] anyone knows when or to the extent that [24:50] could happen and the button on the desk [24:52] that says end this all could be pressed [24:53] before that happens. But if it persists, [24:55] that's what's likely to occur. What [24:57] about the impact it has on trust in the [24:59] United States? Because [25:01] Yeah, it's huge. I mean, it's Can you [25:03] explain that to me? [25:04] Trust is hard because you don't know how [25:06] valuable it is until you lose it. But [25:08] once you lose it, you're like, "Oh, that [25:10] was everything." [25:11] And you know, foreign investors, people [25:14] who don't live in the United States, [25:16] have $30 trillion invested in America. [25:18] That's just in stocks and bonds. That's [25:20] not housing or office buildings, just in [25:22] stocks and bonds, $30 trillion that [25:24] they've invested. And a lot of the [25:25] reason they do that, well, there there's [25:27] many reasons. One of which is because [25:29] it's by and large seen as a trustworthy [25:32] economy, a stable economy, an economy of [25:34] rules and predictable laws and trust [25:37] that you could not say the same about [25:38] Russia. [25:39] And so when when global investors are [25:42] looking where to park their money, it is [25:43] this has been the case for the last 80 [25:44] years, America's usually at the top of [25:46] that list. There's also a thing where a [25:48] lot of the reason that they invest money [25:50] in the United States is because they [25:51] have to because they have a trade [25:52] deficit with us. [25:53] So, if [25:55] China is selling us a lot more stuff [25:57] than they're buying from us. Like we're [26:00] we're importing a lot more from China [26:01] than we're exporting back to them. [26:03] They're going to end up with a lot of US [26:04] dollars. [26:05] And what they need to do something with [26:06] those dollars. They have they have to [26:08] invest them somewhere and historically [26:10] that's been in treasury bonds, which [26:12] lowered our interest rates and that was [26:13] good for everybody. And what's a [26:14] treasury bond? It's debt that the [26:16] government issues from the federal [26:18] government. So, it's a bond you're [26:19] you're loaning money to the government [26:20] and they're promising to repay you plus [26:22] interest. Okay. So, less people are [26:24] going to do that if they have less trust [26:25] in the United States. Less trust and [26:27] also less need to do it because they [26:29] don't have as many dollars that they [26:30] need to invest. [26:32] Are we heading for a recession? Because [26:33] I I saw some stats earlier on that said [26:36] the probability of a recession has [26:39] surged by 45%, which is the highest [26:41] since December 2023 because of the [26:44] tariffs. That was from Reuters. It's [26:46] interesting when people point like the [26:48] odds of recession at 45% because they [26:50] can't be wrong. Like if if there isn't a [26:52] recession, they'd be like, "Yeah, we [26:53] said it was 45%. We didn't say it was [26:54] going to happen." So, I my answer if you [26:57] said are we heading for a recession [26:58] would always be yes. If you asked me a [27:00] year ago, if you asked me 5 years ago, [27:02] like historically there's a recession. [27:04] In modern times it's been every every [27:06] four to five years that that it's [27:07] occurred. And so, we shouldn't pretend [27:09] that when they happen that they're this [27:11] crazy out of the blue thing. It's an [27:13] inevitable feature that you're always [27:15] going to have recessions. But is this [27:17] going to cause it? What is a recession? [27:19] A recession technically is when GDP in [27:22] the economy GDP is just like economic [27:23] output. How much the economy is is [27:25] moving. When that declines for two [27:28] quarters in a row, that's the technical [27:29] definition. For most people, you don't [27:31] need to worry about technical [27:32] definitions because a recession in your [27:35] mind is when you are feeling worse off [27:37] economically for a long period of time. [27:39] When you feel like you can't get a job [27:41] or your neighbors, your roommates can't [27:43] get jobs and and it's and it's it's [27:45] starting to hurt on you. It's you know, [27:47] it's kind of like what's the definition [27:48] of being sick? Well, it's when you don't [27:49] feel good, but there's you you you can [27:50] get more technical than that. But a [27:52] recession for most people is when you [27:53] don't feel good economically. [27:56] You're not concerned about a recession? [27:59] I it's not that I'm not concerned, but [28:01] it would be like saying if you live in [28:03] Florida, are you concerned about [28:05] hurricanes? The answer is yes, you [28:07] should be concerned about hurricanes, [28:08] but you also know with 100% certainty [28:10] that they're going to come. If you [28:11] choose to live in Florida and you live [28:12] in Florida for 40 years, you know you're [28:14] going to get hit by one, 100% chance. [28:16] And so, it's not that I don't worry [28:18] about it, it's that I think it is [28:19] inevitable. [28:20] Always, no matter what's going on. This [28:22] has nothing to do with tariffs with uh [28:23] tariffs, that's always been the case. [28:25] And so, this is where [28:28] at the individual level, personally, [28:30] like room for error in your finances is [28:33] so critical. What I mean by that is just [28:35] like savings, cushion, being scared of [28:37] debt. It's when everyone is when you're [28:40] well when you're gainfully employed and [28:42] you have a good paycheck and the stock [28:44] market's going up and Bitcoin's going [28:45] up, everyone feels great. You feel [28:47] amazing. And nobody It's very rare in [28:50] that situation that you want to envision [28:52] yourself losing your job [28:54] or losing a job and not being able to [28:55] find another one for 6 months or needing [28:57] to move or getting divorced or having a [28:59] medical illness. No one wants to [29:00] envision that. [29:01] But the truth is like what are the odds [29:03] that [29:04] one of at least one of these will happen [29:07] to you and I over the next 30 years? [29:09] Major job loss or just major impact in [29:12] in our businesses, divorce, [29:14] cancer, wayward children. I can go on [29:17] down the list. What are the odds that at [29:18] least one of those will occur to you and [29:20] I in 30 years? 100%. Yeah. And for a lot [29:22] of people they'll experience all of [29:24] those. [29:25] And so, the idea that life is fragile, [29:27] the economy is fragile, countries are [29:29] fragile [29:30] is like people don't necessarily want to [29:31] admit that because it's hard to get out [29:33] of bed in the morning if you admitted [29:35] that to yourself. [29:36] But I I think it's inevitable and it [29:38] doesn't have to be necessarily scary if [29:41] you have the right like psychology [29:43] around it of just yeah, like when times [29:45] are good, I don't expect them to last [29:47] forever. That's not how the world works. [29:49] And the right finances around it of like [29:52] yeah, when times are good, I'm going to [29:53] save because I know this might not last [29:54] forever. And what I value more than [29:56] anything with money is independence. [30:00] It's not flashy cars or homes. I want to [30:02] be independent. So that when the economy [30:05] goes south and there is a recession and [30:07] things are going bad, I want to have a [30:08] level of control over where I work, [30:12] where I live, what I'm able to do, my [30:14] ability to support my family. That's [30:16] more than that's that's the top of the [30:18] list. And so when things are going well [30:21] and for a lot of people they haven't for [30:23] the last couple years, but for a lot of [30:24] people they did. I think that's always [30:26] important is like I think I think it's a [30:27] major psychological skill in life in [30:29] general. This goes beyond money is [30:31] recognizing when things are abnormally [30:33] good and preparing yourself for them to [30:35] go the other way as they as they [30:36] inevitably will. Independence you value. [30:39] It sounded like freedom to me. Yeah. [30:42] Can you tell me [30:44] how to achieve freedom financially? [30:48] And what I should be thinking about in [30:50] the context of a world that's changing [30:51] at such incredible speed when we're [30:53] talking about tariffs and recessions and [30:56] now AI. I've been thinking over the last [30:58] couple of weeks like what should my [31:00] personal financial strategy be? How [31:02] should I be thinking about it? Is it a [31:03] strategy? Is it a psychology? Is it a [31:05] mindset? What is it that I should be [31:06] thinking about to survive this area of [31:09] tremendous change and Trump economics [31:13] and get through the other end with that [31:14] freedom and independence that you and I [31:16] both desperately value. This sounds like [31:18] such a a squishy BS kind of answer, but [31:21] I think there's a lot of there's a lot [31:23] of truth to this. I'll explain in a [31:24] second. It is largely a mindset. [31:27] And that that sounds crazy, but I'll [31:28] explain what I mean. My [31:29] grandmother-in-law, she passed away a [31:31] couple years ago. She was 92 when she [31:33] passed away. She for 30 years, she lived [31:36] off of nothing but social security. I [31:38] think she got $1,700 a month from social [31:40] security and she had nothing else. No [31:42] savings, no pension, no nothing. She was [31:44] the happiest person you'll meet. I've [31:47] met half a half a dozen billionaires in [31:49] my life. I'm sure you have as well. None [31:51] of them were as happy as she was. And [31:53] she was technically like she was like [31:54] financially broke, but she had this [31:56] level of psychological wealth that was [31:58] like unparalleled. And the reason was [32:00] off $1,700 a month, that was all she [32:02] needed. She was perfectly happy [32:05] toiling in her garden, watching birds, [32:07] going for walks, hanging out, reading [32:09] from books in the library. Perfectly [32:11] content with all of that. She didn't [32:13] need anything else. So she had very [32:14] little money, but she wanted even less. [32:17] And that so like she had a level of [32:19] independence that a lot of billionaires [32:21] do not. Because if you are a [32:23] billionaire, if you have a billion [32:24] dollars in the bank, but you are so [32:27] encumbered by your business, your [32:29] employees, your suppliers, your [32:31] customers, you're waking up at 3:00 in [32:33] the morning sweating cuz you got this [32:34] email and you're stressed out about it, [32:36] you actually have very little [32:37] independence in that situation. Your [32:39] shareholders, regulators are coming down [32:41] on you. I mean we see this I'm not [32:43] there's no one in in particular here, [32:44] but we've seen very wealthy people kind [32:47] of become sycophants to politicians. And [32:50] and the truth is a lot of those like [32:52] mega billionaires [32:54] absolutely rely [32:56] on politicians and regulators to keep [32:58] their machine moving. And so my [33:01] grandmother-in-law on $1,700 a month had [33:04] a higher level of independence than a [33:05] lot of those people do. [33:07] And I that's why I think I say like a [33:08] lot of this is a mindset because the [33:10] truth is the vast majority of people [33:12] listening to this could have a level of [33:14] independence. It's not it's not that you [33:16] can retire tomorrow, but you can have a [33:17] level of financial independence once you [33:20] realize that the key is managing your [33:23] expectations more than it is how can I [33:25] just pile up as much money as I as I [33:27] possibly can. It's easy to think like [33:29] how do you become financially [33:30] independent? Like save a ton of money. [33:32] And there like there's truth to that of [33:34] like of like of course that's part of [33:35] it. But more of it is just in like what [33:38] kind of life do you want to live? [33:40] Because if your [33:41] expectations are growing faster than [33:43] your net worth, it's never going to feel [33:45] like you you'll never be independent. [33:47] Never. You have a hundred billion [33:48] dollars, but if you want more and more [33:51] and more like it's it's never going to [33:52] feel like it's enough. Or if if you [33:54] enjoy bird watching and reading books [33:56] like my grandmother-in-law, 1,700 bucks [33:58] a month, you're all set. You're set for [34:00] 30 years. You're rich. You're rich. [34:01] I'm free. She was psychologically rich [34:04] even if she was financially poor. And I [34:05] think that's that's the biggest thing [34:07] about it. Adam Smith, who was the [34:09] greatest economist to ever live, this [34:10] was 300 years ago, he once wrote about [34:13] this. He was like, why do people work so [34:15] hard? [34:16] And he he was just like this is a simple [34:17] question, but why why do people work so [34:18] damn hard? And he's like it can't just [34:20] be for [34:22] for our sustenance because even poor [34:24] people, I mean as he was writing about [34:26] it, had homes and adequate food most of [34:29] the time. He's like there has to be [34:30] something else. And what that something [34:32] else was, he wrote, was [34:35] to be seen by other people. [34:37] And it was it was like it was attention [34:39] and admiration. They wanted to be [34:40] getting rich so that they could have a [34:41] bigger house and a and a nice car, I [34:43] mean not in his day, but they they [34:44] wanted to be they wanted attention from [34:46] other people. But he was like it's not [34:48] that you needed the money because even [34:50] in his day 300 years ago in in Scotland, [34:52] I think he was, he was like look, people [34:54] have homes and food. Like what what what [34:56] what are they doing this for? And he was [34:58] not criticizing them. Like his whole [34:59] point was like they're going out and [35:01] innovating. They're going to have great [35:02] technology and like it's great to go do [35:03] that. But the reason to do it was not [35:05] because they had to stop. Now of course [35:08] most people to get shelter and food do [35:09] have to keep working, but they're [35:11] working more than they absolutely need [35:13] to because they want something else [35:16] besides independence. [35:17] Is there an evolutionary basis for this? [35:19] I was I was thinking the other day after [35:21] watching an interview with Naval where [35:23] Naval talks about how [35:26] from an evolutionary perspective, humans [35:29] don't really understand the concept of [35:31] wealth because once upon a time when we [35:34] were cavemen and women, wealth was what [35:36] you could carry. But we do understand [35:38] the concept of status, which really [35:40] meant a lot to us in our sort of tribes [35:42] and was life or death for many of us. So [35:44] even though the billionaires get all the [35:46] money in the world, the next thing they [35:47] want to do is start a podcast. You know [35:50] what I mean? Right. Right. Because [35:51] that's just not enough. Like everyone I [35:53] know is trying [35:54] what a lot of them do too is when they [35:55] have all the money in the world, what [35:56] they want is immortality. And you see [35:57] these guys trying to live forever kind [35:59] of thing. So that happens as well. [36:00] That's interesting. But that's linked to [36:02] status cuz status was longevity. Yes. [36:05] Like if you had status, you had food, [36:06] you had the reproductive potential once [36:08] upon a time. Yeah. So it's the same [36:11] evolutionary sort of desire to like live [36:13] survival. Yeah. Harvey Firestone, who [36:16] was a tire magnate a hundred years ago, [36:19] Firestone tires during the explosion of [36:21] cars a hundred years ago, he wrote about [36:23] this in his biography. He was like every [36:25] rich person he knows once they get money [36:27] buys a house that is way too big than [36:30] they need. Not not not not only bigger [36:31] than they need, bigger than they want [36:33] because a giant house is just a huge [36:34] pain in the ass. The roof is leaking and [36:36] like everything's breaking down. It's a [36:37] huge pain to manage. So he wrote his [36:40] biography. He was like, why do we do [36:41] this? And he was like I he was he he did [36:43] it too. He's like I bought a house that [36:44] is way bigger than I want and it's a [36:47] pain. It's a burden. But we all do it. [36:50] And he's like, why? He's like it has to [36:51] be status. There's no utility to a 40 [36:54] bedroom house. Zero. There's a lot of [36:56] downside and upkeep. But he's like every [36:59] one of us does it. And he see he said [37:00] even Henry Ford, who was like the [37:01] cheapest SOB out there, lived in a giant [37:05] mansion in Detroit. He's like it's so [37:06] natural. And he was like it's just [37:08] because we we we want to show other [37:10] people. It's not utility. It's not [37:11] making our lives better. It's actually [37:13] making our life worse. But we we have [37:15] this evolutionary desire to show people [37:18] that we made it. That's that's the [37:19] calling card. [37:20] But if it's hardwired, then is there [37:22] much we can do about it? [37:23] I think it's true that virtually [37:26] everyone who I really admire in life, [37:29] they're by and large they're not hugely [37:30] successful people that you've heard of. [37:32] They're just people who I've met and [37:33] they're ordinary people with ordinary [37:35] jobs and I'm like man, you seem like [37:36] you've got it all figured out. They took [37:38] themselves out of the system that they [37:40] were supposed to be in. And they're like [37:42] I'm going to go figure out my own way. [37:44] And there's a really interesting story. [37:46] A guy named Chuck Feeney. He started a [37:47] company called DFS, the duty-free stores [37:51] in airports. He made I think at the peak [37:53] of his wealth he was worth about nine [37:54] billion dollars. And this was like in [37:56] the 90s when that was a that was a lot [37:58] of money. Still is a lot of money. But [38:00] he the the well-known part of Chuck [38:02] Feeney is that despite that wealth, he [38:04] lived like an ordinary person. He lived [38:06] in a like a one bedroom apartment. He [38:08] flew coach. He drove like a a small like [38:10] a normal car. Lived like a normal guy. [38:13] And some people criticized that from [38:15] that. He he gave all of his money to [38:16] charity. He gave nine billion away. [38:18] Lived like a monk himself. The less [38:21] known part of Chuck Feeney that I think [38:22] is is very is is more important is that [38:25] when he first got wealth, became wealthy [38:28] in 1980s, he lived the life of a [38:29] billionaire. He had a fleet of private [38:31] jets. He had mansions all over the [38:33] world. He had a yacht. And after doing [38:35] it for a couple years, he was like, I [38:36] don't like any of this. He's like I I I [38:39] like being an ordinary simple person. [38:41] And so I'm going to go live an ordinary [38:42] life. I don't care what the world the [38:44] world tells me this is what I should [38:45] want now that I have money. But he's [38:47] like, but I don't. I want simplicity. [38:49] And what I like about that is not that [38:51] he chose to live like a monk because I I [38:53] personally wouldn't want to do that. If [38:55] I had that I I I would have a jet if I [38:57] had that kind of money. So it's not to [38:58] say that he did it right, but what I [39:00] like that he did is that he said, I [39:01] don't care what the world tells me to [39:03] like. [39:04] I'm I'm I'm I'm going to do it on my own [39:06] terms. And that like that's true [39:08] independence. That's true status [39:10] that's true status, too. He's like, I [39:11] don't care. That's the ultimate [39:12] definition of FU money. Of like so much [39:15] money that like I don't care. You you [39:17] tell me I'm supposed to live in a [39:18] mansion in Beverly Hills, but I like my [39:20] one bedroom apartment in San Francisco. [39:21] I like my buddies over here. Another [39:23] person who's done that to a very real [39:24] extent is Warren Buffett. Lives in the [39:26] same house today that he bought when he [39:27] was 27 or whatever it was. And he's got [39:29] a hundred billion or something. Right. [39:31] And of course he could live anywhere. He [39:32] could buy anything. But he likes being [39:34] with his friends, doing it on you know, [39:36] likes playing bridge with his buddies. [39:39] In the first case though, that gentleman [39:41] had to have his dream fail him first [39:44] before he realized. And so this raises [39:46] another question, which is am I [39:48] Does the viewer at home have to make the [39:50] $100 million [39:52] and then taste it, buy the mansion to [39:54] realize that it was never about the [39:55] mansion? [39:55] I think the answer to that is yes. Oh [39:58] god. That is very difficult. You know, [40:00] there's there's a thing where I I forget [40:01] who said this, but like they're [40:02] responding to the quote "Money doesn't [40:04] buy happiness." and they're like [40:06] "Okay, but let me go figure that out for [40:07] myself first." Like if you don't have a [40:10] lot of money and you see rich people [40:12] tripping over themselves and people like [40:14] Will Smith saying like I have I was no [40:16] happier at all when I was rich than when [40:18] I was poor. Actually, I was happier when [40:19] I was poor. [40:21] If if you are poor when you hear that, [40:22] you're like "Bullshit. I don't believe [40:25] it. I have to go figure it out for [40:26] myself." I think a lot of lessons in [40:27] life you have to learn firsthand. [40:29] Especially when the all the problems [40:31] staring you in your face are somewhat [40:32] associated to money. Like the pain in [40:34] your belly, the bills on your desk, the [40:36] threats from the court, I'm thinking of [40:38] myself here that I was getting the the [40:40] letters coming through with the red text [40:42] on them telling me that my credit cards [40:43] were ex [40:44] going to be shut down. [40:46] The inability to feed yourself, to [40:48] socialize with your friends, the heating [40:50] in your house, the [40:51] your child's pencil case costs, all of [40:54] it seems to circle back to money. [40:56] And so when you hear [40:59] people who are wealthy [41:02] being subjectively honest about their [41:04] own experience and then what's made them [41:05] happy, it is hard to hear. Yeah. Like I [41:08] I was just imagining how was hearing [41:09] this [41:10] you know, these stories when I was in [41:11] that situation. [41:13] I would still [ __ ] go for it anyway. [41:14] Right. [41:16] Now, let's say that there's a there's a [41:17] big difference between not being able to [41:19] buy food for your kids Yeah. and making [41:21] 200 grand per year. Yeah. And you know, [41:23] the the the the the difference between [41:25] 10 grand a year and 200 grand a year is [41:27] massive. Takes away so many stresses, so [41:30] many, you know, worries about being [41:32] evicted and whatnot. But the difference [41:33] between 200 grand and 500 grand is not [41:35] that much. And the difference between [41:36] 500 grand and 20 million is not that [41:40] much. And the difference between 20 [41:41] million and 20 billion is zero. [41:44] I think that's that's a lot of what it [41:45] comes down to. And even I think there is [41:47] such thing as like [41:48] a peak net worth that you would want in [41:51] life, after which [41:53] all the money that you accrue becomes [41:54] like a social liability. [41:56] I mean, who has more social liability or [41:58] like pressure than the mega-rich? You [42:01] know, Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, [42:03] there's a huge amount of pressure. Like [42:05] you better donate this money and you [42:06] better do a good job doing it. [42:08] Kind of thing. And so And I think that [42:10] number of like And at a much lower, like [42:13] realistic level for people, it's when [42:15] your friends learn you make a lot of [42:16] money and we go out for dinner and [42:18] they're like, "You're You're paying, [42:19] right?" And that's that's a small thing, [42:21] but it can really grate on people that [42:23] like, "Oh, it's it's going to change how [42:24] people think about me." [42:26] Now, that that's a good problem to have, [42:28] of course, but it's a thing. And I think [42:29] the idea of there is a maximum amount of [42:32] like there is a net worth level at which [42:35] your happiness is going to be maximized. [42:37] And it's probably lower than you think. [42:38] Do you think it's important for people [42:39] to have an idea what their number is? I [42:42] don't think anyone really does because [42:43] I've done this in my own life, I'm sure [42:44] you have too. When I was 19, I was like, [42:46] "Oh, if my net worth was this amount [42:50] I'll I'll I'll be happy forever." And [42:51] then I was fortunate enough to get hit [42:53] that amount and I'm like, "Okay, but [42:54] what if what if we got over here?" And [42:56] you just keep going up the ladder [42:57] forever. Is there such thing as FU [42:59] money? Like is there a number where you [43:01] think you've hit FU money? I was saw [43:03] some thread on Twitter and I was like, [43:04] "Comment below what you think FU money [43:06] is." [43:07] And it was interesting to see the [43:08] variation. I have a friend, Ben Carlson, [43:10] he's a great financial writer. He came [43:12] up, this is very subjective, there's no [43:13] science behind this, but he was like, "A [43:15] net worth of 7 to 10 million dollars [43:17] is you can live an amazing life in the [43:19] United States, have an amazing house [43:20] paid for, send your kids to great [43:22] schools, go on great vacations, drive [43:24] brand new cars on 7 to 10 million [43:26] dollars." Um and and and he brought that [43:28] up, some people might might wince at [43:30] this, but he brought that up of it's a [43:31] lot less than people would think because [43:32] there'd be a lot of people who would be [43:34] like, "Oh, I'm gunning for 100 million." [43:35] Even if that's just a fantasy, it's a [43:37] dream. And 7 to 9 million dollars is out [43:39] of reach for [43:40] a lot of people, no matter how hard [43:41] they're working. But I think [43:43] particularly for young people who their [43:45] definition of I think about my son a lot [43:47] this. He watches Mr. Beast, Mr. Beast is [43:49] an amazing guy, he's I think he's one of [43:50] the great guys, but because of Mr. [43:52] Beast, like my son's definition of [43:54] wealth is a private island, a private [43:56] jet, you know, keep your hand on the [43:58] table and win a million dollars kind of [43:59] thing. It's a it's a different level. [44:01] Whereas when I was growing up like [44:03] ordinary people drove dirty pickup [44:06] trucks and rich people drove clean [44:07] pickup trucks. That was like that was [44:09] the stratification of what I saw growing [44:10] up. And I think because of social media [44:12] and other things, kids have a very [44:14] different view on what of like financial [44:16] wealth actually is these days. Going [44:18] back to this issue of tariffs, recession [44:20] and everything that's going on at the [44:21] moment, are there any things practically [44:24] for those that don't understand the [44:25] economy and economics generally that we [44:27] should be thinking about to make sure [44:29] that we don't get burnt? This is less [44:31] advice going forward more than just like [44:33] something to remember next time, which [44:35] is that if you are worrying about if [44:37] you're worried about being laid off, if [44:38] you're a small business owner worried [44:40] about going under [44:42] the need for room for error and cushion [44:44] and savings and backup plans are were [44:47] were just as important a month ago as [44:48] they are today. You're just learning how [44:50] important they are today. And I [44:52] challenge you to remember that in the [44:53] future when this is all over, whenever [44:55] it's all over, that when the economy's [44:57] going well and you feel stable in your [44:59] job, stable in your career, that is when [45:01] you also you absolutely need backup [45:04] plans and room for error and savings and [45:07] eschewing debt and whatnot. I have a [45:08] very high level of cash as a percentage [45:11] of my net worth and a lot of financial [45:13] advisers would look at that and say [45:14] like, "What are you saving for? Like [45:16] what's what's going on here?" And I'm [45:17] like, "I I don't know. I'm saving for a [45:19] world that I know is very fragile and I [45:21] have no idea what's going to happen to [45:22] me personally or what's going to happen [45:24] to the economy. But if you're a a lay [45:26] student of history, you know that things [45:28] break all the time. [45:30] And And so my my advice to you if you're [45:32] realizing that for the first time that [45:34] how fragile the world can be and how the [45:37] job security that you thought you had [45:38] may [45:39] might might not have been as strong. [45:40] Remember this next time, how important [45:42] room for error and backup plans are. And [45:44] relative to your personal costs, your [45:46] personal monthly costs or [45:48] overheads as they call them, how much [45:50] money do you think it's sensible to have [45:52] saved? It's so it's so hard for that cuz [45:55] everyone's in a I'm sure people watching [45:56] this will be in a massive range of of [45:58] incomes. [46:00] I I I would say this is a [46:02] bad answer that no one's going to like, [46:03] but as pretty much as much as you can. I [46:05] mean, I'll give you one example of this. [46:07] When COVID first hit in March of 2020, [46:09] the average restaurant I heard had [46:11] enough cash on hand to last them for 14 [46:13] days. [46:14] And then all of a sudden they were [46:15] looking at a a 6-month lockdown. [46:17] And so I think one answer to that [46:19] question is however much you think you [46:21] you'll need, it's probably more. [46:23] The other more practical example of this [46:24] is in 2008 during the financial crisis a [46:27] lot of people were losing their jobs not [46:28] for 2 weeks or 1 month, but they losing [46:30] their jobs for 12 months. And they got [46:33] unemployment benefits, but it wasn't [46:34] enough. And so is it practical for to [46:36] say like you should have 12 months of [46:38] saving? It's probably not practical for [46:39] a lot of people. But the answer is as [46:41] much as you can while realizing that the [46:43] world is more fragile than you probably [46:44] think it is. [46:45] The other protagonist of change at the [46:47] moment is [46:48] artificial intelligence. [46:50] And I've spent a lot of [46:53] lonely quiet hours in my room thinking [46:55] about the impact it's going to have and [46:56] trying to develop my own thesis on what [46:58] it means as a creator, as a podcaster, [47:00] as an investor. And I wanted to [47:03] understand how significant you think [47:04] artificial intelligence is and if it at [47:06] all impacts your thesis around money and [47:08] wealth and investing and saving. I'm not [47:10] even remotely an expert in AI, but as [47:12] someone who's looked at like the history [47:14] of technology, one thing that sticks out [47:16] clear as day when you study technology [47:18] when in hindsight when you're looking at [47:20] a new technology that you know went on [47:21] to change the world the computer, the [47:23] car, the airplane, those things, when [47:26] you know like [47:27] this was a turning point in [47:28] civilization, if you go back and look at [47:31] what the optimists were saying at the [47:33] time, they massively underestimated it. [47:35] And that's what the optimists were [47:36] saying, forget the pessimists on it. So [47:38] go back to the 1920s and say what were [47:41] the optimists saying about the airplane? [47:43] They were underestimating it by a [47:44] hundredfold. What did the optimists say [47:46] about the car? They underestimated by a [47:47] hundredfold. Computers, same. And the [47:51] Wright brothers themselves came up with [47:52] the first airplane in the United States, [47:54] the Wright brothers themselves only [47:56] marketed their plane, primarily marketed [47:58] their plane to the US Army because they [48:00] did not really foresee much use for an [48:02] airplane outside of the military. They [48:04] knew you could strap a machine gun on it [48:05] and the then the army might like that, [48:07] but did the did the Wright brothers [48:08] foresee Delta Airlines? Like an Emirates [48:11] and A380? Like not in a million years. [48:14] And so [48:15] I think it's true that in a lot of [48:17] things in life, I think I think it was [48:18] Peter Thiel who said this. He was like [48:20] "When things are going wrong you [48:22] underestimate how how bad they're going [48:23] to get. But when things are going right, [48:25] you underestimate how big it's going to [48:27] be." I I may have butchered that quote, [48:28] but it's something like that. And it's [48:30] clear that AI is right. And so it's [48:31] almost certainly the case that even the [48:34] optimists, even the Sam Altman [48:35] optimists, are underestimating where it [48:37] will go. And a lot of the reason for [48:39] that is because new technologies is not [48:41] what the inventor, whoever that might [48:43] be, built. It's what other people go on [48:46] to manipulate it as. And that's why the [48:47] Wright brothers came up with a plane and [48:48] now we have the A380. Like it's other [48:50] people manipulating things along the way [48:52] to create something just gigantic. [48:55] One perfect example of that with AI is [48:57] OpenAI have created this large language [48:59] model which can do all these wonderful [49:00] things, but then people are using that [49:02] same technology to create AI agents [49:04] Yeah. which are equally astonishing. I [49:08] spent the last couple of weeks using AI [49:10] agents to build some software. I'm [49:12] someone that has no ability to code at [49:14] all, but I can sit in my bedroom and [49:16] speak to this agent and tell it to build [49:18] me a new to-do list or a new website for [49:22] the podcast that tracks who's been on [49:24] the show and follows them in the new [49:26] like I can tell it to do anything and [49:28] for [49:29] what's probably costing me a dollar a [49:31] day it's building me software now. And [49:34] we're just at the start of that [49:35] exponential curve. So if we now think [49:38] that these large language models are [49:40] going to be able to create things, [49:42] create digital things, things on the [49:43] internet, this podcast is on the [49:45] internet. We know that it can create [49:47] podcasts. We know it can create videos, [49:49] images, software. [49:52] I look at that and go, you play this [49:54] forward. And if I apply your optimism [49:57] um analogy, your optimism um lens to it [50:00] where I go, we're underestimating this [50:01] curve, it's hard it's really hard to see [50:05] how this isn't tremendously disruptive [50:07] in the long term. Not even the long [50:08] term. They in the short term. I I I'll [50:11] give you one example. You you you talked [50:12] about coding there. We're doing a little [50:14] remodel on our house right now. And one [50:16] of the things you can do is take a real [50:17] picture of of a room, upload it and we [50:19] we use chat GPT for this and said, "Hey, [50:22] paint it this color, remove this wall, [50:23] put this in." It is better than any [50:25] designer will be able to do it and it's [50:27] right there, boom, in front of you. [50:28] seconds And you can multiply that story [50:30] by 10,000 different versions of that [50:32] stories for 10,000 different jobs. [50:34] Um I I'd see it as as a writer where [50:38] I've I I don't use it to write. I write [50:40] all my own words, but one one thing that [50:42] I've played around with, I don't really [50:43] use this as that much of a of a tool, [50:45] but just more of an experiment of like, [50:47] I'll upload a chapter from a book that I [50:48] wrote and say, "Hey, give me some [50:50] feedback on this." And [50:53] it wasn't that good a year ago. [50:55] It's pretty good today. It's pretty [50:57] good. So, if you're looking for like [50:59] like a writing assistant, it's amazing. [51:01] Now, the downside of that is everyone [51:02] knows like the high schoolers and the [51:04] college students who use it to write the [51:05] essay. Just write the whole thing. [51:07] That's that that's that's that's [51:08] probably not great. But if you're using [51:10] it as a helper, it's probably the best [51:11] writing teacher that's out there. So, [51:13] right there in my just like tiny little [51:15] world of I I I really don't know [51:16] anything about AI, but interior [51:18] designer, editor, you can go on down the [51:20] list of jobs that like literally 3 [51:22] months ago I would have been like, "Oh, [51:24] that's a very valuable job." And then [51:26] all of a sudden you look at this tool [51:27] for a dollar a day as you said, you're [51:28] like, "It's pretty good." What does [51:30] history tell us about how this shakes [51:32] out? Like when these industrial [51:34] revolutions come along with the [51:35] technological revolutions, [51:38] where does the value accrue? [51:40] And how do I participate in that value? [51:43] I guess one good analogy from my here [51:45] and it's probably not as powerful as [51:46] what we're dealing with right now, but [51:47] the the closest is probably, you know, [51:50] it wasn't that long ago, the late 1800s, [51:52] that 80% of Americans were farmers. That [51:54] that that that that's that's what it [51:56] was. And then the industrial revolution [51:58] and the tractor and the combine came [52:00] along and