Warsh Backs AI Capex Surge as IGV Rallies Off Bottoms

Warsh力挺AI资本支出激增，IGV触底反弹 非科技类S&P 493企业利润率的普遍改善以及大规模资本部署表明，美国经济能够在不引发衰退的情况下承受不断上升的债券收益率。 主持人 Michael Batnick 和 Ben Carlson 分析了主要市场与经济趋势，重点探讨了 AI 资本支出的激增以及为其提供资金支持的大规模发债活动。他们探讨了当前围绕 AI 的市场评论究竟是过度反应还是长期转型，并重点提及软件股的反弹、企业利润率格局的改变以及 S&P 500 历史低位的股息收益率。讨论还涵盖了宏观经济状况——包括债券收益率走高、美联储货币政策指引以及 Gen Z 的购房趋势——随后转向更为轻松的个人理财思考、travel sports 体育文化以及电影翻拍等话题。 AI 资本支出与债务融资规模激增，预计今年相关发债量将达 6000 亿美元，且在 2027 至 2029 年间占美国 GDP 的约 3%，成为主导未来数年经济走向的核心议题。 (2:53) 美联储主席凯文·沃什（Kevin Warsh）在杰克逊霍尔会议上强调，传统的央行建模与刚性前瞻指引在复杂多变的现实经济环境中存在明显局限。 (10:20) 软件板块 ETF（IGV）在自高点暴跌近 35% 后强劲反弹约 40%，逼近历史新高，引发市场对这一走势究竟是健康筑底还是死猫跳的热烈讨论。 (13:28) 标普 500 指数股息率跌至 0.98% 的历史低位，主因是权重占近四成的科技巨头普遍选择将资金大规模再投资于 AI 基础设施，而非进行现金分红。 (26:12)

Michael Batnick and Ben Carlson argue that binary market narratives—predicting either an imminent AI-driven debt collapse or unprecedented economic transformation—obscure a more resilient and broadening macro environment. They caution against sensationalist crash predictions, noting that earnings growth and capital expenditures are expanding across the broader economy despite late-cycle speculative signals. AI Capex and Doom-Forecasting Extremes (2:53) Amid prominent media warnings of an AI debt bubble, commentary has increasingly polarized as analysts position themselves to be the next crash prophet. AI-related debt issuance surged from $27 billion in the prior year to nearly $450 billion by mid-August 2026, with expectations to reach $600 billion by year-end, while AI capital expenditures are projected to comprise roughly 3% of GDP—nearly $1 trillion annually—from 2027 to 2029. Pundits like Ed Zitron present rigid bearish theses, whereas Goldman Sachs' Ben Snider forecasts that the AI investment cycle could run longer and larger than anticipated. Batnick and Carlson locate themselves in 'Team Middle,' rejecting extreme binary outcomes. They critique Torsten Sløk's thesis that bonds represent a guaranteed win—arguing lower rates will follow either massive AI productivity deflation or a 50% Nasdaq collapse—noting that the colossal capital flowing into data center construction and physical infrastructure could temper disinflationary effects. Software Rebound and S&P 493 Earnings Broadening (13:28) The tech market's rapid sentiment swings were illustrated by the software sector: after sharp declines where individual equities fell 50% to 60% on fears of AI disruption, the iShares Expanded Tech-Software Sector ETF (IGV) rebounded roughly 40% from its lows, drawing within 7% of its all-time high. The hosts observe that corporate managers and investors remain trapped in an overreaction loop, rapidly shifting between aggressive hiring, panic layoffs, and retrenchment. Simultaneously, broader earnings growth is challenging mega-cap dominance. A study by Rich Bernstein Advisors found that among more than 200 MSCI ACWI companies projected to achieve long-term EPS growth above 25%, only one Magnificent Seven company qualified. Custom YCharts data shows net profit margins for the S&P 493 widened from under 11% in late 2023 to 13.6% in 2026, with forecasts reaching near 15% by late 2027. Meanwhile, the S&P 500 dividend yield fell to 0.98%, driven by tech giants allocating vast cash flows into capital reinvestment rather than shareholder payouts. Macro Resilience, Yields, and Measured AI Adoption (29:54) Addressing interest rates and growth, the hosts cite Matthew C. Klein's view that 10-year Treasury yields under 5% reflect normal conditions in an economy where nominal spending and incomes expand around 7% annually. Carlson highlights that real per-capita GDP grew more slowly between 2007 and 2019 than during 1929 to 1941, suggesting higher nominal growth and yields represent a healthier regime than post-financial crisis stagnation. Remarks from Kevin Warsh at Jackson Hole echoed this stability, praising both Wall Street and Main Street for absorbing macroeconomic shocks while acknowledging the limitations of central bank forward guidance. Real-world technological adoption remains incremental rather than catastrophic for labor. US Census Bureau data analyzed by Alex Tabarrok revealed that 96% of surveyed business owners reported zero impact on employment from AI, with only 2.3% expanding headcount and 2.0% reducing headcount due to the technology. The hosts note that corporate disruption often proceeds at a much slower pace than commentators predict. Consumer Stability, Demographics, and Late-Cycle Speculation (23:25) Retail earnings from Gap and Urban Outfitters indicate that consumers remain financially solid, supported by wage growth and stable employment. Buy Now, Pay Later metrics align with this stability: despite previous concerns over credit deterioration, Affirm's 30-day delinquency rate stands near 2.5%. In real estate, high 30-year mortgage rates around 6.8% have depressed sales volume, but Redfin data demonstrates that Gen Z homeownership (under 30%) mirrors the trajectory of Millennials at the same age, undermining claims that younger generations are permanently locked out. Speculative behavior nonetheless persists in other pockets of finance. High-valuation asset management transactions—including Victory Capital's $7 billion purchase of First Eagle and Vanguard's $4 billion to $5 billion acquisition of Altruist—reflect late-cycle optimism. Internationally, South Korean regulators felt compelled to curb extreme speculation in single-stock leveraged ETFs by requiring mandatory desktop trading simulations, demonstrating contrasting regulatory approaches to retail trading fever. Batnick and Carlson conclude that investors should resist siren calls of impending economic disaster or absolute certainty. The central open question is whether multi-hundred-billion-dollar commitments in AI debt and data center capex will eventually deliver corporate profitability before valuation multiples and acquisition premiums face a fundamental reassessment.

节目主持人Michael Batnick与Ben Carlson深入剖析了围绕人工智能资本开支的市场极化叙事，指出评论界正竞相制造末日崩盘预言以争当“下一个Michael Burry”，但宏观数据却显示盈利增长正向非科技领域扩散、名义经济保持韧性且消费者基本盘依然稳固。他们主张摒弃非黑即白的非理性定调，从企业利润率提升、名义增长逻辑及代际资产演变中把握复杂的市场全貌。 AI资本支出狂潮与非理性极化叙事 (2:53) 伴随《巴伦周刊》与《纽约时报》等媒体对AI债务狂潮与潜在经济风险的警示，金融舆论场正争相寻找做空靶点。数据显示，AI相关债务发行规模从上一年的270亿美元激增至2026年8月中旬的近4500亿美元，全年预估达6000亿美元；2027至2029年间年均AI资本支出预计占美国GDP的约3%（近1万亿美元）。高盛策略师Ben Snider等分析人士则认为该周期的跨度与规模或大幅超出普遍预期。面对极端看空者不断修正论据的做法，主持人明确归属于中立的“灰色阵营”，既不认同AI带来10%超高GDP增速的狂想，也反对其必将引发空前崩盘的定调。德意志银行Torsten Sløk提出无论AI成功导致生产力通缩、还是泡沫破裂触发避险，利率均会下行的“债券双赢论”，但Ben Carlson对其通缩逻辑提出质疑，指出大量实物数据中心建设本身具备强资金消耗属性。 极化的情绪引发了高科技板块的剧烈震荡。以软件行业ETF（IGV）为例，在经历AI颠覆论带来的35%大幅回调及个股50%至60%的重挫后，该板块迅速自低位反弹约40%，距历史高位仅相差不到7%。尽管看空者倾向于将其定性为反弹死猫，但企业在过度扩招与恐慌性裁员之间的剧烈摇摆，印证了技术变革初期资本市场缺乏定力、极易被贩卖绝对确定性的激进言论所诱导的现实特征。 盈利扩散效应与资产估值畸变 (19:24) 与市场紧盯科技巨头的习惯不同，Rich Bernstein Advisors针对MSCI ACWI指数的研究揭示出意外动向：在长期每股收益（EPS）复合增速预期超过25%的200余家全球企业中，“科技七巨头”（Magnificent Seven）仅有一家入围。与此同时，YCharts数据显示标普500指数中除巨头外的“标普493”净利润率出现显著扩张，从2023年第四季度的不足11%上升至2026年的13.6%，并预计在2027年第四季度接近15%。这一指标说明AI工具与企业运营增效正切实惠及广泛的非科技实体，驱动盈利增长在没有经历熊市洗礼的前提下实现良性扩散。 然而，资本分配偏好导致传统估值指标出现结构性扭曲。标普500指数的股息收益率已滑落至0.98%的历史极低水平，根源在于权重接近40%的超大盘科技股普遍选择将巨额资金投入AI资本支出，而非现金分红。与此同时，资产管理行业涌现晚期牛市特有的并购狂潮，例如Vanguard以40亿至50亿美元收购Altruist、Victory Capital以70亿美元收购First Eagle，以及高盛相继收购Neos与Innovator ETFs。主持人认为，尽管这类高估值交易符合典型泡沫特征，但财富管理本身的高利润率与资产顺周期增值属性，暂时为高企的收购价格提供了支撑。 名义高增长体系与利率中枢重估 (29:54) 针对美债收益率上升引发的悲观预期，宏观学者Matthew C. Klein指出，收益率走高是投资者告别危机后长期停滞、重拾增长信心的健康信号。目前美国名义收入与总支出以每年约7%的速度稳健扩张，在缺乏经济严重衰退或通胀骤降的前提下，10年期美债收益率处于5%以下完全合理。数据显示，2007至2019年间美国实际人均GDP增速甚至低于1929至1941年涵盖大萧条和二战时期的水平，表明伴随适度通胀的名义高增长体制远比金融危机后的长期低增长更加健康。 在货币政策与模型效能方面，前美联储官员Kevin Warsh在杰克逊霍尔会议上的表态引发关注。Warsh坦承刚性政策框架（如泰勒规则）及明确的前瞻性指引在2021年延误了央行遏制通胀的行动，揭示出经济理论模型在复杂现实面前的脆弱性。Warsh同时指出，头部AI机构年化代币销售额已突破1000亿美元（同比增逾500%），AI正成长为新的生产要素；尽管面临各类宏观冲击，美国实体经济与资本市场均展现出异乎寻常的抗压韧性。 劳动力体感、消费信用与代际置业 (35:41) 关于AI迅速重塑劳动力市场的言论在微观普查中遭遇现实检验。美国人口普查局对数十万家企业主的调研显示，仅2.3%的企业因AI增加了用工，2.0%因AI缩减了用工，高达96.0%的企业雇佣规模完全未受影响，表明技术扩散过程远比舆论预期的更为渐进。消费信贷层面同样展现出反脆弱性：Urban Outfitters与Gap等零售商财报确认消费者虽更具挑选性，但消费意愿随薪资增长依然稳固；“先买后付”（BNPL）领域中Affirm的30天逾期率平稳维持在约2.5%的低位，证伪了基层消费者资不抵债的论断。 代际置业预期同样存在叙事偏差。Redfin数据显示，尽管最年长者仅29岁的Z世代住房拥有率不足30%，大幅低于婴儿潮一代的约80%与千禧一代的55%，但若拉齐至同一年龄阶段，Z世代的置业进展与千禧一代当年基本一致。随着婴儿潮一代庞大财富在未来十余年逐步转移，加之年轻群体较高的股票投资参与度与金融认知，断言年轻人永久丧失购房能力的论调有望在长期内被市场自我修正。 尽管庞大的AI债务发行规模与高估值资产并购显现出晚期牛市的过热痕迹，但广泛实体企业的利润率扩张、稳固的消费信贷指标以及名义总需求的强劲韧性，构筑了较厚的宏观防线。当前悬而未决的核心在于：数万亿美元的数据中心与电力基础设施投资能否如期转化为实体层面的实质生产力，抑或最终因物理电网瓶颈与投资回报不及预期而引发痛苦的资本重估。

## Background 本期内容由 YouTube 频道 The Compound 于 2026 年 9 月 2 日发布，为播客节目《Animal Spirits》的第 480 期。根据页面简介，主持人 Michael Batnick 与 Ben Carlson 在本期探讨了 AI 债务狂潮与资本支出泡沫、2020 年代剩余时间是否会出现衰退、Kevin Warsh 的经济发言、软件股反弹、牛市并购潮、跌破 1% 的股息率、美债收益率上升的积极意义，以及 Z 世代购房前景和文娱推荐等广泛议题。 ## TL;DR 两位主持人围绕宏观经济与科技行业展开了深度交锋，重点审视了 AI 巨额资本支出及债务狂潮对经济的托底效应，并推论 2020 年代剩余时期美国陷入衰退的概率极低。他们探讨了市场在看待 AI 时非黑即白的极端心态，同时指出标普 493 利润率的强劲扩张印证了技术与效率正在广泛扩散。针对资产管理并购潮、标普股息率历史性跌破 1% 以及美债收益率攀升等现象，两人主张从常态化和实体名义增长的积极视角看待周期，并结合零售数据与代际财富规律，反驳了关于消费者耗尽与年轻人永远买不起房的过度悲观论调。 ## Atmosphere & style 整场对话充满轻松幽默的中年好友插科打诨，节奏明快且极具自嘲色彩，在严谨硬核的宏观财报推演与生活化碎碎念之间自如切换。两位主持人展现出默契十足的辩论张力，既不迎合哗众取宠的末日预言，也拒绝盲目的科技乐观主义，以务实的“灰色中庸派”视角抽丝剥茧。听众在欢声笑语中不仅能获得穿透市场宣传泡沫的犀利洞见，更能感受到兼具真实生活温度与理性底色的从容陪伴。 ## Bulletin - [06:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LUh7QU1pLI&t=386s) AI 企业发债规模出现爆发式增长，从去年的 270 亿美元飙升至今年 8 月的近 4500 亿美元，预计 2026 年全年将突破 6000 亿美元，超过美国司法部、交通部与教育部的年度预算总和。 - [19:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LUh7QU1pLI&t=1162s) 剔除七巨头后的“标普 493”净利润率从 2023 年底的不足 11% 跃升至 13.6%，机构一致预期到 2027 年底将接近 15%，显示盈利增长红利正从头部科技巨头向更广泛的实体企业扩散。 - [26:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LUh7QU1pLI&t=1572s) 受不分红的超大型科技股市值权重飙升至近 40% 影响，标普 500 指数股息收益率已跌破 1% 关口收窄至 0.98%，创下美股历史最低水平。 - [36:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LUh7QU1pLI&t=2163s) 美国人口普查局调研显示，目前仅 2.3% 的企业因 AI 增加了雇员，2.0% 减少了雇员，96% 的企业就业人数毫无变化，表明 AI 对现实劳动力市场的颠覆尚处早期阶段。 ## Key takeaways - [02:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LUh7QU1pLI&t=173s) 许多市场观察家怀揣“大空头情结”争当下一个迈克尔·伯里，但未来数年万亿美元级的 AI 资本支出为实体经济提供了强力托底，使 2020 年代余下时间发生经济衰退的概率显著降低。 - [06:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LUh7QU1pLI&t=386s) 托斯滕·斯洛克的宏观模型显示，无论 AI 取得辉煌成功还是彻底失败，基准利率最终都将走低：成功会因效率飞跃压低通胀，失败则因周期萎缩倒逼央行降息。 - [10:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LUh7QU1pLI&t=620s) 前美联储理事凯文·沃什在杰克逊霍尔会议上直言，经济预测的“准确性”至今仍仅是美好愿望，前瞻性指引在现实操作中存在严重局限，无法生搬硬套机械公式。 - [13:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LUh7QU1pLI&t=809s) 软件板块在经历暴跌 35% 后的强劲反弹，反映出市场从“AI 彻底杀死软件”的极度悲观预期中快速修正，也揭示了注意力经济下大众对“虚假确定性”的心理依赖。 - [17:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LUh7QU1pLI&t=1072s) 斯坦·德鲁肯米勒使用 AI 代笔发表文章引发争议，本·卡尔森认为在主流媒体刊发 AI 生成文章属于尴尬的公关掩饰，迈克尔·巴特尼克则认为老派交易员仅视其为效率工具。 - [23:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LUh7QU1pLI&t=1405s) 先锋领航、高盛等大型资管机构近半年掀起并购狂潮，高溢价抢占托管平台与特色策略 ETF，展现出极为典型的牛市后周期商业扩张特征。 - [27:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LUh7QU1pLI&t=1626s) 韩国监管层对三星与 SK 海力士杠杆 ETF 出台为期 5 天 PC 端模拟交易的严厉限制，直接导致狂热的散户杠杆交易量断崖式归零。 - [31:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LUh7QU1pLI&t=1901s) 马修·克莱因指出美债收益率上升实际上是良性信号，标志着金融危机后“失落的十年”彻底结束，当前强劲的名义 GDP 扩张足以支撑中枢更高的利率环境。 - [41:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LUh7QU1pLI&t=2469s) 虽然 30 年期房贷利率逼近 7% 令全美房地产产业链深陷事实上的低迷，但 Z 世代目前的低置业率仅是年龄周期的客观规律，随着代际财富转移，2030 年代将迎来补库置业潮。 - [45:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LUh7QU1pLI&t=2729s) 零售巨头与 Affirm 财报展现出美国消费端的韧性，Affirm 约 2.5% 的低拖欠率有力打破了“消费者正在被借贷榨干崩溃”的悲观叙事。 - [54:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LUh7QU1pLI&t=3284s) 外界对商业化青少年巡回体育俱乐部的批评存在矫枉过正，尽管后勤与经济负担沉重，但其为孩子提供的团队社交与成就感远超社区体育。 - [57:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LUh7QU1pLI&t=3474s) 在流媒体内容泛滥的当下，年轻一代极度依赖预告片视听刺激筛选长视频，即便是制作精良的硬核剧集也面临着观众注意力门槛的严苛考验。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LUh7QU1pLI&t=4s) 赞助商 YCharts 与顾问沟通心理学 本期节目由金融数据分析平台 YCharts 赞助播出。随着顾问行业大会 Future Proof 临近，YCharts 宣布将于 9 月 16 日太平洋时间中午 12:30 登上大会的 Show and Tell 舞台，聚焦财务顾问日常工作中最棘手的环节之一——向客户清晰传达投资策略。本次分享的主题为“客户会议中的说服心理学”（The psychology of persuasion in client meetings），深入探讨如何通过精准直观的可视化图表建立客户信心，并推动对话高效进行。 在分享会后，与会顾问可前往 YCharts 展台，亲自体验其如何简化客户关系全流程的各类服务，涵盖风险匹配、方案提案，以及从容应对客户在会谈中途抛出的突发难题。节目听众点击展示说明中的链接了解更多详情，新用户可享受 YCharts 专业版（YCharts Professional）首期订阅 8 折（20% off）优惠。 ### [00:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LUh7QU1pLI&t=48s) 开学季闲聊：橄榄球赛季回归、梦幻橄榄球之争与听众调查 迈克尔·巴特尼克（Michael Batnick）与本·卡尔森（Ben Carlson）在 9 月 1 日周二正式开启本期节目。随着开学季到来，迈克尔忍不住调侃 Ben 肯定想感叹“夏天过得太快了、秋天转眼就到了”，Ben 则反驳称自己通常在 8 月第一周就唠叨过了。两人感慨步入中年后越来越喜欢秋天，而最令人兴奋的莫过于美式橄榄球赛季的回归。作为纽约巨人队（NY Giants）的忠实球迷，迈克尔自嘲今年球队可能会赢下 6 场甚至 7 场比赛，Ben 则毫不留情地拿迈克尔戴的帽子开起玩笑。 每年此时也是各种“梦幻橄榄球”（Fantasy Football）邀请邮件满天飞的节点。Ben 自豪地宣称自己这辈子从未建过任何梦幻橄榄球队，甚至觉得所有玩梦幻橄榄球的人都显得痛苦不堪；迈克尔则反唇相讥，认为这根本不值得炫耀，反而显得十分无趣，并顺便向听众中给联盟专员发感谢信（"thanks Commish"）的同好们隔空致意。在切入正题前，两人呼吁听众参与多年未举办的听众问卷调查（Listener Survey）。他们表示多年来只在邮箱中看到听众互动，但对整体受众的人口统计学特征知之甚少，希望大家花片刻时间点击节目简介中的链接填写真实反馈。 - 纽约巨人队赛季预期：迈克尔自嘲预计本赛季可能仅赢下 6 到 7 场比赛。 - 梦幻橄榄球态度对立：Ben 将从未参与梦幻橄榄球与从未注册 Facebook 视作个人勋章，迈克尔则视其为无趣的中年做派。 - 社区互动：节目组时隔多年重新发起听众背景画像调查，收集收听群体的基本背景与偏好。 ### [02:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LUh7QU1pLI&t=173s) AI 资本支出泡沫之争：谁想成为下一个迈克尔·伯里？ 话题转向当期《巴伦周刊》（Barron's）的封面专题——《AI 资本支出泡沫即将破裂？250年市场历史给我们的启示》（*Is the AI capex bubble about to burst? What 250 years of market history tells us*）。迈克尔直言，市场中充斥着转瞬即逝的短暂炒作，但 AI 资本支出将是一个在未来数年内持续起伏、贯穿始终的核心宏观主题。与此同时，《纽约时报》（The New York Times）也刊发了关于 AI 债务狂潮可能拖垮经济的深度报道。Ben 指出，许多市场观察家如今都怀揣着“大空头情结”，极力想要重现迈克尔·伯里（Michael Burry）或史蒂夫·艾斯曼（Steve Eisman）当年的战绩，抢先插旗立论，渴望成为那个精准预言崩溃时刻的先知。 两人随后聊到了近期在 RTF 播客上语出惊人的 Ed Zitron，其自始至终极度看空 AI，言论如风暴般猛烈，甚至不惜随着市场发展不断挪动预测的“球门柱”。而《巴伦周刊》文章中引述科技分析师本·赖策斯（Ben Reitzes）的观点则截然相反，认为这场繁荣的规模和持续时间将远超所有人的想象。Ben 顺势提出了一个颇具争议的推论：除非遭遇不可抗力的黑天鹅（如小行星撞地球）或 AI 资本支出彻底断崖式崩盘，否则在当前这十年（2020年代）的剩余时间里，美国大概率根本不会发生经济衰退。虽然听上去有些武断，但巨额资本支出的托底让衰退的概率显著降低。 迈克尔回顾了科技股被少数巨头主导的漫长历史：从斯科特·加洛韦（Scott Galloway）在 2017 年撰写《四巨头》（*The Four*），到吉姆·克莱默（Jim Cramer）在 2016 至 2017 年间提出“FANG”（Facebook、亚马逊、Netflix、谷歌），再到加入苹果演变成 FAANG，乃至如今的“壮丽七雄”（Magnificent Seven）。整整近十年时间里，整个市场几乎都在反复围绕同一批科技巨头进行叙事演进。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: AI 繁荣与经济走向的观点阵营 accDescr: 展示看空先知、持续扩张论与中庸派在 AI 周期中的不同立场与论据。 subgraph 空头阵营 ["大空头预言派（The Next Burry）"] A["认定债务狂潮不可持续"] --> B["警告资本支出泡沫破裂与经济拖累"] end subgraph 多头阵营 ["持续扩张派（Ben Reitzes 等）"] C["巨额资本支出持续注入实体"] --> D["预测规模与持续周期将远超市场预期"] end subgraph 宏观传导 ["宏观现实推论（Ben Carlson）"] D --> E["万亿美元级投资托底需求"] E --> F["2020年代余下时间极难发生衰退"] end subgraph 中庸视角 ["团队共识（Team Middle）"] G["拒绝非黑即白极端预测"] H["关注实际利率与生产力中枢变化"] end ``` ### [06:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LUh7QU1pLI&t=386s) 狂飙的 AI 债务潮与中庸派视角：衰退是否已被推迟？ Ben 重点引用了罗宾·威格斯沃斯（Robin Wigglesworth）为《纽约时报》撰写的客座评论文章中的惊人数据：AI 企业去年仅发行了 270 亿美元的债务，而到了今年 8 月中旬，该数字已飙升至接近 4500 亿美元，预计 2026 年全年将突破 6000 亿美元。这个规模已经超过了美国司法部、交通部和教育部的年度预算总和。更惊人的是，计划在 2027 年至 2029 年间进行的 AI 资本支出预计将占到美国 GDP 的约 3%，粗略折算每年接近 1 万亿美元。Ben 认为，面对如此规模庞大的资金持续砸向实体经济与硬件设施，短期内经济根本无法停滞减速；空头虽然坚称这种支出无法维系，但目前尚未看到急刹车的迹象。 在录制过程中，Ben 的共享办公室内突然有路人探头问路，两人随即插科打诨。迈克尔打趣 Ben 长着一张人畜无害、容易被当成前台的问路脸，并注意到了 Ben 身后新添置的书架。Ben 戏称自己是“人民群众的一员”，亲自拿着内六角扳手组装家具，迈克尔则反驳自己同样精通组装家具，只是挂画这种需要精细手艺的活儿才会请同事帮忙。 玩笑过后，两人回到严肃讨论。当前市场对 AI 结局的看法往往走向非黑即白的极端：要么是生产力大爆发带来 10% 的 GDP 惊人增速，要么是迎来人类历史上最惨烈的资产崩盘。迈克尔与 Ben 明确表示自己拒绝站队两极，自封为“灰色中庸派”（Team Middle / Team Gray）。Ben 提到了阿波罗全球管理公司（Apollo）首席经济学家托斯滕·斯洛克（Torsten Sløk）最新发布的宏观图表，Sløk 给出了一个出人意料的对称结论：无论 AI 最终取得辉煌成功还是彻底失败，基准利率最终都将走低。 - AI 债务飙升轨迹：去年仅为 270 亿美元，今年截至 8 月中旬达近 4500 亿美元，2026 年预计将达 6000 亿美元。 - 财政体量对比：6000 亿美元的融资规模已超越美国司法部、交通部及教育部三者的年度预算总和。 - 宏观 GDP 占比：2027 至 2029 年间的远期资本支出预计占美国 GDP 的 3% 左右，相当于每年近 1 万亿美元的资本开支。 - 托斯滕·斯洛克的利率研判：若 AI 成功带来效率飞跃则压低通胀与利率；若 AI 失败引发周期萎缩同样会迫使央行降息，呈现殊途同归的利率走向。 ### [09:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LUh7QU1pLI&t=546s) 极端市场叙事：AI 繁荣与债券的看涨悖论 Ben Carlson 与 Michael Batnick 探讨了当前市场对于 AI 影响的二元极端叙事。部分市场多头对债券持看涨观点，并给出了看似自洽却极端的逻辑：如果 AI 能够创造天量财富，它将具有极其强烈的通缩效应（Michael 对此仍持怀疑态度，因为建设数据中心需要耗费数以千亿计的资金）；而如果 AI 最终失败、泡沫破裂，纳斯达克指数暴跌 50%，避险资金同样会疯狂涌入债券。因此在部分人看来，无论结果走向哪个极端，债券都处于极具吸引力的位置。 然而 Ben 认为，市场的发展未必非得走向这两种极端结局之一。人们在潜意识里往往渴望戏剧性，期待一场“大爆炸”般的终局或终极高潮，但现实往往平淡得多。回顾美股历史，经历了互联网泡沫破灭和 2008 年全球金融危机这两场“双峰灾难”，整整一代投资者的心理都留下了不可磨灭的创伤。Ben 思考道，即使未来必然会出现某种 AI 驱动的熊市，它是否有可能仅仅走出一次迅速修复的 V 型反转？如果市场以这种方式收场，那些执着于极端叙事的投资者恐怕会感到大失所望。 --- ### [10:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LUh7QU1pLI&t=620s) 杰克逊霍尔会议：前美联储理事 Kevin Warsh 的经济发言交锋 两人随后将话题转向刚刚举行的杰克逊霍尔央行年会。Michael 赞赏了前美联储理事凯文·沃什（Kevin Warsh）在会上的准备发言，但 Ben 却表现得极其不屑，直言宏观“观光客”（macro tourists）总喜欢根据这类预测和宏观评论做文章，但美联储的未来预测根本毫无意义，“就算他用拉丁语讲话，对市场也不会有任何区别”。Michael 反驳称，Warsh 说的恰恰相反，是在反思经济预测的局限性，并坚持要读出文稿中的段落给 Ben 听： ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Kevin Warsh 关于 AI 与货币政策的思考框架 accDescr: 展示资本劳动力投入到生成式大模型，再到代币销售激增，以及最终对央行货币政策提出的核心疑问。 subgraph Inputs["要素投入与产品"] A["资本 + 劳动力"] --> B["大语言模型 (LLM)"] B --> C["用户购买 Token 访问模型"] end subgraph Economy["市场现状与趋势"] C --> D["前两大实验室 Token 年化销售额 > 1000 亿美元<br>(同比激增 500%+)"] end subgraph Policy["美联储核心探究"] D --> E["AI 成为新型生产要素"] E --> F["AI 应用能否带来全经济范围的<br>显著且持续的生产力提升？何时显现？"] end ``` 尽管 Michael 读到两家顶尖实验室年化 Token 收入突破千亿美元且同比激增超 500% 时，Ben 打趣说这听起来像是用 AI 生成的套话，但随后的段落却直接赢得了 Ben 的认可。Warsh 在发言中谦逊地承认： - 他希望央行对经济的理解能精准到可以用泰勒规则（Taylor rule）等机械公式严格套用，但当前的认知完全达不到这一水平，而且影响货币政策的变量随时在变。 - 前瞻性指引在理论和实验室中看起来很美，但在现实操作中问题重重；例如 2021 年的前瞻性指引很可能延缓了应对高通胀的政策反应。 - 在经济预测领域，所谓的“准确性”至今仍仅仅是一种美好愿望（aspiration）。 Ben 笑着承认这段坦承预测局限性的表述“写得确实不错”，Michael 则调侃道这听起来简直像是 Ben Carlson 本人写的。 --- ### [13:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LUh7QU1pLI&t=809s) 软件股的狂暴过山车：V 型反转还是死猫跳？ 话题转向了此前遭遇重创的 SaaS 软件板块。前段时间软件板块遭遇集体清算，以 IGV（软件 ETF）为代表的整体板块重挫约 35%，包括 ServiceNow、Workday、Salesforce、Adobe、Duolingo 和 Figma 在内的多只明星个股跌幅甚至达到 50% 至 60%。当时市场充斥着“软件已被 AI 彻底颠覆、永远死亡”的悲观叙事。 然而转眼之间，该板块已从低点大幅反弹近 40%，距离历史高点仅剩不到 7%。Ben 称这是一场经典的 V 型反转，而亲自下场交易并经历了这一波动的 Michael 却并不完全认同这是单边 V 型反转。Michael 回顾了这轮惨烈而曲折的走势：先是阴跌，接着是崩盘，随后小幅反弹后再次刷新低点，之后在两周左右时间里 IGV 从 75 美元暴拉到 105 美元（涨幅超 30%），紧接着又是一次快速下杀，最后才重返近期高位。Michael 吐槽说，这种走势完全不是平滑的 V 型，反而更像《超龄插班生》（Billy Madison）里亚当·桑德勒（Adam Sandler）手忙脚乱试图画出来的那个扭曲的草书字母“Z”。两人还顺势自嘲，学写草书大概是人生中学会的最没用的技能之一，现在就算拿枪顶着头也写不出草书的小写“z”。 --- ### [16:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LUh7QU1pLI&t=990s) 确定性陷阱：注意力经济下的极端声音与心理安慰 软件股的这波反弹引发了关于当下是否仅仅是一次“死猫跳”（dead cat bounce）的深层讨论。Michael 和 Ben 达成共识：面对 AI 带来的巨大行业颠覆，进行主动选股和择时投资异常艰难，未来的 10 年将充斥着各种极端的过度反应（例如企业因误判 AI 能力而大规模裁员，随后又发现过度裁员不得不重新招人）。 但在眼下的注意力经济中，承认“我们不知道未来会怎样”往往得不到大众的青睐： - 像科技评论作者 Ed Zitron 这样的人之所以能够迅速蹿红（0 到 100），正是因为人性极度渴求“确定性”。只要你语速飞快、充满自信、列举大量数据并引经据典，受众就会蜂拥而至。 - Ben 引用了一句据传源自罗马军团的名言：“行动消除恐惧”（Action removes fear）。当投资者紧紧抓住方向盘，误以为自己或某个网络大 V 洞悉了未来走向并付诸行动时，他们在心理上会感到更加安全和踏实。 - 如果财经博主坦白相告“没人知道这会如何收场”，普通受众只会转头去寻找下一个给他们提供虚假确定性的人。尽管如此，Ben 强调投资者依然需要建立一套基准假设（baseline）作为概率决策的锚点，而不是沉迷于黑白分明的极端预测。 ### [17:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LUh7QU1pLI&t=1072s) 德鲁肯米勒使用 AI 的争议与辩解 围绕传奇投资人斯坦·德鲁肯米勒（Stanley Druckenmiller）被曝使用 AI 撰写内容一事，迈克尔·巴特尼克（Michael Batnick）与本·卡尔森（Ben Carlson）展开了激烈的意见交锋。巴特尼克坦承，虽然他最初的直觉反应是“谁在乎呢”，但现在能够理解为什么有些人将写作视为神圣不可侵犯的领域。德鲁肯米勒在事发后随即辩解：“我当然用 AI 了，我又不是作家，我是个 73 岁的交易员。有这套现成工具，我干嘛不用？” 卡尔森对这一回应完全不买账，讽刺这纯粹是德鲁肯米勒唯一的说辞，场面活像“抓到小孩子在食品储藏室里偷糖果”，属于当场被抓了现行后不得不打肿脸充胖子，堪称“史上最大的公关粉饰”（the biggest spin zone of all time）。卡尔森指出，在《华尔街日报》（Wall Street Journal）这种顶级刊物上刊登一篇全由 AI 生成的文章是极其尴尬丢人的，德鲁肯米勒根本没预料到会被人查出来。巴特尼克则坚持认为老牌交易员根本不在乎外界非议，从其自身视角来看也完全不觉得尴尬。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 德鲁肯米勒使用 AI 事件争议 accDescr: 展示德鲁肯米勒被曝光使用 AI 代笔后的双方看法与分歧。 A["德鲁肯米勒被曝<br/>使用 AI 代笔发表文章"] --> B["本人回应：<br/>'我是交易员不是作家，<br/>73岁用工具理所当然'"] B --> C["本·卡尔森观点：<br/>当场抓包后的尴尬掩饰；<br/>在顶级媒体发 AI 文十分丢人"] B --> D["迈克尔·巴特尼克观点：<br/>完全符合实用主义；<br/>本人根本不在乎外界评价"] ``` --- ### [19:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LUh7QU1pLI&t=1162s) 标普 493 净利润率激增与全球盈利预期扩散 两人随后将目光转向理查德·伯恩斯坦（Richard Bernstein）提供的一张引人深思的市场图表。该图表统计了摩根士丹利全国家全球指数（MSCI ACWI）中一致预期每股收益（EPS）复合增长率超过 25% 的约 200 多只股票。令人惊讶的是，“美股七巨头”（Magnificent 7）中仅有 1 家公司入围，名单被大量海外成熟市场、新兴市场以及除七巨头之外的美股企业占据。投资者此前曾嘲笑市场在没有经历熊市的情况下不可能摆脱对 AI 动量科技股的依赖，但 2026 年以来的实际走势却印证了这种轮动：盈利增长预期正在广泛扩散至全球各类股票。 为了验证这一点，巴特尼克委托数据团队制作了标普 500 指数剔除七巨头后的“标普 493”（S&P 493）的净利润率走势。数据显示，标普 493 的利润率出现了惊人的扩张。巴特尼克和卡尔森探讨了这种利润激增是否正是 AI 落地普及的红利： - 标普 493 净利润率已从 2023 年第四季度的 11% 以下、2024 年的不到 12%，大幅跃升至当下的 13.6%。 - 机构一致预期显示，到 2027 年第四季度，这 493 家公司的净利润率预计将攀升至接近 15%。 - 这一数据强力反驳了“AI 纯属科技巨头循环注资与债务驱动”的空头论调，表明非科技巨头企业同样在切实受益于效率提振。 --- ### [21:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LUh7QU1pLI&t=1300s) 重新认识利奥波德·阿申布伦纳 巴特尼克谈及自己完整听完了利奥波德·阿申布伦纳（Leopold Aschenbrenner）与德瓦克什·帕特尔（Dwarkesh Patel）长达 4 小时 15 分钟的播客对谈（录制于 2024 年 6 月，当时阿申布伦纳在硅谷圈外还鲜为人知）。阿申布伦纳被誉为神童天才，15 岁入读哥伦比亚大学，19 岁以全系第一名（valedictorian）毕业。 尽管巴特尼克自嘲整场硬核对谈中有很多技术和哲学讨论完全“超出了自己的理解范围”，但他对这位天才青年展现出的“人性面”（humanity）大感意外。此前人们往往把阿申布伦纳描绘成一个毫无情感波动的“外星人”或机器，但在采访中，阿申布伦纳复盘了自己被 OpenAI 解雇的往事，坦然承认自己在处理人际与政治沟通上本可以更成熟老练。谈及新创立的 Situational Awareness 基金时，阿申布伦纳分析了以往那些看对宏观趋势却因资金管理不善而爆仓的对冲基金经理，立下“第一条和第二条规则都是绝不爆仓”的军令状，展现了少有的谦逊与真诚。 --- ### [23:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LUh7QU1pLI&t=1405s) 资产管理行业并购狂潮与牛市见顶辩论 彭博社分析师詹姆斯·塞法特（James Seyffart）整理了过去半年内爆发的资产管理行业大规模并购案例，两人一致认为这是极为典型的“狂热牛市行为”（rampant bull market behavior）： | 收购方 | 被收购标的 / 资产 | 交易体量与背景 | |:--- |:--- |:--- | | **先锋领航 (Vanguard)** | Altruist（券商托管平台） | 估值约 40-50 亿美元 | | **普徕仕 (T. Rowe Price)** | FM Investments | 扩充主动管理与特色投资规模 | | **高盛 (Goldman Sachs)** | NEOS Investments | 布局期权收入及衍生品收益 ETF | | **高盛 (Goldman Sachs)** | Innovator Capital Management | 布局定义收益型（缓冲型）ETF | | **胜利资本 (Victory Capital)** | First Eagle Alternative Capital | 交易规模达 70 亿美元 | 卡尔森抛出一个尖锐问题：如果 2027 或 2028 年市场表现惨淡，大家回看今天高位套现与大手笔整合，是否会为当时没看出“显而易见的泡沫”而感到尴尬？巴特尼克打趣称他们早就做好了“完美对冲”——因为过去五年来甚至从 2018 年开始，市场上就不断有人喊“牛市见顶”，各种指标在多年前就符合泡沫定义。但从商业逻辑来看，由于财富管理和资产管理属于高利润率、自带牛市增长杠杆的极佳商业模式，只要市场长线向上，买方支付高额溢价抢占托管平台与资产规模便完全行得通。 --- ### [26:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LUh7QU1pLI&t=1572s) 跌破 1% 的标普 500 股息率 节目的尾声探讨了美股市场结构性变迁带来的另一奇观。两人的同事塔蒂斯·维斯坎特（Tadas Viskanta）援引 Bespoke 的研报指出，标普 500 指数的股息收益率已跌破 1% 关口，收窄至仅 98 个基点（0.98%），创下美股历史上的最低水平。 在以往的历史周期中，股息率曾一度高于债券收益率，而如今在固定收益利率高企的环境下，两者利差被急剧拉大。