Carlson and Batnick Say 5pct Rates Crush Housing More Than ZIRP

Carlson与Batnick称5%利率对房地产的打击甚于零利率政策 当前4%至5%的利率水平对房地产市场和借贷造成的结构性破坏，超过了零利率政策对资本配置曾带来的负面影响。 主持人Michael Batnick和Ben Carlson评估了当前4%至5%的利率环境造成的经济破坏是否甚于零利率时代，并重点指出了高昂的借贷成本如何将美国房地产市场的活跃度冻结至大萧条时期的低位。他们分析了由超大盘AI资本支出驱动的极端股市集中度，并概述了对冲潜在AI科技泡沫破裂的切实途径。此外，谈话还探讨了高收入储蓄者逐步疏离401(k)计划的行为转变、散户体育连串过关投注与投机性预测市场合约的爆发式增长，以及智能手机加剧的Z世代社交瘫痪。最后，他们以个人旅行轶事、媒体行业的企业债务负担以及近期的影视和书籍推荐结束了讨论。 自2024年1月以来，AI概念股贡献了标普500指数三分之二的价格回报率、60%的盈利增长以及81%的资本支出，使得排名前五位公司的市值权重相当于后434家公司的总和。 (3:01) Ben Carlson认为，4%至5%的利率造成的破坏甚于零利率政策，因为它冻结了房地产市场，导致人均成屋销售量连续三年徘徊在大金融危机时期的低位。 (25:22) 数据中心建设支出同比增长65%，而实际制造业建设支出则暴跌24%，凸显出AI热潮对资本造成的严重挤出效应。 (22:15) Kalshi和Polymarket的用户已大幅从机构宏观对冲转向高风险的彩票式下注，其中Kalshi有一半的交易量都在追逐1,000%或更高的回报率。 (42:06)

Ben Carlson and Michael Batnick debate whether prolonged elevated interest rates pose greater systemic risks to the real economy than the zero-interest-rate era, while assessing market concentration and capital expenditure in artificial intelligence. Market Concentration Supported by Fundamental Earnings (3:01) Addressing concerns over index concentration, Carlson cites data from Michael Cembalest showing that since January 2024, AI stocks have accounted for two-thirds of S&P 500 price returns, 60% of earnings growth, and 81% of capital expenditures. While the top five companies in the S&P 500 now command aggregate value equivalent to the bottom 434 stocks—up from matching the bottom 282 in July 2018—Batnick stresses this weighting is justified by fundamentals. The trailing 12-month net income of those top five leaders matches the combined profits of the bottom 436 firms. Carlson notes that market breadth remains broader than top-line indexes imply, with the equal-weighted S&P 500 up roughly 13%, midcaps advancing nearly 12%, and the Russell 2000 climbing about 15% year-to-date. For investors wary of AI concentration, Carlson proposes a straightforward macro hedge: if AI narratives unravel, declining inflation and interest rates would benefit fixed-income bonds, REITs, and value shares, while a weakening U.S. dollar would favor European equities with minimal technology exposure. Higher Interest Rates Freezing Real Estate Activity (25:22) Carlson argues that keeping benchmark interest rates between 4% and 5% is more destructive to the real economy than Zero Interest Rate Policy (ZIRP) ever was, pointing directly to the housing sector. Adjusted for population growth—expanding from roughly 280 million in 2000 to over 343 million today—existing home sales per capita have remained pinned at Great Financial Crisis trough levels for three straight years without experiencing a cyclical rebound. While homebuilders initially filled the supply gap created by existing owners holding low-rate mortgages, recent data indicates that financing subsidies and rate buy-downs are losing effectiveness. Shares of builders such as PulteGroup, Lennar, and KB Home have dropped to multi-year lows. Carlson argues that an economy where housing accounts for roughly 20% of activity would be far healthier with neutral rates closer to 2% to 3%, whereas Batnick challenges the assertion that ZIRP produced no negative distortions. AI Capex Polarization and Industrial Policy Shortfalls (22:15) Citing real construction spending data from Jason Furman, Carlson notes that the domestic economy is heavily bifurcated: data center construction surged 65% year-over-year, while single-family, multifamily, commercial, healthcare, and manufacturing construction all contracted. Real manufacturing construction fell 24% year-over-year. Carlson references a New York Federal Reserve study showing that tariffs added an estimated 2.9 percentage points directly to goods price inflation through February 2026 without producing measurable gains in domestic manufacturing payrolls or industrial activity. On corporate artificial intelligence investment, the hosts reference comments from Meta executives indicating that Big Tech faces an all-or-nothing dilemma where capex failure would carry severe financial consequences. Carlson assigns a 57% probability—and Batnick roughly 90%—to a sharp 30% market pullback triggered by an AI correction, though both expect it to act as a swift cyclical reset rather than a prolonged dot-com-style downturn. Speculative Wagering in Retail Prediction Markets (42:06) Examining retail trading behavior, the hosts note that speculative single-stock options volumes have returned to their 2021 meme-stock peaks. Similarly, consumer activity on prediction market platforms like Kalshi has diverged from institutional risk management toward longshot gambling. Ben Carlson points out that half of Kalshi trading volume since early 2025 has targeted returns of 1,000% or greater, with roughly 65% of platform activity concentrated in sports parlays. Data indicates that 41% of Kalshi contracts involve wagers with less than a 10% implied probability, and 12% of Polymarket contracts involve betting against 90%-plus favorites. Carlson argues that while retail participants willingly buy longshot odds for optimism and entertainment, the proliferation of high-friction sports and outcome betting will likely result in financial harm and subsequent regulatory backlash. The hosts leave open whether mega-cap technology balance sheets and data center spending can indefinitely insulate the headline indexes from broader economic headwinds, particularly as frozen real estate transactions and debt service burdens continue to weigh on rate-sensitive sectors.

Ben Carlson 与 Michael Batnick 在本期节目中指出，当前的高利率与关税政策对实体经济和房地产造成了实质性冻结，其破坏力甚至超过了过去的零利率政策（ZIRP）；与此同时，由人工智能主导的极高市场集中度拥有坚实的基本面盈利支撑，但其资本支出过热与投机性衍生品交易正积聚下行风险。 高利率冻结地产与实体经济扭曲 (25:22) Ben Carlson 提出一个挑衅性观点：当前维持在 4% 至 5% 的借贷利率对经济的伤害可能比过去零利率时代（ZIRP）更为严重。ZIRP 时期虽然资助了部分不可持续的风险投资模式，但并未直接引发全系统危机；相比之下，现行利率环境使占据美国经济约 20% 的房地产行业陷入深度冻结。按人口规模调整后，美国成屋销售交易量已连续三年在 2008 年金融危机底部的低谷水平徘徊，导致主要建商（如 KB Home、PulteGroup 和 Lennar）的股价承压创新低。Carlson 认为，2% 至 3% 的中性政策利率比持续的高利率更为健康。除利率之外，贸易政策同样加剧了实体经济的扭曲。纽约联储评估至 2026 年 2 月的数据显示，关税政策未能带来任何可衡量的制造业就业或实体复苏，制造业实际支出反而同比萎缩 24%，关税反而直接推高了 2.9 个百分点的商品通胀。与此同时，数据中心建设支出同比激增 65%，严重挤压并虹吸了传统住宅、医疗和商业地产等物理建设的资源。 AI推动集中度但基本面支撑坚实 (3:01) 针对市场过度集中于少数科技巨头的恐慌，节目指出这反映了结构性基本面而非单纯的无脑狂热。自 2024 年 1 月以来，AI 相关股票贡献了标普 500 指数三分之二的价格涨幅、60% 的盈利增长以及 81% 的资本支出。目前标普 500 指数市值前五大公司的总市值与权重，已相当于排名第 67 至 500 位（合计 434 家）公司的总和，而这五大巨头过去 12 个月的净利润总和恰好等于后 436 家公司的净利润总额，表明市值权重高度匹配利润分配。此外，由于大型科技公司在加息周期前锁定了极低债务成本，甚至让利润增速跑赢了融资利息，其净利息支出占利润的比重在紧缩周期中反而下降。市场广度也并非全面崩塌，等权重标普 500 指数年内上涨近 13%，中盘股上涨近 12%，罗素 2000 小型股指数年内也录得约 15% 的涨幅。Carlson 补充指出，若 AI 交易发生逆转并导致通胀与利率回落，投资者可通过买入债券、低科技敞口的欧洲股票、REITs 以及传统价值与分红股进行直接对冲。 资本支出豪赌与潜在市场回调 (29:56) 随着 Meta 等大型科技公司将资金倾注于基础设施建设，AI 领域的军备竞赛呈现出非赢即输的特征。正如 Mark Zuckerberg 等管理层所暗示的，这轮前所未有的资本开支如果无法产生预期的投资回报，可能带来灾难性后果，但巨头们别无选择只能孤注一掷。虽然半导体与存储硬件板块（如 Micron 回调约 40%、Western Digital 遭遇腰斩）已出现短期剧烈下挫，但专注于存储的相关 ETF 仍维持在 230 亿美元的资产规模。Carlson 预测，尽管 AI 不会像元宇宙或 Web3 那样彻底沦为空谈，但巨大的资本投入可能引发一次约 30% 的快速熊市回调（Batnick 认为发生概率甚至高达 90%）；不过与 2000 年互联网泡沫后长达 12 年的缓慢复苏不同，这种调整更可能是快速出清并带来绝佳的买入机会。而在现实应用端，AI 生产力已深入微观领域，涵盖诸如通过 Google Apps Script 自动化清理文档，以及承包商在施工现场利用 ChatGPT 快速生成精准工程报价单等蓝领与日常工作流。 投机行为泛滥与年轻群体社会焦虑 (42:06) 金融市场与消费行为中展现出强烈的投机倾向。《华尔街日报》数据显示，单只股票期权的日均交易量已重回 2021 年迷因股热潮的顶峰；而在预测市场 Kalshi 上，自 2025 年初以来，有一半的交易量集中在回报率超过 1000% 的极端小概率赔率上，41% 的合约押注于发生概率低于 10% 的事件。Carlson 认为，这种现象类似于体育博彩中的滚雪球式多串关（parlays），反映了公众在生活压力下为购买希望与乐观预期所付出的代价，但其高摩擦成本未来可能带来深度的生活破坏与政策监管反噬。与此同时，针对美联储《消费者财务调查》显示的 35 岁以下年轻家庭财富下滑，Carlson 认为该调查因富裕人群回复率从 33% 骤降至 24% 而存在统计偏误；若拉长至 2019 至 2025 年周期，35 岁以下群体的实际中位数净资产仍录得近 90% 的增长。然而，尽管年轻一代在经济上（失业率维持在 4%）尚可维持，社交与心理层面却深受智能手机与无处不在的数字监控所困，因害怕被录制并上传至网络产生社死与尴尬感，导致社交退缩和线下行为瘫痪。 本期节目的核心分歧在于货币政策的长期路径以及 AI 资本开支的回报拐点。尽管主持人对当前高利率环境下冻结的住房与建筑市场持鲜明批评态度，并预警了 AI 基础设施过度支出可能引发的市场深度回调，但科技巨头在利润上的统治力依然让市场维持在历史高位，这种由单点技术驱动的资本集中趋势何时会触碰到现实回报的天花板，仍是悬而未决的核心议题。