all of a sudden it was like we [52:02] we we don't need that many farmers doing [52:04] this. What people used to do with [52:05] shovels and rakes can now be done with a [52:07] tractor. And a lot of those people found [52:09] themselves out of work. [52:11] And for them it was it was very [52:13] disruptive, but they also the farmer [52:16] the farm laborer [52:18] found himself pretty easy to go into the [52:21] factory because they were working on [52:23] they they were good at working with [52:24] their hands and whatnot. And so to go [52:25] from that into the factory was not an [52:28] easy transition, but it was a transition [52:31] they can make. [52:32] Now, do you have that that same [52:34] transition did not take place from [52:35] manufacturing to technology. The auto [52:38] worker in in Detroit could not just [52:40] learn to code and work at Google. Like [52:41] that and so it was it was much less [52:43] seamless. And I think what we're dealing [52:45] with now will be even more of a [52:46] disruption that the people who are being [52:48] disrupted out of AI are going to have [52:51] like a much more difficult time [52:52] historically to move into where the [52:55] economy's going next. So, the idea that [52:57] an industry is disrupted and you need to [52:59] go figure out something else to do, I [53:01] think it's gotten progressively harder [53:02] over the last 150 years. [53:04] And when we moved from machines to [53:07] technology, it was a significantly also [53:09] for the user and for the customer and [53:11] for the [53:13] as well as for the employee. So, that [53:14] transition took time, but I was reading [53:16] something the other day that said, "Now [53:18] that we're native internet users, we all [53:20] are, billions and billions and billions [53:21] of people use the internet, this is like [53:23] a new application on the internet, which [53:25] explains why it's growing so fast that [53:27] we haven't had to learn. Yeah. You know, [53:28] this generation know how to type [53:30] something on a screen. So, there hasn't [53:32] been this big jump in fundamental skills [53:35] like there was from like going from a [53:37] I don't know, from piece of machine to [53:40] an iPhone. [53:41] So, this acceleration will be quicker, [53:43] so therefore you one would assume that [53:44] the transition will be more severe. And [53:47] I think about even things like driving. [53:49] I think Tesla are releasing in Austin [53:51] this month or next month the first [53:53] autonomous vehicle, the cyber taxi. [53:56] Yeah. [53:57] The robo taxi or whatever it's called [53:58] and it has no steering wheel. Yeah. And [54:00] the profession of driving, from what I [54:02] understand, is the biggest profession on [54:03] earth. [54:04] the biggest profession, truck drivers, [54:05] drivers in general. Yeah. On my way here [54:07] today, [54:09] I did not touch the steering wheel. I [54:10] did not touch the pedals because I'm in [54:12] a cyber truck and there's a button on it [54:14] which auto drives you to wherever you [54:16] want to go. [54:16] Yeah. [54:17] And typically I'd probably have gotten [54:19] an Uber. Yeah. But now I can sit there, [54:21] do my work, and it drives for me. It's [54:24] And that's also AI. Yeah. You No, it's [54:26] it's it's crazy. And back to the analogy [54:28] like when when the farmer had to go work [54:30] in the factory, it was it was a [54:31] transition. He may have had to move, but [54:33] he but he he did it. And that's where he [54:34] went from 80% of the population were [54:36] farmers to 2%, which is what it is [54:37] today. And but they they were able to to [54:39] move in. The manufacturer to technology [54:42] struggled. And I think it's going to be [54:43] now like the the truck driver to tell [54:45] the truck driver, "Well, just go get a [54:47] job at OpenAI." kind of thing. Like [54:49] it's funny to even think about it [54:50] because it's it's preposterous. But the [54:52] thing with OpenAI, from what I [54:54] understand, is they have less than 100 [54:55] employees. [54:56] Right. And the reason they have less [54:57] than 100 employees is because they're [54:59] using AI to do the work. [55:01] to do and they'll increasingly do that, [55:02] especially when they hit AGI. Right. [55:04] They're probably going to four [55:04] employees. [55:05] Yeah. And this is why I think they have [55:06] 100 employees. I think they've [55:07] purposefully kept it low because they [55:09] think AGI is around the corner, which is [55:11] this very very advanced form of AI, [55:13] which is going to be able to like [55:14] I think they call it self-reinforce [55:16] where it teaches itself. [55:17] synthetic data Right. So, hmm. Kind of [55:20] go on from there. Now, I think if there [55:22] is an optimistic side, it's always been [55:24] that it was the case that when farming [55:26] was being disrupted, there were a lot of [55:28] people who just said, "These people are [55:29] never going to find jobs." Like if you [55:31] if you put the farmer out of business, [55:32] there was it sounds comical today, but [55:34] there was a big push when the car came [55:36] about to be like, "No, like what are all [55:38] the the horses going to do?" Like like [55:40] like have some like have some dignity [55:41] for the horse and the people who are [55:43] raising horses and whatnot. So, it's [55:44] always been the case that you cannot [55:46] foresee what's going to happen next. And [55:48] the optimistic side of capitalism is as [55:51] messy and as hard and as much personal [55:54] damage as you can cause to families [55:55] along the way, those people will [55:57] eventually figure out something to do. [55:58] And when people say that, it sounds so [56:00] callous and coarse. And that's why you [56:02] have so much debate and angst and anger [56:06] and things like with and some [56:08] disagreements like with what with what [56:09] we're dealing with with tariffs right [56:11] now. You have your son in the green room [56:13] watching us right now. Yeah. How old is [56:15] he? Nine. Nine. Okay, so he's got some [56:17] decisions ahead of [56:17] He's he's wincing right now, I'm sure. [56:19] Now that we're talking about him. But [56:21] what if he in terms of him building his [56:23] career, acquiring skills, generating [56:26] wealth, [56:27] based on everything you know about how [56:29] people have made money through history, [56:31] what are the prevailing skills that your [56:33] son would have to have [56:36] to assure that he makes money regardless [56:38] of what the industry is? Learn how to [56:40] communicate. [56:42] Learn how to get along with people you [56:43] disagree with. I think that's that's a [56:45] very underlooked [56:47] skill in life is particularly in a in a [56:50] social media driven world where people [56:51] have very different views on fundamental [56:53] topics. Learn how to get along with [56:54] people who you disagree with. Learn how [56:56] to communicate. [56:57] Those would be the top two. Those are [56:59] extremely high level. Like I'm I'm not [57:01] saying go learn calculus four kind of [57:02] thing or go go learn engineering, but [57:05] those are timeless skills. And I think [57:06] those two skills can get you pretty far [57:09] in life. And I I look back at at myself. [57:11] I don't know if you had a similar [57:13] example of this, but I I was not a good [57:15] student. My ability to do math is not [57:18] any good. My ability My grades in [57:19] science were not any good whatsoever. [57:22] I think if I if there are [57:24] two skills that I was that I I I didn't [57:26] even know it at the time. I was not [57:27] really like conscious that I was doing [57:29] this, but learn how to communicate and [57:31] don't be a jerk. Like just learn because [57:33] that for me as a writer, that was like [57:35] learn how to communicate as writing and [57:37] in the writing business, learn how to [57:39] get along with people so you can move [57:40] ahead, move your career. Like be nice to [57:42] this person so you can move on up. I [57:44] think you see that a lot. [57:46] What about in terms of money, making [57:47] money? When you think about great people [57:49] through history that have accrued a lot [57:50] of wealth, what principles would you [57:53] instill in him so that he had a money [57:54] mindset? [57:55] It's hard for a parent. [57:57] I I'm not I'm not filthy rich by any [58:00] means, but I've sold a couple books and [58:01] it's hard as a parent to be like, "I [58:03] want to use money [58:05] to give you a good life, but I don't [58:07] want to spoil you. The last thing I want [58:09] is for you to be a spoiled little brat." [58:12] And it's very difficult for a lot of [58:13] parents to do that. And so one of the [58:15] things I want him to learn about money [58:17] and I want him to learn in a very stark [58:19] way is like, learn the scarcity and the [58:21] value of $1. And I think the only way to [58:24] do that is to experience it first hand. [58:26] So, when he was born 9 years ago, I [58:28] wrote him a little letter. I published [58:29] this on a blog. And one of the things I [58:31] said was, [58:32] "I hope you're poor one day." And I [58:34] said, "Not not struggling, not broke, [58:37] but I hope the only way to understand [58:39] the value of a dollar is to experience [58:41] the power of its scarcity. [58:43] And I hope there's a there's a period [58:45] when my wife and I are able to say like, [58:46] "Look, like you're you're never going to [58:48] fall flat on your face. You're not going [58:49] to be homeless. You're always going to [58:50] have good health care, but I hope you're [58:52] able to experience the scarcity of a [58:55] dollar so you value it. I did. My my [58:58] parents taught me that in a way that [59:00] they didn't need to, but they let me be [59:02] poor for a while. And [59:05] most people will experience it because [59:06] they they they have that's a that's the [59:07] situation they're in. So, that that's [59:09] one thing I think about of and I think [59:11] quite actually quite a few families deal [59:13] with that. It's like, "How can you help [59:16] your kids?" And it goes beyond money. [59:18] This is uh you know, so many the the the [59:20] helicopter parent era is I want to [59:22] protect you from downside at all cost, [59:24] emotional downside. Uh and and I think [59:27] money is one of many topics in which [59:29] you're going to learn the best [59:31] by experiencing the downside. [59:34] For anybody that likes matcha, for [59:35] anybody that likes lattes, one of my [59:37] companies has just launched canned [59:39] matcha lattes. Now, I was speaking with [59:41] the founder, Marissa, and she said that [59:43] creating this product has been no easy [59:45] feat. They tried launching in 2021, but [59:48] as is often the case in business, the [59:50] development process turned out to be [59:51] extremely complex. So, they've spent the [59:54] last 4 years testing and refining every [59:56] single detail to create this, [59:59] which is a perfect Ted Matcha vanilla [60:01] latte and a perfect Ted Matcha [60:03] strawberry latte. So, what we have here [60:05] in these cans is barista quality matcha [60:08] straight from the can, and it tastes [60:10] like it's just been made from your [60:11] favorite cafe, naturally sweet and [60:14] naturally creamy in a can. And the [60:16] reason why I've invested in this company [60:17] and I drink matcha is because matcha as [60:19] an energy source gives me lasting energy [60:21] without the big crashes that I get from [60:23] other products. Grab their [60:24] ready-to-drink canned matcha lattes at [60:26] Waitrose, Tesco, and Holland & Barrett, [60:28] and perfectted.com, where you can use [60:30] code Steven40 for 40% off your first [60:32] order. [60:35] Men are struggling [60:37] in a variety of different ways. And [60:38] obviously, your son is going to be a man [60:40] someday. [60:41] If I think about some of the stats here, [60:43] men's labor force participation has [60:44] declined dramatically over time. For [60:47] prime working age men between 25 and 54, [60:50] participation fell from 98% in the 1950s [60:54] to about 80-something percent in 2024. [60:58] 10.5% of men aged 25 to 54 were neither [61:02] working nor looking for employment [61:04] compared to with just 2.5% in 1954. [61:09] And we had a study that came out in the [61:10] UK recently. I think it was the Center [61:11] of Social Justice that showed that for [61:11] the first time in a long time in recent [61:13] I think it was the Center of Social [61:14] Justice that showed that for the first [61:16] time in a long time in recent history, [61:19] more young men are out of work than [61:22] young women. I think it was like one in [61:24] seven men are out of work. [61:27] Yeah. So, it's a different world for a [61:29] man. But but we still have the sort of [61:30] prehistoric caveman mindset of being a [61:32] protector and a provider. [61:34] Yes, absolutely. [61:35] has changed. [61:35] Yeah. I think it was Scott Galloway [61:37] recently said that like a really [61:38] aspirational definition of manhood is is [61:42] wanting to procreate, provide, and [61:44] protect. You want to have kids, and you [61:46] desperately want to provide for your [61:48] family and protect your family. And I I [61:50] do think that there yeah, there's men [61:51] all over the world to a higher degree [61:53] than there's ever been that feel like [61:54] those three things are out of reach for [61:55] them. [61:56] And because of this, a lot of people get [61:57] involved in get-rich-quick schemes. Yes. [62:00] Cryptocurrencies, meme coins, all this [62:02] stuff. [62:02] Daniel Kahneman, the great psychologist, [62:04] passed away last year. He had a saying, [62:05] he was like, "When all of your options [62:07] are bad, you become very risk-taking [62:10] because you have nothing to lose kind of [62:11] thing." So, whenever you see people [62:12] participating in get-rich [62:14] get get-rich-quick schemes, you know [62:17] it's because they feel like all their [62:18] option all all their options are bad. If [62:20] you knew if you believed that if you [62:23] could go to college and learn a score [62:24] not go to college, but if you can go [62:26] learn a skill [62:27] and go work hard and earn a stable [62:30] paycheck to provide for your family, 99 [62:33] out of 100 men are to say that's that's [62:35] the one I want. But if you believe, [62:37] whether it's true or not, if you believe [62:38] that that option's not available to you, [62:40] you're like, "Let's throw it all on this [62:42] this new coin" kind of thing. [62:44] And so, I think you that's you you see [62:46] that quite a bit. There's a lot of [62:47] things in life where you see people [62:48] making bad decisions or what you think [62:50] are bad decisions, and it's easy to mock [62:52] them or look down upon them or just say [62:54] they're idiots, but like deep down, [62:56] there's always a a reason that is kind [62:58] of is there's there's a deeper reason [63:00] why they're doing it. And for a lot of [63:01] these things with financial risk-taking, [63:03] it's it's like a lack of not not [63:04] necessarily a lack of self-esteem, but a [63:06] lack of self-confidence in their ability [63:08] to earn a good, dignified, stable wage [63:11] to provide for their family. [63:13] Testosterone plays a role though, no? [63:15] Because if when we think about who [63:17] becomes gambling addicts and who takes [63:18] the biggest risks with finances through [63:20] history, it's often men. Women do seem [63:23] to to be generally better with managing [63:26] money than men. Yeah. With men, what a [63:29] lot of it is is the inability to say [63:31] that's enough. [63:33] Particularly with the risks that they're [63:34] taking. So, you see this with a [63:36] with a lot of hedge fund hedge funds are [63:38] just giant investing pools of money of [63:40] like rich people on Wall Street managing [63:41] money. [63:42] They have quite a long history, not a [63:44] lots of them, but quite a long history [63:46] of them blowing up. And it's because [63:48] this very smart, genius, billionaire [63:51] Wall Street trader who has a PhD from [63:53] MIT [63:54] could not say that was enough. They kept [63:56] taking more risk, more risk, more risk [63:58] until it blew up. And we we we [64:00] definitely see with women managing money [64:02] that they tend to not earn as high [64:04] returns on any given year, but they [64:06] don't blow themselves up, so to speak, [64:09] financially. So, they're like men are [64:10] much more willing to swing for the [64:12] fences. [64:13] And women are much more willing to say, [64:14] "I'd I'd like to just take a calm, [64:15] casual swing, but I want to keep it [64:17] going for a long period of time." Now, [64:18] who's going to do better over the course [64:19] of a lifetime in that situation? Your [64:21] book profiles a few scenarios of who [64:24] does better over [64:25] a lifetime. And although I read your [64:26] book, I think it must have been 4 years [64:28] ago, I will always remember reading a [64:29] story about it. I think it was like a [64:31] stockbroker that you wrote about in your [64:32] book. [64:33] was Jesse Livermore. Tell me that story. [64:35] Jesse Livermore was a a trader [64:37] Wall Street stockbroker about 100 years [64:40] ago. He did most of his work in the [64:41] early 1900s through about the 1920s. And [64:44] he was the best in the world [64:47] at getting rich. [64:48] And he had no ability whatsoever to stay [64:50] rich. [64:52] I think he became the equivalent of a [64:53] billionaire, adjusted for inflation, [64:55] four separate times and went bankrupt [64:57] four separate times. He eventually at [64:58] his end committed suicide when he went [65:00] broke for I think the fifth time. [65:02] And and in between there, he would [65:03] become and literally the richest man in [65:05] the world at one point. But he had no [65:07] ability to say, "That's enough." So, [65:10] when he was the richest man in the [65:11] world, he just kept taking more risk, [65:12] more risk, more risk, and then it blew [65:13] up. And he did it over and over and over [65:15] and over again until he eventually [65:16] killed himself. [65:18] Damn. It's it's amazing it's a it's an [65:20] amazing story because punctuated through [65:24] his story of failure and bankruptcy and [65:27] eventual suicide is a level of success [65:30] that like Steve Jobs could not even [65:32] fathom. He has No one in history I think [65:35] was better at getting rich [65:36] than he was. And he he could not keep [65:39] it. And [65:41] for most people I like a much better [65:42] situation, of course, is like you don't [65:43] need to become the richest person in the [65:44] world. You can just make a modest amount [65:47] of money that's going to support you and [65:48] your family, but keep it. Don't keep [65:51] taking more risks that's eventually [65:52] going to blow it up. Just keep it, and [65:53] it's okay. What