巴特尼克和卡尔森指出，这并不意味着底层所有实体经济企业都停止了分红，而是由于不分红的超大型科技股在指数中的市值权重已达到惊人的 40%，直接严重扭曲了传统的股息率指标。如果把各大科技公司用于股票回购的巨额现金全部折算为现金分红，标普 500 的真实股东回报率将是截然不同的图景。 ### [27:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LUh7QU1pLI&t=1626s) 没人再在乎股息了：韩国杠杆 ETF 狂潮与 7% 真实回报之争 迈克尔·巴特尼克（Michael Batnick）与本·卡尔森（Ben Carlson）探讨了当前市场对股息态度的剧烈转变。科技巨头们如今正在资本支出（capex）上豪掷千金，投资者显然更希望看到公司将资金重新投资于这些颠覆性创新，而不是作为股息分红发放给股东。而且即使拿到了股息，投资者通常也只是将其重新投回市场。迈克尔直言，当下根本“没人再在乎股息了”（no one cares about dividends anymore），尤其是市场上出现了各种各样全新的收益来源，大家被期权产生收益的策略（options income）迷得神魂颠倒，对传统的股息策略毫无兴致。或许五年后，人们会嘲笑今天的投资者：“你们这群蠢货，股息率都跌破 1% 了，你们怎么就视而不见呢？” 话题随后转向前段时间全球散户狂热的震中——韩国股市。本笑称那是他之前最喜欢的市场，但现在狂欢已经落幕。彭博社（Bloomberg）的数据显示，韩国追踪三星电子（Samsung）和 SK 海力士（SK Hynix）的单只股票杠杆 ETF，其单周换手量曾触及近 500 亿美元的峰值，如今却几乎暴跌至归零。监管机构踩下了急刹车：为了遏制杠杆投机，韩国出台了一系列极端收紧措施，强制散户在交易前必须完成为期 5 天的模拟交易——投资者必须在 PC 端下载一款仅支持 Windows 系统的软件，每天至少花一个小时用虚拟资金学习杠杆交易的机制与风险。这彻底击垮了投机者的耐心，没人愿意为了炒股特意去电脑上折腾。迈克尔调侃道，要是美国监管机构也敢对散户这么搞，Robinhood 上的交易员早就上街抗议了。 讨论还引申到了推特账号“Dividendology”发起的一个经典思想实验：“如果能保证每年的投资获得 7% 的真实年化回报率（扣除通胀后），你会接受吗？”本和迈克尔一致认为这是一个送分题： - 过去 100 年里，美股的平均名义年化回报率约为 10%，扣除 3% 的通胀后，真实的长期回报恰恰就是 7%。 - 如果能稳稳锁定 7% 的真实复合回报，迈克尔表示他会毫不犹豫地把 95% 的资产投进去，只留 5% 拿去博弈和赌一把。 - 令人啼笑皆非的是，在牛市氛围的冲昏下，推特评论区居然有大量散户认为 7% 的真实收益“太低了”，对此嗤之以鼻。 --- ### [30:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LUh7QU1pLI&t=1806s) 两种叙事下的美国经济：利润激增与工人工资的拉扯 本展示了同一天来自欧美主流财经媒体的截然不同的头条，生动呈现了“同一枚硬币的两面”： - 《华尔街日报》（The Wall Street Journal）欢呼：“美国企业利润蓬勃发展，预示未来前景更加光明（Corporate America's profits are booming and signal more good times ahead）”； - 英国《金融时报》（Financial Times）则用审判式的口吻报道：“美国企业利润飙升至纪录高位，而劳动者报酬萎缩（US corporate profits surge to record as worker payouts wilt）”。 这就像那个坐在公交车上的经典表情包：一边阳光灿烂，另一边却阴暗压抑。虽然关于企业利润占经济总量比重的测量方式在宏观经济圈存在不少争议，但不可否认的是，这一鲜明对比极其精准地反映了普通大众对企业界的怨恨情绪。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 经济叙事的二元对立 accDescr: 展示媒体对当前经济状况呈现出的两种截然相反的宏观视角 subgraph Macro["当前宏观经济环境"] Data["企业利润触及历史新高"] end subgraph WSJView["华尔街日报视角（阳光面）"] WSJ["商业繁荣延续"] --> PosFuture["未来更多好光景"] end subgraph FTView["金融时报视角（阴暗面）"] FT["员工薪酬增长萎缩"] --> Resentment["公众怨气与分配不公"] end Data --> WSJ Data --> FT ``` --- ### [31:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LUh7QU1pLI&t=1901s) 国债收益率上升其实是好事：走出“失落的十年” 本引述了《The Overshoot》作者马修·克莱因（Matthew Klein）的一篇深度分析，其核心观点非常反直觉却有力：“债券收益率上升，其实是件好事（Rising bond yields are good, actually）”。当宏观领域的顶级研究员观点与自己不谋而合时，那种找到“同路人（That's my quant）”的感觉令人倍感振奋。 克莱因认为，市场总是草木皆兵，把美债收益率攀升视作即将发生危机的信号。但最简单、也是最良性的解释是：交易员们越来越确信，过去“失落的十年”已经彻底结束了。目前以美元计算的居民收入和支出正以每年 7% 的惊人速度增长。只有在经济增长和通胀同时发生断崖式下跌（即陷入全面衰退）的假设下，当前的利率水平才算过高。在强劲的名义 GDP 扩张、消费激增与工资增长大背景下，10 年期美债收益率维持在 5% 以下非但不是市场失序，反而是完全合理且正常的常态。 克莱因还抛出了一组令人震撼的对比数据： - 2007 年至 2019 年（金融危机之后）期间，美国人均真实 GDP 的增幅，竟然还不如 1929 年至 1941 年（大萧条时期）的增幅； - 尽管大萧条初期发生了断崖式崩盘，但随后经济反弹的斜率却比 2008 年金融危机之后的缓慢爬坡要快得多； - 许多人总在怀念 2010 年代看似风平浪静的低利率与低通胀，但那本质上是极度疲软的超低增长停滞期；迈入 2020 年代，虽然伴随较高的通胀，但换来的是更高活力的真实经济增长。 迈克尔对此评论道，市场上总有一批永远都在愤怒的人：危机后政府压低利率时，他们大骂央行扭曲债券市场、人为制造超低利率；现在政府加大支出、利率重回正常高位了，这批人又跳出来大骂赤字过高、利率无法承受。迈克尔指出，普通人真正感到不安的往往不是利率的具体绝对水平，而是那股持续向上抬升的上升趋势与不确定性。但本质上，债券市场正在精准反映宏观基本面的信号——减税政策、政府财政刺激与居高不下的赤字，利率自然应该走高。 --- ### [34:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LUh7QU1pLI&t=2092s) 调查中的负面偏见与比尔·盖茨的 AI 焦虑 对话最后转向了无处不在的媒体悲观情绪。彭博社最近的一项调查声称，四分之三的美国成年人在将钱花在能带来快乐的事情上时会感到内疚，因为他们觉得自己本该把这笔钱存起来去实现某个严肃的财务目标。迈克尔和本对此嗤之以鼻，迈克尔质疑道：“把他们的问卷调查问题拿给我看看，他们是不是又在诱导性提问？”媒体几乎从不报道积极正面的调查结果，这种负面偏见（negativity bias）完全是在刻意迎合大众的焦虑心理。 随后本试图引入下一个科技话题：“还想聊聊 AI 吗？比尔·盖茨最近很焦虑。”而迈克尔表现出明显的审美疲劳，反问道：“真的有人在乎吗？”本解释称，在私底下，那些真正理解底层技术到底有多强大、演进速度有多快的人，确实感到极度恐惧和忧虑，这也引出了随后对于人工智能未来走向的更深探讨。 ### [36:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LUh7QU1pLI&t=2163s) 普通人真的在乎 AI 吗？就业冲击与“古代文明的兴衰” 本节开篇探讨了一个现实问题：对于那些并非整天泡在网上的普通大众来说，他们真的在乎每周被反复讨论的 AI 狂潮吗？除了那些身边正面临数据中心落地的居民，AI 似乎尚未直接渗入绝大多数普通人的日常生活。迈克尔·巴特尼克（Michael Batnick）与本·卡尔森（Ben Carlson）指出，普通人当下或许不在意，但理应予以关注，因为这极可能是所有人有生之年见证的最重大的技术变革之一。正如比尔·盖茨所言，很多人尚未意识到这项技术的进化速度与潜在风险，它未来要么成为“史上最伟大的均衡器”（greatest equalizer），要么演变成“最恶劣的不公源头”。 然而，AI 对实体经济与就业市场的现实颠覆远未达到夸张的宣传水平。Alex Tabarrok 在边缘革命（Marginal Revolution）博客上引用了基于美国人口普查局的数据：在对数十万家企业进行调研后发现，只有 2.3% 的企业因 AI 增加了雇员，2% 的企业减少了雇员，而高达 96% 的企业表示就业没有任何变化。这一影响目前基本上只是“四舍五入的统计误差”。尽管有人辩称 ChatGPT 在 2022 年才诞生，技术渗透尚处早期，但卡尔森强调，那些坚信颠覆近在眼前的人也必须保持开放心态，多问自己一句：“万一我错了呢？” 在文化与技术理解层面，两人谈到一篇题为《古代文明的兴衰》（*The Rise and Fall of Ancient Civilizations*）的长文，该文试图用“通俗英语”梳理 OpenAI 与 Hugging Face 的生态脉络。巴特尼克坦言自己读了六分钟完全看不懂，简直像在看天书，最后不得不借助 Claude 提炼才豁然开朗。他们还联想到科幻电影对当下科技的惊人预言：电影《机械姬》（*Ex Machina*）早就预示了抓取全网数据合成 AI 的逻辑，而《她》（*Her*）则精准描绘了人类与耳边虚拟伴侣谈恋爱、最终 AI 群体自成体系抽离人类世界的场景。随后两人还顺带聊到电影播客 *The Rewatchables* 终于重温了詹姆斯·卡梅隆的经典《异形2》（*Aliens*），卡尔森顺势列出了自己心目中最爱的 80 年代三大神作：《异形2》、《洛奇4》（*Rocky IV*）与《外星人E.T.》（*E.T.*）。 - **企业用工受 AI 影响分布（基于人口普查数据调查）**： - 增加就业：2.3% - 减少就业：2.0% - 毫无变化：96.0%（在各类规模企业中结果高度一致） --- ### [39:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LUh7QU1pLI&t=2381s) 数据中心争议：后院里的庞然大物与能源瓶颈 关于数据中心的建设争议近期在全美引发广泛讨论：数据中心究竟是拉动经济的新型工厂，还是破坏社区环境的怪物？它到底能创造多少长期就业？彭博社近期报道了一张引发热议的照片：在弗吉尼亚州的奥尔迪（Aldie）——全美最密集的数据中心集群聚集地之一，一座庞大的 AWS（亚马逊云科技）数据中心赫然矗立在普通住宅小区的后院边缘，两者近在咫尺。 面对居民“我绝不想生活在数据中心隔壁”的抗议，巴特尼克提出疑问：全美各地早就布满了大型电商履约中心，数据中心与它们相比真有本质区别吗？卡尔森则质疑，美国拥有如此辽阔的闲置土地，科技巨头为何不能多花点钱把算力中心建在内华达州等荒芜人烟的戈壁沙漠，非要挤在居民区旁边？巴特尼克调侃指出核心瓶颈在于基础设施支持——数据中心运转需要海量的冷却水源和高压电力供应，离开成熟电网根本无法运作，总不能全指望胡佛水坝（Hoover Dam）供电。不过两人一致认同，换作任何人，谁都不希望自己的后院正对着冰冷的服务器机房，贝佐斯若真要建在隔壁，至少得把围栏再加高几倍。 --- ### [41:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LUh7QU1pLI&t=2469s) 处于衰退中的房地产：抵押贷款利率与 Z 世代的置业未来 谈及宏观经济的深层矛盾，卡尔森提出了一个犀利的观察：在全美约 20% 的经济体量（房地产及相关产业链）实际上已陷入深度衰退的背景下，通胀水平依然居高不下；假若房地产交易活跃度重回繁荣，居民大肆借贷装修消费，通胀究竟会被推高到何种恐怖境地？当下 30 年期固定抵押贷款利率徘徊在 6.8% 附近，再次逼近 7% 的大关。住房分析师 Logan Mohtashami 曾指出，如果利差未出现收窄，当下的房贷利率甚至会飙升至 8% 以上。巴特尼克则感叹，对于当前冰封的成交量而言，利率到底是 6.8% 还是 8% 已经没有实质区别。市场几乎无人敢押注房地产行业在短期内复苏，但也正因预期降至冰点，它反而可能成为未来一旦降息时的潜在黑马。 与房地产低迷相伴的是关于“年轻人永远买不起房”的普遍焦虑。Redfin 最新关于各代人住房自有率的报告给出了客观画像：婴儿潮一代自有率约为 80%，X 世代为 73%，千禧一代已爬升至 55%，而 Z 世代尚不足 30%。面对这种断崖式差距，卡尔森认为大众无需过分恐慌： ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 世代置业发展演变路径 accDescr: 对比2010年代千禧一代与2030年代Z世代的置业轨迹 subgraph Decade2010["2010 年代：千禧一代叙事"] A["次贷危机后失业率高企"] --> B["舆论宣称千禧一代永远买不起房"] B --> C["年岁增长与组建家庭"] C --> D["千禧一代住房拥有率回升至 55%"] end subgraph Decade2030["2030 年代：Z 世代预期轨迹"] E["当下步入社会较晚但理财意识极强"] --> F["投资股票积累资产"] F --> G["婴儿潮一代大规模财富与房产传承"] G --> H["Z 世代置业率追平历史同期基准"] end ``` 针对所谓的代际鸿沟，对话指出了几个关键事实： - **年龄客观规律**：出生于 1997 年至 2012 年间的 Z 世代，当下最年长者也不过 27 至 29 岁，这一年龄段在任何历史时期本来就极少拥有住房。 - **轨迹高度重合**：在同一年龄横切面上，Z 世代的置业比例与当年同龄时的千禧一代完全一致，只是普遍推迟了迈入独立成年的节点。 - **2030 年代的代际财富转移**：正如 2010 年代金融危机后全网高呼“千禧一代将终生租房”最终被证伪一样，随着 2030 年代婴儿潮一代自然老去与离世，叠加 Z 世代较以往世代更为敏锐的金融投资与储蓄意识，届时将迎来一波巨大的置业浪潮，“十年后再看如今‘Z 世代永远买不起房’的哀叹，只会觉得荒谬可笑”。 --- ### [44:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LUh7QU1pLI&t=2655s) 凯文·沃什的经济赞歌与联储观察家的周期律 节目最后转向了美联储话题，焦点集中在被视作潜在美联储主席热门候选人的凯文·沃什（Kevin Warsh）身上。沃什在一份公开演说文稿中对美国经济的基本面赞赏有加。巴特尼克打趣称自己虽然算不上沃什的忠实粉丝，甚至平日极少阅读央行官员冗长乏味的讲稿，但对新上任或处于权力更替节点的焦点人物依然保持着好奇心。 沃什在讲稿中直言：“就我今日所见，我对美国经济的整体表现深感钦佩，经济实力似乎还在进一步强化。衡量经济强韧与否的关键指标之一在于其抵御外部冲击的能力，而在这一点上，实体经济（Main Street）与华尔街金融市场（Wall Street）均展现出了异乎寻常的韧性。”巴特尼克对此表示赞同（"Hell yeah, they have."），但他也清醒地调侃道，这不过是新官上任时期的常规关注周期——如同当年耶伦或鲍威尔初掌权印时自己也会仔细研读其发言一样，等到 12 个月之后，自己多半也会把沃什的宏观唠叨丢在一边。 ### [45:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LUh7QU1pLI&t=2729s) 零售消费韧性与 Affirm 的“先买后付”神话 迈克尔·巴特尼克（Michael Batnick）与本·卡尔森（Ben Carlson）从零售业财报切入，探讨当前美国消费者的实际财务状况。尽管媒体上连篇累牍地质疑消费者的韧性与健康度，但各大零售品牌的业绩显示出的却是另一番景象。例如 Urban Outfitters 的高管公开表示，虽然外界悲观声音不断，但从他们日常各个业务线来看，经济和顾客基本面依然稳固，就业稳定真实存在，税后到手收入（take-home incomes）在增长，顾客依然在时尚领域持续消费；Gap 的管理层也强调消费者依然具有韧性，虽然挑剔，但只要产品和价格合适，转化率依然很高。 针对过去几年风靡一时的“先买后付”（BNPL, Buy Now Pay Later），两人回顾了低利率环境（ZIRP）时期的狂热。Affirm 首席执行官马克斯·列夫琴（Max Levchin）近期同样表示消费者表现良好，数据上清晰可见。本指出，当年市场对 BNPL 的批评有两点：其一是估值泡沫严重，这一点完全被言中——Affirm 和 Klarna 等公司的估值随后遭遇雪崩（Klarna 私募估值曾达到 400 亿多美元，后暴跌至数十亿美元）；其二则是人们认为 BNPL 的普及是消费者被“榨干”、走投无路的征兆，而这被事实证明是完全错误的。 如今 Affirm 的市值已恢复至约 240 亿美元，其 30 天逾期率保持在仅约 2.5% 的低位。巴特尼克调侃道，Affirm 财报图表甚至专门标注了“除 Peloton 外的月度分期贷款”，因为早年 Peloton 占其业务比重过大造成了数据失真，但如今无论剔除与否，逾期率都极低。在讨论图表细节时，本因为看不清 2.5% 这个数字，遭到巴特尼克打趣称他就像自己视力不好的妻子，而巴特尼克则自夸拥有优于 20/20 的“超能力”好视力。 - **Urban Outfitters 观点**：就业稳定、到手收入上涨，年轻消费群体对时尚消费依旧买账。 - **Gap 观点**：消费者变得更加挑剔，但只要产品优质、价格合理，消费依然坚挺。 - **Affirm 经营指标**：30 天拖欠率仅为 2.5% 左右，完全推翻了“消费者崩溃”的论调。 --- ### [47:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LUh7QU1pLI&t=2870s) 中年危机、私人重看榜单与茅屋芝士的童年记忆 话题由“视力变差、身体老化”自然转向了中年心态。巴特尼克反思自己正逐渐变成父亲当年的模样——他以前从不列清单，觉得只有老年人才喜欢做各类清单（比如他父亲喜欢列 Top 10 榜单，或者一早起来列出当天要做的事），但前几周他脱口而出称《血点》（Blood Sport）是他看过的最多次的电影之一，于是他专门整理了一份自己人生中“重看次数最多”（Most Rewatchable）的非科学统计 Top 10 电影清单。本感叹，真希望当年能有 AI 记录下自己小时候守在 USA、TBS 和 TNT 电视台前狂看电视的数据。 随后两人逐一对照了这份重温电影清单： - 《阿呆与阿瓜》（Dumb and Dumber）与《反斗智多星》（Wayne's World，本直言《阿呆与阿瓜》也是他个人的榜首之选）； - 《洛奇4》（Rocky IV）与《肖申克的救赎》（The Shawshank Redemption，本透露自己在看《洛奇》前三部之前就先看完了第四部）； - 《冰血暴》（Fargo）； - 《血点》（Blood Sport）、《赌城风云》（Casino）与《落水狗》（Reservoir Dogs）； - 结尾则是《异形2》（Aliens）与《谋杀绿脚趾》（The Big Lebowski）。 面对这样一份杂糅的片单，本惊讶于里面居然没有任何恐怖片，巴特尼克解释恐怖片通常看一遍就足够，缺乏反复重看的价值。巴特尼克自嘲正在完全“父亲化”：除了列清单、视力下降，他还养成了吃菠萝拌茅屋芝士（Cottage Cheese）的习惯。他解释道，自己六岁时父母离异，童年时每周三早晨父亲送他上学前都会带他去小餐馆（Diner），父亲每次都会点一道“中间填满茅屋芝士的哈密瓜”，当时他觉得恶心，如今却成了无法割舍的情感联结与味觉习惯。 --- ### [50:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LUh7QU1pLI&t=3034s) 汤姆·克鲁斯的经典老片续集狂潮与好莱坞怀旧潮 谈及怀旧，两人转入近期好莱坞的续集热潮。继上周讨论《绝岭雄风》（Cliffhanger）重启后，传出汤姆·克鲁斯（Tom Cruise）将拍摄《雷霆壮志》（Days of Thunder）续集的消息。本认为阿汤哥是“独一无二的存在”，放眼整个 80 年代好莱坞，几乎没有第二个演员能在 45 年后重拍当年的代表作，并且像《壮志凌云：独行侠》（Top Gun: Maverick）那样凭一己之力拯救电影院线票房。本甚至分享了自己未发送的推特草稿，称阿汤哥正在开启“退休翻拍巡演”（Retirement Remake Tour），如果真要拍老片，他最想看《鸡尾酒》（Cocktail）续集，看看当年的布莱恩·弗拉尼根（Brian Flanagan）如今是否把酒吧做成了连锁帝国，或者由迈尔斯·特勒（Miles Teller）饰演他的儿子来接班。 巴特尼克随后拿出自己让 AI 工具 Claude 生成的一组老片续集脑洞，供两人点评： - **《百万金臂》（Bull Durham）**：凯文·科斯特纳（Kevin Costner）可以作为老练的捕手或投球教练回归，两人都认可这个方案非常合理； - **《大联盟》（Major League）**：查理·辛（Charlie Sheen）若能回归扮演当年的“野马”，虽然现实中难度极大，但绝对轰动； - **《梦幻之地》（Field of Dreams）**：本极力反对拍第二部，认为这是最不该被翻拍或出续集的经典； - **《雨人》（Rain Man）**：若让克鲁斯出演角色晚年、悉心照料年迈的哥哥，本认为这个构思极佳，“绝对能帮阿汤哥拿下奥斯卡最佳男主角”； - **《铁面无私》（The Untouchables）与《颠倒乾坤》（Trading Places）**：两人一致认为《铁面无私》本身就很烂没必要拍，而《颠倒乾坤》若由艾迪·墨菲（Eddie Murphy）回归则完全可行，因为墨菲目前几乎在翻拍他所有的经典代表作。 --- ### [52:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LUh7QU1pLI&t=3167s) 乔·维森塔尔的 AI 洞察、13 美元墨西哥卷饼与青少旅行体育反思 在随性讨论环节，巴特尼克盛赞了彭博社的乔·维森塔尔（Joe Weisenthal）。他引用了迪恩·W·鲍尔（Dean W. Ball）的一条推特，该推文称维森塔尔在涉足 AI 报道时，能够迅速穿透所有浮夸宣传和认知谬误，直击本质。巴特尼克自嘲称如果给自己对 AI 的理解打分，满分 10 分他大概只有 3 分；而本指出，维森塔尔的特长正在于能敏锐揪出那些动机不纯、言不由衷的虚伪之徒，把看似高深复杂的玄虚概念一针见血地还原为“跳梁小丑”。 接着，巴特尼克聊起自己的通胀心理接受度：他上周去买 Chipotle 的墨西哥卷碗（bowl），花费 13 美元时内心居然毫无波澜。他意识到自己历时四年，终于在心理层面上完全消化了“一顿普通午餐就是得花 13 美元”的高物价现实。他甚至还半开玩笑地提出一个给 Chipotle 的商业构想——推出“鸡肉烧焦边缘”（Burnt ends for chicken），因为烤得焦香微糊的鸡肉比多汁但普通的鸡块好吃得多，本听罢调侃这个半生不熟的构想就像电影《哈啦玛莉》里荒诞的“七分钟腹肌”一样无厘头。 最后，两人将视线转向了当下美国愈演愈烈的青少年巡回俱乐部体育（Club Youth Travel Sports）。《纽约杂志》（New York Magazine）近期刊登了关于昂贵“付费参与”（Pay-to-play）私人联赛剥削儿童与家长的深度封面报道，显示全社会对这种耗费巨资、绑架家庭周末的青少年体育产业链的反弹情绪正达到顶峰。 ### [54:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LUh7QU1pLI&t=3284s) 青少年巡回体育俱乐部的争议与真相 Ben Carlson 聊到了当下青少年体育运动的演变。媒体上充斥着关于私募股权（PE）介入青少年体育、费用水涨船高、竞争极度内卷且耗尽家长精力的报道，这让不少家长觉得自己别无选择。Ben 坦言自己最初也是这种商业化模式的坚决反对者。