Caleb Hammer Blames Gen Z Spending Habits for Surging US Car and Credit Debt

PowerfulJRE

Young Americans face historic debt crises because automated delivery services, brand-new vehicles, and useless university degrees replace basic personal responsibility and financial discipline.

AI-assisted summary of Joe Rogan Experience #2509 - Caleb Hammer — original source. Check the original for full context.

Source published: 2026-06-04

Detailed notes

## Background Published on June 4, 2026, by the PowerfulJRE channel on YouTube, this episode of the Joe Rogan Experience features YouTuber and host of the "Financial Audit" program, Caleb Hammer. The description provides links to Hammer's official channels and platforms, alongside promotional offers for Perplexity and SimpliSafe.

## TL;DR Host Joe Rogan and finance entertainer Caleb Hammer dissect the modern consumer debt crisis, highlighting systemic pitfalls like over-leveraged student loans and predatory car financing. They contrast personal finance strategies, such as low-cost index funds and strict behavior modification, against algorithmic echo chambers that foster a youth victim mindset. The discussion spans government mismanagement, demographic challenges in South Korea, and the rise of speculative crypto markets, ultimately emphasizing personal accountability and practical life skills over systemic grievances.

## Atmosphere & style The conversation carries a grounded, fast-paced, and highly candid energy, blending Rogan's signature inquisitive skepticism with Hammer's direct, no-nonsense financial tough-love. It transitions from a dark, almost apocalyptic critique of urban decay and political ideology into a gritty, pragmatic masterclass on fiscal responsibility. The dynamic feels like an authentic peer-to-peer reality check, balancing intense systemic frustrations with humorous self-deprecation and an urgent call for personal agency.

## Key takeaways - [00:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=1s) The U.S. consumer debt crisis is worsening, with credit card debt hitting $1.6 trillion at an approximate 7% default rate, while auto loan debt is even higher, largely driven by expensive pickup trucks. - [04:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=264s) Extended repayment schedules on student loans cause total interest to balloon and principal to grow endlessly, leading the government to dock Social Security benefits from some retired citizens to pay off lingering debt. - [08:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=512s) The massive scale of China's high-speed rail construction highlights the inefficiencies of California's High-Speed Rail project, which spent $14 to $16 billion by the mid-2020s with zero operational miles. - [11:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=702s) An astonishing 60% of investors under 30 base portfolio trades entirely on advice from podcasters and livestreamers, while day-trading channels pull in massive concurrent viewership. - [13:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=822s) Congressional insider trading remains a bipartisan issue where politicians enter broke and leave wealthy on standard $100,000 salaries, frequently buying stock ahead of key legislative shifts. - [18:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=1122s) Hyper-progressive 'soft-on-crime' policies and raised felony theft thresholds damage metropolitan centers, whereas a tiny pool of chronic, repeat offenders commits roughly 50% of all robberies in major cities. - [33:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=2012s) Social media algorithms categorize users into ideological echo chambers within minutes, driving historic shifts toward political extremes and fostering an environment of 'moral masturbation.' - [47:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=2859s) Billionaires utilize ultra-expensive luxury real estate in cities like New York purely to park capital and preserve wealth globally, prompting states like Texas to ban buyers from China from doing the same. - [51:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=3100s) Houston's centralized, city-run approach to homelessness accountability successfully reduced its homeless population using only 10% of the per-person budget spent by Los Angeles's decentralized nonprofit network. - [01:00:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=3635s) Gen Z spends 25% of their restaurant budget on food delivery services carrying a 90% markup, contributing heavily to a lifestyle where individuals routinely spend over $1,000 a month dining out. - [01:10:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=4229s) The classic American dream of homeownership has been replaced by the flexibility of renting, as the stock market has consistently outperformed residential real estate over the last 50 years. - [01:13:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=4438s) The gender wealth divide is heavily driven by educational major selection rather than wage discrimination, with women borrowing large sums for lower-ROI degrees while men gravitate toward higher-income STEM fields. - [01:21:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=4903s) South Korea faces the worst demographic collapse in the world, fueled by the feminist 4B movement, extreme sexlessness rates among young people, and algorithmic echo chambers. - [01:18:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=4688s) The United States is experiencing a severe higher education gender inversion, with women holding 60% to 65% of new degrees while young men drop out of college entirely due to a red pill victim mentality. - [01:34:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=5640s) A large segment of the population treats a victim mindset as a core identity, seeking emotional validation from financial advisors rather than addressing actionable behavioral choices like high-interest credit card usage. - [01:37:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=5828s) Financial consolidation or bankruptcy is useless without underlying behavior modification, such as demonstrating adherence to basic financial structures like the 50/30/20 rule. - [01:45:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=6323s) The systemic decline of vocational programs in modern education was catalyzed by historical policy changes and tax revolts of the late 1970s, which stripped schools of workshop budgets. - [01:59:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=7159s) A six-month emergency fund is a critical baseline for survival over the traditional three-month standard due to modern global uncertainties like sudden corporate layoffs and economic shutdowns. - [02:01:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=7263s) While Bitcoin and Ethereum have actual utility, meme coins and get-rich-quick tokens operate as unregulated gambling pump-and-dump schemes where 85% of day traders lose money. - [02:11:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=7902s) Federal student loans represent the largest default category in the country at 11%, worsened by a system where unlimited government borrowing limits naturally incentivize universities to hike tuition costs.

## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=1s) Personal Debt and the "Jerry Springer of Finance"

Joe Rogan welcomes his guest, a personal finance content creator, praising him as a "very sensible person" who frequently has to deal with highly unreasonable individuals. Rogan asks how he manages to keep his composure during these stressful interactions, leading the guest to share his own financial origin story. Like many Americans, he fell into the trap of student loans and credit card debt during his college years. He admits to pursuing a "complete" garbage degree in music composition and recalls receiving a terrible piece of financial advice from his parents at age 18: to max out a credit card just to buy a specific piano he wanted.

The conversation expands into the broader landscape of American consumer debt. The guest notes that the total U.S. credit card debt has reached a staggering $1.6 trillion, with an alarming default rate hovering around 7%. Even more shocking to both speakers is that the country holds more auto loan debt than credit card debt, largely driven by the American obsession with expensive pickup trucks. The guest recalls driving a Nissan Altima back then, thinking he was "sick" while actually drowning in brutal family and personal debt. His wakeup call arrived while sitting in a subpar apartment he could barely afford, realizing his dream of homeownership—the classic American picture-perfect life—was impossible under the weight of maxed-out credit cards and a mix of public and private student loans. He eventually pivoted to a sales job, dug himself out of debt, and built a fully funded emergency fund.

Rogan observes that people often don't know where to turn for guidance because their parents are frequently just as uneducated about money. He points out that most online financial experts are "very stiff" and incredibly boring to listen to. He credits his guest's massive popularity—drawing millions of views per episode across various platforms—to his raw, direct, and vocal style. The guest embraces this reputation, proudly accepting the title of the "Jerry Springer of Finance." He explains that dryly explaining an IRA to a camera doesn't engage viewers, whereas his content draws people into the world of personal finance by utilizing entertainment, relationship drama, and roasts. He particularly enjoys filming couples' episodes due to the universal nature of financial stress in relationships.

- **U.S. Credit Card Debt:** Sttands at $1.6 trillion. - **Credit Card Default Rate:** Approximately 7%, meaning nearly 1 out of 10 people default. - **Financial Literacy in Schools:** Nearly 40 out of 50 states now require a personal finance class in high school, a massive increase over the past decade.

---

[04:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=264s) The Student Loan Trap and Generational Critiques

Rogan argues that it is practically a "crime" that the education system fails to warn young people about the dangers of compounding debt before they commit to massive loans. While higher education is inherently valuable, Rogan stresses that spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a degree you will never use is highly damaging, especially for 18-year-olds who have no clear life direction and whose parents often blindly advise them to borrow whatever it takes. Rogan notes that this advice stems from an older era when a college degree or a master's degree automatically guaranteed a high-paying job and a house, whereas today it frequently leaves young graduates saddled with unmanageable debt that compounds aggressively over time.

The guest expands on why student loans spiral out of control, attributing a portion of the crisis to human nature and short-term thinking. Graduates often choose 20-year or 40-year extended repayment schedules rather than the standard 10-year plan because they want to free up immediate cash to afford apartments, dates, and trips. He compares this to stretching a standard 30-year mortgage into a 60-year mortgage, which causes the total interest paid to balloon into an astronomical sum. He references specific repayment assistance options, stating that monthly payments can drop to as little as 1% of an individual's income. However, because these minimal payments fail to cover the accumulating interest, the principal balance grows endlessly, leaving borrowers trapped under the debt until it is eventually forgiven after decades.

The dialogue shifts to a recent article Rogan read regarding retired citizens who are actively having their Social Security benefits docked by the government to pay off lingering student loans. The guest confesses that he has completely lost sympathy for the Baby Boomer generation regarding these issues. He highlights that Boomers lived through the greatest job, housing, and stock market eras in human history. He complains that almost every older guest on his show spent heavily to maintain a luxurious lifestyle—such as buying new BMWs—without setting aside even a basic 5% to 10% of their monthly income. Had they consistently invested that small percentage into the booming stock market of their youth, they would easily be multi-millionaires today. Instead, many are entering retirement broke, a crisis compounded by projections indicating that the core Social Security fund will run dry by 2033, forcing a mandatory 25% cut to all standard payments.

- **Standard Public Student Loan Plan:** Features a baseline 10-year repayment schedule. - **Social Security Depletion:** The main fund is projected to dry up by 2033, meaning outgoing payments will rely entirely on incoming tax revenues.

---

[08:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=512s) Government Waste and the California Infrastructure Debate

The speakers pivot to government spending and fiscal mismanagement, sparked by a conversation about why California Governor Gavin Newsom declined to appear on Rogan's podcast. Rogan compares government debt and state spending to an overwhelming garbage dump that people simply refuse to look into because the sheer scale of the waste, potential fraud, and missing funds is too daunting. He highlights public frustrations over massive sums vanishing from state budgets, specifically pointing out billions of dollars allocated for homelessness initiatives alongside the infamous California High-Speed Rail project, which has consumed massive funding with remarkably little to show for it.

The guest expresses deep frustration that the United States, as a global leader, lacks a world-class high-speed rail network. He expresses a strong personal desire for a transit line that could connect major Texas hubs like Dallas and Houston in just a couple of hours. However, he jokes that if you give California any major infrastructure project, "they'll find a way to mess it up and lose all the money." Rogan recalls a comparison video circulating on Instagram highlighting how much high-speed infrastructure China successfully managed to construct and fully operationalize in the exact same timeframe that California spent billions of dollars failing to complete its own line.

To get exact figures, Rogan prompts his producer, Jamie, to pull up the official data regarding the high-speed rail's current expenditures and progress. Jamie reveals that the state has spent a sum in the mid-teens of billions—roughly $14 billion to $16 billion as of the mid-2020s. When Rogan sarcastically asks how many miles are actually completed, Jamie notes that about 119 miles are currently under "active construction" in the Central Valley, spanning from Madera to near Bakersfield. Rogan laughs mockingly at the concept of spending $14 billion to connect those specific areas, joking that the homeless population must be furious that the capital wasn't diverted to support them. The guest adds cynically that even if the train line is eventually finished, riders will likely just have to deal with fare-evaders jumping the barriers and people openly doing drugs inside the cars.

- **California High-Speed Rail Cost:** Between $14 billion and $16 billion spent by the mid-2020s. - **Construction Progress:** Zero miles fully operational; 119 miles under active construction between Madera and Bakersfield.

---

[11:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=702s) Simple Wealth Building vs. Social Media Day Trading

The guest reads aloud the results of a financial simulation he ran to demonstrate the power of long-term investing. He calculated that if an individual was 25 years old in 1990, earned an average U.S. salary for 40 years, and consistently saved just 5% to 10% of their income per month in an S&P 500 index fund, they would currently possess between $2 million and $5 million depending on specific baseline variables. Rogan finds the historical perspective staggering, especially when looking at the reality of monetary inflation. He highlights that the average American salary back in 1990 was a mere $21,000, a number that sounds completely impossible to survive on by modern standards. The guest notes that despite starting with such low wages, the mathematics of compound interest still allowed those workers to retire as multi-millionaires.

When Rogan asks how an ordinary person should actually begin investing, the guest strongly advocates for low-cost index funds. For the average citizen who does not have a dedicated financial advisor, he points out the extreme simplicity of target-date retirement funds offered by major firms like Fidelity. These funds allow investors to choose a target window based on their estimated retirement year; the fund then handles all the asset allocation automatically, maintaining an aggressive growth strategy during the investor's youth and gradually shifting toward a conservative, protective structure as they near retirement age. He expresses confusion over why so many workers fail to take advantage of these simple tools, particularly within employer-sponsored 401(k) accounts where companies offer literal "free money" via corporate matching programs.

The conversation takes a serious turn as the guest highlights a dangerous modern trend regarding younger investors under the age of 30. He reveals that an astonishing 60% of young investors are constructing and executing their portfolio trades based entirely on the advice of the podcasters and internet livestreamers they watch. He explains that if you log onto platforms like Kick or Twitch in the morning, some of the most-viewed channels are financial day-traders drawing over 25,000 concurrent viewers and hundreds of thousands of daily views. These streamers broadcast their active portfolios live, allowing thousands of inexperienced viewers to blindly mirror their exact trades.

The guest compares this copycat behavior to the popular online trend of tracking and copying the stock trades of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The guest hilariously admits that he actually invested $1,000 of his own cash into a fund that mirrors Pelosi's stock moves. To his amusement, that account is currently outperforming his professional money managers, gaining roughly 20% to 30% in just a few months. Rogan and his guest marvel at how it remains completely legal for politicians to trade stocks when they possess insider knowledge of monumental federal policy shifts. Rogan points out the obvious conflict of interest, explaining how a politician can know ahead of time that a massive government deal is coming down the pipeline for artificial intelligence hardware, purchase massive amounts of Nvidia stock right before passing the legislation, and subsequently watch their personal net worth enjoy a 500% increase.

- **1990 Average Salary:** $21,000 per year. - **Youth Investment Behavior:** 60% of investors under the age of 30 follow financial advice or mirror trades directly from podcasters and livestreamers. - **Livestream Scale:** Day-trading channels on platforms like Kick and Twitch easily pull in 25,000 concurrent live viewers.

Insider Trading, Predictive Bets, and George Santos

The conversation shifts toward the legal boundaries of information sharing and insider trading, specifically touching upon how difficult these actions are to track. After briefly mentioning individuals involved in operations for Maduro in Venezuela getting into trouble, the speakers focus on former Representative George Santos. They react with amusement and disbelief to a fresh scandal involving Santos. He allegedly went on Instagram to confidently declare he would 100% be at the State of the Union, even showing off his seat, only to immediately place a bet that he would not attend.

Four people close to Santos have reportedly been working with the FTC regarding this predictive betting incident. The speakers laugh at the sheer absurdity of the scam, noting that Santos is a "sassy gay guy" who is "perfect for the camera." They argue that instead of running scams, he could easily make millions of dollars by simply hosting a YouTube show or a podcast because he is smart, fun, and "talks a lot of [ __ ]."

The discussion expands to predictive marketplaces like Poly Market, where odds are placed on what the hosts themselves will say or do on the show. One speaker recalls telling his producer, Jamie, to "shut that [ __ ] laptop and do not open that website ever again," acknowledging how incredibly easy it would be for them or an ordinary user to manipulate those odds through an offshore account.

- **Nancy Pelosi as a Scapegoat:** The speakers point out that while Nancy Pelosi is frequently criticized for her stock market gains, insider trading is a completely bipartisan issue across Congress. - **Congress Demographics:** They criticize the trend of politicians entering Congress broke and leaving incredibly wealthy on a standard $100,000 yearly salary, showing no real interest in passing bills that restrict their investments to large-cap index funds like the S&P 500.

---

The Extensive Lies and Commutation of George Santos

Fascinated by the fresh news, the host asks Jamie to look up the details of the Santos case. They review an NPR report where Santos, when asked about the insider trading probe on the platform Koshi (also referred to as Cali/Cowi), claimed the investigation was "news to me." Santos noted that the platform's co-founder, Lana Lopez Lara, is a fellow Brazilian he knows personally, and promised to call her to find out what was happening, though he never followed up with the reporters. The speakers note that this pattern of behavior is typical for him, given his extensive history of altering the truth.

Jamie pulls up a summary of Santos's background using Perplexity, revealing a massive web of fraudulent biographical and financial claims. The speakers read through a list of his fabrications, noting with dark humor how deep the deception went. Despite this "mountain of lies, theft, and fraud," which initially landed him an 87-month prison sentence for wire fraud and aggravated identity theft alongside an expulsion from the House, he was released early after a presidential action.

The hosts explore the legal mechanics of how Santos got out of prison, clarifying that he did not receive a full pardon, but rather a sentence commutation from Donald Trump in October 2025. This action ordered his immediate release from his seven-year sentence but left his criminal convictions fully intact. Trump framed the decision by stating Santos had been "horribly mistreated" in solitary confinement, which commentators widely viewed as part of a broader pattern of granting clemency to political loyalists.

- **Educational Fraud:** Santos falsely claimed he graduated *summa cum laude* with degrees from Baruch College and NYU, despite having no college degree at all. - **Career & Heritage Fabrications:** He claimed to be a seasoned Wall Street financier who worked at Goldman Sachs and City Group—both of which have no record of him—and falsely claimed Jewish heritage, asserting his grandparents were Holocaust refugees. - **Personal Life Inventions:** He claimed his mother's death was tied to 9/11 (she actually died in 2016) and claimed to have founded an animal rescue charity that saved 2,500 pets, which left no official records. - **Campaign Misuse:** His short tenure in the House ended in expulsion after an ethics report exposed his personal luxury spending using campaign funds.

---

Presidential Pardons and the Legality of the Autopen

The conversation transitions into a broader critique of presidential clemency powers, labeled by the host as "a crazy loophole that still exists that makes no logical sense whatsoever." They express skepticism over the fairness of a system where knowing the right person can get you out of a bank robbery charge, while ordinary citizens remain stuck in prison forever. The speakers focus heavily on the Biden administration, claiming they "pardoned more people than ever" and questioning the legality of using an autopen to sign off on those decisions.

The hosts discuss the conceptual absurdity of "preemptive pardons" for crimes that haven't even been formally accused yet. They argue that the heavy reliance on automated signatures shows a lack of engagement from the president himself, suggesting that unnamed entities behind the scenes are actually directing the process. They lament how the system is heavily prone to corruption, operating on a casual network of corporate donations, friends of friends, and political favors.

---

Rogue Prosecutors vs. Soft-on-Crime Policies

The host states that if he were president, he would "pardon a fuckload of people," referencing his extensive work with the Innocent Project and the Ike Perlmutter Center for Legal Justice. He shines a light on "rogue prosecutors," district attorneys, and police officers who actively hide evidence to secure dozens of wrongful convictions just to boost their career statistics. The host heavily criticizes their mindset, explaining how these officials justify their actions by telling themselves the suspect was a bad person anyway, before casually going out to "Mortons and have a steak."

However, the speakers contrast this issue of wrongful convictions with the opposite extreme: ultra-progressive, "soft-on-crime" policies implemented by liberal DAs in major cities. They argue that these DAs refuse to prosecute repeat offenders out of a misguided desire to correct historical or systemic societal injustices, leading to dangerous consequences. They point out that a massive percentage of violent crimes are committed by a very small group of chronic, repeat offenders who are continuously let loose back into communities.

The conversation traces the ideological roots of these policies back to around 2015, referencing content from creators like the Vlogbrothers regarding the "prison-industrial complex." One speaker admits he "ate it alive" at the time, but argues that this perspective went completely unchallenged by mainstream media outside of a few voices on Fox News. This unchallenged narrative culminated in the political shifts following the 2020 George Floyd protests, leading to a system where significant property damage goes unpunished, and felony theft thresholds are raised dramatically. They conclude by targeting wealthy donors like George Soros and the Open Society Foundation, accusing them of intentionally funding hyper-progressive politicians to pull major metropolitan legal systems further and further to the left, resulting in extreme real-world violence.

- **Austin Violence:** The speakers note that virtually every violent crime in Austin involving repeat criminals could have been prevented if the offenders weren't repeatedly let loose, pointing to a tragic local incident where a man murdered his family after multiple releases. - **New York City Transit Crime:** They highlight a case where an individual who pushed someone onto the subway tracks had been arrested over a dozen times prior. - **The 50% Statistic:** The hosts cite data showing that roughly 50% of all robberies and violent crimes in cities like New York are committed by a tiny pool of repeat offenders. - **Theft Thresholds:** They highlight how progressive DAs in cities like Chicago and San Francisco dramatically raised felony theft thresholds to around $900, resulting in uninhibited property damage. - **California Incidents:** They reference a case under a previous Los Angeles DA where a criminal who attacked a sheriff with a knife was let out, only to subsequently attack a man and his children with a machete.

[30:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=1855s) The Economics of District Attorneys and the Impact on Public Transit

The conversation begins with a critical look at the motivations behind soft-on-crime prosecutors and district attorneys (DAs). One speaker mentions having deep conversations with Elon Musk about George Soros's political strategy, explaining that funding local DA campaigns is an incredibly high-yield financial investment. While funding presidential or gubernatorial campaigns requires massive amounts of money, local DA races are relatively inexpensive. Yet, by installing just one "insane DA," an investor can completely destabilize an entire city, yielding a massive return on investment for those who wish to see society fail. The speakers recall a particularly controversial DA in Los Angeles—whom they tentatively identify as "Garza"—who was heavily criticized for releasing violent offenders back into the public.

This leads into an anecdote about a former gang leader who recorded a podcast announcing his departure from Los Angeles because it had become too dangerous. The former gang member sounded the alarm that prisons were releasing thousands of violent individuals due to overcrowding, famously stating, "This is too hot. We got to get out of here." This lawlessness directly impacts public infrastructure. One speaker expresses a deep personal love for dense, communal living and public transit, but laments that cities cannot have nice things because progressive policies allow violent criminals to overrun them. In cities like San Francisco, people openly hop train fares and smoke methamphetamine inside transit cars, completely ruining the experience for law-abiding citizens.

* The speakers express a desire for Austin to have an incredible subway system, but note it is impossible if violent criminals and untreated mentally ill individuals are permitted to overrun public spaces. * One speaker shares a personal observation of driving past a bus stop on South Lamar in Austin, Texas, and seeing someone light up a meth pipe, rendering the space unusable for families and normal commuters.

[33:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=2012s) Algorithmic Capture and the "Moral Masturbation" of Progressive Policies

When asked to don a "tinfoil hat" and assess why politicians allow violent criminals to continuously cycle back onto the streets instead of protecting taxpaying citizens, the guest points to "political capture" driven by modern technology. Using TikTok as a prime example, he notes that within three minutes of joining an app, algorithms successfully categorize users into ideological echo chambers where they are completely insulated from alternative perspectives. This dynamic has driven younger generations, particularly young women, further to the political extreme left than any other generation in United States history.

This algorithmic isolation fosters what the guest terms "moral masturbation"—clinging to policies simply because they sound compassionate on paper, regardless of their real-world devastation. Around 2015 to 2020, a cultural narrative took hold suggesting that the entire prison system was inherently evil, conflating violent crime with minor offenses like marijuana possession. Policies like rent control, halting homeless encampment sweeps, and avoiding long prison sentences feel morally righteous to the politically captured. However, this environment has become deeply intolerant; the guest notes that if you disagree with even one percent of the orthodoxy, you are immediately branded a "Nazi" and ostracized.

* The guest notes that he historically considered himself left-of-center socially, though he has moved toward the center-right economically over the last few years. * While attending music school in college, the guest was viewed as "borderline like a Nazi" by his far-left peers simply for suggesting that taxes shouldn't fund certain bureaucratic bloat. * The host argues that while political capture explains voter behavior, it doesn't excuse the deliberate manipulation by elite donors who fund these destructive campaigns.

[36:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=2186s) The Self-Serving Nature of Politicians and the Gavin Newsom Voodoo Dance

The host rejects the idea that mega-donors like George Soros genuinely believe they are doing the right thing for the prison system, stating that Soros has historically built his wealth by banking on the collapse of societies while remaining "spiritually immune" to the real-world consequences of his actions. The guest admits a personal flaw of assuming people have good intentions until proven otherwise, but the host counters that modern politicians merely pretend to believe in positive outcomes to justify their self-serving behavior. To illustrate this, the host points to California Governor Gavin Newsom, asserting that in any other era or political climate, Newsom "could easily be a Republican."

The host mocks Newsom's political survival tactics, explaining that whenever the governor is confronted with California's compounding crises, he pivots into a highly rehearsed, scripted performance. Newsom will boast about California having the biggest tech sector or being the fourth-largest economy in the world while wildly gesturing with his hands—a routine the host hilariously dismisses as a "little [__] voodoo dance." Rather than addressing actual human suffering or systemic failure, the performance is entirely about framing the situation to protect his personal image and advance his career.

* Newsom has recently started migrating back toward the political center, actively opposing a proposed billionaire tax in California as he eyes a future presidential run. * Independent economic reports indicate that while a billionaire tax captures tens of billions of dollars in the short term, it loses hundreds of billions long-term because mobile wealth simply exits the state. * The host warns that targeted wealth taxes are a slippery slope, noting that they always start with billionaires but inevitably work their way down to average earners.

[38:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=2319s) The Hypocrisy of Democratic Socialists and the Fantasy of Communism

The discussion shifts to how progressive politicians shift the goalposts once tax legislation passes, pointing directly to Senator Bernie Sanders as a prime example of systemic hypocrisy. The host laughs at how Sanders used to passionately rail against "millionaires" and their failure to pay a fair share, but conveniently altered his rhetoric to target "billionaires" once he became a millionaire himself, calling it "adorable in its transparency." The speakers express deep concern over a massive influx of university graduates who genuinely believe communism is a viable solution, pointing out a fundamental blind spot in how these students expect communist mandates to be enforced.

``` [University System] ➔ Teaches Theoretical Communism ➔ Ignores Real-World Enforcement │ (Requires State Coercion & Gun Ownership) ▼ [Military Dictatorship] ```

The host points out that enforcing communism inherently requires total state control over property, finance, housing, and agriculture, meaning power is consolidated entirely by the individuals holding the guns. When confronted, college students often conflate communism with the social safety nets of Scandinavia. However, the speakers note that Nordic models are not socialist at all; their social programs are entirely funded by robust, underlying free-market capitalism.

* The host criticizes university professors as "literal prisoners" who transition seamlessly from students to academics without ever operating in the real world, starting a business, or experiencing the private job market. * Academic departments suffer from extreme political monocultures; the speakers cite sociology departments packed with 300 Democrats to a single registered Republican. * One speaker shares a college anecdote where a visiting professor played a music selection, and when the speaker described the music as "weird," he was subjected to a 10-minute lecture on how the word "weird" is deeply rooted in colonialism, slavery, and violence against people of color.

[43:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=2617s) Ideological Intolerance and the Destruction of American Cities

The host emphasizes that true diversity must include a diversity of thought, finding it ironic that the loudest advocates for cultural diversity completely reject any viewpoint to the right of their own. While the host identifies as very liberal socially, he aligns with the right financially because capitalism acknowledges basic human nature. He argues that socialism fundamentally fails because it punishes ambition and rewards entitlement, creating a system where the successful are penalized while no one asks the lazy or unmotivated, "Why aren't you doing well?" Furthermore, the public narrative around taxes has turned predatory; instead of advocating taxes to fund genuine public goods, the online sentiment has degraded into a bitter ethos of: "That person has a lot of money. Let's take some."

The conversation wraps up with a scathing critique of progressive mayors who remain indifferent to the destruction of their own tax bases. They point to online activists doxxing high-net-worth individuals like Citadel CEO Ken Griffin, highlighting how activist rhetoric celebrates driving wealth out of cities like New York and into places like Miami. The guest singles out a progressive politician in Seattle who openly laughed on camera as major corporations, jobs, and tax revenues fled the city center.

* The host points out the hypocrisy of demanding higher taxes while thousands of ambiguous non-governmental organizations (NGOs) mismanage billions of dollars in highly mysterious ways. * Seattle currently suffers from the second-highest downtown office vacancy rate in the United States. * Rather than leaving the state of Washington entirely, fleeing companies are simply relocating across the water to Bellevue, where corporate giants like Microsoft are building new campuses.

[46:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=2776s) Real Estate, Rent Control, and the "Communism" of Property Seizure

The speakers open with a critique of a politician who has famously never held a traditional job before becoming "the head of a [__] city." This transitions into a debate over a recent statement by a politician named Madani, who suggested that the government might seize properties from "bad landlords." The hosts immediately mock this concept, jokingly comparing it to the rise of communism in North Korea. They mimic a regime's logic by saying, "the farm is spending too much money for a tomato. We're going to take over the farm." While they doubt such measures would ever survive the court system, they find it alarming that mainstream political discourse has reached this point.

The conversation shifts to the root causes behind these seemingly neglected properties. They argue that so-called bad landlords are often dealing with rent-controlled units that do not generate enough revenue to cover basic maintenance costs. Consequently, a massive percentage of units in the most populated city in the country sit entirely empty because updating them is financially impossible under the current legal framework. The system is described as "absolute brutal" and ultimately "performative," failing the very people who desperately need housing.

[47:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=2859s) Wealth Preservation and Luxury Ghost Apartments

The discussion moves to another phenomenon in New York City real estate: billionaires purchasing ultra-expensive apartments merely as a safe place to park capital, with no intention of ever living in them. The speakers note that American and international billionaires treat real estate as a protective asset to preserve wealth, a practice that happens globally, including in Europe. While Texas has famously banned buyers from China from doing this, the speakers agree that while the strategy makes perfect sense from a wealth preservation standpoint, it is "shitty for the residents of the city."

They debate Kevin O'Leary's counter-perspective on the matter. O'Leary argues that these wealthy buyers are net contributors to the city because they pay massive property taxes into public services while using absolutely zero infrastructure or public resources. While one speaker finds that argument logical, the other counters that it still leaves a physical space empty where a real resident could be living. They laugh about the fact that developers only built these $100 million properties—like the ones bought by Ken Griffin—because they knew billionaires would buy them as investments.

- The speakers mention a "kooky" tower off Central Park shaped like a popsicle stick that reportedly waves in the wind, makes strange noises, and has issues with glass falling from it. - Engineers of this narrow tower had to worry less about it sinking and more about it lifting out of the ground due to the wind rocking it back and forth. - Units in this specific building are currently hard to sell because buyers realize they might get stuck with a depreciating asset.

[49:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=2984s) Auditing the Pentagon and Wasteful Government Spending

The tone shifts to broader economic concerns and government accountability. One speaker expresses a willingness to pay higher taxes but admits to an intense fear of where the money actually goes. He mentions wanting to invite Senator Marco Rubio onto his show to ask why the Pentagon has failed to pass an audit for nearly a decade. Despite the military taking up 10% to 20% of the federal budget, it operates without a passed budget or a successful audit, even as politicians push to raise defense spending to a trillion dollars a year.

The speakers tie this lack of transparency back to domestic issues, lamenting that citizens would gladly fund clean streets and great schools if the system weren't rampant with waste and fraud. They point to the staggering $24 billion spent on the homelessness crisis in California as a prime example of unauditable, ineffective spending. Instead of solving the issue, homelessness actively increased during that timeframe, proving that throwing money at the problem has been "the opposite of effective." They criticize the political ecosystem, stating that the money is funneled into a self-perpetuating network of nonprofit jobs where executives make extraordinary salaries while doing a terrible job.

[51:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=3100s) The Houston vs. Los Angeles Homelessness Models

The speakers contrast the failed, fragmented nonprofit network of Los Angeles with the centralized approach of Houston, Texas. Houston uses a single, city-run organization that is directly accountable to voters and the city council. By cutting out endless nonprofit jobs with misaligned incentives, Houston has managed to significantly decrease its homeless population using only about 10% of the budget per homeless person compared to LA.

The structural costs and philosophies between the two regions differ wildly. A shelter room for a recovering homeless individual costs a few hundred thousand dollars in Houston, whereas it skyrockets to a million dollars or more in California due to extreme permitting issues, red tape, environmental codes, and extortionate labor union contracts. Furthermore, California insists on a "housing first" philosophy that took off a couple of decades ago, giving people multi-million dollar apartments before they get clean, which often results in the properties being completely trashed. Texas cities reverse this, focusing on getting individuals clean first before moving them into permanent housing. They mock how California sticks to failed policies for 15 years in an echo chamber, blindly adding more funding while calling any critics "Nazis."

- The speakers recall an infamous story from LA regarding a homeless man dubbed "chair guy," who built chairs inside his taxpayer-funded apartment before accidentally burning the unit down.

[52:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=3154s) The Danger and Chaos of Austin's Sixth Street

The conversation hits a personal note as the speakers talk about the state of downtown Austin, Texas. One host mentions owning a comedy club on Sixth Street, leading the other to joke that he goes there all the time and "almost get[s] shanked." They describe the back alleys of Sixth Street as terrifying places that look like something out of a Batman movie from the 1980s or 90s. They criticize the political rhetoric that labels leaving severely mentally ill people in dangerous alleys as "sympathetic" or "nice."

A particularly bizarre aspect of Sixth Street's geography is that a massive homeless shelter sits exactly one block away from a booming district filled with loud bars, drinking, and comedy clubs. This creates an impossible environment for recovering addicts who are trying to stay clean. Because drugs are prohibited inside the shelter, tents and crowds of users completely surround the outside area, the local police station, and the parking areas used by comedy show patrons. They call it an "apocalyptic" and "nuts" situation where people are openly doing drugs right in front of the police.

- Polling data from homeless populations suggests at least 25% suffer from severe mental health issues, though the speakers estimate the real number of mental health and addiction cases is closer to 80%. - One speaker recounts taking visiting podcasters downtown, only to immediately witness a man twirling and wielding a machete on Sixth Street. - The city is currently investing heavily to open high-end restaurants and businesses on Sixth Street to slowly clean up the area.

[55:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=3357s) Private Business Incentives vs. Social Media Echo Chambers

The host argues that the root of society's failure to solve these crises stems from a completely captured government and a lack of market accountability. If cleaning up homelessness were structured as a private business, an organization would go broke and lose its investors if it failed to deliver results. However, because it is structured around nonprofits, executives can easily pull a "$700,000 a year salary" while doing a terrible job with zero fear of unemployment. They lament that competing political philosophies ignore basic reality and rely on defensive echo chambers on social media to justify their failures.

These intense online echo chambers have created an environment where younger generations are increasingly tolerant of political violence. The host shares that he regularly receives doxing attempts and severe death threats in his inbox just for sharing basic fiscal advice. "They call me a fascist for saying don't spend more money than you make," he explains, adding that he now has to live in fear and hire personal security.

The segment ends with the host explaining the bizarre reasons he gets targeted online. Aside from his financial advice, people get offended on behalf of others over his comedy shows. He notes that he performs "consensual roasts" where he checks in with audience members beforehand using a "no-no list" to avoid sensitive topics. Despite running a moral, consensual comedy show, online detractors get furious over him roasting people's features. Just the day prior, he received a literal death threat on Twitter simply for tweeting that Americans spend too much money on their cars.

[01:00:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=3635s) Personal Responsibility and the "Victim Complex"

The conversation opens with a bit of humor about a hostile comment Caleb Hammer received from someone in San Antonio, joking that the user suggested Caleb should stop breathing air or come up and kill him over his automotive opinions. This serves as a springboard into a deeper discussion about personal finance culture in America. Caleb defends the core thesis of his show, countering critics who label him "evil" for not focusing on the systemic issues that cause financial hardship. He emphasizes that his platform is a "personal responsibility show" because individuals possess far more agency than they are willing to admit. While acknowledging harsh economic realities—such as skyrocketing costs for housing, schooling, and healthcare—he points out that Americans currently live in the highest disposable income society in human history.

Caleb targets Generation Z specifically, calling their dining-out habits "insane" compared to previous generations. He highlights that 25% of Gen Z's restaurant spending goes toward food delivery services, which carry a staggering 90% markup. When guests on his show routinely spend $1,000 a month on McDonald's and other eateries, Caleb finds it hard to sympathize with their complaints about not being able to afford a dream apartment. He critiques the modern "victim complex" surrounding basic tasks like meal prepping, drawing a stark contrast to the 1950s. Back then, workers bought tiny, mass-produced starter homes but endured miserable, sweaty manual labor in offices and factories without air conditioning. Today, people work in air-conditioned offices and view cooking at home as an unfair burden.

- Food delivery services utilized by Gen Z carry a **90% markup**. - Spending **$1,000 a month** on dining out and fast food is a normal baseline for guests appearing on Caleb's show. - Cutting out a **$28 meal three times a week** and investing that money into the S&P 500 can build a "halfway decent retirement fund."

[01:03:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=3818s) The Trillion-Dollar Car Loan Obsession

The discussion shifts to the massive financial strain Americans place on themselves through vehicle ownership. Caleb laments that his guests—primarily Gen Z and millennials—act like absolute victims, convinced they will literally die if they drive a 2025 model instead of a brand-new 2027 car. When pressed on whether guests actually say this, Caleb clarifies that they hide behind the excuse of wanting a "safe car" for their kids, implicitly suggesting that a vehicle from just two or three years prior would spontaneously blow up on the highway. This psychological need for the newest model fuels an American car loan debt crisis totaling $1.5 to $1.6 trillion.

The speakers agree that from a technological standpoint, a car from 2020 features the exact same safety standards—like airbags and anti-lock brakes—as a car from 2026. To combat this financial ignorance, Caleb shares a major tip for car enthusiasts: buy a two-year-old electric vehicle (EV). He notes that the used market for luxury EVs, specifically electric Porsches and Audi e-trons, has completely cratered because "nobody wants them," making them unbelievable bargains.

- Total American car loan debt sits between **$1.5 trillion and $1.6 trillion**. - A 2022 Audi e-tron can be found used for **$25,000**, and a 2023 model goes for **$27,000** with only **37,000 miles** on it, representing a price drop of over 50% from its original MSRP. - These used EVs feature all-wheel drive, premium trim packages, lower maintenance needs than internal combustion engines, and a practical **226-mile battery range**.

[01:06:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=4008s) The Realities of EV Ownership and Status Symbols

The conversation balances out as the speakers debate the logistical nightmares of owning an electric vehicle without a dedicated home garage. One speaker notes that if they were a woman, they would never buy an EV without a house, citing the vulnerability of sitting at a public charging station for 30 to 45 minutes every day compared to a quick 10-day gas station cycle. Even in modern apartment complexes that offer overnight charging, structural friction persists; tenants plug their cars in and leave them indefinitely, prompting a joke about flattening their tires. Despite these hurdles, Caleb maintains that workplace charging stations make EVs an incredible option for those who can make it work, though most show guests choose to defend their 8-year terms on $60,000 SUVs "to the death."

The root cause of this behavior is chalked up to American culture, where a person is deemed a failure without a house and a shiny new car. People deeply care about what the driver next to them thinks at a stoplight, particularly when they aren't doing well financially. This leads to the poorest individuals prioritizing souped-up cars, expensive clothes, and flashy wealth symbols over decent living conditions as a psychological "reward for this job that sucks." The conversation takes a brief tangent into Tesla fandom, where the speakers mourn that Elon Musk stopped manufacturing the Model S and Model X. They joke that the end of the overengineered, dancing Model X marks the "rise of the robots" as Tesla pivots resources toward Optimus Prime robots.

- Public EV charging takes roughly **30 to 45 minutes** per session. - Financial desperation often causes people to sign up for predatory **8-year terms** on large, $60,000 SUVs. - Guest quote on the cultural trap: *"You need a car to get to your job and you need a job to get to your car."*

[01:10:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=4229s) Rethinking the American Dream of Homeownership

When asked if guests ever experience an epiphany when confronted with these automotive facts, Caleb admits that breaking through the car obsession is incredibly difficult. While clients easily agree to close a credit card, they remain fiercely defensive about their vehicles. True perspective shifts usually happen weeks later, after the episode drops and "millions of people [expletive] all over them in the comments." Homeownership is an even tougher barrier to break, though Caleb actively advises people against buying houses in the current market due to prevailing interest rates.

Caleb argues that the classic American dream of owning a home is dead, replaced by the financial freedom and geographic flexibility of renting. For modern generations who want to travel and pivot quickly for new jobs, a house acts as a financial prison that locks up massive amounts of capital in a down payment. Historically, real estate built the middle class, but over the last 50 years, the stock market has consistently outperformed it. Caleb asserts that if a renter takes their down payment money and puts it into the S&P 500 instead of a mortgage, they "will win every time." However, he concedes a psychological loophole: because Americans generally "suck at investing" and prefer to blow extra cash on vacations, a house serves as a necessary form of "forced investing" for the undisciplined.

- The **S&P 500** historically outperforms residential real estate as a wealth-building vehicle. - Homeowners who locked in historically low interest rates are currently "stuck" in place, unwilling to trade up for a house they actually want due to high current market rates. - Renting from large corporations often beats renting from "mom and pop" landlords due to 24/7 corporate maintenance staff who fix problems overnight.

[01:13:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=4438s) The Unknown Horizon of AI and Job Displacement

The segment wraps up with a forward-looking question about how Gen Z and millennial guests should view their futures in light of artificial intelligence. With students investing massive amounts of money into college degrees for careers that may soon be obsolete, anxiety is running rampant. Caleb takes a grounded, highly skeptical stance on the mainstream discourse, stating, "I don't 100% want to listen to anyone that says they know what's going to happen." He dismisses both the extreme doomers who claim every job will vanish and the techno-optimists who promise a massive boom of new roles, concluding that no one truly knows what lies on the other side of the AI hill.

[01:14:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=4481s) AI Vulnerability and the Real Roots of the Gender Wealth Gap

The conversation opens with a discussion on how the trades have been incredibly smart regarding the rise of artificial intelligence. Occupations like being an electrician are largely insulated from automation because AI "is probably not coming" for jobs that require highly specialized physical labor. In contrast, higher education choices over the past decade have been a massive, consequential mistake for many young adults. This misallocation of college majors is framed as a leading cause of the widely discussed gender wealth divide. When comparing men and women with the same job, experience, and background, their pay is actually 99% identical. The real divergence happens at the college level, where a high percentage of women have statistically borrowed large sums of money to pursue lower-ROI (Return on Investment) degrees like sociology, psychology, and the arts—fields that frequently lead to underemployment or service-industry work.

Meanwhile, men traditionally gravitate toward higher-income fields like engineering, mathematics, and the sciences, often willingly sacrificing job satisfaction for financial stability. Even when facing tech-sector turbulence, these STEM fields remain significantly more lucrative, which heavily skews the overall wealth gap data. The speakers note that this educational divide, alongside career interruptions post-childbirth, accounts for the bulk of pay disparities. AI is now aggressively accelerating these pre-existing mistakes. Entry-level data entry positions and, increasingly, even fields like therapy and creative writing are heavily susceptible to automation because people are surprisingly willing to trust AI systems. This impending wave of white-collar displacement sparks deep concern over widespread political radicalization among un- or underemployed young graduates.

- The UN and other reputable global tracking sources estimate that roughly 40% of global jobs are susceptible to being replaced by AI. - Developed nations like the United States, Canada, Australia, and European countries are expected to fare slightly better against AI displacement than developing hubs that rely heavily on outsourced customer service, such as India. - To build AI resistance, the speakers advise students to minimize student loan debt, utilize community colleges, and pivot toward fields requiring a distinct "creative edge" or manual complexity that algorithms cannot replicate.

[01:18:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=4688s) The Missing Men and the "Red Pill" Victim Mentality

After a brief pause in the recording where one of the speakers steps away, the conversation pivots to why women systematically choose fields like social work and nursing—which do immense good but generally pay less within the broader medical landscape—while men target the breadwinner tracks. Historically, society spent decades correcting the gender imbalance in higher education when universities were predominantly male, a push both speakers agree was fair and necessary. Today, however, a massive demographic inversion has taken place: women now make up roughly 60% to 65% of all new degree holders, and young men are dropping out of the higher education system entirely.

When questioned about what these young men are doing instead of going to school, the response is stark and unvarnished: "There are a lot of losers" who are completely detached from both education and the workforce. This growing cohort of young men isn't even registering for unemployment benefits; they are simply sitting at home. A primary catalyst for this stagnation is identified as the online "red pill victim mentality." Many of these men have internalised a belief that the entire system is rigged against them, citing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) policies and politically captured universities as insurmountable barriers keeping them from work or school. Lacking skills, experience, and motivation, it becomes easier to remain in their mothers' homes, playing video games and using drugs.

- Polling and surveys show that 30% to 40% of young men choosing to skip college state that they are doing so because higher education has become "too politically captured." - This mutual resentment has fueled highly volatile, online "gender wars" where young men and young women aggressively root against each other's success.

[01:21:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=4903s) The 4B Movement, Echo Chambers, and Demographic Collapse

The roots of modern gender hostility are traced back heavily to the political fallout of the 2016 U.S. presidential election, which deeply polarized Gen Z. This friction mirrors a radical phenomenon originating in South Korea known as the "4B movement." Born around 2015, this movement represents a severe feminist strike against an intensely patriarchal society and widespread digital sex crimes, where women choose to entirely opt out of relating to men. While a speaker quips that the Western participants driving this trend online may simply lack dating options, the broader societal data points to a massive, generational surge in sexlessness and unprecedented virginity rates among young people, which some strangely mask with religious copes. Digital algorithms worsen this divide by pushing users into echo chambers where "you need to have a villain," causing men and women to blame each other for their systemic struggles.

``` 4B Movement: The Four "Bi" (No) Rules ├── Bihon → No heterosexual marriage ├── Bichaos → No childbirth ├── Bione → No dating men └── Biseku → No sexual relations with men ```

The real-world consequence of these online echo chambers is an epidemic of acute isolation. While people generally aren't debating the 4B movement on physical street corners, they are choosing to stay trapped inside on screens, complaining on Reddit rather than building relationships, purely because "it feels good to be a victim" when an online ecosystem validates your grievances.

The conversation references a Reddit post highlighting the extreme stakes for women in South Korea, where a female professional's entire career can be terminated simply for liking a Women's March tweet from seven years prior due to "incel gamers throwing a fit." This total fragmentation between genders has led South Korea to face the worst demographic collapse in the world. The speakers note that a society can completely lose its culture if its population effectively ceases to exist by the end of the century. While motherhood historically shifts women ideologically toward the political right as they begin to worry about local crime, tax allocation, and safety, the United States has just hit its lowest birth rate since the Great Recession, falling far below the necessary replacement rate. To prevent a severe population contraction like Japan or South Korea, the discussion concludes with a defense of selective, high-skilled, and proportional immigration as a necessary, common-sense economic tool.

