Hyperscalers Issue 70% of Treasury Volume as AI Capex Squeezes Yields

超大规模企业发债达美债发行量70%，AI资本开支挤压收益率 科技巨头庞大的企业债发行和数据中心建设正在挤出非AI领域的私人投资，同时维持美债收益率处于高位。 Michael Batnick 和 Ben Carlson 分析了长达十五年的牛市带来的结构性影响，阐释了科技行业巨额收益与AI资本支出如何切实挤出传统的私人建设，并与国债发行形成竞争。他们反驳了普遍存在的金融悲观论调，指出近期的盈利增长实际上压缩了市场估值，同时提供了具有吸引力的固定收益收益率。两位主持人还通过非科技领域的“随处可见的百万富翁”强调了美国梦的持久现实，面对人口结构的挑战捍卫了高等教育的统计学价值，并探讨了为何退休人员仍旧依恋房屋资产。整期节目中，宏观评论穿插着关于资产配置难题、海盗主题派对、钓鱼之旅以及娱乐评论的个人讨论。 长达十五年不间断的牛市积累了前所未有的资本，使得庞大的企业估值、大型基建项目以及走高的消费价格基准变得常态化。 (1:04) 长期的经济扩张不可避免地滋生投资者的自满情绪，在人性的驱动下，未来的繁荣与萧条周期已成必然。 (3:47) 超大市值科技公司的债务发行以及大规模AI数据中心建设，正在切实挤出传统的私人商业、住宅和工业建设。 (7:20) 夏季的估值乘数压缩期间，标普500指数的远期盈利预期跳升了10.7%，而股价涨幅不足2%，这实际上让整体股市便宜了约8%。 (14:51) 目前标普500成分股中股息率高于10年期美债收益率的不足5%，这反映的是1980年至2000年间的历史常态，而非预示着即将崩盘。 (17:18)

In Episode 481 of Animal Spirits, hosts Michael Batnick and Ben Carlson examine how a 15-year bull market and normalized interest rates have reshaped corporate finance, individual asset allocation, and economic narratives. Across asset classes and household demographics, they argue that empirical data on corporate earnings, wealth creation, and employment consistently refutes sensationalist media pessimism. AI Capex Crowds Out Non-Tech Sectors (7:20) Fifteen years of capital accumulation have normalized trillion-dollar valuations across the top tier of the S&P 500, enabling mega-cap technology companies to fund massive artificial intelligence infrastructure buildouts. Rather than propping up a fragile economy, Batnick and Carlson argue that AI is actively crowding out other sectors. Citing J.P. Morgan Asset Management's Michael Cembalest, they note that debt issuance from hyperscalers and Nvidia has reached roughly 70% of total U.S. Treasury bond issuance, competing directly with government debt and pressuring yields upward. Similarly, Wall Street Journal data indexed to December 2023 shows data center construction surging while commercial, residential, and industrial construction have plummeted due to high borrowing rates and competition for labor and materials. Despite these structural pressures, corporate fundamentals remain robust. Carlson highlights Duality Research data showing that since June, the S&P 500 rose less than 2% while forward earnings estimates jumped 10.7%, making the overall market roughly 8% cheaper over the summer. Furthermore, second-quarter S&P 500 blended earnings grew roughly 53% against initial consensus estimates of 14.9%, and Nvidia generated more trailing 12-month operating income than Apple. Higher Yields Prompt Asset Allocation Shifts (18:51) With the S&P 500 dividend yield hovering near historic lows around 1%, Ned Davis Research's Rob Anderson notes that fewer than 5% of S&P 500 stocks currently yield more than the 10-year Treasury—the lowest proportion since May 2007. The hosts explain that this is not an imminent crash signal, but a return to 1980–2000 norms driven by normalized bond yields and corporate preferences for share buybacks over dividends. However, Treasury yields around 4.7% to 5% have altered the risk-reward calculus for equity-heavy investors. Batnick, who has held 100% equities in his 401(k) throughout his investing life, is considering shifting to an 80/20 stock-and-bond mix to capture guaranteed income and maintain rebalancing dry powder for future drawdowns. Carlson adds that for middle-aged investors whose portfolio fluctuations now exceed their annual salaries, de-risking is prudent risk management rather than market timing. Still, Carlson cautions against a Bank of America chart equating current rolling 10-year Treasury losses with both September 1981 and December 1959; while 1981 marked a generational bond bottom, buying in December 1959 preceded a decade of -1% annualized real returns due to 1960s inflation. Practical Limits of Artificial Intelligence Adoption (39:26) Despite persistent warnings of widespread technological disruption, initial and continuing jobless claims remain low. To explain why an AI labor collapse has not materialized, Carlson cites Ben Thompson of Stratechery, who distinguishes between organizational systems and human execution. While AI excels at drafting and organizing information, it cannot generate human motivation or determine strategic priorities. Where consumer AI agents have been deployed—such as bots flooding Resy's API to secure scarce restaurant reservations—they have primarily created digital bottlenecks, prompting platforms to cancel bookings and ban accounts. Empirical Reality Versus Financial Media Doomerism (28:17) A central theme of the discussion is countering persistent financial pessimism—from Ray Dalio's 15-year crisis warnings to Robert Kiyosaki's contradictory boasts about carrying $1.2 billion in debt. Carlson recalls a 2016 Bloomberg article citing a McKinsey report that warned 30-year-olds of an imminent collapse in investment returns; since then, the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund (VTI) has returned roughly 15% annualized, or nearly 325% cumulatively. Similarly, a Wall Street Journal feature on "everywhere millionaires" shows that 3 million Americans hold over $65 trillion in collective wealth largely built through everyday service and food businesses, with only about a quarter of business owners worth $5 million or more having inherited their companies. The hosts also push back against flawed demographic narratives regarding education and housing. While falling birth rates threaten enrollment at smaller regional colleges, Bureau of Labor Statistics data confirms the enduring value of higher education: unemployment for bachelor's degree holders is roughly 2.7%, compared to nearly 5% for workers without a high school diploma. Likewise, addressing a New York Times op-ed accusing seniors of hoarding housing—as adults 65 and older represent one-sixth of the population but own one-third of owner-occupied homes—Carlson cites a Boston College study showing that for the bottom 80% of older Americans, home equity constitutes virtually their entire net worth, leaving them few safe ways to monetize that wealth. While strong earnings growth and elevated interest rates—partially reinforced by White House tariff and geopolitical policies—have acted as a governor on market multiples and reckless speculation, Batnick and Carlson conclude that human psychology makes an eventual market bubble inevitable. For now, however, Carlson argues that market behavior is "not nearly stupid enough" to signal an imminent AI-driven financial crisis.

Michael Batnick与Ben Carlson指出，长达十五年的牛市积聚了前所未有的庞大资本，不仅重塑了万亿美元级公司的常态，还通过人工智能基建热潮对传统行业与债券市场产生显著挤出效应；但历史经验与基本面数据表明，市场周期终会循环，投资者无需对悲观末日论过度焦虑。 资本泛滥与万亿巨头的常态化 (1:04) 长达十五年的牛市不仅创造了天量流动性，还彻底改变了商业社会的心理基准。从日常消费品的价格常态化，到价值数十亿美元的体育特许权以及巨额科技基础设施建设，资本均能无缝调动。标准普尔500指数头部充斥着万亿美元市值的超级巨头，除了科技龙头，Eli Lilly和Berkshire Hathaway也身处万亿阵营，JPMorgan Chase和Micron亦紧随其后。科技巨头凭借雄厚的资产负债表与高利润率，几乎完全依靠内部充沛现金流自筹资金推进AI扩张，万亿估值不再引发市场见顶的恐慌。 AI资本支出的挤出效应与利率结构 (7:20) 针对AI导致经济崩溃的言论，节目指出AI的核心影响在于对实体和金融体系产生强烈挤出。摩根大通资产管理公司Michael Cembalest的数据显示，超大规模云服务商与NVIDIA发行的企业债规模已达到美国国债发行总量的约70%，巨量供给直接与政府债务争夺资金，从而推高了国债收益率。在实体领域，自2023年12月以来，数据中心建设支出呈抛物线式爆发，而商业、住宅及工业等传统私人建筑支出则断崖式下跌，面临劳动力短缺、许可受阻以及高借贷成本的双重压制。尽管资源高度倾斜，Ben认为当前市场投机氛围尚不足以构成非理性泡沫。 估值消化、强劲盈利与固定收益配置考量 (14:51) 股票市场基本面在夏季呈现出估值压缩的健康特征。根据Duality Research与Kevin Gordon的数据，自6月以来，标普500指数涨幅不足2%，而远期盈利预期增长了10.7%，推动整体估值下降约8%。第二季度标普500实际盈利增速达到约53%，远超年初14.9%的预期，NVIDIA过去12个月的营业利润甚至超过了Apple。在收益率方面，标普500股息率降至约1%的历史低位，仅有不到5%的股票股息率高于10年期国债收益率，这一格局与1980至2000年的常态相符，反映了回购盛行与债券收益率正常化。 财富积累实态与驳斥媒体悲观叙事 (24:14) 主流媒体长期贩卖焦虑，如2016年麦肯锡与彭博曾警告未来回报崩溃、年轻人需推迟退休，但此后Vanguard全市场ETF（VTI）年化复合回报率达15%，累计回报接近325%。现实中，全美约有300万名白手起家的普通百万富翁（合计净资产超65万亿美元），多来自暖通空调、餐饮等传统行业，500万美元以上身家的企业主中仅约25%属于继承。对于高等教育，尽管生源面临人口断崖，但大学及以上学历者的失业率仅为2.7%，显著低于未获高中毕业证者的约5.0%，学历依然具备扎实回报。同时，针对老年人“囤积房产”的指责，波士顿学院研究显示后80%的65岁以上群体其净资产几乎全由房屋净值构成，缺乏安全变现途径，并非刻意占用社会资源。 当前市场周期并未脱离经济规律，AI投资与巨额流动性虽推迟了系统性危机的爆发，但人性的顺周期冲动最终仍会把繁荣推向极端；投资者在应对市场情绪与地缘波动时，应立足真实数据与审慎的资产配置，而非屈从于媒体的恐慌预言。

## Background 本期视频由财经媒体频道 The Compound 于 2026 年 9 月 9 日发布于 YouTube 平台。节目由 Michael Batnick 与 Ben Carlson 主持，核心探讨了持续 15 年的牛市如何重塑全球市场资本格局、AI 资本开支引发的挤出效应与就业影响、Ray Dalio 等人的末日恐慌叙事、企业盈利爆发与债券配置良机，以及“美国梦”与大学学位的现实价值和一系列轻松的生活文娱话题。 ## TL;DR 两位主持人深入剖析了万亿市值科技巨头常态化背后的资本膨胀，指出当前 AI 投资更多是对传统建筑支出与国债市场产生了“挤出效应”，而非经济脆弱的纸牌屋。他们通过扎实的数据反驳了债券市场崩溃论、大学无用论以及代际掠夺房产等流行悲观论调，强调当前企业强劲的底层盈利爆发正为估值筑起“忧虑之墙”，真实的美国梦与白手起家依然生机勃勃。节目同时从“采取行动与做成事”的角度解释了为何 AI 并没有引发预期的劳动力市场末日，并分享了在充满噪音与恐慌营销的时代如何保持独立客观的投资心态。后半部分则穿插了两人在海盗主题派对蓄须、密歇根湖带娃垂钓以及遭遇流媒体邪典电影冲击等充满烟火气的幽默生活趣事。 ## Atmosphere & style 整场对话在硬核深度的金融宏观拆解与肆无忌惮的老友互损之间无缝切换，基调轻松风趣却又充满对市场的敬畏与理性批判。Michael 的敏锐吐槽与 Ben 的沉稳严谨碰撞出极佳的化学反应，从调侃彼此的小胡子造型到直击顶级宏观对冲基金大师的焦虑贩卖，情绪饱满且节奏明快。听众在获得清晰扎实的专业基本面洞察的同时，亦能沉浸在两位奶爸分享垂钓翻车和追剧排雷的人间真实中，呈现出一种在信息过载且焦虑的金融市场里难能可贵的笃定与陪伴感。 ## Bulletin - [07:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCh3Un6whlk&t=441s) 超大规模科技巨头与英伟达的天量企业债发行规模已达美债发行的70%，对债券市场资金及非数据中心类实体建筑支出造成了显著的“挤出效应”，成为长期美债收益率居高不下的主因之一。 - [14:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCh3Un6whlk&t=891s) 自6月以来标普500指数虽微涨不足2%，但远期每股收益预期跃升10.7%，推动市场实质便宜约8%；同时Q2标普500混合盈利增速达53%，远超年初14.9%的预期，基本面支撑极为强劲。 - [11:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCh3Un6whlk&t=699s) 美债收益率达4.7%为固定收益资产提供了过去20年罕见的丰厚真实回报，且标普500成分股中仅不足5%的股息率高于10年期美债，高息环境已逆转并使保守债券配置重新具备吸引力。 - [28:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCh3Un6whlk&t=1697s) 全美约300万名“无处不在的百万富翁”掌控超65万亿美元财富，绝大多数白手起家者出身中底层并深耕传统实体行业，通过继承获得企业的比例仅占四分之一，证明美国梦依然坚挺。 ## Key takeaways - [01:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCh3Un6whlk&t=112s) 过去15年大牛市创造的天量资本彻底重塑了全球金融体系，庞大的资本池与流动性虽然让投资者难以想象体制转变，但群体过度狂热的本性注定未来仍将迎来金融危机。 - [05:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCh3Un6whlk&t=314s) 万亿美元市值已演化为常态，科技巨头凭借惊人的超高利润与现金流支撑起天量AI资本开支，市场对其估值规模的敏感度已大幅钝化。 - [07:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCh3Un6whlk&t=441s) AI对宏观经济并非充当虚假遮羞布，而是产生了双重挤出效应：在金融端分流配置美债的资金推高收益率，在实体端挤占非算力基建的建筑与电力资源。 - [09:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCh3Un6whlk&t=582s) 关税与地缘冲突推高了通胀黏性，虽然客观上压制了更低利率的产生，却也在无意中给AI狂潮和房地产过度投机套上了刹车，推迟了潜在的恶性泡沫破裂。 - [11:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCh3Un6whlk&t=699s) 桥水达里奥等长期唱衰者制造的债券危机恐慌并无事实依据，当前固收资产提供了扣除税收与通胀后的丰厚真实正收益，散户不应被末日叙事误导。 - [14:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCh3Un6whlk&t=891s) 当前股票估值倍数受谨慎情绪压制形成了健康的“忧虑之墙”，而以英伟达营业利润超越苹果为代表的底层经营性利润爆发，构成了强有力的估值托底。 - [17:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCh3Un6whlk&t=1039s) 标普500整体股息率跌破1%且远低于国债收益率，并非崩盘信号，而是从后金融危机时代的零利率扭曲异态回归至1980至2000年的高利率、重再投资常态。 - [18:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCh3Un6whlk&t=1131s) 中年投资者随着资产体量扩张，单次回撤可能吞噬整年薪资，在5%左右利率下适度将股票敞口转向80/20股债配置是合理的风险管理，而非盲目择时。 - [22:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCh3Un6whlk&t=1349s) 罗伯特·清崎宣称的12亿美元巨债实为夸大营销，其言行暴露了靠高杠杆炫耀与贩卖末日焦虑之间的讽刺与言行不一。 - [24:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCh3Un6whlk&t=1454s) 麦肯锡在2016年关于“投资回报黄金时代终结”的悲观共识被先锋全市场指数近325%的总回报彻底打脸，警示投资者切勿轻信权威机构贩卖的长期恐慌叙事。 - [31:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCh3Un6whlk&t=1900s) “大学学位一文不值”的极端叙事脱离了客观现实，本科学历群体失业率仅2.7%且职业上限优势依然稳固，但高校自身确实面临严峻的人口悬崖挑战。 - [39:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCh3Un6whlk&t=2366s) AI擅长整理与记录，却无法替代人类的动机与实际执行力；在宏观经济惯性下，AI并未如科技极客预期般引发劳动市场的“就业末日”。 - [41:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCh3Un6whlk&t=2505s) AI Agent如果全面用于线上抢票订位，博弈的终点依然是资本规模的军备竞赛，甚至可能倒逼交易重回线下肉身排队或催生代排灰色产业。 - [43:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCh3Un6whlk&t=2590s) 针对婴儿潮一代“囤积房产”的指责忽视了财富分化真相：除排名前20%的富裕阶层外，后80%普通老人的净资产几乎全集中在房屋净值上，缺乏便捷盘活工具而非刻意垄断。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCh3Un6whlk&t=4s) CME Group 赞助与节目开场趣事 节目由 CME Group 赞助播出。对于需要管理股票敞口的交易者而言，头寸规模与灵活性至关重要。CME 最新推出了 E-nano 股票指数期货，其合约规模仅为微型 E-mini（Micro E-mini）的十分之一。E-nano 涵盖纳斯达克 100 指数、标普 500 指数、罗素 2000 指数以及道琼斯工业平均指数这四大基准，不仅支持小额起步资金逐步建仓，还能让活跃交易者在全天 23 小时的交易时段内，紧随全球宏观动态对投资组合进行精细化微调。 正片开场，Michael Batnick 与 Ben Carlson 开启了本期《Animal Spirits》。Michael 提到最近一周市场相对平淡，虽然世界上依然有“数以万亿计的事情在发生”，但从选题日程来看确实算是一个慢节奏的新闻周。不过在切入严肃市场话题之前，Michael 的注意力瞬间被 Ben 的新造型吸引住了——Ben 居然留起了小胡子。Michael 忍不住当场吐槽：“你看上去就像是 1977 年左右没扎马尾辫的罗恩·杰里米（Ron Jeremy），这到底是怎么回事？”Ben 则开玩笑回应称这是“专门为你留的”，本来完全可以剃掉，但特意留到了录节目，具体缘由先“腌制酝酿”一会儿，留到节目最后再揭晓。 --- ### [01:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCh3Un6whlk&t=112s) 持续 15 年牛市带来的海量资本与体制盲区 Michael 谈及此前在《The Compound and Friends》（TCAF）节目中与 Josh Brown 以及 Dan Skelly 讨论过的一个核心宏观命题：过去 15 年大牛市所创造的财富体量，已经彻底重塑了全球经济、股票市场以及与其相关的方方面面。这种资本膨胀无处不在，从日常生活中令人咂舌的物价——比如 Michael 脑海中如今已被迫常态化的 13 美元一份的 Chipotle 卷饼碗，到体育商业界 125 亿美元估值的洛杉矶湖人队，再到超大规模云服务商（Hyperscalers）的天量基建建设。这背后调动的资金渠道极其多元庞大，涵盖债务融资、股权投资、特殊目的载体（SPV）、后续增发、二手份额交易（Secondaries）乃至困境资产投资。整个金融体系的“资本池”已经深邃广袤到颠覆一切认知。 这种前所未有的长期经济与股市繁荣，也带来了一个深刻的心理副作用：投资者很难想象自己会身处另一种截然不同的经济体制（Regime）之中。人们极易被这种长期的顺境所麻痹，下意识地认为“世界本来就是这个样子”。针对市场上关于“本年代剩余时间里（至 2030 年）可能根本不会发生衰退”的论调，Michael 指出，虽然本年代只剩下三年多，不发生衰退确实在概率之内，但他坚信不仅未来一定会出现衰退，而且在某个时间节点几乎必然会再次引爆全面的“金融危机”。市场参与者的心理机制注定了群体永远会把狂热推向极端，“我们历来如此”。 - 引用美国知名讽刺报刊《洋葱报》（The Onion）的经典头条标题：“美国人正忙着寻找下一个泡沫，来拯救自己脱离上一个泡沫。” - 庞大的富裕阶层群体正在源源不断地为实体经济提供动力，这也是消费韧性与通胀居高不下的重要推手。 - Michael 调侃道：“如果这一切最终不以一场彻底的恐慌收场，那所有这些狂欢的意义又何在呢？” --- ### [05:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCh3Un6whlk&t=314s) 万亿市值公司的常态化与 AI 资本支出 科技巨头之所以敢于大举推进 AI 基础设施建设，根源在于它们庞大的体量、惊人的盈利能力以及极高的利润率赋予了它们绝对的话语权与试错资本。在这场大牛市的催化下，标普 500 指数前十大成分股，甚至第 11 位、第 12 位的巨头，几乎都已经或即将跨入“万亿美元俱乐部”： - 礼来（Eli Lilly）凭借减肥药等突破性进展，市值已稳稳跨过万亿美元大关。 - 伯克希尔·哈撒韦（Berkshire Hathaway）与美光（Micron）等行业中坚市值惊人。 - 摩根大通（JPMorgan Chase）距离万亿美元市值也仅有一步之遥。 Michael 回顾了当年苹果公司（Apple）在 2018 年前后首次冲破万亿美元市值门槛时的全网轰动：当时全球媒体与分析师几乎用尽了所有的笔墨与眼球，无数文章探讨“如果一家万亿美元公司的诞生就是历史大顶，那将是多么诗意的结局”，彼时单家公司市值达 1 万亿美元在人们眼中如同天方夜谭。然而时至今日，博通（Broadcom）等芯片半导体巨头在万亿美元边缘徘徊甚至触及时，市场早已波澜不惊。面对礼来跨入万亿市值，大众的反应仅仅是：“哦，挺酷的，他们攻克了肥胖症，那接下来还有什么新花样？” ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 市场对万亿市值公司心态的演变 accDescr: 展示从苹果首破万亿时的震撼质疑，到如今万亿市值常态化、巨头支配地位确立的心理转变过程。 subgraph Past["过去：里程碑与恐高"] A["苹果首破 1 万亿美元市值"] --> B["引发市场狂热讨论与怀疑"] B --> C["被视作不可思议的奇观或潜在市场大顶"] end subgraph Present["当下：常态化与巨额资本支出"] D["标普前十几乎全员跻身万亿级别"] --> E["市场对此习以为常且不再惊讶"] E --> F["巨头利用超高利润与充裕资金大举投资 AI 算力基建"] end Past -. 心理机制转变.-> Present ``` --- ### [07:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCh3Un6whlk&t=441s) AI 资本的“挤出效应”：推高美债收益率与挤压非算力基建 面对市场上一种普遍的悲观论调——“AI 是一座脆弱的纸牌屋，如果没有 AI 的虚假繁荣和巨头在此的大手笔砸钱，整个经济早就分崩离析了”——Ben 提出了鲜明的反驳。他认为这种观点大概率是错误的，当前的真实状况不仅不是 AI 掩盖了经济颓势，反而是 AI 带来的“挤出效应”（Crowding Out）抑制了传统经济板块的生机。 Ben 援引了摩根大通资产管理策略师 Michael Cembalest 的图表指出，超大规模科技巨头与英伟达（Nvidia）的债务发行规模，已经达到了美国国债发行规模的 70% 之多。长期以来，市场总在从通胀、经济增长和宏观摩擦（如战争、关税）的角度解释为什么长期美债收益率始终居高不下；但实质上，资金流向（Flows）起到了主导作用——科技巨头的天量企业债发行，吸纳了巨额原本可能配置于政府债券的资金，迫使美债必须维持更高的收益率来吸引买家，AI 融资实际上在国债市场上形成了严重的资金挤出。 与此同时，《华尔街日报》（The Wall Street Journal）关于私人建筑支出的图表揭示了实体层面的另一层挤出： - **数据中心建设**：自 2023 年 12 月以来呈现直线上升趋势，吞噬了大量的建筑工人、工程机械、施工许可与电力资源配额。 - **其他所有私人建筑支出**：同期遭遇断崖式下跌，几乎呈自由落体态势。 Michael 与 Ben 强调，不能脱离现实孤立地假设“扣除 AI 支出后经济就会陷入衰退”。非算力领域的建筑支出（包含商业地产、住宅与工业厂房）不仅在物理资源上被数据中心挤占，更在金融端承受着高利率带来的双重暴击，处于两头受气的困境。谈及未来是否会因为 AI 泡沫破裂而引发全面金融危机，Ben 总结道：如果未来真的要出现恶性恐慌与大崩溃，“市场必须变得比现在愚蠢得多才行，目前的狂热程度还远远谈不上足够愚蠢”。 ### [09:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCh3Un6whlk&t=582s) 政策干预与泡沫心理学：蝎子与青蛙的困局 主持人探讨了利率走势与宏观地缘政策之间的微妙关系。数据显示，今年利率的实质性底部恰好出现在美国打击伊朗等事件期间，随后利率便迅速飙升。本·卡尔森（Ben Carlson）指出，虽然从更宏观的视角看利率原本就在回升，但本届政府的各种政策——如关税、地缘冲突等举措——在客观上为市场的过度狂热套上了紧箍咒。如果特朗普当初上任后仅仅推行减税、大搞宴会厅工程，而不加征关税或卷入伊朗战事，完全放任 AI 狂潮肆虐，市场将会走向完全不同的境地：利率和房贷利率可能会显著走低，房地产市场加速回暖，借贷与投机规模也将远超现在。然而，关税与各种政策使通胀维持了更高的黏性，迈克尔·巴特尼克（Michael Batnick）赞同这一观点，调侃称特朗普或许是在无意中“把我们从一场极度难看的泡沫崩盘中拯救了出来”，尽管这可能只是把泡沫与危机推迟到了未来。 从市场博弈的角度来看，集体理性与个体冲动之间存在永恒的矛盾。作为一个整体，没有市场参与者希望看到泡沫产生并破裂；但落在每一个个体头上，大家又都无法抗拒“快速暴富”的诱惑。这种心理就像寓言里的“蝎子与青蛙”，明知危险却身不由己——一旦某个群体大举杀入，其他人就生怕落后；企业并购（M&A）也是如此，只要竞争对手开始大肆收购，管理层就唯恐被边缘化而盲目跟进。关税政策或许能在一定程度上延缓这种速度，但人类逐利的本性无可阻挡，而现代科技更在成倍放大这种人性弱点，多数时候甚至带来了负面效应。 - **宏观反事实推演**：若没有关税摩擦与地缘冲突推高通胀，更低的利率本会让房地产借贷与 AI 投机彻底失控。 - **市场心理机制**：金融市场陷入“蝎子与青蛙”式的囚徒困境，集体层面抗拒泡沫，个体层面却受 FOMO（错失恐惧症）驱动前赴后继。 --- ### [11:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCh3Un6whlk&t=699s) 固收投资者的无端焦虑与达里奥的十五年恐慌言论 当前主流媒体充斥着个人投资者对高利率环境的恐慌报道，这让许多理财顾问感到匪夷所思甚至“抓狂”。迈克尔指出，顾问们普遍认为事实恰恰相反：经历了利率从 0.5% 飙升至 5% 导致债券惨遭血洗的“创伤后应激障碍（PTSD）”之后，投资者如今终于迎来了固收资产的黄金时代。借钱给美国政府能获得 4.7% 的收益率，扣除税收与通胀后依然能锁定真实的正回报，这原本应该被头条新闻大肆庆祝，现实中散户却被各种悲观论调吓得不敢进场。近期一位理财顾问便邀请迈克尔直接加入客户沟通会议，以安抚客户因某篇唱衰文章引发的焦虑。 当迈克尔点开客户提供的焦虑来源时，赫然发现那是桥水基金创始人瑞·达里奥（Ray Dalio）撰写的关于《债券市场供需失衡危机》的文章。迈克尔兴奋地表示“请务必让我参加这次会议”，因为在市场平稳时他正愁没有机会上阵与客户深度剖析。下周在 Future Proof 行业峰会上，迈克尔和本将与考伦·罗奇（Cullen Roche）同台演讲，演讲主题正是《如何向客户解释瑞·达里奥》。两人调侃道，达里奥虽已从对冲基金一线退居二线（甚至跑去参加火人节），但他过去 15 年来始终乐此不疲地在网络上高呼“现在就像 1937 年”，不断制造末日恐慌吓坏普通投资者，因此他们准备用扎实的数据彻底拆解并破除这些危言耸听的陈词滥调。 - **固收环境实质反转**：美债收益率达到 4.7% 意味着固定收益投资者终于获得了丰厚的真实税后回报，当前应是配置债券的良机而非风险陷阱。 - **播客排期调整**：因下周三下午两人将在 Future Proof 峰会现场登台，节目更新时间将由平时的周三早间顺延至周三晚间。 --- ### [14:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCh3Un6whlk&t=891s) 估值是情绪，盈利是事实：被低估的财报爆发期 本分享了来自 Duality Research 的一份最新市场数据，凯文·戈登（Kevin Gordon）也对该数据进行了转发：自今年 6 月以来，标普 500 指数的累计涨幅不足 2%，但同期的远期每股收益（Forward EPS）预期却大幅跃升了 10.7%。换句话说，正当散户与机构在整个夏天忙着度假晒太阳时，标普 500 实际变得便宜了大约 8%。迈克尔对此精辟地总结道：“盈利、股息和现金流是硬邦邦的数字，但估值倍数完全是情绪的体现。”市场没有盲目拔高远期估值倍数，反而给估值套上了刹车装置，这种普遍存在的怀疑态度恰恰构成了健康牛市所必需的“忧虑之墙”（wall of worry）。 更令人震撼的是企业盈利的实际增速。年初市场对第二季度标普 500 盈利增长的预期仅为 14.9%，而如今实际录得的混合增长率高达惊人的 53%。许多怀疑论者将此归咎于私有公司估值重估或 AI 资本开支引发的资金空转，但底层经营性利润（Operating Income）的爆发是不争的事实。迈克尔抛出了一个令人难以置信的对照数据：在过去 12 个月里，英伟达（Nvidia）的营业利润已经正式超越了苹果（Apple）。年初几乎没有任何华尔街策略师预料到今年会迎来历史上最强劲的盈利增长年之一，这种超预期的盈利爆发为估值提供了极强的基本面支撑。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 盈利与估值脱钩带动市场实质变平 accDescr: 展示自6月以来标普500指数微涨而远期盈利大增，使市场估值实质变得更便宜的过程。 subgraph MarketSummer["夏季市场表现（6月至今）"] Price["标普 500 价格涨幅: < 2%"] Earnings["远期盈利预期增长: +10.7%"] end subgraph ValuationResult["估值中枢变动"] Discount["市场实质便宜约 8%<br/>情绪谨慎构筑『忧虑之墙』"] end Price --> Discount Earnings --> Discount ``` --- ### [17:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCh3Un6whlk&t=1039s) 股息率降至历史低点：后金融危机时代的常态回归 节目的最后部分深入探讨了当前极低的股息率环境。标普 500 当前的整体股息率已跌破 1%，几乎逼近历史最低水平（仅比互联网泡沫顶峰时高出约 3 个基点）。Ned Davis Research 的分析师罗布·安德森（Rob Anderson）指出，目前标普 500 成分股中股息率跑赢 10 年期美债收益率的个股比例不足 5%，这一数据创下了 2007 年 5 月以来的最低纪录。 许多悲观者看到 2007 年 5 月的对比便大惊失色，但本和迈克尔强调不能断章取义。从历史长周期来看，2008 年全球金融危机（GFC）之后的零利率时代才是一个扭曲的历史异常期：当时股市暴跌将股息率被动推高，同时基准利率被压制在零。回顾 1980 年至 2000 年的长周期，股票股息率低于国债收益率是再正常不过的常态。加上现代企业早已将资本回报机制转向股票回购而非直接分红，除非政府债券收益率出现断崖式下跌，否则极低的相对股息率将是市场长期的新常态，并不意味着崩盘信号。 - **标普 500 股息率现状**：整体股息率跌破 1%，创下互联网泡沫以来的最低历史极值区间。 - **股债相对收益分化**：全市场仅有不足 5% 的成分股股息率高于 10 年期美债收益率。 - **历史周期的纠偏**：后金融危机时代（Post-GFC）的高股息对低利率格局是历史异态，当前形态其实重回了 1980–2000 年的高利率、重再投资的传统金融常态。 ### [18:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCh3Un6whlk&t=1131s) 债券吸引力回归与中年投资者的风险心理变化 股票相较于债券的相对吸引力已经降至多年来的低点，然而对投资者而言，这反而是个好消息。过去市场曾一度抱怨“80/20 股债配置取代了传统的 60/40”，逼迫所有人不得不沿着风险曲线走得更远，如今这种被迫承担高风险的局面终于宣告结束。Michael 坦言自己在周末萌生了一个此前从未有过的念头：是否应该在自己的 401(k) 退休账户中配置一些债券？作为具备超长投资期限的长期投资者，他此前始终坚持 100% 全股票配置，但现在的债券收益率相当可观，如果转向 80/20 配置，不仅能稳定拿息，未来若股市遭遇大幅回调，还可以顺理成章地逆向换仓加仓股票；即便股市继续上涨，现有的配置也足以带来丰厚回报。 Ben 提到了上一期《Ask the Compound》节目中一位 40 多岁中年听众的来信。那位听众恪守定投纪律，安然扛过了互联网泡沫破裂和 2008 年次贷危机，像一台机器一样执行定投。然而随着总资产规模大幅扩张，现在股市稍有大幅波动，其单次回撤的金额就可能超过一整年的薪水，导致心态彻底发生变化。Ben 指出，许多人在步入中年或资产体量变大后，考虑适度落袋为安并不是想要择时交易（market timing），而是出于更理性的风险管理——既然过去的牛市已经让自己的财务进度大幅超前，适度锁定 5% 左右的无风险债券收益就是一种极其明智且谨慎的选择。 随后两人讨论了美银（Bank of America）近期在社交媒体上流传的一张图表，该图表试图论证“长期债券在经历负回报后往往是绝佳的买入时机”。图表统计了 15 年期以上美债的 10 年滚动年化回报率，显示上一次出现名义年化负回报还要追溯到 1959 年 12 月，而 1981 年 9 月也曾接近负值。Ben 对此提出了质疑：历史背景完全不同，1981 年是历史上最伟大的债券买入窗口，此后几十年再未重现；而 1959 年买入债券却是一场灾难，因为随之而来的高通胀使得 1960 年代债券的实际年化回报率仅有 -1% 左右。Michael 和 Ben 一致认为，不能把当前市场生搬硬套到过去的极端图表中：眼下虽然绝对称不上是“几十年一遇的抄底债券机会”，但这确实是过去 20 年来债券配置价值最高、收益率最扎实的一段时期。 --- ### [22:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCh3Un6whlk&t=1349s) 罗伯特·清崎的巨额债务争议与财商畅销书迷思 社交媒体和新闻近期广泛热议《富爸爸穷爸爸》作者罗伯特·清崎（Robert Kiyosaki）公开宣称自己背负 12 亿美元债务的消息。Ben 将其讽刺为“富爸爸与可怜的读者们（Rich Dad Poor Readers）”，并指出很多人仅仅被耸动的头条带偏了节奏。实际上，清崎是在炫耀这笔巨额负债，仿佛能够借到如此庞大的资金是他作为超级富豪的一种资本实力展示。然而清崎的前妻随后透露，这其实涵盖了与其相关的房地产及实体投资组合的杠杆，清崎个人并没有承担高达 12 亿美元的个人追索债务，其真实数字要小得多，清崎显然在刻意夸大这一数字以博取眼球。 两人调侃了清崎的言行不一与滑稽之处：这位长期在各种场合抨击现代金融系统滥发债务、劝诫普通人远离负债的畅销书导师，自己却将高杠杆作为炫耀的资本。Ben 开玩笑说，从金融逻辑上看，清崎或许终于“知行合一”了一次——如果真如他多年来预测的那样即将爆发恶性通胀（hyperinflation），那么背负巨额固定债务确实是对冲货币贬值的最佳手段。回顾《富爸爸穷爸爸》一书，Ben 直言自己虽然在各大推荐书单中读过它，但始终觉得里面的故事虚构感过强，从未能真正引发自己的共鸣；Michael 则表示自己当年读的时候挺喜欢，并没有太多负面看法。 --- ### [24:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCh3Un6whlk&t=1454s) 彭博社与麦肯锡 2016 年的悲观预言与现实打脸 Ben 回忆起自己过往撰写的博客文章，提到如今人们普遍悲观地认为“Z 世代永远买不起房”，但早在 2014 年前后，主流舆论同样异口同声地断定千禧一代将终生租房，理由是他们亲眼目睹了父母在次贷危机中的惨状且失业率居高不下，然而事实证明千禧一代最终依然顺利进入了置业周期。顺着这个思路，Ben 翻出了自己在 2016 年写过的一篇反驳主流观点的文章。