do you think of crypto? [65:56] I don't own any, so maybe that that's [65:58] the summary of how I feel about it. But [66:00] I also think the only take that I've had [66:01] on it is like [66:03] if you [66:04] don't think that some of it is [66:07] inspiring, and then then you're not [66:10] paying attention. But if you don't think [66:11] that 99% of it is a is a joke, then [66:14] you're not paying attention. [66:16] And I I say that because most people are [66:17] one are one or the other. They either [66:19] think the whole thing is is a scam and [66:21] they don't understand any of it, it's a [66:22] bubble that's going to burst, or it's [66:24] literally the greatest invention of of [66:25] human history. [66:27] And I I think whenever there's a new [66:28] technology, you're likely to get like [66:30] those extreme one of those camps. But [66:32] also in the history of technology, what [66:34] you would see is that 99% of the new [66:37] players, the new companies, the new [66:38] products [66:40] won't exist in 10 years. And a couple of [66:42] them will turn into Ford or Microsoft or [66:45] whatever it might be. That's always been [66:47] the case. So, you can't envision a world [66:50] in 20 years in which crypto is not [66:53] having a big part of the global economy. [66:55] And I also think you cannot envision a [66:57] world in which in 20 years, 99% of what [67:00] exists today doesn't exist anymore. [67:02] Yeah, I have owned Ethereum for a long [67:04] time, and more recently, I just changed [67:06] it all into Bitcoin cuz I think Bitcoin [67:07] is the safest bet. So, it seems to be [67:10] where institutional money has gone to. [67:13] And I I'm doing the same thing as you. [67:14] I've never like traded coins in my life [67:16] or anything, but I think most of it is [67:19] probably going to zero [67:21] as we've seen. But I think Bitcoin feels [67:23] like [67:24] the place that the market has decided [67:26] will be the stabilist, but Yeah. Who [67:29] knows? [67:29] it's not contradictory in history to say [67:31] that this new technology will change the [67:33] world forever and and at the same time, [67:36] you're probably not going to make that [67:37] much money on it. The best example of [67:39] that were the railroads, which was [67:40] probably the most transformational new [67:42] industry in US history. Like to have a [67:45] railroad going from the East Coast to [67:46] the West Coast, that changed everything [67:48] in such a profound way. And the vast [67:51] majority of railroad investors lost all [67:53] their money. [67:54] So, they you could get it right. This is [67:56] going to change the world forever. It [67:57] does not mean that you're going to make [67:58] that much money on it. And that that [68:00] that's not to say that most crypto [68:02] investors No, I actually I I would say [68:04] it's almost certain that most crypto [68:05] investors will not make that much money. [68:07] That's that that's pretty [68:08] standard historical. You The other thing [68:10] is in cars. In the early 1900s, [68:13] there were 2,000 car companies in [68:14] America. And 1,997 [68:17] of them went bankrupt. You ended up with [68:19] GM, Ford, and Chrysler. The rest [68:20] virtually disappeared. So, it's always [68:22] the case that in a new technology that [68:24] changes in the world, there's a big gap [68:27] between this is going to change the [68:28] world and everyone's going to get rich [68:29] on this. One of the things that made me [68:32] question my hypothesis on crypto was [68:34] Google released this new computer. I [68:36] don't know if you saw it called Willow. [68:37] The quantum computer? Yeah. [68:39] That can crack what in in theory in the [68:41] future. I I've talked to people about [68:43] this that like you can't believe in [68:44] crypto and quantum at the same time. [68:46] People who are much smarter than me say [68:48] that's that's not the case, that you can [68:50] augment the system. I I I don't really [68:52] understand it, but people who are much [68:53] smarter than me say they're not worried [68:54] about it. Google built a powerful new [68:56] computer called Willow that uses quantum [68:58] technology. Some people worry it could [68:59] one day hack Bitcoin by breaking its [69:02] security system, but right now Willow [69:03] isn't strong enough to do that just yet. [69:06] And they pose that quantum computers may [69:08] well become strong enough that they'll [69:10] be able to hack Bitcoin's system that [69:12] keeps it safe. [69:13] Right. Because there is a certain amount [69:15] of compute that could affect [69:17] exist right now, but could in the future [69:18] with quantum computers, right? So, like [69:20] all assets, I mean, if you look back [69:22] through history, we've used different [69:24] things as stores of value. [69:25] Yeah. And many of those things, whether [69:27] it's the tulips or [69:29] whatever else, aren't our current store [69:31] of value. So, it's conceivable to think [69:33] that Bitcoin as a store of value does [69:34] have a shelf life. Yes. [69:36] But there's I mean of course that could [69:38] be the case. I mean gold, which has [69:39] been, you know, a store of value for [69:40] thousands of years, has gone through [69:41] periods where it surged and then fell [69:44] 90% and sat there for 20 years, you [69:47] know, kind of thing. So, even when you [69:48] have something that is a historic, like, [69:52] you know, uh you know, very objective [69:54] store of value, that doesn't mean that [69:56] you know what the price is going to do [69:57] next month or next year even the next 10 [69:59] years. That's a totally different thing. [70:00] When you look at all these people [70:01] through history that have made money, [70:02] lost money, etc., generated great [70:04] wealth, are there like certain [70:06] strategies they've deployed? Cuz when I [70:08] think of like Warren Buffett, I'm like, [70:10] okay, so he like compounded for like 80 [70:12] years, blah blah blah, invested, he was [70:14] an investor. Then you've got this other [70:15] strategy which might be [70:16] entrepreneurship. [70:17] Yeah. [70:17] Some incredible company uh like Elon [70:20] Musk making SpaceX or Tesla. [70:23] Do you have it distilled down into a set [70:25] of different strategies that are often [70:27] deployed to equal wealth? I think if [70:29] there's one big one that is is [70:31] applicable to ordinary people. You know, [70:33] you you can come up with like different [70:35] marketing things, but like that's not [70:36] going to apply to me or you. One thing [70:38] that sticks out that is a common [70:39] denominator that virtually everyone [70:41] listening this could learn from is they [70:43] were way more patient and had way more [70:45] endurance and kept it going for longer [70:47] than anyone else. [70:48] David Senra, who's a great podcaster, [70:50] writes he has he has a podcast called [70:51] Founders. He he said this one time. He [70:54] was like, "Here from entrepreneurs [70:56] who are like, 'Man, I listened to your [70:58] podcast. I'm a I'm a founder. I have a [71:00] company and I'm I'm I'm going to sell my [71:01] company next year. I'm going to do I'm [71:03] going to sell it to Google.' And David's [71:04] like, 'Did you learn anything from the [71:07] historical entrepreneurs of Rockefeller [71:10] or Steve Jobs or Bill Gates?' Those [71:11] people ran their companies for 50 years. [71:14] They ran their companies until they [71:15] until they died, kind of thing. These [71:17] are not people who are looking to be [71:18] like, "I'm going to create a company and [71:19] then sell it. I'm going to start another [71:21] company and sell it." They keep it going [71:22] for as long as they possibly can. The [71:24] big wealth usually does not come. It [71:26] almost never comes from like a great [71:28] idea that just surges out of the middle [71:30] of nowhere. It's usually like a pretty [71:32] good idea that you can keep going for 40 [71:33] years or 50 years. That's that's where [71:36] the big money comes from. If Rockefel- I [71:38] I wrote this in the book, 99.9% [71:41] of Warren Buffett's net worth was [71:43] accumulated after his 60th birthday. [71:46] So, like if when Warren Buffett was 60, [71:49] he was worth $2 billion, like incredible [71:52] amount of money. He could have sold then [71:54] and he had he could have sold everything [71:55] and retired and had an absolutely [71:57] amazing life. The reason that he has [71:59] accumulated, if you count the money he's [72:01] given away, $250 billion, [72:03] is because he kept it going. So, now [72:04] he's 93 years old and he's still going. [72:07] Same with, you know, Bill Gates could [72:08] have sold Microsoft in the 1970s and [72:11] made $10 million [72:12] and had a great little life. But he kept [72:14] it going and kept it going. Yahoo [72:16] offered Mark Zuckerberg a billion [72:18] dollars cash and he was like 19 at the [72:20] time and he said, "No, I'm going to keep [72:22] doing this thing." That's the common [72:24] denominator that ordinary people can [72:26] learn from is like endurance and [72:28] longevity is usually where the big [72:29] wealth is made. Endurance. [72:32] Keep it going. [72:33] Endurance is hard. Yeah. Larry Ellison, [72:36] who was the the founder of of Oracle, [72:39] did an interview in the 1990s [72:42] and they asked him about Bill Gates, who [72:43] was a friend but also rival back then. [72:46] And Larry Ellison was like, "The secret [72:48] to Bill Gates, yes, he's very smart, but [72:50] there's a lot of smart people out [72:51] there." And he was like, "No offense, [72:52] but there's a lot of people smarter than [72:54] Bill Gates out there, [72:55] but nobody has more endurance than Bill [72:57] Gates. He will outwork you every single [72:59] time. You cannot He he'll keep it going [73:01] for as long as he needs to keep it going [73:03] to beat you. And that's his that's his [73:05] skill. It's not intelligence, it's [73:06] endurance." [73:07] On this point of perseverance, why is [73:09] perseverance so key? Like if we break it [73:11] down into what what's actually happening [73:13] when you persevere? I think it's two [73:14] things. It's one, in any endeavor that's [73:17] going to pay off, it's going to be [73:18] difficult. It's going to be There's [73:19] going to be more roadblocks and speed [73:21] bumps and collapses than you want. It's [73:24] absolutely inevitable. The unofficial [73:26] model at at Nvidia, the giant chip [73:29] company, is one of the most valuable [73:30] companies in the world, is [73:32] "We are always 30 days from going out of [73:34] business." [73:35] Now, they're not. It's one of the most [73:37] successful companies in the world, but [73:39] they understand what is true for every [73:41] business, which is that business is is [73:43] hard. Like every business is a knife [73:45] fight. Ev- Every company that you own or [73:47] start is going to be very difficult and [73:49] you need the perseverance to get through [73:50] that. That's one element. The other is [73:53] compound interest. That's what builds [73:54] wealth. [73:55] What compound interest is and why it is [73:58] so powerful, like the people who get [74:00] rich from it are not the people who earn [74:02] very high returns. It's people who earn [74:05] good returns for a long period of time. [74:08] Like all compound interest is it's like [74:09] it's [74:10] it's returns to the power of time. [74:13] And if you remember like eighth grade [74:15] math, that exponent, like time, that's [74:17] doing all the heavy lifting in there. [74:19] And so, in investing, if you can be [74:21] good, merely good, [74:23] if or if you can just be average for an [74:25] above average period of time, you do [74:27] phenomenal. [74:28] And this is where this is like the most [74:30] misunderstood thing about investing. [74:31] Most investors are like, "How do I earn [74:33] the highest returns? I want to make the [74:34] best investments, highest returns." [74:36] And you can do well doing that. You're [74:38] much more likely to do well if you're [74:40] like, "Hey, I just want average returns, [74:42] but I want to be so durable and have so [74:44] much endurance that I can earn average [74:46] returns for 40 years. And if I can be [74:48] average for 40 years, I'm going to end [74:49] up in the top 1%." How do you make that [74:51] real for someone listening who's making, [74:54] you know, $1,000 a month disposable [74:56] income? So, they've got $1,000 to play [74:58] with a month potentially. How do like [75:00] how if they've never heard about this [75:02] this idea of compounding interest before [75:04] and the magic that it can create if left [75:09] to its own devices for a long enough [75:10] period of time, what is the like simple [75:12] way to show them the power of it? So, [75:14] take index funds, which are just a very [75:17] simple collection of businesses at a [75:19] very low fee. You can buy one stock, but [75:21] it's a collection of hundreds and [75:23] hundreds of different businesses you [75:24] own. [75:25] Apple and Amazon and Coca-Cola, you own [75:27] you own all the companies in the world. [75:29] And so, it's the most boring, bland, [75:31] average [75:32] way to invest. If you invest in that in [75:35] a very simple way and you do that [75:37] consistently for 20 or 30 years with no [75:40] skill, with no expertise, where you're [75:42] not getting stock tips from anyone. It's [75:44] the most boring way to invest. If you do [75:46] it consistently for 30 years, you will [75:47] almost certainly end up in the top 1% of [75:49] investors. You'll almost certainly beat [75:51] literally 95% of Wall Street pros [75:54] who were trying to outsmart the market, [75:56] trying to outwit the market and were [75:58] unable to keep it going for 30 years. [76:00] And so, this is where if you can just be [76:01] average for an above average period of [76:03] time, you'll be amazing. I mean, it's [76:05] it's probably similar in health that [76:07] like if you want to be healthy, yes, you [76:09] can go out and become the best [76:10] bodybuilder in the world, the best [76:12] marathon runner in in in the whole [76:14] world. But yeah, actually if you just [76:16] work out just like modest workouts a [76:18] couple times a week for 30 years, you're [76:21] going to be one of the healthiest people [76:22] in your town. If you can work out two or [76:24] three times a week for 30 years [76:26] consistently and eat a good diet [76:28] consistently for 30 years, you'll be one [76:29] of the healthiest people that you know. [76:31] And it's the same in investing. It's [76:32] like the people who do the best are not [76:35] the geniuses. It's the people who are [76:37] ordinary for a very long period of time. [76:41] I was thinking about a [76:42] a very simple example. So, that there's [76:44] a coffee in my cup today [76:46] and the coffee might cost $5. [76:49] Now, with the laws of compounding [76:50] returns, if I don't have that coffee [76:53] today, [76:55] in 40 years, [76:57] if I got 8%, which is I think the S&P [77:00] 500 [77:00] About, yeah. gives about 8%. [77:02] Yeah. [77:03] Then in 40 years' time, [77:06] instead of the the coffee that I had [77:08] every day, [77:09] with an 8% interest return, I would have [77:12] $440,000. [77:15] If you did a coffee every day? Yes. Yes. [77:17] Assuming the coffee cost $5. [77:19] Now, I like coffee. You do, too. I don't [77:20] I don't [77:21] I don't want people to listen to that [77:22] and say I should I should stop drinking [77:24] my coffee, but it's a powerful example. [77:26] Uh there's a book called The Snowball, [77:28] which is kind of the most detailed [77:30] biography of Warren Buffett. And it [77:32] would talk about how when he was on his [77:34] his adulthood, he wouldn't want to get [77:35] haircuts because in his mind a haircut [77:37] would cost $10,000 [77:39] because it was a $2 haircut, but if you [77:41] invested that money [77:43] in in the way that he knew he could and [77:44] leave it alone for 50 years, whatever it [77:46] would be. He didn't want to get a car [77:47] wash cuz he would tell his wife, he's [77:48] like, "That's a $5,000 car wash." She's [77:51] like, "What do you mean? It costs a [77:51] dollar." She's like, "No, no, no, but if [77:52] I invest that money and leave it alone, [77:55] so he was always thinking about not what [77:57] something cost today, but what he could [77:59] grow that money into in the future. I [78:02] was just thinking about Warren Buffett [78:03] getting his haircuts. So, I thought, [78:04] "How old is Warren Buffett now?" He's [78:05] 93. Okay, so let's say for 80 years, if [78:08] Warren Buffett didn't get a say a $5 [78:11] haircut and instead took the put it [78:13] somewhere in the S&P 500, an index fund, [78:16] which by the way you can [78:17] invest in on your phone, [78:20] 80 years later, Warren Buffett would [78:22] have $10.3 million. That's the thing. [78:25] That's it. And that's why he's that's [78:26] why he's worth a quarter trillion [78:28] dollars today is cuz you go through 90 [78:30] years of thinking like that and [78:32] it really adds up. Now, you always have [78:34] to preface this by being like, [78:37] "Please drink your coffee and get a [78:38] haircut." It's always it's always a [78:40] balance, but but also understand how [78:42] incredible it can be by putting away [78:44] doing very ordinary things for a long [78:46] period of time can lead to magic. It is [78:49] magic as well. That's such a perfect [78:50] word for it because it seems It's magic [78:52] because it's not intuitive at all. Yes. [78:54] You don't you don't understand it. [78:55] You're like, "Wait, what? I don't I [78:57] can't understand how a haircut can turn [78:59] into $10 million." It's not intuitive. [79:03] Like we're we're not There's a great [79:04] example from my friend Michael Batnick. [79:06] He said, "If I ask you, what is 8 + 8 + [79:09] 8 + 8?" You can figure that out in your [79:11] head quickly. But if I said, "What is 8 [79:13] * 8 * 8 * 8 * 8?" Forget about it. Can't [79:16] do it. We're not made to think [79:18] exponentially. [79:20] We're not meant to think in [79:21] multiplicative terms. Cuz nothing was [79:23] exponential once upon a time. That's [79:25] largely true. Yeah. [79:26] mean I can't think of anything that was [79:27] really exponential before Yeah, I mean [79:29] I'm sure we can come up with a couple [79:30] examples in in nature and whatnot. There [79:32] there's there's lots of of compounding [79:34] in nature and that's that's kind of the [79:35] core of of evolution is like things [79:37] building upon each other over time. [79:39] brushing your teeth or decay Yeah. [79:41] Yeah, but you know, certainly the the [79:43] stock market is the most pertinent [79:45] example in most people's lives. But [79:47] there's also a lot of like bad habits [79:48] compound. Yeah, smoking one cigarette is [79:50] not not that big a deal. Smoking one [79:52] cigarette every day for 30 years, big [79:54] deal. Smoking