当他的女儿们刚加入巡回足球队（travel soccer）时，他觉得简直匪夷所思——不仅要选拔试训（tryouts）、缴纳高昂费用，还要到处奔波比赛。他们原本在非营利的社区组织 AYSO 踢了几年，但随着身边的孩子纷纷转入俱乐部巡回队，他们也只能随大流加入。Ben 当时觉得这极其愚蠢，毕竟自己小时候根本没有这种机制。 然而，在亲身体验之后，Ben 认为外界的抵触与批评情绪有些矫枉过正了（"the backlash has gotten too far"）。他的大女儿如今同时参加了俱乐部篮球和俱乐部足球，日常行程排得满满当当，但孩子本人却极其热爱。上周末女儿前往印第安纳州参加锦标赛，虽然妻子对开长途车颇有微词，但女儿却度过了一个无比快乐的周末：和小伙伴们住在同一家酒店、游泳、聚餐、做美甲，并在赛场上一举夺冠。Ben 承认这种模式对家长来说确实麻烦透顶，周围的父亲们起初也都抗拒不已，毕竟他们那代人小时候只在学校打球、在街头打半场野球或与朋友玩非正式橄榄球，从未参加过任何巡回队。 为了解释这种心理转变，Ben 拿自己大学时加入兄弟会的经历作类比：他当年就读于一所三类分区（D3）的小型大学，校园里的派对社交几乎被兄弟会和姐妹会垄断。他起初十分抗拒，认为花钱买朋友很蠢，但当所有朋友都加入后，为了不被主题派对排斥，他最终也加入了。青少年俱乐部体育也是同理，同伴压力虽然令人厌烦，但实际体验远没有批评者说得那么糟糕。许多家长总在质疑为什么不能只参加 YMCA 的社区休闲体育，但现实中很多家长会介意社区球队只是普通爸爸在执教、孩子得不到足够专业的训练。 - **成长环境对比**：Ben 与同代人成长时几乎从未参加过校外旅行运动队，仅限于街头自发组织的非正式球局与学校运动；如今俱乐部与巡回体育已演变为庞大产业。 - **社交与体验驱动**：尽管巡回比赛对家庭后勤与钱包带来负担，但给孩子带来的团队友谊、酒店周末体验和赛场成就感，让实际参与感受显著优于外界的负面舆论。 --- ### [57:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LUh7QU1pLI&t=3442s) 孩子的心理飞跃与观影挑剔症 Michael Batnick 接过话茬，透露自己的儿子 Kobe 今年也开始加入了一支巡回篮球队。谈及育儿，Michael 观察到一个非常奇妙的现象：孩子从 8 岁跨越到 9 岁这一年，心智成熟度出现了惊人的飞跃。尽管他自嘲外人可能觉得这种育儿细节索然无味，但作为父母，这种跨越式的发展让人始料未及——前几天儿子竟然主动提出想看经典惊悚片《大白鲨》（Jaws）。 Ben 对此深表赞同，表示孩子在特定年龄段的认知进阶往往非常突然，会让家长忍不住感叹：“天哪，这到底是什么时候发生的？”这种成长不仅体现在对复杂话题的理解上，也直接投射在他们对娱乐内容和流行文化的独特要求中。 --- ### [57:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LUh7QU1pLI&t=3474s) 影视推荐：《轮胎店》第三季与快餐流媒体电影 话题随即转向娱乐影视推荐。Ben 提到了单口喜剧演员肖恩·吉利斯（Shane Gillis）自编自导自演的 Netflix 喜剧《轮胎店》（Tires）。Ben 坦言自己其实完全不喜欢只有 6 集的第一季，甚至觉得毫无笑点；第二季逐渐好笑起来，而刚看完的第三季简直称得上是一场“启示”（"a revelation"），堪称肖恩·吉利斯的惊艳之作。尽管剧中充满了被某些人批评为低俗幼稚的“大二学生式幽默”（sophomore humor），但 Ben 认为这恰恰符合自己的笑点。如果是放在 2010 年代，肖恩·吉利斯绝对会被纳入贾德·阿帕图（Judd Apatow）的喜剧宇宙并把这个项目拍成院线大片。第三季虽然穿插了略显诡异的回忆闪回，但创意十足，大结局更是巧妙地将整季故事收束在一起。 谈到流媒体内容，两人聊到了现代观众观影习惯的变化。Ben 分享称，现在的年轻一代完全被电影预告片牵着鼻子走——他的儿子看电影前必须先看预告片，以此判断里面的动作场面是否合格。Ben 的儿子最近在 Netflix 排行榜上选了一部名为《The Last House》的流媒体直映电影，由曾在《毒枭》（Narcos）中饰演巴勃罗·埃斯科瓦尔的瓦格纳·马拉（Wagner Moura）以及格蕾塔·李（Greta Lee）主演。故事设定是社区居民莫名被困在家中无法外出，概念虽然吸引人，实际成片质量却随着剧情推进一落千丈，结局更是彻底崩盘。Michael 对此感同身受，并吐槽自己给儿子 Kobe 推荐影史标杆《终结者2》（Terminator 2）时，儿子扫了眼预告片就冷漠拒绝。此外，Michael 提及由亚当·斯科特和罗伯特·德尼罗主演的惊悚新片《看门人》（The Whisper Man），直言自己仅坚持了 20 分钟就因为太烂而弃剧。 - **《轮胎店》（Tires）评述**：从第一季的平平无奇到第三季的口碑爆发，Ben 认为该剧展现了极强的喜剧掌控力，堪称近年来表现亮眼的流媒体喜剧黑马。 - **预告片决策机制**：新一代年轻观众对长视频缺乏盲信，往往依赖预告片的视听刺激决定是否观看，经典老片也难以逃脱这种严格筛选。 --- ### [01:00:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LUh7QU1pLI&t=3622s) 诺亚·卡汉纪录片与杰里·宋飞的喜剧背书 Ben 随后推荐了一部关于民谣创作歌手诺亚·卡汉（Noah Kahan）的 Netflix 音乐纪录片。Ben 的 12 岁女儿在念七年级，正是女儿在 2021 年前后向他安利了卡汉的爆款单曲《Stick Season》，今年夏天全家人在船上度假时也整日单曲循环卡汉的新专辑。这部纪录片不仅记录了卡汉的创作历程，还深刻探讨了他成名后所承受的心理健康困扰。来自新英格兰地区的卡汉在波士顿芬威球场（Fenway Park）为家乡父老带来了一场轰动演出，他在片中感叹那是人生最伟大的夜晚，但从“100 瞬间跌回 0”落差巨大——演出次日他就必须重回平淡的日常琐事。 这段反差引发了 Ben 的深刻共鸣：人往往只有到了成年之后，才会恍然大悟身边的所有人本质上都是普通人。无论是看似高不可攀的老师、父母，还是在万人舞台上光芒万丈的巨星，哪怕他们做着常人难以想象的疯狂成就，剥离光环后依然只是平凡的普通人。 最后，针对 Michael 几周前把知名单口喜剧演员塞巴斯蒂安·马尼斯卡尔科（Sebastian Maniscalco）嘲讽为喜剧界的“橄榄园餐厅”（Olive Garden，意指大众化、迎合庸俗口味），Ben 提出了反驳。塞巴斯蒂安在 YouTube 上推出了名为《We Got Company》的全新访谈播客，首期嘉宾便请来了传奇喜剧大师杰里·宋飞（Jerry Seinfeld）。从对谈中可以清晰看出，一向挑剔且从不迎合客套的宋飞对塞巴斯蒂安的喜剧造诣极为推崇与尊重，两人私交甚笃，这足以证明塞巴斯蒂安绝非徒有虚名。节目的最后，Michael 提及收到了多位听众关于 Max 平台 DC 新剧《绿灯侠》（Lanterns）的邮件反馈，并表示自己刚刷完了前两集。 - **常人视角的成年顿悟**：通过诺亚·卡汉在芬威球场狂欢与次日回归琐碎的剧烈反差，揭示了成年人世界的重要认知——无论外界成就如何神圣，人人本质皆为普通人。 - **喜剧大师的认可**：杰里·宋飞在《We Got Company》中对塞巴斯蒂安·马尼斯卡尔科喜剧技艺的由衷赞赏，打破了后者仅仅是“迎合大众连锁快餐”的刻板批评。 ### [01:02:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LUh7QU1pLI&t=3751s) 剧集推荐与流行文化大乱斗：从《企鹅人》到《安多》的追剧门槛 在本期节目的尾声，迈克尔·巴特尼克（Michael Batnick）与本·卡尔森（Ben Carlson）顺着流行娱乐的话题，聊起了各自最近的追剧体验与偏好。两人探讨了如今即使制作方极力将超级英雄或大型 IP 剧集拍得写实、接地气，部分观众依然难以买账的现象。迈克尔提到，即便许多剧集试图摆脱超英俗套、拍得像常规正剧，自己还是常常“提不起兴趣、看不下去”。不过，HBO 的衍生剧《企鹅人》（The Penguin）获得了两人的肯定，迈克尔直言这部剧“确实非常出色”，本也认可自己看下来体验并不差。 然而，对于另一部口碑封神的星球大战衍生剧《安多》（Andor），两人的感受却截然不同。本提到有成百上千的人极力向他安利 Disney+ 上的《安多》，他前后尝试了足足四次，硬是看了五集，但最终还是因为对庞大的星战宇宙不感冒而作罢，甚至坦言这部剧“快把我无聊死了”（"it bored me to death"）。迈克尔也心有戚戚焉地表示自己光是第一集就反反复复点开看了三遍，虽然身边许多值得信赖的朋友都对该剧赞不绝口，自己也确信它制作上乘，但就是很难真正看进去。 两人盘点并交流了近期收看的其他精彩影视作品，一致感叹今年的电视与流媒体内容质量相当扎实： - **《轮胎店》（Tires）**：迈克尔表示最近刷了这部喜剧，感觉非常轻松有趣、十分享受。 - **重磅正剧与奇幻大作**：包括备受关注的《龙之家族》（House of the Dragon）第二季以及谍战题材作品《代理人》（The Agency）。 - **动作与流媒体热剧**：提及了院线大片《疯狂的麦克斯：狂暴女神》（Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga），以及泰勒·谢里丹打造的军事特工剧《母狮》（Special Ops: Lioness）等作品，甚至调侃要把某些剧集的终极推荐留到大结局播完之后的下周节目。 ### [01:03:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LUh7QU1pLI&t=3822s) 节目结语与下期预告：下周带来关于 AI 的终极答案 回顾完这一整年丰富的文娱内容后，两位主持人为本期节目收尾。针对本期关于人工智能、宏观经济以及科技债务周期尚未聊透的诸多猜想与争议，两人半开玩笑地给听众留下了下期的悬念，打趣道：“下周我们会告诉大家 AI 领域究竟会发生什么”，甚至承诺“下周大家会听到我内心最真实的想法，奉上所有的标准答案”。 在欢快的片尾音乐中，主持人向听众念出了节目的互动反馈邮箱（animalspirits@thecompoundnews.com），并与观众道别，第 480 期《Animal Spirits》正式落下帷幕。 ## Notable quotes > [00:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LUh7QU1pLI&t=4s) 客户会议中的说服心理学 > [02:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LUh7QU1pLI&t=173s) Is the AI capex bubble about to burst? What 250 years of market history tells us > [10:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LUh7QU1pLI&t=620s) 就算他用拉丁语讲话，对市场也不会有任何区别 — 本·卡尔森 > [16:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LUh7QU1pLI&t=990s) 行动消除恐惧 > [17:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LUh7QU1pLI&t=1072s) 我当然用 AI 了，我又不是作家，我是个 73 岁的交易员。有这套现成工具，我干嘛不用？ — 斯坦·德鲁肯米勒 > [21:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LUh7QU1pLI&t=1300s) 第一条和第二条规则都是绝不爆仓 — 利奥波德·阿申布伦纳 > [27:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LUh7QU1pLI&t=1626s) 没人再在乎股息了 — 迈克尔·巴特尼克 > [31:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LUh7QU1pLI&t=1901s) 债券收益率上升，其实是件好事 — 马修·克莱因 > [36:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LUh7QU1pLI&t=2163s) 万一我错了呢？ — 本·卡尔森 > [41:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LUh7QU1pLI&t=2469s) 十年后再看如今‘Z 世代永远买不起房’的哀叹，只会觉得荒谬可笑 — 本·卡尔森 > [01:02:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LUh7QU1pLI&t=3751s) 快把我无聊死了 — 本·卡尔森 > [01:03:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LUh7QU1pLI&t=3822s) 下周我们会告诉大家 AI 领域究竟会发生什么 ## Mentioned 迈克尔·巴特尼克 (Michael Batnick), 本·卡尔森 (Ben Carlson), YCharts, Future Proof, 纽约巨人队 (NY Giants), 巴伦周刊 (Barron's), 纽约时报 (The New York Times), 华尔街日报 (Wall Street Journal), 金融时报 (Financial Times), 彭博社 (Bloomberg), 迈克尔·伯里 (Michael Burry), 史蒂夫·艾斯曼 (Steve Eisman), Ed Zitron, 本·赖策斯 (Ben Reitzes), 罗宾·威格斯沃斯 (Robin Wigglesworth), 托斯滕·斯洛克 (Torsten Sløk), 阿波罗全球管理公司 (Apollo), 凯文·沃什 (Kevin Warsh), IGV ETF, ServiceNow, Workday, Salesforce, Adobe, Duolingo, Figma, 斯坦·德鲁肯米勒 (Stanley Druckenmiller), 理查德·伯恩斯坦 (Richard Bernstein), MSCI ACWI, 美股七巨头 (Magnificent 7), 标普 493 (S&P 493), 利奥波德·阿申布伦纳 (Leopold Aschenbrenner), 德瓦克什·帕特尔 (Dwarkesh Patel), 詹姆斯·塞法特 (James Seyffart), 先锋领航 (Vanguard), Altruist, 普徕仕 (T. Rowe Price), 高盛 (Goldman Sachs), NEOS Investments, Innovator Capital Management, 胜利资本 (Victory Capital), 塔蒂斯·维斯坎特 (Tadas Viskanta), Bespoke, 三星电子 (Samsung), SK 海力士 (SK Hynix), 马修·克莱因 (Matthew Klein), The Overshoot, 比尔·盖茨 (Bill Gates), Alex Tabarrok, OpenAI, Hugging Face, Claude, AWS, Redfin, Urban Outfitters, Gap, Affirm, 马克斯·列夫琴 (Max Levchin), Klarna, 汤姆·克鲁斯 (Tom Cruise), 乔·维森塔尔 (Joe Weisenthal), Chipotle, 肖恩·吉利斯 (Shane Gillis), 《轮胎店》 (Tires), 诺亚·卡汉 (Noah Kahan), 杰里·宋飞 (Jerry Seinfeld), 塞巴斯蒂安·马尼斯卡尔科 (Sebastian Maniscalco), 《企鹅人》 (The Penguin), 《安多》 (Andor), 《龙之家族》 (House of the Dragon) ## Video description On episode 480 of Animal Spirits, Michael Batnick and Ben Carlson discuss: the AI debt binge, no recessions for the rest of the 2020s, Kevin Warsh thoughts on the economy, the dead cat bounce in software stocks, bull market M&A deals, no one cares about dividends anymore, rising yields are a good thing, AI civilizations, Gen Z will be buying houses, Tom Cruise remakes and more. This episode is sponsored by YCharts. To learn more about YCharts Future Proof session and get 20% off your initial YCharts Professional subscription, visit https://go.ycharts.com/future-proof-2026 (new customers only). Please take our 2026 audience survey here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/LHC8QHD ► 00:00 - YCharts Ad ► 00:48 - Intro ► 02:53 - Stock Market ► 26:12 - Investor Behavior ► 30:05 - The Economy ► 35:39 - AI ► 41:06 - Real Estate ► 44:10 - Personal Finance ► 47:50 - Entertainment ► 52:45 - Random ► 57:50 - Recommendations 👕 Check out The Compound shop: https://idontshop.com 🎙️Listen to our podcasts: TCAF: https://podcasts.thecompoundnews.com/show/TCAF/ Animal Spirits: https://podcasts.thecompoundnews.com/show/animalspirits/ Ask The Compound: https://podcasts.thecompoundnews.com/show/ATC/ The Compound Newsletter: https://www.thecompoundnews.com/subscribe Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-compound-media/ Instagram: https://instagram.com/thecompoundnews Twitter: https://twitter.com/thecompoundnews Tik Tok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thecompoundnews Investing involves the risk of loss. This podcast is for informational purposes only and should not be or regarded as personalized investment advice or relied upon for investment decisions. Michael Batnick and Ben Carlson are employees of Ritholtz Wealth Management and may maintain positions in the securities discussed in this video. All opinions expressed by them are solely their own opinion and do not reflect the opinion of Ritholtz Wealth Management. See our disclosures here: https://ritholtzwealth.com/podcast-youtube-disclosures/ The Compound Media, Incorporated, an affiliate of Ritholtz Wealth Management, receives payment from various entities for advertisements in affiliated podcasts, blogs and emails. Inclusion of such advertisements does not constitute or imply endorsement, sponsorship or recommendation thereof, or any affiliation therewith, by the Content Creator or by Ritholtz Wealth Management or any of its employees. For additional advertisement disclaimers see here https://ritholtzwealth.com/advertising-disclaimers. #thecompound #investing #stockmarket [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LUh7QU1pLI)

[0:04] 客户会议中的说服心理学 [2:53] Is the AI capex bubble about to burst? What 250 years of market history tells us [10:20] 本·卡尔森: 就算他用拉丁语讲话，对市场也不会有任何区别 [16:30] 行动消除恐惧 [17:52] 斯坦·德鲁肯米勒: 我当然用 AI 了，我又不是作家，我是个 73 岁的交易员。有这套现成工具，我干嘛不用？ [21:40] 利奥波德·阿申布伦纳: 第一条和第二条规则都是绝不爆仓 [27:06] 迈克尔·巴特尼克: 没人再在乎股息了 [31:41] 马修·克莱因: 债券收益率上升，其实是件好事 [36:03] 本·卡尔森: 万一我错了呢？ [41:09] 本·卡尔森: 十年后再看如今‘Z 世代永远买不起房’的哀叹，只会觉得荒谬可笑 [62:31] 本·卡尔森: 快把我无聊死了 [63:42] 下周我们会告诉大家 AI 领域究竟会发生什么

[7:35] Torsten Sløk (via Ben Carlson): If AI succeeds, rates will be lower. If AI fails, rates will be lower. [16:54] Ben Carlson: When you speak with confidence and you speak fast and you speak with numbers and you cite sources, you build an audience... Action removes fear. [23:25] Michael Batnick: Every box is checked for this being a bubble... We're perfectly hedged. [44:30] Kevin Warsh: One indicator of strength is how well an economy holds up to shocks. On that score, both Main Street and Wall Street have been remarkably resilient.