## Background 本内容由 YouTube 频道 The Compound 于 2026 年 10 月 14 日发布，为播客节目《Animal Spirits》第 486 期。根据页面简介，主持人 Michael Batnick 与 Ben Carlson 在本期中深入探讨了股市集中度风险、AI 交易对冲与经济挤出效应、401(k) 缴存争议、关税的实际效果、高利率对房地产市场的窒息性打击，以及极端赔率博彩心理与烂番茄评分通胀等话题。 ## TL;DR 节目围绕美股集中度与 AI 浪潮展开，指出当前科技巨头的高权重由扎实的基本面盈利支撑，但巨额资本支出也对传统实体经济造成了挤出效应。Ben 提出了极具争议的观点，认为当前居高不下的基准利率不仅阻碍了借贷，更使按人口调整后的成屋销售陷入比次贷危机更持久的冰封，其破坏力甚至已超过当年的零利率政策（ZIRP）。此外，两位主持人还拆解了预测市场与体育博彩中散户痴迷极端冷门的赌徒心理、年轻一代因畏惧尴尬而产生的社交退缩，并探讨了派拉蒙巨额债务、烂番茄评分通胀及近期的文娱影视作品。 ## Atmosphere & style 整期节目氛围轻松幽默且火花四溅，两位老搭档在宏观严肃的财经辩论与接地气的日常生活趣事之间自如切换。对话充满了即兴吐槽与互相拆台，既有对彼此投资观点的尖锐质询，也有关于机场狂奔、修理热水浴缸和用收音机听球赛的诙谐自嘲。整场探讨节奏明快、生动写实，既展现了专业投资人对数据异象的敏锐洞察，又洋溢着老友围炉畅谈般无拘无束的陪伴感。 ## Bulletin - [03:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btp2AupmwAM&t=181s) 标普 500 指数集中度持续走高，前五大巨头利润已等同于后 436 家公司的利润总和，且受低息债务锁定保护，美联储加息反令头部企业净利息支出占利润比重下滑。 - [54:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btp2AupmwAM&t=3240s) 经人口规模调整后，美国成屋销售活跃度已连续三年处于次贷危机底部水平，高利率对房地产流动性造成严重冻结，并导致建商让利模式难以为继。 - [22:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btp2AupmwAM&t=1335s) 数据中心实际建设支出同比暴增 65%，对制造业（暴跌 24%）及商业住宅等其他实体部门产生显著挤出效应；纽约联储数据显示关税政策直接推高了 2.9 个百分点的商品通胀。 - [42:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btp2AupmwAM&t=2526s) 预测市场生态发生结构性异化，Kalshi 平台 65% 的交易资金涌入高风险体育串关，41% 的合约押注在发生率低于 10% 的极小概率事件上，从宏观对冲演化为散户博彩。 ## Key takeaways - [03:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btp2AupmwAM&t=181s) 自 2024 年 1 月以来，AI 相关概念股贡献了标普 500 指数约三分之二的价格回报、60% 的盈利增长以及 81% 的资本支出。 - [03:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btp2AupmwAM&t=181s) 市场广度扩大并非牛市必要条件，历史研究显示个股平权或市场宽度急剧扩大往往发生在熊市初期（如 2001 年网络泡沫破裂期）。 - [09:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btp2AupmwAM&t=576s) 当前头部科技巨头的高市值并非纯投机泡沫，其利润份额分布与市值高度匹配，且巨头在 2020 至 2021 年锁定了低成本长期债务，有效抵消了高利率冲击。 - [09:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btp2AupmwAM&t=576s) 对冲 AI 单一赛道风险的有效投资组合策略包括配置欧洲股票、长端债券、高股息价值股及对利率敏感的防御性资产。 - [11:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btp2AupmwAM&t=704s) 散户期权日均交易量已重回 2021 年 Meme 股狂热峰值，高收入群体中放弃缴满 401(k) 转向应税账户的现象反映出流动性需求与自律纪律之间的冲突。 - [18:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btp2AupmwAM&t=1095s) 美联储消费者财务调查（SCF）富裕人群回复率从 33% 降至 24%，样本偏误可能导致统计出的全美家庭财富水平被严重低估。 - [22:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btp2AupmwAM&t=1335s) AI 基础设施的大规模投入正在挤出实体经济，除数据中心建设暴增 65% 外，制造业建筑支出大跌 24%，关税政策也未能如愿复兴制造业反而加剧了通胀。 - [25:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btp2AupmwAM&t=1522s) 高利率对占经济体量 20% 的房地产市场流动性造成了实质性破坏，其系统性负面影响在某些维度上已超过过去的零利率政策（ZIRP）。 - [28:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btp2AupmwAM&t=1717s) 中日两大经济体展现出违背经典经济学理论的特征：日本陷入长达 30 年的通缩与极低利率，中国薪资暴涨 13 倍但资本回报与股市表现严重脱节。 - [29:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btp2AupmwAM&t=1796s) 科技巨头在 AI 领域的军备竞赛不存在软着陆折中方案，企业要么承受百亿美元级开支全速推进，要么直接被淘汰出局。 - [36:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btp2AupmwAM&t=2169s) 受 AI 狂热催化的算力存储硬件板块近期遭遇剧烈抛售，Roundhill Memory ETF 短期重挫超 30%，西部数据与美光等个股回撤 40% 至 50%。 - [37:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btp2AupmwAM&t=2263s) 美国家庭愿意为 AI 工具付费的比例仅为 2%，是租赁自存仓家庭比例（12.6%）的六分之一，且欧洲多个国家的消费级 AI 普及率已超过美国。 - [44:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btp2AupmwAM&t=2694s) 预测市场中散户热衷于押注极端赔率冷门，Kalshi 与 Polymarket 上大量资金流向极低概率事件，专业做市商与量化机构成为主要的对手方赢家。 - [47:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btp2AupmwAM&t=2820s) 年轻一代虽然整体资产中位数有所改善，但在智能手机与社交媒体的严密审视下普遍陷入社交瘫痪，对尴尬与社交摩擦极度敏感。 - [01:02:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btp2AupmwAM&t=3764s) 烂番茄影评人平均评分自 2003 年的 57 分通胀至 72 分，公信力下滑导致真实票房收入成为衡量电影成功与否更可靠的标准。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btp2AupmwAM&t=4s) ProShares 赞助与 Broadway 现场秀预告 节目由 ProShares 赞助播出。ProShares 作为杠杆与反向 ETF 的主要提供商，自 2006 年起就为投资者提供了全方位的纳斯达克 100 指数 ETF 产品线。随后主持人 Ben Carlson 与 Michael Batnick 宣布，《Animal Spirits》和《The Compound and Friends》团队将在 12 月初登上纽约百老汇（Broadway）举办现场演出，购票链接现已通过新闻通讯公布上线。 两人就百老汇演出的宣传海报风格展开了一番相互打趣。现场阵容包括 Josh Brown、Michael Batnick、Ben Carlson，以及特邀嘉宾 Tom Lee、Nick Colas、Jessica Rabe、Ankur Crawford 和 Adam Parker。在官方海报中，几位主持人各自化身为经典百老汇剧目的主角：Josh 对应的是《汉密尔顿》（Hamilton），Ben 被分配为《狮子王》（The Lion King），而 Michael 则化身《歌剧魅影》（The Phantom of the Opera）。Michael 坦承，自己五岁时（父母离异前最深刻的童年回忆之一）就去看过《歌剧魅影》，甚至至今在情绪低落或深有感触时仍会拿出来听其配乐，Ben 对此调侃称完全看不出 Michael 竟然有这般百老汇乐迷情结。 ### [03:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btp2AupmwAM&t=181s) 市场集中度与市场宽度的长期辩论 进入宏观与股票市场讨论环节，Ben 列举了当下投资者普遍焦虑的几大核心风险：居高不下的政府债务规模、维持高位的利率环境、潜在的人工智能（AI）泡沫，以及愈演愈烈的股票市场集中度问题。Michael 补充指出，市场宽度（Market Breadth）的恶化同样是市场心头大患。针对这一现象，Ben 引用了摩根大通 Michael Cembalest 的图表指出，自 2024 年 1 月以来，AI 相关概念股贡献了标普 500 指数三分之二的价格回报率、60% 的盈利增长以及 81% 的资本支出（Capex）。 更令人费解的是，传统宏观逻辑中的加息阻力对这些巨头几乎失效。Cembalest 的数据显示，在美联储激进加息的背景下，这些头部企业的净利息支出占利润的比重反而持续下降。Michael 解释道，这是因为美国大型企业在 2020 年至 2021 年的 18 个月超低利率窗口期锁定了极低成本的长期债务：“They just borrowed at 0%. They're good.” 极低的借贷成本加上爆发式的盈利增长，使得高利率根本未能削弱其利润。 随后，Michael 针对市场上广泛担忧的集中度提出了逆向观点。他援引 Michael Mauboussin 的研究警告投资者不要误判市场平权（Parity）与宽度的意义：“I think people think that parody in the stock market is a good thing where you don't have like massive winners and losers. Wrong. When there is a widening of breadth, when a lot of stocks are beating the market, that tends to happen in a bear market.” 例如在 2001 年网络泡沫破灭引发的熊市中，市场宽度反而是急剧扩大的。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 现代牛市集中度演进机制 accDescr: 展示头部巨头如何通过垄断地位和资本优势，在指数中占据越来越大的权重份额 subgraph CapitalStructure ["资本与盈利护城河"] A["2020-2021年锁定极低借贷利率"] --> B["净利息成本占利润比例不升反降"] C["AI与数字化技术驱动 Capex 与盈利爆发"] --> D["垄断性利润占标普60%"] end subgraph ConcentrationTrend ["市场集中度极化"] B --> E["前五大巨头市值权重持续攀升"] D --> E E --> F["2018年: 前5名市值 = 后282名总和"] F --> G["现阶段: 前5名市值 = 后434名总和"] end subgraph MarketBreadthParadox ["市场宽度悖论"] G --> H["指数维持历史高点，多数个股回撤超20%"] H --> I["现代牛市自然特征，并非崩盘前兆"] end ``` 针对这一长期趋势，Michael 回顾了自己过往制作的市场份额饼图数据： - **2018 年 7 月（苹果市值首破 1 万亿美元时）**：标普 500 指数中市值排名前 5 的公司，其市值总和等于排名垫底的 282 家公司之和； - **当前最新数据**：排名前 5 的公司市值总和已暴涨至等于后 434 家公司之和（即相当于第 67 位至第 500 位的总市值）。 