two packs a day for 30 [79:56] years, big deal. So there are things [79:58] that like in small doses they're not [80:00] that big a deal, but in if you do them [80:02] consistently for a long period of time [80:04] it leads to negative magic. So what's [80:06] your view then on saving money? I you're [80:10] you're working on a book currently which [80:12] is being released in October this year [80:14] called The Art of Spending Money. [80:15] Yeah. [80:16] What's your view on saving money? You [80:18] told me to have the coffee, cut my hair. [80:19] Yeah. [80:20] I I view savings as Well, one thing is [80:23] most people view saving money as like as [80:26] idle saving. Like Like if you're not [80:28] spending it, it's just sitting in the [80:29] bank doing nothing and it's just kind of [80:31] a it's just wasted money sitting there. [80:33] I've never viewed it like that at all. I [80:35] view savings as [80:37] little tokens of independence. And every [80:39] dollar that I save is a little piece of [80:41] my time in the future that I own and I [80:43] control. It's just deferred spending. [80:46] And I view that as independence. So like [80:48] So if you have a lot of savings that [80:50] it's not just like hoarding money and [80:52] I'm not going to do anything with it. [80:53] And it's not even that I'm saving this [80:54] money so that I can spend it in the [80:55] future. If I save a dollar today [80:58] I have a dollar more independence today. [81:00] I benefit from that today right now. [81:02] Like I feel more independent because of [81:04] it and I am more independent because of [81:06] it. So I view again, my my top financial [81:09] goal by far and I think this is true for [81:11] most people whether they know it or not. [81:13] What they really want out of money is [81:14] independence and autonomy. And just be [81:16] able being able to do things on their [81:18] own terms. Live the life that they want [81:20] to live. And I view like the oxygen of [81:23] independence is is savings. And what's [81:25] the opposite of that? Is it debt? [81:27] Yes. Yeah, debt is a piece of your [81:28] future that somebody else owns. It's the [81:30] polar opposite of it. You want When you [81:32] go into debt you're saying 3 years from [81:34] now this company owns a part of my time. [81:36] They own my labor in the future. And [81:38] savings is the opposite. Savings is in [81:40] the future I have this stored up. I have [81:42] this consumption stored up in the future [81:44] that I can do whatever I want with it. I [81:46] think you you know, you've written a [81:47] book called The Psychology of Money, but [81:48] as you were talking now I was thinking [81:50] gosh, this is all psychology again at [81:52] the heart of this we will have our own [81:53] unique relationship with money. And [81:55] there's lots of people that won't even [81:56] look at their their own bank statements. [81:58] They won't look at their own Revolut or [82:00] Monzo app in the morning. They avoid [82:02] their credit cards [82:04] in terms of like their credit card [82:05] statements. And to even start talking [82:07] about these subjects of saving and [82:08] spending we probably need to preface it [82:11] with some kind of like mindset or [82:12] mentality towards your relationship with [82:14] money. [82:14] Yeah. I think the most important is [82:17] there are two topics in life that will [82:19] impact you whether you like them or not. [82:21] That's health and money. It doesn't [82:23] matter if you not you're not interested [82:25] in those topics, those topics are [82:27] interested in you and they will impact [82:28] your life. You can have a wonderful life [82:30] not knowing anything about chemistry or [82:32] meteorology if you don't care about [82:34] those topics. You cannot have a good [82:36] life if you don't care about money and [82:37] and health. [82:38] And it that's true for everybody [82:40] everywhere. And so I think everyone has [82:42] an obligation to understand their own [82:44] relationship with money. Now some people [82:45] are going to be, you know, fanatics [82:47] about it and other people just view [82:49] money as just kind of like a necessary [82:51] tool that they need to get through life, [82:52] but you have to understand how it works [82:55] and what it's doing to you financially [82:56] and psychologically. And so much of [82:59] modern ills have to do with [83:01] envy, jealousy, feel like you're falling [83:04] behind relative to other people. The [83:05] core of that is usually financial. And [83:08] so even if you're not the kind of person [83:09] who's like I I don't care about the [83:11] stock market and like I don't really [83:12] care that much about money. I like [83:13] having fun with my friends. That's [83:14] great. But there is a huge component of [83:17] sociology and just what's going on in [83:19] the world all the time [83:21] that is financial. And I think money is [83:23] like such an interesting window into [83:25] people's lives. You can learn so much [83:28] about somebody if you understand [83:30] what they do with their money, how they [83:32] think about money, how much they talk [83:33] about money, how much they want to show [83:34] off, how much how much attention they're [83:37] putting into their clothes and their [83:38] cars and their jewelry to show other [83:40] people how much money that they have. [83:42] You learn so much about someone's [83:44] psychology. You know, if I learned about [83:46] your politics, I I don't know what they [83:48] are, but if I learned about your [83:49] politics I might learn something about [83:50] you. But if I sat down and I said tell [83:52] me everything about your money. Tell me [83:54] how much you make, how much you spend, [83:55] what do you value, what do you want to [83:56] do? I'd learn so much about your [83:58] personality. In your work on The [84:00] Psychology of Money, how much did you [84:01] think about trauma as a [84:03] protagonist in the story of one's [84:05] financial relationships? [84:06] I think less about trauma. That's a [84:07] component of it, but more so it's just [84:09] that we are all prisoners of our unique [84:11] past. No matter what that is. That's [84:13] trauma for a lot of people, different [84:15] forms of trauma, but you grew up in a in [84:17] a different country than I did. You have [84:19] different parents than I do, different [84:21] values. We're slightly different ages. [84:23] And so you saw a different side of the [84:26] world than I did and that taught you [84:27] different values. It taught you to [84:29] aspire to different things than I did. [84:31] And you and I in in a lot of ways are a [84:33] lot alike. I think if you if we sat down [84:35] and like talked about broader topics [84:37] we'd agree on 90% of things, but we are [84:39] different. And so we shouldn't pretend [84:41] that what I want to do with my money is [84:44] what you should do. And I think a lot of [84:46] times when people argue about money and [84:49] they're like, "Oh, you're investing [84:50] wrong." Or you're you're you're you're [84:52] spending you're you're not spending [84:53] enough. You're spending too much. It's [84:55] not actually people disagreeing with [84:56] each other. It's people who came from [84:58] very different backgrounds talking over [85:00] each other. And they just have different [85:01] aspirations for what you want to do. So [85:04] everyone is is so different and they're [85:06] they're a prisoner of of their past. My [85:09] my brother-in-law is a a social worker. [85:12] I may have may have brought this up when [85:13] I the first time I was on your podcast, [85:14] but I think about it all the time. And [85:16] uh in social work when you're working [85:17] with very disadvantaged kids a lot of [85:19] those kids who are are homeless and [85:21] foster children behave very poorly at [85:23] school. They do very poorly. Their [85:24] grades are terrible in school. They're [85:26] always getting in fights. And he said as [85:29] a social worker he said we have a saying [85:30] in social work. It is all behavior makes [85:32] sense with enough information. So you [85:34] look at this child who is uh getting [85:37] into fights on the playground and [85:38] failing all of his classes. And it's [85:40] easy for the teacher to be like, "What's [85:41] your problem? This is not that hard. [85:43] Just behave. Just stop doing this." And [85:45] then you look at what that kid's going [85:46] through at home. Maybe their parents are [85:48] beating them. Maybe they're they're [85:50] they're foster children, they're [85:51] orphans. Once you piece together what's [85:53] going on in their life you're like, "I [85:54] can understand. All behavior makes sense [85:56] with enough information." And I think [85:58] you can apply that to a lot of areas in [85:59] life, money especially. Where you're [86:02] like you see someone driving a yellow [86:04] Lamborghini. There's a story there about [86:07] someone's past. I'm not judging it, but [86:09] there's a story in there of someone [86:11] being like, "I want people to know how [86:13] much money I made." And it's not a [86:15] criticism, but there's there's a story. [86:17] There's something that happened in your [86:18] life that that that that led you to [86:22] there. And we all have that's not a [86:24] criticism because I have bits of my past [86:27] that influence how I manage money today, [86:28] too. So just recognizing that there's no [86:31] one right answer. In math 2 + 2 is 4 for [86:34] me and you. There is a right answer. [86:36] Money's not like that. We're all just [86:37] kind of trying to figure out what works [86:39] given the lens that we see the world [86:41] through. [86:42] This is a bit of a bizarre question, but [86:44] it had me thinking as you're speaking [86:45] about mortality [86:47] as it relates to money because one of [86:49] the perspectives on money is [86:52] YOLO. Yeah. Do you know what I mean? I'm [86:54] only going to live once. So [86:56] I might as well have a good time. I [86:57] think I definitely have a more of a bias [87:00] in that direction although I'm not fully [87:02] in that direction. And my brother who's [87:04] a year older than me that went is one [87:05] that gave me your book and has worked as [87:07] a stockbroker and actuarial scientist. [87:10] 12 years old he was budgeting his pocket [87:12] money on an Excel document whereas I was [87:15] just spending spending spending. [87:17] And he thinks much more long-term. He's [87:19] like investing in his pension at 21. [87:22] Yeah. Whereas I was like [87:25] at the casino. Not the not the literal [87:27] casino, a figurative casino. I was [87:29] taking bigger risks and just rolling the [87:30] dice. And my [87:32] somewhat illogical way of rationalizing [87:34] my behavior [87:35] and not investing as much in my pension [87:37] was [87:38] I'm only going to live once anyway. So I [87:40] might as well just enjoy my life. And [87:42] when we talk about the coffees and [87:43] saving and all this stuff a lot of [87:44] people will be thinking, "Yes, but [87:46] compounding's fine, but I want to Enjoy [87:48] life. [87:49] Enjoy life. [87:49] I think about a thing when I was uh I [87:51] was in my early 20s at this point and I [87:53] met I there was a co-worker of mine and [87:55] he was uh I don't know, 10 years older [87:56] than me. [87:57] And um he had $25,000 of credit card [88:01] debt which I could not fathom at the [88:02] time. That was such an incomprehensible [88:04] amount of credit card debt that he was [88:05] paying 17% interest on. And at the time [88:08] I just thought and and all the debt came [88:10] from trips that he had taken. He [88:12] traveled Europe and traveled through [88:13] Asia and had a great time doing it, but [88:15] he put it all on his credit card. At the [88:16] time I remember thinking, "You idiot. [88:18] You Do you understand what this is going [88:20] to do to your future?" And then he died [88:22] when he was about 32. Wow. And now and [88:25] then and then I remember thinking like, [88:26] "I'm so glad you took those trips. I'm [88:28] so glad you went into that credit card [88:30] debt." Because the truth was that at age [88:32] 32 he had seen more and done more than [88:34] most people would at age 62. [88:37] And so I think about that a lot of like [88:40] it's always a balance and the truth is [88:41] that you and I don't know are we going [88:44] to live until we're 110 or die tomorrow? [88:46] Nobody knows, of course. One thing I [88:48] think a lot about as a parent is that [88:51] I've been a big saver my entire life. [88:53] Since I got my first job at age 16 I've [88:55] saved the majority of what I made in [88:57] every job that I've ever been in. [88:59] And it would be easy to look at someone [89:01] like me and say, "Morgan, if you were on [89:02] your deathbed tomorrow you'd probably [89:03] regret the vacations you didn't take and [89:06] the the dinners you didn't have, right? [89:08] You would regret that." My answer is [89:09] absolutely not because if I was on my [89:11] deathbed tonight I would take so much [89:14] joy knowing that my wife and kids are [89:16] going to be okay because of what I [89:17] saved. That would That would That would [89:19] be the The worst situation I would be in [89:22] is on my deathbed and looking at my wife [89:24] and kids and knowing you guys are [89:26] screwed. You guys I'm leaving I'm [89:28] leaving you debt. [89:29] You know? And so But that might change [89:31] as I get older. And so when my kids are [89:34] hopefully financially self-sufficient, [89:37] will I still think that? [89:38] You know, will will I still have that [89:39] need to be like I need to work and save [89:42] to provide for my young kids? That's not [89:44] going to last forever. So it'll change [89:46] throughout your life. That is literally [89:47] the worst thought in the world, isn't [89:49] it? To think that you could be on your [89:50] deathbed and look over at your family [89:52] and know that they're about to struggle [89:54] with bills and with food and they're [89:56] probably going to have to sell the house [89:58] and [89:59] their lifestyle's completely going to [90:00] change when you go. It's I I don't even [90:02] have kids yet, but I was just thinking [90:04] about my partner because There's no [90:05] There's no There's no worse nightmare [90:07] than that. I think there's an opposite [90:08] of that, which is [90:10] in several of the books and studies that [90:12] have been done on on dying. You know, [90:14] there are quite a few people who have [90:15] very peaceful deaths. People who know [90:17] they're going to die of terminal illness [90:19] and they're pretty much at ease with it. [90:21] And when you dig into like what's What [90:22] is those people's psychology? How do you [90:24] know you're going to die in 6 months and [90:25] you're kind of at ease with it? One of [90:27] the big factors [90:28] is knowing that your family's going to [90:30] be okay without you. [90:32] Mhm. Because they are sufficient and [90:34] they don't rely on you for wisdom and [90:36] advice as much as they can take care of [90:38] themselves. But the opposite, if you're [90:40] on your deathbed and you're like, "My My [90:43] children, my spouse is going to have a [90:45] real hard me." That is That's the most [90:47] painful thing you can imagine. [90:50] I could also imagine that one of the [90:51] great regrets one might have on their [90:52] deathbed is just not having lived. Cuz I [90:55] was thinking about I sometimes ponder if [90:57] I die now, how would I feel? Like if I [90:58] was given a diagnosis, [91:00] God forbid, um how would I feel? And [91:04] I feel like I've really gone for it with [91:05] my life. [91:06] Yeah. I feel like I've traveled, I've [91:07] seen things, I've done things, I've met [91:09] people, I've lived. So there's a certain [91:11] feeling of There's a certain smile on my [91:12] face or gratitude when I think about [91:16] this being the end. Yeah. [91:18] So it's a balancing act, isn't it? [91:19] Between like [91:21] I guess you can do both. [91:22] Between the two. Between my my friend [91:23] who buried himself in credit card debt, [91:24] even though I'm I'm glad like I'm glad [91:26] he did it given his short life, [91:28] versus the people who save everything [91:30] for the end. David Cassidy was a very [91:32] famous childhood actor and he had an [91:34] incredible acting career. [91:37] Um he died I don't know when he died, 10 [91:38] years ago, 15 years ago, whatever it [91:39] was. He His last words were, "So much [91:43] wasted time." Those are his last words. [91:46] And like you think about And this is [91:47] someone who was at like very rich and [91:49] famous, had like a very enviable life. [91:52] And you can't think of sadder last words [91:54] than so much wasted time. [91:57] And I think like no matter This is like [91:58] the the Jeff Bezos philosophy on [92:00] business was [92:02] he started Amazon because he was trying [92:04] to imagine himself at age 90 looking [92:06] back and having the fewest regrets. [92:09] He was like that that should be your [92:09] framework for life is that when you're [92:12] on your deathbed you have the fewest [92:13] regrets possible. And he did it because [92:15] he was like, "If I don't start Amazon, [92:17] I'm going to regret it. [92:18] But if if I do start Amazon and it [92:20] fails, I won't regret that." So just [92:22] understanding like I think that's a good [92:24] philosophy. That's probably the the [92:25] broadest definition of a risk [92:27] is understanding [92:29] what you're likely to regret in the [92:31] future. And I I I I I don't think anyone [92:32] has a perfect calibration on that. Like [92:35] it's There's a good chance that, heaven [92:36] forbid, if you did get a diagnosis [92:38] tomorrow as you just said, [92:40] that yes, you would look back and say, [92:41] "Man, I really went for it." But you [92:43] also might look back and be like, "Man, [92:45] I And not not not you individually, but [92:47] any of us would look back and say like, [92:48] "Man, I wish I was wish I'd done this [92:50] differently. I wish I was nicer to that [92:51] person. I wish I'd called this person [92:53] more, you know." Worked less. Right. [92:55] Maybe. Yeah. [92:56] I think Bronnie Ware found that in that [92:57] palliative nurse in Australia when she [92:59] interviewed people in their deathbeds [93:00] that like I wish I'd worked less was [93:01] super high. And not a single of those [93:03] people looking back in those situations [93:05] on their deathbed when they're 90 years [93:07] old will look back and say, "I wish I [93:08] worked harder." But virtually every one [93:10] of them will say, "I wish I spent more [93:12] time with my kids. I wish I spent more [93:14] time with my family. I I I I wish I was [93:16] nicer to myself. I wish I let myself be [93:18] who I actually was." I think the top [93:20] regret of the dying from her work was [93:22] that I wish I'd lived a life more true [93:24] to