[01:29:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=5375s) The Economic Case for Selective Immigration

The conversation shifts to a discussion on the realities of immigration, with one speaker recalling accounts from friends who visited the border and described the sheer volume of unvetted crossings as "insane." While acknowledging the chaos, the focus quickly steers toward a strictly pragmatic economic perspective. The speaker states that despite the heated social rhetoric surrounding immigration, a growing job pool is a mathematical necessity to maintain the economy and support future retirements.

The core issue highlighted is the dependency ratio—the balance between non-working and working individuals. When Social Security was first implemented in the United States, that ratio was an incredibly healthy 60-to-1. Today, it has shrunk to somewhere between 10-to-1 or 5-to-1, signaling a dangerous trend. In places like South Korea, the ratio is rapidly approaching 1-to-1, which causes the entire financial system to break down. The speaker argues that if a domestic population isn't "making babies," the government has no choice but to bring people in, advocating for a selective, high-skilled immigration framework to prevent financial collapse.

* **Historical vs. Current US Dependency Ratios:** Social Security was established when the ratio was roughly 60 working people to 1 non-working person; it has now dropped to 10:1 or 5:1. * **Global Precedent:** South Korea is cited as an extreme example of system failure due to a near 1-to-1 dependency ratio.

---

[01:30:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=5454s) Brain Drain, Deficits, and the Stigma of Financial Pragmatism

When bad economic policies dominate, nations risk experiencing a severe "brain drain" alongside unchecked immigration. Highly educated people—who were either born locally or immigrated legally—choose to flee failing economic systems in places like Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom to move to the United States. These are the individuals who contribute heavily to the tax base, create jobs, and fill critical high-skilled roles like doctors. When they leave, they are often replaced by less-educated immigrants who, through no fault of their own, cannot immediately replicate that contribution to the tax base. This exact dynamic of wealth flight and brain drain is currently playing out in Los Angeles, where a staggering net shift in the tax-contributing population is leaving the city staring down a projected "billion dollar deficit."

The speaker rails against "performative policies" that damage economic output, noting that the United Kingdom's GDP per capita has degraded so severely that it would rank 51st out of all 50 US states—faring even worse than Mississippi. A similar trend is observed in Canada, where highly educated professionals routinely migrate down to Silicon Valley for better-paying jobs. Paradoxically, discussing these financial realities openly has become a cultural taboo. Pragmatic financial advice regarding saving, investing, and budgeting is routinely coded as "right-wing," "cruel," or "heartless." Even though the left-wing Labor Party in the UK openly acknowledges wealth flight and brain drain, the public often mislabels these trackable real-world metrics as partisan malice.

* **UK Economic Standing:** The UK’s GDP per capita is currently tracking lower than Mississippi, the poorest US state. * **Los Angeles Budget Crisis:** LA is facing an upcoming billion-dollar deficit fueled by wealth flight and shifting demographics. * **Canadian Brain Drain:** Educated professionals are leaving Canada for Silicon Valley due to massive wage disparities.

---

[01:34:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=5640s) Personal Agency vs. The Victim Mindset

The speakers delve into why personal responsibility is treated with such hostility, suggesting that a large segment of the population cherishes a "victim mindset" as a core part of their identity. When financial educators challenge this identity by suggesting an individual bears fault for their financial situation, they are branded as sociopaths or fascists. Caleb explains that many people simply want a financial advisor to "give them a hug" and complain about systemic issues rather than offer solutions. While voting for systemic or policy change is perfectly fine, it requires millions of people to overhaul a massive apparatus; meanwhile, individuals retain absolute, immediate control over whether they swipe a high-interest credit card or choose to pursue an overpriced degree from an out-of-state private institution.

To help people take control of their finances and combat this victim mentality, Caleb and his team developed a budgeting app called **Dollar Wise**. The app utilizes automatic account connections through multiple services to give users immediate, guided insights into where their money is going and what concrete steps they need to take to improve their lives. When the host jokes that Caleb is making a "ton of money" off people who cannot figure out how to save, Caleb proudly defends the transaction as pure capitalism: "if they make more money because they save money and I make more money... you're providing a value." The app was designed to replace older, defunct services like Mint, which was shut down by its parent company. Caleb notes that most average people fall off budgeting apps because they are over-engineered for "personal finance nerds," so Dollar Wise focuses strictly on radical simplicity.

* **Dollar Wise App:** A budgeting tool designed by Caleb and his team featuring automated account integration to give direct, un-burdensome financial guidance. * **The Critique of Mint:** A widely used budgeting application that failed users by being overly complex before being shut down entirely.

---

[01:37:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=5828s) Behavior Modification and Financial Tools

When asked if tackling these deep-seated financial bad habits feels like an insurmountable problem—like sticking a finger in a dam with a million leaks—Caleb agrees it can feel that way, but notes that tools like bankruptcy exist for a reason. However, bankruptcy is useless unless an individual fundamentally changes the behavior that caused the crisis. Caleb reveals that he has had guests on his financial show who have declared bankruptcy twice and still ended up broke again. People frequently lean on shortcuts like debt consolidation, personal loans, or credit card consolidation without changing their underlying habits.

Caleb breaks down the mechanics of why financial guru Dave Ramsey is vehemently against debt consolidation, calling Ramsey's philosophy "correct" but offering his own nuanced take. In a typical consolidation scenario, an individual rolls multiple credit card balances into a single new loan, bringing their card balances down to zero. However, because their credit limits remain completely open, people who haven't changed their behavior will simply max out the cards a second time, leaving them with double the original debt. Caleb's show teaches a simple, behavioral approach: prove you can stick to a basic budget for a few months first—even using standard frameworks like Senator Elizabeth Warren's famous 50/30/20 rule—and only *then* use consolidation loans or bankruptcy to clear the dam, making sure to close the cards permanently.

* **The Debt Consolidation Trap:** Consolidating debt without behavioral change often leads to double the debt because original credit card limits remain open and usable. * **The 50/30/20 Rule:** A foundational budgeting breakdown pioneered by Elizabeth Warren allocating 50% to needs, 30% to wants, and 20% to savings.

---

[01:39:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=5976s) Accepting an Unfair World

Altering long-standing behaviors is incredibly difficult, especially when spending money serves as the only emotional reward a person gets for enduring a job they absolutely hate. Caleb expresses deep empathy for this struggle, colorfully mocking his own physical health: "I'm the one talking to them and I'm a fat [ __ ]... I haven't, you know, fully taken control of my health behaviors and eating behaviors." Because he hit financial rock bottom in his early twenties and successfully sacrificed for a few years to reach the other side of the tunnel, he feels uniquely qualified to hold people's hands through the process.

The conversation concludes with a philosophical agreement that changing behavior requires hitting reality hard, whether through a personal crisis or the birth of a child. The host laments that too many people waste energy playing a bitter "blame game," looking at Jeff Bezos and his mega-yacht as the reason they are broke, rather than trying to reverse-engineer Bezos's success. They emphasize that the United States remains the premier place on earth to rise from the bottom to the top, but it requires spending less time smoking weed, playing video games, and doing nonsense. When the host jokes that Caleb is "denying people's feelings" and being "right-coded," Caleb embraces the reality of his message, concluding that while the world is undeniably unfair, complaining changes nothing. Unless a person has a profound disability that strips away their autonomy, they have agency and must take responsibility for their choices.

[01:43:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=6213s) The Lack of Life Skills in Modern Education

The conversation opens with a discussion on the positive impact of hosting long-form financial conversations online. While the guest brings up the analogy of putting a finger in a dam with a hundred leaks, they emphasize that reaching millions of viewers resonates deeply with people who realize they need to change their lives but don't know where to start. School doesn't teach people how to organize their futures, a gap that leaves students without a practical path forward. High school guidance counselors often meet with students only once a year, focusing entirely on a single question: "What do you want to study in college?"

Even though a college degree still offers a 60% income premium on average over those without one, the speakers point out that this traditional track is becoming less valuable every year. The host jokingly admits to a total lack of practical life skills, calling it a "full admission" that makes them look like the most "beta" person in the world because they don't even know how to perform an oil change. They note that while they could teach themselves, they own a Tesla and don't need to. The core frustration remains that modern schools largely ignore essential life skills in favor of a singular push toward higher education.

- The college income premium sits at roughly 60% on average compared to non-degree holders, but its relative value is perceived to be declining annually. - Traditional high school counseling is criticized for focusing exclusively on university placement rather than holistic future planning or trade options.

[01:45:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=6323s) The Disappearance of Shop Class and the Value of Trades

Reflecting on how public high schools used to operate, the speakers swap stories about the practical classes of the past. The host recalls attending Newton South High School, where the auto shop was run by an eccentric "Mustang enthusiast" who loved early 1960s models like the '65 and '66. This teacher used his own classic cars to teach students the fundamentals of internal combustion engines, explaining how spark plugs work, how carburetors get jammed, and how to safely identify lift points on a car frame. Home economics classes used to provide similar foundational knowledge for cooking, the absence of which has led to modern complaints about the high cost of eating out.

The systemic decline of these programs didn't happen by accident. The speakers track the shift through historical policy changes, starting with the major tax revolts of the late 1970s and 1980s—specifically citing California's Proposition 13 in 1978. These sweeping budget cuts meant schools could no longer afford workshop maintenance, heavy machinery, or expensive liability insurance. By the 1990s, a massive push toward standardized testing and four-year college prep completely marginalized vocational training. This shift is viewed as a mistake, especially since fields like carpentry, electricity, and HVAC remain highly secure career paths where entrepreneurs can make substantial money.

- **Newton South High School:** The host's former school where an auto shop teacher utilized his personal 1965 and 1966 Mustangs to teach mechanical maintenance. - **California Proposition 13 (1978):** Highlighted as a catalyst for public school budget cuts that forced the elimination of high-cost shop and vocational programs. - **Apprenticeship Success:** Completing a formal apprenticeship carries a 90% probability of being retained for a full-time, stable career position.

[01:47:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=6467s) The Realities of Higher Education and the Student Debt Trap

The dialogue shifts into a critique of how society views academic degrees versus blue-collar trades. The speakers note an institutional snobbery where people holding degrees look down on wealthy, successful tradesmen, dismissively questioning what a plumber could possibly understand about how the country works. They counter this bias by pointing out that some of the wealthiest individuals and largest companies in America were built by college dropouts. Furthermore, university standards are criticized as having fallen "substantially higher" in terms of average GPAs and passing rates because general academic rigors have dropped.

True education is now widely accessible outside of traditional institutions through YouTube, audiobooks, and open internet platforms. The host strongly condemns universities as "socially captured" and "politically captured environments" where students pay exorbitant amounts of money to be force-fed ideologies by individuals who have never held a real-world job. This system saddles an 18-year-old with massive debt before they even begin their adult life. They contrast the ease of getting a student loan with the strictness of the banking sector, noting that lenders will readily sign away tens of thousands of dollars for a degree but would never lend that same amount to an 18-year-old to buy a car.

- **Average Student Loan Balance:** Typical undergraduate borrowing ranges from $25,000 to $40,000 over a four-year period. - **Harvard University Cost Breakdown:** Undergraduate tuition sits at $62,000 a year, but total annual costs escalate to between $86,000 and $95,000 once housing, health fees, and student services are factored in before financial aid. - **Historical Context:** The host references a 1983 *New York Times* article titled "1980s Grads: Baby Boom to Job Bust" to show that the oversupply of college graduates outgaining professional vacancies has been an issue for decades, long before AI or modern debt levels.

[01:52:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=6733s) From Tech Product Manager to Financial Entertainer

When discussing what young people want to achieve today, the speakers point out a heavy cultural obsession with fame, particularly in California where a vast majority of kids report wanting to become influencers or TikTok stars. The host acknowledges that while they are essentially an entertainer who gives financial advice, their own path to online success was highly calculated and cautious. They didn't simply quit their job and borrow money to record videos. Instead, they worked full-time as a product manager at a tech company, only transitioning to full-time content creation once their channel proved it could consistently replace their corporate income for several months.

Before launching their own channel, the host nearly took a job as a production manager for YouTuber Tyler Oliveira. When that opportunity fell through, they bought a bunch of equipment and independently launched *Financial Audit* simply because it was a show they wanted to watch but couldn't find anywhere else. Despite having no formal entertainment background outside of writing music and making casual videos with friends in high school, they find this new career far more rewarding than their past artistic pursuits because of the direct, positive impact it has on tens of thousands of people's lives.

- **Former Career:** The host worked as a corporate product manager at a technology firm before transitioning into digital media. - **Tyler Oliveira:** The prominent YouTuber whom the host originally applied to work for as a production manager before launching their own independent show. - **Show Concept:** *Financial Audit* was created entirely out of a market vacancy for entertaining, high-stakes personal finance content.

[01:54:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=6898s) Scaling a Modern Digital Media and Finance Business

The host opens up about their musical background, explaining that they used to play the trombone and compose music for concert bands. They joke that they wouldn't be welcomed back into the classical music world because they are "right-wing coded," describing the online band director communities on platforms like Facebook as highly toxic and "woke." While they still write music privately for fun, their true passion has entirely shifted toward scaling their media and financial services business in Austin, Texas, where they now employ a staff of 40 people.

The business has expanded far beyond a simple ad-supported YouTube channel. It features a massive paid membership tier with over a hundred thousand subscribers paying $10 a month for access to three premium daily shows, including *Fat and Fatter*, a show where talent ranks restaurant food based on financial value. The company is actively building a proprietary budgeting application called Dollarise, offering personalized financial services directly on their website, and exploring ways to incubate other up-and-coming finance creators by applying their deep understanding of the YouTube algorithm to make traditionally dry topics entertaining.

- **Employee Headcount:** The media company currently employs 40 full-time staff members based out of Austin, Texas. - **Subscription Metrics:** The channel boasts over 100,000 paid YouTube members (approaching 110,000 monthly) at a price point of $10 per month. - **Dollarise:** The name of the proprietary budgeting app currently under development by the host's company to compete as a top-tier product in the financial market.

[01:57:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=7066s) Building Better Financial Resources for Young People

The conversation centers around creating better, non-ideological personal financial tools. The speaker expresses a desire to build products similar to those offered by Dave Ramsey, which connect users with mortgages and financial guidance, but without being bound to a "strict ideology" or a "boring stale sort of perspective." There is a massive unmet need in the market for resources that teach young people practical lifestyle skills, such as how to budget, invest, cook cost-effectively, and navigate the grocery store to optimize both savings and nutrition.

The dialogue shifts as the host reflects on how eye-opening this data can be for young listeners who are completely unaware of their spending leaks. Realizing how much money is burned on convenience apps is a common turning point. By simply cutting back on delivery services and grocery shopping once a week, an individual could easily save hundreds of dollars.

- A simple shift from ordering DoorDash to grocery shopping once a week can save an individual roughly $300. - Only 60% of Americans are financially equipped to handle a $400 emergency, leaving 40% completely unable to cover it.

[01:59:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=7159s) The Critical Reality of Emergency Funds

The speakers debate the appropriate size of a baseline emergency fund, weighing the traditional three-month standard against a more conservative six-month cushion. Given modern global uncertainties like pandemic-related shutdowns and sudden layoffs, a six-month fund covering all basic living expenses is highly recommended. This fund acts as a vital lifeline for unpredictable events like a broken car or a sick pet. The speaker argues bluntly that financial discipline must come before luxury: "You don't get to have fun if you don't have a fully funded emergency fund." Taking vacations or hitting the drive-thru is unacceptable if basic family protection is missing. While failing to invest can be given "a little bit of grace," establishing an emergency fund is categorized as "basic survival" that should be treated with the same urgency as keeping a first-aid kit in the house.

The host counters that young people often reject this advice because thinking about financial safety nets is inherently "boring." They prefer immediate gratification, like playing video games or going to bars. In response, it is suggested that a stepped approach is completely fine: build up a one-month fund or cover the highest insurance deductible first, get to three months, and then introduce a little bit of fun into the budget while working toward the full six-month goal.

[02:01:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=7263s) The Wild West of Crypto, Meme Coins, and NFTs

The discussion moves into cryptocurrency. While approximately 10% of Americans utilize crypto as an investment tool, it remains a relatively small asset class for the general public. The speakers distinguish between established digital assets like Bitcoin and Ethereum—which have actual utility and a place in a small corner of a portfolio—and the broader world of highly speculative "meme coins" and "get-rich-quick" tokens, jokingly referencing fictional or real influencer assets like a "Melaniacoin" or a "Hawkua coin." This side of the market is characterized as a "legal pyramid scheme" and a form of unregulated gambling.

The conversation naturally flows into a retrospective on the NFT craze, which "died in six months." The host recalls having countless frustrating conversations trying to get someone to explain the tangible value of an NFT when anyone could simply save the same picture to their phone for free. They note that the underlying psychology of every crypto pump-and-dump scheme relies on individual hubris: "get the pump, but not the dump." Every participant considers themselves a "special little snowflake" who can outsmart the system, ignoring the reality that even legitimate intraday day trading has an incredibly brutal failure rate. The host also muses on the mechanics of these platforms, noting that entire websites are explicitly dedicated to launching pump funds where creators can easily collaborate, finance a token, and exit early at the expense of other retail buyers.

- 10% of Americans currently use cryptocurrency as an investment tool. - Day trading has a mere 15% success rate, meaning 85% of day traders lose money. - Websites like "pump.fun" allow users to instantly spin up and invest in speculative coins designed entirely around market pumps.

[02:04:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=7474s) Centralized Digital Currencies and the Control of Money

A darker turn is taken as the speakers explore the political and regulatory future of digital currency. There is a deep-seated fear that the ultimate evolution of unregulated crypto will be a government-controlled Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) tied to a social credit score system. The speaker notes that certain politicians have already proposed this under the guise of staying globally competitive with China. This path is described as "quite terrifying" because centralized digital money grants authorities the power to instantly freeze accounts or restrict a citizen's ability to purchase everyday goods or plane tickets if they are deemed "problematic." The host agrees, concluding that the most absolute way to control an entire population is to "completely eliminate their ability to spend money."

[02:05:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=7525s) Social Programs, Incentives, and Economic Realities

The commentary transitions into systemic socio-economic issues in America, highlighting the persistent cycles of poverty, homelessness, and gang activity in crime-infested neighborhoods. The host advocates for genuine investment to "fix all that" and reduce the number of citizens slipping through the cracks, lamenting that modern politicians rarely engage in meaningful dialogue about long-term structural solutions.

Turning to state-level economics, California is used as a prime example of "performative policies." While the state ranks high in worker rights and wage protections, its massive social safety nets have altered employment incentives, dragging it to the bottom of national employment rankings. Data looked up during the recording reveals that California sits at 48th in unemployment with a 5.3% rate—a metric that only accounts for people actively seeking work, thereby hiding a large population of disengaged young men who are choosing not to participate in the workforce at all.

- California ranks 48th in the nation for unemployment with a rate of 5.3%. - A Bureau of Labor Statistics/Gallup data point reveals that 40% of young adults aged 18 to 29 regularly receive financial assistance from family and relatives.

[02:07:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=7662s) Human Nature, Desperation, and Financial Redemption

The speakers reflect on the cultural shift toward prolonged dependency, noting how common it has become for young adults to rely on parental support. The speaker, who is 31, recalls that when they were 18, the driving ambition was personal independence and making one's own way rather than "leeching" off a system or family. While affirming the necessity of robust social safety nets to protect vulnerable families during hard times, they stress that systems must not enable bad behavior or erode personal accountability. Human nature requires balancing compassion with reality: "one of the best motivating factors for helping yourself is desperation." If communities bail individuals out of every poor decision, those individuals never learn how to rescue themselves.

The segment concludes on a note of political pragmatism and financial hope. The speaker observes that politicians are rarely elected based on trackable outcomes; they are elected based on what promises sound good during an election cycle. Discussing jobs, budgeting, and the severe consequences of financial failure isn't considered "sexy," which leaves many people blind to the realities of money. However, the United States offers a uniquely forgiving framework for those who hit rock bottom. Thanks to incredibly lenient bankruptcy protection laws, America remains one of the best places in the world to escape a disastrous financial situation and successfully rebuild.

[02:11:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=7902s) The Reality of Student Loan Default and the Repayment System

The conversation shifts sharply to the severe state of student loan debt in the United States, which stands out as an exceptionally dangerous category compared to other forms of debt. Currently, 11% of federal student loans are in default, making it the largest default category in the entire country. The speakers express deep frustration over the widespread misunderstanding surrounding the consequences of defaulting, noting how frequently people complain about the system while completely misidentifying the actual structural flaws.

The main point of irritation is the common complaint that student loans are simply too expensive to pay back, driving borrowers into default and resulting in wage garnishments. However, a major misconception is corrected as the speaker points out that a repayment assistance program, famously signed into law by Donald Trump, allows eligible borrowers to set their minimum monthly payments to as little as 1% of their income. Instead of utilizing these available relief tools to protect themselves from defaulting, many choose to "just want to be victims" and declare the system entirely evil without looking into reality.

The true underlying crisis of the student loan system is not the lack of repayment options, but the unchecked lending structure. The government allows students to borrow unlimited amounts of money for any degree at any college they choose. This creates a vicious cycle: every single time the borrowing limit is raised, universities conveniently hike their tuition costs to match it. Historically, higher education was affordable precisely because students could not easily borrow massive sums of money, which naturally kept prices in check. Without those constraints, schools now aggressively charge higher prices to fund administrative bloat and lavish recruitment tools, such as the campus lazy river built at a university in Alabama.

- 11% of current federal student loans are actively in default, the highest rate among all national debt categories. - Under the repayment assistance program, minimum monthly payments can drop to as low as 1% of a borrower's income depending on their financial situation. - Institutional tuition hikes directly correlate with increases in federal borrowing limits.

[02:13:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=8010s) Discharging Student Loans via Bankruptcy

The speakers pause to verify a technicality regarding debt relief, asking Jimmy to look up whether student loans can ever be legally erased. It is revealed that it is technically possible to get student loans discharged through bankruptcy, but the process is far from automatic. It requires navigating entirely separate legal steps and providing concrete proof of "undue hardship."

Defining "undue hardship" remains a major hurdle, as the law requires the borrower to present their case directly in front of a judge. The speakers speculate that experiencing a catastrophic, life-altering event like becoming paralyzed might qualify, but ultimately, the determination is made strictly on a case-by-case basis. Because of these demanding legal barriers, achieving a discharge is incredibly rare and difficult, though not entirely impossible.

[02:14:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=8040s) Closing Commendations and Final Plug

The episode wraps up on a warm and highly encouraging note. The host takes a moment to genuinely validate Caleb's work, emphasizing just how valuable his content is to the public. He commends Caleb for successfully carving out a unique creative avenue that perfectly blends raw entertainment with sound, practical financial advice. The host warns that without this kind of blunt guidance, people will "continue down the same shitty road" and ruin their lives financially, making Caleb's entertaining approach both awesome and necessary.

Caleb accepts the praise with gratitude before giving a final shout-out to his digital platforms. He directs the audience to download his mobile application, Dollar-wise, which is fully available across both the Apple App Store and Android platforms. He concludes by reminding viewers that his main content hubs can be found under his name on Instagram and YouTube.

- Caleb's financial app is called "Dollar-wise" and is fully supported on all major Android and iOS devices. - His central video content and social media presence operate under his direct name, "Caleb Hammer."

## Notable quotes > [00:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=1s) Jerry Springer of Finance — Caleb Hammer

> [30:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=1855s) This is too hot. We got to get out of here. — Former gang leader

> [33:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=2012s) moral masturbation — Caleb Hammer

> [33:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=2012s) borderline like a Nazi — Caleb Hammer

> [36:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=2186s) little [__] voodoo dance — Joe Rogan

> [38:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=2319s) literal prisoners — Joe Rogan

> [43:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=2617s) That person has a lot of money. Let's take some. — Joe Rogan

> [55:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=3357s) They call me a fascist for saying don't spend more money than you make — Caleb Hammer

> [01:10:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=4229s) will win every time — Caleb Hammer

> [01:39:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=5976s) I'm the one talking to them and I'm a fat [ __ ]... I haven't, you know, fully taken control of my health behaviors and eating behaviors. — Caleb Hammer

> [01:59:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=7159s) You don't get to have fun if you don't have a fully funded emergency fund. — Caleb Hammer

> [02:07:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=7662s) one of the best motivating factors for helping yourself is desperation. — Caleb Hammer

## Mentioned Joe Rogan, Caleb Hammer, Financial Audit, Fidelity, Kick, Twitch, Nancy Pelosi, Nvidia, Gavin Newsom, George Santos, FTC, Polymarket, NPR, Koshi, Lana Lopez Lara, Perplexity, Baruch College, NYU, Goldman Sachs, City Group, Donald Trump, George Soros, Open Society Foundation, Garza, TikTok, Bernie Sanders, Ken Griffin, Citadel, Madani, Kevin O'Leary, Central Park, Pentagon, California Proposition 13, Houston, Los Angeles, Austin, Sixth Street, Twitter, San Antonio, McDonald's, S&P 500, Audi e-tron, Tesla, Elon Musk, Model S, Model X, Optimus Prime, United Nations, United States, Canada, India, South Korea, Women's March, Social Security, Italy, Spain, United Kingdom, Silicon Valley, Mississippi, Dollar Wise, Mint, Dave Ramsey, Elizabeth Warren, Jeff Bezos, Newton South High School, YouTube, Harvard University, The New York Times, Tyler Oliveira, Facebook, Dollarise, Fat and Fatter, DoorDash, Bitcoin, Ethereum, pump.fun, China, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Gallup

[Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs)

中文简报

Caleb Hammer归咎Z世代消费习惯导致美国汽车及信用卡债务飙升美国年轻人正面临历史性债务危机，原因在于外卖自动配送服务、崭新汽车和毫无用处的大学文凭取代了基本的个人责任与财务纪律。主持人Joe Rogan与财经博主Caleb Hammer深入剖析了现代消费债务危机，重点指出了过度杠杆化的学生贷款和掠夺性汽车贷款等系统性陷阱。他们将低成本指数基金和严格的行为矫正等个人理财策略，与助长年轻人受害者心态的算法信息茧房进行了对比。讨论内容涵盖政府管理不善、韩国的人口挑战以及投机性加密货币市场的兴起，最终强调了个人责任与实用生活技能比抱怨体制问题更为重要。美国消费债务危机正在恶化，信用卡债务已达到1.6万亿美元，违约率约为7%，而汽车贷款债务甚至更高，主要由昂贵的皮卡车型所推动。 (0:01) 延长的学生贷款还款计划导致利息总额激增且本金不断膨胀，促使政府扣减部分退休公民的社会保障福利以偿还未清债务。 (4:24) 中国庞大的高铁建设规模凸显了加州高铁项目的低效，该项目到2020年代中期已耗资140亿至160亿美元，但运营里程仍为零。 (8:32) 令人惊讶的是，30岁以下的投资者中有60%完全根据播客主和主播的建议进行投资组合交易，而日内交易频道的并发观看人数规模巨大。 (11:42) 国会内幕交易仍是一个涉及两党的问题，政客们拿着标准10万美元的年薪，进入国会时身无长物，离开时却腰缠万贯，且经常在关键立法变动前购买股票。 (13:42)

Reading summary

Host Joe Rogan and personal finance commentator Caleb Hammer argue that rampant consumer debt and societal stagnation stem from a combination of poor personal discipline, predatory higher education financing, and systemic government mismanagement, urging individuals to abandon victim mentalities in favor of strict financial pragmatism. The Consumer Debt Trap and Status Symbols (0:01) Hammer and Rogan highlight that U.S. consumer debt has reached critical levels, pointing to $1.6 trillion in credit card debt with an alarming 7% default rate, alongside $1.5 trillion to $1.6 trillion in auto loan debt. Hammer observes that show guests frequently rationalize crushing eight-year loans on $60,000 vehicles under the guise of child safety, while ignoring dramatic depreciation trends, such as two-year-old luxury electric vehicles losing over 50% of their value. Both speakers characterize consumer splurging on flashy cars and convenience purchases as a psychological reward mechanism for working dissatisfying jobs. Regarding housing, Hammer challenges the traditional belief in homeownership as the sole vehicle for middle-class prosperity. Under current interest rates, he argues that renting and investing down-payment capital into standard S&P 500 index funds consistently outperforms real estate returns. However, he concedes that homeownership remains a functional necessity for undisciplined spenders because a mortgage serves as a form of forced savings. Higher Education and Structural Student Loan Failures (4:24) The dialogue identifies student loans as the most precarious debt category in the nation, with an 11% default rate among federal borrowers. Rogan and Hammer criticize high school counselors and parents for steering young adults toward exorbitant, low-ROI degrees without providing basic financial education. This systemic decline in practical skills is traced back to tax revolts like California's 1978 Proposition 13 and subsequent standardized testing mandates, which effectively dismantled high school vocational trades and home economics programs. While borrowers often blame the system for their defaults, Hammer notes that federal programs signed under Donald Trump permit monthly payments as low as 1% of income, yet many borrowers neglect these mechanisms and stretch loans across 20 to 40 years, causing interest to compound uncontrollably. Furthermore, discharging student loans through bankruptcy requires navigating direct court hearings to prove 'undue hardship,' an exceptionally rare outcome. The speakers also link the broader gender wealth gap to degree allocation, arguing that while women now earn 60% to 65% of degrees, they disproportionately borrow for lower-paying service fields, whereas young men increasingly disengage from both higher education and the labor market entirely. Financial Discipline, Emergency Funds, and Speculation (94:00) Hammer argues that technical financial solutions like bankruptcy and loan consolidation are completely ineffective without fundamental behavioral reform. Cardholders who consolidate balances into single loans frequently max out their open credit cards again, leaving them in twice as much debt. Pointing out that 40% of Americans cannot handle a sudden $400 emergency, Hammer insists that individuals must eliminate luxury spending until they establish a baseline emergency fund covering three to six months of core living expenses. The conversation contrasts reliable, long-term wealth building with internet-driven financial speculation. Hammer cites simulations showing that saving 5% to 10% of an average salary in an S&P 500 index fund starting in 1990 yields millions by retirement. Conversely, the speakers dismiss day trading, NFTs, and speculative cryptocurrency meme coins as legal pyramid schemes fueled by hubris and predatory online hype. Institutional Inefficiency, Governance, and Demographic Strain (49:44) Moving beyond individual choices, the speakers criticize public-sector spending and institutional accountability. Rogan points to the Pentagon failing audits for nearly a decade and highlights California spending $24 billion on homelessness while the problem worsened. They contrast Los Angeles's expensive, fragmented nonprofit network with Houston's centralized municipal model, noting that Houston achieves significantly lower per-person costs by prioritizing sobriety before permanent housing. On a macroeconomic level, the speakers emphasize the pressures of an aging population. The U.S. Social Security worker-to-beneficiary dependency ratio has degraded from 60-to-1 at its inception to between 10-to-1 and 5-to-1. Hammer argues that avoiding financial collapse in low-birth-rate environments requires pragmatic, selective, high-skilled immigration frameworks to sustain the tax base and preserve public services. While acknowledging that systemic inefficiencies in governance and higher education create genuine economic headwinds, Rogan and Hammer conclude that waiting for institutional reform is futile; lasting personal security requires accepting an unfair economic reality, halting discretionary spending, and prioritizing emergency savings and automated investing.

精炼阅读摘要

Joe Rogan与个人理财内容创作者Caleb Hammer在对话中指出，美国当前的个人财务与公共财政正面临由非理性预期与制度性失灵交织构成的系统性危机；他们主张，唯有摒弃将困境完全归咎于体制的受害者心态，重塑务实的行为纪律与市场化问责机制，个人与社会才能摆脱债务泥潭。消费主义信贷与虚荣陷阱驱动的债务危机 (0:01) 全美消费者信贷规模已达到危险临界点，其中信用卡债务总额触及1.6万亿美元，违约率约达7%；更令对话者震惊的是，受昂贵皮卡与大型SUV文化推动，汽车贷款总额已达到1.5万亿至1.6万亿美元，规模甚至超越了信用卡债务。Hammer指出，许多年轻借贷者陷入了心理学上的虚荣消费陷阱，常以“为了孩子安全”为借口，坚信驾驶两三年前的旧款车会带来危险，宁可背负长达8年的沉重车贷购买6万美元的车辆，也不愿选择暴跌50%以上的二手电动汽车等实用选项。这种对外部地位象征的病态追求，使底层人群将高额消费当成了忍受糟糕工作的心理补偿。在传统“美国梦”的核心资产配置方面，Hammer认为高利率环境下的购房执念正在成为一种财务枷锁。尽管过去数十年房地产积累了中产财富，但在过去50年中股票市场的表现始终优于房地产；年轻一代若将首付款投入标普500指数而非锁定在房屋产权中，往往能在财务和地理灵活性上占据更大优势。但在现实中，由于大部分美国人缺乏自主投资纪律、往往将结余挥霍在度假等非必需支出上，房产才被迫充当了一种唯一的强制储蓄工具。与此同时，联邦学生贷款违约率已攀升至11%，成为全美最大的违约债务门类，而借款人往往忽视了已有将月还款额降至收入1%的救济政策，进一步加剧了偿债危机。高等教育的结构性错配与职业技能断层 (4:24) 对话者抨击了现行教育系统对年轻人财务现实的系统性误导。现行高中辅导机制几乎将全部重心放在推动学生进入四年制大学，却未能向18岁的学生揭示复利债务的严重杀伤力。尽管大学学位在统计上仍能带来约60%的平均收入溢价，但这一传统的文凭价值正在加速稀释。特别是在专业选择上，大量女性背负巨额贷款攻读社会学、心理学与艺术等低投资回报率学位，导致毕业后只能从事低薪服务业，Hammer与Rogan认为这才是男女财富差距的核心根源，而非相同岗位上的薪酬不公；相反，从事高薪STEM专业的群体往往承担了更高的职业压力以换取经济回报。与此同时，年轻男性正大规模退出高等教育与就业市场，大学学位获得者中女性已占到60%至65%。受网络上将体系完全归咎于配额制度或意识形态偏见的“红丸受害者心态”影响，部分缺乏技能与经验的年轻人干脆选择闭门不出，连失业补助都不申请。对话回顾了自1978年加州13号提案等税制改革以来，公立学校因预算缩减和责任险成本高减废止了汽车维修、木工及家政等实用技能课程，导致现代年轻人丧失基础生存技能，不仅推高了外出就餐等日常消费成本，也使木工、电工与暖通等高收入且不易被人工智能取代的蓝领技术工种面临长期人才断层。行为矫正优先于金融捷径的基础理财逻辑 (11:42) 在个人财富积累路径上，对话者强烈倡导低成本指数基金的长期复利效应。Hammer通过测算指出，若一名25岁工人在1990年以当时2.1万美元的全美平均年薪起步，40年间持续将月收入的5%至10%投入标普500指数基金，如今其净资产可达200万至500万美元。对于缺乏专业顾问的大众而言，大型金融机构的目标日期退休基金（Target-date funds）能自动随年龄调整风险敞口，是远优于社交媒体日内交易或投机炒作的稳健工具；而对于加密货币领域，除了比特币与以太坊具备特定资产属性外，各类短期爆炒的模因币与快速破灭的NFT均被二人视作利用大众贪念的合法传销与不受监管的赌博。针对深陷债务泥潭的群体，Hammer强调行为修正必须先于金融工具的使用。债务整合贷款或个人破产固然可以清空表面账目，但若未改变底层消费习惯，借款人很快便会刷爆重置后的信用额度，甚至陷入二次破产。他建议借款人首先应践行严格的预算管理（如50/30/20法则），并必须优先建立涵盖3至6个月生活开支的应急基金，将其视作与家庭急救箱同等重要的“生存底线”。面对全美40%人口无法拿出400美元应对突发事件的现状，对话指出，削减外卖配送并改为每周规律采购即可每月节省数百美元，在尚未建立安全缓冲垫之前，任何非必需的享乐性消费在财务逻辑上都是不合理的。财政问责机制失效与城市治理的意识形态困局 (8:32) 对话转向对公共治理效率低下的批评，将政府赤字与项目开支比作公众不敢细究的垃圾场。五角大楼近十年未能通过财务审计，而加州在无家可归问题上耗费了240亿美元，街头危机却愈演愈烈；高额资金流向了缺乏问责的非营利组织，高管领取数十万美元年薪却无需承担绩效后果。二人对比了休斯敦与洛杉矶的治理路径：休斯敦采用由市政直接负责的单一机构，先帮助当事人戒毒再安置，单人收容成本仅为加州的十分之一；而加州推行的“住房优先”模式因环保审批、繁文缛节与高昂工会成本，单套安置房建造成本飙升至百万美元，不仅未能解决毒瘾与严重心理健康问题，更导致公共安全急剧恶化。对话者将此类政策失败归咎于社交算法造成的“政治俘获”与“道德自嗨”：政客与线上社群热衷于推行纸面上看似仁慈却脱离现实的政策，如租金管制导致大量公寓因无法收回维护成本而长期空置，以及弱化执法的检控政策导致极少数惯犯持续被释放回社区。此外，低成本的地区检察官（DA）竞选成为外部资本左右地方司法的高杠杆工具，严重损害了纳税人的生存环境与公共交通安全。这种治理失败最终引发了高净值人群与专业人才的外流，使得纽约、加州等地区面临税基流失与数以十亿计的预算赤字危机。本期对话展现了从微观消费心理到宏观公共政策的一致批判，强调无论是个人资产负债表的修复还是城市公共危机的缓解，核心均在于停止诉诸受害者叙事、打破意识形态泡沫，并建立基于真实产出与个人责任的硬性约束。不过，对话中Hammer推广其个人商业预算软件，且二人对两党政策及复杂社会议题的归因带有鲜明的市场主义与个人经验色彩，未能就弱势群体在结构性变迁中的再就业门槛提供系统性制度解决方案。