Michael 总结指出：“We've never had a market this concentrated and it's fine until it's not.” 这种巨头领涨、个股分化的现象本身就是现代牛市的一个鲜明特征。Ben 进一步补充，市场对巨头垄断的担忧早从 2017 年 Scott Galloway 出版《四巨头》（The Four）以及 2018 年媒体惊呼亚马逊、奈飞与微软贡献了美股绝大部分涨幅时便已开始，这已是一场持续近十年的讨论。十年前人们曾以为反垄断拆分是最大风险，但事实证明监管机构既无决心，消费者也没有拆分这些平台化垄断巨头的意愿。即便在集中度焦虑蔓延的背景下，近期罗素 2000 小型股指数年内涨幅亦达到了 15%，甚至一度大幅跑赢标普 500 指数。 ### [09:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btp2AupmwAM&t=576s) 市场广度与集中度：基本面支撑与对冲策略 Ben Carlson 与 Michael Batnick 讨论了当下美股市场的表现，指出所谓“只有少数科技巨头在涨”的说法并不准确。实际上，不仅标普 500 等权重指数上涨了近 13%，中盘股也上涨了近 12%，小盘股等板块年内均录得两位数的涨幅。因此，市场并非只有少数股票在涨而其余股票都在崩跌，其他板块整体表现其实相当不错。 谈及市值高度集中在少数科技巨头身上的问题，Michael Batnick 指出，这与纯粹的投机泡沫不同，当前的集中度是由扎实的基本面支撑的：“前五大股票过去 12 个月的净利润，正好等于排名后 436 家公司的利润总和，两者几乎完美契合。”利润份额的分布与股价市值的集中度高度同步，这表明涨势依然立足于现实。 针对许多投资者对“AI 是一场单一交易”以及集中度风险的焦虑，Ben Carlson 提出了一个极其实用的分散与对冲投资组合方案。他指出，如果你真的担心集中度风险，对冲其实非常简单： - **债券**：如果 AI 叙事破灭、投资交易停滞，通胀与利率都将下行，债券将大幅受益。 - **欧洲股票**：欧洲市场科技股占比较小，若 AI 交易崩盘导致美元走弱，不受大型科技股拖累的欧洲资产表现会相对稳健。 - **高股息、价值股、优质股与房地产信托（REITs）**：配置对利率敏感的资产以及防御性价值板块，能轻松抵消科技股回调的冲击。 两人还回顾了先前的市场论调——曾有人坚称成长股之所以能涨，完全是因为低利率或零利率政策（ZIRP）。当时人们认为，一旦利率上升，缺乏实质故事支撑的成长股就会原形毕露。然而事实证明，除了那些无法兑现增长预期的劣质成长股确实被淘汰之外，绝大多数优质成长股在加息环境下依然实现了与估值相符的强劲盈利增长。 ### [11:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btp2AupmwAM&t=704s) 达利欧的“泡沫论”争议与散户期权狂热回归 Michael Batnick 顺带引用了雅虎财经报道的 Ray Dalio 最新言论。Dalio 认为：“泡沫通常在人们不得不卖掉纸面财富去应付实际支出时破灭”，并称“每个人都说我有十亿美元身家，但你试着把那些钱花出去看看”。Michael 对此评价道：“这家伙脱离实际了。” Ben Carlson 则探讨了 Dalio 这套说辞背后的逻辑漏洞。虽然“所有人不得不被迫抛售时会发生什么”听起来高深莫测，但在现实中，究竟有什么力量能迫使真正富有的富豪抛售全部资产？这就像市场上老生常谈的伪命题——“如果婴儿潮一代把 401(k) 里的股票全部抛光会怎样”，完全脱离了现实财务运作方式。 随后，两人转向《华尔街日报》关于散户交易情绪的一则数据：目前美股个股期权的日均交易量已经完全回升至 2021 年散户狂热（Meme 股潮）的高峰水平。2021 年泡沫破裂后，期权交易量曾经历暴跌，许多人以为投机客自此退场，但数据显示这些激进交易者并没有悄然离开，而是卷土重来。 与期权市场的火热形成鲜明对比的是昔日疫情红利股的落寞。Michael 拿自己身上穿的军旅风开衫外套打趣，提到当年红极一时的服装定制电商 Stitch Fix。其股价目前跌到了仅 2.75 美元，较巅峰暴跌了约 95%。Ben 透露自己当年听了该企业前 CEO 在播客上的精彩访谈后买入并大赚一笔，但在该 CEO 离职后便果断清仓离场。两人由此聊到如今风靡的“AI 购物助手”概念，认为 AI 代替人类挑选商品的宣传言过其实，因为购物本身所带来的多巴胺刺激，是消费者永远想要亲自体验的乐趣。 ### [14:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btp2AupmwAM&t=875s) 高收入群体停缴 401(k) 争议与“擦鞋童时刻” 两人随后讨论了彭博社的一篇报道，题为《高收入者停止缴满 401(k)，押注自己能跑赢退休储蓄》。该报道指出，年收入超过 15 万美元的群体中，不少人不再选择顶格缴纳 401(k)，而是转向普通应税经纪账户。Ben Carlson 分析称，虽然标题看起来像散户盲目自大的警讯，但深入采访后会发现，很多四五十岁、已经储蓄了 20 年的投资者正在考虑提前退休，他们需要资金的流动性与灵活性，即便承担资本利得税，也不希望所有资产都被锁在需要到特定年龄才能免罚金支取的递延纳税账户中。 Michael Batnick 则从行为金融学和个人体验的角度提出了坚决的反对意见，强调纪律与限制的重要性： > “我在退休账户里的表现规矩得多，从来没有做过蠢事，一次让我后悔的操作都没有；但我后悔在普通经纪账户里乱折腾的次数，大概是一百比一。” Michael 强调，大部分人并不具备像 Nick Maggiulli 那样严密理性的机器化自律能力。401(k) 的最大价值在于工资自动扣款和“眼不见心不烦”（out of sight, out of mind）的硬性储蓄壁垒，能有效管住投资者总想随意操作的手。 最后，Ben Carlson 分享了自己在机场遭遇的“擦鞋童时刻”（投机过热信号）。他在候机延误时，遇到一个二十出头、反戴鸭舌帽、戴着墨镜和 AirPods 的年轻人。此人边走边大声打电话，故意让周围所有人听到他挥金如土的经历：“兄弟，我在这场演唱会上砸了 1500 块！”他在句中不断使用口头禅“bro”。这引发了 Ben 和 Michael 对年轻一代口头禅从过去的“dude”演变到如今“bro”的一番调侃。 ### [17:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btp2AupmwAM&t=1064s) 股市轶事与擦鞋童时刻 节目刚开始，Ben Carlson 分享了一则有趣的见闻：有人庆幸自己能卖掉一些股票来应付开销，否则就得背负债务，并直言如果股市不再上涨自己就麻烦了。Michael Batnick 听后调侃道，这听起来就像经典的“擦鞋童故事”——当街上每个人都自认为精通股市时，这往往不再是什么有用的市场信号。对此，Michael 笑着总结道：“Everybody knows everything about the stock market. There's there's no more signal there.” --- ### [18:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btp2AupmwAM&t=1095s) 美联储消费者财务调查的真实性争议 随后，Ben 将话题转向《华尔街日报》（The Wall Street Journal）上一篇引发广泛讨论的报道。该报道援引了美联储每三年发布一次的权威报告——消费者财务调查（Survey of Consumer Finances，SCF）。经济学界对此类数据极为推崇，视其为衡量美国家庭财富状况的行业标杆，Nick Maggiulli 等诸多作者也曾以此数据为基础撰写专著。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 美联储消费者财务调查问卷回复率下滑趋势 accDescr: 展示2016年到当前调查中普通人群与富裕人群回复率的显著下滑 subgraph ResponseRate["调查回复率变化 (2016 vs. 最新)"] direction TB GenPop["普通大众回复率: 65% → 45%"] WealthyPop["富裕人群回复率: 33% → 24%"] end subgraph Impact["对统计结果的影响"] Skew["高净值人群样本缺失<br/>导致总体财富统计数据失真偏低"] end GenPop --> Skew WealthyPop --> Skew ``` 然而，最新公布的经通胀调整后的各年龄段家庭净资产中位数变化却让 Ben 感到困惑不解：数据显示 75 岁及以上人群的财富增长了 35%，而 35 岁及以下年轻人群的财富却缩水了超过 20%。Ben 指出，2022 年既是股债双杀的熊市，也是通胀见顶的年份；而在随后的几年里，年均通胀率实际上已回落至 3% 左右，同时金融市场迎来强劲牛市。Cullen Roche 曾指出，自 2013 年以来美国家庭实际财富中位数激增了 91%，且 35 岁以下人群在 2019 至 2022 年间财富增幅曾高达 140%，因此即使近三年回调 23%，该群体自 2019 年以来的经通胀调整财富增幅仍接近 90%。 深挖报告底层细节后，Ben 发现样本的回复率存在严重偏差：2016 年全美普通受访者的回复率为 65%，如今降至 45%；而高净值富裕人群的回复率更是从 33% 骤跌至 24%。富人普遍不再配合问卷调查，这必然导致统计出的社会财富水平被严重低估。Michael 完全赞同这一剖析，认为这不是主观臆断而是事实数据：“Well, it's beyond fair. It's just I mean I feel like what you just said, you laid out a case that's not based on opinion.” - 2016 年至最新调查期，普通人群调查问卷回复率从 65% 降至 45%。 - 同期高净值人群问卷回复率从 33% 降至 24%。 - 经通胀调整后，35 岁以下群体的实际家庭财富自 2019 年以来累计上涨近 90%，在所有年龄段中增幅依然最为显著。 - 相比主观问卷，《邻家的百万富翁》（The Millionaire Next Door）等书直接采用真实报税记录，因此数据更为可信。 --- ### [22:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btp2AupmwAM&t=1335s) AI 挤出效应与关税政策的反思 讨论随后延伸到宏观经济领域。Ben 提到了 Jason Furman 制作的一张关于美国各行业实际建筑支出同比变化的图表：过去一年中，数据中心（Data Centers）的建设支出同比暴增 65%，而多户住宅、单户住宅、医疗、商业、教育、办公、酒店以及制造业等其他部门几乎全线溃缩。这种冰火两重天的局面表明，AI 的蓬勃发展在支撑宏观经济指标的同时，也对实体经济的其他领域产生了严重的“挤出效应”（Crowding Out）。 在此背景下，制造业支出暴跌 24%，这也让两位主持人反思起关税政策的实际成效。政界人士（如 Scott Bessent 等）此前曾宣称要摆脱华尔街、振兴实体制造业（Main Street），以此作为推行高关税的核心依据。然而纽约联储的一项研究揭示，到 2026 年初，关税直接导致商品价格通胀上升了 2.9 个百分点；若剔除关税因素，商品价格原本会出现显著回落。关税不仅没有带回制造业就业岗位，反而实打实地推高了消费物价。Ben 对此直言不讳：“I think this this is possibly one of the worst economic ideas we've ever had.” Michael 赞同道，除了少数政客，几乎所有理智健全的人都早已预见到这是一项糟糕的政策。 --- ### [25:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btp2AupmwAM&t=1522s) 高利率真的比零利率（ZIRP）更具破坏力吗？ 随后，Ben 抛出了一个更具争议的观点：当前的限制性高利率环境对经济的实际伤害，可能已经超过了过去为人诟病的零利率政策（ZIRP）。Ben 提到了 Edward Chancellor 的著作《时间的代价》（*The Price of Time*），该书系统阐述了利率作为“时间与风险的价格”的重要性，并批判了零利率环境造成的资源错配和扭曲。 然而，Ben 认为过去人们反复预警的“ZIRP 必然引发系统性危机”并未真正发生，反而是如今持续的高利率彻底冻结了占美国经济体量约 20% 的房地产市场，借贷成本的高企正在严重窒息商业活力。对此，Ben 直言：“I think you could make the case the current situation is so bad for the economy for how bad it is for housing, how bad it is for borrowing that this right now is worse than ZERP.” 面对这个抛论，Michael 的第一反应并不买账，认为不能轻易为零利率翻案，并打趣 Ben 随后将“降息”的目标界定在 2% 到 3%（而非重回 0%）是在悄悄“挪动球门”（moving the goalposts）。两人就适度低利率对当前经济究竟是解药还是毒药展开了意犹未尽的探讨。 ### [27:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btp2AupmwAM&t=1628s) 利率之辩：高利率与零利率政策（ZIRP）谁的破坏力更大？ Ben Carlson 抛出了一个鲜明的观点：当前处于高位（约 5%）的利率水平，对经济造成的伤害远大于整个 2010 年代实施的零利率政策（ZIRP）。Michael Batnick 对此表示质疑，追问零利率究竟引发了哪些最终演变成危机的经济失衡。Michael 打趣说自己周末还要去看 Metallica 的演唱会，现在脑子太忙不想深究，建议 Ben 回去好好想一周再复盘。Ben 则坚定地表示自己早就想清楚了，并强调：“0% interest rates led to no crisis. There was not a crisis that came about because of it. Higher rates are going to probably cause a crisis and they already have in the housing market.”（零利率并没有导致危机，没有一场危机是由它引发的；而高利率很可能会引发危机，而且已经在房地产市场引发了危机）。 面对零利率引发贫富分化的常见指责，Michael 进行了坚决的反驳。他指出，许多人试图把零利率时代直接归咎为民粹主义抬头和贫富差距拉大的根源，但他完全不同意这种推论。在 Michael 看来，把财富不平等归咎于某种特定利率环境纯属无稽之谈：在零利率时期，人们批评资金便宜让富人借钱买资产推高了不平等；而到了如今的高利率时期，人们又抱怨高利率让拥有巨额现金和资产的富人坐享高息回报、进一步拉大差距。换句话说，不论利率处于何种水平，批评者总能找到借口把贫富差距的锅扣在利率头上，但这实质上是整个资本经济体系的内在属性使然。 ### [28:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btp2AupmwAM&t=1717s) 经济学理论的例外：日中两大经济体的异常现象 Ben 接着抛出了另一个核心观察：在过去 50 年中，除美国之外全球规模最大的两个经济体——日本和中国，在传统经济学理论中全都是不可复制、无法直接作为参考的“超级离群值”（Outliers）。 - **日本的困境**：经历了长达 30 年的持续通货紧缩与极低利率，经济学家在分析时往往只能摊手表示“那是日本特有的例外，属于个案”。 - **中国的脱节**：财经媒体人 Joe Weisenthal 分享了评级与研究机构 Egan-Jones 的一组对比数据。从 2004 年到 2025 年（以及 2000 年至 2024 年区间）： - 中国的名义 GDP 增速与实际 GDP 增速完全碾压（smoked）美国； - 期间中国平均薪资暴涨了 13 倍，而美国同期仅增长了 2.2 倍； - 然而，如果把视线转向金融市场，中国的股票投资回报、企业利润以及资本回报率（Return on Capital）却与其实体经济的惊人增长几乎没有任何正相关关系。 无论是陷入 30 年通缩泥潭的日本，还是经济飞速增长但股市回报毫无起色的中国，两者的现实运作都脱离了标准的西方经济学教科书逻辑。Ben 感慨道，在面对过去半个世纪除美国外最重要的两大经济体时，主流分析最终往往只能把它们简单当作“特殊例外”直接抛在一边。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 经济学理论与日中两大经济体的脱节 accDescr: 展示主流经济学理论与日本长达30年通缩及中国股市与实体经济脱节的矛盾对比。 subgraph Theory["经典西方经济学假设"] A["低利率与刺激政策 -> 推动通胀与增长"] B["强劲GDP与薪资暴涨 -> 带来丰厚股市回报"] end subgraph Outliers["过去50年除美以外的两大经济体"] C["日本：陷入30年通缩与极低利率<br/>（成为被忽视的离群个案）"] D["中国：GDP与薪资暴涨13倍<br/>但资本回报与股市严重脱节"] end Theory -.->|"无法解释"| Outliers ``` ### [29:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btp2AupmwAM&t=1796s) AI 军备竞赛：扎克伯格的百亿豪赌与“无法软着陆”的风险 两人的对话随后转向了科技界的重磅资本开支。Ben 提到 Mark Zuckerberg 与 Stripe 联合创始人 John Collison 以及 Meta 基础设施/AI 建设主管 Alexandr Wang 一起喝着健力士黑啤录制的访谈节目。扎克伯格在访谈中坦言，在当前的人工智能浪潮中根本没有“浅尝辄止”（dipping your toe in the water）的余地，企业要么开出数十上百亿美元的巨额支票全力以赴，要么就彻底出局。Meta 的首席财务官（CFO）也曾直白地向管理层发出警告：如果花掉这笔天文数字般的资金最终获得了丰厚回报，那自然皆大欢喜；但如果烧了巨额资金后没有换来回报、以失败告终，那局面将会变得极其可怕。 Ben 由此指出，这也是市场对 AI 风险深感忧虑的核心所在——这场豪赌不存在“软着陆”的折中方案，它要么彻底成功，要么就是惨烈的硬着陆。Michael 则提出了自己的处世与发声哲学：“The only rational take for people that are speaking into the microphone or onto their keyboard, for people that are communicating, trying to have an opinion with the public, be optimistic.”（对于那些对着麦克风或键盘公开发声、试图向公众表达观点的人来说，唯一理性的立场就是保持乐观）。Michael 认为，就像预测股市崩盘一样，即便世界真的崩盘，末日预言家也不会得到奖励，大家依旧怨声载道；但如果生活照常运转而你却总是扮演“狼来了”的孩子，到了 2034 年还在喋喋不休地喊着“我们都要完蛋了”，那你最终只会沦为一个没人当真的笑话。 - **硬着陆的深度与性质**：Ben 提出，即便 AI 遭遇硬着陆，也不大可能重演 2000 年互联网泡沫后长达 12 年的阴跌熊市，更可能是一场迅速而剧烈的重击，甚至可能在市场因 AI 瓶颈出现约 30% 的急跌熊市后，砸出不可思议的买入黄金坑； - **Metaverse 对比**：AI 绝非元宇宙（Metaverse）或 Web3 那种“热闹一场后发现一无所获”的概念炒作，科技巨头正在被动或主动地将其变成一场只能成功、不许失败的生死决战。 ### [33:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btp2AupmwAM&t=2011s) AI 的落地日常：从 Google Docs 脚本到后院露台施工 在宏观技术争论之余，两位主持人分享了 AI 在微观层面的真实应用。Michael 兴奋地宣称自己“人生第一次完成了编程”：每期《Animal Spirits》播客准备时，团队都会在 Google Docs 里整理包含 15 到 20 个红色加粗标题的分类大纲（如股市、经济、个人理财、AI 等）。录制结束后，原先需要人工逐一清空各分类下的旧内容。Michael 将这一需求输入 Anthropic 的 Claude，请求生成一段能自动清除所有红字标题之间内容的自动化脚本。随后他将代码粘贴到 Google 内部的脚本工具（Google Apps Script）中，成功在 Google Docs 的顶部菜单栏添加了一个专属按钮——“Episode Tools -> Clear for Next Episode”。Ben 笑着拆台说他这根本不算真正会写代码，只是让 AI 替他写好然后复制粘贴罢了，并调侃科技巨头砸下数万亿美元的算力开销，最终就是为了帮 Michael 节省播客录完后的 6 分钟整理时间。 Ben 则分享了 Twitter 上一位昵称为“Jameson Big Deck Energy”的户外露台（Deck）承包商的真实案例。在传统实体家装施工中，师傅上门测量后，报价往往要拖延 10 天乃至数周。这位承包商则彻底将 AI 融入了线下业务流： 1. **全流程语音记录**：在与业主现场沟通量尺时，他全程录音，确保客户的所有特殊要求和交谈细节毫无遗漏； 2. **车内即时交付**：离开客户家坐进皮卡车后，他立刻将测量数据和现场录音上传并转写为文字稿； 3. **Prompt 自动生成**：将文字稿丢给 ChatGPT，指令模型自动提炼测量规格，并在数分钟内为客户生成结构清晰、条款精准的复盘总结与报价方案。原本极其繁琐、拖沓的传统手工流程，被生成式 AI 压缩成了离开现场即刻交付的高效闭环。 ### [36:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btp2AupmwAM&t=2169s) AI 提案效率与内存芯片股的大幅回调 Ben Carlson 和 Michael Batnick 接着探讨了 AI 在业务拓展中的实际应用场景：利用 AI 迅速抓取所有历史项目资料，与过往提案进行全面比对，并即时生成一份匹配度高达 90% 的全新方案。Ben Carlson 认为很多时候在争取业务或找工作时，速度往往决定成败，“谁先把方案递到客户面前，谁就赢了”。这种即时响应且附带具体行动计划的能力，展现了极高的实用价值。 然而，二级市场上与算力、存储相关的硬件板块近期却遭遇了剧烈震荡。两人谈到了 Roundhill 旗下的内存芯片 ETF（DRAM），该基金此前横空出世并迅速成长为管理规模高达 23 亿美元的明星产品。然而就在极短时间内，该 ETF 竟重挫了 32%，当天盘中又下跌了 5%。Michael Batnick 戏谑道：“韩国市场似乎每两个月就要搞一次小型崩盘。”尽管资金并未出现恐慌性大规模出逃，但相关个股的跌势极其惨烈。 Michael Batnick 提到自己动量策略投资组合中持有的 Western Digital（西部数据），感叹其股价近期直接“被腰斩”（跌幅超 50%）。两人清点了受重创的存储产业链核心标的： - Roundhill Memory ETF（DRAM）短期内暴跌 32% 至 35%，但资产规模仍维持在约 23 亿美元的高位。 - Western Digital（西部数据）股价腰斩，跌幅超 50%。 - Micron（美光科技）跌幅达到约 40%，SanDisk 与 Seagate（希捷）等传统存储大厂同样遭到集中抛售。 Michael Batnick 总结道，如果你仍然长期看好这个赛道，这种 35% 级别的急跌反而是极具吸引力的入场机会，尽管短期内这些股票每天都在持续承压。 --- ### [37:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btp2AupmwAM&t=2263s) 超级智能 vs 杂物仓库：AI 普及度与全球采用率反差 两人分享了 Glenn McBride 在 LinkedIn 上发布的一组趣味对比数据，揭示了当下大众对 AI 工具与实体消费的真实权重配置：全美目前只有 2% 的家庭愿意为 AI 工具付费，而拥有自存仓（Storage Unit）的家庭比例却高达 12.6%。换言之，为存放闲置无用物品而付费的家庭数量，是为接触“超级智能”（Super Intelligence）付费家庭的 6 倍之多。Ben Carlson 认为这恰恰说明了 AI 商业化未来的巨大渗透空间。 随后，Ben Carlson 援引阿波罗全球管理（Apollo）首席经济学家 Torsten Sløk 的研究数据指出，在消费级生成式 AI 的普及速度上，欧洲多个国家其实已经走在了美国前列。挪威、爱尔兰、法国、西班牙、英国以及荷兰等国 15 至 64 岁人群中使用生成式 AI 产品的比例显著高于美国。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: AI 采用现实与商业反差 accDescr: 对比家庭付费意愿以及欧美生成式 AI 的采用率差异 subgraph HouseholdBudget["美国家庭开支对比"] A["付费购买 AI 服务: 2%"] B["租赁自存仓存放闲置: 12.6%"] B -->|"6倍差距"| A end subgraph GlobalAdoption["消费级 AI 渗透速度"] C["欧洲多国 (挪威/爱尔兰/法国/英国等)"] D["美国本土消费者"] C -->|"采纳速度更快"| D end ``` 谈及生活中的真实接触，Ben Carlson 透露自己的妻子极为喜爱 ChatGPT，经常向其咨询育儿与医疗健康类问题，几乎到了形影不离的地步。Michael Batnick 则分享了一则家庭趣事：他的儿子 Kobe 最近在手机上提交了下载 ChatGPT 的申请，结果被 Michael 随手驳回了。当儿子追问原因时，Michael 只是随口回答：“你不能用这个。”但事后他也陷入了反思，心想小男孩每天有无数个稀奇古怪的问题，为什么不让他用呢？Ben Carlson 赞同道，小男孩的好奇心极其旺盛，如果给他们开放 AI 工具，他们肯定会兴奋地疯狂提问，不过他也提醒孩子们：“使用的时候得有礼貌，别对它大呼小叫。” --- ### [39:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btp2AupmwAM&t=2356s) AI 会让世界变平吗？桑拿房与热水浴缸的闲聊 由欧洲 AI 采用率领先的话题展开，Ben Carlson 提出了一个宏大的宏观假设：“难道这不正是世界其他地区追赶上我们（美国）的方式吗？难道这不会最终让世界变得更加平坦吗？”他认为，全球其他国家根本不需要像美国科技巨头那样投入数千亿美元的基础设施研发资金，超级智能就已经直接交到了他们手上，随时可以调用。Michael Batnick 对这一宏大论断持保留态度，他调侃道：“哥们儿，我们今天抛出的宏大论断可真够多的。”Ben Carlson 笑着表示 Michael 肯定下周会带着一堆反驳论据回来，而他自己上周出差旅行时确实有了太多放空思考的时间。 随后两人的对话转向了生活方式的轻松调侃。Michael 透露自己正在考虑买一个家用桑拿房，Ben 立即取笑这是“最老套的有钱人标配”，并提到了影视剧《好运》（Good Fortune）中对有钱人痴迷桑拿和冷水浸泡（Cold Plunge）循环的讽刺。Michael 坚称自己绝不会去尝试自虐般的冷水坑，他想要桑拿房纯粹是因为里面不能带手机，能提供一段无人打扰的思考时间： > “听着，在桑拿房里除了思考什么都干不了，因为你不能把手机带进去，不然它会直接报废。”——Michael Batnick Ben 建议他不如买个热水浴缸（Hot Tub），但 Michael 强烈表示热水浴缸“很诡异”，尤其是邀请外人来家里开浴缸派对更是让他难以接受。Ben 则大倒苦水，坦言家里最近刚应妻子和孩子的要求买了一个热水浴缸，结果维护起来极为繁重复杂，妻子为了检测和调节水质酸碱度（pH 值）简直变成了“疯狂科学家”，而他自己连日常维护都插不上手。 --- ### [42:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btp2AupmwAM&t=2526s) 预测市场 Kalshi：从宏观对冲异变为极限赔率博彩 话题切换到彭博社（Bloomberg）关于预测市场平台 Kalshi 的深度报道。Ben Carlson 与 Michael Batnick 回忆起 2021 年在播客节目《Talk Your Book》中采访 Kalshi 联合创始人的经历。当时创始人向他们推销的核心理念是“宏观事件与地缘政治对冲”：投资者如果预测到油价冲击或非农就业数据（NFP）异动，但又担心金融资产价格传导失真，可以直接在特定事件合约上下注进行精准风险对冲。 然而现实数据表明，散户资金的真实偏好彻底击碎了这种高大上的对冲叙事。预测市场迅速演变成了高赔率冷门投注、体育博彩与串关组合（Parlays）的温床。Ben Carlson 分析道，大众往往习惯批评彩票和赌博是在浪费金钱，但从人性的角度看，人们购买的是一种“希望”的虚幻体验，正如许多人每周坚持买彩票只是为了和朋友畅想“如果中奖了该怎么花”一样。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: Kalshi 平台发展路径异化 accDescr: 从最初的宏观对冲定位演变为散户高赔率博彩乐园 subgraph Pitch["2021年创立初衷与宣传"] A["宏观地缘对冲"] B["非农/CPI 数据保险"] end subgraph Reality["2025年实际交易生态"] C["追逐超 1000% 赔率冷门"] D["体育多串一 (Parlays) 占比 65%"] E["对手方: 专业做市商与量化机构"] end Pitch -->|"散户真实需求重塑"| Reality ``` Michael Batnick 虽理解对“希望”的心理需求，但他指出了其中的残酷性：现实中因赌博而倾家荡产、毁掉整个家庭财务积蓄的悲剧比比皆是。 > “自 2025 年初以来，Kalshi 平台上一半的交易量都在追逐至少 1000% 的潜在超高回报，而坐在这些散户对面交易的，绝大多数是老练的专业交易员和做市商机构。”