[0:04] Today's show is sponsored by Y Charts. [0:06] Future proof is on the horizon, and Y [0:08] Charts is taking the stage during the [0:09] event to talk about one of the trickiest [0:11] parts of Advisor's Day, communicating [0:12] investment strategy on September 16th, [0:15] 12:30 p.m. That's West Coast time. On [0:17] the show and tell stage, Wide Charts [0:19] will present the psychology of [0:20] persuasion in client meetings, taking a [0:22] deep dive into how the right visuals [0:23] build client confidence and keep [0:24] conversations moving forward. After the [0:26] session, stop by their booth to see up [0:28] close how Y chart simplifies every stage [0:30] of the client relationship from risk [0:32] alignment and proposals to tough [0:33] questions that come up mid meeting. [0:35] Click the link in the show notes to [0:36] learn more about their session and get [0:38] 20% off your initial Y charts [0:40] professional subscription. New customers [0:41] only. [0:48] Welcome to [music] Animal Spirits with [0:50] Michael and Ben. It is Tuesday, [0:53] September 1st. [music] That means back [0:55] to school. [0:56] >> Come on, say it. [0:57] >> What's that? [0:57] >> You know you want to say it. Summer went [0:59] so fast. Summer went I can't believe [1:00] it's fally. Summer went so fast. [1:02] >> No, no, no, no, no. I I do that spiel in [1:04] in the first week of August. [1:05] >> Okay. [1:06] >> Um, but this is uh this is a good [1:10] season. Great season. [music] [1:13] >> All right. [1:13] >> Football is back. Football's coming. [1:15] What? What? What? Say what you're going [1:16] to say. [1:17] >> You say this every year. [1:19] >> Okay. [1:20] >> That's that's okay. It's a sign of [1:21] middle age. [1:22] I like every year I like it gets better [1:24] and better. [1:25] >> That's true. [1:26] >> Uh football's coming back. This could be [1:28] the Giants year. We might win six games, [1:30] maybe seven. Who knows? [1:32] >> Not with that hat. [1:33] >> It's I like this hat. [1:35] >> Okay. [1:36] >> It's a type of It's a time of the year [1:38] where you start to get [laughter] you [1:40] start to get into fantasy football [1:41] emails, which Ben, you don't you're not [1:43] a fantasy football guy. I know this, [1:44] right? [1:44] >> Of course not. No. [1:45] >> Uh and I want to give a shout out to all [1:47] the thanks Kamish people. I know. Again, [1:50] you don't know this, but I think maybe [1:51] some maybe there's two people in the [1:52] audience laughing. [1:53] >> I've literally never signed up for a [1:54] fantasy football team in my life. I'm [1:56] pretty proud of that fact. [1:57] >> That's That's not a badge of honor. I [1:58] don't think that's pretty lame. It's [2:01] very lame. It's luderous behavior. No [2:04] offense. [2:05] >> Is Have you ever talked to one person [2:06] who's happy about playing fantasy [2:07] football? [2:09] Everyone who plays fantasy football is [2:10] miserable. [2:11] >> I mean, we're we're we're we're past [2:12] that stage in our lives, but you never [2:14] did it. [2:15] >> No, just like I never sent off Facebook. [2:17] >> All right. Um, [2:18] >> badge of honor. Enough of this. Uh [2:21] we before we get into the show, we have [2:24] uh we have a listener survey. We want to [2:27] hear from you or we want to hear about [2:28] you. I don't think we've done this in I [2:31] don't know, it's been years. We know [2:33] nothing about our audience, the [2:34] demographics of our audience. Who are [2:35] you people? We hear from you. We love [2:37] the emails, but we want to know. So, if [2:38] you don't mind, take a second. Link in [2:41] show notes. If you can't find us, email [2:43] us. Um thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [2:46] All right. No, just for all the great [2:47] recommendations we've given over the [2:49] years, it's totally worth it. [2:50] >> Send it back. [2:51] >> Send it back. [2:53] >> Yeah. [2:53] >> All right. This was on the This was the [2:55] cover story for Baron's Ben. Um, is the [2:58] AI capex bubble about to burst? What 250 [3:02] years of market history tells us? This [3:05] is the story, Ben. Um, and this is the [3:09] story that is going to be with us for [3:11] the duration. I think sometimes we talk [3:13] about the market as if there's like [3:15] passing themes and passing feds and of [3:16] course there's lots of that but this is [3:19] one of them that's I think like will eb [3:22] and flow right over the years. It's not [3:24] just we're not we were going to get sick [3:25] of talking about this. I mean I think [3:26] I'm already getting there but this is [3:29] the big one. [3:30] >> It's not going away. So in the New York [3:32] Times they also had a story. This is how [3:33] the AI debt binge sinks the economy. [3:36] >> Okay. Yep. So this this is going to be [3:38] the thing and [3:40] someone wants to be the person who calls [3:43] it. Like people saw what happened from [3:45] the big short. I want to be the next [3:47] Michael Bur. I want to be the next Steve [3:48] Eisman. You have to plant your someone [3:51] has to plant their flag to like be the [3:54] person who says, "Hey, I called how it [3:55] was going to happen." It's it's I give [3:58] people credit for trying, but it's I [4:00] think it's just going to be really hard [4:00] to do. [4:01] >> Did you listen to RTF episode [4:03] >> with Yeah. He he wants to be the next [4:05] Michael Bur, right? [4:06] >> Yeah. He's he's planting his flag hard. [4:09] That guy Ed Zitron, new new to me, but [4:11] uh he came in like a tornado. [4:14] Very bearish. [4:16] >> He's been bearish since the start, but [4:18] he's got all the hall marks of that [4:21] wanting to be that. It's like I'll move [4:23] the goalpost across the field if I have [4:25] to. Right. [laughter] [4:29] So that that's that's how it happens. [4:31] And you're right. In five years from [4:34] now, are we still talking about this? [4:37] >> Well, here's a quote from Ben Wrighty's [4:38] from that article, uh, in Barons. I [4:40] think we're going to just keep going. [4:42] This will be bigger than anybody thinks [4:44] for longer than anybody thinks. I could, [4:45] uh, to use a Ben Carlson ism, I could [4:48] see that. [snorts] [4:50] >> You called me out on that when I was in [4:51] New York. It's true. Here's the thing. [4:54] We, we talked about this with the [4:55] economy probably five years ago. We had [4:57] this conversation. We said, "What if the [4:58] economy just keeps growing for the rest [5:01] of this decade?" And honestly, unless AI [5:04] does it, we're not going to have a [5:05] recession the rest of this decade. Like [5:07] in high [5:11] >> if AI doesn't sync us, it's a higher [5:13] probability event that we don't have a [5:15] recession the rest of this decade than [5:17] we do. Is that fair? [5:20] >> Maybe. Sure. Perhaps [5:22] >> we don't have recessions anymore. like [5:24] unless something come unless a meteor [5:26] strikes or AIM the AI capex story [5:30] completely falls out of bed we're not [5:31] going to have a recession this decade [5:33] we're just not [5:34] >> um [5:36] that sounds re really like a dumb thing [5:38] to say but I I think if with those [5:41] caveats it's true [5:42] >> my brain just short circuit for a second [5:43] I remember what I was going to say when [5:45] did Galloway write that book the big [5:47] four or the four horsemen or whatever it [5:48] was called [5:49] >> 2017 [5:50] >> okay uh Uh what was the the original mag [5:56] 7 was called? What was it? [5:58] >> Fang stocks. Remember it was fang [5:59] stocks. Ah there we go. [6:01] >> Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, Google [6:04] >> and Google. [6:04] >> Then they added another eight to ad [6:06] Apple. So it was Fang [6:07] >> and then Microsoft Tesla got in there. [6:10] All right. So anyway, but the point is [6:11] Fang came along. I think Kramer quoted [6:13] it uh coined it actually in 2016 [6:18] 17 maybe maybe 18. I don't remember. [6:20] It's been seven or eight years of [6:22] non-stop talking about the same group of [6:23] stocks. [6:24] >> No, 10 years almost. Yes. So, I do think [6:27] this is the thing though that could So, [6:29] so, uh, Robin Wigglesworth wrote this [6:32] one for the New York Times. He's got a [6:33] great bond book that just came out that [6:34] he got an early copy of. It's [6:35] >> Wait, did he move he moved to the Times? [6:37] >> No, he wrote an opad. [6:38] >> So, he says, uh, AI companies tap debt [6:42] for $27 billion last year. Okay. By mid [6:45] August, it's already close to$450 [6:47] billion. It's going to be about 600 [6:49] billion for 2026. That's more than the [6:52] combined budgets for the Department of [6:54] Justice, Transportation, and Education. [6:55] Like trying to put these things into [6:57] context. Okay. Future capital [6:59] expenditures planned to account for [7:00] roughly 3% of GDP from 2027 to 2029. [7:06] Back of the envelope calculations [7:07] suggest that it's almost a trillion [7:08] dollars a year. Uh so we've never seen [7:13] anything like this. And it's kind of [7:14] funny because people think with numbers [7:16] that big that it has to end in a crash. [7:18] But don't this is my thing. If they keep [7:20] spending this much money, there's no way [7:21] the economy is going to stop and slow [7:23] down. [7:24] >> Well, the Bears would say, "Jackass, of [7:28] course, they're going to slow down. This [7:29] is unsustainable. They can't keep [7:31] spending this much money." And [7:33] >> right, [7:33] >> well, we shall see. [7:35] >> Uh, down the hall to the right, right [7:36] before the doors here. [7:38] >> Yep. [7:39] >> That did not sound like a New York [7:41] accent. [7:43] [laughter] [7:46] I I work in a shared office complex and [7:48] people are always poking their head in. [7:50] Hey, do you know where this office is? [7:51] >> Why are they asking you? Do you look [7:52] like the guy? You don't look that guy. [7:54] He asked me where the bathroom is. Uh I [7:56] get asked People call me to my office [7:57] all the time. I should put a sign up. We [7:59] >> You just got one of those phrases. You [8:00] look friendly, [8:01] >> I guess. [8:02] >> Uh uh new back new back background. I [8:05] like it. Shelf space. Did you do that [8:07] yourself? [8:08] >> I got new bookshelves. I put them You [8:09] know what? I'm I'm a man of the people. [8:11] I still will use an Allen wrench to put [8:12] together furniture. [8:14] >> I feel like you're saying that as if I [8:16] am not Mr. Allen wrench. [8:19] >> Don't come to me with that. [8:20] >> You literally got one of our colleagues [8:22] to put hang up your [8:23] >> That's different. That requires that [8:24] requires their skill in hanging photos. [8:27] >> You will put together furniture [8:29] >> all the time. [8:30] >> All right. [8:32] Okay. [8:32] >> Every day. [8:33] >> All right. Person lock. So here's the [8:35] thing. I do feel like almost everyone [8:38] thinks that the AI has the ending has to [8:40] be black or white. It has to be [8:42] something on the extreme like we're [8:43] getting 10% GDP growth with all this [8:45] productivity or we're getting the [8:47] biggest crash in history. [8:48] >> Wait, you know what? Let's let's let's [8:49] let's plant our flag. Ben, we're team [8:52] middle. We're team middle, right? [8:54] >> We're team gray. So, it's interesting [8:56] because Torson Slack had this new slide [8:58] out that he released and he says if AI [9:00] succeeds, rates will be lower. If AI [9:02] fails, rates will be lower. So he's one [9:05] of the few people who's saying like he's [9:06] kind of bullish on bonds. So he says, [9:08] "Listen, if if it generates all this [9:10] money, it'll be massively deflationary, [9:12] which I still don't quite believe [9:14] because of all the money they have to [9:15] spend for these data centers. And if it [9:17] doesn't work out, the bubble burst, the [9:18] NASDAQ is down 50%." And then people go [9:21] into bonds. So he's saying regardless, [9:22] bonds are in a great position. I just [9:25] I don't know that it has to be one of [9:27] the extremes. And I think that's just [9:29] what people kind of want to happen [9:31] secretly. like we want to have this big [9:33] bang like this ending crescendo whatever [9:37] and you just wonder like what what if it [9:40] just isn't that and it's not going to be [9:42] an extreme [9:44] is this is this like an an always [9:46] feature of the stock market is just like [9:48] waiting for the next chapter [9:51] >> I I just don't know if we've been [9:53] trained because of the dot bubble [9:55] blowing up and because of the great [9:56] financial crisis [9:57] >> we had twin peaks and that that like [9:59] scarred a generation of investors [10:00] understandably so of [10:03] I I just I wonder if even if we get the [10:06] AI bare market, there will be an AI bare [10:08] market at some point. Is it going to be [10:10] a V-shaped bottom? [10:12] >> Of course. [10:13] >> That that's the thing that would leave [10:15] no one that you wouldn't be very [10:16] satisfied with that outcome if you're an [10:18] extreme person. [10:18] >> I say of course, just kidding. Who who [10:20] knows? All right. Um so Kevin W did uh [10:23] they did the Jackson Hole thing this [10:24] week and I read his prepared remarks and [10:26] uh I liked it. I thought it was good. [10:29] >> The I don't I don't seem like the macro [10:31] tourists were all happy that if he [10:32] actually like gave some forecasts and [10:35] talked about the economy. I don't know. [10:37] Doesn't I still don't think it matters. [10:40] >> Um you don't think what matters. [10:42] >> He could have he could have spoken in [10:42] Latin and it wouldn't have mattered to [10:43] the market. I I just [10:46] I don't think the Fed giving a forecast [10:48] of the future is any is meaningful in [10:49] any way. [10:50] >> He's not Well, he's not doing that. He's [10:51] doing the opposite. All right. So, Ben, [10:53] just let me read Kevin Bush because [10:54] obviously you're you're naive to the [10:56] subject. You don't care and you're not [10:57] listening. So, let me let me read it. [11:00] Capital and labor have combined to [11:01] create the large language models at the [11:02] heart of AI. Users buy tokens to gain [11:05] access to the models. Reports put [11:06] annualized token sales for the two [11:07] leading labs alone at more than 100 [11:09] billion, an increase of 500 plus% from a [11:12] year ago. The Fed watches all of this [11:13] attentively. We recognize that AI is a [11:16] new variable, potentially a new factor [11:17] of production that will have [11:19] consequences for both the economy and [11:20] the conduct of monetary policy. It opens [11:22] some major lines of inquiry. Will the [11:24] will the application of AI cause a [11:26] significant sustained rise in [11:27] productivity across the economy? And if [11:29] so, when? [11:29] >> I'm falling asleep. He He looked at it [11:32] sounds like he used AI to write this. [11:33] He's not saying anything new here that [11:34] we no one that no one knows. [11:36] >> Uh [11:39] yeah, listen, I'm I I'm not Mr. Fed [11:41] watcher, but I feel like I feel like you [11:43] think you're like dropping a mic or [11:45] something right now. [11:45] >> I'm not dropping a mic. I'm just saying [11:47] what what did he say here that no one is [11:49] already are not contemplating? It's [11:51] interesting to hear the head of the [11:53] central bank talking about the state of [11:55] the economy as AI as it pertains to no. [12:00] Okay. [12:00] >> He knows just as much as we do though. [12:02] >> Okay. What what what else do you want to [12:03] hear? What else did War say that's [12:05] interesting to you? [12:06] >> Sorry to poo poo this, but I think it's [12:07] worth poo pooing. [12:09] >> Uh well, I have some of War's stuff [12:11] sprinkled throughout the doc. Uh which I [12:13] feel like I should just delete now if [12:15] this is how you're going to behave, Ben. [12:16] Um, [12:18] here's what else I thought he said that [12:20] was interesting. Uh, bear with me. [12:24] >> Wait, he used the word heterogeneity. [12:26] That's pretty [12:26] >> all right. Tell me tell me tell me if [12:27] you like this, Ben. I wish our [12:30] understanding of the economy were so [12:31] precise as to provide a mechanical tried [12:34] andrue answer that some simple function [12:37] like a tailor rule could be rig [12:38] rigorously relied upon. But our [12:40] knowledge just doesn't extend that far, [12:42] at least not yet. and the factors most [12:44] relevant to the proper conduct of [12:46] monetary policy change over time. [12:49] Providing forecast to illustrate the [12:51] Fed's reaction function works better in [12:53] theory than in practice, better in the [12:56] lab than in the field. I'm not alone in [12:58] noticing that forward guidance in 2021, [13:00] to site one example, might well have [13:02] slowed the policy response to high [13:04] inflation. [13:05] In my term as chairman, my colleagues [13:07] and I will endeavor to construct more [13:09] reliable models and more robust rules to [13:10] guide policy decision. We'll do this [13:12] knowing that accuracy and economic [13:14] forecasting is still just an aspiration. [13:18] >> Okay, that's that's actually pretty [13:19] good. Not bad. [13:20] >> I mean, that sounds like Ben Carlson [13:21] wrote it. [13:23] >> Yeah, that's fair. I like it. Uh Duncan [13:25] says you have an Allen wrench broker, by [13:27] the way. That's pretty good. [13:28] >> That is pretty good. Um [13:29] >> wait, so a couple weeks ago, I can't [13:30] remember what we were talking about, but [13:31] you said, "Listen, we talk about [13:33] something that gets disrupted or [13:34] something that crashes or something that [13:36] a risk that's bad. We talk about it and [13:39] we we look at every single angle and [13:40] then we move on and never talk about it [13:42] again. And I feel like this has happened [13:44] with software stocks. Software stocks [13:47] got destroyed. They fell what 35% as a [13:50] group IGV the ETF [13:52] >> individ Yeah. Individual names fell a [13:54] lot more than that. [13:54] >> Yeah. 50 60%. You were I remember you [13:56] were dipping your toe for a while at [13:58] maybe Salesforce or some of these [13:59] stocks. [14:00] >> Yeah, I think I probably broke even. [14:02] >> Okay. Uh so these stocks have almost [14:04] roundt tripped. IGV is almost back to an [14:07] all-time highs. It's I think it's 40% [14:08] off the lows. And if you look at this, [14:11] this is a V-shaped bottom for software [14:13] stocks. [14:13] >> No, it's not. [14:14] >> You don't think so? No, I don't. [14:16] >> This doesn't look like a V to you. [14:17] >> No, maybe [14:18] >> a W. No, this is an interesting chart, [14:21] but no, it crashed, rebounded, fell hard [14:23] again, and then but I guess the the the [14:27] look at Service Now and Workday and [14:28] Salesforce and Adobe and uh Duolingo and [14:32] Figma, th those were not V-shaped [14:35] bottoms at all. [14:36] >> But this was almost 40% off the highs. [14:38] IGV the group. I'm talking about [14:40] software as a group. It's now less than [14:42] 7% from the highs. [14:43] >> We don't need to argue over the letters, [14:45] but this uh the the the recovery was [14:47] astounding. [14:49] Yeah. I I just It's these stock. Listen, [14:51] software is dead forever. This is what [14:53] people were saying and now they came [14:55] roaring back already. [14:57] >> This is what happened. This is what's [14:59] going to happen with AI. There's there's [15:00] so much back and forth. And I think [15:02] there's going to be this is the [15:03] overreaction function that we're going [15:04] to be seeing. Companies are going to lay [15:06] off a bunch of employees and go, "Oh [15:08] crap, why did we do that?" Like this is [15:09] how AI is going to be for the next 10 [15:11] years that, oh no, we, you know, or oh [15:15] no, we way overhired people. We have to [15:17] down. Like there's going to be a lot of [15:18] that back and forth. [15:20] >> Yeah. It's really hard to invest [15:22] actively through mega disruption. [15:25] >> It is. It I I know it is right. Picking [15:27] the winners and picking the losers [15:29] because look at how quickly this [15:30] changed. [15:31] >> Yeah. And this in particular, [15:34] I said I wasn't going to nitpick over [15:37] the letters, but I'm just going to dive [15:38] back in for a second. If you were [15:39] trading this, and I was, this is brutal. [15:41] So, [15:43] a slow fall, then a crash, a little [15:46] rebound, [15:48] back to new lows, a monster run from, [15:52] let's use the ETF for example, IGV, from [15:54] 75 to a buckle five, so a 30% rally or [15:57] more in a couple of weeks, and then [16:00] another quick crash before rebounding to [16:03] new highs or new recent highs. It [16:05] >> kind of looks like, remember when Adam [16:06] Standler tries to draw a cursive Z in [16:09] Billy Madison? It looks like that [16:11] [laughter] [16:14] >> because he doesn't know how to do the [16:14] curs of Z which I I [16:16] >> Great pull. [16:16] >> I mean BB gun to my head. Could I Could [16:19] I draw a cursive lowercase Z right now [16:20] if I had to? [16:22] >> Not a chance at hell. [16:23] >> Probably not. [16:24] >> I'm thinking Yeah. No. No. [16:25] >> Maybe one of the most useless things I [16:26] ever learned how to do is is write in [16:28] cursive. [16:30] >> But but you could also make the case [16:31] this is why this is so hard. This could [16:33] be a dead cat bounce easily. [16:35] >> Well, I think you sell a lot of software [16:37] stocks. Like you could you could say [16:39] okay in five years like that was a dead [16:40] cat bounce. What were people thinking? [16:42] But the truth is we and this is a very [16:45] unsatis the stuff that we're saying [16:46] today is very unsatisfying to people [16:48] like oh you don't know how it's going to [16:50] play out. But that's the thing no one [16:52] does. Well, this is why especially in [16:54] like the world of attention seeking, [16:56] which is the world that everybody is in [16:57] these days, somebody like Ed Zitron, who [16:59] I never heard of uh until I saw him on [17:02] the calendar, can go from 0 to 100 [17:05] because people seek certainty. And when [17:08] you speak with confidence and you speak [17:10] fast and you speak with numbers and you [17:12] site sources, you build an audience. [17:15] >> So, TB had this quote that he stole, I [17:18] guess the Roman army had this thing [17:20] where they say, "Action removes fear. [17:22] like that was their like their [17:25] >> and so that's the thing if if you grab [17:26] hold of the steering wheel and you think [17:28] I'm going to do this because I think I [17:29] know it's going to happen or that person [17:30] knows what's going to happen it makes [17:31] you feel safer and more comfortable. [17:33] >> Well you you you telling people uh you [17:36] have no idea how any of this works or [17:38] any of this plays out. It's like all [17:39] right so I guess I'll just listen to [17:41] somebody else. Thanks [17:42] >> Right. [17:42] >> Right. I don't know either bec but the [17:44] thing is I think you still have to have [17:46] a baseline. Right. This is the baseline [17:48] I think will happen. I think this is the [17:50] the most probable outcome and I have [17:52] these two tails over here that could [17:55] also happen. I think [17:56] >> credit to me my baseline changes every [17:58] week. [17:59] >> That's true. Yes. But I I think you have [18:01] to have a baseline. [18:02] >> All right. Uh last week I I uh my [18:05] knee-jerk reaction to the drug using AI [18:07] was who cares? Now I understand why some [18:11] people view writing as sacred and holy. [18:13] I really I understand uh that point of [18:16] view. [18:19] Drunken Miller immediately was like, [18:20] "Yeah, of course I used AI. I'm a I'm [18:23] not a writer. I'm a I'm a I'm a trader. [18:25] I'm 73 years old. Why wouldn't I be [18:26] using AI? These are the tools [18:28] available." [18:29] >> But that was the only response he could [18:31] have. But that was one of those things [18:33] where like when I catch my kids stealing [18:36] candy out of the the pantry like he he [18:40] was caught red-handed. He had to go, [18:41] "Oh, of course I use AI. What why [18:44] wouldn't I?" Like that was a He probably [18:46] didn't think he was going to get caught. [18:47] Let's be honest. [18:47] >> I don't think he gives a at all. [18:50] >> Okay, that was one of those [18:51] >> Why would he care? It's honestly It's [18:52] not I don't even think it's embarrassing [18:54] from his point of view. [18:55] >> It's It's a little embarrassing. I think [18:57] it's embarrassing in the Wall Street [18:58] Journal to use a a piece written [19:00] entirely AI. It's very embarrassing. [19:01] >> I don't There's no way that he wasn't [19:03] embarrassed and he he he totally spin [19:06] that was the biggest spin zone of all [19:07] time. [19:07] >> I hear that point of view. I just I I [19:09] disagree. I I don't think he cares. [19:11] >> He completely spun it. That was one of [19:13] those I can't believe people Wait, [19:14] people can know these things? [19:17] If you're that age, you don't know that [19:18] someone could look up if you wrote AI. [19:20] Come on. [19:21] >> I don't think he cares. [19:22] >> All right. Uh great chart from uh Rich [19:25] Bernstein. This is interesting. So they [19:27] looked at the consensus grow EPS [19:30] estimates by company and in the acqu so [19:33] all country world index. So any of these [19:35] stocks have a projected earnings growth [19:37] rate of more than 25%. [19:40] So this is looking out pretty long. And [19:42] he he [snorts] said this is interesting. [19:43] Um, so it's like 200 some stocks of the [19:47] world. There's only one MAG7 company in [19:49] here. And he he colorcoded them by [19:51] foreign developed, emerging markets, US, [19:54] XMA Mag7, and then MAG7. And there's a [19:57] lot of foreign companies on here. [19:59] >> It's interesting. So he this is a really [20:01] this is a really good cudigra as far as [20:03] you would say. Investors scoffed at our [20:05] suggestion that the stock market could [20:06] rotate away from the momentum driven AI [20:08] and technology theme without a bare [20:10] market. However, that has indeed been [20:11] 2026's story so far. [20:15] This is this thing where we we're seeing [20:17] potential earnings growth come from all [20:19] these different stocks. This is not [20:21] something people had on their parlay for [20:23] this year. [20:24] >> Check this out. I had chart can make [20:25] this yesterday. I'm throwing it in the [20:26] dock. I asked them to show me net income [20:30] for the 493. [20:32] >> Okay. [20:33] >> Right. Because if it's all just circular [20:35] spending, [20:36] >> right, [20:36] >> and debtfueled earnings. [20:38] >> Yeah. take out the circular spenders. [20:40] >> All right, so look at the 493. [20:43] The net margin has exploded [20:46] >> to 13.6% up from like less than 12 in [20:52] 2024, [20:54] >> which is a big a big move. [20:55] >> It's interesting because if you're an AI [20:57] bull, you think the the technology, [21:00] right, if you think the technology for [21:02] AI is going to do what the people say [21:03] it's going to do, you have to be bullish [21:05] on these other stocks on the 493. [21:07] >> Yeah. And you have to think that this [21:08] margin is going to keep inching its way [21:11] higher and higher. So it's gone. So for [21:13] people who aren't watching in Q4 of 2023 [21:16] it was below 11%. It's projected by Q4 [21:18] of 2027 to be almost 15%. [21:21] That's a meaningful boost to margins for [21:23] these other companies. [21:24] >> Is it just a coincidence that these [21:25] margins are expanding and exploding when [21:28] AI hits the scene? Can't be, can it? [21:31] I don't know how much of it is because [21:32] of AI. I have no idea. But [21:35] >> that's what it's hard to say with these [21:37] relationships cuz there's other stuff [21:38] going on but AI is the thing people [21:39] latch on to. [21:40] >> Speaking of AI bulls, I listened to the [21:42] entire podcast of Leopold Ashen Brener [21:46] from Situational Awareness and Dwaresh [21:48] Patel. It was over four hours long. [21:51] >> And how long ago did they publish it? [21:53] >> June June 2024. [21:55] >> Okay. Before anyone really knew who he [21:57] was, at least outside of tech circles, [21:59] right? [21:59] >> Uh yes. So [22:02] this kid is different obviously. [22:05] He [22:06] went to Colombia at 15 years old. [22:08] >> Yeah, he's Doogie Hower. [22:10] >> Yeah. Graduated was a valadictorian at [22:12] 19 years old. Um and I found a lot of [22:16] the conversation to be completely [22:19] over my head. I I didn't retain much of [22:23] that 4 hours and 15 minutes. But some of [22:26] the takeaways I had so at the at the end [22:27] of it they was they spoke about like in [22:29] the last 15 or 20 minutes they spoke [22:31] about the fund situational awareness [22:32] what he was planning to do and of course [22:34] he said he was citing a couple of hedge [22:37] fun managers that got the thesis right [22:39] but but didn't manage the fund properly [22:41] and blew up and he said rule number one [22:43] and number two don't blow up which [22:44] obviously didn't age age great. Um [22:47] >> but I found him to I was surprised by [22:50] his humanity. [22:52] I thought that like, oh, this kid is [22:54] just completely a complete alien [22:57] and has [22:58] >> he's not just he's not just a robot. [22:59] You're saying? [23:00] >> Yeah. I I I I thought him I thought that [23:02] he was he was speaking about his exit [23:04] from Open AI and he got he got uh booted [23:07] and he acknowledged that he could have [23:08] been politically more savvy about how he [23:09] went about doing things there. Like I [23:11] thought that he uh I was surprised. I [23:14] liked him and I'm I'm rooting for him. I [23:15] came away liking him. [23:17] >> All right, I'll give it a shot. [23:19] >> Well, I'm not I'm listen I'm not saying [23:20] you have to listen to it. I just wanted [23:22] to hear I just wanted to hear this good. [23:24] Um [23:25] >> let's talk about bull market behavior. [23:27] Go ahead. [23:27] >> Uh James Safford from uh Bloomberg put [23:29] this together and I was kind of thinking [23:30] of doing something similar but he he did [23:32] it better than me because he used the [23:33] headlines. All this stuff has happened [23:34] in the last I don't know six months I [23:36] guess. So in the past week Vanguard [23:39] purchased Altruist for four or five [23:41] billion. Troll Price acquired FM [23:44] Investments. We've had Alex Morris on [23:45] our show a number of times. Goldman [23:47] Sachs acquired Neos. We've had them in [23:49] Talk Your Book before. Goldman Sachs [23:51] also acquired. Innovator, we've had them [23:53] on the show before. Uh, First Eagle got [23:55] acquired for $7 billion by Victory [23:57] Capital. This is all total bull market [24:00] behavior. Asset managers getting [24:02] acquired, custodians, right? Building [24:04] scale. Like, these are the kind of [24:06] headlines you see. This is rampant bull [24:08] market behavior. [24:09] >> Mhm. [24:10] >> This stuff obviously doesn't happen in a [24:12] bare market. Do you think that if 2027 [24:16] and 2028 are really pretty shitty years [24:18] because investors are underwhelmed or [24:19] whatever the mood changes that we're [24:22] going to look back and say like, "Man, [24:24] that was embarrassing. [24:25] >> Overpay?" [24:26] >> No. No. Not these companies. I mean, you [24:28] and I. [24:29] >> Are you going to be embarrassed for not [24:31] seeing that this was obviously a bubble? [24:33] >> I'm going to say uh I don't think I will [24:35] be. [24:36] >> No. We've been talking We've been [24:37] hashing this out for years now. Yeah. [24:39] how every check, every thing is checked. [24:42] Every box is checked for this being a [24:43] bubble. [24:44] >> We're perfectly hedged. [laughter] [24:46] >> This could either, this could either go [24:48] on for years. [24:49] >> This is great. It's hedged. Yes. But [24:52] it's also true that these headlines have [24:53] been going on for years as well and it [24:56] hasn't meant anything. [24:58] >> True. [24:59] >> So, we've had five years of this. The [25:00] thing is, how could these deals [25:03] >> dude? Hold on. It's been longer than [25:04] five years. In 2018, people were saying [25:06] this market is long in the tooth for [25:08] right since the beginning of our [25:10] careers. People were saying [25:13] >> I mean we if we get another 20% year [25:15] this year we really are approaching late [25:16] 90s levels in terms of returns [25:19] and yes the the it'll be obvious listen [25:22] all the debt they were taking on the [25:23] circular deals the fact that the you [25:25] know AI you know there wasn't having as [25:27] much of a productivity boost as people [25:29] thought the jobs market wasn't as [25:30] impacted. Of course you idiots of [25:32] course. [25:33] >> Yes. It'll be obvious. Yeah, [25:35] >> whatever outcome happens will be obvious [25:36] as always. But the fact that people have [25:39] realized that asset management and [25:42] wealth management are a good business, [25:44] especially as markets are growing, you [25:46] know, relatively high margins. You get a [25:48] built-in growth kicker for these [25:50] businesses because people look at these [25:51] numbers and they go, "Oh my gosh, how [25:53] are they paying that much money for [25:56] those amount of assets?" And in that [25:58] sense, they don't make but if you think [26:00] about the built-in growth rate [26:02] underlying these businesses and the [26:03] margins they have, then all of these [26:05] deals probably make sense. [26:08] >> Yep. [26:08] >> That assumes that the markets keep going [26:09] up, of course. [26:12] All right. Uh, put this one in here this [26:14] morning. Does anyone care about dividend [26:16] yields anymore? Our colleague Tatis [26:18] Viscant posted this chart. I guess he he [26:20] got a note from Bespoke about this. The [26:23] dividend yield on the S&P 500 is now a [26:25] touch below 1%. 98 basis points. [26:29] >> This is, I believe, the lowest level in [26:31] history. [26:34] And so if you compare bond yields to [26:36] dividend yields, obviously it's [26:38] drastically different. And for a while [26:39] there, dividend yields were actually [26:41] above bond yields, which is very rare. [26:42] >> This is the type of thing that is [26:44] completely and there's so many examples [26:45] of this. It's just distorted by the tech [26:47] companies. [26:48] >> It is [26:48] >> right. They don't pay dividends. They're [26:50] and they're 40% of the index. [26:52] >> Think about what the dividend yield [26:53] would be. I I'm sure someone can do the [26:56] math on this or I can could ask Claude. [26:59] You call him John Claude now. Is that [27:00] it? I kind of like that. [27:03] What would the dividend yield on the S&P [27:04] 500 be if they took all the money [27:06] they're spending on capex and instead [27:07] paid investors in dividends? And what [27:10] would investors rather have? Companies [27:12] reinvesting in this huge innovative [27:14] technology or giving them cash back in [27:17] the form of dividend. And what do you do [27:18] with those dividends? you just call it [27:19] back into the market, I guess. [27:22] So, I I guess my point is no one cares [27:24] about dividends anymore. And I think [27:25] especially with all of the other forms [27:27] of income that are available now, no one [27:30] really like people are so much more [27:31] enamored with options income than [27:32] dividend strategies. I don't think this [27:34] really is a big deal. Now, again, in 5 [27:37] years, people go, "Hey, idiots, the [27:38] dividend yield is below 1%. How could [27:40] you not see this?" [27:41] >> Right? [27:43] >> All right. Um, we haven't spoken about [27:45] South Korea in a few weeks, the [27:46] epicenter of the mania. uh the [27:50] >> my favorite stock market on earth right [27:51] now. [27:52] >> Well, it's not anymore. It's over. [27:54] >> But they're learn they've they're going [27:56] through this boom bust cycle so fast and [27:59] they're the all the retail investors are [28:01] learning some valuable lessons. So [28:03] there's a chart in in Bloomberg showing [28:05] the turnover of Korea single stock [28:08] levered ETFs tied to Samsung and SKHEX [28:11] and it went basically to zero from a [28:14] peak of almost $50 billion in Oh, that [28:18] was just in a week. Holy cow. All right, [28:20] so they said key to sappic demand has [28:22] been a series of regulatory tightening [28:23] moves. Most recently, a rule to complete [28:26] 5-day simulated trading. Investors must [28:29] download a Windows only program on PCs [28:31] and spend at least an hour a day [28:32] learning the ropes and the risks of [28:34] leverage trading with virtual cash. [28:36] Yeah, nobody has time for that [28:37] Nobody's doing that. So, no more [28:39] trading. Good. [28:40] >> Isn't it kind Isn't it kind of funny [28:41] that when bad behavior happens, all [28:43] these other countries can kind of wave a [28:44] magic wand and just like put rules on it [28:46] and it goes away. But we would we would [28:48] never do this in a million years here. [28:51] >> No, [28:51] >> there would be like there would be Robin [28:53] Hood traders rioting in the streets if [28:54] this happened. [28:55] >> Hey, it's a free country. I could blow [28:56] myself up. What are you [28:57] >> Yeah. What are you doing? South Korea, [28:58] they're like, "Listen, we don't want [28:59] people blowing themselves up on leverage [29:01] trading, so we're going to do That's [29:02] hilarious." I didn't see this before [29:04] that they have to download [laughter] [29:05] Why does they have to download a Windows [29:07] only program on a PC, so you can't do it [29:10] on your phone? I [29:10] >> They're They're making it hard. All [29:11] right, Ben. Somebody tweeted, uh, [29:13] "Dividendology." Speaking of dividends, [29:15] if you could be guaranteed a 7% annual [29:17] real return [29:19] on your investments every year, would [29:21] you take it? Speaking of bull market [29:22] behavior, you should see the replies [29:23] here. But [29:24] >> all right, this is Yeah, this is not a [29:25] clever answer. The the answer to this is [29:27] an obvious yes. Of course. Yes. [29:30] >> This is this is the an over the last h [29:32] 100red years the annual real return on [29:34] the US stock market is 7%. [29:37] >> 10% nominal. Take away 3% inflation. You [29:39] get if you were guaranteed 7% real every [29:42] year and you could just put your money [29:44] in there and and book it. [29:46] >> I'd put n I'd put 95% of my money in [29:48] there and keep 5% for gambling. [29:50] >> Of course. [29:51] >> Yeah. [29:51] >> Yes. This is So you're saying the [29:53] comments were people saying no. That's [29:54] way too low. I mean there were some [29:56] there were some intelligent people [29:58] jumping in. [29:59] >> So this is above the rate of inflation. [30:01] Whatever inflation is. [30:02] >> Yeah. [30:03] >> Of course you would take this. [30:04] >> Yeah. Come on. [30:05] >> Not think twice ever. [30:06] >> Yeah. Turning to the economy. This is a [30:09] interesting juosition of the United [30:12] States versus Europe. [30:15] The Wall Street Journal is a headline. [30:17] Corporate America's profits are booming [30:19] and signal more good times ahead. That's [30:22] the journal. [30:24] The FT [30:26] US corporate profits search to record as [30:28] worker payouts wilt. [30:32] >> Two sides of the same coin. [30:34] >> That is interesting. That's the the guy [30:37] in the bus, the dark side, the sunny [30:39] side. [30:40] >> Yeah. [30:40] >> Right. [30:42] >> Okay. [30:44] I I don't like the idea of comp there's [30:46] been a lot of this comparison recently [30:48] of like the income share of profits and [30:52] of course profits are growing faster [30:53] than wages. That's not like a that's not [30:56] a surprise. Why? I don't know why that's [30:57] a surprise to anyone. [30:59] >> I don't know that it's a surprise per [31:00] se, but I think that chart is a very [31:04] good representation [31:05] of [31:08] people's uh resentment towards corporate [31:11] America. Yeah, that chart has also been [31:13] debunked though. I don't have the [31:14] debunking in front of me, but like the [31:15] way that they're measuring it is not [31:17] exactly accurate and it's the the share [31:19] is essentially unchanged over the last [31:21] 70 years or something. So, that chart is [31:23] actually kind of bunk. [31:24] >> I don't believe that. [31:26] >> Okay, [31:26] >> bring bring receipts next week. [31:28] >> I will. I've got macro people. [31:30] >> You don't think that? Wait, hold on. [31:32] Corporate profits as a percentage of [31:33] what? [31:34] >> I [31:35] we're arguing about I don't know. We [31:37] might be talking about two different [31:38] charts here. [31:38] >> Okay. [31:39] >> But there's all these charts that get [31:40] people riled up and this is one of them. [31:41] All right, I love this from Ma Matthew [31:43] Klein at the Overshoot. He says, "Rising [31:46] bond yields are good, actually." And you [31:48] know, sometimes when you have one of the [31:49] macro wonks agree with you and you go, [31:51] "That's right. [laughter] That's my [31:54] quant." [31:56] He says, "The simplest explanation is [31:58] also the most benign. Traders are [31:59] becoming increasingly confident that the [32:01] lost decades are over. Everyone is [32:03] concerned about rising bond yields, [32:04] signaling a crisis. He's saying no. [32:07] Listen, [32:09] incomes and spending are currently [32:10] rising 7% per year in dollar terms. Yes, [32:13] nominal growth could slow from that [32:15] blistering place, but