Detailed notes — zh

## Background 本期节目由 YouTube 频道 PowerfulJRE 于 2026 年 6 月 4 日发布。视频为《The Joe Rogan Experience》第 2509 期对谈，嘉宾是知名个人理财节目《Financial Audit》的主持人兼 YouTuber 卡莱布·汉默（Caleb Hammer）。 ## TL;DR 乔·罗根与卡莱布·汉默深入探讨了当下美国年轻一代所面临的个人债务危机与财务认知盲区。两人剖析了信用卡高违约率、荒唐的高额汽车贷款以及不断膨胀的学生贷款体系，批判了高校行政臃肿与脱离现实的无用专业。对话进一步延伸至宏观政治与制度失衡，辛辣讽刺了加州财政黑洞、流浪汉收容机制的激励错位以及国会议员内幕交易等乱象。汉默结合自身经历，强调打破受害者心态、坚持低成本指数基金定投、建立充足应急基金与正视个人责任感才是摆脱财务困境的根本解法。 ## Atmosphere & style 整场对谈节奏明快、言辞犀利且充满黑色幽默，两人在辛辣吐槽与硬核常识之间自如切换。汉默自带标志性的直率与情绪爆发力，生动还原了其节目中面对奇葩嘉宾时的抓狂与无奈；罗根则扮演了好奇且深具共鸣的捧哏与追问者，频频发出爽朗的大笑与由衷的叹息。听感上既像是一场酣畅淋漓的醒脑“财务电击”，又充斥着对社会荒诞现状的讽刺剖析，在引人发笑的同时透露出对时代困局的深层担忧。 ## Bulletin - [00:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=1s) 全美消费者信贷危机持续发酵，信用卡债务累积至 1.6 万亿美元且违约率达 7%，汽车贷款总额亦超过信用卡债务规模，折射出严重的家庭财商教育缺失。 - [02:12:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=7956s) 联邦学生贷款违约率高达 11%，位居所有信贷类型榜首；随着联邦提高贷款上限，高校借机推高学费并将资金投入行政膨胀与奢华设施，造成学贷陷阱。 - [07:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=428s) 美国社会保障信托基金预计将在 2033 年耗尽储备金，若无额外财政注资，养老福利金或将面临约 25% 的直接削减。 - [11:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=702s) 长期资产配置数据显示，每月将收入的 5% 至 10% 定投于标普 500 指数，40 年间可累积出数百万美元资产，长期回报率显著跑赢购置房产的增值表现。 - [02:05:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=7525s) 调查显示 18 至 29 岁美国青年中有 40% 定期依赖家庭经济资助，年轻一代受外卖高溢价消费与不合理车贷拖累，普遍深陷受害者心态与财务被动。 ## Key takeaways - [00:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=1s) 全美消费者债务总额高企，车贷与卡债规模沉重，许多年轻人因缺乏家庭理财教育，在成年初期便踏入高息负债恶性循环。 - [02:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=155s) 传统财经说教难以触达年轻群体，将辛辣吐槽、真实对质与戏剧冲突融入财务审查，更能激发公众对个人资产状况的反思。 - [04:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=264s) 盲目借贷就读缺乏市场回报的冷门专业，将还款期人为拉长至数十年，会导致负息摊还并演变成伴随终身的债务枷锁。 - [07:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=428s) 社会保障基金面临 2033 年储备枯竭风险，叠加年轻时缺乏储蓄与大盘定投习惯，加剧了婴儿潮世代的退休财务困境。 - [11:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=702s) 普通人积累财富最稳健的路径是利用雇主 401(k) 匹配并长期定投低成本指数基金或目标日期基金，而非盲从日内交易或网红荐股。 - [18:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=1086s) 国会议员利用政策信息差进行股票交易呈现跨党派普遍性，相关限制投资大盘指数的法案因利益冲突屡屡受阻。 - [27:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=1658s) 司法轻判政策与放宽盗窃立案门槛导致惯犯被反复释放，对大城市基础设施与公共安全造成了深层破坏。 - [49:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=2984s) 加州等地区在流浪汉救助上耗资数百亿却成效甚微，反映出缺乏审计的非营利组织工业复合体与“住房优先”政策的体制性弊端。 - [44:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=2687s) 极端增税倡议与激进房产提案导致资本外逃与商业核心区空置，未能真正解决公共财政与住房短缺问题。 - [01:01:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=3664s) Z 世代高频依赖溢价高达 90% 的外卖配送并在豪车贷款上承担过高利率，微小消费习惯的失控是年轻人财务崩塌的主因。 - [01:11:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=4315s) 从纯财务投资角度来看，标普 500 指数长期回报持续超越房地产，盲目背负高息房贷已成为限制现代人灵活性的“财务牢笼”。 - [01:14:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=4455s) AI 自动化对缺乏市场壁垒的文科白领岗位造成严峻冲击，相比之下具备实体操作门槛的蓝领技工行业展现出更强的防御属性。 - [01:18:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=4692s) 高校新获学位者中女性占比达 60% 至 65%，部分年轻男性因政治化疏离感与受害者心态选择躺平，从高等教育与职场中大规模退出。 - [01:29:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=5368s) 健康的经济增长需要合理筛选高技能移民以改善老龄化带来的抚养比失衡，避免人才与财富向外流失。 - [01:41:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=6069s) 未纠正消费行为就仓促进行债务重组或破产，往往会导致旧额度再次刷爆而陷入双倍债务，建立应急储备金是进行任何消费的前提。 - [01:44:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=6240s) 学校教育全面砍掉家政、汽修等实用动手技能课程并单向导向大学升学，加剧了年轻人的现实生存技能脱节。 - [02:01:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=7263s) 日内交易长期亏损率高达 85%，而空气模因币本质上是缺乏监管的拉高抛售投机，盲目追逐暴富幻想者极易成为流动性接盘侠。 - [02:08:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=7711s) 加州过于严苛的劳工保护与最低工资推高了雇主门槛，导致失业率攀升至全美倒数，形成政策口号与实际经济后果的严重背离。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=1s) 个人债务泥潭与全美信用违约危机乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）热烈欢迎了理财节目《Financial Audit》的主持人卡莱布·汉默（Caleb Hammer）。罗根由衷地感慨，汉默是个极有常识和理智的人，然而在他的节目里，面对的却往往是财务观念彻底崩塌、极度缺乏理智的奇葩嘉宾，罗根很好奇汉默在与这些人沟通时究竟如何保持情绪稳定。汉默坦言，自己之所以能够看透这一切，是因为他年轻时也完整经历过这套荒唐的“典型美国式债务陷阱”。当年他在大学攻读音乐作曲专业，自嘲拿的是个“彻底无用的垃圾学位”，靠着无底线的学生贷款度日，并刷爆了每一张能办下来的信用卡。更离奇的是，他 18 岁时从父母那里得到的第一条“理财建议”，竟然是为了买一架心仪的钢琴去刷爆信用卡。汉默指出，许多美国家庭根本不教孩子任何个人财务知识。年轻时的他开着一辆日产天籁（Nissan Altima），自以为风光无限，实则背负着车贷、家庭债务以及数额庞大的公立与私立助学贷款。转折发生在他独自坐在那间几乎快交不起房租的破旧公寓里的时刻：他突然惊醒，意识到自己渴望的“美国梦”——拥有独立产权的房子和白色栅栏的安定生活——在利滚利的卡债与学生贷款压制下根本无法实现。于是他毅然转行做销售，拼命打工赚钱还清全部负债，并建立起充足的应急储备基金。全美当前的宏观债务数据印证了汉默的切身感受：消费者信贷危机正在大规模蔓延，而缺乏财商教育的普通民众往往是首当其冲的受害者。 - **全美信用卡债务规模**：已累计达到惊人的 1.6 万亿美元。 - **信用卡违约率**：攀升至约 7%，意味着将近每十个人中就有一人面临信用卡违约。 - **汽车贷款规模**：全美车贷总额甚至超过了信用卡债务总和，大量美国人为了购买昂贵的皮卡等大型车辆背负沉重杠杆。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 美国典型负债恶性循环 accDescr: 展示从无序消费借贷到建立应急储备金摆脱债务的完整路径 subgraph Trap["典型债务陷阱"] A["大学无规划借贷 （高额助学贷款）"] --> B["过度消费与卡债 （买车/奢侈消费/刷爆信用卡）"] B --> C["债务雪球膨胀 （高利息与最低还款拖延）"] C --> D["生活陷入绝境 （无房产/高违约风险）"] end subgraph Recovery["破局与修复路径"] E["观念觉醒 （意识到财务不可持续）"] --> F["增加主动收入 （从事销售/高强度工作还债）"] F --> G["财务安全垫 （清偿债务 + 建立充足应急基金）"] end D -.->|"痛定思痛"| E ``` --- ### [02:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=155s) “金融界杰瑞·斯普林格”与流行化理财教育罗根认为，汉默的节目之所以能引发巨大共鸣，是因为现实中绝大多数负债累累的人根本求助无门；他们身边的亲友往往同样深陷财务泥潭，无法提供建设性意见。与此同时，网络上的传统财经博主大多古板乏味，西装革履地对着镜头照本宣科讲解退休账户（如 IRA）或枯燥的理财工具，根本没有人愿意点开。汉默则完全不同：他说话直接、辛辣吐槽、情绪饱满且毫无架子，观众能立刻和他建立连接并大呼过瘾。汉默笑称，外界一度把他的节目蔑称为“金融界的《杰瑞·斯普林格秀》（Jerry Springer of Finance）”，但他欣然接受这一称号并以此为荣。他直言，高中教育虽然近年来取得进展——全美 50 个州里已有近 40 个州立法强制要求开设个人理财课程——但对于心智尚未成熟的十几岁少年来说，这类课程依然沉闷至极。汉默回忆自己上高中时数学成绩极差，在理财课上基本也是倒头大睡。汉默深谙互联网传播规律，他把枯燥的理财知识包裹在戏剧冲突之中。在《Financial Audit》中，荒诞的财务开支审查、抓马的预算剖析以及情侣之间的金钱撕扯成为了绝对主角。尤其是在情侣专题中，财务压力往往撕开亲密关系的遮羞布，这些真实的抓马与激烈的对质让节目在各大平台斩获数百万乃至上千万的播放量，从而真正让海量年轻人开始反思自己的钱包与账单。 - **全美理财教育现状**：目前近 40 个州已将个人理财课纳入高中毕业的必修要求。 - **内容定位突破**：以“咆哮式审计（Roast）+ 真实抓马 + 情感关系财务纠纷”取代教条式的理论说教。 --- ### [04:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=264s) 高等教育的负债骗局与二十年还款陷阱话题转入美国青年面临的最致命枷锁——学生贷款。罗根批评道，整个社会体系都在向 18 岁的年轻人灌输一种幻觉：只要去读大学，拿到高学历，人生就能自动走上康庄大道。然而老一辈人并未意识到时代早已变迁，过去读完大学甚至硕士确实能换来优渥的工作与房产，但如今盲目借贷数十万美元去读毫无市场回报的冷门专业，只会让年轻人在踏入社会的第一天就背上无法通过破产轻易摆脱的终身债务。汉默深入拆解了助学贷款如何演变成终身财务枷锁的机制。很多毕业生在面对还款时存在严重的拖延与侥幸心理：标准的联邦助学贷款原本设计为 10 年还清，但大多数年轻人刚出校门渴望租好公寓、外出约会、享受生活，为了眼前的月供压力更小，便主动申请将还款期拉长至 20 年乃至 40 年。汉默以房贷作比喻：这就好比将 30 年期的房贷拉长至 60 年，最终支付的利息总额将膨胀到令人发指的程度。此外，针对一些按收入比例还款的救济计划（例如每月仅需偿还收入 1% 的方案），汉默发出严厉警告：如果借款人每个月支付的金额甚至无法覆盖当期产生的利息，本金就会在负摊还中不断膨胀。许多人寄希望于 40 年后的债务豁免，但这种还款方式实际上意味着将债务永远绑在身上，年轻时的短视最终会演变成数十年的被动剥削。 --- ### [07:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=428s) 婴儿潮一代的退休窘境与社会保障危机罗根提到最近看到的新闻：一些已经退休的老年人，由于年轻时欠下的学生贷款至今仍未还清，他们的社会保障金（Social Security）竟然直接被政府强制扣发用来抵债。汉默直言，自己对婴儿潮一代（Boomers）以及 X 世代中陷入这种窘境的人正逐渐失去同情心。他解释道，这几代人赶上了人类历史上最繁荣的就业市场、最凶猛的股市长牛以及门槛极低的房地产黄金期。然而，在汉默节目中出现的年长嘉宾，绝大多数在年轻时为了满足消费欲望而将收入挥霍殆尽——他们宁愿贷款买全新的宝马豪车，也不愿每月雷打不动地将收入的 5% 到 10% 投入标普 500 等大盘指数基金。汉默激动地表示，以当年的资产增值速度，他们只要稍微自律存下一点钱，如今几乎人人都会是千万富翁，可现实中许多人临到退休依然债务缠身。雪上加霜的是全美养老安全网的系统性危机： - **社保基金枯竭节点**：美国社会保障信托基金预计将在 **2033 年**耗尽储备金；届时如果没有新的财政注资或制度改革，由于只能完全依赖当期的工薪税收入来支付养老金，受领者的全额福利金预计将被直接削减约 **25%**。 - **荒诞的公共支出与网络热梗**：谈到公共资金的使用与社会保障时，两人聊起几天前在节目中爆火的一个切片——一名来自科罗拉多州的跨性别女性嘉宾，其隆胸手术完全由州政府纳税人资金补贴支持；当被问及手术花费时，该嘉宾语出惊人地宣称自己的身体是“无价的”，因此手术对自己而言是“免费的”。汉默调侃道，虽然逻辑荒谬令人捧腹，但既然现行制度留下了这种报销漏洞，普通人趋利避害钻空子也就不足为奇了。 ### [09:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=541s) 政府税收开支与加州高铁乱象 Caleb Hammer 提到自己录制节目的前两天刚给联邦政府开出了一张高达 400 万美元的所得税支票，忍不住吐槽这些税款究竟流向了何处，戏谑地说钱根本没有用在保障社保资金上。Joe Rogan 顺着话题聊到了加州州长加文·纽森（Gavin Newsom）为何不愿来上他的播客。Rogan 认为加州的巨额债务、开销、浪费以及潜在的贪腐就像一座庞大的垃圾场——当有人让谁去彻底清查并清理这座垃圾场时，大家都会觉得工程量太大而无从下手。两人痛批了加州的财政黑洞，包括 240 亿美元下落不明的无家可归者救助金，以及耗资巨大却毫无实质进展的高铁项目。Caleb 认为美国作为世界领军者理应拥有先进的高速铁路，甚至希望德州能够建成连接达拉斯与休斯顿的高铁；然而加州无论接管什么项目，最终都会陷入把钱亏光、工程烂尾的怪圈。Rogan 回忆起 Instagram 上一位博主的对比视频：在加州高铁一事无成的这段时间里，中国用同样的资金建设了数千英里的高铁网络。助理 Jamie 查证后指出，加州高铁截至 2020 年代中期已砸下约 140 亿至 160 亿美元，但目前仅有位于贝克斯菲尔德（Bakersfield）附近马德拉（Madera）的 119 英里处于在建状态。Rogan 讽刺说，流浪汉看到政府把 140 亿美元花在仅开工百余英里的铁路上绝对会气疯，而 Caleb 则补充道，即使列车未来真建成了，车厢里恐怕也全是逃票跳闸机、在上面吸毒的人。 - Caleb Hammer 录制前刚缴纳了 400 万美元的联邦个人所得税。 - 加州被曝出在解决流浪汉问题上有高达 240 亿美元资金去向不明。 - 加州高铁已耗费约 140 亿至 160 亿美元，但目前仅有 119 英里铁轨处于实际施工状态。 --- ### [11:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=702s) 指数基金投资与被动复利的力量 Rogan 拿出一组数据向 Caleb 提问：如果一个人在 1990 年时 25 岁，拿着当时全美平均年薪（约 21,000 美元），工作 40 年间每月将收入的 5% 到 10% 投资于标普 500 指数（S&P 500），到如今会拥有多少财富？计算结果显示，这笔资产在今天的价值将在 200 万至 500 万美元之间。Rogan 感叹当时的平均工资在今天看来根本无法维持生活，但只要坚持储蓄与定投，任何人都能成为千万富翁。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 普通人的被动长期投资路径 accDescr: 展示从薪资中扣除储蓄并定投到低成本指数基金或目标日期基金，最终实现退休财富积累的流程。 subgraph Income["每月收入"] A["平均薪资 (节省 5% - 10%)"] end subgraph Investment["投资工具选择"] B["401(k) 雇主匹配 (免费资金)"] C["低成本指数基金 (标普 500 / 历史年化 ~10%)"] D["目标日期退休基金 (随年龄自动调配风险)"] end subgraph Outcome["长期结果"] E["退休后累积 200万 - 500万美元"] end A --> B B --> C B --> D C --> E D --> E ``` 当 Rogan 询问普通人该如何起步时，Caleb 强调了“低成本指数基金”（Low-cost index funds）和富达（Fidelity）等平台提供的“目标日期退休基金”（Target-date retirement funds）。投资者只需选择自己预计退休的年份区间买入，基金就会全自动平衡资产配比——年轻时激进追求高收益，临近退休时自动转为保守配置。Caleb 指出，甚至在有雇主资金匹配（401k match）这种“白送钱”的情况下，许多美国人依旧没有参与，这令人难以理解。他直言个人理财的底层逻辑非常简单，哪怕只是翻翻基础书籍或看看 YouTube 上内容平实的硬核博主就能掌握，远不需要精通复杂的个股交易。 - 1990 年美国全职劳动者的平均年薪仅约为 21,000 美元。 - 标普 500 指数长期以来的平均年化回报率约为 10%。 - 30 岁以下年轻人中，有高达 60% 会根据自己收听的播客或网络主播来调整股票投资组合。 --- ### [13:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=806s) 散户盲从、跟单佩洛西与国会内幕交易 Caleb 对当前年轻一代的理财现状表达了极大的担忧：数据显示 30 岁以下的群体中有 60% 会根据播客内容操作投资组合。不仅如此，在 Kick 和 Twitch 等直播平台上，早间最火爆的直播间竟然是日内交易主播（Day traders），动辄吸引 2.5 万人同时在线、单日播放量达数十万，成千上万的年轻散户在完全不懂逻辑的情况下实时跟单。这引发了两人关于跟单政客的讨论。Caleb 坦言自己尝试性地往追踪南希·佩洛西（Nancy Pelosi）持股的投资产品（如追踪议员交易的 ETF/基金）里放了 1,000 美元，结果几个月内就暴涨了 20% 到 30%，轻松跑赢了他自己的专业投资组合。Rogan 痛批国会议员的内幕交易竟然完全合法——议员们提前知晓政府将通过涉及人工智能芯片的巨额法案，随后大举买入英伟达（NVIDIA）等相关股票，法案一通过股价便暴涨 500%。对于制度漏洞，两人都感到不可思议。 --- ### [15:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=928s) 预测市场、内幕作弊与乔治·桑托斯话题随后转向预测市场平台（如 Kalshi 和 Polymarket）上滋生的内幕交易。Caleb 指出，涉及委内瑞拉总统马杜罗相关行动的人员以及前国会议员乔治·桑托斯（George Santos）近期都卷入了内幕交易指控。桑托斯虽在其他指控上获得了特赦，但最近再度被查：他在社交媒体上信誓旦旦声称自己“百分之百会出席国情咨文现场”并展示了座位，转头却在预测市场上大笔押注自己“不会出席”，目前至少有四名其亲信正在接受美国联邦贸易委员会（FTC）的调查。 Rogan 和 Caleb 调侃桑托斯简直愚蠢至极，明明凭借“毒舌又好玩”的性格完全可以在播客界大赚特赚，却非要搞低劣的诈骗。Rogan 还透露，他曾发现 Polymarket 等预测市场上居然有大量针对《Joe Rogan Experience》节目的盘口，例如竞猜节目会聊什么话题、会邀请哪位嘉宾登场。Rogan 当时立刻勒令制作人 Jamie 关掉电脑网页，严禁再看这些网站，因为这种近在咫尺的内幕如果通过离岸账户去下注操盘，牟利实在太容易，必须从源头上彻底切断作弊的诱惑。 --- ### [17:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=1026s) 商业赞助：SimpliSafe 智能家庭安防在节目的中插广告中，Joe Rogan 向听众推荐了家庭安防品牌 SimpliSafe。他提到夏季出行度假时保护住宅安全的重要性，强调 SimpliSafe 能够实时监测并阻止犯罪发生，而且免去了长期捆绑合同和繁琐的专业技术人员上门预约流程。用户自己花费一个下午甚至更短时间就能轻松完成安装。节目听众访问 simplysafe.com/rogan 购买新系统可享受 50% 的限时折扣。 ### [18:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=1086s) 国会议员内幕交易的“两党默契” 谈话从国会议员炒股的丑闻切入。Caleb Hammer 指出，虽然国会内部经常有人提议立法，规定议员只能投资标普500（S&P 500）等大盘指数基金，但这帮人根本不可能让这种法案通过，“他们根本不在乎”。Joe Rogan 随即附和，直言这完全是一场两党共享的狂欢：大众总是把南希·佩洛西（Nancy Pelosi）当成唯一的出头鸟和替罪羊（scapegoat），大家都在揪着她骂，但只要翻开交易记录就会发现，红党（共和党）和蓝党（民主党）全都在干同一档子事。两人辛辣地嘲讽了这种制度性腐败。Rogan 直言，这些议员全都在疯狂做交易、捞大钱；他们拿着区区十来万美元的官方年薪，进国会时穷得叮当响，出来时一个个身家千万、富得流油，这种既当裁判又当选手的行为简直荒谬至极。 - **标普500限制提案**：试图限制国会议员仅能持有大盘指数基金的提案屡屡搁浅，缺乏实质推进意愿。 - **两党一致获利**：议员年薪约10万多美元，但卸任时普遍积累了数千万巨额财富，内幕交易呈现跨党派普遍性。 --- ### [18:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=1120s) 乔治·桑托斯（George Santos）的荒诞谎言宇宙与预测市场新风波话题很快转向近期再次曝出丑闻的前纽约州共和党籍国会议员乔治·桑托斯（George Santos）。Rogan 对他的荒诞事迹极其着迷，让制作人 Jamie 调出最新资讯。NPR 针对桑托斯在预测交易平台 Kalshi 上的涉嫌内幕交易行为联系了他，桑托斯的反应颇具喜感，称“这对我来说真是个新闻”，甚至宣称自己“既不说有，也不说没有”。他辩称 Kalshi 的联合创始人卢阿娜·洛佩兹·拉拉（Luana Lopez Lara）是自己的巴西同胞且私交甚笃，他会亲自打电话核实是否真有调查，并承诺向 NPR 同步进展，但随后便彻底失联。 Jamie 随后使用 Perplexity 整理了桑托斯令人瞠目结舌的履历造假清单。Rogan 忍不住边看边笑，戏谑地称他是“真正的造假之王（What a king）”： ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 乔治·桑托斯捏造的虚假身份网络 accDescr: 展示前国会议员乔治·桑托斯在教育、金融背景、个人血统和慈善经历等方面的全面造假内容。 subgraph 学历与职涯造假 A["声称巴鲁克学院/纽大极优等毕业"] --> A1["实际：无任何大学学位"] B["声称任职高盛与花旗集团"] --> B1["实际：两家机构均无在职记录"] end subgraph 身份与经历造假 C["声称犹太大屠杀难民后裔"] --> C1["实际：改口自称仅是'Jew-ish'"] D["声称母亲因9/11事件遇难"] --> D1["实际：母亲死于2016年"] E["声称救助2500只猫狗的慈善机构"] --> E1["实际：未见任何注册实体"] F["曾否认变装经历"] --> F1["实际：被曝巴西狂欢节变装皇后照片"] end ``` 桑托斯最终因电信欺诈（wire fraud）和严重身份盗窃（aggravated identity theft）被判处87个月监禁，官方通报将他的过往描述为“谎言、盗窃与欺诈的堆叠”。此外，众议院道德委员会公布其挪用竞选资金用于个人奢侈消费的报告后，他被正式驱逐出国会。Rogan 遗憾又好笑地感叹，桑托斯明明拥有极高的知名度和搞笑天赋，本应老老实实做个播客、开个 YouTube 频道赚大钱，却非要走邪门歪道。 --- ### [22:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=1343s) 预测市场追踪难点与总统特赦特权的漏洞讨论深入到桑托斯此次涉嫌下注的预测市场机制。Caleb 提到，像 Kalshi 或基于加密货币后台的 Polymarket 这种预测平台，资金链路本身较难追踪，这或许也是桑托斯选择在此类平台进行内幕交易的原因。然而根据早间新闻，他是被身边的四名密友直接举报的。Rogan 调侃道，对于这种满嘴谎言、习惯背叛的人来说，身边根本不可能有真正信得过的朋友，被举报纯属必然。关于桑托斯为何能出狱，Jamie 查实唐纳德·特朗普于2025年10月签署的是**减刑令（commutation）**而非全面特赦（pardon）：减刑缩短了他的刑期并将其立即释放，但保留了其犯罪记录。特朗普当时辩称桑托斯遭到了严重不公的对待，在单独监禁中关了太久，对一名“离经叛道的政客”而言过于严苛。 Rogan 由此严厉批判了美国宪法赋予总统的赦免权机制： - **裙带与交易工具**：总统可以毫无逻辑地让一个抢银行的熟人免罪释放，只要你有关系、有政治献金或者认识总统的朋友，就能逍遥法外；普通人则只能在牢里烂掉。 - **拜登的大规模赦免与自动签名笔（Autopen）争议**：Rogan 指出拜登赦免的人数刷新了历史纪录，甚至包含大量无实质指控的“先发制人式赦免（preemptive pardons）”。他质疑当时拜登认知能力明显退化，“整个人几乎都不在状态”，这些动用自动签名笔签署的特赦在法律伦理上极度荒谬。 --- ### [26:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=1568s) 司法系统的讽刺两极：深陷冤狱与放纵暴力累犯从不公的特赦话题，Rogan 联想到了美国司法系统更深层的黑幕。他谈及好友 Josh Dubin（曾任职于“清白计划”Innocence Project，现任职于艾克·珀尔马特法律正义中心 Ike Perlmutter Center for Legal Justice）所接触的大量冤假错案。Rogan 痛斥那些腐败的检察官、地区检察官（DA）和流氓警察：为了拼凑定罪率，他们明知抓错了人却故意隐瞒关键无罪证据，在内心用“反正这人也是个毒贩/人渣，关进去社会更好”来自我合理化，转头就心安理得地去莫尔顿牛排馆（Morton's）吃牛排。 Caleb 顺着这个话题指出了当前司法体系的另一端极端现象——激进派自由主义检察官对真正危险的罪犯毫无作为。他以奥斯汀当地的治安现状为例指出，今年奥斯汀发生的所有恶性暴力犯罪，凶手几乎全都是被司法系统抓了又放的惯犯（repeat criminals）。例如在奥斯汀 360 号公路（Loop 360）附近，一名此前被数次释放的前科人员最终残忍杀害了自己的全家。两人一致感叹，司法体制正在陷入一种扭曲的双重荒谬：一方面将毫无实质威胁甚至完全清白的人死死锁在牢笼深处，另一方面却对真正危及公众安全的暴力暴徒大开绿灯、反复释放。 ### [27:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=1658s) 惯犯轻判现象与刑事司法改革思潮的反思两人深入探讨了当下的刑事司法体系与轻判政策带来的社会后果。Joe Rogan 指出，许多政策将罪犯归因于“受保护群体”、遭遇过种族歧视或年轻时的不公待遇，认为整个体制带有偏见，因而一味给予其重返社会的机会，结果却将极度危险的重刑犯释放。例如在纽约市，曾有人将无辜路人推下地铁轨道，而该案嫌疑人此前竟已被捕超过十几次。纽约市甚至有一组惊人的统计数据表明，大约 50% 的暴力犯罪和抢劫都是由极少数具有多次前科的惯犯犯下的；如果这批人被有效监禁，整座城市的暴力犯罪和盗窃率直接就能减半。 Caleb Hammer 结合自身经历回顾了这种舆论环境的演变。他提到早在 2015 年左右，油管上的知名创作者（如 Vlogbrothers 等）便开始广泛制作关于“监狱工业复合体”（Prison-Industrial Complex）的视频。虽然美国监狱人口庞大确实是事实，但当时网络上充斥着一种完全不容置疑的声音，主张美国社会在刑罚上过于苛刻和惩罚过度。到了 2020 年乔治·弗洛伊德事件爆发后，旧金山、芝加哥等地的极左翼地方检察官（DA）纷纷上台，推行极其宽松的免罪政策，甚至容忍大范围的财产破坏。在部分大城市，重罪盗窃的立案门槛被大幅提高（如加利福尼亚州将重罪盗窃门槛提高至 950 美元，芝加哥等地也大幅放宽）。Caleb 感慨，当年大家全盘吞下这些缺乏对立视角的叙事，保守派在福克斯新闻上的叫嚷成了唯一的反对声，如今整个社会正在品尝当年盲目跟风结下的苦果。 - 纽约市数据显示，约 50% 的暴力犯罪由极少数重复犯罪的惯犯所为。 - 加州 47 号提案将重罪盗窃门槛提升至 950 美元，使轻罪盗窃几乎免除实质惩罚。 - 2015 年前后互联网舆论集中批判“监狱工业复合体”，为后来的极端免罪政策埋下伏笔。 --- ### [29:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=1794s) 地方检察官选举的资本操控与城市安全恶化 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: DA Campaign Investment Cycle accDescr: 资本通过低成本撬动地方检察官选举并影响城市治安的链条图 A["资本注入 (Soros 等基金会)"] -->|"低成本选战 (撬动杠杆)"| B["激进派 DA 上任 (极度放宽刑罚)"] B -->|"释放惯犯 取消保释金"| C["治安迅速恶化 (犯罪率飙升)"] C -->|"城市基础设施受损 企业与居民逃离"| D["城市衰败与社会动荡"] ``` Joe Rogan 揭示了司法轻判政策背后更深层次的政治资本运作。他提到了乔治·索罗斯（George Soros）及其开放社会基金会（Open Society Foundations），指出其策略是将资金精准注入到地方检察官（DA）的竞选当中。相较于总统或州长选举动辄数亿的开销，地方检察官的竞选成本极低，却拥有决定是否起诉犯罪的巨大自由裁量权，形成了极高的“政治投资回报率”。通过扶植一个又一个更加偏激的极左候选人，足以彻底搞垮一座城市的治安系统。 Joe 举例提到洛杉矶前地方检察官乔治·加斯康（George Gascón），批评其治下释放了大量暴力犯罪分子。比如曾有罪犯持刀袭击治安副官，被释放后不久竟然在马里布或圣莫尼卡一带手持开山刀残忍砍杀带着孩子的无辜平民。Joe 还提到曾在一期播客中听到一位前洛杉矶帮派头目表示自己不得不搬离洛杉矶，因为监狱过度拥挤导致政府计划释放数以千计的暴力罪犯，连帮派分子都觉得街头已经失控。Joe 转述他与埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）的讨论称，部分势力乃至狂热分子内心或许真的认定美国文明是邪恶的，期望看到现有社会秩序崩溃。 --- ### [32:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=1937s) 治安崩溃对公共交通与城市基础设施的毁灭性打击 Caleb Hammer 对此深有感触，并解释了为何自己反对加州高铁等昂贵公共项目的巨额拨款。他强调自己本身是公共基础设施和高密度居住社区的坚定拥护者，非常向往充满烟火气、便民宜居的现代城市社区，甚至希望奥斯汀也能拥有完备的地铁系统。然而，现实是残酷的：只要政府持续纵容暴力罪犯、任由瘾君子在旧金山地铁上逃票吸食冰毒，这些美好的公共设施就注定会被彻底毁掉。 Caleb 分享了在奥斯汀的日常生活见闻：他和女友开车经过公交站时，两人都感叹绝不敢在当地乘坐公交车，因为他曾亲眼目睹有人在南拉马尔大道（South Lamar）的公交站公然点燃冰毒烟斗，长椅上也睡满了无家可归者，纳税人根本无法正常候车。Caleb 愤怒地表示，面对有严重精神疾病和吸毒问题的人群，放任他们流落街头或睡在公交站绝非所谓“人道”，强行将他们安置在专门机构才合乎情理。不能保护守法、纳税、善良市民的公共安全，任何宏伟的城市基础设施建设都是空中楼阁。 - 公共交通设施沦为流浪汉和吸毒者的聚集地，导致普通市民不敢使用。 - Caleb 指出在奥斯汀南拉马尔大道等主干道旁，公交站点公然吸食冰毒已屡见不鲜。 - 所谓“包容流浪汉睡街头”的放任政策，在人道主义和实际治理层面上均已彻底破产。 --- ### [33:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=2037s) 算法茧房、“道德自嗨”与极端意识形态绑架当 Joe 询问究竟是什么原因导致决策者无法做出常识性的选择来保护守法公民时，Caleb 提出了“政治捕获”（Political Capture）和“道德自嗨”（Moral Masturbation）的概念。他认为算法推荐系统（如 TikTok）能在大约三分钟内摸清用户偏好并将其固化在特定回音室中，让人彻底丧失接触多元视角的可能。现在的年轻一代（尤其是年轻女性）在政治立场上正走向美国历史上前所未有的激进化和极端左倾。 Caleb 分析道，许多政策在口号上听起来极其崇高和悦耳——比如“租金管制”、“轻罪不判刑”、“取消流浪汉营地清理”——这些主张迎合了年轻群体在道德优越感上的沉迷，却完全无视其灾难性的现实后果。在网络极端算法的推波助澜下，哪怕一个人只在 1% 的问题上与主流极左立场不一致（比如质疑税收不该乱花、反对机构臃肿膨胀），就会立刻被扣上“纳粹”的帽子并遭到群体驱逐。Caleb 坦言自己曾是标准的温和偏左派，读音乐学院期间却因不愿全盘盲从极左教条而被同学视作异类；如今他在经济层面上逐渐转向中道偏右，深刻认识到社会的运转离不开常识与对实际后果的敬畏。对于索罗斯等资本推手的真实动机，Joe 认为这绝非出于天真善意，而是利用社会动荡牟利的冷酷算计；Caleb 则苦笑承认，自己过去习惯性把人的动机往好处想，但现实往往让善良的预期落空。 ### [37:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=2232s) 加文·纽森的政治算计、富豪税陷阱与伯尼·桑德斯的“门柱位移” Joe 指出，许多政客的所作所为完全出于自私自利的政治盘算，他们深知大众容易在意识形态上被政治绑架，因此只会挑那些最符合自身形象包装的话说。在他看来，加州州长加文·纽森（Gavin Newsom）如果换在 1990 年代，完全可能成为一名共和党人。纽森的一切观点都服务于个人竞选利益与公众形象；每当加州出现危机需要问责时，他从不正面解决问题，而是立刻祭出一套排练得烂熟于心的官话套话，一边在空中比划着各种浮夸的肢体手势，跳起某种“该死的巫术之舞”，一边吹嘘加州拥有全球最大的科技板块、是位列世界第四的超级经济体。这种表演纯粹是为了把局面粉饰得光鲜亮丽，为他自己积累政治资本。 Caleb 观察到，纽森随着未来向总统宝座发起冲击的野心日益明显，其立场已经开始往中间靠拢，比如他开始公开反对加州激进派提出的“亿万富翁税”（Billionaire Tax）。在加州竞选州长的左翼政客几乎都对该税项表示赞成，但几乎每一份独立智库的研究报告都发出过警告：征收这种财富税或许能在极短时间内为财政捞取数百亿美元，但从长远来看，加州将失去数千亿美元，因为富豪们每年的财富一旦要被生吞活剥，他们就会直接打包资产逃离该州。 Joe 补充说，这种税收政策最危险的地方在于其“滑坡效应”（Slippery Slope）。征税法案在推行之初往往声称只针对金字塔尖的亿万富翁，但一旦法案敲定，政府根本不需要再让选民投票表决，就能随意暗中挪动考核门槛，税收大网会一步步向下蔓延，直到剥削到身家只有几千美元的普通工薪阶层。Joe 拿伯尼·桑德斯（Bernie Sanders）举了一个极其讽刺的例子：桑德斯当年四处巡回演说时，天天在台上声嘶力竭地痛斥“百万富翁（millionaires）是社会毒瘤，没有缴纳公平的税收”；然而如今他的口号却悄然改成了“亿万富翁（billionaires）才是祸根”。为什么口号突然变了？因为伯尼·桑德斯自己靠版税和演讲也成了身家数百万的“百万富翁”。这种因自身利益而挪动道德标准的做派既荒诞又一眼看穿。 - 纽森在面对加州治理危机时，习惯用“加州是全球第四大经济体”和“拥有最大科技板块”等预设台词转移视线。 - 智库预测显示，加州推行亿万富翁税虽能在短期掠取数百亿美元，但长远来看富人外逃将造成数千亿美元的财政税基净流失。 - 征税门槛具有不可逆的扩张性，一旦法案落地，权力机构往往越过公众监督随意修改课税区间。 - 伯尼·桑德斯的抗议话术从抨击“百万富翁”自动升格为抨击“亿万富翁”，恰好对应了他个人步入百万富翁阶层的时间点。 --- ### [39:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=2362s) 大学象牙塔的幻象：将资本主义北欧误当共产主义，以及 500:1 的学术回音室谈及左翼思潮的极端化，Joe 感叹当今有极庞大数量的年轻人从大学毕业后，竟然发自内心地坚信共产主义（Communism）是解决人类社会问题的灵丹妙药。Caleb 认为这种想法极其可怕，因为倡导这种制度的人从未思考过其具体的执行手段：究竟靠谁来强迫公民上交私人财产与土地？只能依靠政府；而谁掌握着国家军队和暴力机关？依然是政府。这就意味着，拥护这套理念的人本质上是在呼唤一场由手握枪杆子的“军事独裁”来全面接管社会财政、房产、农田乃至口粮配给。人类历史上甚至找不出任何一个哪怕勉强说得过去的共产主义实践案例。为了给这群受骗的学生留一丝同情，Caleb 指出，许多刚走出校门的年轻人被问及何为共产主义时，脑海中浮现的其实是斯堪的纳维亚半岛（北欧国家）的高福利社会民主模式。他们根本不理解概念的严格定义，更不知道北欧各国的庞大公共福利完全是建立在残酷且高效的自由资本主义之上的，其全部预算都来源于资本主义市场所创造的高额个人所得税。 Joe 和 Caleb 深入剖析了大学校园被政治全面俘获的根源。Joe 痛批道，当今大学里充斥着一辈子从未踏入过真实社会的象牙塔囚徒：这些学者从学生毕业，直接在大学任教，最后熬成教授，终其一生都与真实市场完全绝缘。这群从未创办过小企业、从未体会过被公司解雇又在泥潭中求职打拼的“囚徒”，却在高台上大言不惭地向学生灌输所谓的乌托邦理论。Caleb 补充指出，当今高校内部的意识形态已经失衡到了极其荒谬的地步，多项针对不同学术院系的调研显示，在某些社会学系中，注册为民主党人的教授甚至高达 300 人，而注册为共和党人的只有 1 人，有些院系比例甚至悬殊至 500:1 或 200:1。当学生四年沉浸在没有任何反对声音的极端回音室中时，思想不可避免地走向了极左化。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 大学象牙塔与共产主义幻象的形成闭环 accDescr: 展示了从大学教授缺乏现实经验、院系意识形态高度失衡，到误将北欧资本主义混淆为共产主义并推导向极权强制的逻辑闭环。 subgraph Academia["学术闭环生态"] A["学者生命轨迹：学生 ➔ 职工 ➔ 终身教授 （终生缺乏真实商业与创业经验）"] B["极端意识形态失衡 （某些院系党派比例达 300:1 至 500:1）"] A --> B end subgraph Ideology["学生意识形态构建"] C["概念混淆：误将北欧福利制度 视为共产主义或纯社会主义"] D["忽视北欧税收本质： 庞大福利全额依赖资本主义市场创造的财富"] B --> C C -.-> D end subgraph Reality["制度落地终局"] E["推行财产公有化与财富强制再分配"] F["强制执行依赖暴力机构： 军事独裁全面掌控土地、住房与粮食"] C --> E E --> F end ``` - 大学生对共产主义的向往普遍源于概念混淆，将北欧由资本主义市场税收支撑的福利制度错误标签化。 - 任何试图全面剥夺私有财产的制度安排，其终极执行端必然演变成由掌握武装力量的集权政府进行托底。 - 大学校园教职员工群体脱离现实经济循环，形成了从校园直接过渡至终身教职的封闭认知闭环。 - 部分顶尖高校社会学系的教师政治光谱调查显示，左翼与右翼的党派注册比例最高可达 300:1 甚至 500:1，彻底丧失了多元视角的制衡可能。 --- ### [42:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=2523s) Caleb 的“Weird”词源批判遭遇战、思想多样性与违背人性的空想为了说明大学环境的思想窒息程度，Caleb 分享了自己在音乐学院读书时的荒谬遭遇。尽管他自己在许多社会议题上持偏左的自由主义态度，但他极度鄙视如今校园里盛行的“觉醒文化”（Woke shit）。当时有一位客座女教授播放了一段音乐，热情地邀请全班同学给出“最真实诚恳的反馈”。Caleb 听完后觉得旋律古怪，便坦率地表达了自己不太喜欢，觉得这曲子听起来“有点怪（a little weird）”。万万没想到，这个简短的评价立刻引爆了一场灾难——这位女教授当场对他进行了长达十分钟的政治批斗，滔滔不绝地痛陈“weird（怪异）”这个词在历史上是如何被用来推行殖民主义、蓄奴制度、监禁屠杀有色人种以及迫害跨性别群体的。最令 Caleb 感到毛骨悚然的是全场的死寂：教室里甚至可能有其他心智正常的教授和同学内心并不认同这番疯话，但没有一个人敢站出来为他发声，因为任何异议都会瞬间导致你在校园圈子里被彻底“社会性抹杀”（Ostracized），沦为被所有人避之不及的弃儿。Joe 感叹，当环境比例悬殊到数百比一时，人们就再也听不到任何理性的反对声音；而那些整天高喊“包容与多样性（Diversity）”的极端派，所排斥的恰恰是最宝贵、最核心的“思想多样性（Diversity of thought）”。他们甚至无法容忍自己政治光谱右侧的人存在哪怕一丝一毫的合理观点。 Joe 坦言，自己虽然在社会观念上非常宽容自由，但在经济财政层面则坚定偏向保守右翼，其根本原因在于他相信“人性”（Human nature）。社会主义理论最大的硬伤就是全盘违背了人性：它在机制上惩罚那些勤奋拼搏、野心勃勃的人，却在制度上嘉奖那些怠惰偷生、毫无上进心的人。这种体制滋生了全社会的应得感（Entitlement）与寄生心态，诱导公众形成一种“只要别人混得好，就活该被政府搜刮来养我”的畸形思维，却从不曾有一句拷问抛向这些坐享其成者：“你为什么就不能自己去努力过好这一生？” - Caleb 在音乐学院仅因评价音乐“有点怪（weird）”，便遭到客座教授长达 10 分钟关于殖民主义、奴役和迫害有色人种的大字报式训斥。 - 校园政治正确造成了群体噤声效应，即使旁观者明白其荒唐，也因恐惧失去社交圈子和学术前途而不敢反驳。 - 现代左翼所谓的“多元化”往往仅局限于肤色与祖先出身等外在属性，在思想和政治观点上则表现出极端的单一与排他。 - 社会主义制度设计的本质缺陷在于背离人性，通过惩罚奋斗者、奖赏懒惰者削弱了人类社会赖以发展的内生动力。 --- ### [44:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=2687s) 变质的税收观念、针对富豪的政治作秀与西雅图等城市的资本大逃亡讨论深入到纳税心态的时代异变。Caleb 直言，全社会关于税收的讨论已经被彻底颠倒了黑白。他自己从来不反对多纳税，前提是这些税金确实用于建造公共基础设施、修缮道路或资助真正造福社会的公共事业；然而如今网络上呼吁增税的论调，已经堕落为赤裸裸的阶级嫉妒与抢劫：“那个人钱包太鼓了，我们赶紧去抢点过来。” Joe 极为赞同，并指出如今政客挂在嘴边的所谓“支付合理份额（Pay their fair share）”已经成了一句极具欺骗性的抽象口号。在逼迫别人掏钱之前，公众最该追问的是：政府手里的这笔钱到底流向了哪里？成千上万个打着各种名目的非政府组织（NGO）充当了资金清洗的白手套，数十亿美元的公款在错综复杂的秘密渠道里不知所踪，纳税人对此视而不见，反而将火力对准那些顶尖的纳税大户。Joe 举了纽约激进左翼众议员佐兰·马姆达尼（Zohran Mamdani）的例子：此人像疯子一样跑到对冲基金 Citadel 创始人肯·格里芬（Ken Griffin）价值 2.5 亿美元的纽约豪华顶层公寓楼下搞政治抗议、人肉曝光对方的住所。这种愚蠢的作秀直接导致格里芬把庞大的企业版图和海量财富彻底撤离纽约，迁往了低税收的佛罗里达州迈阿密。更令两人匪夷所思的是，许多极左翼民选政客对资本的溃逃完全不以为意。比如西雅图的前激进议员（如莎玛·萨万特等人）在面对富豪和企业的大规模撤离时，居然在媒体镜头前嘲弄道：“他们要走？那就滚蛋吧，再见！”Caleb 对这种心态感到不可思议：这些政客居然在为财富的流失、工作岗位的蒸发而得意发笑。更讽刺的是，许多受不了西雅图营商环境的企业甚至没有搬离华盛顿州，它们只是从西雅图跨过华盛顿湖，迁到了对岸的贝尔维尤（Bellevue）——微软等一众科技巨头正在那里大兴土木建造全新园区。而与此同时，被激进政客折腾的西雅图市中心，写字楼空置率已经一路飙升至全美第二高，城市商业核心区彻底走向了萧条。 - 网络上的增税思潮已从“筹集公共建设资金”异化为“惩罚拥有财富者”的劫富心态。 - 政府财政缺乏透明度，海量税款通过成千上万个 NGO（非政府组织）在暗流涌动的渠道中不知所终。 - 纽约政客曝光肯·格里芬 2.5 亿美元豪宅的作秀行为，直接促成其将核心资本与商业实体整体南迁至迈阿密。 - 西雅图极左政客对企业撤离报以嘲笑态度，直接导致大量优质就业与企业园区迁往邻近的贝尔维尤（Bellevue），西雅图市中心写字楼空置率随之攀升至全美第二高。 ### [46:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=2771s) 极端房产提案与租金管制的恶性循环谈话从对某些城市管理者荒谬言行的抨击开始。提及某位政客对全美居高不下的房屋空置率嗤之以鼻甚至发笑时，乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）毫不客气地评价道：“那绝不是什么好人。”凯莱布·汉默（Caleb Hammer）随即补充，这位管理者此前甚至从没正经上过一天班，“想象一下你的第一份工作就是直接掌管一整座城市”，这种荒唐直接导致治理崩盘、市民纷纷逃离。紧接着，两人讨论起纽约州议员佐兰·马姆达尼（Zohran Mamdani）近期的激进提言——声称政府应该直接没收那些所谓“不良房东”的房产。乔和凯莱布对此感到难以置信，直呼这简直是“共产主义”和“北韩模式”的翻版：“这就像在说，‘农场种的番茄太贵了，那我们就直接把农场没收接管’， North Korea 当年就是这么起步的——‘把农场交出来，我们来喂饱所有人’。” 凯莱布进一步剖析了所谓“不良房东”背后的现实困境。在纽约这类全美人口最密集的城市，大量房屋之所以破败不堪，根源往往在于严苛的租金管制制度。房东收到的微薄租金甚至不足以覆盖基础维护成本，导致大量房源因无力翻新而只能长期闲置。一套本意为了保障居住权的制度，最终却沦为阻碍住房供应的表演性政治工具。 ### [47:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=2859s) 亿万富翁的“空中金库”与中央公园摇晃的摩天大楼随着纽约话题的展开，两人聊到了该市另一项畸形现象：超级富豪们斥巨资购入上亿美元的豪华公寓，却一天也不去住，仅仅将其作为存放资金的保值工具。凯莱布指出，全球亿万富翁乃至美国本土富豪在欧洲等地同样这么做，房产一直被视为极佳的资产防御港；不过这对本地居民极不公平，因此像得克萨斯州等地方立法限制某些外国买家此类行为完全合情合理。不过，凯莱布也提到了投资人凯文·奥利里（Kevin O'Leary）提出的逆向视角：这些富豪买下顶层豪宅后根本不住，意味着他们从不占用当地任何公共服务设施，却每年足额缴纳数额庞大的房产税，因此在财政上反而是城市的“净贡献者”。乔对此表示认同，并指出像对冲基金巨头肯·格里芬（Ken Griffin）购买的上亿美元豪宅，普通人本来也买不起，如果不是为了卖给这种超级富豪，开发商压根不会投资兴建。随后，乔兴致勃勃地吐槽起中央公园旁“亿万富翁大道”上那些形如冰棒棍的超细摩天大楼。乔表示自己曾看过工程科普视频，这种极度细长的高楼在强风吹拂下会发出怪响并不住摇晃，甚至发生过高空玻璃坠落事件。最讽刺的是，普通建筑工程师往往担心地基下沉，而这类高楼的工程师最头疼的竟是强风反复拉扯导致的“地基拔起”。由于居住体验诡异且转手极其困难，这类炫技的高空豪宅连富豪们都不敢轻易接盘。 ### [49:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=2984s) 屡次失败的五角大楼审计与失控的加州千亿账目谈到缴税与公共开支，凯莱布直言自己完全愿意为了更好的社会环境多缴税，但他最深层的恐惧在于“根本不知道这些钱被挥霍去了哪里”。他半开玩笑地表示，如果参议员马可·卢比奥（Marco Rubio）未来竞选总统，真希望能请他上自己的节目《Financial Audit》好好聊聊：五角大楼（美国国防部）已经连续多年通不过全面审计，甚至历史上从未真正通过过一次审计。凯莱布激动地指出，尽管国防支出占联邦总预算的 10% 到 20% 左右，但国债利息支出如今已经成为联邦预算中增长最快的一项。“既然如此，我们凭什么一边将每年的国防预算推高至一万亿美元，一边却纵容五角大楼永远无法通过审计？我支持强大的国防，也支持为军人提供优厚福利，但它必须通过审计！”乔深有同感地补充道，人人都希望街道整洁、学校优质，但政客们只会一味高喊“让富人缴纳应得份额”，背后却充斥着巨额浪费和欺诈。乔随即拿加利福尼亚州举例：加州在流浪汉问题上豪掷了高达 240 亿美元，但账目完全是一笔糊涂账，根本经不起审计。更荒谬的是，这笔天文数字砸下去不仅毫无成效，反而适得其反——加州的无家可归人口在此期间不减反增。这完全成了政客嘴里听起来好听、实则用来养活无数高薪非营利组织利益链的表演性工程。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 救助模式对比：休斯敦单轨制与洛杉矶分散式非营利网络 accDescr: 对比休斯敦市政府单一责任制的高效运作与洛杉矶分散式非营利组织网络的低效与利益冲突。 subgraph Houston ["休斯敦模式：单一责任机构"] H1["市政府统一牵头机构"] --> H2["直接对选民与市议会负责"] H2 --> H3["资金定向投放，无多余管理层"] H3 --> H4["人均成本极低且流浪人数切实下降"] end subgraph LA ["洛杉矶/加州模式：分散式外包网络"] L1["240 亿美元公共财政拨款"] --> L2["层层外包至海量非营利组织 (NGO)"] L2 --> L3["养肥高薪管理层 / 缺乏审计"] L3 --> L4["激励错位：问题解决则组织失去经费与饭碗"] L4 --> L5["资金耗尽且流浪人口持续激增"] end ``` ### [51:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=3100s) 休斯敦的高效实干与洛杉矶的非营利组织黑洞凯莱布指出，加州和洛杉矶真正应该学习的榜样是得克萨斯州的休斯敦。与洛杉矶将街头救助拆解给无数错综复杂的非营利机构不同，休斯敦采用的是单一、集中的市政府统筹机构。休斯敦在每个无家可归者身上花费的预算大约只有洛杉矶的 10%，却真正实现了街头流浪人口的实质性下降。两人剖析了两者的本质区别：非营利组织体系存在严重的利益机制错位。这些机构依靠解决无家可归问题来获取资助，内部员工和高管拿着极高薪水，一旦流浪汉问题被彻底解决，他们自己的饭碗也就丢了；由于缺乏统一监管，他们甚至连基础数据都拒绝如实汇报。而休斯敦的政府集中机构必须直接对市民、选民和市议会负责，权责清晰，资金流向明确，消除了在中间层层抽水的庞大寄生网络。 ### [52:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=3161s) 哥谭镇现实版：奥斯汀第六街与仅隔一街之隔的收容所讨论转回到两人所在的得克萨斯州奥斯汀。乔提到奥斯汀在 2020 年前后流浪汉问题曾一度严重失控，虽然后续整顿有所改善，但市中心的治安依然十分险恶。乔自己经营的著名喜剧俱乐部 Comedy Mothership 就坐落在著名的第六街（Sixth Street），凯莱布坦言自己经常去那里看演出，但每次走到附近都提心吊胆，“每次去都感觉自己差点要挨刀子”。凯莱布分享了一次带父母去第六街附近酒店屋顶露台的经历，从上面俯瞰后巷，场景阴森骇人，就像“80 或 90 年代《蝙蝠侠》电影里的哥谭市”。乔深以为然，直言许多人标榜的所谓“同情心”十分虚伪——任由精神障碍者和药物成瘾者烂在肮脏危险的后巷里，绝不是什么善意；即便强制康复和精神病院体制历史上有诸多缺陷，也绝对比让他们睡在冰冷的小巷中更有尊严。乔接着揭露了第六街最具魔幻现实色彩的荒谬布局：街的一侧是震耳欲聋的酒吧、现场音乐和彻夜买醉的狂欢人群，而仅仅隔了一条街，就是臭名昭著的流浪汉收容所（ARCH）。收容所内部严禁吸毒，导致那些无法戒除毒瘾的人直接包围了整座建筑，在人行道上扎堆搭帐篷吸毒。凯莱布感叹道：“去 Mothership 看演出时我就把车停在那个收容所旁边，周围宛如末日景象。”即便旁边几步远就是警察局，瘾君子们依然肆无忌惮地聚在警局门前吞云吐雾，整个区域荒唐混乱得令人咋舌。 ### [54:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=3281s) 奥斯汀第六街与流浪汉危机：非营利组织的体制弊端奥斯汀著名的第六街（Sixth Street）正处于艰难的整顿过程中。市政和投资方试图投入重金引进高端餐饮、商业和休闲场所，但这注定是一场漫长而缓慢的硬仗。卡勒布·汉默（Caleb Hammer）直言，虽然自己对流浪汉抱有同情心，承认这些人确实需要救助，但街头的现状早已失控。一项针对无家可归者的民意调查显示，至少有 25% 的人承认自己患有心理健康问题——考虑到这是自述数据，实际比例必然更高。乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）随即指出，25% 绝对是一个极其保守的数字，实际比例更可能接近 80%，因为严格从定义来说，吸毒成瘾本身就是一种严重的心理与精神健康疾患。卡勒布对此深有感触并分享了一段亲身经历：前不久有其他知名播客主朋友来奥斯汀拜访，他带着朋友去市中心参观，结果刚到第六街，眼前赫然出现一个长期游荡在那里的流浪汉正在疯狂挥舞、旋转一把大砍刀（machete）。卡勒布无奈地表示，社会打着“同情与包容”的旗号，任由这些对自己和他人构成严重威胁的人流落街头、为所欲为，这根本不是真正的同情，而是荒谬的放任。罗根进一步剖析了社会治理背后的深层病灶。许多指导社会运转的竞争性理念完全脱离现实，而大众却只能承受其恶果。有人习惯性地把所有问题归咎为“亿万富翁没有缴纳应得的税款”，但罗根认为体制的根本症结在于被既得利益绑架的政府体系，以及畸形的“非营利组织工业复合体”。如果解决流浪汉问题是一项私营商业行为，一家公司拿了资金却解决不了问题就会立刻破产倒闭；然而在非营利机构的保护伞下，高管们一边拿着高达 70 万美元的年薪，一边交出极其糟糕的治理答卷，却完全不用担心失去工作。 - 针对流浪汉的自述民调显示至少 25% 存在心理问题，罗根认为若算上药物成瘾，实际比例高达 80% 以上。 - 第六街长期存在持砍刀游荡的危险流浪汉，但执法与市政干预严重不足。 - 非营利机构缺乏市场问责机制，高管薪酬高达 70 万美元却无法推动实质改变。 --- ### [57:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=3432s) 休斯敦与加州的对比：“住房优先”理念的失败与政治回音室谈及治理流浪汉的实际成效，卡勒布将得克萨斯州休斯敦与加州洛杉矶进行了鲜明对比。除了劳动力和土地成本差异外，两地在庇护所建设成本上有着天壤之别：在休斯敦，为戒毒康复人员建造一个收容床位或房间只需数十万美元；而在加利福尼亚州，受制于极其严苛的环保法规、繁杂冗长且充满繁文缛节的审批流程，以及工会的漫天要价，单套安置单元的建造成本竟高达 100 万美元以上。休斯敦能够以极低成本快速兴建收容设施，从而让更多人得到妥善安置。更根本的分歧在于治理哲学。加州多年前便推行并牢牢固守“住房优先”（Housing First）政策——主张无条件先提供住房，再谈戒毒与心理干预。这一理念听起来极具道德优越感，但在实践中却屡屡溃败：许多人住进耗资数百万美元的高档安置公寓后，不仅毒瘾未除，反而将整栋大楼彻底破坏摧毁。洛杉矶甚至流传着各种荒诞奇闻，比如一名被称为“椅子哥”（chair guy）的安置人员在公寓里私自造椅子，最终一把火将整栋公寓烧毁。相反，得州与休斯敦采取的是“先戒瘾、后安置”的务实路线，要求流浪人员先接受戒毒治疗，再进入过渡性住房，反而在帮助他们重塑人生方面取得了显著成效。罗根与卡勒布感叹，加州明知“住房优先”推行了十到十五年毫无成效，却依然不断追加财政拨款，根本原因在于政治捕获以及社交媒体构筑的信息茧房。在这些极端的意识形态回音室里，失败的政策被包装成“唯一道德的方案”，任何提出异议或讲求常识的人都会被扣上“纳粹”或“法西斯”的帽子。更令人担忧的是，这种极化思潮正在让越来越多的年轻人群体接受对政治异见者施加暴力的合法性。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 加州与得州流浪汉治理模式对比 accDescr: 对比加州高成本的住房优先模式与休斯敦低成本的戒毒优先安置模式 subgraph CA["加利福尼亚模式（住房优先）"] A1["政策哲学：先分房，再戒瘾"] --> A2["制度阻碍：严苛法规、环保审批、工会溢价"] A2 --> A3["成本极高：单个单元超100万美元"] A3 --> A4["后果：设施遭破坏，毒瘾未除，收效甚微"] end subgraph TX["得克萨斯/休斯敦模式（务实干预）"] B1["政策哲学：先戒瘾治疗，后安置住房"] --> B2["制度优势：精简审批、注重成本控制"] B2 --> B3["成本可控：单个单元仅数十万美元"] B3 --> B4["后果：帮助人员重构生活，成效显著"] end ``` --- ### [59:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=3560s) 网暴、死亡威胁与“冒犯他人”的审查清单极化舆论的恶果直接蔓延到了卡勒布的现实生活中。他在日常运营《财务审计》（Financial Audit）播客时，收件箱里塞满了人肉搜索（doxing）与死亡威胁，甚至因为告诫观众“不要花超过你收入的钱”而被极端网民扣上“法西斯分子”的帽子。为了保障人身安全，他不得不自费聘请专业安保人员。罗根对此感到难以置信，询问究竟是什么言论会引发如此强烈的恨意。卡勒布解释道，除了倡导克制消费外，他的节目风格偏向犀利吐槽（roast）。但他强调，这些吐槽全部建立在与嘉宾充分沟通的“知情同意”基础之上。每位嘉宾在录制前都会填写一份详细的“禁忌清单”（no-no list），明确勾选自己不愿被提及的话题。只要写在清单上，卡勒布在录制中便绝口不提；而只有在嘉宾明确允许的前提下，他才会口无遮拦地调侃对方的各种毛病。讽刺的是，当事人明明乐在其中、毫不在意，网络上的“正义斗士”却会替嘉宾感到被冒犯，并对卡勒布发起排山倒海的围攻。卡勒布分享了一个荒诞的死亡威胁案例：就在录制播客的前一天，一位来自圣安东尼奥的推特用户向他发出死亡威胁，称“卡勒布·汉默竟然还能呼吸这个世界的空气，这简直太疯狂了”，并威胁要亲自从圣安东尼奥开车上来干掉他。而引发这起极端暴怒的原因，仅仅是因为卡勒布发了一条推文指出“美国人在汽车上花费了过多不必要的金钱”。罗根打趣道，这个扬言要杀人的网友搞不好是个汽车销售人员。 --- ### [01:01:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=3664s) 个人能动性、Z世代的外卖恶习与历史生活水平对比卡勒布谈到了外界对他节目的另一项主要指责——批评他不深入探讨导致贫困的宏观体制性问题。卡勒布明确反驳称，自己的节目核心定位就是“个人责任感”，因为在现实中，个体所具备的能动性（agency）远比人们愿意承认的要大得多。他承认当前的社会并非尽善尽美，大学学费、住房成本和医疗开支确实大幅飙升，但客观事实是，现代人生活在人类历史上可支配收入最高的社会之中。谈及年轻一代的财务困局，卡勒布特别指出了 Z 世代（Generation Z）在餐饮支出上的惊人恶习。Z 世代在外就餐的频率远超以往任何一代人，更夸张的是，他们每周多次的就餐需求中有整整 25% 是通过外卖配送解决的，而外卖平台的溢价通常高达 90%。在卡勒布的节目中，年轻嘉宾每个月在外卖和快餐（如麦当劳）上挥霍 1,000 美元是极其普遍的现象。当一个月花 1,000 美元吃外卖时，抱怨“买不起理想的房子或租不起好公寓”纯属本末倒置。在当下的年轻文化中，自己动手做饭甚至被扭曲成了一种沉重的负担和受害者情结。卡勒布曾公开认同知名投资人凯文·奥利里（Kevin O'Leary）的观点——即年轻人变穷往往是因为每次随手花 28 美元外出就餐。虽然单次 28 美元看似不起眼，但财务的崩塌正是这种“千刀万剐”（death by a thousand cuts）的过程。每周外出消费三次 28 美元，看似小数目，如果把这笔钱持续投入标普 500 指数（S&P 500），经过时间复利发酵，足以积累出一笔相当可观的退休养老基金。然而，这一建议在网上招致了铺天盖地的攻击，网民们质问“不点外卖那我们吃什么？”卡勒布只能无语地回应：“买菜、备餐、做饭，这是人类有史以来一直在做的事情！” 最后，卡勒布将当代生活与 20 世纪 50 年代进行了深刻对比。许多人怀念 50 年代普通人就能买得起首套房的时代，但却忽视了背后的残酷代价：当年的所谓独立住宅，面积小得几乎和现在的录音室差不多大，全是流水线量产的简易房；更重要的是，当时的劳动者每天必须在没有空调的恶劣环境中从事挥汗如雨、极其繁重的体力劳动，干着自己痛恨的工作。现代人在工作环境、物质生活和技术便利上享受着人类历史上最好的时代，却往往缺乏面对自身财务责任的清醒认知。 - Z 世代在外就餐中，有 25% 依赖溢价高达 90% 的外卖配送。 - 《财务审计》节目的嘉宾每月在快餐和外卖上花费 1,000 美元是极其常见的财务漏洞。 - 每周少花三次 28 美元并定投标普 500 指数，足以对个人的长期退休资产产生决定性影响。 - 战后 50 年代的“买房神话”建立在房屋面积狭小、无空调且从事繁重严酷体力劳动的代价之上。 ### [01:03:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=3801s) 受害者心态与疯狂的汽车贷款 Caleb Hammer 严厉批评了年轻一代中普遍存在的“受害者心态”。他指出，许多在装有空调的现代化办公室里拿着体面薪水工作的人，竟然会因为上班前“没时间自己备餐（meal prep）”而觉得自己是委屈的受害者。他在自己的节目《Financial Audit》中每周录制三期节目，面对的全都是真实的嘉宾——绝大多数是 Z 世代（Gen Z）和千禧一代（Millennials），而在他们眼里，自己仿佛在每件事上都是受害者。