myself, which I kind of interpret as [93:25] like I wish I'd done something else. And [93:27] this gets back to the Chuck Feeney idea [93:29] of the billionaire who said, "I I don't [93:30] want to I I want to live my way." [93:32] Like being independent is so core to [93:36] people's happiness. [93:37] And as I said earlier, like we come from [93:39] different backgrounds, we have different [93:40] aspirations, but independence is a very [93:43] human, natural, universal aspiration to [93:46] be able to live life in your own way. [93:48] I'm not sure if we talk about this much, [93:49] but for that person who doesn't have [93:51] financial independence because they're [93:53] entrenched with debts and bills and [93:56] all these kinds of things, how does one [93:59] get out of that situation? [94:01] Because we can't necessarily [94:03] just save our way out of that situation, [94:05] can we? People do. It's difficult [94:08] because it's likely that [94:09] the mindset and psychology that got you [94:11] there is going to be very difficult to [94:13] break. Extremely difficult to break. [94:15] I heard this statistic one time that is [94:17] This is a completely different topic, [94:18] but I think it is applies to a lot of [94:20] things that [94:21] the statistic that will is most [94:24] predictive on whether you will cheat on [94:26] your spouse [94:27] is how many people you slept with before [94:28] you got married. [94:30] The implication being it's very [94:31] difficult to just flip a switch and say [94:33] I'm a different person now. [94:34] And I think that that idea can apply to [94:37] a lot of different things in life. And [94:39] the psychology of I spend way more than [94:41] I make and I don't care about money and [94:43] debt debt debt, some people can wake up [94:45] one day and say, "No more of that. I'm [94:47] going I'm going to run in the other [94:48] way." A lot of people find it very [94:50] difficult to do. I think one of the hard [94:52] things about money [94:54] that's hard to admit for a lot of [94:55] people, but there's truth to it, is that [94:57] on the nature nurture spectrum, a lot of [94:59] it does lean towards nature. That some [95:01] people are just wired. Your brother was [95:03] wired to plan and save and you were [95:05] wired to take entrepreneurial risks in [95:07] in maybe a way that he wasn't. And so a [95:10] lot of it is yes, you can learn. Yes, [95:12] you can learn from others and learn new [95:14] ideas to think about, but we shouldn't [95:16] pretend that we can fundamentally rewire [95:18] who we are. [95:20] The hardest conversations are often the [95:22] ones we avoid. But what if you had the [95:24] right question to start them with? Every [95:26] single guest on The Diary of a CEO has [95:28] left behind a question in this diary. [95:31] And it's a question designed to [95:32] challenge, to connect, and to go deeper [95:34] with the next guest. And these are all [95:36] the questions that I have here in my [95:38] hand. [95:39] On one side you've got the question that [95:41] was asked, the name of the person who [95:43] wrote it, and on the other side, you [95:45] scan that, you can watch the person who [95:48] came after who answered it. 51 questions [95:51] split across three different levels, the [95:53] warm-up level, the open-up level, and [95:54] the deep level. So you decide how deep [95:57] the conversation goes. And people play [95:59] these conversation cards in boardrooms [96:00] at work, in bedrooms, alone at night, [96:04] and on first dates, and everywhere in [96:06] between. I'll put a link to the [96:07] conversation cards in the description [96:08] below, and you can get yours at the [96:10] diary.com. [96:13] Just to close off on this point of [96:13] saving money, are there any tactics or [96:16] tricks or ways to think about how to [96:19] save for for those people that might be [96:21] working in a factory and that don't have [96:22] a ton of excess income every month? [96:25] I think if you view savings as I need to [96:27] save for something in the future, [96:29] that's hard for people to do. [96:31] If you have a little bit of a mindset [96:33] shift and say, "I'm going to save so I [96:35] can become more independent so that if I [96:37] lose my job, I don't have to panic and [96:39] go find the first one that's available. [96:41] I can take my time and find another [96:42] one." That's independence. If you have a [96:44] medical emergency, you you're going to [96:46] have some options on how to treat it and [96:47] where to go. That's independence. [96:49] Viewing every dollar that you save as a [96:52] token of independence, I think is a [96:54] mindset shift that will get makes it a [96:55] lot easier for people to do versus if [96:57] they're just saying, "I need to save to [96:59] buy a new car." I asked this cuz earlier [97:01] when I looked at the most Googled [97:02] questions around saving, and the most [97:04] popular question is how to save money. [97:08] Yeah. How to save money? Now, they might [97:11] be be asking like what to do with my [97:13] savings. Do I put it in a checking [97:14] account? Do I put it in a savings [97:15] account? Do I invest it? That might be [97:16] part of it. Or [97:18] it it might be as similar to your saying [97:19] with Terrace, people genuinely don't [97:21] know what it means. The second most [97:23] Googled is what is a high-yield savings [97:25] account? [97:25] Yeah. [97:26] And this I think that those questions, [97:28] they're not bad questions. There's no [97:29] There's no bad questions. I was asking [97:30] those questions at at one point in my [97:32] life, too. But it gets to the point of [97:34] like you have an obligation to [97:36] understand how money works and what it's [97:38] going to do to you and how to manage it. [97:40] It's not a nice to have. Everyone's [97:42] going to have to deal with these topics [97:43] whether they like it or not. [97:45] I love this quote from your book where [97:46] you say, "One of the most powerful ways [97:48] to increase your savings isn't to raise [97:49] your income, it's to raise your [97:51] humility." Yeah. [97:53] I think you get there when you realize [97:54] like [97:55] nobody's looking at you as much as you [97:57] are. And nobody cares about your Range [97:59] Rover and your Rolex as much as you did. [98:01] They They may have meant a lot to you, [98:03] but no one else was thinking about them [98:05] that much because they were busy [98:06] thinking about themselves. They were [98:07] busy thinking about their own car. [98:09] And you realize how much modern spending [98:12] and this has increased in the social [98:14] media age last 10 or 15 years [98:16] is trying to get strangers' attention. [98:19] It's trying to put on a show, put on a [98:21] performance for people that you think [98:22] are paying attention to you, but they're [98:24] absolutely not. They're not paying any [98:25] attention to you whatsoever. [98:26] And so you like lowering your [98:29] or like raising your humility is is one [98:31] way to think about it, but it's also [98:32] just realizing like who do you want [98:35] attention from? It's different for [98:36] everybody. [98:37] For me, [98:39] I want my wife, my kids, my parents, and [98:42] like three friends to love me. [98:44] And I did I desperately care about their [98:46] attention. I desperately care what my [98:49] kids and my wife and my parents think of [98:51] me. [98:52] And it's it's fundamental to my [98:54] happiness. [98:55] And from there it declines real quick. [98:57] You know, there's a couple of really [98:58] close friends who are in there, and then [99:00] there's some like colleagues and [99:01] whatnot, and it declines very quickly [99:03] from there. And strangers, the person [99:05] driving on the street could not care in [99:07] the slightest. And maybe that sounds [99:09] obvious, but so much of what we do with [99:12] money is a performance to impress that [99:15] guy who's not paying any attention to [99:16] you whatsoever. And so I want to put a [99:19] lot of effort into fostering the [99:21] relationships with those six or seven [99:23] people. I want to put tremendous effort [99:25] into that and very little effort from [99:27] there. And here's the thing, if I got a [99:30] Ferrari, [99:31] would my wife love me more? Like no. [99:33] Would my kids admire me more? No. And so [99:36] the people who I want to love me are not [99:38] impacted by the fancy things that I [99:39] would buy. [99:40] So what do you spend your money on? We [99:42] live a [99:43] pretty decent material life, but I also [99:46] spend a lot of money. So the biggest [99:47] expense that I have, what I spend money [99:49] on is independence, and I view that as a [99:51] thing I'm spending money on. I spend [99:53] money on controlling my calendar. I [99:56] spend money on the ability to say no to [99:57] work that I don't want to do. I view it [100:00] as I'm financially independent, and so I [100:01] can do the work that I want to do. And [100:03] I've been working on that for 25 years. [100:05] What what else what else do I spend [100:06] money on? Here's what's interesting. My [100:07] son back in the green room, you asked [100:09] about him. There's a thing I was I was [100:10] thinking about just a couple weeks ago. [100:12] I grew up as a skier. I was a ski racer [100:14] in Lake Tahoe. [100:15] And always particularly when I was [100:17] younger, there were always people on my [100:19] ski team who had better gear than me. [100:21] They had the newer skis, the newer [100:22] boots, and cooler gear, and whatnot. I [100:24] always I hated it. Made me so insecure. [100:26] I hated it. And one of the things that I [100:28] did was when my son started skiing a [100:31] couple years ago, I was like, I'm going [100:33] to buy you the best stuff because I was [100:36] insecure, and I'm going to I'm I'm I'm [100:37] I'm I'm going to make up for that little [100:39] chip on my shoulder. I'm going to buy [100:40] you the best gear. And here's the thing, [100:41] he couldn't care less about it. He could [100:43] not care less about the fancy stuff that [100:46] he has. Couldn't care less about it. So [100:47] everyone's different in that. And it [100:49] also gets back to like a lot of spending [100:51] is based off of a a story or a scar that [100:53] you had from earlier in your childhood. [100:56] And where is your your capital [100:58] allocation today? We spoke about this a [101:00] little bit last time, but in terms of [101:01] percentages, you have a ton of cash you [101:04] said. Roughly what percentage of your [101:05] money? [101:05] Uh [101:07] uh 20 25% maybe. We own a own a house [101:10] outright, and then the rest in stocks. [101:12] It's a very simple. Our entire net worth [101:13] is [101:14] a house, cash, Vanguard index funds, and [101:18] shares of Markel where I'm on the board [101:19] of directors. That's it. That's That's [101:20] my entire net worth. It's as simple and [101:22] boring and bland as you could possibly [101:24] get. And what I want to do with that, [101:26] the reason I keep it so boring is [101:29] the variable that I want to maximize for [101:30] is endurance, as we as we spoke about [101:32] earlier. So if my finances are so [101:34] simple, [101:35] then I can spend all of my like mental [101:37] energy, all of the strategy is how can I [101:40] make sure that I can just keep this [101:41] going for as long as I possibly can. So [101:43] for someone that doesn't know what a [101:44] Vanguard index fund is, if you had to [101:46] explain it to your son, he probably [101:48] knows, doesn't he? [101:50] To someone of your son's age, how would [101:51] you explain a Vanguard index fund? [101:53] Because you said you got cash, people [101:54] understand that. People understand a [101:55] house. Vanguard index fund. So an index [101:58] fund is a collection of hundreds, if not [102:01] thousands, of businesses. So when you [102:04] buy an index fund, you're owning a [102:05] little bit of Apple, Amazon, Google, [102:08] Facebook, all of them. Every public [102:09] company that's available. You're owning [102:11] a tiny slice of them. One way to think [102:12] about it is when you buy an index fund, [102:14] you're owning a little slice of American [102:15] capitalism. And which index funds do you [102:17] invest in and why? There's lots of them. [102:19] A lots of I mean there's tons of them [102:21] that are are equally good. So there's [102:22] it's this is not to say that there one [102:24] is better necessarily better than the [102:26] other. [102:26] But you must have a thesis. Most of what [102:28] I buy is called the Vanguard total stock [102:30] market index. The ticker is VTI. Not a [102:32] recommendation for others, but it's it's [102:34] a it's the broadest index. It basically [102:36] owns every stock that's available to buy [102:38] in the world. And it does it at a very, [102:40] very low fee. [102:42] And so I'm not making any bet on AI. I'm [102:44] not making any bet on this industry or [102:46] that company. You're owning a little bit [102:48] of slice of American business. And what [102:50] what has that yielded as on average over [102:52] the last couple of years? [102:54] If you look at like like a good [102:55] historical uh comparison to what it [102:58] would be, which is like the the S&P 500. [103:00] If you go back, you can go back 100 [103:01] years. There's a guy from Yale [103:04] University named Robert Shiller who has [103:05] data going back to the 1880s on US [103:07] stocks. And basically what it shows is [103:09] over time on average, which that that [103:12] phrase is doing some heavy lifting here, [103:13] but on average 8 to 10% per year. And [103:16] why that is like there's a big asterisk [103:18] there is you almost never earn 8 or 10% [103:20] in any given year. You're much more [103:22] likely be up 30% or down 15%. And it [103:26] averages out to 8 or 10% per year, but [103:28] it's always chaos in in any individual [103:31] year. And is there a reason why you [103:32] don't just bet on technology, for [103:33] example? Well, there's a lot of [103:35] technology in that index fund. That's [103:36] the highest weight cuz those are the [103:38] those are the biggest companies in [103:39] America. Amazon, Google, and whatnot. [103:41] But there's also tremendous amount of [103:43] value that can be created by a company [103:45] like Procter & Gamble selling toothpaste [103:47] and deodorant. And there can actually be [103:49] more value in those kind of companies [103:51] than technology because I would bet good [103:54] money that in 30 years people will still [103:56] be using Old Spice deodorant. I would [103:58] not bet good money that in 30 years [104:00] Google's going to be the dominant way [104:01] that people find information. [104:03] And so companies that sell the same [104:04] product for a long period of time have [104:07] endurance and longevity that can [104:09] actually create a ton of value for their [104:10] investors. [104:12] You mentioned the other thing is houses. [104:14] Um you have a house? Yep. [104:16] House sales in 2024 totaled just 4 [104:18] million, the lowest rate since 1995. [104:21] Yeah. [104:22] I mean it's it's this one of the biggest [104:24] social problems, and it is it's so much [104:26] bigger than housing and so much bigger [104:28] than money. [104:29] I think you can tie everything from [104:31] homelessness to heroin to suicide to the [104:35] fact that we in America and a lot of [104:37] areas around the world have not built [104:38] enough homes in the last 50 years. That [104:40] has pushed the price higher and higher [104:42] and higher, and it's pushed out what was [104:45] a small sliver and now a growing large [104:47] chunk of society who rightly feels like [104:50] they cannot afford a basic middle class [104:52] home. [104:53] And it's a huge it's probably the [104:55] biggest one of the biggest societal [104:58] problems that we face right now is a [104:59] housing shortage that has pushed housing [105:01] out of affordability for tens of [105:03] millions of people. Do you recommend [105:05] people try and buy houses or is it just [105:07] a rent those houses? [105:09] Here's what So I've purchased three [105:11] homes in my life. Yeah. Every one of [105:13] those three homes, I don't feel like I [105:14] got a good deal. It wasn't like, oh, [105:16] this is a bargain. Got it. This is a [105:17] great deal. This is [105:19] Not None of the three were like that. I [105:22] bought them. I could afford them. They [105:23] were in my in my [105:25] I was not going, you know, doing [105:26] something that I should not have been [105:27] doing financially. But the reason I [105:28] bought them is because they were a good [105:30] safe [105:32] home for my my family in a community [105:34] that we wanted to live in. And I was not [105:36] thinking about is this going to how be a [105:38] house that I can make a make a fortune [105:39] on? Is this going to go up in value? Is [105:41] this going to go down in value? That was [105:43] never part of the equation. It was, yes, [105:44] I can afford this. It's not imperiling [105:46] my finances at all. But the reason I'm [105:48] doing it is because it's a a safe good [105:51] place for my family to live. And I think [105:53] generally that's the way to do it. And [105:54] once people start thinking through the [105:55] lens of [105:57] is this a good investment? Is this going [105:58] to go up? Are home prices going to fall? [106:00] Maybe I should wait 6 months cuz they're [106:01] going to fall. That's when you're just [106:03] you're shooting yourself. You're you're [106:04] just rolling the dice at that point. And [106:05] it's a And people get into a lot of [106:07] trouble doing that. When they're like, [106:08] oh, I know like I'm going into a ton of [106:10] debt, but I think home prices are going [106:12] to double in the next 3 years, so it's [106:14] okay. That's like that should not be [106:15] ever be part of the equation. It should [106:17] be, I can afford this, and this is where [106:19] I want to raise my family for the next 5 [106:20] or 10 years. I think that's that's the [106:22] formula. So it's more about freedom and [106:24] security than making a quick return. [106:26] Absolutely. [106:27] I see. Here's Here's what's interesting, [106:28] like the psychology of housing, too. Um [106:30] we we bought a new house 8 months ago [106:32] and sold our previous house. [106:34] And that house, the house that we just [106:35] sold, we we did end up making a little [106:37] bit of money on cuz Seattle real estate [106:39] has gone crazy in the last 5 years. [106:41] And really interesting something that [106:43] happened. This is just 8 months ago when [106:44] we sold the house. The day that we [106:46] closed on selling that house and I got [106:48] the proceeds wired to me into my bank [106:51] account. Logged in my bank account, I [106:52] see that number from selling the house. [106:55] The numbers meant nothing to me. But the [106:58] house that we sold meant everything