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 麦肯锡2016年低回报预测与标普实际走势对比 accDescr: 对比麦肯锡2016年预测的投资回报崩塌与先锋全市场指数在此后的实际暴涨表现 subgraph Predict["2016年 机构悲观预言"] A["彭博社援引麦肯锡报告<br>‘年满30岁变得更加可怕’"] B["核心论调：<br>投资回报崩溃，黄金时代终结<br>需多工作7年或储蓄翻倍"] end subgraph Reality["此后现实市场表现"] C["先锋全市场指数基金 (VTI)"] D["年化回报率约 15%"] E["累计总回报率近 325%"] end A --> B B -.->|"现实打脸"| C C --> D D --> E ``` 当时彭博社刊发了题为《年满 30 岁变得更加可怕》（Turning 30 just got a lot scarier）的报道，其依据是麦肯锡公司（McKinsey & Company）发布的一份重磅研报： - 麦肯锡声称过去 30 年股市的高回报“黄金时代”已一去不返，经过通胀调整后的优异风险回报不可能重现； - 当时 30 岁左右的年轻人必须比上一代人多工作 7 年，或者将储蓄率提高近一倍，才能积累相同的养老资产储备。 然而现实与这一权威预测背道而驰。自该报道发布以来的数年间，先锋全股票市场指数基金（VTI）年化复合回报率接近 15%，累计总涨幅高达约 325%。Michael 感慨道，如今媒体充斥着各种极度负面的末日叙事，但这种贩卖焦虑的耸动标题从来就不是 2026 年的新鲜产物，早在 1910 年代就有类似的报刊头条。令人深思的是，当年像彭博社这样声誉卓著的严肃财经媒体，竟然能如此笃定地宣称“投资回报的崩塌即将到来”，甚至一度演变为金融界坚信不疑的“群体共识”，给普通投资大众造成了极大的误导。 --- ### [26:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCh3Un6whlk&t=1574s) AI 订座代理引发的挤兑与寻找嘈杂时代的可信之声 Michael 分享了硅谷周末发生的一则技术闹剧：一家名为 Instinct 的 AI 智能体（AI Agent）初创公司在当前炙手可热的融资潮中获得了数十亿美元的高估值。大量用户利用该公司的 AI Agent 自动化脚本，去抢订纽约极难预订的著名餐馆（例如 4 Charles 等）。这套自动化程序在极短时间内对美国运通（American Express）旗下的餐厅预订平台 Resy 发起了数以亿计的 API 请求轰炸。Resy 系统由于承压过大，将其视同为恶意的分布式拒绝服务攻击，随后果断采取反制措施：直接切断接口访问、强制取消相关用户的预订资格，并将滥用自动代理的账户封禁下线。 Michael 指出，面对铺天盖地的技术新词和层出不穷的新闻，普通人根本没有多余的精力去逐一深挖底层真相，最重要的策略是确立属于自己的“可信信息源”。比如在科技领域，他习惯于等待分析师 Ben Thompson（Stratechery 作者）的专业拆解，而不是随波逐流被各类标题党牵着鼻子走。Michael 和 Ben 感到由衷欣慰的是，自 2017 年创立《Animal Spirits》播客以及在此之前撰写博客以来，他们的初衷正是因为无法忍受 2008 年金融危机后充斥在金融界的无休止负能量与末日恐慌。他们很自豪能够在这个信息过载且充斥着恐慌营销的时代，成为广大听众过滤杂音、寻求理智与客观事实的坚固锚点。 ### [28:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCh3Un6whlk&t=1697s) “无处不在的百万富翁”与美国梦并未破灭 Ben Carlson 提到了《华尔街日报》上周刊登的一篇非常积极向上的报道，文章打破了当下流行的“受害者心态”，直言美国梦依然充满生机，并正在批量制造百万富翁。报道开篇讲述了著名餐饮连锁品牌 Portillo's 创始人迪克·波蒂略（Dick Portillo）的传奇经历。两位主持人由此插播了一段关于英文名字的打趣：现在的年轻一代完全无法理解为什么有人名叫理查德（Richard），昵称却非要叫“迪克”（Dick，在俚语中有其他含义），甚至调侃《天才雷普利》里的角色 Dickie Greenleaf，直言现代人绝不会再起这种名字了。言归正传，迪克·波蒂略在 20 世纪 60 年代从一个简陋的热狗摊起家，当时他连热狗都不知道怎么煮，半个世纪后却以 10 亿美元将公司出售。Ben 回忆起自己和妻子婚前去芝加哥探望哥哥的往事，当时深夜抵达公寓没吃晚饭，哥哥特地跑去 Portillo's 买回了意式香辣牛肉三明治，那种美味让他至今难忘。波蒂略出身于贫困的移民家庭，住在公共廉租房，曾自认为对世界毫无价值，而这正是整篇文章的核心所在——当下绝大多数巨额财富的创造者并非来自东海岸的常春藤名校，而是来自底层或普通家庭的小人物，他们靠着创办暖通空调（HVAC）等传统实体行业致富，而非大众刻板印象中的高科技新贵。 文章将这个群体定义为“无处不在的百万富翁”（Everywhere Millionaires）。针对这篇报道，Michael Batnick 与 Ben 展开了激烈的探讨。Michael 坦言虽然喜欢文章鼓舞人心的基调，但也提出尖锐反驳：过去 75 年或许只是特定历史时期的特殊红利，那种“从高盛收发室底层一路干到合伙人”的时代早已一去不复返，未来的 65 万亿美元财富很可能主要来自代际继承。Ben 则据理力争，举例指出就在八年前，几个年轻人仅凭 900 美元在洛杉矶的一个停车场摆摊创立了戴夫热鸡（Dave's Hot Chicken），如今估值也达到了十亿美元级别的规模。Ben 坚信，生成式 AI 等技术工具的普及，不仅不会扼杀普通人的机会，反而会大幅降低创业门槛，赋能更多此前根本不敢想象创业的人去开启自己的生意。 - **庞大的财富体量**：全美目前约有 300 万名这样的普通行业百万富翁，他们所拥有的财富总和超过 65 万亿美元。 - **底层逆袭的统计学概率**：绝大多数白手起家者出身底层或中产，这一方面是因为底层 99% 的人口基数是顶层 1% 的 99 倍；而在知名创业者中，来自贫困背景的人数是来自前 1% 富裕阶层的 2.5 倍。 - **继承比例极低**：在身家达到或超过 500 万美元的企业主中，仅有四分之一是通过继承获得现有公司的，其余绝大多数皆为自主创业。 --- ### [31:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCh3Un6whlk&t=1900s) 大学学位真的一文不值了吗？叙事背后的数据真相 随后，两人将话题转向近期舆论对“大学教育回报率（ROI）”的普遍唱衰。Ben 认为，当下许多知识精英鼓吹“大学学位不再值得读”，这种论调已经走到了极端的荒谬境地。《华尔街日报》最近发表了一篇题为《没有大学学位的美国人正迎来多年来最好的就业市场》的报道，其中有一张图表声称“2026 年拥有学位的 22 至 34 岁劳动者，其相对失业境遇比没有学位的同龄人更差”。Ben 一针见血地指出，这里的“相对”（relative）一词存在严重的误导性修饰，因为其基准对比的是 2003 年的极端数据。如果仔细审视同一篇报道中按年龄与学历划分的就业现状，抑或是查看美国劳工统计局（BLS）的官方权威数据，就会发现大学学位的优势依然不可撼动。 Michael 对此表示认同，并指出这正是典型的“叙事走极端”现象。最初公众对高等教育产生质疑完全合情合理：大众开始反思让一个 19 岁、心智尚未完全成熟的青年背负 20 万美元的巨额学生贷款，做出人生中最重要的财务决定，究竟是否理智；大学管理机构不断推高学费，直到教育成本变得不可承受。然而，公众的讨论却逐渐从“反思大学高昂学费与管理腐败”，演变成了全盘否定大学存在的制度价值，忽视了客观事实与灰色地带。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 大学学位价值与就业率对比 accDescr: 对比高中以下学历与大学本科及以上学历在失业率与就业前景上的客观差距 subgraph LowEdu["低学历群体"] A1["高中以下学历"] --> B1["失业率接近 5.0%"] B1 --> C1["就业弹性差 / 岗位门槛低"] end subgraph HighEdu["高学历群体"] A2["大学本科及以上"] --> B2["失业率仅 2.7%"] B2 --> C2["几乎处于充分就业常态 / 职业上限高"] end ``` - **官方失业率差距**：美国 25 岁及以上人群中，高中以下学历者的失业率接近 5%；而拥有本科学位的劳动者失业率仅为 2.7%，在宏观经济学中，2.7% 的失业率几乎等同于自然失业状态下的“充分就业”。 - **学历红利依然显著**：尽管近年来教育水平较低群体的就业率有所改善，但在所有年龄组与人口统计中，持有大学学位群体的就业前景与整体就业率依然全面碾压非大学学历群体。 --- ### [34:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCh3Un6whlk&t=2040s) 人口悬崖下的大学困境与高性价比求学路径 虽然大学学位对学生个体依然具备投资价值，但 Ben 指出，对于大量普通高校自身而言，未来几年将面临灭顶之灾。这完全是由不可逆的“人口悬崖”决定的。Ben 提到如果向 Claude 或 ChatGPT 提问未来 30 年美国 18 岁适龄青年的预测走势，人口曲线会呈现断崖式下跌。高中毕业生总数逐年减少，除非是极具声誉的顶尖名校，否则普通高校将面临无生可招的残酷局面。Ben 以父亲曾就读并担任董事的密歇根州阿奎奈学院（Aquinas College）为例，期间还发生了一段幽默插曲——Michael 竟然从未听说过欧洲中世纪神学家托马斯·阿奎那（Thomas Aquinas），引发 Ben 一脸震惊。Ben 透露，这所仅有约 1500 名学生的小型教会学校为了生存各出奇招，全校竟有高达 50% 的学生是各类校队运动员（涵盖足球、长曲棍球、曲棍球等），学校几乎是以“人人都能进校队参赛”为招徕手段来挽救注册率。甚至像雪城大学（Syracuse University）这样的老牌名校，近期也因为遭遇生源短缺危机而登上了《华尔街日报》。 面对高等教育的成本危机，Michael 自嘲自己拥有独特的发言权——因为他曾在求学期间被大学勒令退学过两次，整整经历过四次入学注册。他分享了自己当年颇为曲折的求学路径：最初凭借优异的 SAT 成绩考入著名的印第安纳大学伯明翰分校凯利商学院（Kelley School of Business），被退学后转入拿骚社区学院（Nassau Community College），随后重返印第安纳大学，最后转至纽约市立大学皇后学院（Queens College）毕业。Ben 笑着打趣说 Michael 亲身践行了“美国梦尚未消亡”，并借此强调，抱怨学费昂贵的人往往忽略了一条完全可行的平民路线：学生完全可以在离家近的社区学院读完前两年基础课程，花费微乎其微甚至近乎免费，清空所有枯燥的通识学分后，再转入知名综合性公立或私立大学完成学位，这才是最精明的财务规划方式。 ### [37:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCh3Un6whlk&t=2220s) 大学费用的社会压力与 AI 时代的真伪焦虑 迈克尔·巴特尼克（Michael Batnick）和本·卡尔森（Ben Carlson）承接上文关于大学学费高昂的讨论。本指出，如果家庭最核心的顾虑纯粹是费用，完全有绕开高额学费的路径，只是大家往往出于各种社会心理而不愿选择。迈克尔坦言，这里面存在巨大的社会舆论与家庭心理压力，父母通常不愿意把孩子送到社区大学去读。 随后话题转向 AI。迈克尔表达了他对当今 AI 环境中极其令人厌烦的一面——“对一切事物都充满怀疑”（the questioning everything aspect）。在社交平台上，你看到一张图片转发出去，立刻就有人跳出来留言指责那是假图、是 AI 生成的；被骗了一两次之后，人就会陷入神经质般的防备心理。迈克尔无奈地表示，他现在甚至不得不把很多网络图片截图发给 Claude 去鉴别真伪。例如，他在 Instagram 上刷到一部名为《Gatorface》的电影预告片，第一反应也是怀疑其真实性，直到去 Google 搜索才确认这是一部真实存在的电影。迈克尔兴奋地调侃，这部片子融合了他最爱的两大元素：老派血腥惊悚砍杀片（slasher horror）以及活生生的短吻鳄吃人桥段，海报封面甚至是一个女人的头卡在鳄鱼嘴里，简直是为他量身定做的类型片。 本由此联想到两代人对人机博弈称谓的变化：他们小时候打游戏（例如《Madden》美式橄榄球全明星难度），当系统难度飙升、把玩家虐得连两码都冲不出去时，大家会抱怨是“电脑在作弊”；而现在他的儿子在 Nintendo Switch 上玩体感运动游戏，打不过专业级选手时，脱口而出的却是“AI 又把我们干趴下了”。对新一代的孩子而言，所有背后的算法与机器机制统统被归为了“AI”。 --- ### [39:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCh3Un6whlk&t=2366s) 为什么 AI 没有引发预期的“就业末日”？ 本引出了科技圈与宏观经济之间脱节的现象：每当有新的大模型发布，科技界专家和极客们都会为模型能解开复杂的数学难题而欢呼雀跃，但这在普通大众看来，就像电影《侏罗纪公园》（Jurassic Park）里纽曼（Newman）的名场面一样——“看，根本没人在乎”（"Nobody cares"）。更值得关注的是，尽管科技界长期鼓吹 AI 将颠覆各行各业，甚至引发“就业末日”（job apocalypse），但美国的初请与持续失业金人数却仍在持续走低，《纽约客》和大西洋月刊等媒体也纷纷发文探讨：为什么裁员大潮至今没有在劳动市场发生？即便 OpenAI 的萨姆·奥尔特曼（Sam Altman）解释称这是因为“宏观经济拥有巨大的惯性”，本依然在探寻更深层的原因。 本引用了知名科技分析师本·汤普森（Ben Thompson）在 Stratechery 上讨论经典效率管理书籍《搞定》（*Getting Things Done*，简称 GTD）的一篇文章。汤普森指出，许多科技极客热衷于构建各种各样复杂的自动化流程和辅助系统，但**再多的系统也无法替代人类采取行动**。AI 极其擅长“写下并整理事情”（writing things down），但这种能力在“把事情真正做成”（getting things done）面前依然显得苍白无力。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: AI系统与行动落地的差距 accDescr: 展示AI在提高个人能力与实际执行意愿、决策之间的鸿沟 subgraph AI["AI 的赋能边界"] A["生成内容与梳理记录<br/>(Writing things down)"] B["提高单点能力与效率<br/>(Increase capabilities)"] end subgraph Human["人类的核心主导"] C["明确目标与优先级<br/>(Determine what needs to get done)"] D["付诸行动与执行动力<br/>(Motivation & Action)"] end A --> B B -.无法驱动.-> D C --> D D --> E["取得最终成果<br/>(Getting things done)"] ``` AI 提升了所有愿意使用它的人的能力，但它无法赋予一个人动机（motivation），更无法替人决定“究竟什么才是该做的”。现实中绝大多数普通人甚至根本不怎么使用这些能大幅简化生活的工具。迈克尔对此深表赞同，直言 AI 绝不可能替你自动把现实事务完成。 --- ### [41:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCh3Un6whlk&t=2505s) AI Agent 与特权资本化：当预订变成金融博弈 本进一步剖析了当 AI Agent（人工智能代理）普及时可能引发的悖论：如果每个人都能吩咐自己的 AI Agent：“去帮我预订全城最火爆的餐厅”，那么成千上万个代理程序在后台同时争抢有限的资源，系统又该把名额分配给谁？ 迈克尔对此强烈吐槽，他在网上看到一种让人反胃的观点——有人提出“为什么餐厅预订不能变成付费市场？周六晚 7:30 的就餐位显然比周一下午 5:15 更有价值，应该搞动态竞价”。迈克尔对此嗤之以鼻，呼吁资本主义思维应当适可而止（"Could we just calm down with a capital?"）。 两人深入剖析后得出了冷酷的推论： - **AI 军备竞赛的尽头仍是资本**：当所有人都在使用 AI 代理无休止地排队、抢票、订位时，最终获胜的依然是资金最雄厚的人，普通人反而失去了公平机会。 - **倒退回线下物理垄断**：如果线上预订彻底被 AI 机器挤瘫，唯一的解法可能就是倒退回“线下肉身排队”，进而催生专门花钱雇真人排队的荒诞灰色产业。 --- ### [43:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCh3Un6whlk&t=2590s) 老年阶层“囤积”房产富裕？揭开婴儿潮一代的财富真相 话题随后转向《纽约时报》的一篇专栏文章，该文章指责美国老年人“囤积了美国的潜力”，称婴儿潮一代（Baby Boomers）握有天量财富，且长期霸占自有住房不愿卖出，阻碍了年轻一代的发展。该文章作者莫先生（Mr. Mo）甚至出版了名为《美国的白发统治》（*Gerontocracy in America*）的新书。迈克尔对这类动辄将代际矛盾对立化的煽动性报道表示极度厌恶。 为了厘清真相，本援引了波士顿学院（Boston College）的一项后续深度研究，客观审视了老年群体的资产结构： - **房产集中度事实**：65 岁及以上的老年人仅占美国总人口的六分之一，但他们确实拥有全美三分之一的自住房（owner-occupied homes）。 - **贫富分化的五等分（Quintiles）真相**：如果将 65 岁以上人群按财富分成五等分，对比其中位数“房屋净值（Home Equity）”与“金融资产（Financial Wealth）”会发现：**对于后 80% 的普通老年人来说，房屋净值几乎就是他们全部的净资产**；只有排在最顶层 20% 的富裕老人，金融资产才大幅超越房屋净值。 迈克尔开启黑色幽默，讽刺那些激进言论干脆推出荒唐新规：“规定在同一栋房子里最多只能住 25 年，到期后老人必须立刻搬离；或者住满 25 年房贷直接归零重置”。但言归正传，本指出这些老年人未来在养老、就医等方面必须变现这笔财富，除了饱受争议的反向抵押贷款（reverse mortgage），目前社会并没有完善且低门槛的金融工具帮助他们盘活房屋资产。迈克尔总结道，绝不能简单粗暴地要求老年人“把房子卖了走人”，这根本不是现实的解决方案。两人最后还拿胡子造型和迈克尔此前被听众开玩笑叫做“婴儿潮老头”互相打趣了一番。 ### [46:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCh3Un6whlk&t=2765s) 主题派对、海盗舞会与胡子风波 Ben Carlson 聊起自己对主题派对情有独钟，坦言这种喜好可能是家族遗传。Michael Batnick 感到不可思议，Ben 则解释自己本质上是个性格内向的人，而主题派对恰好赋予了他一种“被允许外向”的借口与仪式感。在大学时代，他就热衷于托加长袍（toga）派对等各类变装聚会。他回忆起母亲高中时期，全家搬到新镇并买了一栋带泳池的房子，当时外祖父每周日都会举办盛大的泳池派对，老照片里全是大家穿着长袍等各种戏服狂欢的场景。 随后 Ben 讲述了刚过去的劳动节（Labor Day）周末发生的趣事。他们家常去的一个泳池/游艇俱乐部始建于 1903 年，至今已有 120 多年历史。俱乐部从阵亡将士纪念日（Memorial Day）营业至劳动节，而整个夏天的压轴收官活动是一年一度的“海盗舞会”（Pirates Ball）。这项活动限量发售 200 张门票，年年售罄，全场男女老少必须盛装打扮成海盗。为了今年不敷衍了事，Ben 决定不画假胡子，而是提前真正蓄起了小胡子。他们一家还敲定了《小飞侠》（Peter Pan）的衍生主题：小女儿 Kate 扮成奇妙仙子（Tinkerbell），妻子和孩子们也都穿上了戏服。 舞会现场十分滑稽且欢乐，大人小孩人手一杯啤酒或饮料，满场都是海盗装扮。然而，Ben 的胡子却遭到了妻子和小女儿的强烈嫌弃与生理性反感，家人甚至质问他为什么不能像别人一样贴个假胡子或者用笔画一个。派对一结束，家人就逼他立刻刮掉，但 Ben 坚持要把胡子保留给 Michael 看，留作播客素材。Michael 看到后笑称 Ben 的胡子长得非常浓密，令他相当嫉妒。Michael 分享了自己当年的黑历史：曾在去奥斯汀参加单身派对时尝试蓄须，但因为毛发偏浅，便用 Just For Men 染发剂染成了漆黑，效果极其滑稽怪异，最终只能放弃。 ### [48:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCh3Un6whlk&t=2936s) 《洛奇4》的影评争议与跑步“超能力” 话题转向影视讨论。上一期节目中 Michael 分享了自己最爱的 80 年代电影，引发了大量听众反馈。有听众发来邮件打抱不平，指出烂番茄（Rotten Tomatoes）上最荒唐的事情之一就是《洛奇4》（Rocky IV）的影评人好评率竟然只有 38%。Ben 表示自己从来不看烂番茄上的所谓影评人指数（Tomatometer），而是 IMDb 的忠实拥趸，习惯依据 IMDb 的 10 分制评分来挑片子。烂番茄上经常呈现出影评人与大众口碑的极端对立，甚至只要去点开那些打低分的人，会发现不少是只有几个人收听的小播客主播在事后倒回去刷差评。 两人念出了《洛奇4》的剧情简介：重量级拳王洛奇·巴尔博亚远赴西伯利亚刻苦集训，为了给在擂台上被苏联拳手打死的阿波罗·奎迪报仇，在充满敌意的俄罗斯主场观众面前展开终极对决。两人一致认为该片里的经典训练蒙太奇镜头简直无可挑剔。 Michael 借此分享了一段亲身经历。他坦承自己身体素质极差，平时根本不跑步，过去 20 年甚至连 1 英里都没跑过。但在摩根大通企业竞跑赛（JPMorgan Chase Corporate Challenge 5K）上，为了跟搭档 Josh 争个高下，他在耳机里循环播放《洛奇4》的原声带，整个人瞬间热血沸腾。伴随着激昂的音乐，他连续跑完了整整 3 英里，平均配速竟然达到了 9 分钟/英里。那张充满“美苏冷战”、“宿敌对决”史诗感的声音记忆仿佛给他注入了“超能力”。 ### [51:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCh3Un6whlk&t=3073s) 泰柳瑞德电影节：内森·菲尔德与伊丽莎白·霍姆斯的纪录片 Michael 提到上周末在泰柳瑞德电影节（Telluride Film Festival）上引发轰动的一部 A24 制作的 3 小时长篇纪录片，由内森·菲尔德（Nathan Fielder）与纪录片导演兰斯·奥本海姆（Lance Oppenheim）联合打造。据《纽约时报》报道，血液检测公司 Theranos 创始人伊丽莎白·霍姆斯（Elizabeth Holmes）在因欺诈投资人前往监狱服刑 11 年的前 34 天，为了洗白自己，邀请摄影组入驻她在南加州租住的家中记录生活，而她挑中的记录者正是以荒诞反讽风格著称的内森·菲尔德。 - Michael 表示自己极少去影院看纪录片，但这片子上映他 100% 会买票进影院观看。 - Ben 对内森·菲尔德的作品表达了保留意见，认为他在 HBO 的剧集（如《排练》）总是模糊真实与虚构的界限，这种“故意让观众分不清真假”的荒诞手法常常让人感到心累而出戏。 - 针对霍姆斯的这趟巡回公关，Ben 认为她与其他的欺诈犯没有任何区别，绝不可能通过纪录片洗白；Michael 则分析，在菲尔德的镜头下，霍姆斯大概率只会显得更加偏执和疯狂，让世人更彻底地看清她的荒谬本色。 ### [53:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCh3Un6whlk&t=3192s) 六角扳手哲学与密歇根湖垂钓记 节目随后读了一封有趣的听众来信。听众写道，鉴于两位主持人都喜欢亲自动手组装家具，世界上大概有两类人：一种是装完家具直接把附带的内六角扳手（Allen wrench）扔掉的人，另一种则是在车库抽屉里塞满了几十把各式扳手的人。 - Ben 承认自己属于第二种：他有一个专属抽屉装满了旧扳手，每次组装新家具时，他甚至会嫌弃附送的新工具不好用，特意去抽屉里挑一把以前顺手、带省力转角的“御用主力扳手”。 - Michael 则介于两者之间：虽然不知不觉存下了一大堆零件，但从来没拿出来复用过，因此他现在决定一律扔进垃圾桶。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 内六角扳手处理分类流程 accDescr: 图表展示了面对家具附带的内六角扳手时，Ben 与 Michael 两种截然不同的处理习惯与心态。 subgraph S1["家具组装完毕"] A["剩余家具附带的内六角扳手"] end subgraph S2["保留派: Ben Carlson"] B["分类存入车库抽屉"] --> C["建立私人工具库"] C --> D["下次组装时挑选顺手主力扳手"] end subgraph S3["断舍离派: Michael Batnick"] E["早期留存但从不复用"] --> F["认定留着无用"] F --> G["直接扔进垃圾桶"] end A --> B A --> E ``` 在节目的尾声，Ben 分享起上周末带家人去密歇根湖包船钓三文鱼的真实遭遇。Ben 指出社交媒体上充斥着虚假的精致滤镜，而现实生活往往狼狈得多。每年八月是密歇根湖巨型三文鱼回游的黄金期，他的儿子特别痴迷钓鱼，原本约了酷爱钓鱼的岳父和内兄同行，Ben 本人虽然对钓鱼毫无兴趣，但为了陪伴孩子还是欣然前往。然而行程一波三折，前期屡次因雨取消，当天他们凌晨 4 点 45 分摸黑起床赶往码头，结果迎面遭遇了一场巨大的雷暴天气，出海计划再次被迫延期。 ### [54:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCh3Un6whlk&t=3276s) 密歇根湖上的钓鱼历险与真实抓拍 Ben Carlson 讲述了他带九岁双胞胎孩子去密歇根湖（Lake Michigan）包船钓鱼的跌宕经历。原本计划早早出发，却直到下午才成行，钓鱼向导安排的时间是从下午 4:00 到晚上 9:00。刚把鱼线放下去，他们就迅速钓上了一条沉甸甸的大鱼，当时 Ben 还乐观地以为“这太棒了、太容易了”。然而接下来的整整两个小时，水面毫无动静，甚至连一次鱼咬钩都没有。在摇晃剧烈的大风大浪中，他的女儿开始晕船，趴在 Ben 的腿上直喊恶心，而自带的一保温箱零食早在前一个小时就吃得精光，场面一度极为煎熬。 反观儿子 George 则完全融入其中，和船员们一起冲洗甲板、热切学习钓鱼技巧，还在船舱四处巡视。向导甚至打趣让他直接来船上工作，儿子还认真问爸爸：“你觉得他们是认真的吗？”Michael Batnick 笑着调侃 George 真是个充满男子气概、极具魅力的好玩伴（"George is a man's man. He sounds like a great hang."）。转机出现在日落时分：向导一口气放下了 10 根钓竿，船只缓缓滑行拖钓，最后几分钟内所有的钓竿居然同时中鱼。他们狂拉了 20 分钟，迎来了巨大的丰收。Ben 感慨道，虽然他在社交平台上发了一张夕阳下满舱大鱼的绝美照片，但照片完全掩盖了中间那两个小时他一度抓狂到“想撞墙”的痛苦现实。Michael 甚至打趣以为别人会怀疑那张照片是 AI 生成的，Ben 则强调那全都是货真价实的大鲑鱼（King Salmon），船员直接把鱼肉切片装袋，分量大到自家吃不完还得四处送人。 ### [56:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCh3Un6whlk&t=3374s) Apple TV+ 与流媒体剧集盘点：从《羊毛战记》到《暗黑物质》 两人随后进入每周的影视与文娱推荐环节。Ben 提到他正在看 Apple TV+ 的科幻剧集《羊毛战记》（*Silo*），目前已经播到了第三季。他感叹 Apple TV+ 似乎不太会做宣发，导致很多人根本不知道其精彩剧集。《羊毛战记》改编自知名系列小说，第一季设定引人入胜——讲述幸存人类生活在地下巨型发射井（Silo）中，面对各种不可言说的严苛规则，充满未解的悬念；然而第二季节奏极度拖沓平淡，让他直呼“这简直就像《迷失》（*Lost*）一样毫无交代”。幸运的是，第三季的下半部分迎来了大爆发，故事双线并行，分别揭露了地堡当下的现状以及人们最初进入地堡的真实原因，扣人心弦的反转让前期的漫长等待变得非常值得。 Michael 对 Apple TV+ 宣发无力的现象深有同感。他提到朋友发短信提醒他《暗黑物质》（*Dark Matter*）回归时，他一开始甚至完全没反应过来是什么剧，去搜了才记起自己当年多么喜欢第一季（由 Joel Edgerton 和 Jennifer Connelly 主演）。Ben 补充表示自己读过原著，两人一致认为 Apple 平台的优质作品往往无声无息地“来去匆匆”。此外，Ben 顺带提到了其他几部影视动态： - Apple 平台最近悄无声息地下线/上线了 Ryan Reynolds 的新片。 - 他在 Hulu 上看完了剧集《狂暴》（*Furious*），虽然觉得大结局有点“未能平稳着陆”，但整部剧依然质量过硬。 ### [57:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCh3Un6whlk&t=3471s) 好莱坞秘闻、惊悚电影体验与《黑镜》短篇 Ben 为热爱名流八卦和好莱坞内幕的 Michael 极力推荐了 Rob Lowe 的自传有声书。Rob Lowe 在书中生动回顾了自己的少年时代：当年他家就住在 Martin Sheen 的同一条街上，青少年时期经常跟 Charlie Sheen 以及 Emilio Estevez 一起玩耍；高中同学里有后来的巨星小罗伯特·唐尼（Robert Downey Jr.）；拍摄《外来者》（*The Outsiders*）期间又结识了汤姆·克鲁斯（Tom Cruise）。Ben 评价道，整本书虽然充满了各种大牌名字（name dropping），但讲述方式极为精彩迷人，堪称好莱坞黄金故事汇。 随后两人聊到了近期备受讨论的院线独立惊悚片： - **《后室》（*Backrooms*）**：该片源自 YouTube 现象级短片，与《着魔》（*Obsession*）常被归为新生代年轻导演的代表作。Michael 对此表示完全无法理解其意义，认为除了开场 45 分钟设定抓人之外，后期的走向和结局毫无交代。Ben 坦言尽管结尾不算完美，但开场散步的压迫感非常吓人，在影院的沉浸式体验依然十分过瘾。 - **《黑镜》（*Black Mirror*）精选集**：Michael 分享了好友 Sam Ro 推特上盛赞的一集由 Paul Giamatti 主演的《黑镜》（出自第六季）。该集仅 35 分钟，讲述有人敲门告知死讯后，主角被迫卷入一场丧礼，整部戏充满了只有 Paul Giamatti 才能驾驭的内敛、凄凉与闪回情绪。Ben 坦言自己对《黑镜》一直觉得像吃短篇快餐、意犹未尽，但 Michael 极力劝他一定要看这 35 分钟的殿堂级表演。 ### [01:00:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCh3Un6whlk&t=3620s) 智能音箱推送的邪典冲击与观影“排雷” Michael 分享了一段发生在他家厨房中岛台上的啼笑皆非的经历。他家里没有装传统电视，而是放了一台约 15 到 20 英寸的亚马逊智能触屏设备（Amazon Echo Show 系列）。全家人用它听音乐、看晨间节目，他最喜爱的功能是屏幕会循环滚动轮播 Google/Amazon 备份的老照片，对比孩子们 2018 年与现在的模样，每天看一眼都觉得温馨幸福。然而，由于亚马逊自带广告推送，屏幕最近却反常地、高频次地轮番给他推送 1992 年的邪典电影《坏警官》（*Bad Lieutenant*）。 上周深夜躺在床上时，Michael 终于忍不住点开了这部由 Harvey Keitel 主演的 NC-17 级（十七岁以下禁止观看）老片。结果令他大受震撼：Harvey Keitel 在片中饰演了一名彻底腐败、精神狂躁错乱的恶警，片中甚至包含了极其露骨的全裸镜头（"a full frontal to end all full frontals"）。Michael 震惊地表示，这是他有生以来看过“最变态、最不堪入目”的电影之一，完全无法理解亚马逊为何会把这样一部电影的广告，堂而皇之地轮播在他家温馨的婴儿和萌宠生活照旁边。Ben 忍不住大笑吐槽这分明是算法看穿了 Michael 骨子里扭曲狂野的观影品味。Michael 强烈告诫听众千万不要踩雷去尝试，并无奈叹息自己花了足足六个月才看完《邻里朋友》（*Friends and Neighbors*）第二季，人生时间实在所剩无几，不该浪费在这种精神冲击上。 ### [01:02:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCh3Un6whlk&t=3770s) 追剧推荐与奶爸日常：电视剧二季杂感 随着剧集回归（如 Netflix 上的《绅士们》（The Gentlemen）），迈克尔·巴特尼克（Michael Batnick）感叹自己现在根本找不出时间追剧。现在的孩子们睡得越来越晚，小儿子科比（Kobe）直到晚上 9:20 才入睡，而迈克尔自己紧接着在 9:40 就得爬上床，放点背景声音，五分钟之内就能睡着。他直言自己的看电视时间肯定要大打折扣了，不过这也无可奈何。话虽如此，本·卡尔森（Ben Carlson）和迈克尔依然对他们近期刚刷完的第二季内容赞不绝口。 两人评价这部剧虽然情节荒诞、夸张到极致且有些匪夷所思，但角色之间却展现出了惊人的人性光辉——考虑到剧中绝大多数角色在道德层面上是多么差劲的人，能做到这一点实属不易。剧中的故事情节哪怕再浮夸，创作者依然让它立住了。迈克尔特别提到了之前本推荐的“免费滚仓”（free roll）那一集，盛赞那一集拍得“太棒了、极其真实”，带来的观剧享受远远超出了最初的预期。 ### [01:03:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCh3Un6whlk&t=3822s) 预告与结语：奔赴 Future Proof 财富盛会 下周两位主持人将启程前往加利福尼亚州，届时他们将面向现场观众发表演讲，主题正是“如何与你的客户聊雷·达利奥（Ray Dalio）”。由于录制和出差行程的冲突，下周的《Animal Spirits》播客更新会稍稍推迟一天左右，预计将在周三深夜或周四清晨上线。 本与迈克尔对即将到来的 Future Proof 大会充满期待。本表示现场将聚集多达五六千人，而他整场大会最爱的时刻就是第一天的开幕鸡尾酒会：当他、迈克尔以及乔什·布朗（Josh Brown）一同走下台阶，放眼望去，沙滩与落日余晖下人山人海、摩肩接踵，“那场面令人震撼，这才是我的终极‘主题派对’”。最后，他们照例留下了互动邮箱（animalspirits@thecompoundnews.com），并提醒听众只要发送个人邮件就能得到他们的亲自回复，随后向大家道别。 - **活动地点与日程**：下周奔赴加州参加 Future Proof 财富大会，下期节目推迟至周三晚间或周四早晨上线。 - **演讲主题**：如何向财富管理客户合理解释雷·达利奥（Ray Dalio）的市场观点与宏观叙事。 - **大会盛况**：预计现场有约 5,000 至 6,000 名与会者，首晚落日海滩鸡尾酒会是全场最具仪式感的保留环节。 ## Notable quotes > [00:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCh3Un6whlk&t=4s) 你看上去就像是 1977 年左右没扎马尾辫的罗恩·杰里米（Ron Jeremy），这到底是怎么回事？ — Michael Batnick > [01:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCh3Un6whlk&t=112s) 美国人正忙着寻找下一个泡沫，来拯救自己脱离上一个泡沫。 — The Onion > [01:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCh3Un6whlk&t=112s) 如果这一切最终不以一场彻底的恐慌收场，那所有这些狂欢的意义又何在呢？ — Michael Batnick > [07:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCh3Un6whlk&t=441s) 市场必须变得比现在愚蠢得多才行，目前的狂热程度还远远谈不上足够愚蠢。 — Ben Carlson > [14:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCh3Un6whlk&t=891s) 盈利、股息和现金流是硬邦邦的数字，但估值倍数完全是情绪的体现。 — Michael Batnick > [24:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCh3Un6whlk&t=1454s) 年满 30 岁变得更加可怕 — Bloomberg > [39:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCh3Un6whlk&t=2366s) 看，根本没人在乎 — Ben Carlson > [41:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCh3Un6whlk&t=2505s) Could we just calm down with a capital? — Michael Batnick > [54:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCh3Un6whlk&t=3276s) George is a man's man. He sounds like a great hang. — Michael Batnick > [56:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCh3Un6whlk&t=3374s) 这简直就像《迷失》（Lost）一样毫无交代 — Ben Carlson > [01:00:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCh3Un6whlk&t=3620s) a full frontal to end all full frontals — Michael Batnick ## Mentioned Michael Batnick, Ben Carlson, Josh Brown, Dan Skelly, Cullen Roche, Ray Dalio, Michael Cembalest, Kevin Gordon, Rob Anderson, Robert Kiyosaki, Dick Portillo, Sam Altman, Ben Thompson, Elizabeth Holmes, Nathan Fielder, Lance Oppenheim, Harvey Keitel, Paul Giamatti, CME Group, Nvidia, Apple, Eli Lilly, Berkshire Hathaway, Micron, JPMorgan Chase, Broadcom, OpenAI, McKinsey & Company, Bank of America, Ned Davis Research, Duality Research, Resy, American Express, Instinct, Portillo's, Dave's Hot Chicken, Future Proof, The Onion, The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, The New Yorker, The Atlantic, Silo, Dark Matter, Rocky IV, Bad Lieutenant, The Gentlemen, Black Mirror ## Video description On episode 481 of Animal Spirits, Michael Batnick and Ben Carlson discuss: how bull market gains have changed the markets, AI is crowding everything else out, when the next financial crisis will hit, Ray Dalio keeps scaring investors, the earnings boom, a buying opportunity for bonds, the American Dream is still alive and well, is college worth the cost, why AI isn't impacting the labor market, the most important financial asset for retirees, theme parties and more. This episode is sponsored by CME Group. To learn more about E-nano futures, visit: https://www.cmegroup.com/enano Take The Compound's 2026 audience survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/LHC8QHD ► 00:00 - CME Group Ad ► 01:03 - Stock Market ► 17:19 - Investor Behavior ► 28:13 - The Economy ► 37:11 - AI ► 43:09 - Real Estate ► 48:53 - Entertainment ► 53:08 - Random ► 56:10 - 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. CME Group Disclosure: Derivatives trading involves significant risk and is not suitable for all investors. Past performance is not indicative of subsequent results. Our full disclaimer is available at: https://www.cmegroup.com/disclaimer.html #thecompound #investing #stockmarket [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCh3Un6whlk)

[0:04] Michael Batnick: 你看上去就像是 1977 年左右没扎马尾辫的罗恩·杰里米（Ron Jeremy），这到底是怎么回事？ [1:52] The Onion: 美国人正忙着寻找下一个泡沫，来拯救自己脱离上一个泡沫。 [1:52] Michael Batnick: 如果这一切最终不以一场彻底的恐慌收场，那所有这些狂欢的意义又何在呢？ [7:21] Ben Carlson: 市场必须变得比现在愚蠢得多才行，目前的狂热程度还远远谈不上足够愚蠢。 [14:51] Michael Batnick: 盈利、股息和现金流是硬邦邦的数字，但估值倍数完全是情绪的体现。 [24:14] Bloomberg: 年满 30 岁变得更加可怕 [39:26] Ben Carlson: 看，根本没人在乎 [41:45] Michael Batnick: Could we just calm down with a capital? [54:36] Michael Batnick: George is a man's man. He sounds like a great hang. [56:14] Ben Carlson: 这简直就像《迷失》（Lost）一样毫无交代 [60:20] Michael Batnick: a full frontal to end all full frontals

[1:04] Michael Batnick: You look like a Ron Jeremy circa 1977 without the ponytail. [3:47] Michael Batnick: We are just going to push this too far. We always do. [3:47] Michael Batnick: What was the point of all this? [7:20] Ben Carlson: This is not nearly stupid enough. [24:14] Ben Carlson: Turning 30 just got a lot scarier: A coming collapse in investment returns means that people that age today will have to work seven years longer or save almost twice as much to end up with the same nest egg. [37:00] Michael Batnick: Dude, that's fake. [37:00] Michael Batnick: Say no more. I'm all the way in. [39:26] Ben Carlson: See? Nobody cares. [54:36] George Carlson: Dad, do you think they're serious? [58:20] Michael Batnick: only Paul Giamatti could have done.