这种心态在买车这件事上体现得尤为极端：许多人坚信如果买的不是当季全新款，比如不买 2027 年的新车而是买 2025 年的旧款，自己或孩子就会陷入生命危险。他们常常背负着 6 万至 7 万美元的高额车贷，忍受着高达 20% 的高利贷利率，却振振有词地辩解称“这是为了孩子的安全”。 Joe Rogan 感到不可思议，追问嘉宾是否真的会用“不买新车就会死”这种话来做借口。Caleb 解释道，虽然对方不会直接把“会死”挂在嘴边，但他们的潜台词就是如果不开最新款，两三年前的车开上高速公路就会直接爆炸解体。全美高达 1.5 万亿至 1.6 万亿美元的汽车贷款总额，很大程度上正是由这种非理性观念推高。Rogan 认为这主要是缺乏常识所致，因为 2020 年生产的汽车在安全气囊、防抱死制动系统（ABS）等关键安全配置上与 2026 年的新车根本没有任何实质区别。 - 美国汽车贷款总债务规模已达到约 1.5 万亿至 1.6 万亿美元。 - 节目中常见的极端贷款案例：金额高达 60,000 至 70,000 美元，利率高达 20%，还款期限长达 8 年（96 个月）。 --- ### [01:04:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=3886s) 二手电动车的贬值与充电痛点谈到汽车的保值与性价比，Joe Rogan 指出，对于追求豪车的人来说，购买开了两年的二手豪华电动车是性价比极高的选择，尤其是保时捷（Porsche）和奥迪（Audi）的电动车型。与宝马 M5 这类购买一两年后几乎不怎么贬值的燃油性能车不同，二手豪华电动车在市场上的贬值幅度令人咋舌。Rogan 当场让制作团队检索奥迪 e-tron 的二手行情：一辆 2022 年款的奥迪 e-tron 售价仅为 25,000 美元左右，2023 年款里程仅 37,000 英里的全轮驱动 Premium Plus Quattro 车型也只需约 27,000 美元，相较于新车价格跌幅超过 50%。Rogan 赞叹这类车既是技术杰作，又没有传统内燃机复杂的机械磨损和更换机油等繁琐保养，几乎只需充电即可享受高品质驾驶体验。然而，Caleb Hammer 和 Rogan 随后探讨了电动车难以被所有人接受的现实障碍——充电难题。虽然 226 英里的单次续航里程足以应付日常通勤和外出就餐，但对于没有独栋住宅、无法安装家用充电桩的租房群体而言，去公共充电站面临极大的不便与安全隐患。女性独自在充电站停留 30 至 45 分钟会感到非常缺乏安全感，而公寓大楼内配备的公用充电桩往往长期被邻居霸占不挪车。尽管部分工作单位楼下配有充电桩，但这并不能解决大多数普通人的痛点。 --- ### [01:08:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=4084s) 汽车作为地位象征与买房观念的破灭 Caleb 总结了美国人对汽车与房产病态执念的文化根源：“这就是美国文化，这就是自由——你需要一辆车去上班，你需要一份工作来供车。”在美国的传统价值体系中，没有房和没有车就等同于人生的彻底失败。Rogan 分析道，尤其在一个人经济状况不佳、工作痛苦时，人们往往更渴望通过外在符号来证明自己过得不错，例如名表、名牌包或一辆在等红绿灯时能吸引旁人目光的豪车。Caleb 补充说，他见过许多最贫困的人反而开着最光鲜亮丽的改装车，住处却破烂不堪，因为车是一种人人都能看见的面子工程。随后两人还短暂交流了特斯拉的停产话题，对 Model X 和 Model S 的停产表达了惋惜，Rogan 称赞 Model X 结构坚固且具备出色的娱乐功能（如车门随音乐起舞），并透露 Elon Musk 曾告诉他该车在工程设计上达到了极致过剩的安全标准。当被问及节目嘉宾是否会听劝换车时，Caleb 表示车在美国文化中具有深沉的情感连接，嘉宾在录制现场往往极力防卫，很难当场被说服卖车。但数周后，随着节目上线并引来数百万网友在评论区无情批判，很多人最终才会清醒过来换掉豪车。谈到住房问题，Caleb 更是直言劝阻很多人在当前环境下买房。他认为高企的房贷利率以及标普 500 指数长期超越房地产的投资回报率，使得盲目买房不再明智；更重要的是，对于追求灵活、渴望旅行和随时因工作跳槽换城市的现代年轻人来说，“租房带来的自由”已经取代了拥有产权的旧式美国梦。 ### [01:11:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=4315s) 买房已死：为什么现代人买房成了“财务牢笼” Caleb Hammer 深入剖析了现代买房观念的转变。他直言不讳地指出，买房作为一项投资“已经不再合理”。在过去，购置房产曾是中产阶级最具代表性的特征，也是中产阶层积累财富的最主要途径。然而，过去 50 年间股票市场的惊人回报率彻底颠覆了这一逻辑——如果在租房的同时，将原本打算用来支付首付和高额房贷的额外资金投入股市，长期来看收益每一次都能击败买房。此外，许多人在低利率时期买了房，如今却发现自己被“锁死”在房子里：即便想换一套更理想的居所，也因为无法承受当前高企的贷款利率而动弹不得，房子实质上沦为了房主的“牢笼”。不过 Caleb 也补充说明，如果一个人百分之百确定自己会长期定居某地，且买房是一生所求，买房本身无可厚非。但从纯财务投资的角度来看，它早已不再是定义“美国梦”的神话。话虽如此，他也讽刺了美国大众极度糟糕的理财自律性：如果一个人无法克制消费冲动，租房省下的钱不会拿去定投股市，而是随手花在度假旅游上，那么房产这种流动性极差、强迫储蓄的工具或许反而更适合他们。 - 过去 50 年股票市场的历史回报率持续跑赢房地产升值幅度。 - 低利率时代的房贷成为“黄金手铐”，阻碍了房主根据实际需求置换房产的流动性。 - 对缺乏财务自律的人而言，房产的唯一价值在于充当“强制储蓄（Forced Investing）”。 --- ### [01:13:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=4391s) 租房与买房的情感诉求 vs 冰冷算术 Joe Rogan 提到，许多人坚持买房是因为心理层面的不安全感——如果只是租房，人们总觉得没有真正定居下来，感觉“这并不是我真正的家”。Caleb 对这种感性认知不屑一顾，直言“数学就是数学（Math is math in the end）”，所谓的不安定感纯粹是个人情绪作祟。尽管 Caleb 自己也买了房，但他强调那完全是因为当时价格极度划算、在财务上说得通，绝不是每个人都非买不可。 Caleb 进一步列举了租房的实际优势：租客无需承担昂贵的日常房屋维护费用，不用自掏腰包换新屋顶，也不必操心空调突然坏掉等烂摊子。他特别指出，向大型物业管理公司租房甚至比向个体小房东（Mom and pop landlords）租房体验更好，因为大机构通常配有专职维修团队，能在夜间随叫随到、迅速解决问题；而小房东往往效率低下，修个东西可能拖上好几个星期。 --- ### [01:14:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=4455s) AI 冲击就业市场与专业选择的残酷现实谈话转向人工智能（AI）对年轻一代未来的冲击。Joe 询问，面对那些背负巨额债务上大学、所学专业未来可能根本不复存在的年轻人，Caleb 会给出怎样的建议。Caleb 表示，他既不相信声称“所有工作都会消失”的末日论者，也不轻信鼓吹“AI 将创造海量全新岗位”的盲目乐观派，因为没有人能真正预见 AI 浪潮的终局。但他强调，掌握蓝领技艺（Trades，如电工）在现阶段是极明智的防守策略，因为 AI 在短时间内很难取代这类实体技能工作。与此同时，Caleb 尖锐指出，过去数年间大学生在专业选择上的失误造成了巨大的财务灾难，而这也是导致所谓“性别财富差距”的核心原因之一。在控制“相同岗位、相同经验和相同资质”的前提下，男女薪资差距实际上高达 99% 趋于一致；真正的差距源于专业与职业赛道： 1. **女性群体的专业陷阱**：统计数据显示，年轻女性借入大量学贷，所选择的往往是社会学、心理学、艺术等低回报专业，这些岗位起薪低，甚至只能去当咖啡师，如今更是首当其冲容易被 AI（如数据录入、初级文字撰写、甚至是 AI 心理咨询）直接淘汰。 2. **男性的务实选择**：男性在传统文化压力下更倾向于牺牲个人兴趣去追求高收入领域，扎堆进入工程、数学、科学（STEM）或重体力高报酬的蓝领技工行业。 3. **生育影响**：生育后的职业中断是造成财富差距的另一主因。 Caleb 警告，联合国等权威机构预估全球约 40% 的工作岗位极易受到 AI 替代。虽然欧美等发达国家情况略好于印度等高度依赖传统呼叫中心外包的国家，但受冲击人群的财务恶化可能会直接加剧政治激进化。他建议年轻人应尽量减少学贷，优先考虑社区大学（Community college），并选择具备深层创造力或强动手能力的“抗 AI（AI-resistant）”领域。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: AI Impact on Degree Paths accDescr: Flowchart contrasting high-risk low-ROI degrees with AI-resistant career choices. subgraph HighRisk ["高风险 / 易受 AI 冲击领域"] A["高负债文科与社科专业 (心理学、社会学、基础文书)"] --> B["初级白领岗位 / 易被自动化替代"] B --> C["薪资低迷 / 负债沉重 / 就业挤压"] end subgraph LowRisk ["抗 AI 冲击 / 实用技能领域"] D["实用技术与强动手能力 (电工、水管工、重体力技工)"] --> E["实体操作与现场复杂环境"] F["高创造力与深度跨学科"] --> G["AI 无法轻易复刻的创新"] E --> H["稳定的财务回报与就业安全"] G --> H end ``` --- ### [01:18:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=4692s) 大学性别比例大倒退与年轻男性的“躺平受害者心态” 在 Joe 短暂离场又回到对谈后，两人继续探讨为何大量女性依然倾向于选择社会学、性别研究等缺乏经济回报的专业。Caleb 分析认为，过去数十年全社会大力推动女性接受高等教育以平衡性别比例，这本身是巨大进步；许多低薪领域（如社会工作）确实具有重大的社会公益价值（护理等医疗行业待遇相对较好）。但从整体来看，男性通常出于传统“养家糊口（Breadwinner）”的社会期望与养家压力，被迫将薪水高低置于个人喜好之上。然而，令人震惊的全新趋势正在显现：男性正在从高等教育体系中大规模溃败。目前大学新学位获得者中，女性占比已经攀升至约 60% 至 65%，年轻男性上大学的比例断崖式下跌。Joe 困惑地追问这些不上大学的年轻男性究竟去做了什么。Caleb 毫不留情地评价道，这群人中出现了大量彻底放弃人生的“失败者（Losers）”——他们既不提升学历，也不寻找任何工作，甚至连失业救济金都懒得去申请，整天无所事事地瘫在家里。当 Joe 询问其背后的社会诱因时，Caleb 指出，这在很大程度上源于网络上蔓延的“红丸（Red Pill）受害者心态”，年轻男性正深陷一种怨天尤人、自暴自弃的怪圈之中。 - 当前新获大学学位的群体中，女性占比高达 60%–65%，男性在高等教育中边缘化严重。 - 相当比例的年轻男性既不在学也不在业（NEET 状态），完全脱离劳动力市场。 - 网络“红丸”亚文化助长了年轻男性的受害者心态，导致其放弃现实奋斗与自立。 ### [01:20:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=4834s) 迷茫的年轻一代、大学的政治化与极端“性别战” 讨论深入到了当代年轻男性的生活困境。Caleb Hammer 指出，虽然他不想完全为年轻人找借口，但这些人确实感到“整个世界都在与他们作对”。许多年轻男性认定 DEI（多元、平等与包容）政策阻碍了他们就业或求学，甚至觉得学校已经被政治力量彻底绑架。一项针对选择放弃大学的群体的调查显示，有 30% 到 40% 的受访者表示，不去上大学正是因为高校在政治上已经“被全面渗透”（politically captured）。缺乏学历、缺乏技能也缺乏工作经验，导致他们求职愈发困难；最终最轻松的退路，就是躲在母亲的房子里打电子游戏、吸食毒品。Joe Rogan 叹道：“天哪，这太惨淡了（bleak）。” 更为严峻的则是互联网上激化的“性别战”（gender wars）。Caleb 直言网上的两性对立已经到了骇人听闻的地步：年轻女性极端反男，年轻男性极端厌女，双方在网络上互相喝倒彩、恨不得将对方彻底摧毁。这种恶性循环在很大程度上始于 2016 年美国大选——唐纳德·特朗普当选后，大量左倾女性感到震怒，并将矛头直指男性；而男性则抱怨 DEI 政策偏袒女性，反咬是女性抢占了生存空间。社交媒体的算法推荐更是推波助澜，将所有人锁在封闭的回音室里：每个人都需要一个“反派”，于是“男人成了所有问题的根源”，或者“女人成了男人一事无成的借口”。 - **大学弃学调查**：约 30%–40% 选择不上大学的受访者认为，高等教育机构已被政治力量过度渗透。 - **啃老与逃避**：缺乏技能和求职门槛的年轻人选择留在家中，依靠打游戏和滥用药物逃避现实。 - **算法回音室**：平台算法强化了“非黑即白”的敌意，迫使群体在各自的信息茧房里寻找假想敌。 --- ### [01:22:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=4956s) 韩国“4B运动”、无性一代与受害者心理谈及两性对抗的极端形态，制作人 Jamie 在屏幕上调出了发源于韩国的“4B 运动”（4B Movement）。该运动大约兴起于 2015 年，以四个韩语中代表“不”（Bi）的词汇命名： - **非婚（Bihon）**：不与异性结婚 - **非产（Bichulsan）**：不生育子女 - **非恋爱（Biyeonae）**：不与男性谈恋爱 - **非性关系（Bisekseu）**：不与男性发生性关系参与者主张这并非出于对男性的仇恨，而是作为一种脱离高度父权制社会、保护自身免受偷拍底片（Spy cams）、数字性犯罪及职场歧视的激进手段。尽管这股风潮在 2016 年后也波及美国，但其附带的现实是：当代年轻群体的无性状态（sexlessness）达到了历史新高。Caleb 提到很多年轻受访者自称是出于基督教或天主教信仰而保持童贞，但他对这种说辞持怀疑态度；而来到他节目上的很多年轻人则坦承：“他们渴望性生活，但根本得不到。” ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 韩国 4B 运动的核心主张 accDescr: 展示韩国 4B 运动的四个无异性接触核心支柱及其现实背景原因 subgraph Causes["背景动因"] A["父权制压力与职场不公"] B["偷拍与数字性犯罪威胁"] end subgraph FourB["4B 核心主张"] C["非婚 (不结婚)"] D["非产 (不生育)"] E["非恋爱 (不约会)"] F["非性关系 (拒绝性行为)"] end Causes --> FourB FourB --> G["现实后果：加剧两性隔阂与少子化危机"] ``` Joe 询问这种网络仇恨是否真的渗透进了现实生活。Caleb 解释，其真正的现实后果并不是人们走到街头举牌抗议，而是“导致了空前的现实孤立与屏幕沉迷”——人们放弃了出门社交和交友，选择整天关在房间里刷 Reddit 发泄抱怨。Joe 感叹，人生明明只有有限的时间，很多人却甘愿困在愚蠢的回音室里。Caleb 则点破了心理机制：“当一个受害者感觉很好（Feels good to be a victim），因为你生态圈里的每个人都会给你点赞、给你安慰。抱怨令人兴奋，人们骨子里热爱抱怨。” Jamie 随后展示了一条两年前的 Reddit 帖子，揭示韩国职场的极端性别对立：有女性仅因穿了一件印有“女孩不需要王子”（Girls don't need a prince）的 T 恤，或在七年前给一条关乎女性安全的推特帖子点了个赞，就会因非自愿独身者（Incel）玩家群体的抗议而遭到公司解雇。 --- ### [01:27:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=5230s) Z 世代政治撕裂、生育率暴跌与高技能移民围绕两性政治立场的两极分化，Caleb 引用民调数据指出：自 2016 年以来，年轻男性在政治光谱上稍有向右微调，而 Gen Z（Z 世代）年轻女性则激进地向极左翼靠拢，形成了历史上同代男女之间最大的意识形态鸿沟。Joe 分享了自己的观察：他身边不少女性朋友在单身无孩时也是左倾思维，但一旦结婚生子，几乎都会迅速向右转向——“她们突然开始关心社区安全、街头犯罪、税金流向以及官僚腐败，很多人有了孩子后立刻搬离了洛杉矶。” 然而，这一政治观念转变的前提是“结婚并生养后代”。Caleb 指出，美国刚刚创下了有记录以来的最低生育率，自 2008 年金融危机（Great Recession）之后，人口替代率就直接呈现断崖式下跌。Joe 由此提到接纳移民的现实必要性，强调若不想像韩国或日本那样面临人口结构崩塌，国家必须维持人口规模。 Caleb 明确赞同适度移民的必要性，并反驳了极端的文化封闭论调：“人们常以‘移民会摧毁本土文化’为由反对接纳移民，如果不加筛选、完全失控地放任入境，那确实会毁掉文化；但如果一个国家的人口到本世纪末直接归零，其文化同样会彻底消亡。”Caleb 表明自己坚决支持“有选择性、高技能、比例适度（selective, high-skilled, proportional）”的合法移民政策，这也是在避免社会崩塌的同时维持文化存续的理性路径。 ### [01:29:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=5368s) 边境危机、人口结构与高技能移民的经济逻辑两人就边境管控与移民政策展开了深入讨论。Joe Rogan 和 Caleb Hammer 一致认为边境安全曾是跨党派的共识（如 20 世纪 90 年代比尔·克林顿时期），而如今的“开放边境”现象令人难以置信。Rogan 提到自己有朋友亲自去过美墨边境，直言现场人数庞大、毫无审查机制便直接入境的现状“简直疯了”。 Hammer 强调自己看待移民问题完全是从纯粹的经济学角度出发，而非出于社会意识形态。他明确反对完全排斥移民的立场，指出健康经济必须拥有不断增长的劳动力池，以维持养老金体系： ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 抚养比失衡与高技能移民流动逻辑 accDescr: 展示生育率下降如何导致抚养比恶化，以及错误政策导致人才外流的恶性循环。 subgraph Aging ["老龄化与抚养比危机"] A["出生率暴跌 年轻人口不足"] --> B["抚养比恶化 美: 60:1 降至 5~10:1 韩: 逼近 1:1"] B --> C["社保与退休金体系承压"] end subgraph Migration ["政策分化与经济后果"] C --> D{"移民政策与经济环境"} D -->|"合理引进"| E["筛选高技能移民 补充税基与就业岗位"] D -->|"错误政策 / 盲目涌入"| F["财富外逃与人才流失 (Brain Drain)"] end subgraph Drain ["人才外流恶性循环"] F --> G["英/意/西/加人才涌向美国硅谷"] F --> H["地方财政陷入危机 (如洛杉矶 10 亿美元预算赤字)"] end ``` Hammer 进一步剖析，如果不加筛选或者推行糟糕的经济政策，就会导致严重的“人才流失（Brain Drain）”和“财富外逃（Wealth Flight）”： - **抚养比恶化**：美国建立社会保障制度时，在职与非在职人员比例接近 60:1，如今已降至 5:1 或 10:1；韩国等国家甚至逼近 1:1。 - **欧洲与加拿大的警示**：英国、意大利、西班牙培养的高学历人才（医生、高技能工人和创业者）因本地经济政策失败而流向美国。英国的人均 GDP 若放在美国各州对比，甚至会排在第 51 位，低于密西西比州。加拿大培养的高科技人才也因薪资差异大量流入硅谷。 - **洛杉矶的本地危机**：高净值纳税人大量迁离，而迁入者未能形成真正的净税收贡献，导致洛杉矶面临即将到来的约 10 亿美元财政赤字。 ### [01:32:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=5568s) 务实理财为何被贴上“右翼”标签与个人责任的缺失 Rogan 指出，如今只要有人展开务实的财务讨论（教人如何储蓄、投资、合理消费），常常就会被贴上“右翼”、“残忍”或“冷血”的标签。Hammer 对此深有同感，表示自己经常被网友评价为“散发着右翼气息（right-wing coded）”或“气场不对（vibe is off）”，仅仅因为他强调了“个人责任”。 Hammer 辩解称，诸如人才流失等现象连英国中左翼的工党都公开承认，这是客观经济现实而非党派立场。Rogan 提问，大众为何如此反感“个人责任”？是否因为许多人将“受害者心态”深植入自我认同中，一旦被指出问题在于自身，就会反咬对方是“反社会”或“法西斯”？ Hammer 直言，很多观众希望他和 Dave Ramsey 这样的人能给他们一个拥抱，一起抱怨体制的系统性不公。但他强调： - 改变体制需要数百万人投票推翻既有体系，耗时漫长； - 个人唯一能立刻掌控的，是“要不要刷爆信用卡”、“是否承担高息债务”以及“要不要去外州私立大学念一个毫无就业前景的昂贵专业”； - 个人理财咨询的核心是解决眼前的具体困境，而不是泛泛地空谈体制缺陷。 ### [01:35:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=5718s) 创立 Dollar Wise 记账应用与破产的治标不治本为了帮助普通人摆脱受害者心态、落实财务规划，Hammer 与团队开发了一款名为 **Dollar Wise** 的记账应用。他坦承做这个产品有两个目的：一是帮助那些完全不懂理财的人，二是为了“赚大钱”，而这两点在商业逻辑上完美契合——用户通过省钱获益，平台通过提供价值盈利。 Hammer 分享了该产品的开发背景： - 早期的知名记账软件 Mint 被收购后关闭，且大多数传统记账软件过于臃肿复杂，专为硬核理财爱好者设计，普通人极易放弃； - Dollar Wise 专注于自动化账户关联与极简分析，直观展示资金流向，并指导用户采取下一步行动。面对 Rogan 提出的疑问——“面对成千上万陷入毁灭性财务混乱的人，是否会有种用一根手指堵满是漏洞的大坝、根本无济于事的无力感？”Hammer 坦言确实有时会有这种感觉。他指出，美国虽然拥有破产清算这一兜底机制，但**如果不改变导致负债的底层消费行为，申请破产毫无意义**。他节目中就曾出现过破产两次后又再次背负巨额债务的嘉宾，证明如果缺乏行为层面的自律，清除债务大坝只会迎来下一次决堤。 ### [01:37:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=5869s) 债务重组的陷阱与行为习惯的重塑在谈及破产与债务清理时，加莱布·汉默（Caleb Hammer）强调，如果一个人不能从根源上改变自身的消费行为，那么任何清债手段都只是在为下一次财务崩溃埋下引信。许多人试图通过信用卡代偿、债务重组（Debt Consolidation）或个人无抵押贷款来走捷径，这些固然是实用的金融工具，但缺乏行为自律的人往往会因此陷入更深的深渊。知名理财专家戴夫·拉姆齐（Dave Ramsey）之所以对债务重组深恶痛绝，加莱布认为其逻辑非常合理：当你把累积的一大笔高额信用卡账单打包转为一笔利率较低的新贷款后，信用卡欠款看似被清零了，但信用卡原有的信用额度依然高高在上。如果当事人没有改变盲目消费的恶习，他们很快就会一边偿还着重组贷款，一边再次把信用卡刷爆，最终落得承受“双倍债务”的惨淡收场。加莱布指出，他并不完全赞同拉姆齐“百分之百一刀切”的强硬态度，因为“个人理财是非常因人而异的”。在《财务审计》（Financial Audit）节目中，加莱布更主张先纠正坏习惯，再运用金融杠杆。如果嘉宾能够连续数月严格遵循预算，证明自己具备了控制开支的能力，此时再去办理低息重组贷款并彻底注销那些容易诱使人刷卡的卡片，才是解决问题的正道。对于个人破产程序也是同理。他提到伊丽莎白·沃伦（Elizabeth Warren）提出的“50/30/20 预算法则”——即50%用于生活必需（Needs）、30%用于弹性消费/欲望（Wants）、20%用于储蓄与投资（Savings）。尽管这一标准在洛杉矶或纽约这类生活成本畸高的地方难以严格执行，但只要人们能按照这个框架自律生活几个月，便能依靠个人贷款等工具彻底根治深层财务危机。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 债务重组的陷阱与正确路径对比 accDescr: 展示缺乏行为纠正导致的双倍债务恶性循环，与先行纠正行为后再进行债务重组的良性路径对比。 subgraph Trap ["常见陷阱：未改变行为习惯"] A1["刷爆信用卡累积高额债务"] --> A2["办理低息债务重组贷款"] A2 --> A3["旧卡欠款归零，但信用额度仍空出"] A3 --> A4["消费恶习依旧，再次刷爆信用卡"] A4 --> A5["背负重组贷款加新卡债：陷入双倍债务"] end subgraph Fix ["正确路径：先改行为再借工具"] B1["严格执行 50/30/20 预算数月"] --> B2["证明自身已具备消费自控力"] B2 --> B3["办理低息重组贷款并将旧卡注销"] B3 --> B4["稳步还清单一低息债务并建立储蓄"] end ``` - 戴夫·拉姆齐的债务哲学核心在于：治标不治本的重组往往会导致借款人同时背负新贷款与刷爆的新账单，造成债务直接翻倍。 - 伊丽莎白·沃伦倡导的 50/30/20 规则分配比例：50% 必需开销、30% 个人欲望支出、20% 储蓄结余。 --- ### [01:39:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=5976s) 消费作为逃避手段与受害者心态的破除乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）一针见血地指出，改变消费行为对普通人来说极为艰难，特别是当花钱成了人们忍受厌恶工作的“唯一情绪奖励”时，乱花钱往往变成了一种心理补偿机制。加莱布坦诚地用自己的体重自嘲，表示自己非常理解这种挣扎：“我坐在那里教育他们，而我自己却是个大胖子，我连自己的健康和饮食行为都还没彻底管好。”不过加莱布强调，自己在二十岁出头时也曾深陷严重的财务泥潭，正是因为亲身蹚过了那条河，见识过上岸后的自由与光明，他才渴望像那些健康转型成功的人一样，拉着嘉宾的手带他们穿过黑暗隧道，经历几年的短暂牺牲，去换取余生的从容。罗根认为，行为的改变往往需要认知的颠覆，很多人非得被生活狠狠逼到绝境、撞上南墙，或者迎来孩子的诞生，才会猛然惊醒并意识到“自己走的路完全走偏了”。然而现实中，大部分陷入贫困的人却深陷“怨天尤人”的受害者陷阱。他们盯着富人的奢华生活自怨自艾，将矛头对准杰夫·贝佐斯（Jeff Bezos）的豪华游艇。罗根激动地反驳道，贝佐斯拥有游艇和你穷困潦倒之间没有任何因果关系，“他有游艇绝不是你没钱的原因”。正确的心态应当是充满野心地去探究：“他到底是怎么做到的？我该如何复制这种成功？我也想要一艘游艇，去他妈的，干就完了！”但绝大多数人却选择躺平认定社会机制被操控、人生已被锁死了上限，完全无视了美国依然是全球从底层跨越到顶层机会最多的土地。 - 摆脱恶性消费循环的关键往往需要强烈的现实震荡，如财务触底（Rock bottom）或家庭新生命降临带来的责任感。 - 将自身财务失败归咎于富豪阶层是一种典型的认知错位，逃避个人责任并不能解决现实账户里的赤字。 --- ### [01:41:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=6094s) “世界并不公平，那又怎样？”：个人能动性与情绪政治两人的对话进一步深入到现代年轻人的心态问题。罗根指出，不少人整天沉溺于打电子游戏、抽大麻和做无意义的琐事，不去规划自己的未来；还有很多人心怀梦想却从不付诸行动，日复一日做着讨厌的工作并因此满腹牢骚，编造出各种“为什么我做不到”的借口。加莱布深表赞同，并给出了极其现实的拷问：“世界确实不公平。那又怎样？难道你打算坐着哭一辈子吗？要么认命哭泣，要么起而行动。”罗根随即幽默地调侃加莱布这是“在否定大家的情绪，这种观点太具有‘右翼色彩’了（Right-coded）”。加莱布毫不避讳地直言，市场机制有着冷酷的客观规律。许多人借了巨额助学贷款去读冷门专业，事后抱怨社会，宣称“社会学之类的专业理应拿更高的薪水”。但现实是市场已经给出了定价，抱怨毫无意义。加莱布强调：“这绝不是我的错，也不是贝佐斯的错。”除了极少数真正身患重度残疾、毫无行为能力的弱势群体之外，绝大多数健全人拥有远超他们自己所愿意承认的个人能动性（Personal Agency）。罗根对加莱布的工作表示了极大的肯定，他认为尽管面对系统性问题有时就像“用一根手指去堵有一百个破洞的堤坝”，但《财务审计》动辄数百万的播放量，正真实地唤醒成千上万在屏幕前惊呼“这说的就是我”的普通人，促使他们走出受害者心态，正视自身的财务现实。 - “世界不公平”是一项既定事实，停留在情绪宣泄中只会消耗精力，唯有发挥能动性才能改变处境。 - 市场按供需与价值分配收入，专业选择和借贷额度属于个人决策范畴，不能将市场机制的冷酷转嫁为制度迫害。 --- ### [01:44:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=6240s) 消失的“汽车维修课”与脱节的现代教育对话转向了学校教育在生活规划和生存技能上的严重缺位。罗根指出，学校根本不教学生如何规划自己的人生和未来，高中时期的升学指导顾问（Student Counselor）一年就见学生一次，每次唯一的谈话主题永远只有一句冰冷的：“你上大学想学什么专业？”大学升学成了贯穿整个教育体系的唯一指标。加莱布补充道，尽管数据显示大学学历持有者相比无学位人群依然享有约 60% 的薪酬溢价（Premium），但大学学位的含金量与投资回报率正逐年下滑。更荒谬的是，学校除了催促学生去读大学，对一切最基础的现实生存技能都置之不理。加莱布坦言自己甚至连给汽车换机油都不会，自嘲“听起来像个彻头彻尾的软蛋”，虽然自己开的是特斯拉不需要换机油，但他质问为何学校从未教授过这种基本的生存与动手能力。罗根回忆起自己当年就读的牛顿南高中（Newton South High School），感叹那个年代的学校还设有专门的汽车维修车间（Auto Shop）。当时负责汽修课的老师是一个极具个性的古董福特野马（Mustang）狂热爱好者，特别钟情于 1965、1966 年款的小型野马跑车。那位老师会把自己收藏的老车开进车间，手把手教学生们机械构造：火花塞如何点火、化油器为什么会卡死、内燃机究竟如何运转做功，以及如何寻找车架底部的正确千斤顶支撑点（Jacking point / Lift points），安全地把整辆车抬起来进行日常维护。加莱布遗憾地表示，恰恰在自己入学的前一年，学校彻底砍掉了这类充满实用价值的汽修工坊。两人一致认为，现代教育剥离了实用生活技能与严谨的未来规划教育，只剩下一条单向的大学升学通道，让年轻人极度缺乏应对现实世界的实操能力。 - 大学学历溢价：相较于没有本科学历的人群，目前大学毕业生平均仍拥有约 60% 的薪酬优势，但整体性价比正在迅速缩水。 - 传统实践课程的萎缩：罗根的高中母校为牛顿南高中（Newton South High School），其当年的汽修课以 1960 年代中期（1965-1966 款）福特野马为教具，讲授化油器、火花塞及底盘千斤顶支撑点等核心汽车常识，而如今此类生活技能课在大部分高中已彻底消失。 ### [01:46:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=6378s) 职业技术教育的衰落与蓝领技能的价值对话从中学实用技能课程的消失展开。双方提到过去的家政课（Home Economics）曾教会学生如何做饭，但随着这些课程逐步被取消，现在年轻人甚至连最基本的做饭都不会，只能天天抱怨外出就餐有多贵。紧接着，他们查阅了传统金工木工实训课（Shop Classes）消失的历史成因：这并非一朝一夕发生，而是分阶段推进的。在 20 世纪 70 至 80 年代，受加州 1978 年 13 号提案（Proposition 13）等税收抗议风潮的影响，公立学校预算遭受重创；车间设备维护、重型器械购置以及高额的责任保险成本，让这类工科实训课成为了最容易被砍掉的预算目标。到了 90 年代，高中全面转向升学导向，全力备战标准化考试和四年制大学，将职业技术教育彻底边缘化。乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）指出，在这种背景下，技术工种反而成了当下唯一有保障的职业道路。成为一名木工、电工或是暖通空调（HVAC）技术员，社会永远需要有人去安装和维护这些系统；如果自己开一家 HVAC 公司，收入会非常可观。凯莱布·汉默（Caleb Hammer）极力赞同，并提到现代学徒制（Apprenticeship）的高留任率——只要拿到学徒资格，往往有 90% 的概率能转为全职员工。汉默自嘲虽然自己只是个“手无缚鸡之力的微胖小哥（a little fat dude with some soft hands）”，但他由衷认可这些蓝领工作是实打实的高薪职业发展路径。 - 70-80 年代公立预算缩减：加州 Proposition 13 导致重工业器械、车间维护和保险成本无法承担，金工木工课首当其冲被砍。 - 90 年代升学主义转向：高中以四年制大学准备和标准化考试为核心，全面边缘化蓝领技工培训。 - 学徒制优势：完成学徒培训的学员约有 90% 的概率直接转入全职高薪岗位。 ### [01:47:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=6467s) 学历通胀、高昂学费与自学资源的崛起谈及社会对学历的虚荣偏见，罗根感叹很多人把学位直接等同于个人智力和思维能力。现实中常有滑稽的对比：一个手握大学学位的人穷困潦倒、精神抑郁，而旁边一位靠手艺赚钱的蓝领水管工早已实现财富自由；即便如此，学历至上者依然会傲慢地蔑视水管工，觉得对方“根本不懂国家经济如何运作”。汉默直言，美国不少最富有、创立顶尖企业的人其实都是大学退学（Dropouts）；如今大学充斥着各种水专业，平均 GPA 飙升，评分门槛断崖式下跌，让人越来越难以对泛滥的大学文凭保持敬意。两人进一步指出，在 YouTube、有声书普及的今天，人类历史上从没有哪个时代能像现在这样轻松获取海量优质知识。如果一个人真心求知，完全不必踏进大学校门。相反，现实中的大学变成了被政治与意识形态绑架的温床，充斥着一群毫无真实职场经历的人向学生灌输教条，并让刚满 18 岁的年轻人背负沉重债务。汉默强调，18 岁的高中生在什么都不懂的年纪，随便一签字就能背下 2.5 万到 4 万美元的平均学生贷款。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 现代大学高昂成本与低回报循环 accDescr: 展示学生借入巨额贷款攻读高门槛费用大学，却因行政臃肿与就业错配面临财务困境的流程。 subgraph Cost["教育开销激增"] A["18岁学生签署巨额学贷 (平均2.5万至4万美元)"] --> B["行政机构臃肿 学费水涨船高"] B --> C["名校全包费用逼近 每年8.6万至9.5万美元"] end subgraph Market["就业市场错配"] C --> D["选读无实质市场需求专业 (如性別研究等)"] D --> E["文凭贬值 & 评分标准放水"] E --> F["深陷债务危机 收入远逊蓝领技工"] end ``` 制作人杰米（Jamie）当场查证了名校哈佛大学的收费标准：本科学费每年约 6.2 万美元，若算上食宿、医疗费及综合服务费，在扣除助学金之前每年的开销高达 8.6 万至 9.5 万美元。汉默讽刺道，金融机构绝对不可能给一个 18 岁的孩子批准一辆 6.2 万美元汽车的贷款，却可以毫无顾忌地给他们发放同等金额的大学学贷，哪怕他们最终只拿到了一个根本无法还债的“性别研究”学位。 - 大学平均贷款：年轻人普遍背负 2.5 万至 4 万美元的学生贷款。 - 哈佛大学开销：基础学费约 6.2 万美元/年；加上食宿与杂费，总支出每年达 8.6 万至 9.5 万美元。 - 评分放水（Grade Inflation）：全美大学平均 GPA 与通过率显著上浮，学术门槛不断降低。 ### [01:51:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=6678s) 历史轮回：1983 年就业危机与网红热潮的现实反差杰米在屏幕上调出了一篇《纽约时报》刊发于 1983 年的历史报道，题为《1980年代毕业生：从婴儿潮到就业破灭》（1980s grads, baby boom to job bust）。罗根与汉默发现这篇四十多年前的报道与如今的困境如出一辙：当时全美有超过 90 万名大学毕业生发现不得不放下身段，屈就于不需要大学学历的基层岗位；联邦劳工统计局早有预测，随着战后婴儿潮一代涌入劳动力市场，大学毕业生数量将长期远超专业、技术与管理岗位的需求容量。随后，罗根提到加州的一项调查：当今大部分年轻人的梦想就是“出名”，几乎人人都想当 TikTok 网红。罗根指着汉默说，汉默现在就处于这个位置，既是财务顾问，也是拥有巨大影响力的全职内容创作者。汉默坦言自己极其幸运，因为做全职自媒体不是一条人人都能走通的现实道路。 - 1983 年就业危机：90 多万婴儿潮世代毕业生因劳动力市场饱和，不得不从事无需文凭的工作。 - 青年择业倾向：受社交媒体影响，年轻人择业意向压倒性地偏向于成为网红或成名。 ### [01:52:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=6779s) 凯莱布·汉默的转型与《财务审计》诞生记探讨网红路径的可复制性时，汉默透露了自己的务实逻辑：他并不是盲目裸辞去拍视频。在正式全职做 YouTube 之前，汉默在一家科技公司担任产品经理（Product Manager）。他极其厌倦那份工作，但在离职这件事上非常谨慎——只有当频道的稳定收入连续数月能够完全取代产品经理的薪水后，他才选择辞职。他直言，许多人借钱买设备、辞掉工作拍视频，最后大概率惨败。汉默分享了创立频道的具体契机：他当时原本打算跳槽，去应聘知名 YouTuber 泰勒·奥利维拉（Tyler Oliveira）团队的制作经理（Production Manager）。虽然面试没有通过，但这坚定了汉默自己做内容的决心。他回家后自行购置了一套拍摄设备，搭建了简易录影棚，开创了《财务审计》（Financial Audit）节目。其初衷非常简单：市面上没有他想看的财务问诊真人秀，于是他决定自己做一个。罗根问汉默大学学的是什么、是否有娱乐产业背景。汉默坦白自己毫无正规娱乐业背景，高中时跟朋友拍恶搞视频，大学里读的其实是音乐专业。当被问及如果条件允许是否更愿意回去做音乐时，汉默笑着回答：“不，我现在可比那时候有钱多了。”更重要的是，汉默认为《财务审计》的意义远超做音乐，因为他能够通过节目切实挽救成千上万陷入债务绝境的普通人，“能够留下一份真正帮别人重构生活的遗产，这才是真正特别的事情。” ### [01:54:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=6894s) 告别管乐作曲与奥斯汀商业版图的崛起乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）问凯莱布·汉默（Caleb Hammer）现在是否还在做音乐。凯莱布坦言几乎不碰了，他过去的专业背景是音乐会管乐团作曲（concert band composition）。他自嘲说，自己大概已经被古典音乐圈拒之门外，因为他在外界眼里是“偏保守派/右翼编码”（right-wing coded）的形象。他半开玩笑地指出，管乐指挥与古典音乐圈的 Facebook 社区政治倾向非常“觉醒”（woke），虽然他很乐意和他们一起喝杯啤酒、正常社交，但那个圈子的排他性极强，一旦观点不合就会直接被排挤出去。他偶尔在闲暇时写点曲子，早年也吹过长号（trombone），但他真正的激情早已转移到了商业帝国上。凯莱布如今在得克萨斯州奥斯汀组建了一支 40 人的全职团队。他的 YouTube 频道拥有庞大的会员经济体，其付费会员人数已超过 10 万（接近 11 万人），每月订阅费为 10 美元。为了服务这批付费受众，团队每天产出 3 档独家节目，构建了一个专属的付费内容网络。节目内容既包括拆解正片《Financial Audit》幕后花絮，也包括像《Fat and Fatter》这样幽默的美食财务评测栏目——由凯莱布与出镜团队探店不同餐厅，并从财务性价比的视角对其打分。此外，团队还在大力开发财务预算应用 Dollarise，并在官网上提供对接个人贷款等金融服务。凯莱布感叹，比起当年的音乐创作，将这套商业系统做大做强带来的满足感要强烈得多。 - **团队规模**：在奥斯汀拥有 40 名员工。 - **YouTube 付费会员**：订阅费每月 10 美元，活跃会员达 10 万至 11 万人。 - **独家栏目**：包括日常深度解析节目及美食财务评测栏目《Fat and Fatter》。 - **软件与金融服务**：正在开发预算应用程序 Dollarise，并在官方网站提供个人贷款申请等服务。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Caleb Hammer商业生态架构 accDescr: 展示Caleb Hammer从免费流量到付费会员与金融工具变现的业务流 subgraph Traffic["流量入口 (免费受众)"] A["YouTube 免费内容 (Financial Audit)"] end subgraph Subscription["高粘性订阅体系"] B["YouTube 付费会员网络 (每月 $10 / 11万+ 用户)"] B1["节目幕后深度拆解"] B2["独家栏目《Fat and Fatter》"] B --> B1 B --> B2 end subgraph Products["金融工具与变现生态"] C["预算管理 App: Dollarise"] D["个人金融中介服务 (贷款推荐与对接)"] end A --> B A --> C A --> D ``` --- ### [01:57:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=7026s) 算法突破、打破 Dave Ramsey 式教条与年轻人的生存现实谈及未来规划，凯莱布表示除了全力将 Dollarise 打造成业内顶级预算 App 外，他还希望孵化其他创作者。他指出，传统理财内容极其枯燥，而自己的团队已经摸透了平台算法与观众心理，成功将理财做成了高娱乐性的爆款，未来想帮助更多新人在这一赛道立足。他还将目标对准了戴夫·拉姆齐（Dave Ramsey）的商业模型：拉姆齐建立了庞大的抵押贷款推荐网络，但充斥着教条式的严苛理念；凯莱布希望打造同样全面的个人理财工具链，但摆脱那些僵化狭隘的意识形态束缚。罗根对此十分赞同，认为当下年轻人极其缺乏这种接地气、不陈腐的财务引导。罗根感叹，现在网上有海量的省钱烹饪与健康采购教程，很多年轻人根本没意识到自己通过 DoorDash 点外卖花掉了工资的多大比例；如果每周老老实实去一次超市买齐食材，立刻就能省下 300 美元。凯莱布则直言不讳地指出了冷酷的财务底线：**在没有建立完备的应急基金之前，任何人都不配拥有娱乐开销**。 - **400 美元应急门槛**：全美仅有 60% 的人能够拿出 400 美元现金应对突发紧急状况，意味着 40% 的美国人拿不出这笔钱。 - **应急基金标准**：业内常在 3 个月到 6 个月生活开销之间争论，但鉴于疫情、企业停摆和经济动荡，凯莱布坚持必须存够 6 个月的“纯生存必需开支”。 - **极端消费自律**：如果没有应急基金，“连汽车穿梭餐厅（drive-thru）都不该进，去度假更是不可理喻”。 - **财务危机诱因**：绝大多数美国家庭破产，都是因为宠物生病、车辆损坏或失业等突发意外降临时毫无准备。 --- ### [02:01:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=7263s) 加密货币狂潮、模因币陷阱与 85% 亏损的日内交易对话转入加密货币领域。凯莱布表示自己持有少量比特币（Bitcoin）作为资产配置的一部分，并指出全美大约有 10% 的人使用加密货币作为投资工具，普及率其实依然有限。罗根随即调侃起当下层出不穷的荒唐模因币（meme coins），戏称自己“重仓了 Melania 币”，并提到闹得沸沸扬扬的 Hawk Tuah 女孩（Haliey Welch）发币事件。凯莱布将这类空气模因币定性为“合法化的庞氏骗局”（legal pyramid scheme）。罗根指出，这些网红往往被币圈推手诱导下场，最后不仅没赚到钱，口碑彻底崩塌；Haliey Welch 如今的视频播放量暴跌至几千次，形象完全被毁。罗根回忆起曾经狂热但半年就归零的 NFT 泡沫：“如果没人能向我解释清楚他们到底在卖什么，而免费就能截图存下图片，却有上百万人疯抢、有人靠艺术 NFT 赚了几百万，这就纯属疯狂。” 凯莱布总结道，每一个冲进拉高抛售（pump and dump）骗局的人，内心都抱有侥幸心理，幻想自己能“吃到拉盘（pump）、躲过砸盘（dump）”，自以为能成为那个例外。他将此与日内交易对比：哪怕是看似正规的股票日内交易（day trading），长期来看也只有 15% 的人能盈利，多达 85% 的人全盘皆输；而投机加密货币和拉高抛售骗局的下场，只会比日内交易惨烈得多。 - **加密货币普及度**：约 10% 的美国人持有或使用加密货币作为投资。 - **Hawk Tuah 模因币翻车**：发币事件导致当事人名誉扫地，后续视频浏览量锐减至约 5,000 次。 - **日内交易胜率残酷事实**：日内交易者的长期亏损率高达 85%，仅有 15% 能实现盈利。 ### [02:03:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=7403s) 迷因币骗局与央行数字货币的失控风险谈到加密货币市场的狂热与投机，卡勒布·汉默（Caleb Hammer）直言不讳地指出，几乎每个人都觉得自己是“特别的小雪花”（special little snowflake），盲目相信自己能成为那个战胜系统、暴富离场的幸运儿，但现实往往极其残酷。在卡勒布看来，虽然像以太坊（Ethereum）或比特币（Bitcoin）这样具备实际应用场景的主流资产具备真实价值，但层出不穷的迷因币（meme coins）完全是另一回事。乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）顺势抛出一个尖锐问题：这些迷因币难道不也是洗钱或暗中输送利益的绝佳工具吗？罗根设想了一个具体场景：如果卡勒布发行一个“卡勒布币”（Caleb Coin），由罗根出资坐庄抬轿，卡勒布在高位提前抛售套现走人，不仅卷走了那些跟风散户的血汗钱，还合规合法地完成了资金转移，让两人能拿着这笔钱去做其他合作。卡勒布对此表示完全认同，指出这种机制本质上就是一种在不直接发生雇佣或转账关系的前提下完成巨额资金调拨的方式。他提到甚至有专门的平台（如 Pump.fun）让任何人都能一键发币并掀起炒作狂潮；散户们蜂拥而至，人人都自欺欺人地以为自己参与的是“拉盘”（pump）阶段，却从未意识到自己最终只会沦为被“砸盘”（dump）接盘的牺牲品。这完全是缺乏监管的野蛮西部。然而，罗根更深层的担忧在于，这种不受监管的数字货币狂潮最终可能导致极端反弹——大众最终会被迫困在由政府集中控制的央行数字货币（CBDC）体系中。罗根警告称，这套体系极易与社会信用评分系统绑定。已有政客以“对抗中国竞争”为由公开提出推行此类系统，其潜在后果极其可怕：一旦政府掌握了随时开关公民资金账户的权力，只要认定某人“言行有问题”或具有争议性，就能瞬间剥夺其购买商品甚至订购机票的权利。这种通过彻底切断个人消费能力来实施绝对社会控制的手段，正是权力扩张的终极形态。 - 迷因币投机心理：投资者普遍抱有幸存者偏差，以为自己能踩准时机套现，实则沦为拉盘砸盘（Pump and Dump）的流动性接盘侠。 - 利益输送暗道：低成本发币与做市抛售成为规避直接转账审查、实现隐蔽资金调配的新型灰色手段。 - 央行数字货币（CBDC）潜在威胁：若与社会信用挂钩，政府可轻易对被标记为“异见或问题人员”的个体实施定向金融冻结。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 迷因币炒作与洗钱流动示意图 accDescr: 展示庄家如何利用迷因币平台发币吸引散户并提前抛售套现的流程 subgraph 发币与吸筹 A["庄家/发起人借助平台 (如 Pump.fun) 发行迷因币"] --> B["合谋资本注资抬高币价 (拉盘 Pump)"] end subgraph 散户入场与收割 B --> C["散户抱有暴富幻想进场追高"] C --> D["庄家提前高位清仓砸盘 (Dump)"] end subgraph 资金洗白与转移 D --> E["实现隐蔽利益输送与合规套现"] D --> F["跟风散户资产归零被套"] end ``` --- ### [02:05:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=7525s) 社会痼疾与加州的失业率困局罗根讽刺道，如今的社会一方面对普通人实施无微不至的规则限制，另一方面却在城市公共交通上对吸食毒品的混乱现象听之任之。罗根认为，如果真的想要“让美国再次伟大”，真正的当务之急是减少社会中的“失败者”（losers）：去探究为什么有如此多的人沦为流浪汉，为什么无数年轻世代周而复始地深陷在充满犯罪和帮派的社区泥潭之中。然而，政客们根本不愿触碰这些需要数十年扎实投入的根本性问题，反而总是选择性无视。卡勒布顺着制度设计的话题指出，社会福利政策的关键在于“激励机制”的设定。以加利福尼亚州为例，加州在社会保障和安全网政策上往往占据道德高地，但由于福利门槛设计不当，其失业率表现曾一度在全美各州中排到倒数第一（第50名），近期才稍稍升至倒数第二（第48名）。当制度让人过于容易钻空子、躺平吃福利时，人们主动出去找工作的动力就会被严重削弱。两人现场核实了数据，加州公布的失业率约为5.3%，卡勒布特别强调，这个统计口径仅仅涵盖了“仍在积极寻找工作的人”；一旦有人彻底放弃找工作，他们甚至连失业统计数据都不会计入。这种年轻一代放弃就业的现象让卡勒布感到极其担忧。卡勒布透露，根据他查阅的美国劳工统计局（Bureau of Labor Statistics）及盖洛普（Gallup）民调数据，全美18至29岁的青年群体中，竟然有高达40%的人在定期接受家庭和亲属的经济资助。现年31岁的卡勒布回忆自己18岁时的心态，那时最渴望的就是走向独立、进入社会打拼，绝不愿当寄生于系统或家庭的“水蛭”。罗根对此表示赞同，强调社会必须为真正遭遇不幸、陷入困境的家庭提供稳固的安全网，但绝不能过度溺爱以至于鼓励怠惰行为；正视人性的弱点并非冷酷，绝境（desperation）往往才是逼迫一个人自立自强最强烈的催化剂。 - 加州就业排名：在全美失业率排行中位列倒数第三至倒数第二（第48至49位左右），失业率达5.3%（仅统计积极求职者）。 - 青年啃老现状：18岁至29岁的美国青年中，约有40%定期依赖父母或亲属的经济援助维生。 - 福利陷阱与激励缺失：过度且缺乏约束的兜底保障容易助长不良习惯，使年轻群体丧失走出家庭、自谋生路的进取心。 --- ### [02:08:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=7711s) “表面光鲜”的劳工政策与被忽视的现实结果两人进一步查看加州的经济数据时，发现了一个极具讽刺意味的对比指标：加州虽然在失业率上与全美最高水平持平，但由于其推行的强硬最低工资标准和严格的劳工权益保障法，它在全美“最适合工作的州”排行榜中高居第二。罗根一针见血地指出，这种“劳动者天堂”的表象，恰恰是企业不敢招人、导致大量人口失业的核心原因。卡勒布补充道，这与法国的情况如出一辙——法国长期维持高失业率，但任何一旦进入体系拿到全职工作的人，就能享受长假和无懈可击的福利保障。卡勒布还以波兰为例，即便作为欧盟内部资本主义氛围较浓的国家，法律规定如果雇主解雇一名员工，仍必须允许该员工在公司继续带薪工作一到两个月。罗根惊呼这简直是灾难：想象一下，一个已经被解雇、满腹怨气的员工不得不继续在办公室里晃悠两个月，其工作产出和对团队氛围的破坏可想而知。卡勒布指出，这正是典型的“表演式政策”（performative policies）——这些法案在道德宣示和竞选口号上听起来无比动人，但政客们只在乎竞选周期里能许下什么诱人的承诺，根本没有人追踪政策落地后的实际后果（outcomes）。罗根指出，公众与媒体甚至连加州失业率全美倒数的事实都一无所知，充分说明全社会对“实际结果”有多么漠视。理财、就业与金融现实从来不是性感讨喜的讨论话题，大多数人本能地抗拒面对这些冰冷的数字，结果在财务规划上误入歧途。卡勒布的工作正是通过严厉的对话揭开遮羞布，让人们看清财务失控的真实后果。正如卡勒布最后提到的，美国的个人破产保护法已经对违约者宽容到了不可思议的地步，但即便有这层底线，人们依然需要正视自己的现实处境并寻找出路。 | 评估维度 | 政策表面承诺 / 宣称优势 | 实际落地后果 / 负面效应 | |:--- |:--- |:--- | | **加州劳工与薪资法案** | 全美“最佳工作州”排名前二；高最低工资、强工会保障 | 招募门槛过高导致雇主望而却步；失业率攀升至全美倒数（第48位） | | **欧洲解雇保护期（如波兰）** | 防止雇员骤然断崖失业；强制设立1-2个月离职缓冲期 | 被开除员工在办公室内消极怠工并领取薪酬，严重破坏团队士气 | | **竞选型表演式政策** | 站在道德制高点迎合选民心理；提供看似完美的社会救济承诺 | 政策制定者从不追踪实际成效，导致长期依赖与系统性低效沉疴难愈 | ### [02:11:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=7896s) 学生贷款违约潮与还款救济的认知误区在讨论摆脱财务困境的宏观环境时，两人一致认为美国整体上提供了极好的翻身机会，但唯独“学生贷款”是一个致命的例外。Caleb Hammer 指出，目前全美有 11% 的联邦学生贷款处于违约状态，违约率在所有债务类别中位居榜首。最让他感到无比恼火的是，很多人整天抱怨“学生贷款体制太操蛋”，却完全抓错了问题的本质。借款人普遍哭诉学费太贵、自己无力偿还，甚至害怕因为违约而被法院强制扣除工资（wage garnishment），但他们根本不知道现实中早已有救济方案。 Caleb 激动地反驳道，唐纳德·特朗普（Donald Trump）签署法案推出了全新的还款救济计划（Repayment Assistance Program / 收入挂钩还款方案），根据借款人的实际收入情况，最低月供甚至可以低至个人收入的 1%。“哪怕只付 1%，你就不会被判定为违约！”然而，许多债务人宁可沉溺在受害者心态中自怨自艾，大骂制度邪恶，也懒得花几分钟去查询政策并申请还款救济。 - **11% 的违约率**：联邦学生贷款的违约比例高居全美所有信贷资产类型之首。 - **最低 1% 还款门槛**：基于收入调整的还款计划允许极低比例的月供，足以合法避免违约并防止工资被扣押。 - **受害者心理**：Caleb 直言很多人的核心问题是“只想当受害者，不愿正视现实去主动解决问题”。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 学生贷款借贷膨胀闭环 accDescr: 解释联邦贷款额度提升如何导致学费上涨与行政膨胀的恶性循环 subgraph Policy ["政策与借贷端"] A["联邦提高学生贷款借款上限"] --> B["学生无门槛借取高额资金"] end subgraph University ["高校扩张与定价"] B --> C["大学顺势提高学费与收费项目"] C --> D["资金流向行政膨胀与奢华配套 （如阿拉巴马高校的环形漂流河）"] D --> E["利用奢华硬件作为招生噱头吸引生源"] end subgraph Crisis ["债务恶果"] E --> A C --> F["学生背负沉重债务 11% 陷入违约危机"] end ``` --- ### [02:12:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=7966s) 高校行政膨胀、荒唐配套与破产免除的法律现实 Caleb 进一步剖析了美国高等教育的结构性顽疾：制度真正崩坏的地方，在于政府允许年轻人为了毫无就业前景的垃圾学位随意借贷巨额资金。历史数据显示，每当联邦政府提高学生贷款的借贷上限，大学就会“极其默契”地同步大幅上调学费。在老一辈人念大学的年代，没有泛滥的巨额学生贷款，学费自然维持在极低的水平。而如今，大量贷款资金被高校拿去搞行政人员编制膨胀（administrative bloat），甚至建造荒谬的招生工具——例如阿拉巴马等美国南部大学校园里居然修建了度假式的“环形漂流河”（lazy river）。这时，制作人 Young Jamie 查阅资料介入讨论，指出技术层面上，学生贷款确实可以通过个人破产程序来免除，但绝非自动生效。申请人必须经历漫长而严苛的司法程序，向法官证明自己面临“极度困难”（undue hardship，即如果不免除债务就无法维持最基本的生存底线）。Joe Rogan 与 Caleb 探讨后认为，这种极度困难通常意味着借款人遭遇了下半身瘫痪等永久性丧失劳动能力的重度变故，在实际判例中极其罕见且困难重重。 - **学费通胀逻辑**：高校定价严格跟随学生的借款能力而上涨；借贷额度越高，学费越贵。 - **校园奢华配套**：部分大学将资金投入漂流河等与教学无关的享乐设施，纯粹为了迎合招生竞争。 - **破产免除门槛**：学生贷款在破产清算中极难勾销，必须经过个案法官审理并提供严苛的“极度困难”证明。 --- ### [02:14:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=8042s) 赞誉与收尾：让理财 Advice 真正拯救生活在节目尾声，Joe Rogan 对 Caleb Hammer 表达了由衷的赞赏。Joe 认为 Caleb 在网络上开辟了一条极具价值的新路径：他不仅能把枯燥的个人财务话题做得极具娱乐性和观赏性，同时还能给出极其扎实、中肯且靠谱的硬核建议。Joe 严肃地指出，如果负债累累的人不听从 Caleb 的告诫，他们绝对会顺着糟糕的下坡路滑下去，最终彻底毁掉自己的人生。Caleb 能将严肃的财务拯救与幽默风趣的视频形式融为一体，功德无量。 Caleb 谦虚地表达了感谢。在节目的最后，Joe 让 Caleb 向观众重申其个人项目与社交平台，Caleb 推广了自己的财务应用 DollarWise 以及名为 Caleb Hammer 的 YouTube 频道与 Instagram，两位主持人在轻松欢快的气氛中向观众告别。 - **节目价值**：Joe 盛赞其将扎实的财务常识以高度娱乐化的形式呈现，帮助大众避免人生破产。 - **推广产品**：Caleb Hammer 的个人财务管理应用 DollarWise（可在各大移动应用商店下载）。 - **社交平台**：主同名 YouTube 频道“Caleb Hammer”（核心节目为《Financial Audit》）及相关社交账号。 ## Notable quotes > [02:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=155s) 金融界的《杰瑞·斯普林格秀》（Jerry Springer of Finance） — Caleb Hammer > [18:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=1120s) 真正的造假之王（What a king） — Joe Rogan > [33:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=2037s) 道德自嗨（Moral Masturbation） — Caleb Hammer > [42:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=2523s) 有点怪（a little weird） — Caleb Hammer > [42:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=2523s) 思想多样性（Diversity of thought） — Joe Rogan > [01:13:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=4391s) 数学就是数学（Math is math in the end） — Caleb Hammer > [01:20:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=4834s) 天哪，这太惨淡了（bleak） — Joe Rogan > [01:22:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=4956s) 当一个受害者感觉很好（Feels good to be a victim），因为你生态圈里的每个人都会给你点赞、给你安慰。抱怨令人兴奋，人们骨子里热爱抱怨。 — Caleb Hammer > [01:41:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=6094s) 世界确实不公平。那又怎样？难道你打算坐着哭一辈子吗？要么认命哭泣，要么起而行动。 — Caleb Hammer > [01:46:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=6378s) 手无缚鸡之力的微胖小哥（a little fat dude with some soft hands） — Caleb Hammer > [01:57:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=7026s) 在没有建立完备的应急基金之前，任何人都不配拥有娱乐开销。 — Caleb Hammer > [02:11:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs&t=7896s) 哪怕只付 1%，你就不会被判定为违约！ — Caleb Hammer ## Mentioned Joe Rogan, Caleb Hammer, Young Jamie, Gavin Newsom, Nancy Pelosi, George Santos, Donald Trump, Joe Biden, Josh Dubin, George Soros, George Gascón, Elon Musk, Bernie Sanders, Zohran Mamdani, Ken Griffin, Kshama Sawant, Marco Rubio, Kevin O'Leary, Dave Ramsey, Elizabeth Warren, Jeff Bezos, Tyler Oliveira, Haliey Welch, Financial Audit, SimpliSafe, Perplexity, Dollar Wise, YouTube, Kick, Twitch, TikTok, Reddit, Instagram, Kalshi, Polymarket, Pump.fun, S&P 500, Fidelity, NVIDIA, DoorDash, Comedy Mothership, ARCH, Tesla, Porsche, Audi, BMW, Nissan Altima, Harvard University, Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Bureau of Labor Statistics, Open Society Foundations, Innocence Project, Ike Perlmutter Center for Legal Justice, The New York Times ## Video description Caleb Hammer is a YouTuber and host of the program “Financial Audit.” https://www.youtube.com/c/calebhammer https://www.patreon.com/calebhammer https://www.calebhammer.com Perplexity: Download the app or ask Perplexity anything at https://pplx.ai/rogan. Take 50% off a SimpliSafe system at https://simplisafe.com/ROGAN [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2sI8OdmWs)