——Ben Carlson 报道显示，目前 Kalshi 上高达 65% 的交易资金都涌入了体育多串一（Parlays）这一胜率极低的高风险衍生玩法，零售投资者的博彩本能彻底占据了上风。正当 Michael 准备进一步深入分析其中高达 41% 合约的相关惊人数据时，讨论进入了更深层次的剖析。 ### [44:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btp2AupmwAM&t=2694s) 预测市场与串关赌博的狂热 Ben Carlson 和 Michael Batnick 探讨了预测市场和体育博彩中散户令人费解的下注倾向。数据显示，在合规预测市场 Kalshi 上，有 41% 的交易合约押注在发生概率低于 10% 的极小概率事件上；而在 Polymarket 上，同样有 12% 的合约是在与胜率超过 90% 的大热门唱反调。Ben 指出，大众总是被极端赔率所吸引，人人都在押注极冷门的翻盘机会（longshot bets），妄想获得巨额回报，然而现实中这些极端冷门几乎从未成真。 这种狂热在体育博彩中体现得更加淋漓尽致。NFL 统计显示，从 2018 年到 2023 年，串关投注（parlays）呈井喷式爆发。Ben 调侃道，玩串关就像在脑海里构建一个理想世界，幻想比赛会按照自己设想的剧本分毫不差地推进；然而串关的残酷之处在于，押中一次远远不够，你必须连续猜对多次。Michael 承认自己至今仍忍不住玩串关：“我还是在玩串关，Ben，我真忍不住，这玩意儿太上瘾了。”（“I'm still doing parlays, Ben. I can't help it. They're so addictive.”）不过 Michael 强调自己比较克制，不碰 +600 以上的高赔率，甚至上周还因为下了个由五个低赔稳胆组成、总赔率仅为 +110 的“保守愚蠢串关”而遭到听众无情嘲弄。 两人进一步讨论了博彩泛滥可能引发的社会问题。Ben 警告称，这种赌徒行为最终会毁掉许多人的生活，未来势必会引来巨大的社会抵制和监管反弹，届时公众甚至会质问为何曾允许总统之子等政商名流进入这些博彩公司的董事会。Michael 则认为赌博问题其实和酗酒非常类似，属于危害极深但人们仍乐此不疲的社会恶习。有趣的是，Ben 援引财经博主 Walter Bloomberg 的推文吐槽称，美国人目前的饮酒量已经跌到了历史最低水平，他半开玩笑地感慨，也许正是因为大家喝得不够多，当代人才会整天心烦意乱、闷闷不乐。 - Kalshi 上 41% 的交易合约押注于发生率低于 10% 的极小概率事件。 - Polymarket 上 12% 的交易合约逆势下注对抗胜率超 90% 的绝对优势方。 - 串关（Parlay）的心理机制是在脑海中编织完美剧本，但要求多个独立预测全部命中，实际胜率极低。 --- ### [47:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btp2AupmwAM&t=2820s) 耐克暴跌与当代年轻人的“社交绝症” Michael 随后将话题转向消费与年轻世代的现状。Nike 近期业绩惨烈，股价持续下挫，几乎每天都在刷新低位，甚至其核心摇钱树 Jordan 品牌的年化销量也录得两位数中段（mid teens）的断崖式暴跌。对于一双标志性球鞋而言，这几乎相当于硬着陆。虽然已经 41 岁的中年人依然觉得 Air Jordan 很酷，甚至暗自庆幸中年大叔终于能淘到打折球鞋，但这折射出年轻一代消费口味的彻底变迁。 谈及年轻人的生存处境，Ben 认为不应过度悲观。财经博主 Nick Maggiulli 最新的图表显示，35 岁以下年轻租房者的净资产中位数在过去六七年间已经从约 5,000 美元激增至 1.2 万美元。尽管年轻人找工作存在摩擦，但 4% 的整体失业率意味着宏观基本面尚可，年轻人经济层面其实过得并不差。然而，Ben 话锋一转指出：“我认为在心理和社交层面上，他们正处于一片狼藉之中。”（“I think mentally and socially, they're in shambles.”） 为了佐证这一观点，Ben 引用了 Derek Thompson 对《Generation Uncoupled》作者 Daniel Cox 的专访。书中详细揭示了当代年轻人因极度害怕尴尬和摩擦而陷入社交瘫痪。社交网络造就的“尴尬癌”（cringe）和“瞬间反感”（ick）等新词汇，标志着年轻世代对社交风险和尴尬局面的容忍度降至冰点。夜店 DJ 们发现如今的舞池空空荡荡，年轻人全挤在边缘摆弄手机，没人敢纵情跳舞，生怕出丑的动作被身边任何人拍下并上传网络示众。Ben 沉痛地表示，这种时刻被窥探的焦虑让人如同置身于《黑客帝国》（The Matrix），年轻一代变得高度警惕、缺乏包容与同理心，社交属性急剧退化，甚至让人感到不可逆转。回想起自己大学四年级才拥有第一台带摄像头的翻盖手机、大家完全不用活在聚光灯下的时代，两人由衷庆幸自己的青春期躲过了智能手机与社交媒体的无休止审判。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 社交媒体对年轻群体社交行为的抑制传导链 accDescr: 展示手机镜头与网络审判如何让年轻一代丧失社交冒险精神并走向孤立。 subgraph TechSurveillance ["技术与外部环境"] Smartphones["全天候智能手机与镜头普及"] OnlineSharing["即时上传与全网公开扩散"] end subgraph PsychologicalImpact ["心理防卫反应"] MatrixAnxiety["被监视焦虑（如置身黑客帝国）"] FearOfCringe["极度畏惧尴尬与社交摩擦 (Cringe/Ick)"] end subgraph BehavioralRetreat ["现实行为退缩"] EmptyFloors["舞池空置与面对面社交停滞"] HyperVigilance["戒备心增强、缺乏宽容度与同情心"] end Smartphones --> OnlineSharing OnlineSharing --> MatrixAnxiety MatrixAnxiety --> FearOfCringe FearOfCringe --> EmptyFloors FearOfCringe --> HyperVigilance ``` --- ### [51:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btp2AupmwAM&t=3071s) 重归现实：保龄球自购球与中西部纸牌局 为了抵抗数字时代的社交异化，Ben 分享了自己上周末身体力行重归现实社交的经历。周日他带着孩子们去保龄球馆，打出了个人历史最佳成绩 189 分。Michael 赞叹道，对于业余选手而言，打出超过 180 分已堪称无可挑剔的顶级表现。Michael 随即分享起自己在拿骚社区学院（Nassau Community College）为了混学分选修保龄球课的往事。他回忆道，直到两年前他和一位自备专用球的家长一起打球时才恍然大悟：“原来你买专属保龄球不是因为你是个书呆子，而是因为它真管用。”（“You don't buy a bowling ball cuz you're a dork. You buy it cuz it actually works.”）普通球馆公用球被上百万人摸过，表面早已光滑失去抓地力根本搓不出弧线，而一颗合手的专业球能带来质的飞跃。 除了打保龄球，Ben 周六晚上还邀请朋友一家四口来家里聚餐，让七个同龄的孩子在院子里尽情疯玩。吃完晚餐后，为了打破围坐在一起单调谈论育儿经的惯例，Ben 提议一起玩传统纸牌游戏——中西部地区极为流行的“尤克牌”（Euchre）。Ben 解释说这种牌局类似于黑桃王（Spades），是需要高度互动和配合的线下传统游戏，展现了脱离屏幕后真实人际交流的乐趣。 - Ben 在保龄球局中打出 189 分，创个人历史单局最高纪录。 - 公共保龄球磨损严重且打滑，无法有效产生旋转弧线；自备专业球能显著提高命中率与控球感。 - 尤克牌（Euchre）是美国中西部极具代表性的搭档争墩纸牌游戏，玩法与黑桃王类似。 --- ### [53:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btp2AupmwAM&t=3223s) 高利率对房地产流动性的窒息 寒暄过后，两人将话题重新拉回沉重的宏观现实。Ben 指出，此前市场普遍将零利率政策（ZIRP）视为一切资产泡沫与结构扭曲的罪魁祸首，但现在看来，高利率环境对实体经济造成的破坏甚至更加致命。当前居高不下的房贷利率不仅导致美国房地产市场陷入全方位的死寂与交易停摆，而且如果将全美成屋销售（existing home sales）体量与当下庞大的人口规模进行对照，其惨淡程度更是触目惊心，整个交易流通链条几乎被彻底冰封。 ### [54:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btp2AupmwAM&t=3240s) 惨淡的美国楼市：按人口调整后比次贷危机更糟 Ben Carlson 深入探讨了美国房地产市场的惨状。他指出，2000 年美国人口为 2.8 亿，而如今已超过 3.43 亿。为了消除人口增长带来的失真，他借助 Claude 将成屋销售数据调整为“每万人销售量”。经此调整后呈现出的图景令人震惊：美国目前的房屋交易活跃度已经连续三年处于大金融危机（GFC）底部的水平。次贷危机期间，成屋销售量触底后便迅速反弹，而当下这种极度低迷的成交量却整整僵持了三年。Ben 评价道：“从交易活跃度来看，这很可能是大萧条以来我们见过的最糟糕的房地产市场”，无论是在严重程度还是持续时间上，都已经超越了次贷危机时期。Michael Batnick 开玩笑打趣道：“把零利率（ZIRP）还给我们吧！” ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 高利率对美国房市的冲击链条 accDescr: 展示高利率如何导致成屋锁死、新房补贴不可持续并最终重创建商股价的流程。 subgraph Rates["宏观利率环境"] R["美联储维持高利率<br/>(无降息预期)"] end subgraph Existing["成屋市场"] E1["成屋房东不愿换房<br/>(低息贷款锁定效应)"] E2["刚需买家被迫转向新房"] end subgraph NewHomes["新房与建商"] N1["建商提供高额按揭贴息"] N2["补贴成本激增 / 难以为继"] N3["建商股重挫<br/>(KB Home / Pulte / Lennar)"] end R --> E1 E1 --> E2 E2 --> N1 R --> N2 N1 --> N2 N2 --> N3 ``` 随后两人讨论了《华尔街日报》最近的一篇报道。此前成屋业主不愿挂牌出售，房地产市场完全依靠新房开工在撑场面，市场上只有新房在交易；但现在人们终于认清现实——房贷利率短期内不会大幅下降，而有刚性搬迁需求的人终究必须搬家。建商此前为了促销提供的大幅房贷贴息等让利补贴，目前在成本端已经难以维系，无法继续与市场竞争。受此拖累，KB Home、PulteGroup（PHM）和 Lennar 等主要房屋建筑商的股票遭遇重创，纷纷跌至多年新低。Ben 与 Michael 都认为建商股票被狠狠杀跌完全在情理之中，高利率环境彻底锁死了整个房地产市场的流动性。 - 2000 年美国人口：2.8 亿人；当前美国人口：超过 3.43 亿人。 - 成屋交易活跃度：按每万人销售量计算，全美成屋销售已在次贷危机底部水平徘徊了整整三年。 - 受挫建商代表：KB Home、PulteGroup、Lennar 股价均深跌至多年低点。 --- ### [55:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btp2AupmwAM&t=3341s) 迪士尼票价机制与机场 AI 安检的遐想 话题转向迪士尼乐园的定价策略。迪士尼近期调整了价格体系，迈克尔对此策略表示高度赞同：普通门票、通票和多项常规附加项目的价格完全维持不变，涨价仅针对金字塔顶端的高端产品——例如华特迪士尼世界（Walt Disney World）的顶级快速通行（Skip-the-line）服务，价格已被推高至逼近 500 美元。Michael 指出，维持入门门槛的平民化，同时对那些愿意不惜一切代价买单的高净值人群大幅涨价，是极具商业智慧的做法，他甚至调侃道：“我赞同这个做法，这就是战胜贫富差距的方法。”Ben 则表示自己已经去过三次迪士尼，现在对它提不起兴趣了；他的妻子正在筹划去奥兰多环球影城（Universal Studios），而 Michael 大力推荐，称环球影城好玩得多，过山车体验远超迪士尼。 接着，Ben 分享了一个关于机场安检的观察。他住在一个设有区域性支线机场的小城市，平日里过 TSA 安检非常惬意，几乎从不超过两分钟，由于客流较少，机场既不需要使用 CLEAR，TSA PreCheck 也没有排队队伍。然而，安检通道总共有两条 X 光机传送带，其中一条传送带的后方坐着一个极度磨蹭的安检员。那位安检员每件行李都要端详半天，导致该通道经常有十五个人眼巴巴地等着行李滑出，而另一条通道却畅通无阻，Ben 每次都不凑巧踩中这条慢通道。由此 Ben 发出感慨：为什么不能让 AI 来负责 X 光行李扫描审查，仅留一名人类在旁监督？AI 的识别准确率难道不会远超人类且永不漏检吗？Michael 则打趣道：“本，我正想问呢，你干嘛总想着让别人下岗丢饭碗？” --- ### [57:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btp2AupmwAM&t=3454s) 芝加哥机场狂奔记：现实版《小鬼当家》 Ben 随后绘声绘色地讲起了一段堪比电影情节的惊险旅行遭遇。当时他的支线航班起飞延误了半个小时，而他在芝加哥奥黑尔机场的中转时间极其紧迫。客机好不容易关上舱门并解开牵引杆准备滑出跑道，空乘人员正在演示安全指南。此时，前排一名二十出头的年轻男子突然向空乘耳语，空乘随即神色大变叫停飞机。机长出面与男子紧急交谈，坐在前排的 Ben 听到男子坚称自己遇到了“突发的个人紧急情况”，必须立刻下机。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 芝加哥奥黑尔机场赶机历险流程 accDescr: 展示从航班延误、乘客紧急下机耽误时间，到最后在芝加哥机场极限狂奔并压哨登机的全过程。 subgraph Delay["第一段航程延误"] A["起飞延误 30 分钟"] --> B["滑行中年轻乘客<br/>突发紧急情况叫停"] B --> C["机长廊桥交涉<br/>最终让其下机延误起飞"] end subgraph Dash["芝加哥中转极限狂奔"] D["落地芝加哥<br/>下一班已在登机"] --> E["身背双肩包手拉拉杆箱<br/>从 K 航站楼狂奔至 G 航站楼"] E --> F["人群中大幅变向穿梭<br/>犹如跑卫附体"] end subgraph Board["成功压哨"] G["在登机口关闭前最后一刻冲入<br/>同行者被甩开 300 码"] end Delay --> Dash Dash --> Dash Dash --> Board ``` 客机只得全面中止程序重新对接廊桥，让该男子下机。机长还在廊桥里与男子拉扯犹豫，前排另一名乘客忍不住怒吼质问到底走不走，最终空乘通知该乘客改签三小时后的航班并强行关门，男子显然是突发恐慌发作。当飞机降落在芝加哥时，Ben 的下一程航班已经在登机。Ben 没有托运行李，他背紧双肩包、拖着拉杆箱，必须横跨整个机场从 K 航站楼一路杀向 G 航站楼。