[0:04] This podcast is sponsored by CME Group. [0:07] If you're managing equity exposure, you [0:09] know that size and flexibility matter. [0:12] CME Group just launched E nano equity [0:15] index futures. At onetenth the size of [0:18] micro E- minis, E nano contracts give [0:21] active traders precise nanocaled [0:24] exposure to four major benchmarks. [0:26] NASDAQ 100, S&P 500, Russell 2000, and [0:30] the Dow. Whether you're looking to scale [0:32] into positions with smaller upfront [0:34] capital, or fine-tune your portfolio [0:36] around global macro news 23 hours a day, [0:38] enanos bring you the biggest markets [0:40] built for your scale. To find out more, [0:42] visit cmegroup.com/ano. [0:45] Derivatives trading involves significant [0:47] risk and is not suitable for all [0:49] investors. Past performance is not [0:51] indicative of subsequent results. Our [0:54] full disclaimer is available at [0:55] cmegroup.com/disclaimer. [1:04] Welcome to Animal Spurs with Michael and [1:05] Ben. Um I have have some thoughts to [1:08] open the show. It's been a uh sort of a [1:12] quiet period at least the last week [1:14] alone. Feel like the DACA is a little [1:16] bit light this week. Um, there's [1:19] obviously a million bajillion things [1:20] happening, but it was a slowish [1:23] Newsweek, so I have some things that I [1:25] want to talk about. But actually, you [1:27] know what? Before we get there, you've [1:30] got a mustache. [1:32] >> Are you Is you look like a You look like [1:34] a Ron Jeremy circa 1977 without the [1:38] ponytail. What's going on? [1:39] >> I I did this for you. I I Let's Let's [1:41] just marinate it for a while. I'm going [1:43] to save it for the end of the show and [1:44] give you a but I just so you know I [1:45] could have shaved this off but I wanted [1:46] to keep it for you. [1:47] >> For me. All right. Well, consider me [1:50] intrigued, Ben. Um All right. So, I was [1:52] talking about this on TAFF with with [1:54] Josh and Dan Skellyy and I know [1:56] everybody knows this, but I feel like we [1:59] don't talk about it enough. [2:02] We're all trying to sus out what's [2:04] happening. And it's it's been the same [2:06] storylines for like a while now, right? [2:07] Especially the past few months. I feel [2:08] like this show and and pundits in [2:11] general have gotten pretty repetitive. [2:12] So forgive me, but that's just whatever. [2:13] It's just what's happening right now. [2:16] The amount of money that has been [2:20] created by the bull market over the last [2:24] 15 years has completely [2:27] completely completely reshaped [2:31] global economies, the stock market [2:34] itself of course and everything that we [2:36] talk about um and even things that are [2:39] tangentially related. Uh, I listened to [2:42] um, [2:43] uh, Pablo and Sam Copelman talk, by the [2:47] way, amazing show, talk about, uh, the [2:50] Mark Walter stuff and the prices of [2:52] everything from my $13 Chipotle bowl, [2:55] which has now been normalized in my [2:57] brain, to the 12.5 billion Lakers [3:01] to the hyperscaler buildout and the [3:03] myriad ways of funding this, whether [3:05] it's debt, equity, SPVS, followon, [3:08] secondaries, uh, distress, whatever. [3:10] ever it is the pool of capital [3:14] is so deep and vast that it has changed [3:19] everything. [3:20] Now the caveat to that is [3:24] another uh side effect of this prolonged [3:27] economic stock market expansion is it's [3:31] really difficult as investors to picture [3:34] yourself in a different regime. [3:37] It's very easy and normal to be lulled [3:41] into this is just the way it is because [3:43] it's been this way for so long. [3:47] And last week we were talking about the [3:49] idea that there might not be another [3:51] recession this decade which listen I [3:53] mean we've got three more years. So [3:54] that's not like that's not an outrageous [3:56] statement, right? Certainly certainly [3:59] possible. But I think that not only will [4:01] there be another recession, which is [4:03] also not going out on a limb, there will [4:06] probably be another financial crisis at [4:08] some point [4:10] because the psychology of markets, we [4:15] are just going to push this [4:18] too far. We always do. And maybe this is [4:22] the culmination of what we've been [4:24] saying for the last 10 years. It feels a [4:26] little bit a lot of things feel [4:27] different this time. But I feel like [4:30] that is uh almost I won't quite say [4:34] inevitable, [4:35] but that's just where the human [4:38] human participants of of stock markets [4:40] go eventually. [4:42] >> There was the the old onion headline [4:45] that like [4:47] uh Americans go in search of another [4:49] bubble to save them from the last [4:51] bubble. That's just kind you're right. [4:52] It's it's kind of what we do as humans. [4:54] The other thing is we've talked a lot [4:56] about the fact that there's just so many [4:57] wealthy people now and that's helping [4:58] power the economy and keep prices up and [5:00] all this stuff, but also these these [5:03] tech companies have become so big and so [5:05] profitable and their margins are so high [5:08] that it gave them agency to do this AI [5:10] buildout, right? It's like we're we're [5:13] playing with so much money here. [5:14] >> But you know the point, we couldn't have [5:16] done this if it wasn't a raging uh bull [5:18] market. Did you know that every company [5:20] in the top 10 of the S&P and go out to [5:22] 11 and almost 12 are now trillion dollar [5:24] companies [5:25] >> and we don't even blink [5:26] >> the entire top 10 JP Morgan is sniffing. [5:28] So it's Eli Lilly is as a trillion [5:30] dollar company now. Bergkshire Hathaway [5:32] is Micron. JP Morgan is within spitting [5:34] distance of being a trillion dollar [5:36] company. These companies are so big. [5:38] They have so much money that they can do [5:39] this now. And you're right it's it's [5:42] totally changed things and people you're [5:43] right. Everyone keeps waiting for the it [5:45] could be 20 years until we have an [5:46] actual financial crisis. [5:48] >> Totally. Yeah, could be. [5:49] >> It could. But you're right. It's it's [5:50] never going away because people always [5:51] take things too far and too far and if [5:53] we don't get a financial crisis in the [5:55] next 5 years, 10 years, 15 years, [5:56] >> then what's the point [5:58] >> that No, but then we're going to go even [5:59] further. And that's the thing. [6:00] >> I'm saying if this doesn't end in an [6:02] absolute panic that what was the point [6:03] of all this? [6:04] >> Yeah, you're right. It's uh [6:08] you're right. I I think that's the been [6:10] the one thing everyone has [6:11] underestimated just the sheer amount of [6:13] wealth that is in this system right now. [6:15] It's it's absolutely and we have [6:16] something on everywhere millionaires [6:18] coming later for how many like how many [6:20] rich people there really are. It's nuts. [6:23] But yes, the year recession thing, this [6:25] is the the timing of it is hard cuz [6:27] people have been trying to predict this [6:28] stuff every single year. 2022, we have [6:30] to have a recession. 2023, well, okay, [6:32] fine. Stagflation. [6:34] >> Ben, do you remember what do you [6:35] remember what the first I think Apple [6:36] was the first trillion dollar company. [6:38] And let's say that happened in I don't [6:40] know 2015, 2016, somewhere around that [6:43] time frame. And there were so many [6:46] eyeballs and so many articles about if [6:48] this were the top with a trillion dollar [6:51] company, it would be so poetic. And the [6:53] idea of a trillion dollar company seemed [6:56] so fantastical. At the time when it [6:58] happened, it said, "How could a single [7:01] company possibly be worth $1 trillion?" [7:04] And now you have companies like Broadcom [7:06] that are sniffing a trillion. Broadcom [7:07] was and now it's not. And and we don't [7:09] even discuss it. It's like, yeah, [7:10] trillion dollar company is sure, [7:11] >> right? Eli Liy is a trillion dollar [7:13] company. And he's like, "Ah, okay, [7:14] that's cool." Oh, they solved obesity. [7:16] All right, what what's next? What else [7:18] do you got for me? There is this thing [7:21] there is a line of thinking though that [7:23] if it wasn't for AI, this would all be [7:25] it's this it's the AI house of cards. AI [7:27] didn't come along and they didn't spend [7:28] all this money, everything would be [7:30] falling apart. And I think that that [7:31] that's actually probably wrong. I think [7:33] there's a huge crowding out by AI that [7:35] people are now coming around to. So, [7:36] there's two charts I want to show you. [7:37] one from Michael Seymble that shows not [7:40] only the amount of spending that's being [7:42] done by these, but it's it's showing the [7:44] hyperscaler and Nvidia debt issuance as [7:46] a percentage of treasury bond issuance. [7:48] And it's it's 70% of Treasury bond [7:50] issuance. So people keep wondering why [7:52] why do rates on government bonds keep [7:53] going up? And it's funny, every time [7:56] there's a government bond talk over the [7:58] years, you and Josh and I always joke [8:00] that, well, the real reason is just [8:01] flows. And what if the real reason [8:04] government bond, yes, it's growth and [8:06] it's inflation and it's all the macro [8:07] things, but what if it's just [8:10] investors are not putting as much money [8:11] into government bonds and they have to [8:13] raise rates to get because there's so [8:14] much other debt issuments going on right [8:15] now that AI is crowding out the [8:18] government bond market. [8:19] >> Well, there's there's it's never just [8:21] there's two main there's two main [8:22] things. You just discussed both of them. [8:23] It's the macro which is entirely [8:25] legitimate war tariffs a lot of issuance [8:29] and then it's the second column which is [8:31] competition from hyperscalers and both [8:34] those things are combined to drive yield [8:35] higher. I'm I'm sure you saw this chart [8:37] from the Wall Street Journal that shows [8:38] private construction relative to [8:40] December 2023 and it shows data centers [8:42] going up and then it shows all other [8:43] private construction spending crashing [8:45] and falling off a cliff and it's [8:47] basically saying the data centers has [8:49] sucked up everything and that that's [8:51] what we're building now and maybe it's [8:53] taking construction workers and [8:55] permitting or whatever and we're not [8:56] doing it and so if you take just you [8:58] can't say in a vacuum if you take away [9:00] the AI spending the economy is in a [9:01] recession. It's it's all the same story [9:04] and woven into the higher rates is I [9:07] don't know what's in all other private [9:08] construction spending but obviously a [9:10] lot of that is real estate a combination [9:12] of commercial residential industrial and [9:15] aren't higher rates ne negatively [9:17] impacting that as well [9:18] >> of course [9:19] >> so other construction is getting in from [9:20] both ends [9:21] >> so here's the thing so getting back to [9:23] your point about like having this [9:24] blowoff top I think if this is going to [9:27] be a full-blown panic recession [9:31] financial crisis someday if AI was going [9:33] to cause that, we have to get way [9:34] stupider than this. This is not not [9:36] nearly stupid enough. And I actually [9:38] think you could make the point. This is [9:40] from the Wall Street Journal. They show [9:42] it's kind of a perfect thing. They show [9:43] the US attacks Iran at like a the actual [9:47] bottom in rates this year and then they [9:49] take off. And now if you zoomed out a [9:50] little on this, you could say, "Come on, [9:51] rates were already rising as it is." But [9:54] I think if I think that we've actually [9:57] kind of put a cap on ourselves for being [9:59] stupid and it's the White House that's [10:01] doing it. So if Trump would have come in [10:03] and just done his ballroom and put [10:05] through his tax cut and done nothing [10:07] else, no tariffs, no war with Iran, if [10:11] he would have just said, "Let the AI [10:12] stuff run crazy," I think we would be in [10:15] a much different place now because think [10:17] about it, rates would be much lower. [10:19] Mortgage rates would probably be lower. [10:20] Housing would probably be picking up [10:21] more right now. People would be [10:23] borrowing more money cuz rates weren't [10:25] so high. I think if he wouldn't have [10:27] done what he's done to make inflation [10:30] stay stickier or higher and obviously [10:32] it's not all coming from the White [10:33] House. There was other stuff going on. [10:34] >> No, I think you're 100% right. I think [10:36] he he maybe inadvertently saved us from [10:38] something really ugly [10:41] >> which that means it's just being pushed [10:43] down the line probably because it's it's [10:44] going to come because listen obviously [10:46] that's what they want too. They don't [10:48] want to like they don't want to have [10:49] high the whole thing was we're he ran on [10:52] lower inflation lower rates and we've [10:53] gotten gone the opposite. [10:54] >> Yeah obviously. [10:55] >> Well the other thing is about the [10:56] financial market even though we can't [10:57] help it as individual participants as a [11:00] group collectively nobody wants a bubble [11:02] >> because a bubble will burst but [11:04] individually we can't help it. It's a [11:06] scorpion and the frog [11:07] >> because we all want to get rich quick. [11:09] And so it doesn't matter what everybody [11:10] thinks. It matters what like each person [11:12] thinks, [11:13] >> right? And it's like all right fine. If [11:14] that group's going to go into it I got [11:16] to go too. And then and then it's the [11:18] M&A getting more M&A. If my competitor [11:20] is buying companies, we can't be left [11:22] out. You can't override human nature. [11:24] You could slow it down a little bit with [11:26] tariffs and whatever, but all right. Um [11:28] >> and I think and and technology is just [11:30] an amplifier of human nature. We've all [11:33] seen this to the sometimes in good ways, [11:35] most of the time in bad ways. [11:39] There's been a lot discussed in the [11:42] headlines about individual investors [11:45] anxiety over higher interest rates. And [11:48] I think that most financial adviserss [11:50] are looking at these headlines and [11:52] saying are ripping their hair out saying [11:54] I it's the opposite should be true. [11:57] Where is this fear coming from? I [12:00] understand that maybe there's some PTSD [12:02] when interest rates rose from 0.5% to 5% [12:05] and bonds got massacred [12:09] this but now we're on the other side of [12:11] that higher rates are awesome. We [12:14] finally have high fixed income for the [12:16] fixed income investors. It's it should [12:17] be celebrated. There should be like [12:19] amazing headlines. Oh my god, this is [12:21] amazing. You could loan money to the US [12:24] government for 4.7%. You could get a [12:27] real after tax return. is wonderful. But [12:29] instead, [12:31] individual investors are seeing fearful [12:33] headlines. So, one of our adviserss [12:36] asked if I can come on a call with the [12:38] client, which is rare these days. Uh [12:40] markets been very calm. I do my best [12:42] work in a crisis. When the markets are [12:44] free falling, that's when I shine. [12:45] That's when I love to talk to the [12:46] clients, but right now things have been [12:48] very easy. There's been [12:49] >> You're right. It's actually it's easier [12:50] to have those conversations to provide [12:52] context than just kind of flailing [12:53] around looking for something to talk [12:55] about. [12:55] >> Correct. So anyway, it's been coming up [12:57] more and more that people are asking [12:58] about bond yields and should they be [13:00] worried? And I gave I gave our advisor [13:03] some talking points. I said, you know, [13:04] where is this send me the source of this [13:06] consternation? Cuz he said it was an [13:08] article that this client read. And I [13:10] open I clicked the link and I see the [13:13] bond market supply and demand problem by [13:14] Ray Dallio. [13:16] And I said, "Dude, I want in. I want to [13:20] talk to those clients. Put me on the [13:21] calendar. I want in the game." And so [13:24] we're going to we're going to put a pin [13:25] in this because we are talking with [13:29] Colin Ro on stage at Future Proof a week [13:32] from today. I think today's Tuesday, [13:34] right? We're on Tuesday. [13:35] >> You know, I didn't even think about [13:36] this. I looked. We should tell people [13:38] this. This is a house cleaning moment. [13:40] We're we're going on Wednesday [13:42] afternoon. So our podcast So our podcast [13:44] is going to be late next week. So if [13:45] you're a usual Wednesday morning [13:47] listener, [13:48] >> I don't know when our podcast is going [13:50] to go up, but I would say late [13:51] Wednesday. [13:52] >> All right. Well, anyway, this is going [13:54] to be advisor focused and the title of [13:56] the of the talk is going to be how to [13:58] talk to your clients about Ray Dallio [14:01] because it's been 15 years of this guy [14:03] scaring our clients. [14:05] >> Honestly, 15 years of of us addressing [14:08] his comments. [14:09] >> He's the only one doing it and he can't [14:11] stop and he won't stop and neither will [14:13] we. [14:14] >> It is. Yes. Yeah. And it's fun and and [14:16] Colin is Colin is very Cullen comes with [14:19] data and he knows. So, I think I think [14:21] it's going to be very interesting. So [14:22] yeah, if you have future proof, come [14:23] check us out. [14:24] >> Just 10 seconds for people that don't [14:26] know who Ray Dalio is. He's probably the [14:28] most widely known hedge fund manager. [14:32] He's not uh he's not like active [14:34] anymore. Uh he's he's retired, but still [14:36] >> he's active at Burning Man. [14:38] >> That's right. And he's active on the [14:40] interwebs. He loves telling people um [14:43] that it's 1937 and he's been on this [14:45] beat for a while. So we're going to [14:46] we're going to we're going to give [14:47] everybody some talking points how to [14:49] debunk some of the nonsense. [14:51] >> All right. All right, I got a great stat [14:52] for you from Duality Research that I [14:53] read this morning. [14:54] >> Go ahead. [14:56] >> The biggest takeaway is pretty [14:57] straightforward. Doing kind of like a [14:58] market what's going on. Since June, the [15:00] S&P 500 is up less than 2% while Ford [15:03] earnings estimates have jumped 10.7%. [15:05] Put differently, the market has become [15:07] roughly 8% cheaper over the summer while [15:09] everyone was busy soaking up the sun. [15:12] Kevin Gordon tweeted this out. [15:14] >> One thing on that point, factually [15:16] right. [15:18] To me the the valuation multiples are a [15:20] reflection of investors moods. Not to [15:22] me. I mean that's not very profound. [15:23] That that is what they are, right? They [15:24] are a reflection of how people feel [15:26] about the future today. [15:28] >> Yes. Earnings are earnings are numbers. [15:29] Dividends are numbers. Cash flows are [15:31] numbers. [15:31] >> Yeah. [15:32] >> Valuations are feelings. [15:33] >> Yes. So feelings about the future today. [15:37] And I love that the market has put a [15:40] governor on forward multiples. I love [15:42] that there is disbelief because this [15:45] does set up the wall of worry which we [15:48] need. So what did Kevin Gordon say? [15:51] >> So but this is also I mean someone would [15:53] say well this is also uh rates going up [15:55] and whatever but he says at the [15:57] beginning of the year the estimate for [15:58] S&P 500 earnings growth was in the [16:00] second quarter was 14.9%. So start of [16:03] the year 6 months in like that's not [16:05] that far into the future. Now the [16:07] blended growth rate is 53%. [16:10] I don't think we're talking enough about [16:12] how not only it's like, "Oh, of course [16:14] earnings are higher because of the cash [16:16] flows and the capex and it's all the AI [16:18] trade." I think there's a lot of people [16:19] poo pooing this. No one expected this. [16:22] >> Can I Can I poo poo and unpoo poo? [16:24] >> Yeah. [16:25] >> Um, this is not a poo poo per se, but in [16:28] the You know what's annoying in these [16:30] numbers are some of the markups from the [16:32] private companies. [16:33] >> So, we have to look at we so we have to [16:34] look at operating earnings. [16:35] >> Well, shouldn't that have been easy for [16:36] people to determine? But no yeah but [16:39] nobody nobody saw operating earnings [16:41] either. So even if you say okay well [16:44] there's markups fine [16:45] >> the operating income [16:48] >> for Nvidia over the last 12 months is [16:51] higher than Apple. [16:54] >> Jeez. [16:55] >> Isn't that hard to believe? [16:57] >> That's what I'm that's why that's how [16:59] hard this stuff is. [17:00] >> So circular or not, it's