Source quotes

[2:35] Caleb Hammer: 金融界的《杰瑞·斯普林格秀》（Jerry Springer of Finance） [18:40] Joe Rogan: 真正的造假之王（What a king） [33:57] Caleb Hammer: 道德自嗨（Moral Masturbation） [42:03] Caleb Hammer: 有点怪（a little weird） [42:03] Joe Rogan: 思想多样性（Diversity of thought） [73:11] Caleb Hammer: 数学就是数学（Math is math in the end） [80:34] Joe Rogan: 天哪，这太惨淡了（bleak） [82:36] Caleb Hammer: 当一个受害者感觉很好（Feels good to be a victim），因为你生态圈里的每个人都会给你点赞、给你安慰。抱怨令人兴奋，人们骨子里热爱抱怨。 [101:34] Caleb Hammer: 世界确实不公平。那又怎样？难道你打算坐着哭一辈子吗？要么认命哭泣，要么起而行动。 [106:18] Caleb Hammer: 手无缚鸡之力的微胖小哥（a little fat dude with some soft hands） [117:06] Caleb Hammer: 在没有建立完备的应急基金之前，任何人都不配拥有娱乐开销。 [131:36] Caleb Hammer: 哪怕只付 1%，你就不会被判定为违约！

Source quotes

[0:01] Caleb Hammer: Jerry Springer of Finance [30:55] Former gang leader: This is too hot. We got to get out of here. [33:32] Caleb Hammer: moral masturbation [33:32] Caleb Hammer: borderline like a Nazi [36:26] Joe Rogan: little [__] voodoo dance [38:39] Joe Rogan: literal prisoners [43:37] Joe Rogan: That person has a lot of money. Let's take some. [55:57] Caleb Hammer: They call me a fascist for saying don't spend more money than you make [70:29] Caleb Hammer: will win every time [99:36] Caleb Hammer: I'm the one talking to them and I'm a fat [ __ ]... I haven't, you know, fully taken control of my health behaviors and eating behaviors. [119:19] Caleb Hammer: You don't get to have fun if you don't have a fully funded emergency fund. [127:42] Caleb Hammer: one of the best motivating factors for helping yourself is desperation.