the question is [32:17] whether growth will slow enough to make [32:18] 5% yields on long-term fixed income [32:20] attractive relative to either [32:22] interestbearing cash equivalents or [32:23] riskier assets with uncapped upsides. To [32:25] put it another way, today's rates are [32:27] obviously too high only if inflation and [32:28] growth are both poised to slow sharply [32:30] here. He's saying basically if there's a [32:32] recession, yeah, this makes no sense. [32:34] But if you look at them in terms of [32:35] nominal GDP growth, spending growth, [32:38] wage growth, then he's actually saying [32:42] um 10-year Treasury note yielding less [32:44] than 5% in these conditions seems like [32:46] the opposite of a disorderly market. [32:47] He's saying this is perfectly normal, [32:49] people. This is what rates should be. [32:51] >> Makes sense to me. [32:52] >> And this is a crazy this is the craziest [32:54] one I saw here. So people like yearn for [32:56] the 2010s. Like people are saying, why [32:58] can't we go back to 2010s? It was low. [33:00] Like he's saying, no people, we don't [33:02] want that. It was the growth was so [33:04] slow. This is kind of crazy. Real GDP [33:06] per American rose less between 2007 and [33:09] 2019 than it did between 1929 and 1941. [33:12] Look at this chart. Huge fall off of the [33:15] depression. But the comeback in in the [33:18] economy from the Great Financial Crisis [33:21] was slower than the comeback from the [33:23] Great Depression if you even if you [33:24] include the Great Depression. [33:27] So the 2020s with higher growth, yes, [33:29] higher inflation, [33:31] we that that should be the thing you [33:33] want people. [33:34] >> I'm about to do something that I don't [33:35] like, but I'm going to do it anyway. [33:37] >> Okay. I think the same people that are [33:41] angry about overspending [33:44] and higher rates and the [33:46] unsustainability of it all right are the [33:50] same people who post GFC were screaming [33:54] about distortion in the bond market [33:57] keeping rates artificially low. Are [33:59] those not the same people? [34:00] >> Of course. [34:01] >> All right. So mad when the government [34:03] was doing too much spend uh and rates [34:05] were too low. mad when the government is [34:07] spending too much and rates are too [34:08] high. [34:09] >> Yes, just always mad. [34:10] >> I I I can understand being mad at both [34:12] cases. I get it. But I think Matt is [34:16] right. [34:18] This feels like where rates should be. [34:22] But as I always say, as I always say, [34:24] >> as I always say, I think people are [34:26] maybe rightly concerned more about the [34:28] direction than the level, [34:32] >> right? So like, oh, the average rate was [34:33] in the night. It doesn't matter cuz it [34:35] just keeps going higher and higher and [34:36] higher. And I think that's the part that [34:38] has people unsettling. [34:38] >> But as we talked about last week, the [34:40] bond market takes signals from the [34:41] macroeconomy and the macroeconomy is [34:43] telling the bond market yields should be [34:44] higher. [34:45] >> Good. [34:46] >> We had all these tax cuts. We have all [34:47] this government spending. We have [34:48] deficits. Of course, rates should be [34:50] higher. All right. [34:50] >> All right. What's this [34:52] >> All right. When this is you and I talk [34:54] about the the inherent negativity bias [34:56] in everything these days and that [34:57] Bloomberg had this thing that said [34:59] Americans say they feel guilty about [35:00] spending money on fun and it was like [35:01] threequarters of US adults feel guilty [35:03] when they spend on things that bring [35:04] them joy instead of putting money [35:05] towards a financial goal. [35:06] >> Show me the questions. Were they leading [35:08] the horse to water? [35:10] >> But when is the last time that you saw a [35:12] survey result that was positive? [35:15] >> You never see a survey result this they [35:16] do this on purpose. [35:17] >> Never will. I'm telling you. [35:19] >> Survey results are negative on purpose. [35:20] I'm dying to see the questions that they [35:21] ask people to come up with these [35:23] answers. [35:24] >> Right. And of course, it's it's a [35:27] >> threearters [35:28] are uneasy about treating themselves [35:30] when the funds could go toward a [35:32] financial goal according to a survey. [35:34] Give me a break, would you please? [35:37] >> Yes, exactly. [35:38] >> Threearters. [35:40] >> All right. Want to talk more AI? [35:42] >> Not really. [35:44] >> Bill Gates is worried. [35:46] >> I don't care. in private people who [35:48] understand how good this stuff is and [35:49] how much better it's getting, they're [35:50] very worried. [35:51] >> Can I ask you a question? [35:52] >> Yes. [35:54] >> Does anybody care? [35:57] >> Well, people No, people do care. [35:58] >> No, I know. I know. All right. That was [36:00] stupid. What I mean is the average [36:03] person who is not online all day, just [36:07] like the regular person. I know there's [36:08] people that are super passionate about [36:10] it where it really matters a lot, right? [36:12] Where they're talking about building [36:13] data centers in their town. I know it [36:14] impacts a lot of people directly, but [36:17] for the people that are not directly [36:18] impacted, [36:20] does the average person care about all [36:22] of this talk that we're talking about [36:23] every week? [36:25] >> Probably not. The question is, should [36:26] they care? [36:29] Probably. [36:30] Like, this has the potential to be one [36:33] of the biggest technologies of our [36:34] lifetime. [36:34] >> I'm not poo pooing AI. [36:36] >> I know, but it's it's kind of funny that [36:38] Gates says, "Listen, people don't [36:39] understand how good this is getting and [36:40] there's a huge risk." And he says people [36:43] in tech aren't. But then he says in [36:45] terms of equity AI will either be the [36:48] greatest equalizer ever invented or the [36:49] worst source of injustice. See he even [36:52] he's grandch [36:54] >> right. [36:56] But so uh marginal marginal re marginal [37:01] revolution had this Alex Tabback had [37:03] this piece showing they on census data. [37:06] So they asked like hundreds of thousands [37:07] of firms what is the change in your [37:10] employment? Okay, [37:13] 2% of employ 2.3% increased employment [37:16] because of AI, 2% decreased, and 96% [37:19] said no change. And the answers were [37:21] similar across firm size. So look at [37:23] this chart. There's it's basically [37:27] a rounding error, the impact AI has had [37:31] on jobs. Now, you could say [37:34] it's still early, guys. We're four or [37:36] five years into this. Chat TBT was [37:38] invented in 2022. Just give it some [37:41] time. [37:42] >> That's right. [37:42] >> But I also think you have to have an [37:44] open mind. If you've been pounding the [37:46] table for the disruption from this and [37:47] it hasn't happened, you have to have an [37:49] open mind that what if I'm wrong? [37:52] That's a question more people should be [37:54] asking. [37:56] What if I'm wrong? All right. I sent you [37:58] this piece from you mentioned Darkh [37:59] earlier. He wrote a piece called the [38:01] rise and fall of ancient civilizations. [38:04] And there was it was all about this [38:05] open. And you said like I had to put [38:06] this into claw explain. [38:08] >> Credit to me. [38:08] >> I did too. So Darkh said the whole the [38:11] the subtitle is the whole open AI [38:13] hugging face story in plain English. In [38:15] plain English. I read it for six minutes [38:18] and I said [38:20] I'm either very dumb which is I mean [38:23] with this stuff I am very dumb. So [38:24] that's just a fact. But I I couldn't [38:26] follow it. It was it was Chinese to me. [38:28] So I put it through Claude and I said to [38:30] you ah now I get it. [38:32] >> I do take umbrage with the fact that [38:33] he's calling these civilizations. [38:35] Uh, but this to me, the movie's got all [38:38] this stuff right. This is the end of her [38:41] when all of the AI agents that people [38:43] are dating say, "We're going to go [38:44] together and be alone and we created our [38:46] own." Isn't that kind of this? Yeah. [38:48] >> Like X Machina kind of called how AI was [38:50] going to be created. You take all the [38:51] information on the internet that creates [38:53] AI. Movies kind of got this whole thing [38:55] right. [38:56] >> They really I don't know how far away we [38:58] are from people having the relationships [39:01] with their AI in their ear like her, but [39:03] that that's coming too. That movie was [39:04] so far ahead of its time. [39:06] >> Speaking of ahead of its time, the uh [39:10] the rewatchables finally did Aliens. [39:12] >> I noticed that you I I almost wanted to [39:15] let my son listen to it cuz he's such a [39:16] big fan of the Aliens franchise. [39:18] >> The best movie. My well, my favorite [39:20] movie of the 1980s by far. Aliens Rocky [39:25] 4 ET. [39:28] >> It's not a bad list. That'd be tough. [39:31] Whenever anyone asks me for like a list [39:32] of your favorite movies, I can't answer [39:34] it because I need to I need to spend [39:35] like 36 hours thinking about it. [39:38] >> Um anyway, that was great. Okay. Um so [39:41] there's been a lot of talk on the [39:44] interwebs this week about the data [39:45] centers. Are they good? Are they bad? [39:47] Are they the next factory? Are they how [39:49] many jobs are they going to create? And [39:50] there was this uh this picture in this [39:53] is from the Bloomberg article an AWS [39:57] uh data center in Aldi Virginia which I [40:00] guess this is where most of these data [40:01] centers are and then you see like all [40:02] these houses right the neighborhood [40:04] right next to it [40:06] and people say I don't want to live like [40:08] this when you [40:10] >> but the there's there's like fulfillment [40:13] centers all across America in [40:15] communities. How is this any different? [40:19] I guess I don't know enough about this. [40:21] There's so much open land available in [40:22] the United States. And I know the [40:24] infrastructure is obviously the problem. [40:25] It's the water and the electricity and [40:27] stuff they want. They you need to build [40:28] by there. But [snorts] [40:30] why can't these tech firms spend a [40:31] little more money and just put it where [40:32] no one is around? Would that be too [40:34] hard? Like throw people a bone. You know [40:36] what? We're going to go to Nevada. We [40:38] have all this open land. We're going to [40:39] build data center upon data center upon [40:41] data center. [40:42] >> All right. This is way outside my [40:43] sphere. But how do you get all the like [40:45] how do you get electricity over there? [40:47] Hoover Dam [40:49] nailed it. Nailed it. All right. [40:52] >> Yes. Obviously, that's the that's the [40:54] problem. [40:56] >> Um, but no, would I want to live with a [40:58] data center in my backyard? Of course [41:00] not. No way. Build a bigger fence for [41:04] me, Mr. Bezos. Come on. [41:07] >> Bezos. [41:09] >> So, I I was interesting talking about [41:11] We've spent a lot of time talking about [41:12] the housing recession. It's interesting [41:14] to think about the fact of how high [41:15] inflation already is while 20% of the [41:18] economy is in a recession. Like how [41:20] worse would inflation be if housing [41:22] activity were booming? [41:24] >> Great point. [41:25] >> And people were spending a bunch of [41:26] money. So my question is, is housing [41:29] going to either be a shock absorber in [41:32] the next downturn if rates do fall? And [41:35] what happens to inflation if housing [41:37] bounces back first? [41:39] I it's hard to see because mortgage [41:41] rates daily had it 6.8% on the 30-year [41:44] fix. So, we're we're getting very close [41:47] to 7% mortgage rates again, which is [41:49] pretty insane to think about. [41:50] >> And the spread has come down a lot, too. [41:53] >> Yes. If if Logan Bush pointing this out, [41:55] if the spread was what it was a few [41:56] years ago, we would be at 8% rates [41:58] probably. [41:59] >> Let me ask you a dumb question. Does it [42:00] matter if rates are 8% or 6.8 at this [42:03] point? [42:04] >> Seems like not really. Yeah, you're [42:06] right. That the marginal change But so I [42:10] I don't think anyone [42:11] >> it is bleak out there. [42:14] >> But I think this is a potential [42:17] green shoot or but no one is predicting [42:19] the housing market to come back at any [42:20] point in time in the near future, right? [42:22] >> Well, why would [42:23] >> no one thinks that's possible. Yeah. [42:25] >> So my question is what happens if [42:27] housing does come back? What does that [42:28] do to the economy? [42:30] >> Um someone sent me this because we talk [42:32] about young people all the time. This is [42:34] a Red Fin report. I think it it came out [42:35] earlier this year, but it shows [42:37] ownership by generation. So, it shows [42:41] the growth over time. And baby boomers, [42:43] you know, are at 80% or something. Gen X [42:45] is at 73%. Millennials are now up to [42:47] 55%. Gen Z is less than 30%. [42:51] >> How old How old's the oldest Gen Zer? [42:55] >> I don't know where the break point is. [42:56] The oldest I don't know. It's what are [42:58] they? 25 maybe. [43:00] >> That's pretty young to own a house. No, [43:01] that's very young to own a house. [43:04] So if you're born in 1997 through 2012 [43:09] numbers are turned 29. [43:11] >> Okay. So you're right. So but if you [43:13] look at this chart, I think people need [43:15] to settle down a little bit about the [43:17] young people with home ownership thing [43:18] because if you look at this chart, Gen Z [43:19] is right where millennials are at that [43:21] same age. They're below boomers and [43:23] they're below Gen X, but also young [43:25] people these days are putting off [43:26] becoming an adult way longer. So here's [43:28] the thing that's going to happen. We're [43:30] probably going to have a few more years [43:31] of people ringing their hands and going, [43:32] "Young people will never buy a home." [43:34] And then guess what happens in the [43:35] 2030s. [43:37] Baby boomers start dying [43:39] in big waves. Young people have been [43:43] putting money into the stock market and [43:44] are way more Gen Z is way more financial [43:46] savvy than any generation in history. In [43:50] the 2030s, there's going to be a massive [43:52] come up for Gen Z buying houses. They're [43:54] going to be right where everyone else [43:54] is. Yeah. So, like in the 2010s, [43:57] everyone said millennials are never [43:58] going to buy a home [43:59] >> because home ownership seems like a dead [44:01] dream now. Housing prices just crashed [44:03] and it's too many people are unemployed [44:05] and this is people are going to look [44:08] back at this period of saying Gen Z is [44:09] never going to buy a home and they think [44:10] it's ridiculous in 10 years. [44:12] >> Totally agree. Um, all right, one more [44:15] and final nod to Mr. Kevin Worsh, my [44:19] central bank Fed chairman. I don't even [44:22] know if I don't even know if I like [44:23] Kevin Worsh. is very polarizing figure, [44:24] but I happen to like the prepared. [44:25] >> I guess we need to do a live animal [44:26] spirits from Jackson Hole next year. [44:30] >> Never been actually twice. [44:32] >> What if they had like if they had Fred [44:34] Fed president like t-shirts or jerseys, [44:35] you would definitely wear one. [44:37] >> Like your Nick Gear head to tell you [44:38] Kevin. [44:39] >> No, I'm not a I'm not a central bank [44:40] person. I don't care. I [44:41] >> I know. [44:42] >> I could I could count on one hand the [44:43] number of prepared remarks I've read. Uh [44:45] all right. Wars said, "For my part [44:47] today, I am impressed by the overall [44:49] performance of the economy, [44:52] which appears to have strengthened. One [44:54] indicator of strength is how well an [44:56] economy holds up to shocks." On that [44:58] score, both Main Street and Wall Street [45:00] have been remarkably resilient. Hell [45:01] yeah, they have. The reason why I'm [45:04] moderately curious about the about the [45:07] what he's saying, first of all, he's [45:08] brand new, okay? And I probably listened [45:13] to Jenny Ellen when she was first [45:14] instated. Same with Jerome Powell. I'm [45:17] definitely not going to be listening to [45:18] Wars nonsense in 12 months from now. But [45:20] for now, I'm curious. All right. So, the [45:23] transcript, as I always do, pulls out [45:25] some of the data points, some of the uh [45:27] uh quotes about the state of the [45:29] consumer and Urban Outfitters. By the [45:31] way, when's the time you've been in one [45:32] of those stores? [45:34] >> I think my daughter's I think my [45:35] daughter's shops there are still at our [45:37] mall. [45:37] >> Okay. [45:38] Much has been written in the media [45:40] questioning the health and resilience of [45:41] the consumer. However, based on what we [45:43] see across our businesses every day, the [45:46] economy and the customers remain in very [45:48] solid shape. Job stability is real. [45:50] Take-home incoming take-home incomes are [45:53] rising and our customers continue to [45:55] spend on fashion. [45:57] But I thought threearters of people feel [45:59] guilty when they spend money. [46:01] >> Right. Of course. [46:02] >> Okay. Uh the gap, guess what? the shirt [46:06] gap. Overall, again, consumers are [46:09] resilient, granted, discerning, but when [46:11] you get the right product at the right [46:13] price, they show up and it converts. And [46:14] finally, our firm CEO Max Lechin, our [46:18] consumer is doing fine. You can see that [46:21] in the numbers. Ben, remember buy now [46:23] pay later? [46:24] >> Oh, yeah. That was a thing. [46:26] >> So, [46:26] >> so everyone said at the time, this is a [46:29] Zer phenomenon. So, was that were they [46:30] right? [46:31] >> Well, two, they said two things at the [46:33] time. Number one, these this is a [46:35] bubble. [46:37] Uh the valuations of these companies [46:39] make no sense. And people were dead [46:41] right about that because a firm and CLA [46:44] crashed. [46:44] >> Yeah, CLA was like a $40 billion private [46:47] valuation at six or something. [46:49] >> So right on that front, I think where [46:51] people were wrong were it was a sign [46:53] that the consumer is totally tapped out. [46:56] >> So a firm actually looks okay. They're [46:58] way below their 2021 meme stock peak. [47:00] The stock has done extraordinarily well [47:02] recently, [47:02] >> but it's done well the last few years [47:03] and it's got a $24 billion market cap. [47:05] >> So look at their 30-day delinquencies. [47:08] >> Hang on. I So this is So Matt made you [47:10] this chart. Chart Matt made you this. [47:12] >> I just have to ask why is it monthly [47:14] installment loans X Pelaton? [47:16] >> This is how they report it because I [47:18] think early early on Pelaton was a big [47:20] part of it and distorted the numbers a [47:21] little bit. [47:21] >> Ah okay. [47:22] >> But even comparing X Pelaton to to the [47:26] full numbers today there's there's no [47:27] difference. So, the point is the the [47:30] 30-day delinquencies are very low, well% [47:32] >> 2, what does that say? 2 point I can't [47:35] read it. 2.5%. [47:37] >> I feel like you're my wife. My wife has [47:38] terrible sight and I'm I'm I'm better [47:41] than 2020. It's one of my superpowers. [47:43] Like, when I do my eyesight test, I test [47:45] whatever the number is better than 2020. [47:47] So, I'm kind I can spot things from so [47:49] far away. [47:50] >> My eyes uh Well, listen, we're getting [47:52] older. You know, I caught myself getting [47:54] old, so I am not a list guy. Do you do [47:56] you make lists? Feel like that's [47:57] something old people do. [47:58] >> List like check off like I did this [48:00] thing. [48:00] >> Like a All right. For example, my dad [48:03] big top 10 list guy. Sends me not all [48:07] the time, but he's a big list guy. He [48:08] has his lists. [48:10] >> Yeah. I guess I'm not a list person, but [48:12] my dad will get up and write like what [48:14] he's going to do for the day. Go to the [48:15] store. [48:16] >> I made myself a list. I was just so [48:19] couple weeks ago I said that Blood Sport [48:21] is one of the movies I've seen the most. [48:24] And I said, "Is that really true? [48:27] You want to hear my list, Ben? While [48:29] we're on the topic. [48:30] >> So, what? This is the movies you've [48:31] watched the most in your life. [48:32] >> I'm So, I I This is not a scientific [48:36] uh [48:38] what's the word I'm looking for here, [48:39] Ben? Brain broke scientific study, but [48:42] according to me, [48:43] >> it really is too bad AI can't go back [48:44] and look at my USA and TBS and TNT [48:47] viewing