still something [17:01] to behold. [17:02] >> That's that's my point. like this is [17:04] really impressive that this is happening [17:05] even if we know okay fine it's not going [17:08] to last forever but there was not anyone [17:09] coming into the year saying we're going [17:11] to see one of the biggest earnings [17:12] growth years ever this year it wasn't on [17:15] it wasn't on anyone's list wasn't there [17:18] >> no um all right Ben last week you spoke [17:22] something about like dividend the the [17:24] number of was it the the overall [17:26] dividend yield on the S&P is like 1% [17:28] >> yeah barely under 1% one of the lowest I [17:31] think someone corrected me that it was [17:32] technically like three basis points [17:34] lower in the dot bubble, but we're [17:36] there. [17:36] >> Lowest dividend yields in history. [17:38] >> So, another way to look at this, I [17:39] thought this was very interesting. Rob [17:40] Anderson from Ned Davis Research, less [17:44] than 5% of S&P 500 stocks yield more [17:48] than the 10-year Treasury, the fewest [17:51] since May 2007. All right, May 2007, not [17:54] the greatest time to invest. But that [17:56] sentence aside, [17:58] the 2000 the post GFC period was unusual [18:02] because all of these stocks got crushed [18:04] and the dividend yields got pushed [18:05] higher. But look at look at 1980 through [18:09] 2000. [18:12] It it looks the same as it does today. [18:14] This is this is not an aberration of [18:16] history. The post GFC period was [18:18] abnormal, you could say. [18:20] >> Well, also interest rates were much [18:22] higher back then, obviously. You're [18:23] right. Well, yeah, that that is [18:24] >> that's that's part of it, but still [18:26] rates are much higher today, too. [18:28] >> Yeah. And this you're right. This this [18:30] is not like some signal that oh my gosh, [18:33] this is crazy. Unless unless government [18:35] bond yields come way down, this is the [18:36] new normal. Like companies don't pay out [18:38] dividends anymore because it doesn't [18:40] make as much sense. [18:41] >> So, to me, I'm not necessarily looking [18:44] at Well, maybe I am a little bit. Um, [18:48] stocks are I mean, this is just a fact. [18:51] Stocks are all else equal relatively [18:54] less attractive compared to bonds than [18:57] they have been for a long time, which is [19:00] awesome news. Weren't people upset that [19:04] 8020 was the new 6040? That people were [19:07] being pushed further out on the risk [19:08] curve? That's over. It's good. Hey, [19:10] guess what? I had a little thought that [19:12] I wasn't sure if I was going to share [19:13] with you or the audience, but inside my [19:15] brain over the weekend, Ben, I thought [19:17] to myself, should I own some bonds in my [19:21] 401k? [19:23] I So, obviously, I've been 100% stocks [19:25] since forever because that's what you do [19:28] as a long-term risk taker with a long [19:32] long-term horizon. You own stocks. Um, [19:35] but the thought did cross my brain. I [19:38] don't know. Should I should I be 8020? [19:41] And then if if because a you're getting [19:45] paid, there's there's reward on the in [19:47] the bonds. And if there is a big stock [19:51] market pullback over the future, well, [19:54] now I could take advantage of it by [19:56] shifting back. And if there's not, I [19:58] don't care. It's still great. [20:01] >> On Ask the Compound last week, there was [20:03] a middle-aged guy. I think it was [20:04] mid-40s. He said, "Listen, I dutifully [20:06] sat through the dot bubble blowing up [20:08] and the 2008 financial crisis and I [20:10] became a machine. I dollar cost [20:12] averaged." He said, "But now if I see a [20:15] big swing in the market, I'm losing like [20:17] more than my salary [20:19] in that situation. I'm getting cuz I [20:22] have way more money." So he's like, [20:23] "Help me try to come up with the [20:24] psychology of investing in middle age." [20:27] And I think what you're trying to figure [20:29] out is like is it like is taking some [20:32] money off the table, not market timing, [20:34] but is it is it am I managing risk a [20:36] little bit better here? Because I'm so [20:38] far ahead of where I would have been if [20:39] stock if the stocks hadn't done so well [20:42] that maybe like I should I shouldn't [20:45] look the gift horse in the mouth here. I [20:47] should take the 5% for bonds. [20:48] >> Yeah. So, it's not making a stock market [20:49] call. It's just being being uh prudent. [20:53] There's an alternative and it's paying [20:54] you pretty damn well, [20:56] >> right? And most investors still don't [20:57] don't care. Now, the Bank of America had [20:59] this chart. This one was kind of flying [21:01] around social media a little bit. [21:02] Negative long run returns are great [21:04] entry points. So, they look at the last [21:06] time you had long-term treasuries. So, [21:08] they say 15 plus years. And they did the [21:10] rolling 10-year annualized returns when [21:12] they were low or negative. And it was [21:15] saying in December 1959 is the last time [21:17] that these 10-year returns for bonds [21:18] were negative on a nominal basis. And [21:21] they got close in September of 1981. And [21:24] those would have been way way worse if [21:26] you would have included inflation. Um, [21:28] now it's saying like these are the [21:29] lowest ones ever. Is this a good buying [21:31] opportunity? It's kind of funny because [21:32] on this chart, I hate to be the a [21:34] stickler here. 1981 was obviously the [21:37] greatest buy bond buying opportunity in [21:38] history. There will never be a better [21:40] time to buy bonds than there was in the [21:41] early 1980s. [21:43] I don't know what would have to happen [21:44] for that to come back again. I don't [21:46] know how AI would cause 20% short-term [21:49] Fred rates or whatever. It's never [21:50] happening again. 1959 was kind of a [21:53] terrible time to buy bonds because high [21:55] inflation was coming. In the 1960s, you [21:58] got negative 1% real real returns in [22:01] bonds because inflation was so much [22:02] higher. [22:03] >> I get this. I don't love this chart. [22:07] >> I understand. [22:08] >> People like charts like this though, [22:09] like [22:10] >> Yeah. Yeah. [22:10] >> Right now is just like back then. And I [22:12] think people love that format. [22:15] >> They do. [22:16] >> But this this is not I don't I wouldn't [22:17] say this is not a pound the table [22:19] generational buying opportunity in [22:20] bonds. This is a best buying opportunity [22:23] for bonds at 20 years. [22:25] >> Yeah. [22:25] >> That you I mean [22:26] >> Yeah. And not the same thing, [22:28] >> right? [22:29] >> Uh do you want to talk about Rich Dad [22:30] Poor Dad or not? I'll [22:31] >> Yeah, let's do it. This guy is just an [22:34] alltime bad guy. [22:35] >> Well, I got a I got a million people [22:37] sending me this because I've I wrote [22:38] some blog posts about the Rich Dad Poor [22:40] Dad guy and I I call him Rich Dad Poor [22:44] Readers and there was a New York Times [22:46] New York Post story saying Robert [22:48] Kiasaki is $1.2 2 billion in debt. I I I [22:52] I actually read beyond the headline. I I [22:54] don't think most people did. It's not as [22:56] bad as you think. Like he was bragging [22:57] about this. And I guess this is the way [23:00] that you know that someone is really [23:01] rich if they brag about being in debt [23:02] that much. But then I guess his his [23:04] ex-wife said, "You know what? This is [23:06] like his real estate holdings or [23:08] something. This he's not $1.2 billion [23:10] personally in debt. It's way way [23:12] smaller." And he's like trying to [23:13] inflate his [23:14] >> So is he flexing saying like, "Look, I'm [23:16] so rich that I have the ability to take [23:18] on this much." Yes, this is he's trying [23:21] to flex. And I think a lot of people [23:22] said, "Wait a minute, this guy has [23:24] always railed against debt in the system [23:25] and people taking on debt and he's a [23:27] hypocrite obviously." [23:28] >> Uh, [23:30] >> and my finance joke here was, "Listen, [23:32] the guy is finally putting his money [23:33] where his mouth is. He's preparing for [23:34] hyperinflation. If hyperinflation is [23:36] coming, you want all that debt." [23:38] >> Mhm. [23:38] >> So, I think he's Anyway, uh I I was [23:42] Listen, I read the book Rich Dad Poor [23:45] Dad. It was on all the top when I said [23:47] like 10 best investing personal finance [23:49] books to read. It was always there. I It [23:51] never made sense to me. I never I never [23:53] got it. I never I was like, "Oh, yes." I [23:56] know some people like the light bulb [23:57] goes off. That one to me never did it [23:58] for me. [23:59] >> I liked it. I don't have any remes. [24:04] But [24:06] >> yeah, I I guess the the whole like it [24:09] felt like a madeup story to me the whole [24:10] time. So, I'm like I I don't know. That [24:12] part doesn't do it for me. All right. I [24:14] was looking for something. I I think I [24:16] wrote a blog post the other day about [24:17] you and I were talking about Gen Z will [24:19] be able to buy homes. And I wrote a [24:20] piece in like 2014 about millennials [24:22] saying, "Hey, I think millennials are [24:24] going to be fine. They're going to buy [24:24] homes event." Because people were saying [24:26] at the same time, just like now, [24:28] millennials are never going to buy a [24:29] house. They saw their parents get [24:30] wrecked. Uh unemployment is terrible. [24:33] There was all these stories saying [24:34] millennials are never going to buy. So I [24:35] was looking for this thing and I found a [24:38] story I wrote in 2016. You and you've [24:40] talked a lot about the low return thing. [24:43] So, this is an article from Bloomberg in [24:44] 2016. Turning 30 just got a lot scarier. [24:47] A coming collapse in investment returns [24:48] means that people that age today will [24:50] have to work seven years longer or save [24:52] almost twice as much to end up with the [24:54] same nest egg as those of a roughly [24:56] generation ago. So says McKenzie and [24:58] company in a new report and they said [25:00] the golden age of the last 30 years is [25:02] gone. Exceptional inflation adjusted [25:05] risk returns in the stock market won't [25:07] be repeated. Okay, this is 2016. [25:11] They had this chart. They show like this [25:12] is you can't since then the the Vanguard [25:16] total stock market index fund VTI is up [25:18] 15% per year almost 325% in total you [25:22] know all right two points [25:26] I as you're reading that I'm thinking [25:27] it's so insane that the media is so [25:31] negative today and then I quickly [25:33] reminded myself it's always been this [25:34] way [25:35] >> there's always been sensational [25:37] headlines and when I say always I mean [25:38] like in the 1910s this is not a 2020 26 [25:41] story. It has literally always been this [25:44] way. And I thought like it's so crazy [25:47] that this is allowed to be printed by [25:50] legitimate journalists, credible [25:52] Bloomberg, a coming collapse in [25:55] investment returns. [25:57] A coming collapse in investment returns. [26:00] And the average listener, what what does [26:02] what does anybody know? Oh my god. [26:04] McKenzie says back in 2016, this this [26:07] seemed very real. [26:09] It was kind of collective wisdom at the [26:10] time, too. A lot of other people were [26:12] saying this. [26:12] >> Of course, it was. All right. My main [26:14] point is, and I was thinking about this [26:15] this weekend, unrelated to this. So, so [26:18] over the weekend, there was a story um [26:20] in in Silicon Valley about a company [26:23] called Instinct, which I hadn't heard of [26:25] until yesterday. You know about this [26:27] story, Ben? [26:28] >> I'm apparently oblivious. [26:29] >> Okay. So, over the weekend, Instinct is [26:33] an AI agent company, and these things [26:37] are all the rage. They're raising at [26:39] billion multi-billion dollar valuations. [26:40] There's a there's a couple of them. And [26:44] people were using their machine, their [26:47] instinct agent, to book reservations at [26:51] Fort Charles and other hard to get [26:54] impossible to get reservations. And they [26:56] were pinging resi [26:59] owned by Ammex. They were pinging resi's [27:01] API like a gazillion times. and resi [27:06] looked probably looked like they were [27:07] being attacked. Like what the hell is [27:08] happening? So they shut it off. They [27:11] canceled some of these people's future [27:12] reservations and just booted them from [27:13] the platform. Say, "Nope, you can't do [27:14] this." And as I'm trying to like make [27:17] sense of like what's happening and it [27:18] seemed fairly straightforward, but I was [27:20] thinking about a bigger picture. You [27:22] have to find a trusted source. Here's [27:24] where I'm going with all this. And I [27:25] thought, you know what? I don't really [27:26] want to spend that much time trying to [27:27] get to the source of truth here. Um, I'm [27:31] excited to see what Ben Thompson has to [27:32] say about this. Right. He will break it [27:35] down. I will just wait for his take. And [27:38] I'm proud of the work that we've done, [27:40] Ben, since 2017 when we started this [27:42] podcast and were writing long before [27:44] that about telling people to ignore this [27:48] And I'm very very very happy that we are [27:54] a source of truth for a lot of people to [27:56] push back against all of this [27:58] that is constantly shoved down people's [28:01] throats. [28:03] I agree that that was the biggest that [28:05] was one of the reasons I started writing [28:06] in the first place cuz I was so sick of [28:07] the negativity coming out of the crisis. [28:09] I couldn't take it anymore. Um speaking [28:12] of which you this is interesting because [28:14] good lead here. the W there's a great [28:16] story in the Wall Street Journal this [28:17] past week that is very positive and it's [28:20] not you know it's not falling back on [28:22] the victim stuff. The American dream is [28:23] alive and it's minting millionaires. So [28:25] they talk about Dick Portillo which is [28:27] kind of funny. Um my kids I can't [28:30] remember what movie we were watching. My [28:32] kids can't believe that that people used [28:33] to actually your name is Richard and no [28:35] now you're dick. My kids are like how [28:36] was that a thing? I think there was a [28:38] comedian who did a bit on this. How how [28:39] did that how was that ever a thing in [28:41] the past that people that like obviously [28:43] that's never happening again. [28:45] No. [28:46] >> Right. [28:46] >> No. [28:48] >> Dicky Green Leaf and uh Talented Mr. [28:50] Ripley, right? Like it's just it's never [28:52] happening again. Anyway, so it says talk [28:54] about how he opened a hot dog stand in [28:55] the 1960s, didn't know how to cook a hot [28:57] dog. A century later, he sold the [28:58] company for a billion dollars, which I [28:59] still remember the very first time I [29:01] tried Portillos. My wife and I, I think [29:03] we weren't even married yet. We go to [29:04] visit my brother in Chicago at his [29:06] condo. We go straight to the bar cuz we [29:07] got there late and we're like, "Oh, we [29:08] didn't even have dinner. We got here so [29:10] late." My brother ran over to [29:11] Portillos's and got us the spicy Italian [29:14] beef and brought it back. And my wife [29:15] and I still remember that to this day. [29:17] Like, oh my gosh, that's one of the best [29:19] >> sandwiches I've ever had in my life. [29:21] >> Uh he talked about, I guess, in his [29:22] memoir, he grew up poor. He like did [29:25] thought he didn't have anything to offer [29:26] the world. He grew up his his family was [29:28] immigrants. They lived in a housing [29:29] project. And the whole point of this [29:32] story was there's all these people that [29:34] came from really really bad backgrounds. [29:36] Most of the people who are these [29:38] big-time millionaires now most of them [29:39] didn't come from like the you know Ivy [29:42] League schools or the east like they [29:43] they're just regular people and they [29:44] they interview all these people who [29:45] started an HVAC company or certain like [29:48] act not technology like the way you [29:49] think everyone gets in in you know rich [29:51] these days. So they talk about they they [29:53] call them these everywhere millionaires. [29:56] He says there's three million of them [29:57] collectively worth more than $65 [29:59] trillion. Most come from poor or middle- [30:01] class families simply because there are [30:02] 99 times as many people in the bottom 99 [30:04] as the top 1%. [30:06] Um, among star founders, there are two [30:09] and a half times as many from poor [30:10] backgrounds as from the top 1%. Only a [30:12] quarter of business owners worth $5 [30:14] million or more inherited their [30:15] companies. And they go through all these [30:16] different examples of this. And the [30:19] whole point of the article is [30:22] listen, you can complain about how bad [30:23] things are or you can like bootstrap and [30:26] try something. Now, obviously, how many [30:28] people are actually going to win the [30:29] lottery like these people? I get that [30:31] push back, but I love the tone of the [30:34] article. I agree. I loved it, too. Thank [30:37] you, Wall Street Journal, for writing [30:38] this. [30:41] And and also, [30:43] this was a moment in time. [30:46] the last I don't know 75 years of people [30:51] being able to do this that's in the past [30:54] because the next crop of 65 [30:56] trillionaires it's just inheritances [30:59] >> not not only but it's it's [31:02] >> so they in the they in this piece they [31:04] talk about these guys who started um [31:07] Dave's Hot Chicken eight years ago and [31:09] sold the business for a billion dollars [31:11] they started it in a parking lot in Los [31:13] Angeles for $900 you don't think AI is [31:15] going to help people start businesses [31:17] easier than in the past. Like, [31:18] >> totally, without a doubt. [31:19] >> You're you're it you're right. It feels [31:21] like a point in time like in the 60s and [31:24] there you could start in the mail room [31:25] at Goldman Sachs and work your Europe up [31:26] to be a partner. I agree that is that is [31:29] gone. But I I I think AI is actually [31:31] going to make it easier for people to [31:32] start businesses that would have never [31:34] started a business before. [31:35] >> I agree for sure. [31:37] >> Fair push back though. All right. [31:40] I think we got to chill out with the [31:41] college stuff. I feel like there's a [31:42] there's a lot of people on the corner [31:44] now and it's usually like the [31:45] intellectual elites who are saying the [31:47] ROI for college just isn't there [31:49] anymore. It doesn't make any sense. And [31:52] there's so there's a story in the Wall [31:53] Street Journal, Americans without [31:54] college degrees are having one of the [31:56] best job markets in years. And it's [31:58] trying to this I don't know if you saw [31:59] this chart. [32:01] This chart is kind of doing a lot of [32:02] work. So, it's saying in 2026, workers [32:05] aged 22 to 34 with college degrees face [32:08] worse relative unemployment than peers [32:10] with no college degrees. Now, that word [32:12] relative is doing a lot of heavy lifting [32:13] here because that's relative to 2003. [32:18] Okay? Does that you're you're following [32:20] me? Now, look at this next look at the [32:22] next chart in the same article. Share of [32:25] population by employment status and age [32:26] group. What group has the by far the [32:29] best employment prospects? No. No high [32:32] school, high school diploma or college [32:33] degree, [32:34] >> right? [32:34] >> It's not even close. The college degree [32:37] is still worth it. And look at this. [32:38] This is from the BLS. Unemployment rates [32:41] for people 25 years and older by [32:43] educational attainment. And they they [32:44] have it by less than a high school [32:46] diploma, high school graduates, some [32:48] college, then bachelor's degree. [32:52] Now, this has this has certainly shrunk [32:53] over the years, which I think is a great [32:55] thing [32:56] for people that have less education, but [33:00] it's it's almost 5% for people who have [33:02] less than high school diploma. It's 2.7% [33:04] for people without college degree. This [33:05] is [33:06] >> 2.7% unemployment is just the normal [33:08] state of being. [33:10] >> This narrative that we discussed at the [33:12] top of the show of everything being [33:13] taken too far. This is a great example [33:14] of that because I think rightfully so. I [33:17] don't know when people started [33:18] questioning college. I'm sure it's been, [33:19] you know, it's been a while now, but it [33:20] really started to get loud. Hey, wait a [33:22] minute. Are we sure that 19-year-olds [33:26] should be making the most important [33:27] financial decision