Original transcript

[0:01] Joe Rogan podcast. Check it out. [0:03] >> The Joe Rogan Experience. [0:06] >> TRAIN BY DAY. JOE ROGAN PODCAST BY [0:08] NIGHT. All day. [0:12] >> Good to see you. Sorry. You too. Nice to [0:14] meet you. [0:14] >> Very nice to meet you, too. I I enjoy [0:15] your content. Thank you. [0:16] >> You're a very sensible person and you [0:18] deal with a lot of very uncensible [0:20] people. [0:22] >> How do you [ __ ] keep your [ __ ] [0:24] together when you talk to these people? [0:25] You're we tell everybody you're a [0:27] finance guy. And did you start out in [0:30] debt and then figured out how to get [0:31] your [ __ ] together? [0:32] >> Yeah, exactly. I I was in college doing [0:35] all the stupid American things, right? [0:38] So, you got that unlimited student loan [0:40] debt for a [ __ ] degree. I was going [0:42] for music composition, so complete [0:44] [ __ ] degree. Uh, maxing out every [0:47] credit card. One of the first pieces of [0:48] financial advice I got at 18 from the [0:50] parents, max out a credit card to get [0:52] the piano I wanted. So, that's smart. [0:54] your parents. [0:55] >> Yeah. It's just the average American [0:57] experience. You just max out a credit [0:59] card. I I don't know if your parents [1:00] taught you anything about personal [1:01] finances, but most don't. It's It's bad. [1:04] So, I was just maxing out every credit [1:06] card. Like, everyone that comes on the [1:08] show, like every American out there, we [1:11] got $1.6 trillion in credit card debt in [1:13] this country, by the way. [1:15] >> Crazy amount. Crazy amount. Defaults are [1:17] to like 7%, which is insane. 7% of [1:21] credit cards defaulting. [1:22] >> That's crazy. [1:23] >> Yeah. And that that is really nuts. [1:25] Almost one out of 10 default. [1:28] >> Yeah, it's absolutely insane. But we [1:29] have more auto loan debt in this country [1:31] than credit cards, too, which is even [1:33] crazier because Americans, you know, [1:34] they're big pickup trucks and [1:35] everything. But uh either way, I was [1:38] doing that. Got my Nissan Ultima and, [1:41] you know, thinking I was sick driving [1:43] around and uh going into debt for that [1:47] family debt, everything. It was brutal. [1:50] But it was the average American life. [1:52] That's what people are going through [1:54] every single day. And I finally got a [1:57] wakeup call. I just I I was sitting in [2:00] my shitty apartment that I could barely [2:02] afford. And I realized the life I wanted [2:07] to live just could not be sustained this [2:10] way. I wanted to be a homeowner. It's [2:11] the American dream. Pick a fence. All [2:13] that [ __ ] [2:14] >> Yeah. [2:14] >> Um but there's no way to do it with max [2:16] out credit cards, private student loans, [2:18] public student loans, everything. It was [2:20] a mess. So, got a sales job, just [2:23] started grinding it out, paying off the [2:25] debt, fully funded emergency fund. [2:28] That's what I try to teach people now. [2:29] But, you know, again, the average [2:31] American is kind of an idiot with money, [2:34] >> which is fair. [2:35] >> Well, they're not informed, you know, [2:37] which is one of the things I think your [2:38] content really helps because a lot of [2:40] people don't know what to do. Like, [2:42] you're in debt. Like, how the [ __ ] do I [2:43] get out of this? And [2:44] >> a lot of people they know are in debt. [2:46] So, they don't have good advice. They're [2:47] not going to get from their parents, [2:49] right? And so where, you know, they have [2:50] to turn to somebody. And a lot of times [2:53] like financial people online are very [2:56] stiff and they're not enjoyable to [2:59] listen to. But you talk [ __ ] and you're [3:01] very vocal and it's like, [3:03] >> "Okay, I get this guy. I can relate to [3:05] him. [3:06] >> Tell me what to do." So there's a lot of [3:07] folks out there that connect with you [3:09] because of that, I think. [3:10] >> Yeah. They call us the Jerry Springer of [3:12] Finance, [3:13] >> which I like. I take it. I take the [3:15] ownership. They meant it as a dig at [3:17] first, but I take it cuz it's fun. [3:19] >> Yeah. [3:19] >> People People don't go into financial [3:22] topics because it's boring. Why are you [3:25] clicking on a video of a dude just like [3:26] sitting at the camera just like, [3:28] >> you know, IRA or this? No one's going to [3:32] get into that, right? [3:33] >> Personal finance class, like 40% of [3:35] states, which is or almost 40 states out [3:38] of the 50 states require a personal [3:40] finance class now, which is big progress [3:41] over the last decade. But I mean, I was [3:45] a piece of [ __ ] in high school. I'm [3:46] sleeping through that class, [3:47] >> right? [3:48] >> I'm I'm not going to listen to things [3:49] there. I I I couldn't I could barely [3:52] pass math. Um, school is just boring. [3:54] So, people still aren't going to pick it [3:56] up there. They want something a little [3:59] more interesting to get into, and we [4:01] give them that with the roast, the [4:03] dramas, the relationship stuff. Couples [4:06] episodes are my favorite cuz there's [4:07] always financial financial [4:11] stresses in relationship and um I don't [4:14] know if that actually gets people into [4:17] personal finances. [4:19] That's the best. That's the best cuz we [4:20] get a you know we get millions of views [4:22] per episode on all platforms. [4:24] >> It's kind of Yeah. It's kind of a crime [4:26] that they're not explaining to people [4:29] when they're young and in high school [4:31] how this could be a problem. Mh. [4:32] >> They're they're trying to set you up for [4:34] life, but they're not setting you up for [4:36] one of the biggest problems that most [4:38] people face, credit card debt, and the [4:41] big one, student loan debt, because [4:43] that's the one you can't get away from. [4:45] >> And there's a lot of people that are [4:46] just go, "Well, I guess I have to go to [4:48] college." And look, higher education's [4:50] great. It's good to be educated. It's [4:52] good to get an education. [4:53] >> But if you're spending hundreds of [4:54] thousands of dollars for an education [4:56] that you aren't going to use at all, [4:59] that might not be the best thing for [5:01] you. And when you're [ __ ] 18, you [5:03] really don't know. You know, you don't [5:05] know what you want to do. You know, [5:07] >> your parents don't know anything either. [5:08] >> No, they might be [ __ ] You might [5:10] have idiot parents. [5:11] >> Well, no. The average parent in America [5:13] is go to any college to get any degree [5:15] and borrow whatever it takes. Yeah. [5:17] >> Cuz college is the answer to all. [5:19] >> Because it used to be. [5:20] >> Yeah. [5:20] >> There used to be the way that you got a [5:21] good paying job. You get out of college [5:23] and hey, you've got a degree. Oh, you [5:25] got your masters. Well, you're [5:28] Oh, where you going to live? where are [5:30] you going to buy a house? Like you're [5:31] going to be set. What they don't tell [5:33] you is that you are going to be saddled [5:35] down with insane amounts of debt and [5:37] then that debt compounds. [5:39] >> It keeps going. So like [5:41] >> I was reading this thing, maybe you can [5:43] tell me about what the actual numbers [5:45] are, but they were talking about the uh [5:47] average actual debt that you owed, but [5:50] what you wind up paying what you [5:52] actually wind up paying over the 20 [5:53] years that it takes you to pay it off. [5:55] It's [ __ ] crazy. Yeah, [5:57] >> it's substantially higher than the [5:59] initial loan. [6:00] >> Part of it is laziness, too. People get [6:02] on like that 20-year payment plan or [6:04] 40-year payment plan because they want [6:06] to spend a little bit, you know, just a [6:08] little bit less right now because I [6:10] mean, it makes sense. You get out of [6:11] college, you want to get an apartment, [6:13] you want to live it up, you want to go [6:14] on nice dates and trips, all that good [6:16] stuff. So, you do the little minimum [6:18] monthly payment, but I mean, think about [6:19] it. I assume you have a mortgage, right? [6:20] Do you have a mortgage? [6:22] >> Yeah. [6:22] >> Okay. if you took that 30-year mortgage, [6:24] but you're like, "Okay, I want to pay a [6:25] smaller amount now." So, let's stretch [6:27] it to 60 years. The interest and overall [6:30] payment you're going to do is insane, [6:31] right? [6:32] >> So, the student loan, a public student [6:35] loan, it's actually a 10-year payment. [6:37] That's the standard. It's a 10-year [6:38] payment. You'll be done in 10, but [6:40] people stretch it to the 20 years. The [6:42] repayment assistance under Trump, the uh [6:45] the RAP plan, that can be as little as [6:47] 1% of your income on a monthly basis. [6:50] That'll never be paid off. those people [6:52] will have it forever. It'll be forgiven [6:55] in 40 years. It says we'll see cuz you [6:58] know it's new. [7:00] >> But when people are doing that, they're [7:02] going to have it forever. It's going to [7:03] balloon and then they're going to [7:04] complain about it when they chose not to [7:05] just take the standard 10-year plan. [7:08] >> I saw an article about people with [7:10] social security, so they're they're [7:12] retired and their money their social [7:14] security money is getting docked. [7:17] >> It's getting docked because they're [7:18] taking money out of that to pay for your [7:20] student loans. Yeah. I mean, I'm [7:22] >> That obviously didn't work out for you [7:24] because you're literally in debt from [7:26] that student loan while you're retired [7:28] from life. [7:29] >> Yeah. [7:29] >> Which is [ __ ] wild. [7:31] >> It is. But I'll be candid. I'm starting [7:32] to not have sympathy for the boomers. [7:34] I'm really not. Best job market ever. [7:37] Best stock market in the history of the [7:39] world. Every single boomer, Gen X, [7:42] whatever that's been on my show, they [7:44] lived it up and spent all their money to [7:47] live the lifestyle they wanted. And they [7:48] didn't even set 10% aside a month. 10% [7:52] aside. They had the best housing market, [7:54] college, jobs. They were set up for [7:57] everything. If they just put 5 to 10% a [7:59] month aside in the stock market that [8:01] they had that they had, they would be [8:06] they would be multi-millionaires. Most [8:07] of them would be multi-millionaires. [8:10] But instead, we're in a situation where [8:12] >> I want a new BMW. [8:14] >> Yeah. They can't pay their student [8:16] loans. Social Security. 2033, that's [8:19] when the funds dry. So, payments get cut [8:22] by 25%. Yeah. [8:24] >> 2033 is when the funds dry up for Social [8:26] Security. [8:26] >> Yeah. The actual fund that's sitting [8:28] there. So, every dollar that goes out is [8:30] money that's coming in. [8:31] >> That's projected 203. [8:32] >> Well, we have to pay for transgender [8:33] migrants. It's really important. Some of [8:36] them have back pain. They need to be on [8:37] social security forever. [8:38] >> Yeah. We just had a clip go viral uh two [8:41] days ago. Uh transgender woman, [8:43] Colorado. I saw the video. [8:45] >> Yeah. Tax pair of hundred boobs. So [8:47] that's nice. [8:48] >> Was the way you explained it or the way [8:50] she explained it was hilarious, you [8:53] know, like something about how her [8:55] body's priceless. So like how much do [8:57] they cost? They're free. [8:58] >> Yeah. I can't blame her, though. I mean, [8:59] the program's there, right? [9:01] >> Of course. [9:01] >> So I'd take it if I wanted some new [9:03] tits, [9:03] >> of course. [9:04] >> But it's crazy that we are. And of [9:06] course, when we filmed it was like 2 [9:08] days after I wrote a $4 million, you [9:10] know, income tax check, whatever, to the [9:12] federal government, [9:13] >> right? And you're thinking about this [9:15] like where's that money go? [9:16] >> It's going to tits not funding prop for [9:18] social security. [9:20] >> Well, we were talking before about how [9:21] Gavin Newsome wouldn't do your podcast. [9:23] Yes. [9:24] >> But it's be probably because like that [9:27] kind of debt when you think about like [9:29] California's debt and California [9:31] spending and and the waste and potential [9:34] fraud. I look at it like a garbage dump. [9:38] Like someone saying, "Hey, go look into [9:40] that garbage dump and clean it up." [9:41] like, "Oh, it's too much." And I think [9:44] that's how most people look at it. They [9:46] look at it like, "What? 24 billions [9:48] missing for the homeless? How much money [9:50] went to that rail? That [ __ ] [9:52] highspeed rail? Like billions of dollars [9:54] later? There's nothing done. Like what [9:56] are you doing?" [9:57] >> Which is insane because America, the [9:59] leader of the world, should have [10:00] incredible highspeed rail. [10:02] >> Yeah, [10:02] >> I want it. I want to go to Dallas, [10:04] Houston, in a couple hours on a [10:05] highspeed rail. Maybe Texas could do it, [10:07] but just give California anything and [10:09] they'll find a way to mess it up and [10:11] lose all the money. [10:11] >> Well, this is like the the rail one is [10:13] crazy because like nothing's been How [10:15] much have they spent on the highspeed [10:16] rail so far? [10:18] >> It's something bonkers. [10:19] >> Billions. [10:20] >> Some some insane amount of money and [10:21] nothing's been done. And there's this [10:22] guy on YouTube. Do you remember the guy [10:24] on YouTube, Jamie? Uh he's on Instagram, [10:26] rather. The guy was on Instagram who uh [10:28] says in the same amount of time that it [10:31] took California to not do that, this is [10:33] what China's done. And it just over and [10:35] over and over again. All the miles of [10:36] highspeed rail they put in, all the [10:38] this, all the that, all like for the [10:40] same amount of money that California [10:42] spent, this is what could have been [10:44] done. And it's [10:45] >> crazy. [10:45] >> [ __ ] nuts. [10:47] >> Bright lines private [10:48] >> spent in order of mid- teens of [10:50] billions. Mid- teens so far on the [10:53] highspeed rail. Roughly around 14 to 16 [10:56] billion dollars as of the mid2020s. [11:00] How much of it is done, Jamie? How much [11:02] of that rail is done? Well, some of it [11:04] is actually getting close to done, I [11:05] think. [11:05] >> Oh my god. Amazing. [11:07] >> To what? Bakersfield to [11:11] >> completed, I guess. [11:13] >> Yeah. How much is completed? [11:17] >> 14 ft. [11:21] >> Very little. [11:22] >> 119 miles are under active construction. [11:25] >> Oh, 119 miles. Madera near Bakersfield [11:28] are under active construction. What a [11:30] great way to spend $14 billion. I bet [11:33] the homeless people are pissed. You [11:34] could have spent that money on us. [11:35] >> And then once it's done, you'll get on [11:37] the train. You'll have fair evaders. [11:39] People that just jumped over that are [11:41] doing drugs on the train. [11:42] >> Check this out. I asked the question. [11:44] >> If you were 25 in 1990, made an average [11:47] US salary for 40 years, saving 5 to 10% [11:49] per month in the S&P 500, how much would [11:52] they have now? They would have around 2 [11:54] to5 million depending on exact [11:57] assumptions. starting with $21,000%. [12:00] That's insane. Like this is hard for me [12:02] to And they [12:04] >> We have the best disposable income in [12:06] the history of the world. [12:07] >> This is how crazy inflation is. The [12:10] average salary in 1990 was $21,000. [12:14] >> That's crazy. [12:15] >> Isn't that nuts? Imagine if someone told [12:17] you you had to live off $21,000 today. [12:20] You'd be like, "Oh, fuck." [12:21] >> And yet, even still, they could retire [12:22] multi-millionaires. Even still, even [12:25] with that, it's beautiful. [12:27] >> That is nuts. if you know how to do it. [12:28] But how was how would someone start [12:30] doing something like that? [12:32] >> Honestly, lowcost index funds. I'm sure [12:34] you got a money guy, but for the average [12:36] American, uh there's these target date [12:39] retirement funds. So, Fidelity or [12:41] whatever you want to use, they have [12:43] essentially just pick like within the [12:45] five years that you think you're going [12:46] to retire, you just buy into that and it [12:48] just it balances it for you. It goes [12:50] more aggressive now and just more [12:52] conservative by the time you retire. [12:54] It's so easy. There's no reason most [12:57] people like aren't doing it even in [12:58] their 401k where it's free money matches [13:00] and everything. It It doesn't really [13:02] make sense. [13:03] >> So, do you have to teach yourself all [13:04] this stuff? [13:06] >> I mean, I'll be honest. Uh pretty much [13:08] any personal finance book or just like [13:11] not even a class. Just watch like a [13:13] couple YouTubers, the dry YouTubers that [13:14] maybe no one's watching and I mean, [13:16] you'll get it like this. It's it's super [13:18] simple that kind of stuff. It it gets a [13:20] little harder if you're thinking like [13:21] what kind of perfect insuranceances do I [13:23] need? You know, if you're trying to [13:25] individually stock trade, you know what [13:27] scares me though? Um, people in our [13:29] position right now, uh, people under 30, [13:33] 60% 60% of them are doing their [13:36] portfolio trades based on the podcasters [13:39] they're listening to. That's what's [13:41] scary to me. [13:42] >> What? Really? [13:43] >> Yeah. 60%. [13:44] >> Which podcasts are giving them advice? [13:47] >> Any personal finance? [13:49] >> Any personal finance? No. No. Even on [13:51] like kick or uh Twitch, there's [13:53] streamers. I'll log on in on the morning [13:54] just see who's streaming and some of the [13:56] top viewed people are day traders [13:58] >> really [13:58] >> with like 25 thousand concurrent viewers [14:01] that are getting hundreds of thousands [14:02] of views a day. [14:03] >> Okay. So the kick streamers that are [14:05] doing finance are they just essentially [14:06] like letting people know what they're [14:08] trading and what to trade? [14:09] >> Exactly. It's crazy. So they're [14:11] following basically just mirror them. [14:13] >> So you can say okay buy black rockck and [14:16] you could whatever you want to buy [14:17] whatever they're doing you'll like sort [14:19] of like the Pelosi stock trader. [14:21] >> Yes. which I bought into the Pelosi [14:23] fund. [14:24] >> Yeah, [14:24] >> it's doing really well. [14:25] >> I bet it is. [14:26] >> Yeah, I only put $1,000 in there. I was [14:28] a little scared, but it's doing really [14:29] well. It's beating my own money, guys. [14:31] So, [14:33] >> it's kind of hilarious. [14:34] >> I mean, she knows what she's doing or [14:36] her people knows what she's doing. [14:37] >> Yeah. Yeah. Someone knows something. [14:40] >> Yeah, they know something. It's just [14:42] It's crazy that it's legal. [14:45] It's crazy that you could know, oh, [14:47] we're going to do this big deal with AI [14:49] chips, and so, uh, Nvidia makes AI [14:51] chips. I'm just going to buy a [ __ ] ton [14:54] of Nvidia stock, and then boom, we pass [14:56] this thing. Hey, look at that. 500% [14:59] increase. [15:00] >> I think my thousand's up like 20 or 30% [15:02] in just a couple months. [15:04] >> It's crazy. It's crazy. S&P 500, what he [15:08] searched up, averages 10% a year. So, [15:10] it's crazy. [15:12] >> It is. It is nuts. what you know and [15:15] like what are the laws? [15:17] It's like you could clearly follow her, [15:21] but what are the laws in terms of like [15:23] what she's allowed to do? Like how much [15:26] information is she allowed to have? [15:28] >> Yeah. Well, that's what's hard to track, [15:30] right? The insider trading is hard to [15:32] track. They're getting into that [ __ ] [15:33] with Koshi now, [15:35] >> right? [15:35] >> You know, some of the people that were [15:37] in the operation for Maduro in [15:39] Venezuela, they're getting in trouble. [15:41] George Santos, you know, George, did you [15:42] ever have George Santos? No, but he's [15:44] hilarious. [15:45] >> Yes, he's hilarious. But big [15:46] investigation just opened up yesterday [15:48] or today. [15:49] >> No, he just got a pardon for something [15:51] else. [15:51] >> Yes, he bet on he he went on um [15:55] Instagram or something and he was like, [15:57] "Hey guys, I'm going to 100% be at the [15:59] State of the Union. 100% I'm going to be [16:02] there. Here's my seat." And then he [16:03] immediately bet that he will not be at [16:05] the State of the Union. Yeah. [16:07] >> So, four people close to him have been [16:10] uh working with the FTC on that. Oh my [16:12] god, he's [ __ ] [16:13] >> Yeah, [16:14] >> that's so dumb. [16:14] >> Have to pardon and everything. [16:16] >> That's so dumb, bro. You got free and [16:18] you're fun. You should just do a [16:20] podcast. That guy should He could make [16:22] millions doing a podcast. [16:23] >> Yeah, he's been on other podcasts. He's [16:25] good. [16:25] >> He would be great. [16:26] >> He's a sassy gay guy. He's perfect for [16:27] the camera. [16:28] >> Sassy, fun, smart, talks a lot of [ __ ] [16:31] He would be great as a host of a [16:33] podcast. Don't [ __ ] do scams like [16:35] that. [16:36] >> Yeah, insider trading. So, I guess [16:38] that's his future now. [16:39] >> We had a There was a Was it Poly Market? [16:41] What was it where they had odds on [16:43] things that we do and what we're going [16:44] to say and what guests we're going to [16:46] have on? [16:46] >> Probably both of them. [16:47] >> Probably both of them. [16:48] >> We looked. I said, "Jamie, shut that [16:49] [ __ ] laptop and do not open that [16:51] website ever again because like you [16:54] could do it." Like we could [16:55] >> I kind of want to, [16:56] >> but anybody could. [16:57] >> I'm not going to, but I kind of want to [16:59] bet that I would be on here, [17:00] >> right? Like what are the odds? Like you [17:02] could probably bet a substantial amount [17:03] of money through some [ __ ] offshore [17:05] account. [17:06] >> Yeah. [17:06] >> This episode is brought to you by Simply [17:08] Safe. One thing you probably don't think [17:10] about when you're planning the perfect [17:12] summer getaway is protecting your home. [17:14] But if disaster strikes, you want to be [17:17] prepared. Even better, if it can be [17:18] stopped before it happens. So check out [17:21] Simplysafe. They're the smarter option [17:23] when it comes to home security because [17:25] their systems help prevent and stop [17:27] crime in real time before it starts. [17:30] There's also no long-term contracts and [17:34] no technician appointments. You can get [17:36] a custom system and set it up in one [17:39] afternoon by yourself or even sooner. [17:41] It's one of many reasons why millions of [17:44] people continue to trust and use [17:46] Simplysafe. Everyone deserves to have [17:48] peace of mind, which is why I'm happy to [17:50] partner with Simplysafe again and offer [17:52] an exclusive discount. Right now, you [17:55] can get 50% off your new system by [17:57] visiting simplysafe.com/rogan. [18:00] That's half off at simplysafe.com/rogan. [18:05] There's no safe like simply safe. [18:06] >> Both Pelosi, who knows? I mean, other [18:08] people in Congress, they want to they [18:10] want to pass something where they can [18:11] only invest in like large cap uh index [18:14] funds like the S&P 500. [18:16] >> Mhm. [18:16] >> They're not passing it. They don't care. [18:18] >> They don't care. They It's also It's [18:20] completely bipartisan, you know. It's [18:21] not like it's Nancy Pelosi is the [18:24] scapegoat. She's the one that everybody [18:25] beats on. But if you look at it, it's [18:27] red, blue, across the line. They're all [18:30] doing it. [18:30] >> Yes. [18:31] >> They're all trading. They're all making [18:32] [ __ ] tons of money. They all go into [18:34] Congress broke. They all come out rich [18:36] as [ __ ] and they get $100,000 a year. [18:39] Like, [ __ ] off. [18:40] >> [ __ ] off. It's crazy. What is uh pull up [18:44] the Santos case, find out what's [18:45] happening. I'm fascinated by that. [18:47] >> I mean, honestly, he uh it's uh today's [18:49] the second. I guess it was yesterday. [18:51] >> He hased by NPR and [18:54] >> he's contacted by NPR. [18:56] >> Was like, "It's news to me." [18:58] >> He said it's news to him. [18:59] >> There you go. Reached by NPR. Uh well [19:02] that's news to me. When asked about the [19:03] insider trading probe underway his [19:05] activity on Koshi Santos said I'm not [19:08] saying yes. I'm not saying no. When the [19:10] NPR questioned whether he had a cowi [19:12] account. He went on to say the [19:14] co-founder of Kowi Lana Lopez Lara is a [19:16] fellow Brazilian whom he personally [19:18] knows. He said he would call her to get [19:20] to the bottom whether an investigation [19:22] had been launched. Santos promised to [19:24] update NPR on how the call went. He did [19:27] not respond to NPR's follow-up messages. [19:31] The thing is like he had some crazy [19:35] background discrepancies [19:38] that you know they deviated from the [19:40] truth slightly, right? There was some [19:42] other stuff. It wasn't just this. Like [19:44] that's what the guy does. [19:46] >> Yeah. [19:46] >> But meanwhile, he's in this amazing [19:48] position. He's got a name. He's famous. [19:51] People like him. He's fun. And he got a [19:53] [ __ ] pardon from the president. Like, [19:55] bro, straight and narrow. [19:57] >> Yeah. [19:58] >> Get yourself a podcast. Get yourself a [20:00] YouTube show. You would make some real [20:03] money. He would make some real money. [20:05] >> Yeah. I don't know. I don't know what's [20:06] going on with that guy, man. I really [20:07] don't. I think I was just trying to get [20:09] that get rich quick. [20:10] >> Let's see. Jamie put it into perplexity. [20:12] It says he built much of his public [20:14] persona on false claims about his [20:16] biography, finances, and identity, and [20:18] later also faced criminal charges tied [20:20] to deception and fraud. Damn. He falsely [20:24] claimed degrees from Baroo. Is that how [20:26] you say it? Baruch College in New York [20:29] and NYU even though uh even saying he [20:32] graduated Suma Kum Lahi although he has [20:34] no college degree. [20:37] He said he worked at Goldman Sachs and [20:39] City Group. Uh both firms reported no [20:42] record of him as an employee. Financing [20:44] career. Santos portrayed himself as a [20:46] seasoned Wall Street financeier and [20:49] successful businessman, reporting a [20:51] rapid jump in income and large loans to [20:54] his campaign while journalists found big [20:56] gaps and unclear sources of wealth. He [20:59] claimed Jewish heritage and that his [21:01] grandparents were Holocaust refugees, [21:03] later backing off, saying he was Jewish [21:08] after his maternal family background, [21:10] not actually Jewish. He also made [21:11] disputed statements about being a [21:13] landlord with a family real estate [21:15] portfolio and about his mother's death [21:17] being related to 9/11, although she died [21:19] in 2016. [21:20] >> That's crazy. [21:22] >> What a king. There's a bunch more. [21:24] >> Animal rescue claims. He said he founded [21:26] a nonprofit that rescued 2,500 cats and [21:29] dogs, but reporters found no records of [21:32] such an organization. Cultural and [21:34] lifestyle claims. A Brazilian drag [21:36] performer shared photos of Santos in [21:38] drag. He initially denied ever doing [21:41] drag and later minimized it as just [21:44] dressing up for a festival when he was [21:46] young. That's a funny dude. [21:49] >> That's a He's a funny dude. [21:51] >> Back to jail. [21:52] >> Yeah, he's [ __ ] He was sentenced to [21:54] 87 months in prison for wire fraud and [21:57] aggravated identity theft with officials [22:00] describing his conduct as a mountain of [22:02] lies, theft, and fraud. His short house [22:05] tenure ended with expulsion after an [22:07] ethics report detailed misuse of [22:09] campaign funds including personal luxury [22:11] spending. [ __ ] dude, you could have [22:14] been in jail for 87 months [22:18] and you got out and you you blew it all [22:21] on a bet. Like how much did he make off [22:23] the bet? [22:23] >> Uh I don't think [22:26] >> it's very fresh this story. I I heard it [22:28] on the news this morning. Uh, [22:31] >> homie. [22:31] >> I don't think it said specifically how [22:33] much because it it was more about what [22:36] he did. So, I don't think they tracked [22:37] his account. Cali, I don't think I don't [22:39] think they've announced like how much he [22:40] bet on it [22:41] >> and that that is hard to track trace [22:43] which is why I think he did it, [22:45] >> right? [22:45] >> I mean th those platforms are hard to [22:47] trace. Um, I think Poly Market I think [22:49] they're specifically like even just in [22:51] crypto on the back end if I'm not if I'm [22:53] not mistaken or in those similar kind of [22:55] exchanges. Um, so like it it's hard to [22:59] track. So it's a good place to insider [23:02] trade and he made some money. But I [23:04] think I listened on the news this [23:05] morning. It said four people close to [23:08] him reported him though. [23:09] >> So [23:11] >> well, when you're that kind of a [23:13] fraudster allegedly and that kind of a [23:15] liar allegedly. You uh tend to not have [23:18] close friends that you could trust. You [23:20] probably [ __ ] those guys over too. [23:22] >> Yeah. [23:22] >> If they're they're turning them in [23:24] allegedly. [23:26] Uh, I think it's funny though because [23:28] it's like it's really unfortunate [23:29] because you he had a real opportunity. [23:32] Like he became a public person and [23:34] >> maybe he still does. Maybe he'll get [23:36] another pardon. [23:37] >> No, [23:37] >> who knows? [23:37] >> I doubt it. I doubt he'll give him a [23:40] pardon for [23:40] >> I don't know why he got the first one. [23:41] >> He'd probably be so mad if Trump got a [23:43] phone call from him. Yeah. [23:44] >> Asking for a second pardon. [23:46] >> Why'd he get the first one? Do you know? [23:47] >> I have no idea. Let's find out. Let's [23:49] ask [23:50] >> why he got [23:51] >> Yeah. How why did he get pardoned? [23:55] There's a lot of people that got [23:56] pardoned where you're like, "Wait, [23:57] what?" [23:58] >> Yeah. [23:58] >> The Biden thing was nuts where they [24:01] pardoned more people than ever. Ever. [24:03] Any president ever. And how much of it [24:06] how much of it was done with the [24:07] autopen? So he's literally like barely [24:11] there, right? We all agree at this [24:13] point. I mean, there used to be dispute. [24:14] Oh, yeah. A stutter. We all now say he [24:17] was barely there. So someone else was [24:20] doing that. So what's the legality of [24:23] that? What is the legality of selling [24:26] pardons [24:26] >> and the preemptive pardons too? [24:28] >> Oh, those are nuts. Yeah, [24:29] >> those How about for crimes that just [24:31] don't exist? There's no you not been [24:33] accused of anything. What' you do? He [24:35] did not receive a pardon. His prison [24:37] sentence was commuted by President [24:38] Donald Trump which let him out of prison [24:40] early but left his convictions in place. [24:42] Interesting. In October 25th, uh October [24:46] of 2025 rather, um Trump signed a comm [24:49] commutation with uh for former [24:52] representative George Santos, ordering [24:54] his immediate release from federal [24:55] prison where he was serving a roughly [24:56] 7-year sentence for fraud and identity [24:59] theft. Commutation shortens or shortens [25:02] or eliminates the punishment, but does [25:03] not erase the conviction or declare the [25:06] person innocent, unlike a full pardon. [25:08] Trump said Santos had been horribly [25:11] mistreated and had spent long periods in [25:13] solitary confinement, which Trump framed [25:15] as too harsh for a rogue politician [25:18] compared with others. Commentators [25:20] widely interpret the move as fitting [25:22] Trump's pattern of granting clemency to [25:24] political allies and loyalists rather [25:26] than based on traditional justice system [25:29] criteria. I mean, look, it's a weird [25:32] thing that you could do. The fact that [25:34] you're the president and you could just [25:35] say, "What did you do? You robbed a [25:37] bank?" Ah, you're sorry. Get free. [25:40] Meanwhile, if you don't know the [25:41] president, you're in the bank forever. [25:43] Like, that is a crazy loophole that [25:46] still exists that makes no logical sense [25:48] whatsoever. [25:49] >> Yeah. You just help people around you or [25:51] your kids, whatever it is. [25:53] >> Or a friend of a friend. [25:54] >> Yeah. Donation. [25:56] >> Yeah. Somebody hooks you up and you know [25:58] them and their cousin needs a thing and [26:00] there's a guy and maybe he did it, maybe [26:02] he didn't, but you can get him out. [26:05] >> I mean, I' I'd pardon a lot of people. I [26:07] would pardon a fuckload of people. [26:08] >> I get it. [26:09] >> Well, we've on this show, we've done a [26:11] lot of work with my friend Josh Dubin, [26:13] >> uh, who used to work with the Innocent [26:15] Project and, um, now he works with the [26:17] Ike Pearl Meter Center for, uh, legal [26:20] justice and or criminal justice. So, [26:22] it's all people that are wrongly [26:24] convicted and there's a [ __ ] ton of [26:26] them. And you find out that there's [26:28] these rogue politicians or the rather [26:30] prosecutors, these rogue prosecutors and [26:32] rogue DAs and rogue cops that just have [26:35] [ __ ] dozens and dozens of [ __ ] [26:39] convictions where they [ __ ] hid [26:41] evidence. They absolutely knew the [26:43] person that they arrested was the wrong [26:44] person. They don't care. They just want [26:46] a conviction. They just they don't care. [26:48] They they they lose their ability to [26:51] give a [ __ ] whether or not the person [26:52] that's in jail is actually guilty of [26:54] that crime. and they justified in their [26:56] head, well, he was a drug dealer or he [26:58] was a this or he was a that and he [27:00] [ __ ] off his whole life. We're better [27:02] off with him being beat in jail. Let me [27:04] go to Mortons and have a steak. [27:06] >> You take that and then you compare it [27:09] with like every violent crime that has [27:11] happened in Austin this year are people [27:13] that have been repeat criminals just let [27:16] loose. [27:16] >> Oh, yeah. Yeah. [27:17] >> Okay. So, locking up people that don't [27:18] deserve it. And then a guy a guy off a [27:21] 360 here in Austin killed his family and [27:24] he was let out a couple times before. [27:26] >> Yeah. Yeah. I'm not a fan of that. [27:28] That's a different thing, you know. Um, [27:30] so you got both things, right? you have [27:32] these uh very liberal uh DAS who are [27:36] letting people go if they think that [27:38] they're, you know, from a protected [27:41] class or if they've they've experienced [27:44] racism or they've experienced some sort [27:46] of um an unjust situation as a youth and [27:50] they need a second chance and the system [27:53] is racist and so they let them loose. [27:55] But you've got people that, you know, [27:57] like the guy that pushed someone in [27:59] front of the train in New York City had [28:01] been arrested over a dozen times. Like [28:03] the [ __ ] are you doing? And there's some [28:05] kind of crazy statistic particularly [28:07] about New York City [28:09] >> that something like 50% of all the [28:12] crimes are by a very small number of [28:14] people. Oh yeah. A very small number of [28:16] repeat people. And if those people were [28:18] in jail, literally crime, you could half [28:20] violent crime, half robberies, half. [28:24] >> Yeah. Yeah, [28:24] >> 50%. [28:25] >> It's crazy. I I uh saw some people doing [28:28] analysis of like the kind of content and [28:30] news we were getting in 2015 by people [28:33] that I watched and liked like the Vlog [28:35] Brothers and stuff on YouTube where [28:37] everything was about the prison [28:38] industrial complex, which not saying is [28:40] not a thing. It's certainly there [28:41] definitely issues for sure, but it was [28:43] about how you know uh we have the [28:47] highest prison population and stuff. And [28:49] again, these aren't untrue things, but [28:51] it started putting out all this [28:53] unchallenged [28:54] information about how we are too [28:57] critical in this country and too [28:59] punishing. And then what you started to [29:00] see after that was the politicians like [29:02] the DA here, the DA in San Francisco [29:04] coming around the 2020 stuff after the [29:06] George Floyd situation and everything [29:08] where all of a sudden it was beyond soft [29:10] on crime, like beyond where they could [29:12] do any amount of property damage that [29:14] they wanted in San Francisco and just no [29:16] challenges. the DA in Chicago that [29:19] raised [29:20] >> I think the the theft for felony [29:24] threshold from like $50 to $500 or [29:27] something. It was something crazy. So [29:29] all that information [29:30] >> was $900. [29:31] >> Crazy. All that information that we were [29:34] all consuming was just unchallenged. All [29:37] you had was like a boomer on Fox News [29:39] just yelling. That was like the only [29:41] challenge to that kind of information [29:43] that was coming around 2015. And I was a [29:46] fan of that information. I ate it alive. [29:48] Um and then now we're facing the [29:51] consequences of it. [29:52] >> Yeah. [29:53] >> It's kind of crazy. [29:54] >> Well, it's also you find out that [29:56] there's there's sort of a a dark element [29:59] to it all. And there's people like [30:01] George Soros and the Open Society [30:03] Foundation. And what they do is they [30:06] they invest their money in politicians. [30:09] They invest their money in DAs. and they [30:11] get like the most liberal, the most, you [30:14] know, progressive, the one who's going [30:16] to do the most damage to the city in [30:18] terms of crime. And then he funds the [30:21] next guy to compete against him who's [30:23] further left. And they just go further [30:26] and further and further until you've got [30:28] people like the guy they got rid of in [30:29] Los Angeles that, you know, was just [30:32] violent crimes letting this this guy [30:34] pulled a knife on a sheriff. who was [30:36] trying to attack a sheriff with a knife [30:37] and then they let him out and then he [30:39] hacked up some guy with his kids with a [30:41] [ __ ] machete in Malibu or in Santa [30:43] Monica, wherever it was. It's like you [30:45] hear these stories and you're like, [30:46] "This is [ __ ] insane." When someone's [30:48] a violent criminal and they commit [30:49] violent crimes, they need to go to jail. [30:51] And if you don't do that, you're going [30:53] to encourage people to do violent [30:55] crimes. So why are these prosecutors [30:57] doing this? Why are these DAs doing [30:59] this? Are they doing it because they [31:00] want to? Do they want society to fail? [31:03] Well, some of them do. Some of them [31:06] actually do. They would like our [31:09] civilization to fall. They think America [31:11] is evil. [31:12] >> Interesting. That's interesting. [31:14] >> Elon's deep into it, man. I've had [31:16] conversations with him about it and he [31:18] explains the way Soros does it and that [31:20] it's actually it's a great investment [31:22] because like to invest in politicians in [31:25] terms of like to spend money on a [31:26] campaign for the president, it's a lot [31:28] of money. Spend money on a campaign for [31:30] becoming the governor, that's a lot of [31:32] money. But a local DA, not that much [31:35] money. And for a great return on your [31:37] investment, you can [ __ ] tank a city [31:39] by having one insane DA. [31:42] >> Like, who was the guy in LA they got rid [31:44] of? Was it Garza? Is that what his name? [31:46] This guy was [ __ ] out there. I mean, [31:49] he was releasing all kinds of crazy [31:51] criminals [31:52] >> and you're like, why would you do that? [31:54] And there was a video there was a [31:56] podcast that I was listening to where [31:58] there was a former gang leader who was [32:00] leaving Los Angeles because he was [32:02] saying it's getting too dangerous and [32:04] they're about to release thousands of [32:06] people from prison because the prisons [32:07] are overcrowded. So they're releasing [32:09] thousands and thousands of violent [32:11] offenders and he was sounding the alarm [32:13] for it. Former gang leader, he's like, [32:15] "Uh, this is too hot. We got to get out [32:17] of here." That's that's the primary [32:20] reason I'm against the things like all [32:22] the funding for the the train [32:24] >> in California specifically because I [32:27] actually really like I'm a big advocate [32:29] for public infrastructure and even like [32:31] dense living. Like I love when you visit [32:33] a place that is like dense and really [32:35] cool, lots of community. I love that. We [32:38] can't do that because we have these [32:40] people that just let the violent [32:42] criminals out. They let people hop fairs [32:45] in San Francisco and smoke meth on the [32:48] train. I want trains. I want So I wish [32:51] Austin had an incredible subway system. [32:53] We can't if we keep letting out these [32:56] horrible people that'll be everywhere. [32:57] These people with mental health issues [32:59] that we won't put in a place that is [33:00] more humane than letting them sleep on [33:03] the street. we'll let them crash at the [33:06] anytime me and my girl we drive past a a [33:08] bus stop and we're just like we we would [33:10] never ride a bus here, [33:12] >> right? [33:13] >> Because just every I I've seen people [33:15] light up a meth pipe on South Lamar at a [33:18] bus stop and there's just people that [33:20] are just sleeping there and you can't [33:22] even wait for a bus. I want these nice [33:24] things. We can have these nice things [33:27] but we can't if we just let people [33:29] overrun them. So, what do you think if [33:32] you had to put on your tinfoil hat and [33:35] really [33:37] trying to get make an assessment of like [33:39] why this is happening? Like why are they [33:42] allowing this? Why isn't no one done [33:44] what is the sensible thing? Protect the [33:47] peaceful, taxpaying, kind, and [33:50] compassionate people of the city from [33:53] violent criminals. Why are you allowing [33:55] these people to continually be released? [33:57] Why are you so soft on crime? like what [33:59] are you doing? [34:00] >> Yeah. Well, honestly, definitely not as [34:03] deep as Musk is on this, but for me, I I [34:06] really think this is political capture. [34:08] When you get in those ecosystems now [34:10] online, you can get on TikTok and it'll [34:12] immediately figure out within 3 minutes [34:15] what group to put you in, and then you [34:18] hear no other perspective. And we know [34:21] young generations, especially young [34:22] women, they've moved more politically [34:24] extreme than any other generation in the [34:26] history of the United States. And [34:28] they've moved to the left. You know, [34:29] left, right, I don't care. But they've [34:31] moved to the extreme version. And when [34:33] you're politically captured, you then [34:35] vote for the people that are more [34:38] politically captured on that left. And [34:41] there is a lot of that moral [34:42] masturbation that comes with it. It [34:44] sounds good. We had all that information [34:46] around 2015, 2020 that any that any [34:53] prison is, you know, just for having [34:56] weed or anything like that, we're just [34:58] evil as a society, right? [34:59] >> And when you get that and you start [35:01] moral masturbating about everything, it [35:03] it sounds right. Like things like rent [35:05] control, it sounds good. It sounds like [35:07] the moral thing to do. Not letting many [35:10] not just putting people in prison for a [35:12] long time sounds nice. Sounds nice. It's [35:14] not kicking people off the street when [35:16] they're homeless. It sounds nice. Not [35:18] doing those sweeps. It sounds nice. [35:20] >> Yeah. [35:20] >> And uh people that are politically [35:22] captured online, especially in our [35:24] algorithms, it's just so brutal. And [35:27] they just vote for that on repeat [35:28] because they hear no alternative [35:29] perspective. And even still, it's so [35:32] politically captured now where it's [35:33] like, if you disagree with 1%, you're a [35:36] Nazi and you're, you know, get out of [35:38] here. You're not one of us. It's pretty [35:40] brutal. I always considered myself um [35:43] like pretty left of center actually. Um [35:46] I'm probably more centrist now [35:47] economically. I've moved a little to the [35:49] right over the past few years, but um [35:51] but compared to the people surrounding [35:53] me in college that were definitely like [35:55] far left cuz you know, music school and [35:57] all that stuff, but they were still [35:58] algorithmically captured, I was [36:00] borderline like a Nazi cuz I just didn't [36:03] agree with everything. [36:04] >> Yeah. [36:05] >> You know, maybe the taxes shouldn't fund [36:07] TIDS, [36:08] >> right? [36:08] >> I'm sorry if I'm a Nazi for that. like [36:11] we have too much bloat. [36:13] >> I think you're absolutely correct about [36:14] the political capture, but I think it's [36:16] also manipulated and uh that still [36:18] doesn't account for who's funding the DA [36:20] campaigns. Um and the fact that Soros [36:23] does get involved in these kind of [36:24] things and not just him, but others as [36:26] well. [36:26] >> Do you think he truly believes in it [36:28] though? Like this is the right thing. [36:30] Like we have a prison issue. [36:32] >> Uh no, no, I don't think so. No, I think [36:35] he banks on it. I think I mean he's he's [36:37] made money off of collapsing societies [36:40] like he's he's of interesting character. [36:43] He seems like completely immune to the [36:46] consequences like spiritually of what he [36:49] does. [36:49] >> Fair enough. It's a it's a flaw of mine. [36:51] I guess I just assume the worst until I [36:53] see the best. So I just [36:54] >> That's not a flaw. That's You're a good [36:56] person. [36:56] >> Well, it's [ __ ] me over a lot of [36:58] times, but like I mean I I just assume [37:00] that even if I disagree with them [37:02] politically, they think it actually has [37:04] a positive outcome. Yeah, [37:05] >> I I want to think that [37:07] >> I used to I think now more they want to [37:09] pretend that they they think it's going [37:12] to have a positive outcome because it [37:13] justifies what they're doing. And then [37:15] it also I think with politicians it's [37:17] really a self-serving thing. They just [37:19] know that people are politically [37:20] captured so they say the things that the [37:22] politician like listen Gavin Newsome in [37:25] any other world could easily be a [37:26] Republican. Okay? If we were living in [37:28] the 1990s, he might have been like this [37:30] is nonsense. Like this like his [37:32] perspectives on things is about personal [37:34] gain. It's about his campaign and his [37:37] image. And that's why when he addresses [37:39] any of the issues with California, he [37:41] always goes into this pre-planned speech [37:43] about we're the biggest tech sector. [37:45] We're number four in the world of the [37:47] world economy. Starts moving his hands [37:48] around. He's got a little [ __ ] voodoo [37:50] dance he does because it's not really [37:53] about addressing the situation. It's [37:54] about framing it in a very positive way [37:56] so that he looks good, so that he moves [37:58] forward and that's what he wants to do. [38:00] >> And you're starting to see him come [38:01] closer to center now being opposed to [38:04] the billionaire tax and other things [38:07] like that in California. [38:08] >> [ __ ] leaving. [38:10] >> They're leaving, but a lot of the, you [38:12] know, everyone running for governor on [38:14] the left was okay with the billionaire [38:16] tax, but since he's going to be eyeing [38:17] for president, he needs to be a little [38:19] more sane. And I mean, pretty much every [38:22] independent report says, "Yes, it'll [38:23] capture tens of billions quickly, but [38:25] it'll lose hundreds of billions over the [38:27] long term because the wealth that you [38:29] tax on a yearly basis is just leaving." [38:31] >> It's not just that. It's a slippery [38:32] slope. It's It might start with [38:35] billionaires. It'll work its way down. [38:37] It'll work its way down to thousands. [38:39] >> Yeah. Taxes typically have [38:40] >> They always do. As soon as they And [38:41] also, they have the ability to change [38:43] the goalpost once the bill gets passed. [38:46] The bill gets passed. They don't have to [38:47] have you vote on who gets taxed more and [38:50] we can just decide like Bernie Sanders [38:52] used to rally against he used to rail [38:54] against billion millionaires. It used to [38:56] be millionaires. All these millionaires [38:58] are the that's the problem. They're not [38:59] paying their and now it's billionaires. [39:01] Why? Because Bernie's a millionaire now. [39:05] It's adorable. It's adorable in its [39:08] transparency. But like these [ __ ] [39:10] kids don't understand. Like there's a [39:13] giant number of kids today that come out [39:16] of the university system that think that [39:17] communism is the solution. [39:20] Genuinely believe in it. [39:22] >> It's very scary cuz you're literally [39:25] saying first of all, how does that get [39:28] enforced? How do you think it gets [39:29] enforced? [39:30] >> How does it who tells the people that [39:32] they have to give up their money and [39:33] their property? The [ __ ] government. [39:35] Then who's holding the military and the [39:37] property? The government. Oh, so the [39:39] people with the guns. Oh, so you want a [39:41] military dictatorship essentially to be [39:43] able to control all the finances, who [39:45] owns a home, who owns a farm, where the [39:47] food comes from. You think that's a good [39:49] idea? [39:50] >> It's never worth. I don't know why [39:51] they're for it [39:52] >> ever. There's not even a mildly decent [39:56] version of it out there that you can go, [39:57] "Well, they're not as good as us, but [39:59] it's not not that bad." I'll give them [40:02] some credit. I'll give them a little a [40:03] little bit of grace. Uh, sure, I think [40:05] they're a little [ __ ] but I'll give [40:06] them some grace. [40:08] A lot of times when you ask them, those [40:10] people that come out of college, what [40:11] communism is, they think it's like [40:12] Scandinavia, [40:14] >> okay? [40:14] >> And socialism. That's how they define [40:16] it. Not like very literal. And those [40:19] aren't socialist countries anyway. All [40:20] their programs are funded on capitalism. [40:22] It's taxed through the income that's [40:24] earned on capitalism. So, I'll give them [40:26] that grace. But no, it it is true that [40:28] many people are viewing communism in [40:31] general as more favorable. Yeah. [40:33] >> And we know college is also very [40:36] politically captured. And it's very [40:38] politically captured. [40:39] >> That's the danger. The danger is [40:40] children are getting a very distorted [40:42] perception of what the reality of the [40:44] world is like right out of school by [40:47] people who don't live in the world. [40:49] That's what's so [ __ ] Like these [40:50] people that are teaching, they've [40:52] essentially gone from being a student to [40:54] working in a university to being a [40:56] professor. That's their entire life. And [40:58] they're telling you about the outside [41:00] world. They're literally prisoners who [41:02] are telling you about things that are [41:04] going on in places where they never go [41:06] and never visit. Like you're not living [41:08] in the real world. Like your concepts [41:10] about socialism and communism that [41:13] you're teaching these kids like you [41:16] don't live in the real world. You didn't [41:20] start a business. You don't you don't [41:23] get fired by one company and hired by [41:25] another and you're trying to build your [41:26] own small business. You're not doing [41:28] that. Mhm. [41:28] >> You're just teaching concepts and ideas [41:31] which most people that have done those [41:34] things, that have jobs, that have [41:35] started business, think are [ __ ] [41:37] ridiculous and don't work and have never [41:40] worked anywhere in human history and yet [41:42] that's how you're employed to shape [41:44] young minds. That's crazy. They've [41:48] looked at some universities and they [41:50] look at the political identification or [41:52] uh doing pollings on different [41:54] departments and they've had like [41:55] sociology departments where it's uh like [41:59] 300 Democrats and one registered [42:01] Republican [42:02] >> which again I don't think there's [42:03] anything wrong with having a leftwing [42:05] position or viewpoint. I'm not saying [42:06] that at all. Again, I I agree with a lot [42:09] on the left. But when when something [42:11] where you're spending four years has [42:13] that ratio, it's going to get [42:16] overwhelming in terms of the information [42:18] you get without any alternative [42:20] perspective. [42:21] >> Right? [42:21] >> I I was in college again in music school [42:25] and this was the amount of just [42:27] craziness that I was around. Even though [42:29] I'm slight, you know, have those [42:32] leftwing social positions, I'm [42:34] vehemently against that woke [ __ ] [42:36] because when I was there, we had a [42:39] visiting professor talking about music. [42:41] She played a piece of music and she was [42:42] like, "Okay, give me your feedback. I [42:44] just want honest feedback on this." And [42:45] I was, you know, I didn't really like [42:46] it. And I was like, you know, to me, I [42:48] can't really describe it, but it's a [42:49] little weird. Then I had to listen to a [42:51] 10-minute lecture about how the word [42:53] weird has been used for colonialism and [42:56] slavery and imprisoning people in [42:59] murdering people of color and people who [43:01] have transition and stuff cuz I said the [43:03] word weird. [43:05] >> It's politically captured and there was [43:08] no one speak up against that. No one [43:10] would speak up against that. I don't [43:11] know if there were other normal people [43:13] around me, other professors that didn't [43:15] believe what she was saying, but no one [43:16] was willing to cuz you'd be ostracized, [43:18] right? [43:19] >> You'd be [ __ ] You're you wouldn't [43:20] have friends there. [43:22] >> Exactly. [43:22] >> So when when the ratio is something like [43:25] 500 to1 in certain departments, you're [43:27] never going to get an alternative [43:28] viewpoint. So it makes sense that it [43:30] gets more extreme. [43:31] >> It doesn't even have to be 50/50, but [43:33] 500 to1 is crazy. 