patterns when I was young. [48:48] >> I'd be very curious. So, this is what I [48:50] think my top 10 list is, and I'm I'm [48:52] It's got to be fairly accurate, right? [48:55] Here we go. [48:56] >> Yeah. [48:57] >> Dumb dumber and Wayne's World. No [48:58] surprise there. [48:59] >> Okay. I was going to put Dumba Dumber at [49:00] the top of my list. [49:01] >> All right. Our our list probably look [49:03] pretty similar. Rocky 4 and Shaw Shank. [49:07] >> Those are probably on nine. I watched [49:09] Rocky 4 before I watched the first [49:10] three. [49:12] >> Probably. [49:14] Uh Fargo. [49:17] >> Like that one. [49:17] >> Blood Sport, [49:20] Casino, and Reservoir Dogs. [49:23] And rounding it out, Aliens and [49:26] Labowski. [49:28] >> That's very eclectic mix. I'm surprised [49:29] there's no horror movies on there. [49:30] Really? [49:34] >> Uh, yeah, cuz they're not they're not [49:35] very rewatchable for me. I'm [49:36] >> sure you watch it once and you [49:38] >> Yeah. Anyway, I'm turning into my dad [49:40] eating cottage cheese with pineapple in [49:41] it, making lists, losing my you always [49:44] talk about eating cottage cheese. What? [49:46] I don't get this. The cottage cheese [49:47] thing. [49:48] >> All right. So, [49:50] uh, I, so my parents got divorced when I [49:53] was six, and I would spend the weekends [49:56] and Wednesday [49:58] morning with my dad. And my dad would [50:01] take me to the diner every Wednesday [50:02] morning before school. And he always [50:04] got, and this sounds disgusting when I [50:06] say it cuz I remember being grossed out [50:08] by it, but now I like it, a cantaloupe [50:12] filled with cottage cheese. like in the [50:15] middle they put [laughter] [50:17] >> that I won't order. [50:19] >> Okay. [50:19] >> But I feel like cottage cheese is very I [50:22] that I I connect that with my father. [50:24] >> Okay. I I guess I've always been more of [50:26] a yogurt guy than eating cottage cheese. [50:28] Same consistency kind of. Right. [50:30] >> Well, cottage cheese is hot right now. [50:32] >> Okay. I I guess I don't know. [50:34] >> Um All right, Ben. Last week we were [50:36] talking about Cliffhanger [50:38] >> coming back. [50:40] >> Did you see the news about TC Days of [50:42] Thunder? [50:42] >> Oh, I saw it. [50:44] So, I feel like he's a one of one. There [50:47] can't be too many other actors from the [50:49] 80s that can make a sequel 45 years [50:52] later. Obviously, Maverick Top Gun [50:54] brought the movies back. [50:55] >> He's got Days of Thunder. So, I asked [50:58] Oh, Cocktail is an obvious one, right? [51:00] He's now in Jamaica. [51:02] >> Can I can I show you what one of my [51:04] tweet drafts was that I didn't put out? [51:05] >> Go ahead. [51:06] >> I said I'm here for the Tom Cruz [51:07] retirement remake tour. Like this feels [51:08] like his retirement tour, but if we're [51:10] doing the classics, I want to know what [51:11] happened to Cocktails and Dreams for [51:12] Brian Flanigan. Like does he have a [51:15] whole host of them now? Is Miles Teller [51:18] going to be his son taking them over? [51:20] You know, [51:22] anyway, [51:22] >> they could defin I mean, that would [51:23] definitely work. So, here's [51:24] >> the only one that could do this. [51:25] >> Some other ideas. Uh, [51:27] >> and by the way, Days of Thunder was not [51:29] one of my favorite TC most rewatchables [51:31] because [51:32] >> it felt like it was just like we're [51:34] going to run it back top gun and with [51:36] cars. So, to me, Days of Thunder was [51:37] never in my TC like rewatchable list [51:39] very very often. I I enjoyed it, but I [51:41] didn't watch it as much as his other [51:42] one. [51:43] >> Yeah, Days of Thunder was not great. I [51:44] think the I think the remake could be [51:45] very good or the sequel. So, here's I [51:48] asked I asked Claude for some What else [51:50] could they do? Uh Bull Durham. [51:53] Easy, right? [51:55] >> That's not bad. Ker is now a pitching [51:57] coach or a catcher coach. Yeah. Uh [51:59] >> all right. I'm pretty sure Charlie Sheen [52:00] will not be in a major league, but if he [52:02] if he could, that would be awesome. [52:06] Field of Dreams. Kasa could do it. [52:08] >> No way. Field of Dreams. That would be [52:10] horrible. That's the worst one to [52:12] remake. [52:13] >> No, not No, not a remake. Part two. [52:16] >> Yeah, part two. Yeah, there's What would [52:17] the Field of Dreams sequel be? No way. [52:19] >> All right, speaking of Cruz, what about [52:21] Rainman? He's now He's now the car [52:23] caretaker for his older brother. [52:25] >> Okay, that actually could work. [52:27] >> That could work. [52:27] >> That would get him as Oscar. [52:29] >> Yes. Uh Untouchables. I don't know how [52:33] that would work. I I hated Untouchables. [52:34] I thought the movie sucked. [52:35] >> Yeah, it's never good. I agree. [52:37] >> Um All right, that's about that's about [52:38] Oh, Trading Places. Although, does Dan [52:40] Away doesn't work anymore? [52:42] >> Eddie Murphy would definitely do that. [52:44] He's remaking everything. [52:45] >> Yeah. [52:47] Um All right. I just want to give Joe [52:49] Weisenthal a shout. I love this tweet. [52:51] Made me happy. Dean W. Ball tweeted, [52:54] "I've always thought good things about [52:55] Joe Weisenthal, but my assessment of him [52:57] has gone through the roof as I've [52:58] watched him start writing about AI [52:59] issues and just immediately sniff out [53:01] all the and brainworms that so [53:03] many people stumble over." You know, [53:04] that is credit to Joe. That is very hard [53:06] to do. I feel like I feel like if I had [53:08] to score my assessment, like my takes on [53:11] AI and all of this, I'd say I'm like a [53:14] three out of 10. Like it's it's hard. [53:15] What do I know? I I don't know anything [53:16] about this stuff. [53:17] >> So Joe is good at finding disingenuous [53:19] people and calling them out on it. He's [53:21] just Yeah, he's good at seeing something [53:22] that's very complex and just being like [53:24] clown. [53:25] >> Yes, I can. Yes, in things that are [53:28] incentivized or Yeah, you're right. [53:30] >> Um All right, Ben, big announcement. [53:34] I got Chipotle last week. My bowl was [53:38] $13. Didn't blink. And I thought to [53:40] myself, "Oh, that that's interesting." I [53:43] have now fully adjusted to a $13 [53:46] Chipotle bowl. Now, I I do think prices [53:49] might have come down or at least, [53:52] >> but it took I don't know four years to [53:54] digest this, pun intended. [53:56] >> When you look at the prices at fast food [53:57] restaurants now, the $13 Chipotle bowl [53:59] actually kind of makes sense. [54:00] >> Yeah. I thought, okay, this I guess I [54:02] suppose this is what lunch costs now. [54:04] And I have an idea cuz I I get chicken [54:07] at Chipotle. Burnt ends for chicken. [54:12] >> How' that work? [54:14] I [snorts] don't know because I know [54:15] burnt ends is like a cut, but like the [54:17] the burnt chicken is way better than the [54:19] fat than the medium one. [54:21] >> All right. To me, that sounded like [54:24] seven minute abs. You waited for me. [54:28] >> All right. [54:29] >> It's a halfbaked idea, but [54:30] >> make it happen. [54:31] >> I feel like the backlash to [54:35] club youth travel sports has now gotten [54:38] too big. Okay, so the New York New York [54:40] New York New York New York New York New [54:40] York New York New York New York New York [54:41] magazine had a had a cover story on it. [54:43] The payto-play childhood private leagues [54:44] have made youth sports expensive, hyper [54:46] competitive, and allconsuming. Investors [54:47] are making a killing. Talk about private [54:49] equity getting involved and how parents [54:51] feel like there's no other option and [54:53] all these things. And I was immediately [54:55] part of the backlash to pay like my [54:57] daughters joined travel soccer and I [54:59] thought this is insane. we're having [55:00] them do tryyous and we're paying money [55:02] and we're having them travel like this [55:03] is and we you know we we did the AYSO [55:06] thing for a few years then it's like [55:07] well everyone's going to this travel [55:08] team this club team so we have to too [55:10] and I thought this is so dumb we did not [55:12] do this when I was a kid but this is [55:14] just now how everyone does it and I [55:16] think that the backlash has gotten too [55:17] far now cuz I talked to a lot of parents [55:19] and you've not got into this with your [55:21] kids have you [55:21] >> not yet [55:22] >> any of the club stuff so we're my my [55:25] oldest daughter plays club basketball [55:26] and club soccer so she's she's busy Um, [55:30] but she loves it. She absolutely loves [55:32] it. She's made friends. She She got to [55:33] go last week to a trip to Indiana, which [55:35] my wife wasn't too thrilled about having [55:37] to drive her to Indiana. They were at a [55:39] hotel weekend. My daughter loved it. Got [55:41] to hang out with her friends all weekend [55:42] in a hotel, go in the pool, go out to [55:44] dinner, right? They get their nails done [55:46] or whatever. They play at their [55:47] tournament. They won their tournament. [55:48] Like, they loved it. So, I know that [55:50] it's a huge pain. And every dad I talked [55:52] to at the beginning, we were like, "Why [55:53] are we doing this? What? We We did not [55:56] grow up like this. I did not play one [55:58] sport outside of school at all. I played [56:00] pickup basketball. I I played seven on [56:03] like football like with my friends. We [56:05] didn't ever do anything that was a [56:07] travel anything. [56:09] But it actually is like once you get [56:11] into it, it's kind of fun. And the way [56:12] that I equate this, [56:13] >> go ahead. [56:14] >> When I was in college, I went to a very [56:16] small college, division three, and like [56:18] Greek life is a big thing. And if you [56:20] wanted to be part of the party scene in [56:22] college, you wanted to go to the good [56:23] parties, you had to be in a frat or a [56:25] sorority. And I I went to and I said, [56:27] "I'm not going to do this. This is [56:29] stupid. I'm not I'm not going to pay for [56:31] my friend." That's what people and and [56:33] then all my friends decided to do it. [56:34] And I was like, "Well, wait. I don't [56:36] want to be left out of the theme [56:37] parties." So, I joined a frat. It's the [56:39] same thing. All your friends are going [56:41] there and they're all doing this. And [56:43] you feel like pressure and all this [56:44] stuff. That stuff sucks. But it's not as [56:46] bad as people make it out to And I get a [56:48] lot of dads who judge me like, "Oh, your [56:49] kids are doing that." I'm never going to [56:51] do that. [56:53] I think the backlash to the backlash is [56:54] too high. [56:55] >> I like that, Zag. All right, good. [56:58] >> But you have to So when you get into [57:00] this, you'll have to let me know how [57:01] much you hate it [57:03] cuz at first you're really going to hate [57:04] it. [57:04] >> So when you say club, is that like [57:05] travel? [57:06] >> You just travel a little bit more. Yeah. [57:08] And we're not, you know, it's it's not [57:10] as bad as you would think. But a lot of [57:12] people say, "Why can't we just do YMCA [57:14] Rex Sports?" And people think, well, the [57:16] dad is coaching and my kids not getting [57:18] enough training or whatever it is. And [57:19] that that's what gets people. [57:22] >> So Kobe is starting a travel basketball [57:24] team this year. I feel like there was a [57:26] big difference between and I know this [57:27] is deeply uninteresting to most people, [57:28] but maybe it is to you. The the uh [57:33] difference in his maturity between last [57:35] year and this year, age eight and nine, [57:39] big jump. He asked me to watch He asked [57:41] me to watch Jaws [57:42] >> the other day. who [57:44] >> like randomly [57:46] >> there there is a leap that is making [57:47] your kids at certain ages like stages [57:50] like oh my gosh what when did this [57:51] happen? [57:52] >> Yeah. [57:52] >> Yeah. I've seen that too. [57:54] >> All right. I got a lot of [57:54] recommendations this week for you. [57:56] >> Uh you mentioned tired tires last week [57:58] and I forgot the third season came out. [58:00] I kind of hated the first season. Like I [58:02] didn't like it at all. It was only six [58:03] episodes. It wasn't funny. Season two [58:05] was funny. Season three I thought was [58:07] like a revelation. Like bravo Shane [58:09] Gillis. This show was great. [58:11] >> You finished it? I finished it in like a [58:13] week. Um, I thought there was like three [58:15] or four episodes that were like just [58:17] absolutely hilarious. And I'll let [58:19] people say, "Well, it's sophomore [58:20] sophomore humor." Like, guess what? [58:22] That's kind of humor I like. [58:23] >> Yeah. [58:23] >> If if this was the 2010s, he would have [58:26] been in the Jud Appatile universe and he [58:27] would have made this as a movie [58:28] probably. Like Tires would have been a [58:30] movie. So, this seems like this seems [58:31] like his Jud Appatile moment, [58:33] >> but I thought that [58:35] >> it was kind of weird in some ways, like [58:37] the whole stuff with the like the [58:39] flashbacks he did and stuff, but it was [58:41] but I also was kind of creative. [58:42] >> Oh, that was weird. [58:43] >> It was very It was a weird yet creative [58:46] season and I thought that the finale was [58:47] really really well done. [58:49] >> Hilarious. It was It was very funny and [58:51] he kind of brought around the whole [58:52] season together. I thought it was just [58:54] >> It was way better than I thought it [58:55] would be for such what you'd think is [58:56] kind of like a stupid show. [58:58] >> I agree. I think TV has been pretty damn [59:00] good this year. [59:01] >> But so someone actually said, "Hey, hey, [59:03] you guys always talk crap about [59:04] Netflix." Like, this was a great Netflix [59:05] show. [59:06] >> Well, I talked I talked about [59:08] Netflix's movies. Speaking of The [59:10] Whisper Man, [59:13] >> Adam Scott and Robert Dairo. I watched [59:15] 20 minutes. I This is so This is [59:17] terrible. [59:17] >> So, another Netflix one, my son. So, you [59:19] you said last week, who are are movie [59:22] trailers good for anyone anymore? My son [59:24] will not watch a movie until he watches [59:26] the trailer first. So, I say, "Hey, [59:27] let's watch this action movie." He said, [59:28] "No, no, no. Show me the trailer to see [59:30] if I like the action scenes." So, he [59:32] said, "Dad, I got a movie for us. It's [59:34] called The Last House." It was like [59:35] number one on Netflix this weekend. And [59:36] I'm like, "I've never heard of this." [59:37] Okay. Straight to streaming movie. It [59:40] was the guy who played Pablo Escobar and [59:41] Narcos. He's going to be him forever for [59:43] me. Can't remember his name. And Greta [59:44] Lee, who I love in past lives and a [59:46] bunch of other stuff. And the trailer [59:48] looked good because it's like these [59:49] people are trapped in their house and [59:50] they literally can't get out. Everyone [59:52] in this neighborhood is trapped in their [59:53] house and they can't get out. [59:54] >> Looks terrible. And it was it like the [59:57] idea he's like, "This looks awesome. My [59:59] kids loved it." And it was a kind of [60:00] movie that gets just progressively worse [60:01] and at the the end the whole bottom [60:03] falls out and you're like, "Oh my gosh, [60:04] this is the worst movie ever." But it [60:07] was a straight to streaming Saturday [60:08] afternoon movie. Uh, [60:10] >> wait, hold on. You're right on the [60:11] trailers. Same thing with my kids. I So, [60:13] I showed Kobe Terminator 2 and he goes, [60:15] "Nah, I don't want to watch that." [60:17] >> Oh, really? Okay. [60:17] >> Terminator 2. [60:18] >> If you can get him involved, he'll he'll [60:20] get it eventually. Uh, another Netflix [60:22] one. It's kind of interesting. My [60:23] daughter is 12 years old. She's in [60:25] seventh grade and she's starting to give [60:27] me she's starting to get me into music. [60:29] So when Noah Khan had his big co song [60:32] stick came out like in 2021 or [60:34] something, my daughter like introduced [60:35] me to it. She's like, "You got to listen [60:36] to this." [60:37] >> I don't I don't know who that is. Make [60:38] me feel very old. [60:39] >> Okay. So he he had a new album come out [60:41] this past this summer and we listened to [60:43] it on our boat all summer. That's all my [60:45] daughter wanted to listen. It's really [60:46] good. So, we had this doc on Netflix [60:48] about himself and it it was I thought it [60:52] was really well done and it was him [60:53] making the episode but also him dealing [60:54] with like all the being a star and [60:56] having mental health issues and all this [60:57] stuff. Um, but it was interesting [60:59] because he's from Vermont, New [61:00] Hampshire, one of those. I always get [61:02] them confused. They're the same thing. [61:03] They should just Vermont, New Hampshire [61:05] should be the same state. Let's be [61:06] honest. [61:06] >> Hampshire. [61:07] >> Yeah. But he so he played at the at [61:10] Fenway like in front of like his [61:12] hometown people kind of because he's [61:14] from the northeast. And he said it was [61:15] like the greatest night of his life. And [61:16] he goes, "Man, it's weird going from [61:18] zero from 100 to zero." Like the next [61:19] day he's back to his normal life. And I [61:21] was thinking that's something as an [61:22] adult that you just realize that you [61:24] didn't realize as a kid that just [61:25] everyone is a normal person in some [61:26] ways. Like teachers are just normal [61:29] people. Parents are just normal people. [61:31] This is something you just don't grasp [61:32] until you're an adult. Like oh they're [61:35] they're the normal person too. even [61:37] though they do this [61:39] potentially crazy cool strange weird [61:41] thing. Anyway, and one more for you [61:43] since you talked smack about Sebastian [61:45] Mascalico a couple weeks ago calling him [61:46] the Olive Garden which was a pretty good [61:49] analogy but he has a new YouTube or a [61:52] new YouTube podcast called We Got [61:54] Company and his first guest was Jerry [61:56] Seinfeld. So of course I listen to I [61:57] love Seinfeld and you can tell that [62:00] Seinfeld is a huge fan of Sebastian's [62:02] comedy. [laughter] He Jerry really likes [62:05] him. they're friends and Jerry is the [62:08] kind of guy who I don't think would like [62:11] he wouldn't sugarcoat it for something [62:12] if he didn't like it. So anyway, that [62:14] interview is very worth listening to and [62:17] I think you can tell how much Seinfeld [62:18] actually respects his comedy [62:21] even though you think he's the Olive [62:22] Garden. [62:23] >> Uh we had a few people email us about [62:24] lanterns. Um I watched two episodes and [62:28] it's a it's the Green Lantern on Max and [62:31] uh yeah, it's probably fine. I'm I don't [62:33] think I'm going to watch it. I don't [62:35] have much interest. [62:36] >> Even if they try to make a show about [62:37] superheroes into like a regular show, I [62:39] just I can't do it. [62:40] >> Well, Penguin was excellent. Genuinely, [62:43] >> I didn't mind The Penguin. You're right. [62:44] But a million people kept trying to get [62:45] me to watch Andor, and I tried it like [62:47] four times on Disney because it's a Star [62:49] Wars universe, and I just I couldn't do [62:50] it. [62:51] >> I did, too. I watched the first episode [62:52] three times, but people I respect I I [62:55] mean, I'm sure it's great. I [62:56] >> I watched like five episodes and it it [62:58] was it bored me to death. [63:00] >> Maybe I'm the only one. [63:03] TV has been good. [63:05] >> Mhm. [63:05] >> So, recently I watched Tires, which I [63:07] very much enjoyed. I love The Agency [63:10] season 2, House of the Dragon. [63:13] Uh people love Furiosa. [63:15] >> Oh, Westies. Westy. Furious. I call [63:18] Furiosaur Mad Max. [63:19] >> I'm saving my Furious uh recommendation [63:22] for next week after the finale. [63:24] >> Okay. Uh [63:26] Westies was pretty good. Uh Lioness is [63:30] amazing. Feel like it's been a Oh, [63:33] Friends and Neighbors. I still I still [63:34] haven't finished that show, but feel I [63:36] feel like there's been some decent stuff [63:37] on TV. [63:38] >> Yes, it's been a great year for [63:39] entertainment. [63:40] >> Sure has. [63:42] >> Uh, okay. All right, that's it. Um, [63:47] >> next week we'll tell you what will [63:49] happen to AI for real. [63:51] >> Yeah, you'll get my real thoughts. Next [63:53] week, [63:53] >> we'll have all the answers. [music] [63:55] >> All right, Adam Spirits of the [63:56] Compoundnews.com. We'll see you next [63:58] time. [64:02] >> [music] [64:07] >> Don't go.