of their life, [33:29] >> right? [33:29] >> Are we sure that uh $200,000 is an [33:32] appropriate price? Because the colleges [33:34] took it too far and they pushed and they [33:36] pushed and they pushed until eventually [33:38] became insane, totally unaffordable, [33:41] corruption, whatever, whatever. is, you [33:43] know, insane. And over the years, we've [33:45] gotten to the point where we are now [33:46] where it's like, [33:47] >> we sure that college even makes sense [33:49] anymore as a construct. [33:52] >> Yes, [33:53] >> of course it does. Nuance, gray areas, [33:57] you know, abound. But [33:58] >> we're now at that point. [34:00] >> The thing is though, there's a lot of [34:01] colleges that are totally screwed in the [34:02] years ahead. And so, so my dad went to [34:05] this small Aquinus College in Grand [34:08] Rapids, Michigan. [34:09] Aquinus. Very tiny. I don't know. 1500. [34:12] >> Say that word one more time. [34:13] >> Aquinus. Like Thomas Aquinus. Like the, [34:15] you know, [34:16] >> I don't I don't know what that is. Is [34:17] that a word or a name [34:18] >> or a category? [34:20] >> Have you ever heard of Thomas Aquinus [34:21] before? [34:21] >> Nope. [34:22] >> Okay. Look it up. [34:26] >> So, it's a very tiny school and um he [34:29] eventually was on the board of the [34:30] school. And it's funny because if I [34:32] would have went there, I would have got [34:33] like a 50% discount for being an alumni. [34:36] and they they see they look at this is [34:40] pure demographics that we people have [34:42] talked about the fertility crisis coming [34:43] if you ask Claude or Chad GPT number of [34:46] 18-year-olds in the US by year and [34:48] extend it out to like 30 years in the [34:50] future it the number of 18-year-olds [34:52] falls off a cliff so these colleges were [34:54] looking at this going we see this coming [34:56] the number of 18-year-olds graduating [34:57] high school every single year goes down [34:59] and down and down and down and if you're [35:01] not like a name brand college you are [35:03] screwed so what this college did I think [35:05] my dad said 50% of the people who are [35:08] there now play some sort of sport. [35:10] >> So they just let everyone play. So they [35:13] they they've had to try to do something [35:14] to get more people to come. Hey, you can [35:16] come be in the soccer team or the [35:17] lacrosse team or the field hockey, [35:19] whatever it is. [35:20] >> But a lot of these little smaller [35:22] schools like that are absolutely [35:23] screwed. And there's nothing they can do [35:24] unless we just let in all types of [35:26] foreign students, which seems to be the [35:28] opposite way we're going, [35:29] >> right? [35:30] >> There was a huge article about [35:31] >> that's an actual crisis that that's like [35:32] you can see coming. There was a huge [35:34] article in the journal that got a lot of [35:35] attention about Syracuse having like a [35:37] some sort of uh enrollment shortage. I [35:40] think it was is is how they described [35:41] it. [35:43] >> Yes, I sent it to Chris. [35:45] >> But I I I I generally forget the [35:47] narrative stuff. My opinion on this and [35:49] I'm extremely unqualified to have an [35:51] opinion. Although I think I kicked out [35:52] of college twice, so I think I know what [35:53] I'm talking about here. [35:55] >> You also got uh enrolled twice, so you [35:58] must have done something right. [35:59] >> I was enrolled four times back. [36:00] >> How'd you get accepted? Okay. in here's [36:03] my journey. [36:05] Uh, Indiana Kelly School of Business as [36:08] an underground algebraic pretty good. I [36:09] did do well in my SATs, although even [36:11] though my GPA was [36:12] >> I still can't believe you ended up in [36:13] the Midwest. That that boggles my mind. [36:17] >> Um, [36:20] it was the best school I got into. [36:24] All right. Indiana, NASA Community [36:27] College, Indiana, Queens College. [36:31] enrolled four times. [36:32] >> That's a good tour. [36:33] >> Pretty good. [36:34] >> You say the American dream is dead. [36:38] >> The college stuff, the cost, [36:39] >> you know how much money you saved by [36:40] going to community college though, [36:41] right? [36:42] >> That that's the thing though. A cheaper [36:44] version. People who complain about the [36:46] cost of college. A cheaper version does [36:48] exist. You can go to community college [36:49] for two years, pay basically nothing, [36:52] get all of those stupid coursework out [36:54] of the way, then go then go to a bigger [36:56] school if you're really concerned about [36:57] the [36:57] >> finances. There's like all as an [36:58] 18-year-old, [37:00] >> of course you don't want to do that. [37:01] >> There's all sorts of social pressures [37:02] and the parents definitely don't Listen, [37:04] I don't want to send my kids to [37:05] community college. What do you [37:08] >> I get it. But I'm saying if if that's [37:09] your one big thing is the cost, there [37:11] are ways around it. People just don't [37:12] want to do it. [37:12] >> Yeah. Um All right. Here's one part [37:15] about AI that I really don't like, Ben. [37:20] This is super annoying. The questioning [37:22] everything aspect of it. [37:25] You see a picture [37:27] You repost it. Somebody says, "Dude, [37:29] that's fake." And you're like, "Oh." [37:31] Right. [37:32] >> So, you do that once or twice and you're [37:33] like, "Hey, wait a minute. I'm not [37:34] getting fooled again. Fool me twice." [37:36] Can't Right. What's that line in [37:37] Tennessee? [37:38] >> Yes. [37:39] >> So, uh, [37:42] so I've been I've been taking [37:43] screenshots and asking Claude, which is [37:45] really annoying. I don't want to live in [37:47] a world like that, but that's the world [37:49] that we live in. So, there was a trailer [37:53] on Instagram for a movie called [37:55] Gatorface, [37:57] and I Googled Gatorface trailer, and [38:00] sure enough, it's actually real. [38:04] >> So, that sounds like a movie you'll go [38:06] see. It's funny because [38:07] >> so remember on this AI thing, [38:09] >> when we were growing up and we'd play [38:11] video games, you know, when you beat you [38:13] beat a video game too much and all of a [38:14] sudden the computer just turn goes on [38:16] beast mode and kills you. Like, oh, the [38:17] computer, you can't do that. completed [38:19] this task or I killed this guy or [38:20] whatever. Um, when we play video games [38:22] now on our Nintendo, uh, my son wants to [38:26] beat all the professional levels on the [38:28] Nintendo sports, you know, you you swing [38:30] this stuff yourself and and [38:32] >> you can't you can't like remember back [38:33] in the day in Madden All Pro, you you [38:35] can't even gain two yards, [38:37] >> right? So by So it's funny, they don't [38:39] call it the computer anymore. They call [38:41] it AI. [38:42] >> Like oh the AI is beating us again. So [38:43] for them like AI is just everything now. [38:45] >> Yeah. [38:47] So, this movie Gatorface Ben, [38:51] it seems to be that there's that they've [38:53] combined two of my favorite genres into [38:56] one movie. [38:58] There it's a slasher horror old school [39:01] style, Ben. And there's also actually [39:04] alligators eating people. What a mashup. [39:07] I feel like this was made specifically [39:08] for me. [39:09] >> Okay, my son will watch this, too. [39:12] You're just alligators eating. There [39:15] probably haven't been enough of those. [39:16] >> Look at the thumbnail. Look at the [39:17] thumbnail of the trailer. It's a It's a [39:20] a woman with her head in between an [39:22] alligator's jaws. Say no more. I'm all [39:24] the way in. [39:26] >> Okay. I want to talk about Of course you [39:28] are. The I feel like every time I log on [39:31] to social media and there's a new model [39:33] that comes out, people are like blown [39:35] away. The tech the people who know this [39:37] stuff are blown away. Oh my gosh, it [39:38] solved this mathematical equation or [39:41] whatever that AI can do these math [39:43] problems. It's unbelievable. And I think [39:45] of the Newman the Newman model, the [39:46] Newman thing from Jurassic Park, the [39:50] >> Yeah. Nobody cares. [39:52] >> Yeah. [39:52] >> And looking through the the jobless [39:55] claims and continuing claims continue to [39:56] go down. The Atlantic had this piece [39:58] about or the New York had a piece about [40:00] like why has the job apocalypse not [40:02] happened? Now people keep saying, "Well, [40:04] just wait, just wait, just wait. Fine." [40:06] And Sam Alman said, "The economy has so [40:08] much inertia." I I I been trying to [40:10] think through like why have everyone [40:12] been so wrong about this so far? Like [40:14] why why has the the labor market has not [40:17] been impacted at all at all? So you [40:21] mentioned Ben Thompson earlier. He he [40:23] talked about this book called uh getting [40:25] things done which is productivity thing. [40:26] He wrote a whole piece about this on [40:28] checkery today and he talked about how [40:31] um no matter how many and he talked [40:33] about all the systems he's building to [40:34] help his like assistance out and like [40:35] make his life easier. You hear all these [40:37] tech people talking about this. They I [40:38] have this system and it checks this and [40:40] it does this. He said no matter how many [40:42] systems you build, you still have to [40:43] act. It's not enough to have systems to [40:45] do things, you have to actually do the [40:46] things. Writing things down is [40:48] unbelievably powerful. And he's saying [40:49] AI really is really good at writing [40:51] things down. Its power will always pale [40:54] in comparison to getting things done. So [40:55] AI increases everyone's capabilities if [40:59] they want to use the systems, but not [41:01] necessarily motivation. [41:03] So, and I think his point was like you [41:05] can AI can really help you get stuff [41:06] done, but you also still have to [41:08] determine what should get done. in what [41:11] needs to get done and and so I AI is [41:13] never going to help motivate you. So [41:16] like you could have all these tool think [41:17] about how many people in the public [41:19] sphere that we talk about that don't use [41:20] AI at all. There's all these tools they [41:22] could be using to make their life easier [41:25] and no one really does it. [41:27] >> Ben, you're so right. AI is not going to [41:29] do this on its own, is it? [41:32] >> Can't believe you still have it. But is [41:34] is is it as simple as that where where [41:37] yes, we have these tools and the people [41:38] that use them can make their life so [41:40] much better, but most people are just [41:42] going to go, I don't know. Or to your [41:45] point about the the reservations [41:46] earlier, if everyone has the ability to [41:49] say my AI agent, hey, make a reservation [41:51] at the greatest restaurant, best [41:52] restaurant in the in the town. If [41:55] everyone's AI agents are doing that, [41:56] what who's going to get it first? How do [41:59] you have [42:00] >> I saw Yeah, I saw a take that made me [42:01] want to puke. And this just like this is [42:03] the type of moment that I think all of [42:04] us normal human beings are like, "Stop [42:06] the train. I want to get off now. I [42:09] don't like this." [42:12] Somebody's like, "Uh, this is a take. [42:14] Why should reservations be free? [42:16] Shouldn't there be a marketplace for [42:17] reservations? Why uh a reservation for [42:21] Saturday at 7:30 is obviously worth more [42:23] than a Monday reservation at 5:15? Could [42:27] we just calm down with a capital? [42:30] >> This is like paying for the IMAX movie [42:32] tickets higher. But this is what's going [42:34] to happen though. So if everyone has the [42:35] ability to say, "Hey AI agent, go book [42:38] me that trip somewhere. Go book me the [42:39] restaurant reservation." If everyone can [42:41] do that and have the AI agent do it for [42:42] them and wait forever to do it, [42:44] >> this is the be careful what you wish for [42:46] moment. [42:47] >> But this is what's going to happen. [42:48] Guess what happens? The people with the [42:49] most money are going to get it. [42:50] >> Awesome. [42:52] >> That's where we're heading, right? [42:54] >> Horrible. [42:57] Or you pay someone to wait in Or they're [42:59] going to say, "Fine, it's going to be a [43:00] physical wait in phys wait in the [43:02] physical line." [43:03] >> Oh my god, you're going to pay someone [43:05] to do it. [43:06] >> Yeah. [43:06] >> Yeah. Gross. [43:08] >> That's where we're heading. [43:10] >> Fun times. Um All right. So, there was [43:12] this op-ed in the New York Times a few [43:15] weeks ago talking about how older [43:16] Americans are hoarding America's [43:18] potential and it talked about how the [43:20] >> I know you hate these stories. you hate [43:22] them. [43:23] >> But I I thought that so it talked about [43:25] how they baby boomers have so much [43:27] wealth and they're holding things back [43:28] by like not selling their houses and all [43:30] this stuff. And then uh Boston College [43:33] did a follow-up piece that I thought was [43:36] a good context for this. [43:37] >> Mr. Mo is the author, the guy that wrote [43:40] this of the forthcoming [43:42] Gerontocracy in America. I'm sorry. [43:47] What is that a madeup word? [43:50] >> Well, old age. it. Uh, [43:52] >> oh, is that what that's gerontocracy? [43:54] All right, I hate it. I hate all this. I [43:55] hate I hate the negativity. [43:56] >> So, Boston College said, "Are older [43:58] Americans actually spoiling the economy [44:00] for everyone else?" Like, let's look at [44:01] this. So, they they say it's true that [44:03] one-third of owner occupied homes are [44:05] owned by people ages 65 and over, even [44:07] though they represent just one sixth of [44:08] the population. [44:09] >> Yes, you're right. [44:10] >> I have this just kill them. I have the [44:12] solution. [44:13] >> Get rid of them. [44:14] >> He shows this. This is really good, [44:16] though. So they look at they they [44:19] separate the this that group 65 and [44:21] older into 20% what do they call them [44:24] quentiles [44:26] and they look and they show median home [44:28] equity versus median financial wealth [44:30] and for all but the top 20%. [44:34] Home equity basically is the entire [44:35] wealth of that for the bottom 80% home [44:37] equity is almost the entire net worth. [44:40] It's only the top 20% that home equity [44:44] makes up a smaller share and they don't. [44:45] So the point is for most Americans, 80% [44:50] of people 65 and older, the home is [44:53] their financial asset. That's it. That's [44:54] the wealth. [44:55] >> All right. And here's the problem, Ben. [44:56] We're not letting them pat that wealth [44:58] because they're staying in their houses [44:59] too long. So new rule, there is a [45:02] 25-year limit on how long you can stay [45:04] in a house. And after that, sorry old [45:07] people, you got to go. What do you [45:10] think? Good thing [45:12] he was saying like what what is the [45:13] alternative besides like a reverse [45:15] mortgage or like these people are going [45:16] to need that wealth some at some point [45:18] >> or after 25 years your mortgage goes [45:21] back to zero. It just resets. It starts [45:23] it starts all over. You think you're at [45:24] the end. You've paid off your mortgage. [45:26] Nope. [45:27] >> So that the his point was there really [45:29] is no good good solution to this. [45:33] The these people need the money somehow. [45:34] But what is it a reverse mortgage? Like [45:36] what what else could they do to tap this [45:38] money? I'm sure those companies exist. [45:40] Like reverse mortgages were a problem [45:42] back in the day, but I'm sure they've [45:43] gotten better. And when I say I'm sure, [45:44] I'm not sure. [45:45] >> There are options, but it it's just [45:46] saying that you can't just say, "Oh, [45:47] these people should just sell their [45:48] homes and move on." Like that that's not [45:50] a solution for a lot of people. [45:53] >> See, I actually stood up for the boomers [45:54] for once. [45:55] >> Well done. [45:55] >> Oh. Oh, maybe it's cuz everyone called [45:56] me a boomer a few weeks ago. So, [45:59] >> all right. Speaking of boomer, what's [46:00] with that mustache? Come clean. You did [46:02] it for me. I I love you just the way you [46:04] are. [46:05] >> No, I didn't do I I kept it for you. I [46:07] kept it longer. So I think so I've [46:10] always been a very big fan of theme [46:12] parties. I think it runs in the family. [46:14] >> Get out of here. I never would have [46:15] guessed that. [46:16] >> Ah I'm an introverted person. So the [46:18] like the permission to be extroverted is [46:21] I love it. So in college I we we used to [46:22] have theme parties all the time. You [46:24] know the stupid toga parties and dress [46:26] up and so [46:28] >> I I hate it. Oh, I I love a good I love [46:31] a theme. But I think my mom when they [46:33] were growing up, they had when she was [46:34] in high school, they had a they brought [46:35] a they moved to a different town and [46:36] they bought a house with a pool. And [46:38] every Sunday, my grandpa father would [46:39] have a huge party and they would have I [46:41] see all these pictures. They would have [46:42] these toga parties and they'd always [46:44] dress up in theme parties. [46:45] >> All right. So, you went to a porn star [46:47] theme party, [46:48] >> a vintage porn star theme party. [46:52] >> So, at our pool/boat club that we belong [46:54] to, it's been there since 1903. It's [46:56] been there forever, over 100 years. So [46:59] for the last hundred years, I don't know [47:00] how this tradition started. So it's open [47:02] Memorial Day to Labor Day. Labor Day is [47:04] the end, right? They have they have one [47:06] big final and so you go swimming there, [47:08] you can dock your boat and they have a [47:09] little like place you can order food and [47:11] drinks and then on the weekends they [47:13] have social gatherings and it's fun. [47:15] It's right on the water. And the Labor [47:17] Day party, the last party of the year is [47:19] always called the pirates ball. And [47:21] everyone who comes there's they have 200 [47:22] tickets and every year it sells out and [47:24] you everyone has to dress up as a [47:25] pirate. And so I said I could draw a [47:28] mustache on, but instead I'm going to go [47:31] all I'm going to grow it out. Okay. So I [47:33] grew out my pirates ball and I said this [47:36] year we have to have a theme. So we did [47:38] Peter Pan and so my little daughter Kate [47:40] who like is the princess dressed up as [47:42] Tinkerbell. [47:42] >> Adorable. [47:43] >> So yeah. So and but my wife and daughter [47:46] so my two youngest love this theme like [47:48] they're like this. And it's funny you go [47:50] around everyone is drinking beer and [47:52] like it's adults are wearing pirate [47:54] costumes, kids are wearing, you know, [47:55] teenagers. Everyone is dressed up as a [47:57] pirate. It looks It's so ridiculous, but [47:59] that's what makes it fun cuz it's so [48:01] ridiculous. So my daughter and wife have [48:03] a visceral reaction to this mustache. [48:04] They absolutely hate it. Like why [48:06] couldn't you just draw one? Why can't [48:07] you use a fake mustache like everyone [48:09] else? And I said, "No, I got to do I'm [48:10] going to if I'm going to do it, I'm [48:11] going to do it." And and I said, "You [48:12] know what? I got to They said fine. [48:14] Shave it off. The party's over." And I [48:15] said, "I have to say this for Michael. I [48:17] love it. [48:17] >> This is good content. I got to show then [48:19] I'll shave it off tonight." [48:19] >> And you know what? Your mustache grows [48:21] in very thick. I'm I'm extremely [48:23] jealous. [48:25] is kind of annoying. My brother has a [48:26] big beard. I don't know what happened. [48:28] Um, at a bachelor party one back in the [48:31] day, we went to uh Austin and I decided [48:34] to grow out my mustache. Didn't work [48:36] very well. Um, because I also have like [48:38] light hair, so I dyed it jet black with [48:41] just for men and it looked I don't think [48:43] I have pictures of it somehow, but [48:45] looked ridiculous. I can't do it. You [48:46] can. Credit to you. You look great. [48:47] >> It's kind of It's kind of uncomfortable. [48:49] Yeah. I I I I'm not going to halfass it [48:51] for the for the theme parties. It was [48:53] very fun, too. I liked it. All right. [48:56] Oh, you mentioned your favorite '8s [48:58] movies last week and a bunch of people [49:00] sent us theirs in and said, "Hey, you [49:01] forgot this. You bid this." But I [49:02] thought you had a pretty good list. [49:03] >> Well, I didn't forget anything. It's my [49:05] list. [49:05] >> Yes. But just like, "Hey, you missed [49:07] this." So, someone sent in and said, [49:10] "This is the biggest travesty of of [49:12] Rotten Tomatoes. Rocky has a 38% from [49:16] the critics." And so, I'm not a I'm not [49:18] a Rotten Tomatoes guy. I've always said [49:19] this before. I'm an IMDb guy. I look at [49:21] the IMDb ranking out of 10. That's how I [49:23] make my judgments. I don't look I don't [49:26] I don't like the [49:28] >> tomato meter or whatever. [49:29] >> Like the movie, the critics and the [49:31] audience. It's like east versus west. [49:34] >> But then you you click on the reviews to [49:36] see who these people are and it's like [49:38] this dude with a podcast with five [49:39] people who listen to him who [49:41] retroactively went back and gave Rocky a [49:44] rating cuz they didn't like it. [49:46] >> All right. Is this is this not the [49:47] greatest I didn't even look at this [49:49] until just now. Description of a movie [49:51] ever. Heavyweight champion Rocky Balboa [49:54] trains in Siberia for a match against [49:57] the Soviet fighter who killed Apollo [49:58] Creed in front of a ferocious Russian [50:01] crowd. He fights for one final showdown. [50:05] >> It's amazing the montages in that movie. [50:07] >> It's the best. [50:09] >> Really is. [50:10] >> All right, this is a true story. I swear [50:11] to God. You know, Ben, that I am not in [50:14] shape, right? [50:15] >> I do know that. [50:16] >> Okay. Like [50:16] >> because you talk about it [50:18] >> like at all at all. Not even close. Um, [50:22] uh, we did the JP Morgan run. It's like [50:26] a It's a 5K. [50:27] >> That's right. You and Josh had a big [50:28] thing over who would finish first. [50:30] >> Okay. [50:32] I I put on the Rocky Force soundtrack [50:35] and I ran for three straight miles. [50:40] So, the first like mile I was like [50:41] jogging pretty slowly. I ran three [50:44] straight miles and I averaged like 9 [50:46] minutes a mile for the three and a half [50:47] miles. And I haven't I haven't even ran [50:49] a mile in 20 years. That's [50:52] >> This is for the 5K or this is You just [50:53] did this. [50:54] >> No, the 5K. [50:55] >> Okay. [50:55] >> That's how jacked up that soundtrack [50:59] gets me and every other little boy that [51:00] watched that in their childhood. [51:02] >> It is kind of amazing. [51:02] >> It gave me like It gave me like [51:04] superpowers. [51:05] >> That's a good idea. That's a That's a [51:07] Yeah, it's amazing soundtrack, too. [51:09] >> Two worlds collide. Rival nations. Let's [51:12] go. [51:12] >> All right. [51:13] >> Um All right. So, this happened over the [51:15] weekend [51:17] at the Teleride Film Festival. [51:20] The world saw a three-hour long [51:23] documentary [51:25] from A24 [51:27] by Nathan Felder and a documentarian [51:30] called Lance Oppenheim. [51:32] Did you see the trailer for this? [51:34] >> Oh, yeah. [51:34] >> All right. 