同行的另一名旅客也搭乘同班机，两人相约拼命狂奔。Ben 形容自己当时宛如《小鬼当家》（Home Alone）里的主角，脑海里不断回响着《Run Rudolph Run》的背景乐，拿出橄榄球跑卫般的急停变向步伐在汹涌的人群中穿梭避让，背包甩得人仰马翻。最终，Ben 在最后批次登机口即将关闭的瞬间压哨冲入机舱，而那位同行的旅客被他远远甩在 300 码开外、气喘吁吁才勉强赶上。尽管极度狼狈紧张，Ben 坦言那一刻狂奔的肾上腺素飙升确实让人感到无比刺激。 --- ### [01:00:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btp2AupmwAM&t=3627s) 派拉蒙的债务泥潭与《烂番茄》评分通胀 回到商业与影视话题，两人讨论了派拉蒙（Paramount）高达 520 亿美元的沉重债务包袱。尽管派拉蒙的债务发行获得了超额认购，但《华尔街日报》计算指出，如果该交易提前四个月完成，公司每年原本可以节省 4 亿美元的利息开支。Ben 对这笔交易的前景极为悲观，断言在传媒并购历史上，背负如此天量债务且最终能为股权投资者带来丰厚回报的案例绝无仅有，即使派拉蒙声称要转型成下一个 Netflix 也不可能成功；Michael 也认同这一观点，称这种股权翻盘的概率相当于博彩里的“+1100”冷门。 接着两人提到了《巴伦周刊》（Barron's）关于恐怖片热潮的报道： - 恐怖电影《异形：罗慕路斯》（Alien: Romulus）等恐怖片展现出强劲的院线票房号召力，恐怖题材在低成本和高回报方面表现尤为亮眼。 - Michael 谈到了近期一些被批评为垃圾烂片的项目，包括无人为其辩护的扑街作品。针对网友来信声称“马丁·斯科塞斯（Martin Scorsese）和史蒂文·斯皮尔伯格（Steven Spielberg）都已失去了当年的犀利球速（lost their fastball）”，Michael 坚决反驳，表示自己依然力挺老马丁，非常欣赏《爱尔兰人》（The Irishman）和《花月杀手》（Killers of the Flower Moon）。 - Michael 发现某些口碑平平的新片在烂番茄（Rotten Tomatoes）上竟然能拿到专业影评人 79%、观众 69% 的高分。他特意让制作人员 Sean 绘制了斯皮尔伯格历年电影在烂番茄上的评分走势图，数据完全看不出斯皮尔伯格的导演功力有任何下滑迹象。 - Ben 一针见血地指出了其中的核心漏洞：数据之所以看不出下滑，“那是因为烂番茄的评分早就遭遇了严重通胀（Rotten Tomatoes has been inflated）”。这一现象也在 Nick Maggiulli 当天早晨发布的博客文章中得到了深入剖析。 ### [01:02:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btp2AupmwAM&t=3764s) 烂番茄评分通胀与斯皮尔伯格的票房低谷 Michael Batnick 提出质疑：如今电影评分是否还有任何参考价值？他引用了 Mikolaj Sczaniecki（笔误辨析）制作的图表，指出按上映年份统计的影评人平均分已从 2003 年的 57 分一路飙升至现在的 72 分。烂番茄（Rotten Tomatoes）曾经是公正的评判者，但现在像许多其他机构一样，已经失去了公信力。Michael 直言：“烂番茄作为真理的仲裁者，就像我们的许多其他机构一样，不幸的是，你已经不能信任它了。” 那么什么才值得信任？Michael 认为只有实打实的票房收入（Dollars）。他拿史蒂文·斯皮尔伯格（Steven Spielberg）经过通货膨胀调整后的票房图表举例，指出斯皮尔伯格最近的 15 部左右电影里充斥着大量的哑弹与扑街之作（如《造梦之家》The Fabelmans、《西区故事》West Side Story、《头号玩家》Ready Player One 表现平平）。Ben Carlson 追问斯皮尔伯格是否自《世界之战》（War of the Worlds）之后就再无真正的好电影。Michael 坦承自己并不喜欢《世界之战》，虽然《间谍之桥》（Bridge of Spies）还行，但斯皮尔伯格上一部真正称得上“毫无争议的爆款（certifiable banger）”的电影，还得追溯到 2002 年的《猫鼠游戏》（Catch Me If You Can）和《少数派报告》（Minority Report）。至于《林肯》（Lincoln），两人一致认为那属于“看一次就够了，绝不会二刷”的类型；而关于《慕尼黑》（Munich），制作人 Duncan 提示那是一部非常优秀的作品，但同样缺乏反复观看的动力。 - 影评人平均得分变化：从 2003 年的 57 分通胀到当下的 72 分。 - 斯皮尔伯格票房低迷作品提及：《造梦之家》（The Fabelmans）、《西区故事》（West Side Story）、《头号玩家》（Ready Player One）。 - 讨论认定的巅峰节点：2002 年同一年上映的《猫鼠游戏》与《少数派报告》。 ### [01:04:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btp2AupmwAM&t=3861s) 布拉德·皮特是影史最佳性格主角？Ben 的米兰新书发布会 话题转向 Ben Carlson 的新书宣传。继之前公布 12 月在百老汇的现场演出后，Ben 宣布将于下个月（11 月 4 日晚 6 点）在意大利米兰举办个人新书发布会。他的著作推出了意大利语版，书名定为《Rischio e Rendimento》（即 Risk and Return，风险与回报）。当 Ben 试图用意大利语读出书名时，Michael 调侃他听起来就像《无耻混蛋》（Inglourious Basterds）里讲意大利语的布拉德·皮特（Brad Pitt）。 这引发了一场关于布拉德·皮特的演技大讨论。Michael 提出一个论点：“他是影史中最擅长演性格角色的男主角吗？我认为完全没有争议。”他回顾了皮特在《末路狂花》（Thelma & Louise）的配角首秀，以及他在《真实罗曼史》（True Romance）、《偷拐抢骗》（Snatch）、《十二只猴子》（12 Monkeys）、《阅后即焚》（Burn After Reading）、《搏击俱乐部》（Fight Club）、《墨西哥人》（The Mexican）和《无耻混蛋》中的惊艳演出。Ben 对此表示赞同，认为皮特是影史第一人，既有顶级主流男一号的咖位，又具备登峰造极的性格演员塑造力。 关于米兰之行，Ben 补充说明活动不会进行网络直播，届时会签售意大利语版新书，并参加由 Riccardo Spada 主持的意大利本土播客《The Bull》的现场录制。Ben 兴奋地表示米兰之行必须得穿上帅气的轻便夹克（Lightweight jackets），并深情表白意大利是他除了美国之外最喜欢的国家。 - 意大利发布会信息：11 月 4 日下午 6:00，米兰；意大利语书名《Rischio e Rendimento》。 - 合作播客：Riccardo Spada 主持的《The Bull》。 - 布拉德·皮特代表作盘点：《真实罗曼史》、《偷拐抢骗》、《十二只猴子》、《阅后即焚》、《搏击俱乐部》、《无耻混蛋》。 ### [01:06:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btp2AupmwAM&t=3969s) 现场推荐：Oasis 纪录片与《玻璃饭店》 在推荐环节中，Ben Carlson 强烈推荐了在 Disney+/Hulu 上线的绿洲乐队（Oasis）最新纪录片《Don't Look Back in Anger》。该片完整捕捉了他们在玫瑰碗球场（Rose Bowl）演唱会现场的极致狂欢与烟火。Ben 提到诺尔·加拉格尔（Noel Gallagher）在片中的锐评：“美国人总是那么放不开、端着架子，看到他们在演唱会上终于彻底放松、纵情享受，真是太棒了。” Ben 将这场演出排入自己人生中的“三大最佳现场”，另外两场分别是大学时代在维也纳美泉宫（Schönbrunn Palace）看 Counting Crows 与 Elton John 的演出，以及刚工作时在芝加哥与高中好友和妻子 Courtney 一起看的 Jimmy Buffett 演唱会。Ben 认为绿洲乐队勾起了 90 年代成长起来的一代人（35 至 50 岁群体）的集体共鸣，并感慨：“莉姆·加拉格尔是我们拥有的最后一个真正的摇滚巨星，他只想做个摇滚巨星，根本不是为了作秀。”此外，纪录片还呈现了兄弟俩长达 15 年互不说话的冷战细节，直到本次巡演，两人的孩子们才第一次以堂兄弟姐妹的身份相聚。 第二项推荐是 Emily St. John Mandel 的小说《玻璃饭店》（The Glass Hotel）。作者此前曾创作过《第十一站》（Station Eleven，已被 HBO 改编为末日迷你剧）和一部时间旅行题材作品，而《玻璃饭店》则以类似伯尼·麦道夫（Bernie Madoff）式的庞氏骗局为核心。书中探讨了极度富有之人的心境，其中一位女性角色的感悟让 Ben 赞不绝口：“我试图弄清楚为什么我在新加坡的生活感觉上和在伦敦差不多，也就是在那时我意识到，财富本身就是一个独立的国家。” ### [01:09:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btp2AupmwAM&t=4188s) Michael 掐线缆的窘境与本·阿弗莱克新片《Animals》 轮到 Michael Batnick 时，他分享了自己“掐断有线电视线缆（Cut the cord）”后遭遇的滑稽窘境。因为退订了传统有线电视且没有购买任何替代服务，他无法收看 245 频道等广播电视信号，周日居然只能像梦回 1996 年一样，趴在收音机前收听纽约巨人队（NY Giants）的橄榄球比赛。 Ben 难以置信地质问 Michael 为何不订阅 YouTube TV：“如果你订阅了 YouTube TV，那依然算作断缆，你到底在干什么？难道你打算整个赛季都靠收音机听巨人队的比赛吗？”Michael 辩解称自己担心 YouTube TV 和有线电视价格差不多，但承认必须尽快采取解决办法。 随后 Michael 分享了自己最近观看的一部由本·阿弗莱克（Ben Affleck）出演的电影《Animals》。这部电影遭遇了烂番茄的严重低分与通胀反讽——影评人评分仅有 32%，观众爆米花指数也只有 42%。Michael 表示自己完全理解为什么这部电影会被全网痛批，结尾在很多层面也确实荒谬可笑，但他个人却看得很开心：“虽然有些地方很愚蠢，但我确实被打动了，而且看完后一直在思考本·阿弗莱克试图传达的明确信息。”Michael 借此自嘲，尽管自己极度热爱电影并热爱去电影院的大荧幕体验，但从深度鉴赏的角度来看，自己其实算不上一个高水平的电影观众。 ### [01:11:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btp2AupmwAM&t=4289s) 浅度观影体验与流媒体电影的预期管理 Michael Batnick 和 Ben Carlson 聊起了各自看电影时的心理状态与观影习惯。Michael 坦言，自己很喜欢在飞机上看电影，因为没有任何外界干扰，能彻底沉浸进去。但他承认自己看电影从来不会去琢磨什么微言大义或深刻的隐喻：“normally I'm just like totally oblivious to like and I love I love listening to people talk about what they were trying to say like you know on the big picture and stuff but I never I never pick up on anything.” 他笑着调侃说，别人看电影能看出宏大的时代主题，而他只会觉得“这不就是个倒霉蛋碰上了糟糕的一天嘛”。 Ben 随即打趣他看电影从不深入挖掘，Michael 大方承认自己充其量只是个“浅度观影者”（surface-level watcher）：“No, I am a I am a surface level watcher at best. And I surface level watched the shit out of this movie and I I had a good time.” 这部由主演亲自执导的影片虽然算不上什么神作，但具备了经典绑架悬疑片的全部要素，结尾甚至还有个意料之外的反转。Ben 则总结道，对于直接上线流媒体平台的电影，观众根本不该抱有过高的期望值，毕竟现在的流媒体自制电影整体水准“还没达到那个高度”。 ### [01:12:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btp2AupmwAM&t=4340s) 剧集推荐与节目收尾 两人的话题随后转向了热播剧集。Ben 询问 Michael 是否还在追 Jon Hamm 主演的剧集《American Primeval》（口误为 American Hospital），Michael 赞不绝口，直呼这部剧实在太精彩了。尽管他还没看到第五集，但对前面剧集中男主角诉说失去女儿的那场戏印象极为深刻，并由衷赞叹 Jon Hamm 的演技无懈可击。 在节目的尾声，Ben 提醒听众查看节目简介中的链接，尽早抢购 12 月在百老汇举办的 The Compound 现场活动门票，并提醒门票很快就会售罄。面对 Ben 在本期节目中发表的一系列激进观点，Michael 开玩笑说自己回家后得好好做功课、认真反思消化一下这些“滚烫的暴论”，Ben 则笑着让他把这些观点“放进烤箱里烤一烤”。最后，两人向听众致意并宣布本期节目结束。 - Michael 评价 Jon Hamm 在新剧中的演技：“John Ham is just amazing. I love that.” - Ben 提醒观众关注线下活动门票：“Check the show notes for links to the Broadway show December. Get your tickets now. They're going to go fast.” ## Notable quotes > [03:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btp2AupmwAM&t=181s) When there is a widening of breadth, when a lot of stocks are beating the market, that tends to happen in a bear market. — Michael Batnick > [27:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btp2AupmwAM&t=1628s) 0% interest rates led to no crisis. There was not a crisis that came about because of it. Higher rates are going to probably cause a crisis and they already have in the housing market. — Ben Carlson > [29:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btp2AupmwAM&t=1796s) The only rational take for people that are speaking into the microphone or onto their keyboard, for people that are communicating, trying to have an opinion with the public, be optimistic. — Michael Batnick > [25:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btp2AupmwAM&t=1522s) I think you could make the case the current situation is so bad for the economy for how bad it is for housing, how bad it is for borrowing that this right now is worse than ZERP. — Ben Carlson > [14:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btp2AupmwAM&t=875s) 我在退休账户里的表现规矩得多，从来没有做过蠢事，一次让我后悔的操作都没有；但我后悔在普通经纪账户里乱折腾的次数，大概是一百比一。 — Michael Batnick > [54:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btp2AupmwAM&t=3240s) 从交易活跃度来看，这很可能是大萧条以来我们见过的最糟糕的房地产市场 — Ben Carlson > [01:02:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btp2AupmwAM&t=3764s) 烂番茄作为真理的仲裁者，就像我们的许多其他机构一样，不幸的是，你已经不能信任它了。 — Michael Batnick > [01:06:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btp2AupmwAM&t=3969s) 莉姆·加拉格尔是我们拥有的最后一个真正的摇滚巨星，他只想做个摇滚巨星，根本不是为了作秀。 — Ben Carlson ## Mentioned ProShares, Ben Carlson, Michael Batnick, Josh Brown, Tom Lee, Nick Colas, Jessica Rabe, Ankur Crawford, Adam Parker, Michael Cembalest, Michael Mauboussin, Scott Galloway, Ray Dalio, Nick Maggiulli, Cullen Roche, Jason Furman, Scott Bessent, Edward Chancellor, Joe Weisenthal, Egan-Jones, Mark Zuckerberg, John Collison, Alexandr Wang, Meta, Anthropic, Claude, ChatGPT, Roundhill Investments, Western Digital, Micron, SanDisk, Seagate, Torsten Sløk, Apollo Global Management, Kalshi, Polymarket, Nike, Jordan, Daniel Cox, Derek Thompson, KB Home, PulteGroup, Lennar, Walt Disney World, Universal Studios, Paramount, Martin Scorsese, Steven Spielberg, Brad Pitt, Oasis, Noel Gallagher, Liam Gallagher, Emily St. John Mandel, Ben Affleck, Jon Hamm, American Primeval, The Glass Hotel, Animals ## Video description On episode 486 of Animal Spirits, Michael Batnick and Ben Carlson discuss: stock market concentration worries, how to hedge AI market risk, maxing out your 401k, who got richer this decade, AI is crowding out the economy, tariffs didn't work, higher rates are crushing the housing market, why people love parlays and longshot bets, Rotten Tomatoes inflation and more. THE COMPOUND X BROADWAY TICKETS: https://tcaf.ticketspice.com/the-compound-and-friends-live-on-broadway?utm_source=www.thecompoundnews.com&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=the-compound-on-broadway-tix-on-sale-now This episode is sponsored by ProShares.  Explore their full range of ETFs and market insights at https://proshares.com/animalspirits. ► 00:00 - ProShares Ad ► 01:09 - Intro ► 03:01 - Stock Market ► 18:15 - The Economy ► 29:55 - AI ► 42:13 - Prediction Markets ► 47:31 - Random ► 53:43 - Real Estate ► 55:37 - Entertainment ► 1:06:17 - Recommendations 👕 Check out The Compound shop: https://idontshop.com 🎙️Listen to our podcasts: TCAF: https://podcasts.thecompoundnews.com/show/TCAF/ Animal Spirits: https://podcasts.thecompoundnews.com/show/animalspirits/ Ask The Compound: https://podcasts.thecompoundnews.com/show/ATC/ The Compound Newsletter: https://www.thecompoundnews.com/subscribe Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-compound-media/ Instagram: https://instagram.com/thecompoundnews Twitter: https://twitter.com/thecompoundnews Tik Tok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thecompoundnews Investing involves the risk of loss. This podcast is for informational purposes only and should not be or regarded as personalized investment advice or relied upon for investment decisions. Michael Batnick and Ben Carlson are employees of Ritholtz Wealth Management and may maintain positions in the securities discussed in this video. All opinions expressed by them are solely their own opinion and do not reflect the opinion of Ritholtz Wealth Management. See our disclosures here: https://ritholtzwealth.com/podcast-youtube-disclosures/ The Compound Media, Incorporated, an affiliate of Ritholtz Wealth Management, receives payment from various entities for advertisements in affiliated podcasts, blogs and emails. Inclusion of such advertisements does not constitute or imply endorsement, sponsorship or recommendation thereof, or any affiliation therewith, by the Content Creator or by Ritholtz Wealth Management or any of its employees. For additional advertisement disclaimers see here https://ritholtzwealth.com/advertising-disclaimers. ProShares Disclosure: Investing involves risk, including the possible loss of principal. There is no guarantee any ProShares ETF will achieve its objective. ProShares leveraged and inverse ETFs have a daily investment objective. For any holding period other than a day, your return may be higher or lower than the Daily Target. These differences may be significant. Carefully consider the investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses of ProShares before investing. This and other information can be found in their summary and full prospectuses on ProShares.com. Read them carefully before investing. Distributor SEI Investments Distribution Co. #thecompound #investing #stockmarket [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btp2AupmwAM)

[3:01] Michael Batnick: When there is a widening of breadth, when a lot of stocks are beating the market, that tends to happen in a bear market. [27:08] Ben Carlson: 0% interest rates led to no crisis. There was not a crisis that came about because of it. Higher rates are going to probably cause a crisis and they already have in the housing market. [29:56] Michael Batnick: The only rational take for people that are speaking into the microphone or onto their keyboard, for people that are communicating, trying to have an opinion with the public, be optimistic. [25:22] Ben Carlson: I think you could make the case the current situation is so bad for the economy for how bad it is for housing, how bad it is for borrowing that this right now is worse than ZERP. [14:35] Michael Batnick: 我在退休账户里的表现规矩得多，从来没有做过蠢事，一次让我后悔的操作都没有；但我后悔在普通经纪账户里乱折腾的次数，大概是一百比一。 [54:00] Ben Carlson: 从交易活跃度来看，这很可能是大萧条以来我们见过的最糟糕的房地产市场 [62:44] Michael Batnick: 烂番茄作为真理的仲裁者，就像我们的许多其他机构一样，不幸的是，你已经不能信任它了。 [66:09] Ben Carlson: 莉姆·加拉格尔是我们拥有的最后一个真正的摇滚巨星，他只想做个摇滚巨星，根本不是为了作秀。

[5:01] Michael Batnick: We've never had a market this concentrated and it's fine until it's not. [46:58] Ben Carlson: Financially, young people are okay. I think mentally and socially, they’re in shambles. [54:00] Ben Carlson: This is quite possibly the worst housing market that we've seen since the Great Depression in terms of activity. [27:08] Ben Carlson: 0% interest rates led to no crisis. There was not a crisis that came about because of it. Higher rates are going to probably cause a crisis and they already have in the housing market.