200 to1 is crazy. Even [43:36] 50 to1. [43:37] >> Yeah, for sure. Well, it's something you [43:39] need to have alternative perspectives [43:41] from respected people. They they need to [43:43] be able to communicate with each other. [43:44] That's what real diversity is all about. [43:46] It's not just like where your [ __ ] [43:48] ancestors came from. It's also diversity [43:50] of thought and which is crazy that the [43:52] people that are really into diversity [43:54] reject completely diversity of thought. [43:57] This idea that no one who is more to the [44:00] right of you could possibly have a point [44:03] is insane. Now I'm with you socially. [44:06] I'm very liberal. Um uh financially I I [44:09] agree with you. I'm more I tend to swing [44:12] more to the right because I believe in [44:14] human nature. My problem with the [44:17] concept of socialism, it goes against [44:19] human nature. People [44:21] if if you're going to punish people who [44:24] are ambitious and reward people who are [44:26] not, that's not good. That's that's just [44:29] not good for human nature. It rewards [44:32] laziness. It rewards people that feel [44:34] entitled. It rewards this idea that the [44:37] government that they should pay, that [44:39] these rich people should pay because [44:40] they've done well. Well, why aren't you [44:42] doing well? is a question that doesn't [44:44] get asked to these people. [44:46] >> Well, the question of taxes is getting [44:47] completely turned on its head anyway. [44:49] I've never been opposed to paying more [44:51] in taxes if it went to something good, [44:53] right? But people are no longer [44:55] proposing it for to go to good things [44:57] when you see it advocated online. Now [44:59] it's that person has a lot of money. [45:00] Let's take some. [45:01] >> Well, it's Yes, exactly. And it's also [45:03] very abstract like they should pay their [45:05] fair share. Shouldn't we figure out [45:08] where the [ __ ] money's going first? [45:09] When you have thousands and thousands of [45:12] NOS's, you have all these billions [45:14] moving around in very mysterious ways, [45:17] you're not concerned with that, but [45:18] instead you want to take money from this [45:20] guy who's got this giant penthouse like [45:22] that Ken Griffin thing where mom Donnie [45:24] is standing in front of it like crazy. [45:26] >> This guy has a $250 million. You're [45:28] doxing his [ __ ] house. [45:30] >> Crazy. Which is stupid cuz now he's just [45:32] going to take all the wealth from New [45:33] York and go down to Miami. [45:35] >> I know. But it's a weird thing where [45:36] some of these, you know, Democrat [45:38] socialist mayors, they they don't seem [45:41] to think that that's a problem. Like [45:42] that lady in Seattle is like, "Well, if [45:45] they leave, goodbye." [45:46] >> Okay, I actually like Benami as a [45:48] person. I really dislike the lady in [45:50] Seattle as a person. She seems like a [45:52] bad person. Just laughing at people [45:55] leaving, laughing at wealth leaving, [45:57] laughing at jobs leaving. They're not [45:59] even leaving Washington. They're going [46:00] to Belleview. They're going across the [46:03] river where Microsoft and everyone's [46:04] building new campuses. They're living [46:07] Seattle and she's laughing at it. They [46:09] have the second highest downtown office [46:11] vacancy in the country and she's [46:13] laughing at it. That's not a good [46:15] person. [46:16] >> Well, she's also never had a job, [46:19] >> which is crazy. Imagine your first job. [46:21] You're the head of a [ __ ] city. [46:24] >> Yeah. Yeah. Well, then you end up with [46:27] that and now people are leaving. And [46:29] >> the Madani thing is also interesting [46:31] because one of the things he said [46:32] recently is that they if they have bad [46:34] landlords, they might take the house. [46:36] >> Have you seen that? [46:37] >> Yeah. [46:38] >> Which is like, okay, communism. You're [46:40] you're going to capture real estate. [46:42] >> You the the farm is spending too it's [46:45] too much money for a tomato. We're going [46:46] to take over the farm. Like this is [46:48] North Korea. This is how it started. [46:50] Give us your farm. We'll feed everybody. [46:53] Oh, great. [46:54] >> Yeah. I'd love to see that survive the [46:55] courts, but [46:57] >> it's it's a it's a crazy idea that we're [47:00] even there. And of course, those those [47:01] bad landlords that we're talking about, [47:03] they're usually like rent controlled [47:05] units where they can't bring in enough [47:06] money to even maintain the units, [47:08] >> right? [47:08] >> So then the units fall, I mean, the the [47:11] percentage of units, I don't know, you [47:12] can look up the exact number, but that [47:14] are just sitting empty because there's [47:15] not enough money to put into them just [47:17] to bring them up to date is crazy. This [47:20] is the most populated city in the [47:21] country. People need places to live and [47:23] we have a system right now where people [47:26] can't even bring units to rent up to [47:27] date for people to live in. So there's [47:29] like 10% of rent controlled units or [47:32] something that are are not rent [47:33] controlled but uh but it's brutal. It's [47:37] an absolute brutal system. It's [47:38] performative in the end. [47:39] >> Well, there's also this weird thing that [47:41] goes on in New York City with really [47:42] expensive apartments where people buy [47:44] them and never live in them because it's [47:46] just a place to put your money, [47:48] >> which we do too. We do that overseas in [47:50] Europe. Oh, [47:50] >> do we? Yeah. Yeah, American billion. I [47:52] mean, billionaires all over the world do [47:54] that cuz real estate is just a good [47:55] protective asset. It's a good way to [47:57] preserve. But no, I mean, it makes sense [47:59] in places like Texas have banned people [48:00] from China doing that. Um, but I it [48:03] makes sense from a wealth preservation [48:06] standpoint, but it's shitty for the [48:08] residents of the city. So, I mean, I [48:10] think I think it would be fair for them [48:11] to outlaw that if they wanted to. Kevin [48:13] Olir's counter perspective, though, have [48:15] you heard his? [48:16] >> No. So on that and I don't know if I [48:18] agree with it but it's worth considering [48:19] is that okay but they're there they buy [48:21] it they don't go there so they're not [48:23] using any public services but they pay [48:25] the property taxes into the public [48:27] services so they're just a net [48:28] contributor. [48:29] >> Well that does make sense. [48:30] >> Yeah but it is also a place that someone [48:32] could live that no one is living. So [48:33] >> Right. But you when you're talking about [48:35] these hundred million dollar apartments [48:37] like the Ken Griffins bought like guess [48:39] what you're never going to live there. [48:41] >> Yeah. And they wouldn't have built it if [48:42] they couldn't sell it to people like him [48:43] anyway. [48:44] >> Exactly. It's the whole reason why they [48:45] invested in the property in the first [48:46] place. I mean, [48:47] >> there's that one that I was looking at. [48:49] Um, they built this kooky [ __ ] tower [48:52] that's like a popsicle stick. Have you [48:54] ever seen that one? And it's waving in [48:56] the wind now and it makes weird noises [48:57] and no one wants to live in it. [48:59] >> Uh-huh. I think some glass falls from [49:00] it, too, right? [49:02] >> Yeah. Really? [49:03] >> I think so. The one right off Central [49:04] Park. [49:05] >> Glass falls. I don't know. [49:06] >> It's happened a few times. [49:07] >> I don't know. I watched a video on it. [49:09] The the video was essentially talking [49:10] about like the engineering that was [49:11] involved in making sure this thing [49:13] anchors to the ground. And you would [49:15] think you have to worry about this big [49:16] thing that's really and then you would [49:19] worry about sinking, right? Well, [49:20] actually, they worry about it lifting [49:22] cuz the wind is slowly rocking it back [49:25] and forth. So, it's [ __ ] coming out [49:27] of the ground [49:28] >> and then the people will just buy there [49:29] and not even live there. Wealth [49:31] preservation. [49:32] >> Well, so it works. I don't think I think [49:33] they're having a hard time selling spots [49:35] because I think people are probably I [49:38] would look at that I go I'm not gonna be [49:39] able to sell this. [49:40] >> Yeah. [49:40] >> Like so if you do buy into it, you might [49:42] be stuck with it. [49:44] >> No, absolutely. I'm again down to pay [49:47] more in taxes, but like you said, there [49:50] is the fear of like where's the money [49:52] going? What scares me, I want to have [49:54] Mr. Marco Rubio, if he ever sees this [49:55] and runs for president on my show, the [49:57] Pentagon hasn't passed an audit in [49:59] years. Even that alone, [50:01] >> they're working on it. They're working [50:02] on it for years, for going up to a [50:04] decade. [50:05] >> They've never passed a budget, never [50:07] passed an audit. [50:08] >> It's crazy. Like that alone, I mean, [50:11] that alone, and I know military is [50:13] still, it's what is it, 10 to 20% of the [50:15] federal budget. So, it's a smaller [50:16] percentage, but the fastest growing [50:18] category of the federal budget is [50:20] interest payments on our debt. That's [50:22] the fastest growing category in the [50:24] federal budget. If that's the case, why [50:27] are we allowing the Pentagon to not pass [50:29] an audit? We're going to raise defense [50:31] spending to a trillion dollars a year, [50:32] but it can't pass an audit. I want good [50:35] defense. I want broad defense. I want a [50:37] lot of benefits for our soldiers. [50:38] >> Yeah. [50:39] >> It has to pass an audit. [50:41] >> Yeah. Well, this is the thing. I mean, [50:44] exactly what we're talking about, like [50:45] we're in favor of paying taxes. It'd be [50:47] great if everything was nice, the [50:49] schools were great, the streets were [50:50] clean. But when you know that there's so [50:53] much waste and there's so much fraud and [50:55] then all they're saying is we need to [50:57] make people pay their share to pay it to [51:00] where's it going? Who's benefiting from [51:02] it? [51:03] >> You know when you when you see the like [51:05] the $ 24 billion that was spent on the [51:07] homeless in California. It's like you [51:10] don't have any knowledge of where that [51:12] money went. You can't audit it. This is [51:16] bananas. That's so much [ __ ] money. [51:18] And not only has it not been effective, [51:21] it's been the opposite of effective. The [51:23] homelessness increased during that time. [51:25] So you spent all that money and more [51:27] people are homeless now than when you [51:28] started. [51:29] >> It's performative. It sounds good. It [51:31] sounds good. It's all performative. [51:33] >> That's what I hate about politics. It's [51:35] jobs. There's so many people that have [51:36] jobs in nonprofits and they make an [51:38] extraordinary amount of money. [51:40] >> Well, that's why they should look to [51:41] Houston instead of nonprofits. It's one [51:44] central city-run organization and [51:46] they've actually decreased homelessness [51:48] really with like a 10% of the budget per [51:50] homeless person than LA. But LA has all [51:54] a network for every little corner of the [51:57] homeless services. It's a network of [51:58] different nonprofits and organizations. [52:00] So, it doesn't work. The city program, [52:02] one central city program did it in [52:05] Houston and it's actually been working. [52:07] >> How do they do it? What are they doing [52:08] differently? Well, instead of these [52:11] different organizations that all have [52:13] these different incentives to maintain [52:15] the jobs, like you said, and not even [52:17] report certain data, this is a city [52:19] organization actually held responsible [52:22] uh by the people, by the voters, by the [52:24] city council. It's just one place where [52:26] the money goes. It's not these endless [52:29] nonprofit jobs. The incentives are just [52:31] misaligned across the board. [52:34] >> Yeah. Um it's it's interesting that [52:36] there are examples of cities that have [52:38] done it well. Um and [52:41] Austin had a real problem in 2020 and [52:43] they did a great job in cleaning it up a [52:45] little bit. But [52:46] >> it's a small city, you know, relatively. [52:49] >> Still pretty rough downtown, though. [52:51] >> It gets rough. Listen, man. I have a [52:52] club on Sixth Street. [52:54] >> I know. I go there all the time and I [52:55] almost get shanked. It's scary. [52:58] >> It's wild. I think though that once you [53:00] get in, it's kind of exciting like, woo, [53:02] we made it. It adds to the show. I was [53:04] uh in a I put my parents in a hotel. We [53:06] went to the rooftop uh patio and it [53:09] overlooked the alley right behind Sixth [53:11] Street. I I don't know if it was the [53:12] other side of the road or not, but the [53:14] alleys are scary there. [53:15] >> Oh, yeah. [53:16] >> It's brutal. It It looks something out [53:18] of like a Batman movie from the '9s or ' [53:20] 80s. [53:20] >> I can't believe it's actually allowed. [53:23] And it's not And they say it's [53:25] sympathetic. They say it's sympathetic [53:27] and nice to I don't know how that's [53:29] considered any more nice than any kind [53:32] of gosh force rehabilitation seems [53:34] brutal, but the mental health places I [53:37] know they weren't great before Reagan [53:38] tanked that. [53:39] >> It's better than a [ __ ] alley. [53:40] >> Exactly. It's better than an alley. [53:42] >> Yeah, it's better than an alley. And [53:44] this is another weird thing about Sixth [53:45] Street is that Sixth Street is like this [53:48] booming like bars and music and comedy. [53:52] It's crazy and it's loud and everybody's [53:54] drinking. One block over is a homeless [53:57] shelter. [53:58] >> Yeah. [53:58] >> So, you got all these people that are [53:59] drug addicts and trying to stay clean, [54:02] drinker. Like, that's the other thing. [54:04] You can't do drugs and stay there. So, [54:06] people just surround it. They surround [54:08] the outside area and they have their [54:10] tents laid out there. Not anymore. They [54:12] kind of pull the tents up, but you see [54:14] those people there all the time. But [54:15] imagine you're trying to stay clean and [54:16] you're a block away from madness. [54:18] >> It's crazy. [54:19] >> It's the dumbest place to put them. Put [54:20] them in the [ __ ] country. Like, you [54:22] see squirrels and hear birds chirp. Why [54:24] you putting him right there? [54:25] >> That's where I park when I go to a show. [54:27] When I go to a show at the mother ship, [54:29] >> I park right next to the ark. It's [54:32] scary. It's apocalyptic. It really is. [54:34] Even the police station just right down [54:36] the street, they surround that as well. [54:38] >> Yeah. [54:38] >> And we just a lot. It's a police station [54:40] and they're doing drugs. [54:41] >> [ __ ] nuts. Kind of crazy. [54:42] >> It's nuts. Well, they're trying to do [54:44] some things with Sixth Street. And one [54:45] of the things they're doing, they're [54:46] investing a lot of money and trying to [54:47] open up high-end places and restaurants [54:49] and businesses, but you know, it's going [54:51] to be a slow slog. [54:54] >> Yeah. [54:54] >> Try to clean it up. [54:55] >> I mean, I'm sympathetic. They act the [54:57] people do need help, but when when [55:00] homelessness is like at minimum 25% this [55:04] is reported from polling done via [55:06] homeless people, so can't 100% trust it, [55:08] but 25% mental health issues? Like, what [55:11] are you going to do? you're just going [55:12] to let them forever be wherever they [55:14] want and do whatever they want, endanger [55:15] themselves and others. There's a dude [55:17] constantly wielding a machete down there [55:20] that's always just twirling it. When I [55:21] had friends visiting, other big [55:22] podcasters, I took him down uh downtown. [55:25] The first thing I saw on six was a guy [55:27] spinning a machete. It's like, we're [55:28] just allowing that. That's the [55:30] sympathetic thing to do. That doesn't [55:32] make any sense to me. 25% forever. We're [55:35] just going to allow them. [55:36] >> That's a very low number. [55:38] >> Yes, I think so. But be being very kind [55:40] by saying 25%. I would say it's probably [55:42] 80 there. Listen, if you if you just by [55:46] definition, if you're a drug addict, you [55:48] have a mental health problem. [55:50] >> Just by definition, you're an you have [55:51] an addiction. That's a mental health [55:53] issue. You know, there's a physical [55:54] aspect to it, but there's clearly a [55:56] mental aspect to it. [55:57] >> It sucks. It sucks that, you know, [56:00] there's so there's so many competing [56:02] philosophies on how to make a society [56:04] run correctly and a lot of them just [56:06] completely ignore reality and we deal [56:09] with the consequences of it. And then [56:11] you have people saying, "Oh, the [56:12] billionaires aren't paying their fair [56:14] share. That's what's wrong." [56:15] >> Like that's not what's wrong. What's [56:17] wrong is you have a completely captured [56:20] government and there's also this weird [56:23] aspect to it where there's people that [56:25] are working for nonprofits to make [56:27] things better that don't make anything [56:29] better. They don't do a good job at all [56:31] because they're not beholden to all the [56:34] pressures that you would have if you [56:35] were an independent business. If you're [56:37] an actual private business that was [56:40] assigned a task of cleaning up the [56:42] homeless issue, you wouldn't make any [56:45] money if you didn't do a good job. You [56:48] would lose your business. Like if you [56:51] had if homelessness cleaning up the [56:53] homelessness was an actual business [56:55] >> and you started a private business to [56:57] clean up the homeless and you got all [56:58] this money, nobody would invest in your [57:00] company. Your company would fall apart. [57:02] You it wouldn't work. But because it's a [57:04] nonprofit, you can have a $700,000 a [57:07] year salary and do a [ __ ] terrible [57:09] job and have no fear whatsoever of being [57:11] unemployed. [57:12] >> Yeah, exactly. And another difference [57:14] between Houston and LA uh that I forgot [57:16] to mention earlier, I mean, a part of it [57:18] is the cost of labor, cost of housing, [57:21] but a uh a pl a shelter or a room to put [57:25] a homeless person that is starting to [57:27] get clean in Houston costs a few [57:29] hundred,000. It costs a million or more [57:32] in California. That's just you can't [57:34] compete against that. [57:36] >> Yeah, [57:36] >> it's impossible. Now, often times that's [57:38] California's own fault. Their their laws [57:41] and permitting issues and red tape and [57:43] environmental codes are crazy for [57:46] building and the labor unions that they [57:48] use for their building contracts are [57:50] very they like to extort. So, there's a [57:52] lot of issues there. Houston's able to [57:54] build it on the cheap, which means more [57:55] people are able to get in housing. But [57:57] California is very set on the housing [58:01] first, which again is the moral thing. [58:03] It sounds moral and it really started to [58:05] take off a couple decades ago where [58:07] okay, let's get someone into housing [58:08] first and then try to get them clean [58:10] because no one's going to get clean then [58:12] housing. But Houston's been trying to [58:14] and Texas cities have been trying to do [58:15] the opposite and it's been working where [58:17] we try to get people clean first and [58:19] then get into that housing and get their [58:22] life set up because people have been [58:23] going into these places in LA that are [58:25] multi-millions of dollars and trashing [58:26] it and they get like lore and stories [58:28] off of them like a dude that was like [58:31] >> building like chairs or something uh and [58:33] then burned down his uh apartment in LA. [58:36] He was named like chair guy. Like [58:37] everyone knew him. It is crazy that we [58:40] allow that. people that are not getting [58:42] the help and support they need because [58:43] it's housing first because it sounds [58:46] good but it hasn't been working and I [58:49] don't know why I don't know it's the [58:51] political capture again. I don't know [58:52] why we're willing to do something for 5 [58:55] 10 15 years see it doesn't work and then [58:57] just say we have to keep doing it and [58:59] put more money towards it. Well, I think [59:01] again what you're saying earlier about [59:03] social media and these echo chambers is [59:06] really important because in in their [59:08] world, this is the only thing to do and [59:10] that that all just gets this feedback [59:12] loop where it's the right thing to do, [59:14] the only thing to do and they come up [59:16] with reasons why it's not working and [59:17] then call everybody Nazis. [59:19] >> Yeah. And that's why also those echo [59:21] chambers are why when pled younger [59:24] people are more more okay with violence [59:26] against people on the other side of the [59:27] political aisle from them, which is a [59:29] very scary place to go. Yeah, [59:30] >> it's very scary, especially when I see [59:32] death threats all the time in my inbox [59:34] and, you know, doxing and [ __ ] like [59:36] that. They call me a fascist for saying [59:38] don't spend more money than you make. I [59:40] Okay, so I'm a fascist now. I'm afraid [59:42] for my life and I have to get security [59:43] and all this stuff. It's crazy. [59:45] >> You So you get threats for like what [59:47] specifically do they get upset at? It's [59:49] literally just saying don't spend your [59:51] money. [59:51] >> It's it's everything. They don't like [59:52] that I do roast consensual consensual [59:55] roast. like I call a fat [ __ ] a fat [59:58] [ __ ] but I had the conversation with [60:00] her before and if she didn't want me to, [60:02] I wouldn't have done that because we [60:04] have a no no list where people get to uh [60:06] say what they don't want us to talk [60:08] about and then I just won't talk about [60:09] that. But [60:11] >> that's very nice of you. [60:12] >> It is very nice, but that's cuz we try [60:13] to run, you know, a moral consensual [60:14] show, all that good stuff. Uh but I love [60:16] to roast people and just call out their [60:18] features and just dumb [ __ ] like that. [60:19] So people get offended by that. offended [60:21] on behalf of someone who's not offended [60:22] in the first place and then they get [60:24] very angry. Um I I got a death threat on [60:27] Twitter yesterday for uh saying [60:29] Americans spend too much money on cars. [60:32] >> He said I should uh that it's crazy that [60:35] Caleb Hammer is still breathing air and [60:37] that he should come up from San Antonio [60:38] and kill me or something. I don't [60:39] remember. Something like that. Like it's [60:41] kind of crazy because Americans spend [60:42] too much money on cars. [60:45] >> Maybe he sells cars. [60:46] >> Maybe. But objectively we do. [60:48] >> Did you check his uh profile? Is it a [60:50] real person? [60:51] >> It said San Antonio. That's all I know. [60:54] >> That's all I know. I'm sure it was like [60:55] a [60:56] >> could be a [60:57] >> second profile. [60:58] >> He was He was responding to it. He was [61:00] excited. You know, he he got his [61:02] >> Don't be a crazy person. [61:03] >> Yeah. [61:04] >> Yeah. [61:04] >> And we get emails all the time. No, [61:06] people people think I'm evil because um [61:08] they say I don't talk about the issues [61:10] that led us here in the first place, but [61:12] it's a personal responsibility show cuz [61:14] more people have agency than they're [61:16] willing to acknowledge. Like we're in [61:18] the highest disposable income society in [61:21] the history of human existence. Not [61:23] everything's perfect. Cost of housing's [61:25] gone up. Cost of schools gone up. Cost [61:27] of healthcare has gone up. We can [61:28] acknowledge those realities. But people [61:30] have agency. People have agency. Um the [61:33] amount of going out to eat among the [61:35] generation Z is insane compared to any [61:38] other generation. And not only that, but [61:41] now for 25% of their going out to eat [61:44] multiple times a week is getting food [61:47] delivered. And that has a 90% markup. [61:50] 90%. And then they're complaining that [61:52] they can't afford to uh pretty much do [61:55] anything, get a nice apartment or [61:56] whatnot. But if we're spending uh like [61:58] $1,000 a month, which is very normal for [62:00] a person on my show going out to eat, [62:02] you're right. You can't get a apartment [62:05] of your dreams when $1,000 a month is [62:08] going to McDonald's and other places. [62:10] Cooking at homes become like a burden, [62:14] become a victim complex. Now, well, [62:16] actually, that was another thing that [62:17] triggered the internet. I kind of agreed [62:19] with Kevin Olri when it said, "Oh, young [62:21] people are broke cuz they spent $28 [62:23] going out to eat." Well, it's not that [62:25] specifically only, but it's the death of [62:26] a small uh of a thousand cuts. And yes, [62:30] just $28 three times a week becomes an [62:34] actual halfway decent retirement fund if [62:37] you put it in the S&P 500 for a few [62:39] times a week. That does put off future [62:42] goals that you have. And the internet [62:44] went crazy against me. They hated me for [62:46] suggesting that that they shouldn't be [62:48] able to get. They're like, "Well, how do [62:49] we eat groceries, meal prep, meal plan?" [62:52] This is what everyone's done since [62:54] forever. We live in the best period ever [62:58] for humans. Best period ever. Our jobs [63:01] are better. Everything's better. Even [63:02] when you think of like buying the [63:04] starter home in the ' 50s and whatever, [63:06] you know, they were like the size of [63:07] this room that we're in right now, [63:09] mass-produced. Okay, that's still a home [63:10] that's great you could buy. But you were [63:12] going to a job that you hated that you [63:14] were sweating that had no AC where [63:16] you're working with your hands all day [63:17] and it was miserable. They didn't like [63:19] the jobs. They liked that they had a [63:21] good paying job. But now people go to [63:22] the office and they think they're a [63:25] victim for not being able to meal prep [63:27] before going to the office, the AC seed [63:29] office. Like, it's hard for me to [63:31] sympathize with that, especially when I [63:32] film three of them a week. All 100% real [63:35] people, mostly Gen Z and millennials who [63:38] are absolute victims in everything. They [63:42] They are victims in everything. They [63:44] think they think if they don't get a [63:46] 2027 brand new car instead of a 2025 car [63:50] that they're going to die. That all of a [63:52] sudden cars 2 years ago were the most [63:53] dangerous things. They have to get a 60 [63:55] to $70,000 car loan at a 20% interest [63:58] rate or else their kids will die. [64:00] >> You've actually had that conversation [64:02] >> where they think that they're going to [64:03] die. [64:04] >> No, cuz the cuz the the the excuses they [64:07] use is that I wanted a safe car for my [64:11] kids. That's fine. But is the [64:14] insinuation that 2024, 2023, 2022 cars [64:17] would literally [64:19] go on the highway and blow up. Like, I [64:21] don't understand. They insist if they [64:23] don't get a brand new car that it is is [64:26] not a safe car. That is an argument [64:28] every time with Americans, the $1.6 [64:30] trillion or $1.5 trillion in car loan [64:33] debt. [64:33] >> So, do you think that's just a lack of [64:35] education? Because like a a car from [64:37] 2020 is just as safe as a car from 2026. [64:40] There's no difference. [64:41] >> Absolutely. There's no difference in [64:42] airbags, no difference in anti-lock [64:44] brakes. There's very few differences in [64:46] any of the technology involved. In fact, [64:48] I I I tell people, especially people [64:50] that want a nice car, one of the best [64:52] investments you can get is get an [64:54] electric car that's about 2 years old. [64:57] The like electric Porsches and electric [65:00] Audi's in particular, [ __ ] nobody [65:02] wants them, man. Nobody wants the used [65:04] ones and they're still great. [65:06] >> Oh, yeah. [65:06] >> And like, okay, let's look up uh an Audi [65:10] Ron. Look up a 2023 Audi Ron. How much [65:14] does it cost now to buy and what was it [65:18] new? I think it's like less than 50%. [65:22] >> Yeah. [65:22] >> So, there's certain cars where you buy [65:24] them and they're worth as much a couple [65:26] years later, like a nice BMW or a [65:29] Porsche. Like, you could get an M5, a [65:32] BMW M5, and then sell it a year or two [65:34] later and lose very little money, if [65:36] any. You get a [ __ ] electric car and [65:40] you try to sell that [ __ ] in a couple [65:41] years like an electric Porsche. Okay, [65:43] look at this. 2022 Audi Ron, $25,000. [65:49] 2023 Audi Ron. $27,000. [65:54] Do you know how [ __ ] crazy that is? [65:56] That is a 2023 amazing car. Those cars [66:01] are [ __ ] incredible. It's a [66:03] technological tour to force. They're [66:05] fast as [ __ ] It's all-wheel drive. It's [66:08] an SUV. A premium plus quattro. $27,000. [66:15] >> It only has $37,000 m on it. Those [66:18] things don't have engines like a a [66:20] combustion engine. They don't have [66:22] nearly the kind of maintenance that a [66:23] regular car does. You don't have to [66:25] change the oil. You just plug that [ __ ] [66:27] in. You have a [ __ ] amazing car. [66:30] Yeah. The battery range is not the [66:31] longest. [66:32] >> That's the excuse they use. 20 226 miles [66:36] is plenty for you to get to work and get [66:39] home [66:39] >> and go out to dinner and you can plug [66:41] that [ __ ] in. I have a Tesla and it it [66:43] has like [66:44] >> it's a Model S. What does the Model S [66:46] have? Three, four. [66:48] >> I can understand this though this [66:50] argument that this person might not have [66:52] anywhere than to charge it unless it's [66:54] so easy to get in your house now. [66:58] >> Not easy at all. [66:59] >> Yeah. And if you go to one of those [67:01] charging stations, you're very [67:02] vulnerable. If I was a chick, I'd never [67:04] get an electric car if I didn't have a [67:05] house. [67:06] >> You have to do that every single day [67:07] versus gas station once every 10 days or [67:10] something. [67:11] >> And like how long does it take to charge [67:13] up one of those [ __ ] [67:14] >> 30 to 45 minutes. [67:15] >> So you'd have to 30 40 minutes every [67:17] day. [67:18] >> Uh yeah, [67:19] >> that's fair enough. [67:20] >> That's fair. You're getting a [ __ ] [67:22] bitching car for 27 grand. [67:24] >> And more more apartment complexes are [67:27] installing those charging stations [67:29] anyway that you can just leave your car [67:30] in overnight. I live in one and you can [67:32] never actually get to the thing. [67:33] >> Oh, why is it? Because someone's always [67:34] in there [67:35] >> next to it and they never move their [67:36] [ __ ] car. [67:37] >> They keep it plugged in and you don't [67:38] know who's it is. You go call them and [67:39] Yeah. [67:40] >> Flatten their tires. [67:41] >> Don't do that. I'm just kidding. [67:42] >> But I try to think of options, too. [67:44] >> Cuz there's even the options of the [67:45] place you work might have one right [67:47] outside my building. There's uh where we [67:50] film is multiple car charging places. [67:52] Park in, you go to work. So, I'm not [67:54] saying everyone can do it, but [67:56] >> if you can do it, it's a great option. [67:58] But even still, you can get used used [68:00] gas cars for relatively similar, but [68:02] they will defend to the death on my show [68:04] having to get a $60,000 [68:07] large SUV at an insane interest rate for [68:09] an 8-year loan, eight-year term. Crazy. [68:14] But no, you ask me why are they doing [68:15] it? It's American, baby. That's [68:18] American. That's freedom. You need a car [68:21] to get to your job and you need a job to [68:23] get to your car. And our culture is [68:25] built around the house and car. You're a [68:27] failure if you don't get a house. You're [68:28] a failure if you don't get a car. [68:30] >> Yeah, [68:30] >> it is American as it gets. [68:32] >> That is true. And it is true that people [68:35] want a new one. They want a new one. [68:37] They want That's part of the status of [68:39] owning a vehicle. You want to be able to [68:40] say it's 2026. Yeah. Look, it has these [68:42] new features. [68:43] >> It's fun. [68:44] >> Apple CarPlay. [68:45] >> And people actually care what the person [68:46] next to them thinks of the stoplight for [68:48] some reason. I don't know why. [68:49] >> Yeah, that's a weird one. It's a weird [68:51] one, but we do. And we es especially do [68:53] when we're not doing that well. So, you [68:55] want like every single sign that shows [68:57] that you're doing well. You know, a nice [68:59] watch, a nice this, a nice that, a bag, [69:02] whatever it is, whatever it is that you [69:04] need like a reward for this job that [69:07] sucks. [69:08] >> Yeah. Often times the poorest people I [69:09] know are the ones that have uh more [69:12] souped up, nicer cars. [69:13] >> Yeah. [69:14] >> And then they have a shitty place to [69:15] live, but they prioritize that because [69:17] it's a wealth symbol. It looks good. [69:19] >> Yeah. [69:19] >> They get the expensive clothes, the [69:20] flashy items. [69:21] >> That is true. If you have money, a car [69:24] is one of the few things that you put [69:26] money into that you actually enjoy. You [69:28] actually feel it when you're driving [69:29] around in it every day. It's exciting. [69:31] It's fun. [69:32] >> I just got my Model X. It goes fast, so [69:34] I'm happy. [69:34] >> Those are great. [69:35] >> That's it. [69:36] >> They stopped making them. [69:37] >> I know. It's really sad. [69:38] >> They stopped making the S, too. [69:39] >> I was actually sad that day. [69:41] >> Me, too. [69:41] >> That was a weird thing to get sad about, [69:42] but I was actually sad that day. Also, I [69:45] was sad because I knew it was the rise [69:46] of the robots because they're using it [69:48] to make these [ __ ] Optimus Prime [69:49] robots and they're going to be flooding [69:51] the streets everywhere. [69:52] >> Yeah, I think I honestly think the Model [69:54] X is one of the best cars ever made. I [69:56] love that thing. [69:58] >> It dances. Tiffany Hattish has one and [70:00] she was in the uh parking lot of the [70:02] store and the the wings go up, you know, [70:04] it starts dancing. It moves around. I'm [70:05] like, this is crazy. Like, it actually [70:07] moves to music. [70:08] >> Now that I have one of the last ones [70:10] ever made, I I honestly [70:12] [ __ ] man. I really don't know. I don't [70:14] want another car. It's actually really [70:15] sad. [70:16] >> Well, he told me Elon told me it's super [70:18] overengineered. He's like the the car is [70:21] incredible. It's like one of the safest [70:22] cars you could ever drive. [70:24] >> Well, I guess it's the last one I'll [70:25] ever get. It's a bummer. [70:29] >> So, when you are explaining to these [70:31] people that uh a car that's just a few [70:34] years old is just as good as a car [70:36] that's now. Yeah. [70:37] >> Does anybody go, "Ah, you're right." or [70:39] did is it like a natural inclination [70:41] like is this just this thing that they [70:43] want a status symbol that's in their [70:44] head that they need at 2026? [70:46] >> People are very defensive on the show. I [70:48] can convince them of smaller things. [70:50] Getting rid of a car in our culture is [70:52] usually a big thing to overcome, but [70:55] I'll see weeks later that they sat on [70:58] it, they thought about it, then the [71:00] video went uploaded and millions of [71:01] people [ __ ] all over them in the [71:03] comments and they're like, "Okay, you [71:04] know, maybe I should get rid of this [71:05] car." So, some some people actually many [71:08] people do change their perspective on [71:10] cars, but that's a hard one to overcome. [71:12] Telling them to close a credit card, [71:14] it's kind of easy. Car is a big one. [71:17] I've told people to not get a house, and [71:18] they're really close to getting a house. [71:20] That's something they will not give up [71:22] because that's another obsession that we [71:24] have in our country. [71:24] >> So, would you say not get a house today [71:26] because of interest rates? [71:28] >> Just interest rates. Um, the overall [71:30] marketplace, S&P 500, it just beats real [71:33] estate. Commercial real estate's good to [71:35] get for tax advantages, but the American [71:37] dream isn't owning a home anymore. It's [71:39] the freedom of renting because you can [71:40] live wherever you want. You can move for [71:42] a job like that. Getting a house, you're [71:44] stuck in a house. It requires a massive [71:46] amount of money for a down payment. And [71:49] it's just a lack of flexibility in a [71:52] generation and age where people want to [71:53] be more flexible and travel and explore [71:55] and take new jobs everywhere. But it [71:57] also just doesn't make sense as an [71:59] investment anymore. It doesn't. It It [72:01] used to be the defining traded the [72:04] middle class and one of the largest [72:05] wealth creating things for the middle [72:07] class. But now with the incredible stock [72:10] market that we've had over the past 50 [72:12] years or so, it beats it every time. If [72:15] you rent and just put in your money into [72:18] the stock market instead of that down [72:19] payment on a house or the little extra [72:20] for a mortgage, you'll win every time. [72:24] And then you get stuck. Let's say you [72:25] got the good interest rate. Everyone [72:27] with a good interest rate is stuck right [72:28] now because they're not willing to trade [72:30] up for a house they actually want but [72:31] with a higher interest rate. [72:33] >> So homes become like these people's [72:35] prisons. You can buy a home. That's [72:36] great. If you know you're going to stay [72:38] somewhere and it's what you've ever [72:40] always wanted. There's nothing wrong [72:41] with doing it. But it is not that [72:45] actually incredible financial thing that [72:48] has defined America. That being said, [72:52] Americans suck at investing. So, if the [72:54] only way for you to invest is put your [72:56] house in a uh put your money in a house [72:58] that you literally cannot touch, maybe [73:00] it makes sense because if instead you [73:02] need to put an extra 20% to the market [73:04] if you rent, but Americans just want to [73:06] go spend that on a vacation, then maybe [73:08] you're better off in a house because you [73:09] need that forced investing. [73:11] >> Yeah. Well, a lot of people don't feel [73:13] uh they don't feel secure unless they [73:15] own the home. They don't feel like [73:17] settled. This is not really my place. [73:19] I'm just renting it. [73:20] >> Yeah. which is true, but I mean I just [73:23] tell them to [ __ ] off. That's your [73:24] feelings. [73:25] >> I mean, that is just their feelings, [73:26] right? [73:26] >> Like I don't know. Math is math in the [73:28] end. [73:29] >> Like I own, but that's cuz it was very [73:32] affordable for me. It made sense for me. [73:35] Um but it doesn't have to for everyone, [73:37] >> right? [73:37] >> And that's okay. In renting, you don't [73:39] have to do maintenance. You don't have [73:40] to get a new roof. You don't have to, [73:42] you know, deal with the AC going out and [73:43] all this stuff. If you're renting for [73:45] especially even like larger [73:46] corporations, they're actually even [73:47] better to rent for than a mom and pop [73:49] because they'll have someone on standby [73:50] that'll fix your [ __ ] overnight or a mom [73:53] and pa landlord, you know, it kind of [73:54] sucks. It might take a couple weeks, [73:55] >> right, if they're not good. Um, yeah. [73:58] What What do you think when you're [74:00] talking to these young people that are [74:02] talking about their future? What do you [74:03] think about what's happening with AI and [74:06] the potential for AI to displace jobs [74:08] and these people that are investing [74:10] their future and going to school and [74:12] getting this job that might not even [74:14] exist? [74:15] >> Yeah, totally fair. Uh it's a big fear. [74:19] So, I I'm going to start this part by [74:21] saying I don't 100% want to listen to [74:25] anyone that says they know what's going [74:27] to happen because how can there's the [74:29] doom and glooms that says everyone's [74:30] job's going to go away and then there's [74:32] those that say it's going to create a [74:33] [ __ ] ton of new jobs. I don't listen to [74:35] any of them. No one knows what's on the [74:36] other side of the hill of AI. But we do [74:38] know AI is coming. So, there is the best [74:41] things to prepare for it. Trades very [74:44] smart. They've been smart for a while, [74:45] but they're very smart with AI because [74:47] it's probably not coming for an [74:49] electrician job. Probably not. Degrees [74:52] in general, what degree you get in [74:54] school has been one of the largest and [74:57] most consequential decisions that people [74:59] have been messing up for the past few [75:00] years. And it's actually one of the [75:02] leading causes for that uh gender wealth [75:05] divide that is always talked about when [75:08] compared for the same job, same person, [75:10] same experience which is never compared [75:12] in that study. uh it's actually uh 99% [75:17] very similar. But what we see often [75:19] times and I feel I feel bad for uh uh [75:22] the women my age with this is [75:25] statistically them they've gone and got [75:28] lower paying degrees and now degrees [75:32] that are very susceptible to AI which is [75:35] going to be very damaging for a large [75:37] group of people that are going to push [75:38] them to become even more radical. But [75:40] women have gone and borrowed a lot more [75:42] money [75:44] for degrees that provide a lot less [75:46] return on investment like sociology, [75:48] psychology, the arts, things like that [75:50] where you can't maybe even get a job. [75:52] You're going to be a barista or if you [75:54] are going to get a job, it's usually a [75:55] lower paying job where men have gone um [75:58] just we've fallen this thing in our [76:01] society where men have always tried to [76:02] go to that higher income side and give [76:04] up a job they like for it. So they'll go [76:06] into the engineering, the maths, the [76:08] sciences, uh even if they don't like it [76:10] or the trades, very labor intensive. And [76:13] even though AI, you know, they're [76:15] susceptible to some things in tech [76:17] there, it's always been higher paying. [76:19] And that's what's made that gender [76:21] wealth uh gap so heavy. That and then uh [76:25] women post birth is the second highest [76:28] leading cause. But when it comes to AI, [76:31] people are already making the mistakes [76:32] in the degrees they've been getting over [76:34] the last 10 years. And now this is just [76:36] going to accelerate that even further. [76:38] When it comes to data entry jobs, things [76:40] that are super easy, even unfortunately, [76:43] who knows if we'll allow for therapists, [76:45] but it's getting there pretty quick. [76:46] People are willing to trust AI way more [76:48] than we thought. And these psychology [76:50] degrees and whatnot, writing degrees, [76:53] things that unfortunately that large [76:56] sector has gotten, it's they're much [76:58] more susceptible to AI. And it's going [77:00] to lead to I think it's going to lead to [77:02] a lot more political radicalization. And [77:04] that's what scares me more than [77:05] anything. Um the uh was it the UN uh one [77:11] a reputable source said 40% of global [77:15] jobs are susceptible to being replaced [77:17] by AI. Now the more developed countries [77:20] were a little better. It's a little [77:22] easier. But we're talking about those [77:23] that are doing like customer service [77:24] jobs in India and things like that. [77:26] That's you know they're going to be [77:27] damaged heavily. We're going to be a [77:29] little better in Europe, in the United [77:31] States and Canada, Australia. [77:34] But it's scary and people need to [77:36] prepare themselves by trying to borrow [77:39] the least amount possible when they get [77:41] their degree, go to community college if [77:44] they can, and go into something that's [77:46] more AI resistant, which to me is again [77:50] things like trades, things that need [77:52] that extra creative edge where AI [77:55] doesn't seem to be able to get there [77:56] yet. Maybe it'll be able to at some [77:58] point. right now they they're really [77:59] good at going through numbers and stuff, [78:01] but that true creative edge, actually [78:03] coming up with something new. Um, that's [78:06] that's what I think people should be [78:07] going towards in college right now. [78:08] >> Yeah, I completely agree. Hold that [78:10] thought. I have to take leak. We'll be [78:11] right back. [78:11] >> You're good. [78:12] >> So, one question that I have for you is [78:14] because you got a degree that's not [78:16] really a good degree financially. Yeah. [78:18] Well, [78:19] >> but close. Yeah. [78:19] >> But but going to school for something [78:21] that's not viable financially. Why do [78:23] you think in particularly women, why do [78:26] you think so many of them get these [78:28] degrees in sociology, get these degrees [78:30] in gender studies, get these degrees in [78:32] things that where you're you're just not [78:34] going to be able to make a living in [78:36] what you're going to school for. Yeah. I [78:39] I think you can do a lot of good in a [78:41] lot of them. So, if you're doing social [78:43] work like that there and nursing [78:45] actually does pretty well, but in that a [78:48] lower paid part of medical, you know, [78:50] you're doing a lot of good. Um we we [78:53] spent a lot of decades doing trying to [78:57] really fix the percentage of college. We [79:00] were having like men men all it was only [79:03] men going to college and we put a lot of [79:06] effort into women going to college a bit [79:08] more to catch up which is fair. That was [79:10] good. I am for that. But once they got [79:14] there just uh [ __ ] why they're doing it. [79:18] It's harder to say, but they definitely [79:20] do more gravitate as a cohort towards [79:23] those lower paying degrees like [79:24] psychology and whatnot. And I don't [79:26] know, men just go to the higher paying [79:28] degrees. I don't if it's just something [79:29] in our culture where men feel like they [79:31] need to be a bread winner or whatnot. [79:33] >> Yeah, that's what I'm wondering if [79:34] that's what it is. The need to be a [79:36] provider and thinking, look, these [79:38] lowpaying jobs are not going to be able [79:40] to give me any money. [79:41] >> Yeah. [79:42] >> How am I going to provide? How am I [79:43] going to have a family? How am I going [79:44] to pay the bills? [79:46] >> Yeah. But now men are [79:47] >> men are starting to kind of fall off [79:50] that platform though. I don't know if [79:52] you've been watching the trends, but now [79:54] it's closer to like 60 65% of new degree [79:57] holders are women and men are just not [80:00] going to college anymore. [80:01] >> Um they're some of them [80:03] >> really. [80:04] >> It's pretty crazy. It's like 60 or 65%. [80:06] >> Wow. [80:07] >> Um it's getting it's getting pretty [80:09] intense. And [80:11] >> well, what are men doing instead? [80:13] >> There's a lot of losers. There are a lot [80:15] of losers um uh where they're not [80:18] getting any education, they're not [80:20] looking for any kind of job, they're not [80:22] even collecting unemployment. They're [80:23] literally just sitting on their ass. [80:24] That is a big cohort of people right [80:26] now. [80:27] >> What's causing that? [80:29] >> Um well, [ __ ] Uh there is a lot of the [80:32] red pill victim mentality. I don't know [80:34] if I want to fully enable it, but I mean [80:37] maybe there's some justification a [80:38] little bit, but they think that [80:39] everything's against them. uh they think [80:42] that DEI specifically was preventing [80:45] them from going to work or preventing [80:47] them from going to school that uh [80:49] schools politically captured. There's a [80:52] survey done that of people that were [80:54] choosing not to go to college 30% said [80:57] that it's because 30 or 40% said it was [81:00] because college is becoming too [81:01] politically captured. Um so there is [81:04] that. Uh then they don't have jobs, they [81:07] don't have skills, they don't have [81:08] experience. So, it's harder to get a [81:10] job. It's easier to just kind of sit at [81:13] mom's home, play video games, do drugs. [81:16] >> Jesus, [81:17] >> that's bleak. [81:18] >> It's bleak. And the gender wars are [81:21] horrendous right now. I don't know if [81:22] you see any of it online, but the gender [81:24] wars are horrible. [81:25] >> The gender wars. [81:26] >> Oh, yeah. Young women just being so [81:28] anti-men and young men being so [81:30] anti-women and cheering against each [81:32] other. It's horrible. [81:36] It is horrible. like uniquely new like [81:39] this is [81:40] >> oh much more than ever before. [81:41] >> What do you think is causing that? [81:43] >> Um a lot of it started 2016 election. [81:47] They got a lot of women got very angry [81:50] that Trump was elected and they followed [81:52] something that happened in South Korea [81:54] as well where the women said no men, no [81:59] dating, no sex. There was a term for it [82:01] but they were just they cut off [82:02] everything. And there was a little [82:04] little bit of that movement after the [82:05] 2016 election here in the United States [82:07] as well. It didn't gain as much [82:09] traction, but um this is very divisive [82:12] and it goes back to the algorithm that [82:14] we were talking about earlier as well. A [82:16] lot of people get put in those echo [82:20] chambers where you know you need to have [82:22] a villain and the men are the villain or [82:24] the women are the villain. The women are [82:25] the reason men aren't doing well. The [82:27] men are the reason women aren't doing [82:28] well. The men have been holding us back [82:31] forever. They've been, you know, keeping [82:33] us in the kitchen and everything like [82:34] that. Um, [82:36] >> the 4B movement, women boycotting men. [82:40] >> Anti-men movement. 4B movement is a [82:42] radical feminist rebellion that emerged [82:43] around 2015. It's named after four [82:46] Korean terms starting with BI meaning [82:49] no. Behon no heterosexual marriage. B [82:54] Chosen, no child birth. Bione, no dating [82:59] men. B secu no sexual relations with [83:02] men. Okay. [83:06] Participants argued this is not about [83:07] misinjury but rather a drastic method to [83:10] opt out of an intensely patriarchal [83:12] society and protect themselves from [83:14] gender-based violence such as digital [83:16] sex crimes, spy cams, and workplace [83:19] discrimination. [83:21] >> So, it picked up some pretty big steam [83:23] here in the United States after 2016 as [83:25] But I got to think that everyone who's [83:26] saying no dating men and no sexual [83:28] relationships with men isn't attractive. [83:33] >> Probably not. But sexlessness among [83:35] young people is so high compared to any [83:38] other generation right now. [83:39] >> Very high. Very high virgin rate, which [83:41] is really odd. We're finding a lot of [83:43] and a lot of them like identify as [83:44] Christian and that's the reason why [83:46] they're saying or Catholic. This is the [83:48] reason why they're saying they're [83:48] virgin. And I'm like, what's happening? [83:51] You don't get horny. What are you doing? [83:52] >> It's interesting. you don't like people. [83:54] >> I've had a lot of people on my show say [83:55] they want to have sex but can't have [83:57] sex. [83:58] >> So I guess they haven't used that cope, [84:00] the religious cope, but uh I don't know. [84:03] But that's another example of the [84:05] radicalization. So um they just they [84:08] blame each other. Like okay, Trump got [84:10] elected. Many of the women in this [84:11] country that lean to the left didn't [84:12] like it. So they got very upset. They [84:14] blamed the men for electing him. Uh men [84:16] blame women, you know, DEI policies, [84:19] which yeah, there are things that [84:20] complain about it. do get it like on [84:22] both sides probably, but they've just [84:23] gone so extreme. So, there's a gender [84:25] war right now where it's just trying to [84:27] nuke the other side. And [84:28] >> and does this spill over into real life [84:30] as much or is this a lot of people that [84:32] spend way too much time on the internet [84:34] already? [84:34] >> Definitely more that than anything. [84:36] Definitely more that. But um the [84:39] unfortunate real life consequences [84:42] uh lead to that loneliness online [84:44] because the real life consequence is [84:45] that people are staying inside and on [84:47] screens and more lonely than ever. So [84:49] that's the real life impact. You know, [84:51] they're not going out and talking about [84:52] the 4B movement on the corner of the [84:55] street, but instead of going out like [84:57] they used to and having more friends, [84:59] they're sitting inside and complaining [85:00] about it on Reddit. So that is the real [85:04] life consequences. It becomes online. [85:06] >> Yeah. It's just so strange that these [85:10] people don't recognize that you have a [85:12] finite time to exist and you're spending [85:15] all your time like captured in these [85:17] like [ __ ] stupid echo chambers. [85:19] >> Feels good to be a victim though cuz [85:21] everyone online that is in your little [85:23] ecosystem. They give you the thumbs up. [85:26] They make you feel reassured. [85:28] >> Feels good. [85:28] >> Complaining is exciting. People do love [85:30] to complain. [85:31] >> Yeah. [85:32] >> It excites you. It gets you going. [85:34] [ __ ] the [ __ ] [ __ ] [85:37] >> whether this is accurate, I think this [85:39] gives a little insight into the Korean [85:41] 4B movement. This is a post on Reddit [85:43] from 2 years ago, but this paragraph [85:46] here is [85:48] >> Oh, about Korea. Yeah. [85:49] >> Yeah. So, we're talking about a country [85:50] where a woman's career could be [85:51] jeopardized for something as innocuous [85:53] as wearing a t-shirt that reads, "Girls [85:55] don't need a prince or for liking a [85:57] Women's March post on Twitter, even if [85:59] it was seven years ago." I'm not [86:01] exaggerating. Incidents like this have [86:02] occurred and recently as recently as [86:04] last year. We're talking about literal [86:06] termination of a contract due to a heart [86:08] made on a post regarding women's safety [86:11] issues on Twitter dating back to seven [86:14] or more years ago due to incel gamers [86:17] throwing a fit. So they have an incel [86:19] problem in Korea too. A lot of also low [86:22] replacement rate like [86:24] >> worst in the world. Yeah, [86:25] >> Korea is really bad. Is it the worst? [86:27] It's worse than worse than collapse [86:29] within a few decades. Yeah, by the end [86:31] of the century. [86:32] >> O [86:33] >> yeah, South Korea is done. But no, it's [86:36] true. And like I said, like there there [86:38] are valid logics to it. I'm not saying [86:41] like uh everyone's just doing it [86:43] inherently to be evil, [86:45] >> but if your outcome is to become [86:47] radicalized into something like the 4B [86:49] movement, no one should be fired from [86:51] wearing a dress or liking a post, right? [86:52] >> You know, [86:53] >> it's crazy. but to become radicalized [86:55] and start this thing where it divides [86:57] the genders because we have more [86:58] political division in our lower in our [87:00] in the Gen Z gender than any other [87:03] generation, more religious division. [87:06] It's crazy. And to fuel that because [87:09] things have been not perfect. [87:10] >> So when you say political division, so [87:12] is it that young men are going to the [87:14] right and young women are going to the [87:16] left? Is that what it is? [87:17] >> Yeah. when you do when they've done [87:19] tracking and polling of post-election [87:21] results and who how people have voted, [87:23] age groups and gender groups, they've [87:25] seen that men have moved to the right uh [87:28] a little bit. Uh but women dramatically [87:31] since 2016 have moved to the pretty far [87:33] left. Young women, not not millennial or [87:37] Gen X or boomer women especially, but uh [87:40] Gen Z women have moved very far to the [87:43] left. I wonder what changes if anything [87:46] in that when women have children because [87:49] one of the things that I found is that [87:51] my friends who wound up having children, [87:53] my female friends, they they almost all [87:56] started moving to the right. They almost [87:58] started all recognizing that there's [88:00] like real safety issues. There's real [88:02] crime issues. They're wondering where [88:04] their tax money goes. They see [88:06] corruption and fraud, things that they [88:08] never really talked about at all when [88:10] they were single and didn't have a [88:12] child. But as soon as they get married, [88:13] as soon as they have children, then they [88:14] start going, "Hey, [ __ ] this place." You [88:17] know, they they like so many of them [88:18] wound up moving out of LA right after [88:20] they had children. And so many of them [88:22] started moving into a different sort of [88:25] ideology, [88:27] >> but people have to get married and have [88:29] kids for that to happen. And we just hit [88:31] our lowest birth rate in the United [88:33] States. [88:33] >> Is it the lowest ever replacement rate? [88:35] >> Yeah, if I'm not mistaken. Yeah, it was [88:37] before the last time we had actual [88:39] replacement rate was before the great [88:41] recession and ever since then it's just [88:43] gone off a cliff. [88:43] >> That's why we need immigrants. [88:45] >> Well, I mean actually we [88:48] >> Well, we do need some immigration [88:51] >> of course [88:51] >> to like cuz we need a growing population [88:53] cuz you don't want to be like like South [88:55] Korea or Japan. You can't have a [88:59] collapsing population because you use [89:01] the argument not sorry not you but [89:03] people could use the argument they'll [89:05] destroy our culture if we let in all [89:06] these immigrants and yes of course that [89:07] would happen if you just let anyone in [89:09] no matter what uncontrolled sure you [89:11] also is also going to lose their culture [89:13] because their population will not exist [89:16] by the end of the century. So there's [89:18] multiple ways to lose a culture, but I'm [89:21] a big proponent of selective, [89:23] high-skilled, [89:25] good proportional immigration, and I [89:27] think honest I think that's the more [89:28] bipartisan issue. That's where like Bill [89:30] Clinton was in the '9s and whatnot. So I [89:32] think that's fair. Um, open borders is [89:35] [ __ ] crazy. I don't know what was [89:37] going I don't I didn't even realize what [89:39] was going on. [89:40] >> It's nuts. I have friends that were down [89:42] there that went to the border and then [89:43] say, "You have to come to understand it. [89:45] You have to see it. It's [ __ ] insane. [89:47] Like you see the numbers of people [89:48] coming across like how is this real? [89:51] >> Yeah. [89:51] >> And they just no vetting right into the [89:54] country. [89:55] >> Yeah. So I'm uh on an economic issue [89:58] because I I always go back to economics. [90:00] I don't get as fired up about the social [90:02] stuff, but I do like some kind of [90:04] immigration for sure. Some people are [90:06] like completely anti-immigration, but I [90:08] like some kind of immigration cuz we do [90:10] need a growing job pool specifically to [90:13] maintain an economy so that people my [90:15] age can retire. If the dependency ratio [90:19] of every person not working for every [90:21] working person uh is getting close to [90:24] one for one in South Korea in the United [90:27] States when we implemented social [90:28] security it was closer to like 60 to1. [90:30] Now the United States is like it's like [90:34] five or 10 to one. It's going in the [90:36] wrong direction. And if for every one [90:38] working person you have one person not [90:39] working, the whole system breaks. And [90:41] that's what we're starting to see in [90:43] places like South Korea. So we can't [90:44] become that. So if people aren't [ __ ] [90:47] people aren't making babies, you got to [90:48] bring some people in. But selective [90:50] highskilled. What gets scary is if you [90:54] start [ __ ] up the economy enough with [90:56] really bad policies, you get brain drain [90:58] and then immigration. So you see what [91:00] happens in Italy, Spain, the