34 days before this from the [51:36] New York Times. 30 34 days before [51:38] Elizabeth Holmes, the founder of the [51:41] medical testing company Theronos, [51:42] reported to prison to begin her 11-year [51:44] sentence for defrauding investors, she [51:46] invited a camera crew into her rented [51:48] home in Southern California in an effort [51:50] to clear her name. Yet, the two people [51:52] she chose to chronicle her life were [51:54] Nathan Faielder, all right, and the [51:55] other guy. Um, I forget what it's [51:57] called, but it's a uh You Can See [51:59] Everything. It's a three-hour [52:01] documentary that I will go to the [52:03] theaters for, and I think a lot of other [52:05] people will, too. I've never seen a [52:06] documentary in theaters. Have you? [52:08] >> No way. [52:09] >> Right. [52:10] >> You're going to go to the theater to see [52:11] this [52:11] >> 100%. [52:12] >> So, here's my problem with Nathan [52:13] Fielder. I've watched a lot of his HBO [52:15] shows. I know people love this guy. [52:17] >> It's not for me. [52:19] >> The the problem with his stuff is he [52:21] tries to make it feel like this could be [52:23] real or this could be fake, but we're [52:25] going to make you think that it's real. [52:26] And at my point, I just I check out. I'm [52:28] like, fine. I don't I just tell me if [52:29] it's if it's real, tell me if it's real. [52:31] If you're trying to make me think [52:32] something is real, but it's really fake. [52:33] I I that's a part of his that I don't [52:35] like. It just I It's so absurd. It's [52:38] like, oh, but it could be real. [52:40] >> But but so this is the this is the very [52:41] confusing part. [52:43] This is real life. [52:45] >> Yes. I don't I I It looks obviously [52:49] >> Aren't you intrigued? [52:51] >> I'm intrigued. I I don't like the tour [52:54] of these bad people who try to fix their [52:56] reputation, though. I think to me she [52:59] she's just a con artist in charlatan [53:01] like all the other ones. This is this I [53:02] don't think this is this is not bad. [53:04] She's not going to fix her reputation. [53:05] >> Well, of course she's going to It looks [53:07] to me like she's going to come off even [53:08] even crazier and people are going to [53:09] finally realize how nuts she is. [53:12] >> Um, all right. We got an email. I was [53:13] hoping you guys could elaborate a little [53:15] since you are both Allen wrench guys who [53:16] assemble your own stuff. I believe there [53:18] are two types of people. The kind who [53:20] throw out the one that comes with [53:21] furniture and the kind who have a drawer [53:23] full stuffed with dozens of them in the [53:24] garage. Which do you both fall into? [53:28] I mean, when I get a new one, I I [53:30] totally have the drawer because I go [53:32] through and find the one I used that I [53:33] liked before and use it again. I have a [53:36] million [53:36] >> You have a You have a go-to Allen [53:38] wrench. [53:38] >> Oh, yeah. Cuz sometimes the angles are [53:40] so hard cuz you have to like turn it a [53:42] little and turn it a little and go back, [53:43] you know? So, you want the one that has [53:45] the thing that you can just keep [53:46] rotating. [53:47] >> So, I I am somewhere in between. I've [53:49] kept a lot of the things, but I've never [53:51] reused them. So, from now on, they just [53:53] they go in the trash. [53:55] >> Yeah. I I if I find a good Allen wrench, [53:57] I I remember that where that bad boy is. [54:00] Um okay, I got one more leg story for [54:02] you. So, I thought about the you know [54:04] how people always say that social media [54:05] is like people just putting their fake [54:07] lives out, you know? I don't do a lot of [54:09] like social media posts, but I did this [54:10] one. We la My son loves fishing. I [54:14] talked about this last year. I think we [54:15] went on a fishing charter for salmon in [54:17] Lake Michigan. It's pretty cool. In [54:18] August, that's when they come up and you [54:20] can get these huge salmon. and we were [54:23] going to go and we kept getting rained [54:24] out and my brother-in-law was going to [54:25] come. He's a big fisherman. My [54:26] father-in-law was going to come. He [54:27] loves fish. I don't like to fish. I just [54:29] I'm there for the kids. So, we got we [54:31] got up at 4:45 in the morning to go [54:33] fishing. And there was a huge lightning [54:35] storm, so we got pushed back. So, we [54:36] didn't get go to the afternoon. So, my [54:37] kids have been up all day. And they're [54:39] like, "Let's go from 4:00 to 9:00." [54:40] That's what the the fishing captain told [54:42] us. And it's just me and my two twins [54:43] are nine years old. And we go out and we [54:45] throw the lines in and we immediately [54:47] catch a fish. And we reel it in. It's [54:48] really heavy. It's like, "This is going [54:49] to be amazing. It's easy. And then two [54:52] hours go by. Not even a bite, nothing. [54:56] We're on these waves. They're rocking [54:57] and rolling. And my daughter is laying [55:00] on my lap and she's like, "I'm starting [55:01] to get sick. I'm getting nauseous." We [55:02] already went through all the snacks an [55:04] hour ago. You know, I bought a cooler of [55:05] snacks. It was awful. My son, of course, [55:08] loved it. He's spraying off the deck [55:09] with the guys. He's learning about [55:10] fishing. He's, you know, walking around [55:12] the boat checking all the [55:13] >> George is a man's man. He sounds like a [55:14] great hang. [55:15] >> He really, [55:15] >> actually, he is a great hang. I did hang [55:16] with him. He's he's more of an out way [55:18] more of an outdoors. Like he would work [55:20] on this fishing boat if he could. The [55:21] guy said like, "Hey, you should just [55:22] come work for us." And he's like, "Dad, [55:23] do you think they're serious?" [55:25] And then at the very end, the sun is [55:27] setting and all of a sudden we it's cuz [55:29] they they put 10 poles out and you just [55:30] you just kind of idle along and the [55:33] boat's moving so that it hooks the fish [55:34] and you reel them in for like 20 minutes [55:36] and at the very end every single pole [55:38] finally catches and we reel them all in [55:39] and we get this huge haul. But I was [55:42] thinking I put this great picture of [55:43] like all of our fish in the sunset, but [55:45] that that has nothing to do with the two [55:47] hours where I thought I was I was ready [55:48] to kill myself. [55:49] >> I thought you were going to say that [55:50] people thought this was AI. [55:53] >> That's real. [55:54] >> That's funny. So these fish are [55:56] gigantic. Did you eat them? [55:57] >> We had they they fillet them for you. We [55:59] haven't eaten them yet, but we're going [56:00] to. We have So we got way more meat than [56:02] we needed. Like we gave some away, but [56:04] they fillet it for you and put it in a [56:05] bag and you put it in your cooler and [56:07] take it off. So yeah, we shall see. But [56:08] those are all like king salmon. Huge in [56:10] Lake Michigan. kind of crazy [56:11] >> giant fish. All right. What did we get [56:13] into this week? [56:14] >> Uh recommendations. Okay. I don't know [56:16] that anyone still watches Apple TV [56:18] because I feel like you they don't [56:19] market it or something, but the show [56:22] Silo I started watching. It's on the [56:23] third season. I'm sure I've mentioned it [56:26] before and I think it was a series of [56:28] books that people really loved the books [56:30] in the first season. It's kind of [56:31] interesting. It's like why are these why [56:32] are there these people living in a silo [56:34] underground? What happened? Was it a [56:35] nuclear bomb, a chemical attack? What [56:37] what is the reason? They have all these [56:38] weird rules. And so it was kind of [56:40] intriguing. And then the second season [56:42] happened and it was super duper boring. [56:43] I'm like, what is the what is the payoff [56:45] here? They're not giving us anything. [56:46] Oh, [56:46] >> it sounds like a lost. [56:47] >> And then the third season happens and [56:49] the payoff was totally worth it. [56:52] >> I like the second half of third season [56:54] was amazing. It was like two they [56:57] finally broke it up into two shows. Like [56:58] here's the silo and here's how they got [57:00] into the silo. And the payoff of what [57:04] happened was really really good. And I [57:05] don't know if anyone even watches this [57:07] show still. It was a very slow burn. [57:09] >> It's funny you mentioned that about the [57:10] Apple TV thing because Chris said uh uh [57:14] text me Dark Matter is back. I'm like I [57:16] don't I don't even think I I don't know [57:17] what that is. I don't think I saw that [57:18] show and I looked it up. I'm like oh [57:21] yeah, I really enjoyed that show. [57:22] >> Yeah, it was good. I read the book. [57:24] >> Was Joel Ledgerton is is that Jennifer [57:26] Connelly? Am I thinking of somebody [57:27] else? [57:28] >> Yes. [57:28] >> Okay. I enjoyed the show the first uh uh [57:32] first season. I remember was two years [57:34] ago. But these things on Apple, it's [57:36] just weird. They sort of come and go. [57:38] >> They had a new Ryan Reynolds movie this [57:39] weekend. Came out of nowhere. Um, also [57:42] finished Furious. They didn't really [57:43] land the plane, but I thought it was a [57:44] good show. The the finale wasn't I I [57:46] thought like ah they didn't they didn't [57:48] land the plane very good, but it was I I [57:49] really like that show on Hulu. Uh, I got [57:51] one for you since you're a Hollywood [57:53] stories guy. The Rob Low book is [57:55] fantastic. [57:56] >> Oh, yeah. [57:57] >> It's so good. And he talks about how he [57:59] grew up down the street from Martin [58:01] Sheen. So, he hung out with Charlie [58:03] Sheen and Emilio Estz when he was a [58:05] teenager. Uh, Robert Downey Jr. was in [58:07] his high school. He knew Tom Cruz from [58:10] The Outsiders. Like the It feels like [58:12] name dropping in a lot of ways, but in [58:14] the best possible way. Great great [58:16] Hollywood stories. It's totally worth a [58:18] listen. [58:19] >> I have a listen. [58:20] >> Uh, finally, I watched Backrooms because [58:22] I know it got kind of lumped in with [58:24] Obsession like, "Hey, these young [58:25] filmmakers." And I know it started on I [58:27] know there was this thing on it started [58:28] on as a YouTube show, I guess. [58:30] >> Uh, I'm sure you watch this movie. [58:33] >> Back. Yeah. [58:34] >> Yeah. See, I loved Obsession. I don't [58:37] get the point of this movie. I I don't [58:39] understand it at all. It didn't make any [58:41] sense to me. [58:42] >> Did you Did you enjoy it at all or you [58:43] just hated it? [58:44] >> I thought it was very intriguing. The [58:46] first like 45 minutes, I was like, [58:47] "Okay." It kind of like was we like [58:49] weapons to me. It's like, "Wow, this is [58:50] a very intriguing idea. I wonder where [58:52] they're going with this." And to me, the [58:54] payoff wasn't I was like, "Oh, okay. I [58:58] don't see the point of that." [58:58] >> Yeah. I didn't I didn't I didn't [59:01] necessarily love the payoff either, but [59:03] >> I just love that it happened. Like I had [59:04] a good time in the theater. I was had no [59:06] idea where it was going. I thought the [59:07] opening scene the opening scene [59:10] scared me. Do you remember the opening [59:12] scene? They're just walking. [59:13] >> I could I could tell within the first [59:14] five minutes like I'm not going to like [59:15] this movie. [59:16] >> It's It's not too Well, [59:19] >> I tried it. [59:22] >> All right. Our friend Sam Row, I saw him [59:24] tweet about the Paul Giamatti episode [59:26] from Black Mirror. Are you a Black [59:27] Mirror guy? [59:28] >> I watched the first season. I haven't [59:29] really watched it since. [59:30] >> There's a lot of there's a lot of gems [59:32] in there. Um, and I missed this one from [59:34] last year. You know what? You would love [59:36] this episode. [59:38] >> Okay, [59:38] >> it's 35 minutes long. It's Paul [59:41] Giamatti. Somebody knocks on his door. [59:44] Uh, I can't remember the setup, but it's [59:46] like a whatever. It's uh somebody died [59:48] and he has to get involved with the the [59:51] the funeral somehow. And it's uh it's [59:55] like a visceral, sad, flashbacky type of [59:58] episode that only Paul Giamati could [60:01] have done. [60:02] He is unbelievable. [60:04] >> You know, my problem with [60:05] >> my problem with Black Mirror, though, [60:06] like it's like reading a short story. I [60:09] I need I feel like I need more. I know. [60:11] It's I know it's very intelligent. Like [60:12] some some of the ideas that they have in [60:13] it are really cool, but I can't just [60:15] have a one episode. [60:16] >> Watch this episode. It's 35 minutes. [60:18] >> All right. [60:18] >> I'm telling you, you're going to love [60:19] it. [60:20] >> Okay. [60:20] >> Um All right. This is interesting. Ben, [60:22] you know, I have that like Fire um the [60:25] Amazon. Is it an Echo? I don't know what [60:27] it's called, but it's on my kitchen. [60:28] It's on my like my island in my kitchen. [60:30] >> It's like a mini TV, right? Yeah. So, [60:32] it's probably I don't know 15 to 20 in [60:34] wide. We don't have a TV in my kitchen, [60:36] but we have this thing instead. And uh [60:39] so it's where we we listen to music, the [60:41] kids watch whatever they're watching in [60:43] the morning. And I I I love it because [60:47] it it it cycles through my old photos. [60:50] >> Oh, yeah. [60:51] >> And it'll show like my kids in 2018 [60:52] versus my kids today. And I just love [60:56] love love that aspect of it that every [60:57] single day I see a photo that makes me [60:59] happy. And there's also advertising in [61:01] it because because of course it's [61:02] Amazon, right? So for whatever reason, [61:05] Ben, this movie Bad Lieutenant kept [61:09] getting flashed on my screen like for a [61:12] long, long time. And I just thought it [61:15] was very strange. And it is very [61:17] strange. And it's about [61:17] >> Is that a Nicholas Cage movie? [61:19] >> It's about to get weirder when I tell [61:20] you what this movie is. [61:21] >> Okay. [61:22] >> So I knew nothing about this movie. I'm [61:25] laying in bed one night last week and I [61:28] see it that I could watch it. It's with [61:30] Harvey Keitel and it's rated NC17. [61:35] >> Okay. [61:36] >> This movie was from 1992 and I'm [61:39] guessing was incredibly controversial at [61:42] the time. [61:43] I've never heard of the [61:44] >> Harvey Keitel plays uh a corrupt [61:47] psychotic deranged policeman and there [61:51] is a full frontal to end all full [61:53] frontals. [61:55] Unbelievable, Ben. [61:58] Unbelievable. [61:58] >> When I read your description of this in [62:00] the doc, I thought you were going to say [62:01] that when your pictures cycle through, [62:03] there was a full frontal picture that [62:04] came up. That was actually a scene in a [62:06] movie. So, this is genuinely one of the [62:09] most [62:11] >> inappropriate I don't know what other [62:12] words is. Just sick. Sick. Sick is the [62:14] word. One of the sickest movies I've [62:16] ever seen. And I can't believe that [62:19] Amazon was advertising that on my screen [62:22] next to my dog/bab [62:26] photos. [62:27] >> It knows how deranged your movie taste [62:28] is. [62:29] >> I think I think you're you're 100% [62:30] right. It says a lot about me, unless [62:32] maybe about Amazon. Um, not a [62:34] recommendation at all, but uh I'm sure [62:36] there's some listeners that have seen [62:37] this movie back in the day and it just [62:39] holy Holy Ben. Um, yeah, [62:41] don't you could skip that one. Lastly, I [62:44] finally finished Friends and Neighbor [62:45] season 2. It took me six months to get [62:46] through it. [62:47] >> There's there's I'm running out of time, [62:50] Ben. [62:50] >> Like the gentleman came back on Netflix. [62:53] I I'm not I don't know how I'm going to [62:55] have time to watch this now cuz my kids [62:56] are going to sleep later and later these [62:57] days. [62:58] >> So Kobe goes down at 9:20 and then I'm [63:00] straight into bed. I can't stay up. So, [63:02] I'm I'm in bed at 9:40. I put something [63:04] out. I sleep in five minutes. So, my my [63:07] TV my TV viewing is going to take a hit, [63:09] which is fine. That's the way it goes. [63:10] But I But anyway, uh but I I really [63:13] enjoyed season 2. [63:16] >> I really liked it [63:17] >> for as insane and over the top and [63:19] nonsensical it as it is. I think there's [63:21] a lot of humanity there, which is [63:23] incredible considering how uh how big a [63:27] pieces of most of these people are. [63:28] Yes, the story lines get a little over [63:31] the top, but still like somehow they [63:32] >> the free roll episode that you mentioned [63:34] >> it was really good, right? [63:35] >> Fantastic. It was just real real [63:37] So, uh I really enjoyed that a lot more [63:39] than I thought I was going to. [63:42] >> All right. Uh next week we will be in [63:45] California talking to an audience about [63:48] how to uh talk to your clients about Ray [63:50] Dalia. Excited for that. [63:52] >> Excited to see everybody. Best event. [63:54] >> Next week show next week's show will be [63:55] a little late. I guess I'm guessing late [63:57] Wednesday, early Thursday probably. So, [63:58] we're probably a day behind for next [63:59] week because of when we're recording. [64:01] And if you're at Future Proof, come say [64:03] hi. There'll be 5,600 other people there [64:06] >> is. I can't wait. My favorite part of [64:09] Future Proof is that very first cocktail [64:11] hour. And you, you and Josh and I walk [64:14] down those stairs and you look out and [64:15] you just see people as far as the eye [64:17] can see shoulderto-shoulder and you have [64:19] the sunset in the background of the [64:20] beach. That to me is like my favorite. [64:22] Like, oh my gosh, this is amazing. [64:25] That's my That's my favorite theme [64:26] party. [64:27] >> Right. There you go. Yeah. All right. [64:29] >> All right. Uh animal spirits at the [64:31] compoundnews.com. As always, you send [64:33] personal emails, you get personal [64:35] responses. Thank you for listening. [64:36] We'll see you next time.