to [107:00] me. It was like my daughter took her [107:02] first steps at the bottom of those [107:03] stairs. My son had his first day at [107:05] kindergarten. Christmases, [107:06] Thanksgivings. Like And it was like [107:08] these numbers don't mean anything to me. [107:10] These numbers are just going into the [107:11] new house, but that house that I left [107:13] behind meant everything to me. So that [107:16] gets back to like don't think of it as a [107:18] as a financial transaction. It should be [107:20] this is where you want to raise your [107:22] family and build some memories. How does [107:24] it compare to investing in that Vanguard [107:25] thing if we look at the returns on [107:27] housing? I have no memories of my [107:29] daughter's first steps in my Vanguard [107:31] index fund. You know, that that that's [107:32] really it. It's You you are investing in [107:35] a Vanguard index fund because you think [107:36] you're going to make money over time. [107:38] Whereas you should not have that [107:39] mentality when you buy a house. It [107:40] should be within your financial means, [107:42] but you should be doing it because it's [107:44] a good place to raise your family for a [107:45] long period of time. It does beg a [107:47] question for for younger people who are [107:49] thinking about [107:50] building that wealth because the first [107:52] thing and the most common thing we're [107:53] taught as it relates to wealth creation [107:55] is to go buy a house. Like it's the [107:57] thing that everybody knows. You leave [107:58] university, you get a job, and you save [108:00] as as much money as you can to put that [108:02] deposit down. [108:02] Yeah. [108:03] That was true in previous generations [108:05] because if you go back to the 1950s, [108:07] '60s, '70s, we were building so many [108:09] more homes than we are today that they [108:12] were much cheaper, even when interest [108:14] rates were higher. They were much [108:15] cheaper. And so the advice of, hey, you [108:18] got an entry level job, you should go [108:20] buy an entry level house, probably made [108:22] sense in the '60s and '70s in a way that [108:24] it doesn't today. The other element here [108:26] that is very easy to overlook in the [108:27] housing problem, the housing debate, is [108:30] that the homes that we found adequate in [108:32] the '50s and '60s, we would not find [108:35] adequate today. [108:36] So Levittown in New York was is like the [108:38] prototypical example. That's when like [108:41] end of World War II, [108:42] build big like like build the middle [108:44] class community. They built this huge [108:46] new community called Levittown in New [108:48] York. [108:49] And that was like the the typical white [108:51] picket fence middle class home that we [108:52] like long for today, and they were [108:54] cheap. They were affordable. The average [108:56] new house in Levittown [108:58] was 700 square feet. It had two two [109:01] bedrooms for an average of a family of [109:03] five or six moving into it. One bathroom [109:06] for those six people. No air [109:07] conditioning. No garage. It would be a [109:09] house that if I showed you today, you [109:10] would be like, it's a it's a it's a it's [109:13] a it's a crack house. Like, nobody like [109:16] would say that is a beautiful [109:17] middle-class house. So, expectations [109:19] over time have increased tremendously. [109:21] So, now the average new middle-class [109:23] house is 2,200 square feet, where it [109:26] used to be 700. So, like, what an [109:29] entry-level house is, the definition of [109:31] that has expanded tremendously over [109:32] time. And if your children come to you [109:34] and they say, "Dad, I'm 25 years old and [109:38] I've just got some excess cash. I've got [109:41] $20,000, $40,000. I'm thinking of [109:44] putting a deposit down for a house." My [109:46] wife and I rented for years, and looking [109:48] back at the time and looking back, it [109:50] was the best thing that we ever did. We [109:51] rented for 10 years before we bought a [109:53] house because we lived in five different [109:56] cities and we could as easily just pack [109:57] up and go and then we we weren't tied to [109:59] anything. We had flexibility. [110:01] And it was pretty much the week that our [110:04] son was born, when we had our first kid, [110:06] that it was like a switch in my head. I [110:07] was like, I need to go have my own house [110:10] because the flexibility that I enjoyed [110:12] when we were childless, it was the [110:15] opposite. I was like, I I value [110:16] stability now. I want a stable house for [110:18] for my family. And it was like instantly [110:20] that switched. And so, that was not a [110:22] financial decision of like, I need to go [110:23] out and buy it cuz I have some extra [110:24] savings. It was like, I want I want my [110:27] house that's mine and it's not There's [110:29] not going to be a landlord that sends me [110:30] a letter and says, "Oh, sorry, you're [110:32] you're evicted." Or, "Sorry, we're we're [110:33] selling the building. You need to leave. [110:35] This is my house." That's that that that [110:37] was the shift for me. It feels like when [110:39] we rent, we're wasting money though. But [110:40] it's not in the slightest. I mean, for [110:43] anyone who's owned a house, you know the [110:44] expenses that go into a house. It's not [110:46] just the mortgage. It's the it's the [110:47] broken water heater. It's replacing your [110:49] roof. It's the the expenses that go into [110:51] it. Like, you want to talk about [110:53] throwing your money away, try replacing [110:54] your roof on a house that you own. That [110:56] feels like throwing money away. [110:59] And it's hard for the brain to conceive, [111:01] you know, that renting might be [111:05] the same as [111:07] buying a house. When you when you net [111:10] out and you factor in opportunity cost [111:11] and flexibility and ability to get on a [111:13] plane and go to London to to do that [111:14] job. [111:15] And you can't quantify that flexibility. [111:17] So, my wife and I lived in five [111:18] different cities. Some of those were [111:19] because we got jobs that we didn't, you [111:21] know, in different cities. We had to [111:22] move. You can't quantify that [111:24] flexibility, or it's very hard to. But [111:26] in the moment, it was everything. It was [111:28] I remember when my wife got into grad [111:29] school, it was like, great, pack up this [111:31] city and move to this city. And it's [111:32] just like no handcuffs. Just get up and [111:34] go. Versus if you own your house, like [111:36] anyone's tried to sell a house, like [111:37] it's a nightmare. And so, you can't [111:39] quantify that, but it meant everything [111:40] in the world to us now. My brother said [111:42] this to me. He's a very smart guy. Now [111:44] now I reflect upon it. He said this to [111:45] me when I was younger cuz I think 25 [111:47] when I got some money, I was telling [111:49] him, "Maybe I'll buy this house. We [111:50] should look at this house." And he [111:52] explained to me in simple terms that the [111:55] flexibility that I had to get up and [111:57] move was actually worth so much more [112:00] than [112:02] maybe some of the equity that I might [112:03] accrue from buying a house. And now I [112:06] look back on it, from that day onwards, [112:08] I then moved to New York and I lived [112:11] there for 3 days. Then I the pandemic [112:13] happened and I suddenly quit my job out [112:15] of the blue unexpectedly and I moved to [112:18] Portugal, then went to Germany, then [112:20] went to Bali for several months, then [112:23] flew back to the UK, London. Now I've [112:26] just moved to LA. Yeah. [112:29] And that's all in the space of 4 years. [112:31] Incredible. And I've and I've gone with [112:32] the opportunity. So, when the [112:33] opportunity comes knocking and the [112:35] podcast I was doing well and then this [112:36] happens and then Dragons' Den this. I've [112:38] just moved with the opportunity. And if [112:40] I'd bought a house, [112:41] You'd be locked down. There are so many [112:42] people today who bought homes in 2021, [112:45] 2022, and their mortgage rate was 2 or [112:48] 3%. They have a 2 or 3% mortgage. And a [112:51] lot of those people want to move today [112:53] because they can get a better job in [112:54] another city. They want to move and they [112:56] feel like they can't. Because [112:58] Because they're they have golden [112:59] handcuffs for the super cheap mortgage. [113:01] Cuz if they sold their house and bought [113:03] a new one, their new mortgage rate would [113:04] be 7 and 1/2%. And so, those are people [113:07] who like a lot of those people look back [113:09] and when they bought in 2021, they're [113:10] like, we won the lottery. 2% mortgage. [113:12] This is amazing. And looking back, [113:14] they're like, gosh, we would've been so [113:15] better off renting if we did if we had [113:17] the flexibility to move. [113:19] So interesting. So much of economic [113:21] prosperity over history is your ability [113:23] to move. [113:24] And that that's been true for hundreds [113:25] of years. Like, if you want to see like [113:27] a basic measure of how wealthy any [113:30] economy is, like, how often do people [113:31] move? Because moving is usually a symbol [113:33] of opportunity. And the more that [113:34] they're locked down and feel like they [113:35] can't move, the more stagnant and like [113:38] sclerotic that economy is going to be. [113:40] What's this idea that you have of asking [113:42] $3 questions? I heard you talking about [113:44] this. [113:45] that from an author named named Ramit [113:47] Sethi. Oh, yeah. [113:48] very well-known author and he says, "Too [113:50] many people ask $3 questions when they [113:53] should be asking $30,000 questions." [113:55] What he means by that are when people [113:56] say, "How can I save more money?" They [113:58] say, "I should stop drinking coffee." [114:00] Mhm. That's a $3 question. And that does [114:02] not making any difference to you. What [114:03] you should be asking are $30,000 [114:06] questions like, "Where should I go to [114:07] college? Should I go to the cheap school [114:09] or the expensive school? Where should I [114:11] live? The cheap city or the expensive [114:12] city? Should I rent or should I buy?" [114:14] Those are $30,000 questions. And we [114:16] spend a lot of mental energy [114:19] on $3 questions that actually that don't [114:21] move the needle that much in our in our [114:22] finances. For most people, there're only [114:24] a couple of expense items that actually [114:27] matter to your finances. That is, your [114:29] housing payment, either rent or [114:30] mortgage, your car payment, [114:35] And yes, you're going to spend money on [114:37] on other things, but those four, that's [114:39] the vast majority of what people spend [114:41] money on. But when you hear people talk [114:43] about how do you save money, it's like, [114:44] "Oh, well, [114:45] stop stop going to Starbucks. You can [114:48] you like pack your own lunch to work." [114:49] It doesn't make that much of a [114:50] difference. It's those big four things. [114:52] So, am I right in thinking that you [114:53] think we should avoid [114:55] either extreme end of the financial like [114:59] approach that people take. So, you've [115:01] got YOLO on one end and you've got [115:04] caring about every coffee on the other [115:05] end of the spectrum. I think those are [115:07] what are you are most likely to end up [115:09] regretting. What do you mean? There are [115:11] a lot of people in the FIRE movement. [115:13] FIRE stands for financial independence [115:15] retire early. It's this big movement [115:17] started 10 or 15 years ago of people who [115:19] are like, "I'm going to save as much [115:20] money as I can in my 20s, learn how to [115:23] live as cheaply and frugally as I can, [115:25] and retire at age 27 with, you know, 600 [115:28] grand in the bank and that's I'm going [115:30] to retire off of that." And it was a [115:31] huge movement. So many of those people [115:33] ended up regretting it because they [115:35] retired at 27 and 6 months later, [115:38] they're bored out of their mind, if not [115:40] depressed. Because they they wake up and [115:42] they're like, "What do what do I do now? [115:43] Do I I just go for I go play golf or [115:45] something? Like all my friends are out [115:47] working. What do I do now?" And so, I [115:48] think the extreme ends of like, "Oh, [115:51] YOLO, I'm just going to spend all I can. [115:52] Live for today. I'm going to spend it [115:54] all. I'm going to go party and travel [115:55] and whatnot." There's there's a [115:58] somewhat of a chance you're going to end [115:59] up regretting that cuz you didn't save [116:00] enough for a time in your life when you [116:01] want to retire and you can't. [116:03] On the subject of retirement, me and my [116:06] friend Jack over there, we were talking [116:07] about people who retire [116:09] and the impact it can have on the [116:11] individual. And I I think I'd be quite [116:13] scared to retire cuz there seems to be [116:15] lots of data that suggests that once we [116:16] retire, it's quite it's downhill from [116:18] there in many respects for many people [116:20] in terms of purpose and meaning and [116:23] connections. [116:24] How do you think about retirement? Is [116:26] that something we should be aiming at? [116:28] My dad, I think, retired and went back [116:30] to work three different times. We [116:31] eventually had to tell him like, "No [116:32] more retirement parties. Like, you [116:34] you only get one." But he would retire [116:36] and then and then a month later, he'd be [116:38] like, "Man, I I really miss work." And [116:40] in his line of work, he could go back. [116:42] He could go back part-time and whatnot. [116:43] So, that all worked out for him. But I [116:45] think he starkly saw what a lot of [116:47] people overlook, which is how much of [116:49] his identity was his job. [116:52] And how much like when he retired the [116:53] first time and he like woke up and [116:55] looked in the mirror and said, "I'm not [116:57] I'm not the person who I used to be. I [116:58] used to be [117:00] a a a this and but I'm not anymore." And [117:03] and it [117:04] he didn't like it. And I was like, it's [117:06] easy like look, every job has downsides [117:08] that are stressful and you don't want to [117:10] do them and they're a pain and you hate [117:12] them [117:13] and you can't wait to live a world where [117:15] you don't have to do the stressful parts [117:17] of your job. But [117:19] for a lot of us, like, what we really [117:21] want to do in our soul is like be [117:22] productive in the world and add value to [117:24] the world. Add value for our family. Add [117:25] value to the world. And one of the the [117:27] quickest ways to become depressed is to [117:29] be very productive and then immediately [117:31] stop. That's a quick path to depression [117:34] for a lot of people. And so, some people [117:37] are very good at retirement. My my my [117:39] mom, on the other hand, was very good at [117:40] retirement. She retired, never looked [117:42] back, and had a very has a very full [117:44] life in retirement. She keeps herself [117:46] very busy with hobbies and friends and [117:48] whatnot. So, some people are very good [117:49] at it. Other people who found their [117:51] identity in their work, that's a lot of [117:53] people. That's me. I think that's [117:54] probably you. Would would go crazy if if [117:57] if we ended up retiring. [117:58] You can't say your own book, but if you [118:00] had to recommend a book that would equip [118:02] us to understand money, wealth creation, [118:04] and all these kinds of things, what book [118:06] would you recommend? [118:07] Oh, I would say my own book. No. [118:09] I think a couple that were really [118:11] important for me, you know, it's not [118:13] bedtime reading, but a guy named [118:15] Benjamin Graham wrote a book called The [118:16] Intelligent Investor. He wrote it in the [118:17] 1930s. So, it is written in 1930s [118:20] English and he was a professor. So, it's [118:22] written It's not quite a textbook, but [118:24] it's not bedtime reading. But there is [118:26] more wisdom about investing in that book [118:28] than any other book that's been written [118:30] in the last 100 years. And even though [118:32] he wrote it almost 100 years ago, 90% of [118:35] it is timeless. You know, he he says [118:36] certain things that are obviously dated, [118:38] but there is more wisdom in there than [118:41] anything else that's ever been written. [118:42] That's why the book still sells a lot 90 [118:44] years after it's been written. That was [118:46] That was a big one. Learning about World [118:49] War II and the Great Depression was very [118:52] influential to me and many other people [118:54] because both of those events, [118:56] particularly World War [118:57] saw the highest range of human emotions [118:59] that I think has ever been documented. [119:01] From the most agony and despair and [119:04] torment to the most like like e- elation [119:08] and happiness that it's over. Like so [119:10] many the the the fullest range of human [119:13] emotions were documented during that [119:15] period from like 1929 to 1945. [119:19] And those 16 years, I think if you learn [119:20] about what happened in the United States [119:22] and all over the world, of course, [119:24] you learn so much about humanity. Like [119:26] World War When you study World War II, [119:28] you're not really learning about [119:29] military tactics, even though that's [119:30] part of it. You're learning about the [119:32] psychology of how people deal with [119:34] uncertainty, dread, risk, doubt, fear. [119:38] You can learn more about those topics [119:40] during that 15-year period than anything [119:42] else. [119:43] One of the things that I I learned from [119:44] listening to your podcast, which is [119:46] fantastic. I highly recommend people go [119:47] listen to the Morgan Housel podcast, was [119:49] you were talking about the dangers of [119:51] rapid growth. Yeah. And I actually [119:55] I I took something that you said in the [119:56] podcast around the danger of rapid [119:58] growth and I sent it to my CEO and my [120:00] chief revenue officer because it's a [120:01] cautionary tale for a generation of [120:04] entrepreneurs who are obsessed with [120:06] growth or costs [120:08] to slow things down. Yeah. What In your [120:11] view, what is the And this could be the [120:13] the dangers of rapid growth in any [120:14] field. It could be someone running a [120:15] podcast or someone building a business [120:17] or or or anything. Someone investing [120:19] money. [120:21] Why do we need to be cautious about [120:22] rapid growth? [120:24] There's a [120:25] really interesting analogy that I like [120:27] with tree growth in nature that if you [120:29] plant a tree out in the