United [91:03] Kingdom. [91:04] >> Brain drain. [91:04] >> Yeah. Educated people. They be they're [91:07] born there typically or they even [91:09] immigrate there and they become very [91:11] educated. They're the ones that are [91:13] going to contribute to the tax base, uh [91:15] create jobs, uh do higher skil jobs, [91:18] great doctors, everything's like that. [91:21] But they look around them, the economic [91:22] policies have failed. So they come to [91:24] the United States. And then there's only [91:27] the immigrants that have come in that [91:29] aren't able to replace that brain [91:31] because they come from somewhere where [91:33] no fault of their own is just less [91:35] educated. So they aren't able to [91:37] contribute to that tax base. We're [91:39] actually starting to see something [91:40] similar in LA right now with the [91:43] wealthlight and brain drain. Though the [91:46] net migration in LA is not looking the [91:48] absolute worst. people that were [91:50] contributing there moving away and [91:53] providing to the tax base versus people [91:55] that are coming in and aren't being true [91:57] net contributors is becoming horrendous [92:00] and they're looking at like a billion [92:01] dollar deficit coming up pretty soon for [92:04] the city of LA. It becomes very scary. [92:06] So that's why I rail against [92:08] performative policies because I don't [92:10] want to end up like a place like the UK [92:12] where it would rank 51st out of all 50 [92:14] states by the way in terms of [92:17] um uh GDP per capita which is absolutely [92:20] crazy worse than Mississippi you know um [92:23] and [92:24] uh and then if you're having immigration [92:26] while that's happening all you have left [92:28] is just that just that and all your [92:30] high-skilled people went somewhere else [92:32] same thing's happening in Canada they [92:34] become educated in Canada and they go [92:35] down to Silicon Valley for a highpaying [92:37] job because they don't pay as well in [92:39] Canada. But if we start reversing that [92:41] with bad policies, [92:43] you start looking a little more like LA [92:45] and their budget's not looking really [92:47] good. [92:48] >> It's interesting how pragmatic financial [92:51] discussions are problematic. Like people [92:54] don't like it and they they look at it [92:57] and like you're just you're not talking [92:58] really even about politics. You're just [93:00] talking about pragmatic decisions in [93:02] terms of like how do you invest your [93:03] money, how to save your money, how to do [93:05] that. That that becomes rightwing. [93:07] >> Oh yeah. [93:08] >> That becomes uh somehow or another [93:10] cruel. It's like categorized in that way [93:12] as heartless. [93:14] >> Yeah. People will clip that last moment [93:15] and say I'm anti-immigrants. [93:17] >> Like that's going to happen. [93:19] >> But it's not. It's this literal economic [93:22] uh theory that we're seeing in the real [93:24] world right now that's tracked and [93:26] trackable. The Labor Party acknowledges [93:28] the left-wing Labor Party in the United [93:30] Kingdom acknowledges the wealth flight [93:32] and brain drain. This isn't a right-wing [93:34] position. This is just reality. [93:37] >> It's interesting though that people like [93:40] in general don't think of it that way. [93:43] People in general think of it like [93:45] someone who discusses finances, someone [93:47] who's like very financially astute, [93:48] gives pragmatic advice, that's a [93:50] conservative person. That's a bad [93:52] person. [93:52] >> They do think so. say I'm right-wing [93:55] coded is something I not see a lot. [93:57] Rightwing coded or my vibe is off. [94:00] >> Well, [94:00] >> because personal responsibility. [94:02] >> Yeah. But but what do you think? Why do [94:05] you think personal responsibility is [94:07] thought of that way? Is it because [94:09] people cherish this idea that they're a [94:11] victim and they hold on to it that it's [94:13] a part of their identity? And if you [94:14] challenge that and say, "No, some of [94:16] this is your fault, [94:18] >> then you're you're being cruel. You're [94:21] you're being you're a sociopath. you're [94:23] a fascist. [94:24] >> There's a large group of people that [94:25] want people like me or Dave Ramsey to [94:28] just give them a hug and then complain [94:30] about the systemic issues that got them [94:32] in there in the first place, [94:33] >> right? [94:34] >> You can vote. That's great. Go vote for [94:36] a policy change. Wonderful. But you do [94:39] have a little bit of agency. And I'm not [94:41] going to talk to you about what policy [94:43] you should vote for because that's going [94:44] to require millions of people to overdo [94:46] a system that you don't like. What you [94:48] do have control on right now is whether [94:50] or not you swipe the card somewhere, [94:52] whether or not you get a high interest [94:53] rate credit card or get a [ __ ] [94:55] degree from a private institution out of [94:57] state. You have those controls right [94:59] now. And they don't like that. I the one [95:03] of the biggest complaints that people [95:04] like me and Dave Ramsey get is, "Why [95:06] aren't you talking about the system that [95:08] got you there?" But that's not the [95:10] conversation. It isn't. It's a [95:12] one-on-one personal financial [95:14] conversation. [95:15] Let those people fix their lives. [95:18] Budget. Bud. That's why I made a [95:20] budgeting app. Dollar-wise, by the way, [95:21] is for that kind of thing. I I made a [95:23] budgeting app called Dollar Wise with my [95:25] team. [95:25] >> It's called Dollar Wise. [95:27] >> Dollarise. Yeah. [95:29] >> Uh so the average person can actually [95:32] budget and take some personal [95:33] responsibility instead of just falling [95:35] on the victim mindset. [95:37] >> So this app, what do you do? You you put [95:39] in your income, you put in your bills. [95:42] >> Yeah. Yeah. It's that automatic account [95:44] connections through multiple different [95:46] services. Uh so you get your accounts [95:48] connected and you get to immediate uh [95:50] insights that show where your money's [95:52] going, what you can do to actually [95:54] improve your life and the steps you need [95:56] to take it. It fully guides you in that [95:58] process. [95:59] >> So were you motivated to do this just [96:01] based on these conversations you've had [96:02] with people that don't know what the [96:03] [ __ ] to do? [96:04] >> That and to make a [ __ ] ton of money, [96:06] but both both have worked pretty well. [96:08] Um but yes, [96:09] >> which is funny. You're making a [ __ ] ton [96:10] of money by people that can't figure out [96:12] how to save money. [96:13] >> Yeah, but if Hey, if they make more [96:14] money because they save money and I make [96:16] more money, that's capitalism. [96:17] >> It's a value. Yeah, exactly. You're [96:19] providing a value. [96:19] >> No, I mean that's the point. Like I used [96:22] Did you ever use Mint? [96:24] >> No. [96:24] >> You remember Mint? Okay. So, it was a [96:25] big budgeting app a long time ago, but [96:27] for some reason the service that bought [96:29] it shut it down and that's what everyone [96:31] was using. But even then, I remember [96:33] stopped using it like many people. Most [96:35] people fall off of budgeting apps [96:37] because they're just burdensome. it [96:39] takes a long time to figure out the [96:41] systems and they're just overengineered [96:43] for the personal finance nerd that loves [96:45] every little detail. So the average [96:47] person doesn't do it. So we just built [96:48] something simple that just shows people [96:50] immediately where their money is going [96:52] and what they need to do to change. So [96:54] that's what we focused on when we, you [96:56] know, engineered this thing. And so when [96:59] you're having all these conversations [97:01] with all these different people that [97:02] have like these terrible budgets, doing [97:05] a terrible job of taking care of [97:06] themselves, [97:08] do you ever get this feeling like that [97:10] you're not helping? Like this is like an [97:12] insurmountable problem. You're sticking [97:14] your finger in a dam and there's a [97:15] [ __ ] million leaks and this is this [97:18] is not going to work [97:19] >> to a certain extent. Yes. Luckily in the [97:22] United States, we have some tools that [97:23] help. So, if someone's in that situation [97:26] where the dam's about to burst, [97:28] everything's about to just blow up, they [97:30] can go through bankruptcy. But [97:32] bankruptcy does not make sense. And this [97:34] is what a lot of people mess up. [97:35] Bankruptcy doesn't make sense unless you [97:37] actually change the behavior that got [97:38] you there in the first place. Because we [97:40] we've had people that have come on my [97:42] show that have been through bankruptcy [97:44] twice and now we're there again. It [97:47] makes no sense. You can get rid of the [97:48] dam. You can get rid of it by [97:49] bankruptcy, but you're going to build up [97:51] that thing to explode again if you don't [97:53] actually fix the behavior. So, people [97:55] take shortcuts through credit card [97:57] consolidation, debt consolidation, [97:59] personal loans, all that good stuff. [98:00] Those are good tools, but if people [98:02] don't actually fix their behavior first, [98:05] they're going to [ __ ] it up. So, uh Dave [98:08] Ramsey is vehemently against debt [98:10] consolidation for a reason that is fair. [98:12] I I don't like being anti- something [98:15] 100% cuz personal finances is personal, [98:18] but this is his argument and it's kind [98:20] of fair. You build up this much in [98:22] credit card debt from here to here and [98:24] then you can consolidate it into this [98:26] new debt. So this is one new debt that [98:27] consolidated this down to zero, but now [98:29] what happens is the credit card limit is [98:31] still all the way up there. So people [98:33] now have this debt and then without [98:35] changing their behavior, they build the [98:36] credit cards back to here. So now you [98:37] have double the debt. [98:39] >> That's the issue with that consolidation [98:40] is to not changing the behavior. So his [98:42] philosophy is correct. But what we try [98:44] to teach people on my show is that [98:47] change the behavior that got you in that [98:49] first stack in the fir first place. And [98:51] if you can prove that you can follow a [98:53] budget for a few months, then you can [98:55] take that shortcut by consolidating and [98:56] then probably just close those cards so [98:58] you can't use them. But the same thing [99:00] applies for bankruptcy. So that's why [99:02] our show is simple stuff. You just fix [99:04] the spending. You get it under control. [99:07] You'll live in even Elizabeth's Warren's [99:11] 503020. She's the one that pioneered 50 [99:13] 3020 which is 50% on needs, 30% on [99:16] wants, 20% on savings. That's Elizabeth [99:19] Warren's rule. And she's relatively [99:21] correct on that. Um doesn't apply to [99:23] everywhere like LA, New York of course, [99:25] but [99:26] if you can follow that and prove you do [99:28] it for a few months, then you can go [99:30] through bankruptcy. You can use a [99:32] personal loan and that solves the damn [99:33] issue. It solves the bigger issue. [99:36] >> Yeah. The the changing your behavior [99:37] thing is very hard for people. It is. [99:39] >> And it's also very hard for people when [99:41] that spending of the money is the only [99:43] reward you get for a job you hate. [99:46] >> Yeah, it is. And I'm the one talking to [99:48] them and I'm a fat [ __ ] So, like I get [99:50] it. Like I haven't, you know, fully [99:52] taken control of my uh health behaviors [99:56] and eating behaviors. So, I I know that [99:59] it's hard to fix it. But often times the [100:01] people on my show, I've been in the [100:03] exact same situation. I was when I was [100:05] 20, 21 and I've seen what it's like on [100:09] the other side just like many people in [100:12] your position have seen what it's like [100:13] on the health the health on the other [100:14] side. You know how good it is. So you [100:16] want other people to do it. And since [100:18] I've been through that personal finance [100:20] side and gone through the work, I can at [100:23] least help hold people's hands and show [100:24] them what it's like to go to the other [100:28] side of that tunnel to put in the work, [100:30] the temporary sacrifice of a few years [100:32] and really live the rest of your life in [100:34] such a better way. [100:37] >> Yeah. It's just changing behavior [100:40] requires a change in perspective. It [100:42] requires something. And for some people, [100:45] they have to hit rock bottom or they [100:46] have to have some, you know, they have a [100:48] birth of a child, like something [100:50] >> rocks them into reality and they go, I [100:52] whatever the [ __ ] I'm doing right now, [100:53] it's not the right path. But it it's [100:56] just so hard for people when they're [100:58] playing this blame game and they're [100:59] looking at successful wealthy people as [101:01] being the pro. Look at Jeff Bezos and [101:03] his [ __ ] yacht. Like, has nothing to [101:05] do with you. Yeah. [101:06] >> It's not why you're broke. And you [101:08] should look at him and go, "How the [ __ ] [101:10] did he do that? How can I do that? I [101:12] want a yacht. [ __ ] it. let's go. But no [101:15] one's doing that. They're they're [101:16] instead deciding that they're a victim. [101:18] Deciding that the the game is rigged. [101:21] Deciding that there's a cap on their [101:23] ability. But but meanwhile, this is if [101:26] there's any place on earth where you [101:28] have the ability to rise from the bottom [101:31] to the top. This is it. This is the [101:33] spot. [101:34] >> There's no place better. You could say [101:36] it's not fair, but it What does that [101:38] mean? You It's possible. Like you could [101:41] do it. People have done it. You just [101:42] have to figure it out. And like you have [101:44] to spend less time playing video games, [101:46] less time smoking weed, less time doing [101:48] nonsense, and more time plotting your [101:51] [ __ ] future. Figure out what it is. [101:53] >> I think there's also a problem in a lot [101:55] of people have something that they [101:58] really want to do that they're not doing [102:00] and they they're not pursuing that. And [102:03] so then they're even more bitter because [102:05] they're spending time doing this job [102:06] that they hate, which sucks. They think [102:08] it's taking away from their ability to [102:09] do this other thing, which sucks. And [102:11] then they come up with all sorts of [102:12] rationalizations for why they're not [102:14] doing it. [102:15] >> Yeah. But what you said is 100% correct. [102:18] But let me let me phrase it back. [102:20] >> Yeah. [102:20] >> It's not fair. The world isn't fair. [102:23] >> Now what? [102:24] >> Right. It is what it is. [102:26] >> Like it is. Okay. So accept that. Are [102:28] you going to sit on it and cry? Like [102:30] that's the only option, right? It's that [102:32] or do something. [102:32] >> But you're denying people's feelings, [102:34] Caleb. [102:35] >> I am. Um [102:35] >> you're denying people's feelings and [102:37] that's very rightcoded. Yeah, [102:40] >> that is right. That's the argument, [102:42] isn't it? [102:42] >> It is. It is like I I don't know, man. [102:45] Um, [102:46] >> write code is fun. [102:48] >> If people just [102:49] >> if they're getting the [ __ ] degree [102:51] and they borrowed a [ __ ] ton of money [102:52] for it, [102:53] >> that's not my fault. I didn't do that. [102:56] >> Yeah, [102:56] >> the system Bezos didn't do that either. [102:59] >> They say, well, sociology and stuff [103:01] should pay more. Okay, the market's [103:03] determined it didn't. So, now what? You [103:05] still get to choose what you do, what [103:07] business you start. You might fail a [103:09] thousand times, but you have so much [103:11] more agency than people right now are [103:13] willing to accept. And that's all I [103:15] really care about telling people in the [103:17] end. That's all. You have agency. Take [103:19] some personal responsibility. You are [103:20] not the disabled person that actually [103:22] does not have agency, right? [103:24] >> Cuz there are people that don't, right? [103:26] >> You're not that. [103:27] >> Right. [103:28] >> Yeah. That's so important to say. And I [103:30] think, you know, as much as it's [103:31] probably frustrating, you know, when I I [103:33] brought it up that you're putting your [103:35] finger in this dam and there's a hundred [103:37] holes, I really do think that you have a [103:39] positive impact because I really do [103:41] think there's a lot of people I mean, [103:43] you get millions of views. There's a lot [103:45] of people that are watching these [103:46] conversations and it resonates and they [103:48] go, "This is me. He's talking to me and [103:51] he's right. [ __ ] Um, what do I do?" And [103:54] at least it puts them in this mindset [103:56] that a change needs to take place. [103:59] Yeah, exactly. [104:00] >> And then you give them tools. You give [104:02] them like you you explain to them what [104:04] the steps that they can take, [104:06] >> you know, and that's they're the cra the [104:09] [ __ ] crazy thing is they're not [104:11] getting this from school. School's not [104:13] teaching you how to organize your [104:14] future, which is [ __ ] a a critical [104:17] skill, a critical piece of knowledge, uh [104:20] like having a a a path that you can [104:22] actually follow. I think it's a a lot of [104:25] the time it's the uh student counselors [104:28] there because I remember being in school [104:29] in high school and the student counselor [104:31] I met with her once a year and the only [104:33] conversation is what do you want to [104:34] study in college? That was it. That's [104:36] all they cared about. [104:38] >> And it's fair for most people. College [104:40] does still have like a 60% premium on [104:42] those without a degree on average. But [104:45] that's the only conversation and it is [104:47] becoming less and less valuable as every [104:49] year goes on. And if that's all school [104:51] cares about, they don't care to even [104:53] show you how to. Okay, I mean, full [104:56] admission here, and I'm going to look [104:57] like the most beta [ __ ] in the world, [104:59] but I don't know how to do a [ __ ] oil [105:01] change. I don't Why didn't school teach [105:03] me that? Why? Why wasn't there any life [105:06] skills? Now, I have the personal [105:08] responsibility. I can go teach myself [105:10] that right now, but I have a Tesla, so I [105:11] don't need to. But why wasn't there [105:14] anything about actual life? The only [105:18] thing there was to do was go to college, [105:21] nothing else. That was the only [105:23] conversation. [105:23] >> When I went to high school, we had auto [105:25] shop. [105:25] >> Yeah. [105:26] >> So, I did learn. [105:26] >> I think they got rid of it the year [105:28] before I went. [105:29] >> Really? [105:29] >> Yeah. [105:30] >> Oh my god. When I went to high school, I [105:32] went to Newton South High School. And uh [105:35] there was this guy who ran the auto shop [105:37] that was a Mustang enthusiast. That's [105:40] what he loved, old Mustangs. And he [105:42] would like fix them. and he would take [105:44] his cars and teach kids how to fix his [105:46] old Mustangs. He had like 1960s, early [105:50] 60s, like ' 65, '66. He liked the small [105:52] Mustangs. He was a [ __ ] very [105:54] interesting guy. And he would explain to [105:56] you like how spark plugs work, like this [105:59] is your carburetor. This is why it's [106:01] jammed. This is uh you know, this is how [106:03] the internal combustion engine works. [106:05] He'd explain it to you like teach you [106:07] things, teach you like general [106:09] maintenance stuff on cars. [106:10] >> And it was very valuable. teach you how [106:12] to jack up a car to like how to do it [106:15] safely. Where's the jacking point? [106:16] Where's the lift points on the bottom of [106:17] a frame? [106:18] >> Yeah. And home classes, too. Yeah. Used [106:20] to be a big thing. [106:21] >> Teach you how to cook. [106:22] >> It's it's falling away. And now, of [106:24] course, now that we don't teach people [106:25] how to cook, they're complaining about [106:27] not eating out. [106:28] >> So, disappearance of traditional shop [106:29] classes did not happen overnight. It [106:31] happened in distinct phases. 70s and 80s [106:34] budget cuts. Major tax revolts such as [106:37] California's Proposition 13 in 1978 [106:40] decimated public school budgets because [106:42] maintaining workshops, buying heavy [106:44] machinery, and securing liability [106:45] insurance were expensive. Shop programs [106:47] became easy targets for elimination. [106:50] 1990s college prep push, high schools [106:53] shifted their focus to standardized [106:54] testing and four-year university [106:56] preparation, marginalizing vocational [106:59] training, which meanwhile, which is [107:01] really crazy what you were saying [107:02] earlier today or earlier on the show was [107:05] very important is like trades might be [107:07] the only secure pathway. Becoming a [107:09] carpenter, becoming an electrician, you [107:11] know, heating and ventilation, like [107:13] people are going to have to have those [107:14] systems installed and and maintained and [107:17] we're going to need people for that. [107:19] Like that's and that's a job. You start [107:21] your own HVAC company, like you can make [107:23] some real [ __ ] money. [107:24] >> Oh yeah, absolutely. And even things [107:27] like apprenticeships. If you get an [107:29] apprenticeship, you have a 90% chance of [107:31] being retained to a full-time position. [107:33] >> Get into apprenticeships. [107:35] >> Yeah. [107:36] >> Like I I know I'm just like a little fat [107:38] dude with some soft hands, but it's okay [107:40] to do. You know, those are good jobs. [107:43] They're good paying jobs. They're good [107:45] >> career position jobs. [107:47] >> They are. And if you want a good job and [107:49] it's also it's like [107:52] there's a weird thing with degrees like [107:55] degrees means your value as an intellect [107:58] as a as a person who can think. You're [108:01] you're a smart person. You went to [108:02] school and you got a degree. If you have [108:04] a degree and you're [ __ ] poor and you [108:07] know what I'm saying and you're you're [108:08] depressed and this guy is a tradesman [108:12] and he's wealthy and he's making money. [108:15] People with degrees still will look down [108:17] at this. Oh, he's a plumber. Well, [ __ ] [108:19] does he know about how this country [108:21] works. Like, [108:21] >> and I'm sorry, some of the wealthiest [108:23] people in our country that have built [108:24] the largest companies are college [108:25] dropouts. [108:26] >> It's true. Like I I can't just fully [108:30] respect a college degree only, [108:32] especially when you can get the most [108:33] [ __ ] degrees now. And especially [108:35] where the average GPA and passing tests [108:38] have gone substantially higher because [108:39] our standards are so much lower in [108:42] universities now. It's pathetic. It's [108:45] becoming harder and harder to respect a [108:46] degree. There's good degrees. There [108:48] really are. But it's getting harder and [108:50] harder to disrespect it as a blanket [108:51] statement. [108:52] >> It's Yeah. [108:54] >> No, you're absolutely making sense. And [108:56] it's also education is so readily [108:58] available. If you want to educate [109:00] yourself there there's just YouTube [109:03] alone you could kind of learn anything. [109:05] You can learn anything about anything. [109:07] And if you're really interested in [109:08] actually doing the work and actually [109:11] trying to absorb the information you can [109:13] get a high quality education without [109:15] ever stepping into a university. [109:16] >> Yeah. just with audiobooks, just with [109:18] YouTube, just with I mean it's there's [109:21] so much knowledge much more than any [109:24] other time in human history. So the idea [109:27] that the only way to get an education is [109:30] to go to these [109:32] socially captured these politically [109:34] captured environments and be force-fed [109:37] this indoctrination of horseshit by [109:39] communists who have never had a real job [109:41] is and also be in debt an insane amount [109:45] of money because you're you're spending [109:47] more money for that education than [109:49] you're going to spend on anything else [109:51] when you're [ __ ] 18 years old. [109:52] There's nothing even remotely close to a [109:55] year in a university degree unless [109:56] you're buying a new car every year. Like [109:58] what the [ __ ] are you spending that kind [110:00] of like what is how much like what's [110:02] Harvard a year right now? How much per [110:05] year is Harvard? What is it? 50 60 I [110:08] don't know. [110:09] >> Way more than that. [110:10] >> It depends if you're in state out of [110:11] state, too. I don't think it's a state [110:12] school. [110:14] >> But student loan balances people borrow [110:17] on average ranges from 25 to $40,000 for [110:19] just an 18-year-old to sign away. [110:21] >> Nuts. Well, through through through [110:23] their four-year degree, [110:24] >> it's crazy. [110:25] >> It's crazy. [110:26] >> And it's all administrative bloat now, [110:27] too. [110:28] >> It's not even going to [110:30] >> subsidize. Like, the whole thing is [110:31] gross. [110:32] >> 62 for undergrad. [110:33] >> $62,000 a year. What else are you [110:36] spending $62,000 a year on? Now, imagine [110:39] what's that, Jimmy? [110:40] >> It's without fees, [110:41] >> including housing, health fees, and [110:42] student services. That's how you Oh, [110:45] including housing, health fees, and [110:47] student services coming to approximately [110:49] 86 to $95,000 [110:51] before financial aid. So, with housing, [110:55] health fees, and human services, it [110:56] could get to $95,000 [110:59] a year. That's [ __ ] crazy. And if you [111:03] go through that and you get a degree in [111:04] gender studies, yes, [111:06] >> that's wild. Now, for a fact, there's a [111:08] $62,000 car out there, but for a fact, [111:11] they will not lend that car amount to an [111:14] 18-year-old. I don't know why they would [111:16] do it for a college degree. [111:18] >> From the New York Times, 1983, about uh [111:22] it's titled 1980s grads, baby boom to [111:25] job bust, but this sounds a lot like [111:27] right now, but it doesn't mention [111:29] anything about debt or AI. [111:31] >> Yeah. And so more than 900,000 of them [111:34] in the 1980s have discovered that they [111:37] must put aside college daydreams and [111:39] settle for jobs that do not require a [111:40] degree if they want to work at all. So [111:42] this was when [111:44] >> 1983. [111:45] >> Whoa. [111:46] >> Yeah. They're all going in for jobs and [111:48] none of the jobs that they want are [111:50] available. So they're have to, you know, [111:52] >> they're getting go back to that. It [111:54] says, "Yeah, the Federal Bureau of Labor [111:56] Statistics has long predicted that the [111:57] number of college graduates would exceed [111:59] the number of technical, managerial, and [112:01] professional jobs available to them, a [112:03] result in part of a decade and a [112:05] half-felong influx of well-educated baby [112:07] boom generation into the labor market." [112:13] The problem is like young kids, if you [112:16] ask kids, the the vast majority of them [112:18] what they want to do. I think I I know [112:22] this is in California. They It was like [112:24] overwhelmingly they wanted to be famous. [112:26] >> Yeah. I mean, we're in the world of [112:28] influencers. It makes sense. Everyone's [112:29] trying to be a Tik Tocker. [112:31] >> Well, everyone's also wanting to do what [112:33] you're doing. [112:34] >> Yeah. [112:34] >> You're you're an entertainer now. You [112:36] you're giving financial advice, but [112:37] you're also an entertainer. [112:39] >> Yeah. It's very cool. And I wish [112:40] everyone could do it. Most of us aren't [112:42] lucky. I got lucky. I don't know. I [112:45] mean, this is not a realistic thing, [112:46] right? We got to be realistic. [112:47] >> But what does that mean? If if someone [112:49] can do it, you can do it. It It's the [112:52] numbers aren't good in terms of like the [112:54] amount of people that are going to make [112:55] it. But what are those factors that are [112:57] keeping people from figuring out how to [112:59] do it? [112:59] >> Well, you know what, though? I wasn't I [113:01] wasn't [ __ ] [ __ ] about it. I had [113:03] a full-time job and I only allowed [113:05] myself to go full-time on this thing [113:07] once I proved I had enough income to [113:09] replace it for a few months consistent. [113:12] >> Most people, they're like, "Let me just [113:13] quit my job, borrow some money, and [113:14] start recording some videos." [113:16] >> Like, you're a [ __ ] You're going to [113:18] fail at that. [113:19] >> I was strategic. If I didn't work or if [113:21] this didn't work for me, I would still [113:23] have that job because I didn't quit that [113:26] job. [113:26] >> What were you doing? [113:27] >> I was a product manager at a tech [113:28] company. [113:30] >> Did you hate it? Um, kind of actually. [113:33] Yeah, that's why I started applying for [113:34] other jobs and a YouTuber almost hired [113:36] me. Then he didn't, so I did it myself. [113:38] That was kind of the path. It was [113:40] pretty. [113:40] >> So, what was the job that you were going [113:42] to get hired for the YouTuber? [113:44] >> Uh, do you know Tyler Alivera? [113:46] >> No. [113:46] >> Oh, you've probably seen his clips. He [113:48] runs around and like records like, "Oh, [113:50] look at all these Indians in Fris." That [113:52] kind of stuff. Either way, uh, I was [113:54] going to be like a production manager [113:56] for him. Good guy, but I just didn't get [113:59] the job. So yeah, but I wanted to be [114:01] able [114:01] >> So you decided I'm going to just go into [114:04] it myself. [114:04] >> Yeah. I just recorded a uh uh ordered a [114:07] bunch of equipment and set up something [114:09] and started recording financial audit [114:11] because it was a show I wanted to see [114:13] but it didn't exist yet. So I decided to [114:15] make it myself. [114:16] >> Really? So no background at all in [114:18] entertainment? Nothing? [114:20] >> No. I was like making stuff like making [114:22] music. That's why I went to college [114:23] making YouTube videos with friends in [114:26] high school. But in an ideal world, [114:28] would you be making music? [114:31] >> No, I'm way richer than [114:33] >> But is that what you like better than [114:35] the actual music itself? [114:36] >> No, this is so much more fun cuz it [114:37] impacts more people's lives. It really [114:39] does. Like that's [ __ ] cool. I I [114:41] mean, there there's [114:43] a lot of YouTubers, but being able to [114:46] leave a legacy and actually say that [114:47] you've helped tens of thousands, if not [114:49] hundreds of thousands of people actually [114:50] fix their lives, that's actually [114:52] something special. [114:54] >> Yeah. [114:54] >> That's something special that not a lot [114:55] of people get to say. So, I I don't want [114:57] to give that up. [114:58] >> That is cool. But do you still do music [115:01] at all? [115:02] >> Not really. It was like concert band [115:04] composition. And I'll be honest, I don't [115:06] think they would let me into the world [115:07] because I'm right-wing coded. And I like [115:11] I it sounds like a joke, but it's [115:13] actually real. Like they're if you go on [115:16] the music side of Facebook where they [115:17] all are different band directors and [115:19] different things like that, they're all [115:20] very very [115:23] uh woke, which is cool. I'm down. I'm [115:25] down to hang out with them, grab a beer [115:27] with them, but they they kick you out. [115:30] >> Wow. [115:31] >> Yeah, it's pretty toxic, but um No, I [115:35] mean, for fun, I write a little on the [115:36] side, but my passion is this thing. [115:38] >> Do you perform music or you just write [115:40] it? [115:40] >> I used to play trombone, but it was [115:42] mostly writing it. That was the passion. [115:44] But my passion is building my business [115:46] now. Like I I have 40 people that work [115:48] for me here in Austin. It's really cool. [115:50] >> You have 40 employees? [115:52] >> Yeah, we're doing a lot of different [115:54] things. We have over a 100,000 people to [115:58] our paid membership on YouTube. So [116:00] that's an entire business on its own. [116:02] It's crazy huge. So [116:03] >> So what is the paid membership? What's [116:04] the difference between the paid [116:05] membership and the free membership? [116:07] >> It's uh $10 a month and they get access [116:09] to we put on three premium shows that me [116:12] and my production staff make daily. So [116:14] we have a whole almost like network for [116:16] them to consume behind the payw wall. [116:18] >> And what are these shows about? [116:20] >> It's a it's a variety of things. It's [116:21] breaking down financial audit episodes. [116:23] We have a show called Fat and Fatter [116:25] where me and one of my uh uh talent [116:28] people or whatever. We uh test food from [116:31] different restaurants and rank them [116:32] based on finances. They're all [116:33] finance-based shows. So, there's just [116:36] these really cool fun things that engage [116:38] with the community and they they love [116:40] supporting it. So, almost 110,000 people [116:43] a month subscribe to that which is [116:45] really cool. [116:46] >> That's amazing. [116:46] >> Yeah. And then the the budgeting app, [116:48] Dollarise, that we're building, [116:50] financial audit, and then we have these [116:52] personal services on our own website as [116:54] well, so people can apply for personal [116:56] loans and things like that. So, we're [116:57] trying to really scale something and [116:59] that's much more of a passion than [117:01] writing music ever was. So, it's it's [117:03] much more fun. That's very So, so you're [117:06] doing that. You got the dollar-wise app. [117:09] You have this YouTube thing where people [117:11] can subscribe. So, but you seem like [117:14] you've got some plans to build out and [117:16] to take this even further. [117:18] >> Oh, yeah. We want to scale this [117:19] budgeting app like a lot. We want to [117:22] really make it one of the top dogs out [117:24] there and really provide a value that [117:25] isn't being met in the marketplace. Um, [117:28] I'd love to build up some other [117:29] YouTubers at some point. I, you know, we [117:33] have figured out the algorithm. We [117:34] figured out what people like and I want [117:36] to help other people that want to create [117:38] different finance content cuz finance [117:40] content is boring like you said. [117:41] >> Yeah. and we found a way to make it [117:43] interesting and entertaining. I'd love [117:44] to help some other people launch their [117:46] stuff. And then like the personal [117:48] financial tools similar to like what [117:50] Ramsay has, Dave Ramsey, they have they [117:52] connect people with mortgages and stuff. [117:54] We want to make sure we can provide that [117:55] but in a way that isn't so limited and [117:57] stringent to a strict ideology. So [118:00] there's a lot in the market that's not [118:02] being met that I really want to build [118:04] out. And for young people like to have a [118:07] resource like that where there's someone [118:09] who doesn't have a boring stale sort of [118:11] perspective that could teach you how to [118:13] budget yourself and how to like take [118:15] your money and invest it. And then I'm [118:17] sure there's a ton of online [118:21] platforms that show you how to cook. [118:23] that can show you how to shop, how to [118:25] what, you know, how you can save money [118:27] by going to a grocery store and what's [118:30] cost effective and getting your [118:32] nutrition in but also saving some money. [118:35] >> Yeah. What's the question? I'm sorry. [118:37] >> No, I was like it's like it's a [118:39] beautiful time for young people if they [118:41] access these things. I'm just saying [118:43] that like for for young people that are [118:45] listening to you and like I don't know [118:46] what to do. Oh, you're right. Oh, I do [118:50] spend like, let me look at the amount of [118:51] money I spend just getting Door Dash. [118:53] Holy [ __ ] that's that's actually a [118:56] large percentage of my check. And how [118:58] much would it be if I just went to the [119:00] grocery store once a week and I got all [119:02] my food for the week? Jesus Christ, I'd [119:04] save $300. [119:05] >> Here's the reality. You don't get to [119:08] have fun if you don't have a fully [119:09] funded emergency fund. That's a basic [119:12] reality. Only 60% of Americans can cover [119:15] a $400 emergency. Meaning 40% can't. [119:18] That's $400. [119:19] >> So, what do when you say emergency fund, [119:21] like what do you consider an emergency [119:22] fund? [119:23] >> So, there's a debate between three [119:24] months to six months of everything you [119:26] need to live for a month. I'm on that [119:28] six-month side because, you know, things [119:29] like the pandemic and shutdowns, we're [119:31] in that kind of world now. So, you may [119:33] as well go that full way. Get a [119:35] six-month emergency fund that protects [119:37] you in case of layoffs or just losing [119:39] money or a medical emergency, whatever [119:41] it may be. You got a lifeline. But [119:44] that's basic. Like that is so critical [119:46] to life for like a sick pet or a broken [119:48] car that if you don't have that, I don't [119:51] want to see you in a drive-thru. [119:54] That can't be acceptable. Going on a [119:57] vacation is not acceptable. If you can't [119:59] protect you and your family at the basic [120:02] level, I'll give you a little bit of [120:03] grace if you're not fully investing, [120:05] okay? But this is like basic survival [120:07] [ __ ] It needs to be just as critical as [120:09] having like a first aid kit in the house [120:11] because it's that serious. And that's [120:13] what causes Americans to just [ __ ] up [120:16] their houses financially. An emergency [120:19] happens, a layoff happens, and they're [120:20] not ready. It's scary. And people are [120:22] not ready. [120:24] >> I know. It's like that the problem is [120:26] hearing that with young people. It's [120:28] like that's boring. [120:29] >> It is. [120:30] >> They don't They don't want to think that [120:32] way. They just want to go have fun. They [120:34] want to play video games. They want to [120:35] go to the bar, [120:36] >> which is fair, but a six-month emergency [120:38] fund isn't that crazy. It's not saving [120:40] millions for retirement. do that, then [120:42] have some fun. Get to three months, then [120:45] have a little bit of fun while you're [120:46] saving a six. [120:47] >> Yeah, [120:48] >> just that. Or at least at a minimum be [120:50] able to cover your highest insurance [120:51] deductible or like a one-mon emergency [120:54] fund. Have something. The fact that 40% [120:56] don't have $400 set aside, not for a [121:00] rainy day, for an actual emergency is [121:02] terrifying. [121:03] >> Yeah. So now, what are your thoughts on [121:06] crypto? [121:08] >> I like crypto. I have a small amount of [121:10] Bitcoin in my portfolio. It's pretty [121:12] good. Uh 10% of Americans use it as an [121:15] investment tool. So, it's still pretty [121:16] small for the overall American public. [121:19] Um but I mean I I I like it in general. [121:23] Have we hit the full bubble and [121:25] pullback? I wonder. [121:27] >> Well, it's the the crypto outside of [121:29] Bitcoin gets very odd like meme coins [121:33] and you know, I'm heavily invested in [121:35] Melaniacoin. I don't know about you. [121:36] >> Okay. No, not personally. [121:38] >> I'm kidding. [121:39] >> Not in my portfolio. [121:40] >> But there's like things like that where [121:41] like what's going on? Like who who's [121:44] putting their money into the Hawkua [121:46] coin? Yes. [121:47] >> You know what I mean? It's like this is [121:49] it's a very weird gambling thing we're [121:51] doing. [121:51] >> It's like a legal pyramid scheme. [121:53] >> Yes. Exactly. And it's mostly just used [121:56] by people for a get-rich quick. Like I [121:58] don't even know if she made money. [122:00] >> I think she got I think she got [ __ ] [122:02] And her reputation got destroyed. Like [122:04] people hated her. They were angry at her [122:05] afterwards. Yeah, she gets like 5,000 [122:07] views a video now. It's pretty brutal. [122:08] >> I think she got sucked into this idea, [122:12] you know, somehow or another that it was [122:13] going to be okay. And there like the [122:15] people that got sucked into the NFT [122:16] thing. I remember, man, how many [122:18] conversations did we have about M NFTTS [122:20] where I was trying to get someone to [122:22] explain it to me? Like, no one can [122:24] explain this to me in a way that makes [122:25] sense why I can get that same picture [122:28] and put it on my phone and it's free, [122:31] >> but you have that picture on your phone [122:33] and you own it. [122:34] >> Yeah. And then it died in six months. [122:36] >> Right. So, but that was one where I was [122:37] like, what are they trying to sell? And [122:40] how are so many people buying it? [122:43] >> Yeah. [122:43] >> Where if you can't explain to me what [122:45] you're selling, but yet millions of [122:47] dollars. I know a guy who made over a [122:49] million dollars in art NFTTS. [122:52] >> Yeah. No, it's an actual thing. And I [122:54] think what every single person that gets [122:55] in every pump and dump thinks they're [122:57] going to do is [122:59] >> get the pump, but not the dump. They [123:01] think they're going to be that [123:02] exception. They're not going to be. It's [123:04] like day trading. Day trading is even [123:07] better. And that's still only 85 or 15% [123:10] win. [123:11] >> Only 15% win day trading, which is [123:13] higher than you'd think. Yeah. [123:14] >> Wait a minute. So 85% lose at day [123:16] trading. [123:17] >> Yes. Actual like day trading, like [123:19] interday trading. It's brutal. [123:21] >> Holy [ __ ] [123:22] >> Those pump and dumps are even worse. But [123:23] everyone's a special little snowflake. [123:26] They think they're going to be the one. [123:28] They're going to beat the system. [123:30] >> Yeah. [123:31] >> It doesn't work. But I think there's [123:32] some good value in like Ethereum or [123:34] Bitcoin. It's actually being utilized. [123:37] Um, [123:38] >> aren't these meme coins also a good way [123:40] to launder money? [123:41] >> Oh, pro. Well, launder actually. That's [123:43] interesting. I bet. I wouldn't be [123:45] surprised. [123:46] >> Certainly distribute money to people. [123:48] Like if you made a Caleb coin and I [123:50] said, "What do you think? I got an idea. [123:53] Well, you and I collaborate. I'll [123:55] finance your Caleb coin and you dump out [123:58] early and you get all this money from it [124:00] and [ __ ] all these other people that [124:01] thought they were going to make money [124:02] and they're not going to anyway and now [124:04] you've got that money and now we're [124:06] going to work together to do something [124:08] else and [124:08] >> yeah it's a way to move money around in [124:11] a way that's not directly financially [124:13] compensating someone but yet you are [124:15] >> and there's entire websites dedicated to [124:17] the pump funds I think it's like pumpf [124:19] fun [124:20] >> really [124:20] >> pumpf fund something like that you can [124:22] make a coin you can invest in coin it's [124:23] all for pumps, but they just everyone [124:25] thinks they're going to be a part of the [124:27] pump, not the dump. [124:29] >> It's crazy, [124:30] >> but it's this is the wild west of [124:32] unregulated currency. [124:34] >> Yeah. [124:34] >> And my fear is uh people are going to [124:38] eventually wind up being stuck in a [124:40] centralized digital currency that the [124:43] government controls and it's attached to [124:45] a social credit score system and you [124:48] know, [124:49] >> okay, that's scary. [124:50] >> That's a scary thought. [124:51] >> Further down a scary path. Well, people [124:53] have actually proposed that saying that [124:55] we need this to compete with China. I've [124:57] heard this. Really? Yeah. I've heard [124:58] this being proposed by politicians. It's [125:00] quite terrifying because if they can [125:02] turn your money off or on, if they have [125:05] it, and turn your ability off or on to [125:07] buy things, whether you can buy plane [125:09] tickets or if you're not if you're [125:12] problematic, you've you've done [125:14] something that it's crazy. But that's [125:16] where all this control goes to. Sure. [125:18] >> It definitely goes to like what's the [125:20] best way to control people? completely [125:21] eliminate their ability to spend money [125:25] >> still let people smoke meth on the [125:26] trains [125:28] >> you know we have a racist system Caleb [125:31] and uh a lot of these people have been [125:34] victimized from the time they're young [125:36] >> yeah um it's uh you know I've always [125:39] said that if you want to make America [125:40] great really what you got to do is have [125:42] less losers so figure out what's going [125:44] on like why there's so many people that [125:46] are homeless why are there so many [125:47] people that are locked into these [125:49] crimeinfested neighborhood neighborhoods [125:51] and ganginfested neighborhoods and this [125:53] cycle compete completes itself over and [125:56] over again, decade after decade. Like [125:58] invest money in that. You want you want [126:00] to make the world a better place, fix [126:02] all that. But there's no effort to do [126:03] that whatsoever. And no politicians ever [126:05] bring it up. It's never a discussion. [126:07] >> Yeah. And it's good to set up incentives [126:10] incentives in the system as well. So [126:12] California is moral on a right on out a [126:15] lot of things with their social [126:16] programs, but because of a lot of their [126:18] social programs and everything they've [126:19] set up and safety nets, they're 49th in [126:22] unemployment. Like it's not great. The [126:24] incentive isn't there for people to go [126:27] out and [126:27] >> Is that really what they are? 49th. [126:29] >> I think they were 50th until recently. [126:30] >> Oh god. [126:31] >> Yeah. No, it's not great. But an [126:34] incredible tech boom and whatnot. But [126:35] when the incentives are, you know, easy [126:39] to manipulate and take advantage of. [126:41] >> What percentage of people in California [126:42] are unemployed? [126:44] >> I don't know. [126:44] >> Let's find that out. [126:46] >> Uh, it's 48 now. [126:48] >> 48. [126:49] >> California is moving on up. 5.3%. [126:52] But that's also 5.3% of people that are [126:55] actively looking for jobs. [126:56] >> Exactly. [126:57] >> They drop off as soon as they stop [126:59] looking for a job, [127:00] >> which many of the young men are not. [127:03] They're not doing anything. And how are [127:04] they making money? [127:06] >> I don't know. Parents, I don't know. [127:07] It's It's pretty pathetic. I'll be [127:08] honest. [127:10] >> You imagine if your [ __ ] parent in [127:13] your in your 60s and your 40-year-old [127:16] son is living at home with you? [127:18] >> No. I was pulling up some nerd stats uh [127:21] before coming on here and I I was [127:23] reading through Bureau of Labor [127:26] Statistics or Gallup poll that 40% of [127:29] people aged 18 to 29 regularly receive [127:33] help from family and relatives. [127:36] >> Wow. [127:37] >> Which is an incredible [127:40] percentage of that age group. That's [127:42] scary. [127:42] >> Yeah. [127:42] >> Again, the incentive is like [127:44] >> I don't I don't know. When I was 18, I'm [127:47] not I'm not even that old. I'm 31. But [127:48] when I was 18, I was so excited to go [127:50] out there and be independent and be on [127:51] my own. That was everything. I was so [127:53] excited to make my way in this world, [127:54] right? [127:55] >> I wouldn't want to leech. I wouldn't [127:57] want to leech on any system. I'd want [127:59] to, but maybe that's why I'm successful. [128:01] I don't know. Maybe I am. [128:02] >> That definitely has a fact. It's a part [128:04] of it. It's a factor. [128:06] >> But there's a lot of people that just do [128:07] nothing and they're not looking for [128:09] anything else. And it's I don't think we [128:11] should we should support those who need [128:13] help. I'm for robust social safety [128:15] systems. People that become unemployed, [128:17] people that need help getting food on [128:19] the table for their family, that stuff [128:21] is important. But if we are enabling bad [128:23] behavior, it doesn't work. And then we [128:26] have a failed society because people [128:27] aren't going and creating things. [128:28] Luckily, we're not there yet. But I just [128:29] don't want to head there. [128:31] >> Yeah. And the recognition of human [128:32] nature is not cruelty. It's just you you [128:35] really can't help people all the time. [128:37] They have to be able to help themselves. [128:39] And one of the best motivating factors [128:41] for helping yourself is desperation. [128:44] >> Yeah. [128:44] >> That you people don't like to hear that, [128:46] but that's that's true. If you if you [128:48] bail people out every time, they're [128:50] never going to bail themselves out. And [128:51] that's just a fact. Yeah. [128:52] >> You know, this doesn't mean that like a [128:53] family that's on hard times, that's down [128:55] on their luck, shouldn't get social [128:57] safety nets. Of course they should. [128:59] That's a a big part of a community. A [129:01] community should help its vulnerable [129:03] people. It's a part of it. But you also [129:04] have to teach people how to not be [129:06] vulnerable. You know, I think that [129:08] that's a great part of what you provide. [129:10] >> How does this make any sense? [129:11] >> What does it say? [129:12] >> I just I mean, it's a [129:14] >> California holds contrasting [129:16] unemployment rankings depending on the [129:17] metric. It ties for the highest [129:19] unemployment rate in the nation, [129:21] >> but places second overall for the best [129:23] states to work due to strong wage [129:25] policies and worker rights. But that's [129:27] also probably why a lot of people are [129:29] unemployed. [129:29] >> Yeah. It means those that get a job have [129:31] it great. I mean, same thing happens in [129:33] places like France where they have [129:35] aggressive unemployment, but if you get [129:37] a job there with the vacation policies [129:39] and worker rights, it's like the best [129:40] thing in the world. [129:42] >> It's incredible. Like even in Poland, [129:45] which is one of the more capitalistic [129:46] countries in the EU, if you get fired, [129:49] they still got to let you work for them [129:51] for a month or two. [129:52] >> Oh, really? [129:52] >> Yeah. Like you have to let the employee [129:54] you fired work for you for a couple [129:57] months still. Like it's pretty brutal. [129:59] So [129:59] >> So they have to still show up. Yeah, [130:01] they still have to show up. [130:02] >> So, when you get fired, do you have a [130:03] two-month grace period? [130:05] >> Basically. Basically. Yeah. Imagine how [130:09] bad that guy's going to perform when he [130:11] has to get paid and he's there for two [130:13] months and you have to deal with this [130:14] disgruntled [ __ ] kicking around the [130:16] office. [130:17] >> Yeah. So, that's what I'm talking about [130:18] when I'm talking about performative [130:19] policies. It's nice. It sounds good. I [130:22] don't morally disagree with most of [130:24] anything California does. All I care [130:26] about is outcomes. But politicians don't [130:29] get elected based on outcomes. They get [130:30] elected based on what sounds good in an [130:32] election cycle. What they can promise, [130:34] the performative things they [130:37] >> promise. Outcomes are never tracked. [130:39] They're not what matters. That outcome [130:40] is 48th in unemployment. That's the [130:42] actual outcome. [130:44] >> You were a little anti-C California when [130:46] I see clips. And you didn't even know it [130:48] was 48th. Like that is crazy. Like we [130:51] should know that. But outcomes is not [130:53] what's tracked here. We don't track [130:55] that. It's not in our nature. It is not [130:57] in the politician's nature either. Well, [130:59] it's just such a problem with people [131:00] that finance and and talking about money [131:02] and talking about jobs is just not sexy. [131:05] They just don't enjoy it. [131:06] >> Yeah, for sure. [131:07] >> You know, and it it's part of the reason [131:09] why so many people are on these bad [131:11] paths is that they don't have these [131:13] thoughts in their head. They don't [131:14] really understand. And I think that's [131:15] one of the more important things about [131:17] these conversations that you're having [131:18] is that people do need to hear what the [131:21] consequences are for [ __ ] up. with [131:23] the consequences and that there's a path [131:25] forward that you can actually fix your [131:27] [ __ ] situation [131:28] >> for everyone. We are so lenient in this [131:30] country with our bank bankruptcy [131:31] protection laws. It's crazy. We are [131:36] if there is a place to escape a bad [131:38] financial situation you're in. The [131:40] United States is pretty damn good. [131:42] >> Except for student loans. [131:43] >> Except for student loans. 11% of current [131:46] federal student loans are under default. [131:49] That's the biggest of any kind of debt [131:50] category in the country. It's bad. And [131:53] people don't understand the [131:54] consequences. And you know what's so [131:55] stupid? This is what pisses me off [131:56] because I have people talk to me about [131:58] it all the time. They say the student [131:59] loan system is [ __ ] And relatively it [132:01] is, but they get why wrong. They say [132:04] this is too expensive. I can't pay it. [132:06] And if I don't pay it, then they're [132:08] going to garnish my wages because it [132:09] went into default. brother, Republican [132:13] Donald Trump, signed in the big [132:15] beautiful bill the repayment assistance [132:18] program, which is different than the [132:19] previous program, but that allows as [132:21] little as 1% of your income, depending [132:23] on your income situation, to qualify as [132:26] the minimum monthly payment, 1%. You [132:30] won't default. Do 1%. But they're [132:32] complaining that it's too expensive. [132:34] They're just not willing to look into [132:35] the actual reality and just say, "Hey, [132:39] give me repayment assistance program." [132:41] They just want to be victims. Say it's [132:42] all bad. It's all evil. It's not [132:44] perfect. But they don't understand why. [132:46] They complain about the wrong thing. [132:48] What's wrong is we'll let you borrow [132:49] whatever you want to get whatever [132:50] [ __ ] degree at whatever college you [132:52] want to go to. That's what's wrong. [132:54] Every time we raise how much you can [132:56] borrow for school, schools conveniently [132:58] raise how much it costs to go to school. [133:01] When it was cheap to go to school, when [133:03] everyone was like, back in my day, it [133:04] was cheap to go to school. [133:07] It didn't you couldn't borrow money to [133:09] go to school. [133:11] It's set in line. [133:12] >> Right. Right. [133:14] >> Why wouldn't they charge more for [133:15] administrative bloat and creating uh [133:18] like southern schools have I think in [133:19] Alabama a freaking uh lazy river on [133:23] their campus? It's a recruitment tool. [133:26] They do that. If you can borrow more [133:27] money, they will charge more money. [133:30] >> What does it say, Jimmy? [133:31] >> You can technically get your student [133:33] loans discharged via bankruptcy. There's [133:36] just a few different ways to do it, [133:37] >> but it's not automatic and takes extra [133:38] steps and proof of undue hardship. Uh, [133:41] what is that? How do they define undue [133:43] hardship? [133:43] >> Well, you got to go to a judge. [133:46] >> So, like maybe if you got paralyzed, [133:49] >> honestly, it's going to be case by case, [133:51] but I just I've looked it up a couple [133:53] times and you c it's not [133:55] >> it's just difficult. It's just not [133:57] impossible. [133:58] >> A trudge. [133:59] >> It's pretty rare as far as I know. [134:00] >> Yeah, as far as I know as well. Listen, [134:02] Caleb, I think what you provide is very [134:04] valuable. I really do. And I like And [134:06] then you've found like this new [134:09] >> avenue where you're entertaining, but [134:11] you're talking about finances and giving [134:14] people like really good advice, like [134:15] sound advice. And if you don't follow [134:18] your advice, like people are going to [134:20] continue down the same [ __ ] shitty [134:21] road and their life will be ruined. And [134:24] I I think it's awesome that you do that. [134:26] And it's awesome that you figured out a [134:27] way to do it and make it entertaining [134:29] and fun. [134:30] >> Thank you. I appreciate that. [134:31] >> So my pleasure. Thank you. And thanks [134:32] for being here. And uh one more time, [134:34] your app, tell everybody. [134:35] >> Dollar-wise. Download. [134:36] >> Dollar-wise from the app store, Android [134:39] as well. It's on everything. And uh your [134:42] YouTube channel is [134:43] >> Caleb Hammer. [134:44] >> Just straight up. And then Instagram, [134:46] all that stuff. All right. [134:48] >> Thank you, sir. It was fun. Bye, [134:49] everybody.