middle of an [120:31] open field, [120:33] it because it's out in the middle of an [120:34] open field, it's gorging on sunlight [120:37] because there's no other trees shading [120:38] it. It's just gorging on sunlight. [120:41] Because it gorges on sunlight, it grows [120:42] very, very fast. It can grow like 10 [120:45] times faster than a tree that's covered [120:47] in shade. [120:48] So, you might think like that's great. [120:49] That's amazing. It's growing so quickly. [120:51] If you're a farmer, you love that. But [120:53] when a tree grows that quickly, it never [120:55] has a chance to grow dense [120:57] and hard. It never has a chance to grow [120:59] a very established root structure. And [121:01] so those trees, even though they grow [121:02] very quickly, they die very quickly. [121:04] They're very susceptible to rot because [121:06] they never have a chance to grow hard. [121:08] It's just kind of like mushy softwood [121:09] inside. And if you see a lot of the [121:11] lumber that is harvested these days and [121:13] you compare it to lumber from like old [121:15] growth forest, you you might as well be [121:17] looking at a completely different tree. [121:19] A lot of the wood that we harvest today [121:20] that was grown very quickly is soft and [121:23] weak compared to the old dense hardwood [121:25] that they used to make. And I think [121:26] that's a good analogy that like fast [121:28] growth is fun. It's exciting. But [121:31] there's always it's like speed always [121:33] comes at the expense of durability. [121:35] Always. [121:36] There's a theory in finance that's kind [121:37] of like a tongue-in-cheek theory that [121:39] however fast you grow, that's the [121:41] half-life for how quickly you can die. [121:43] So, like the faster you grow, the fat [121:45] the the quicker you can die as well. And [121:47] you see that in nature. You see it with [121:49] businesses as well. The hard thing is [121:51] that if you're an entrepreneur, if [121:52] you're the CEO or working at a company, [121:54] there is nothing more thrilling and [121:57] exciting and and get you up in the [122:00] morning than fast growth. You love it. [122:02] You love every second of it even if it's [122:03] a danger. You just reminded me of a an [122:06] idea I wrote about in my last book about [122:08] the music industry where they found the [122:09] same thing. The faster a song went to [122:12] number one in the charts, the faster it [122:13] came out. Absolutely. Because people [122:15] getting [122:16] bored of it basically very, very [122:17] quickly. It's everywhere. It's on every [122:19] radio station everywhere and then it [122:20] falls out the chart at the same speed. [122:23] And and the companies that can like [122:24] produce tons and tons of money. Even [122:26] like look at Apple. It was created in [122:27] the 1970s. Didn't really find its [122:30] stride, so to speak, until the [122:32] mid-2000s. [122:33] And so it's not it's it's it's like [122:35] sometimes there like there's companies [122:36] like Facebook, I guess, that and OpenAI [122:39] that found product market fit, found [122:41] like incredible success virtually [122:43] overnight the day that they were [122:44] invented. But [122:46] one of the problems with with rapid [122:48] growth, too, is that [122:49] the difference between building a [122:51] product that's going to grow very [122:53] quickly, that is a very different skill [122:55] than managing a company that now has a [122:56] thousand employees. Those are night and [122:58] day different skills. And so you might [123:00] be a very talented entrepreneur who can [123:02] build a product and get thousands of [123:03] people to buy it. That does not [123:05] necessarily mean that you have the [123:06] skills to manage a 50-person team or a [123:08] thousand-person team. [123:10] How does your work will dovetail with [123:11] the subject of happiness, Morgan? [123:13] Because at the very heart of it, [123:14] clearly, everyone who's clicked on this [123:16] conversation and got this far, [123:18] although they might be thinking it's [123:19] money that they're looking for or wealth [123:21] that they're looking for, probably at [123:22] the end of the day they just want to [123:23] live a happy life. And they think money [123:24] or wealth is a pathway to a happy life. [123:27] With all the work that you've done and [123:28] the people that you've studied through [123:29] history and all that you've written, [123:31] what is your current view on how to live [123:35] a happy life? Well, what's interesting [123:36] is that like when you say happy when [123:38] anyone says happy, you're like, how can [123:39] you disagree with that? Everybody wants [123:40] to be happy. But a lot of why people run [123:43] into problems when they're seeking [123:44] happiness is because happiness is not [123:46] the emotion that you want to go for. [123:47] Happiness is always a five-minute [123:49] emotion. It comes and goes. You [123:51] experience it, but it's a thrill and [123:52] then it kind of wears off very quickly. [123:54] If you hear a funny joke, you go to a [123:56] comedy show, it's funny. You laugh at at [123:58] a joke for 20 seconds and then it's not [124:00] that funny anymore. What you want to go [124:02] for, I think, is contentment. And a lot [124:04] of people like money can buy a good [124:06] life. But when you imagine yourself with [124:10] the new house, the new car, the nice [124:11] vacation, when you dream about those [124:14] making you happy, what you're actually [124:16] envisioning is yourself being content [124:17] with those things. You envision yourself [124:20] on the beach in Maui being content with [124:22] it. And that's why it feels so good. The [124:25] feeling that you want, the feeling that [124:26] you're actually chasing, whether you [124:27] know it or not, is not happiness. It's [124:29] contentment. And I think that little [124:31] shift, too, is cuz most people are out [124:33] there seeking happiness. But they're [124:36] like, I'm not I'm not I'm I I don't feel [124:38] that much better than I used to. Because [124:39] what you actually want to seek is what [124:41] my grandmother-in-law had, which was [124:43] being content with the little bit that [124:44] she had. [124:46] And that's why she was so happy. [124:47] And maybe again, that's the wrong word, [124:49] but she was content. She was perfectly [124:51] content with her very simple, very [124:53] basic, boring life. Boring in other [124:55] people's eyes. She was content. And [124:57] that's why a lot of people would look at [124:58] her, including me, with a sense of envy [125:00] is probably the right word. How did you [125:02] do that? How were you so happy? It's cuz [125:03] she was content with what she had. [125:07] I was thinking about the goals that I [125:08] wrote in my diary at 18 years old where [125:09] I said that I wanted to be a [125:10] millionaire, girlfriend, Range Rover, [125:12] six-pack. And actually, when I envisaged [125:15] that life, what I envisaged was [125:17] contentment. [125:17] Yes. Everyone Everyone does. When you [125:19] imagine yourself driving in the Ferrari [125:21] and you're like, "Oh, that'd be so [125:22] great." What you're actually imagining [125:24] yourself is yourself in a Ferrari being [125:25] content with that Ferrari. But what ends [125:27] up happening is when if you are in the [125:29] Ferrari, you're like, "Oh, look at that [125:31] Lambo. Oh, that's nicer than mine, isn't [125:33] it?" You're not content with it. When I [125:34] get the Lambo, I will be content. [125:36] Right. And then you want the [125:37] Rolls-Royce, whatever it is. Like you're [125:39] always whether you know it or not, [125:40] that's what you're actually seeking. [125:43] Is you just want to be content with what [125:44] you have cuz that's true joy. How does [125:47] one be content now? [125:48] People have been talking about that for [125:50] thousands of years. The philosopher [125:52] Arthur Schopenhauer has this quote that [125:53] I love. He said, [125:54] "If you only want to be happy, that is [125:56] very easy to achieve. But people want to [125:59] be happier than other people and that is [126:01] much more difficult." [126:03] I think that's that's what it is. It's [126:05] like [126:05] so much of it is just a comparison game. [126:08] And for for a lot of people, it's like, [126:10] "I don't necessarily want a a nice [126:12] house. What I want to have is a house [126:13] that's nicer than yours. I don't [126:15] necessarily want an expensive car. I [126:17] want a car that's more expensive than [126:18] yours." That's that it's a weird thing [126:20] to say, but at the core, that's what a [126:22] lot of people want. And so being [126:24] content, to answer your question, is [126:27] moving from the external benchmark of [126:30] comparing myself to you and others [126:32] and towards the internal benchmark of, [126:34] as I said earlier, the only thing that's [126:35] actually going to make me happy in life [126:37] is my family, my health. [126:40] That That That That That's pretty much [126:41] it. I can I I I I I can end it right [126:42] there and put a period there and say [126:43] that's what's going to make me happy. [126:45] It's the internal benchmark. It's not [126:46] comparing what I have to what you have. [126:48] It's just if nobody else was looking, [126:50] would I be happy with this? Cuz the [126:51] truth is, nobody else is looking. [126:53] Another really interesting example is [126:55] just if everyone else was made extinct [126:57] on planet Earth and it was just you. [127:00] Right. What would you do? What kind of [127:02] life would If nobody was watching, what [127:03] kind of life would you live? And I think [127:05] in that life, [127:06] would you want a Ferrari or would you [127:08] want a Toyota pickup truck [127:09] that has utility, that actually like [127:11] makes your life easier [127:13] kind of thing. There's a a great like a [127:15] a thing that I heard a couple years ago, [127:16] which is that [127:18] a high-end Toyota [127:20] is a much nicer car than an entry-level [127:22] BMW. Oh, yeah. Cuz a high a high a [127:24] high-end Toyota is like you got the [127:26] cushy seats and the moon roof and the [127:28] good sound system. An entry-level BMW is [127:30] just status or the appear like you think [127:32] it's status. [127:33] It's just you're buying it for the [127:34] chance that you're going to influence [127:37] somebody else's view of who you are. And [127:39] people like massively overestimate how [127:41] much it's going to actually influence [127:42] other people. [127:43] Do you not think there's something [127:44] hardwired into humans that makes us want [127:46] to strive, though? Yeah, because life is [127:49] always a competition for resources. It [127:51] always has been. [127:52] Of there's a limited amount of food, a [127:54] limited amount of land, a limited amount [127:56] of mates, a limited amount of potential. [127:59] And so what has mattered historically is [128:01] not whether I'm a good hunter, it's [128:03] whether I'm a better hunter than you. [128:04] And the reason I'm here now is because [128:06] my ancestors outcompeted everybody else [128:08] in that situation. Yes. So, I was I have [128:11] competition in my DNA. [128:12] Absolutely. And always will. You We're [128:14] we're never going to get to a world This [128:15] is what Adam Smith wrote about 300 years [128:17] ago. He's like, "If people just needed [128:19] basic food and shelter, they could stop [128:21] right now because virtually everybody [128:22] has those. But we keep going because we [128:25] want to be seen [128:27] by the people who we're competing with [128:28] and showing you, "Look, I'm better than [128:30] you. I made more money than you. I'm [128:31] more worthy for a spouse or attention [128:34] than you are." It's always a [128:35] competition. [128:37] It's kind of a [128:38] a a sad thing to think about. And of [128:41] course, I think people are intelligent [128:43] enough to know [128:45] how silly that game can can be and they [128:47] take themselves out of the game to some [128:48] extent. [128:49] But it's we're we're never going to be [128:51] at a time when that's not the case. It's [128:52] that's definitely hardwired in us. [128:56] What is the most important thing we [128:56] didn't talk about that we should have [128:57] talked about? Is there anything [129:00] comes to mind? [129:01] For the person at home that's dealing [129:03] with all of this tariff craziness, AI, [129:05] all of this stuff. It might seem like [129:07] the world is more uncertain today than [129:09] it's ever been. And I I I don't think [129:11] that's the case with tariffs and AI. [129:13] It It has been more uncertain at many [129:15] points in the past. It just doesn't feel [129:17] that way because we know how the story [129:18] ended in the past, and we don't know how [129:20] this story is going to is going to end. [129:22] So, it's always the case that the world [129:24] that we're living in today feels [129:25] especially fragile and especially [129:28] uncertain. And I think historically it's [129:31] it's not. It's It's It's uncertain and [129:33] fragile in its own unique new way, but [129:36] it's always the case that it feels like [129:38] the world used to be great. We used to [129:40] have it, and now it's not anymore. [129:42] There's a great John Stewart quote where [129:43] he says, "The reason the world felt like [129:46] a better place during your childhood is [129:48] because you were a child." [129:50] And just because we know how the story [129:52] ended, it it it makes it feel like today [129:54] is a very uncertain place, even if it's [129:56] kind of par for the course historically. [129:59] We have a closing tradition where the [130:00] last guest leaves a question for the [130:01] next one not knowing who they're leaving [130:02] it for. And the question left for you [130:03] is, "What is one thing you valued [130:06] starting out that you no longer value?" [130:10] One thing that I This is not necessarily [130:12] changing my mind as it was just kind of [130:14] growing as an adult was when I was in my [130:17] 20s I really valued travel and getting [130:21] out and seeing the world as you should [130:22] in your 20s. When I became a father I [130:25] valued being at home with my kids. And [130:27] it's almost like [130:28] in my 20s a terrible night would be at [130:32] home on the couch. That that's a failed [130:34] night. And in my 30s there's nothing or [130:36] in my 40s now there's nothing better [130:38] than being at home on the living room [130:40] floor playing Legos with my kids. [130:41] Nothing better. So, that was a shift in [130:43] values, but it wasn't because I changed [130:45] my mind. It's just a different state of [130:46] life. [130:47] Morgan, thank you for doing what you do. [130:49] It's um [130:50] so incredible because you know you [130:51] referenced that book The Intelligent [130:53] Investor. [130:54] I tried reading that book and I just [130:55] bounced off it straight away. It's [130:56] really really tough. But your book, the [130:58] one that my brother gave to me all those [131:00] years ago, [131:01] has probably made me millions and [131:03] millions of pounds because I read it [131:04] when I was young enough because it [131:06] helped me to have a lens and a framework [131:08] to think about a lot of this tempting [131:11] get-rich-quick [131:12] investing mentality that you see today. [131:14] I wouldn't even call it investing. It [131:16] helped me to understand the emotional [131:17] elements of saving, spending, investing. [131:21] Um and ultimately it gave me a strategy [131:23] for what to do if I ever made money. [131:26] And although it's a boring strategy, [131:27] it's a timeless one. [131:29] And that is part of the reason why so [131:31] much of my money currently is in [131:33] really safe places like index funds. [131:35] And it it's so important to read books [131:37] like this because [131:40] when you read it and you hear the [131:41] stories of these individuals and what [131:43] happened and what didn't happen to them, [131:47] whenever you experience an emotion that [131:49] is similar or you find yourself in like [131:51] a similar situation where you can relate [131:53] to one of these characters in the story, [131:57] you have a [131:58] a blueprint [131:59] for what happens next. [132:02] And so you ultimately can like Oh my [132:04] god, that was like that guy in the book [132:05] who couldn't stop um gambling even after [132:09] he'd won or he predicted the stock [132:10] market correctly once and then he [132:11] predicted it incorrectly the next time [132:13] and then ended up killing himself. [132:15] And it's And it's it's for so many [132:16] moments in my life, whether it was [132:17] crypto or investing in certain [132:19] particular stocks when I used to like [132:20] pick stocks or starting businesses, it's [132:22] given me this wonderful framework. And [132:24] Same as Ever is the book that I wish I [132:26] had written myself. [132:28] And it's written in a style that I wish [132:29] I'd written myself. And in fact, my last [132:31] book, which um [132:32] which many of my listeners would have um [132:34] listened to, [132:35] was very very much inspired by your [132:37] writing style because it is it it is so [132:40] accessible. It is so story driven, and [132:43] it's so the the subjects you talk about [132:45] in this book are so diverse, but they're [132:47] so pertinent to everything all the time. [132:49] And it's they're so such wonderful [132:51] books. You're the author I admire the [132:52] most of all authors that I've ever met. [132:53] That's That means the world to me. Thank [132:55] you. [132:56] Thank you. That means the world to me. I [132:58] think you're the absolute best in the [132:59] world at what you do. Keeping a Keeping [133:01] a conversation going for a couple hours [133:02] is an unbelievably difficult skill, and [133:05] there are virtually no one else on the [133:06] planet who can do it better than you. [133:08] So, thank you, Steve. I hope everybody [133:09] goes and gets your books. Thank you so [133:10] much, Morgan. Thank you. We'll see you [133:11] again soon. [133:13] This has always blown my mind a little [133:14] bit. 53% of you that listen to this show [133:17] regularly haven't yet subscribed to this [133:19] show. So, could I ask you for a favor [133:21] before we start? If you like this show [133:22] and you like what we do here and you [133:23] want to support us, the free simple way [133:25] that you can do just that is by hitting [133:27] the subscribe button. And my commitment [133:29] to you is if you do that, then I'll do [133:30] everything in my power, me and my team, [133:32] to make sure that this show is better [133:33] for you every single week. We'll listen [133:35] to your feedback, we'll find the guest [133:37] that you want me to speak to, and we'll [133:39] continue to do what we do. Thank you so [133:40] much.