[0:04] Today's Animal Spirits is brought to you [0:06] by ProShares, the world's largest [0:08] provider of leveraged and inverse ETFs. [0:10] Since 2006, ProShares has been offering [0:12] investors a lineup of NASDAQ 100 ETFs [0:14] that can't be found anywhere else. [0:16] Whether you're bullish and want to [0:17] magnify your daily returns or bearish on [0:20] looking for ETFs designed to increase [0:21] value in days when the NASDAQ 100 [0:23] declines, ProShares has you covered. [0:25] Explore their ETFs at [0:26] proshares.com/analpirits. [0:29] Investing involves risk, including the [0:31] possible loss of principle. There is no [0:32] guarantee any ProShares ETF will achieve [0:35] its objective. ProShares leverage and [0:37] inverse ETFs have a daily investment [0:38] objective for any holding period other [0:41] than a day. Your return may be higher or [0:43] lower than the daily target. These [0:45] differences may be significant. [0:47] Carefully consider the investment [0:48] objectives, risks, charges, and expenses [0:50] of ProShares before investing. This and [0:53] other information can be found in their [0:55] summary and full perspectuses on [0:57] prochess.com. Read them carefully before [1:00] investing. Distributor sei investments [1:02] distribution co. [1:09] Welcome to animal spirits with Michael [1:11] and Ben. Michael, we are coming to [1:13] Broadway in December. [1:16] So the link went live today. So you can [1:19] now buy your tickets. If you're signed [1:20] up for our newsletter, you should have [1:21] gotten that. Uh, I just want [music] to [1:24] talk real quick about the artwork here. [1:26] >> When you said we're coming to Broadway, [1:27] you were a little This is a little [1:28] vague. We're not It's not like you and I [1:29] are going on a date to Broadway. I mean, [1:31] I would love [1:32] >> You and I are going to go see Hamilton [1:33] or Lion King, [1:34] >> but [music] we're doing a We're doing a [1:36] We We are on Broadway. [1:38] >> Yeah. We're doing a live show. [1:40] >> You, Josh, and I. Plus, we're going to [1:42] have who else? Tom Lee, Nick Kohas, [1:44] Jessica Rae, Anchor Crawford, and Adam [1:46] Parker. [1:47] >> Mhm. It's going to be great. [1:49] >> Yeah. Early December. Tickets are on [1:51] sale. higher power in that lineup. Am I [1:53] right? [1:53] >> Yeah. Yeah. I I got to talk about the [1:55] the ad real quick, though. Josh got [1:57] Hamilton. You got the what's it called? [2:00] >> What's it called? [2:01] >> Oh, sorry. Phantom of the Opera. [2:03] >> Do you know you might not You definitely [2:04] don't know this about me. So, my my one [2:07] of my earliest I think pre-ivorce [2:09] memories, so I had to be 5 years old, [2:12] was going to see Phantom of the Opera. [2:15] And [2:15] >> you liked it? [2:16] >> Not only did I like it, Ben, I still [2:18] listen to the music. [2:19] >> Really? Okay. I would not not have [2:22] predicted you as a Broadway. [2:23] >> Mildly mild mildly embarrassing to [2:25] admit. I mean, I don't listen to it like [2:26] every, you know, every week, but here [2:28] and there when I'm feeling some [2:32] feelings. [2:33] >> I'm just saying. [2:34] >> Anyway, keep anyway, keep going. [2:35] >> Yeah. Josh got Hamilton, you got Phantom [2:37] of the Opera, and I got The Lion King. [2:40] >> I feel like you think you were shafted. [2:41] What's wrong with the Lion King? [2:43] >> Yeah, I guess it's I don't know. It [2:46] looks great. I did see The Lion King [2:47] before. Um, okay. It's going to be fun. [2:50] I can't wait. [2:52] >> Did you you didn't take your kids to see [2:53] The Lion King? [2:54] >> No, I went with my wife. [2:56] >> My kids have seen it though here. Not [2:58] Not on Broadway. All right. [3:01] I want to talk again about all the risks [3:02] that everyone always talks about. So, [3:04] right now, everyone has the same level [3:05] of worry about everything, right? [3:07] Worried about government debt levels. [3:08] We're worried about higher interest [3:09] rates. We're worried about an AI bubble. [3:11] And we're worried about stock market [3:12] concentration. [3:14] Michael, [3:15] >> what's that? What else we worried about? [3:19] deteriorating breath. [3:21] >> Ah, okay. Well, that that's kind of hand [3:22] in hand with concentration. It's funny [3:24] how often that es and flows and the [3:26] concentration thing really has been [3:28] going on for a long time. So, Michael [3:29] Seymblas has some really good charts on [3:30] this. It's funny. So, he shows share of [3:33] returns, earnings growth, and capex from [3:35] AI stocks since January 2024. [3:38] And it's so it's twothirds of the price [3:40] return, 60% of earnings growth, and 81% [3:44] of capex. [3:45] So obviously everything's concentrated. [3:48] And then he looks at also the percentage [3:50] of stocks um more than 20% below alltime [3:53] highs when the S&P was within 1% of its [3:55] alltime high. I feel like you've been [3:56] doing some work on this too. Similar, [3:57] right? That's the breadth thing. I I I [4:00] maybe I'm stealing this from you, but is [4:02] it possible that this stuff just doesn't [4:04] matter anymore because of the way the [4:05] market is constructed? [4:07] So like the con the concentration thing [4:10] could have mattered more in the past. So [4:11] this is this is this is a crazy one of [4:13] his. He shows, remember we talked a [4:16] couple weeks ago about are these AI [4:18] companies just immune to higher rates? [4:20] And he shows the net interest costs [4:23] versus the Fed funds rate. So this is [4:25] net interest cost as a percentage of [4:28] profits has continued to go down for [4:30] these companies while rates have gone [4:33] up. So they they were able to lock in [4:35] such low rates that this hasn't impacted [4:38] them at all or their profits have risen [4:39] so much it hasn't impacted them at all. [4:41] >> This is a this is a throwback chart. [4:43] This is this was one of the face blowing [4:45] charts from 2022 maybe when we were [4:48] scratching our head trying to figure out [4:50] why why corporate America was hanging in [4:53] there. I was like, "Oh yeah, I forgot [4:56] about what just happened over the last [4:57] 18 months. They just borrowed at 0%. [5:00] They're good." [5:01] >> I guess the the worry thing so you you [5:03] post I saw you talked about on TCAF your [5:05] your old pie chart thing where you [5:07] looked at the the biggest companies. [5:09] What did you do? The mag seven or the [5:10] top five versus the rest. Here's my take [5:13] on the concentration issue. [5:16] And yes, we've spoken about a lot about [5:18] this, but we're revisiting it today. [5:20] Michael Moeson has done work in the past [5:22] that said, "Be careful what you wish [5:24] for." [5:25] I think people think that uh [5:29] parody in the stock market is a good [5:31] thing where you don't have like massive [5:34] winners and losers. Wrong. when there is [5:38] a a a widening of breadth when a lot of [5:42] stocks are beating the market that tends [5:44] to happen in a bare market and as a [5:47] matter of fact it happened in 2001 [5:49] dramatically so but this concentration [5:52] issue these are natural monopolies that [5:55] we've been talking about for the last 15 [5:57] years and [6:00] it's not a problem until it is. So, it's [6:04] been a warning for so long. For so, so [6:07] long. Remember in 2018, [6:11] that was the first time Apple crossed a [6:12] trillion dollars. And there were so many [6:16] people who thought they were so clever, [6:20] thinking how poetic it would be that [6:22] that would be the top, a trillion dollar [6:24] company. Give me a break. How could [6:25] there be a trillion dollar company? So [6:27] in in July 2018, I made a pie chart and [6:32] I showed that the top five stocks in the [6:35] market and at the time it was it doesn't [6:38] matter what it was. We know what it was. [6:40] They were equal to the bottom 282 [6:44] companies in the index. And it was like [6:48] whoa h how can this be? Like pause. How [6:51] can this be? [6:53] So that was June July 2018. I reran [6:56] those numbers today and the top five [6:59] stocks are now equal to the bottom 434. [7:03] It went from the bottom 282 to the [7:05] bottom 434. [7:07] So I went through which bottom 434 by [7:11] the way that stocks like 67 through 500. [7:14] >> The funny thing is your chart here you [7:15] can see it falling. When was it falling? [7:17] In the last decade to your point about [7:18] bull markets versus bare markets, [7:20] >> right? So we have a chart that shows the [7:23] top five equals the bottom X over time [7:24] and it's been going up and to the right [7:26] for a long time. So I think it's more [7:29] nuanced than concentration doesn't [7:30] matter. But a lot of the breadth stuff [7:33] that we are seeing today where the index [7:35] can be up here and so many stocks can be [7:38] down here is a feature of the modern [7:40] bull market. And I'm not saying that [7:42] it's good, bad or otherwise. It just is. [7:44] And so that's why you have all these [7:46] data points that look completely screwy. [7:48] We've never had a market this [7:49] concentrated and it's fine until it's [7:52] not. [7:52] >> So the thing is the the problem though [7:55] is this could last for this could be a [7:57] 20 to 30 year secular thing. This is not [7:59] something that could all of a sudden [8:00] just end like concentration just could [8:02] be something we're dealing with. I look [8:04] >> we've been saying that forever. No, I [8:05] mean [8:08] I've I've I feel like I've been pushing [8:10] back on this for a long time. Every [8:12] decade you have the top 10 stocks and [8:14] they always change. And I feel like for [8:17] a long time I've said I don't know I [8:19] feel like this is different like the [8:20] Apple and Amazon are very different than [8:22] General Electric and AT&T and Ford. [8:26] >> Well the the the risk was 10 years ago [8:28] people said well the biggest risk here [8:30] is that the government is going to break [8:31] up these companies. And I think what [8:32] we've discovered is that first of all [8:33] the government doesn't want to. And [8:34] second of all consumers don't want them [8:36] to either. It would have to come from [8:38] them. And I the 2018 that must have been [8:40] right when people really started [8:41] worrying because that's when you [8:42] produced your chart and I looked when's [8:44] the first time I wrote about this [8:45] >> and I wrote this and this is from I I [8:48] found this piece in July 2018 and it [8:51] said CNBC said that three stocks Amazon, [8:53] Netflix and Microsoft make up 70% of the [8:55] gains in the S&P, the NASDAQ and so [8:57] they're showing their how concerned they [8:59] were about Amazon, Netflix, Microsoft, [9:01] Apple, Alphabet and Facebook in 2018 [9:04] being too much of the return for the [9:06] S&P. Scott Galloway's book came out, the [9:08] four. That was I think what like really [9:12] made this take off because he gave that [9:13] incredible talk that went viral. [9:15] Remember that? [9:16] >> Yes. [9:16] >> That was October 2017. So he had to have [9:19] been working on that book in 2015 2016. [9:22] We've been talking about this for a full [9:24] decade. [9:25] >> But the the strange thing is that this [9:27] year, if you look at just year-to- date [9:28] returns this year, people are worried [9:29] about concentration. Again, small cap [9:31] stocks, the Russell 2000 is up 15%. [9:33] Which is actually outperforming the S&P [9:35] by a decent amount. The S&P is up, I [9:36] don't know, 12%, 13%. Uh, the equal [9:39] weight is up almost 13%. Midcaps are up [9:42] almost 12%. So, it's not like these [9:44] other stocks are just getting killed and [9:46] not going anywhere. The other stocks are [9:48] actually doing okay now. [9:49] >> There's a bunch of stocks that are [9:50] getting killed. [9:51] >> Well, of course, but I'm saying if you [9:52] look at small caps, midcaps, equal [9:54] weight, they're all double digits this [9:56] year. [9:56] >> You're right. You're right. Um, and this [9:57] is this is very important because [9:59] anytime we talk about these numbers, you [10:01] have to bring the fundamentals back into [10:03] the story just to like [10:05] uh show that this is not completely [10:08] >> Yeah, it's grounded in reality, [10:09] >> divorced from reality. [10:11] >> So, the trailing 12-month net income of [10:13] the top five stocks is also equal to the [10:18] bottom 436 companies. It lines up almost [10:21] perfectly. [10:22] >> Yeah, the share of profits is following [10:24] the share of the stocks. The other thing [10:26] is if if you're really worried about [10:27] concentration risk, especially a that's [10:30] that's the other worry I guess people [10:31] would say like this is all one trade. [10:32] That's what everyone is saying now, [10:33] right? This is all one trade. [10:34] >> Yeah. Not untrue. [10:35] >> And I'm not trying to poo poo this, but [10:37] if you want to hedge the concentration [10:39] risk, it's easy. Here's your playbook. [10:41] You buy bonds because if if the AI trade [10:43] stops, inflation will fall, rates will [10:45] fall. You buy European equities because [10:48] if [10:49] >> No, listen. I'm just kidding. [10:51] >> But if AI there's no there's not as much [10:52] tech exposure there. If AI blows up, the [10:55] dollar will fall. Cuz this is a US [10:57] story. [10:57] >> Yeah. [10:57] >> So if AI blows up, the dollar will fall. [10:59] European equities will do fine. They [11:00] don't have the big tech sector. You buy [11:02] REITs, rate sensitive stuff, anything [11:04] value, quality, dividend paying, like [11:06] that's your playbook for how to hedge [11:07] this if you're really worried about [11:08] concentration. It's easy to it's easy to [11:10] diversify it. [11:11] >> Great point. Great point. [11:13] >> It's very simple. [11:14] >> Uh but one more thing, do you remember [11:16] when the narrative was that the only [11:18] reason growth stocks worked was because [11:20] of ZERP? [11:21] >> Yes. like it was like, "Hey, listen. We [11:22] can we can pay anything for these stocks [11:24] because rates are low. When rates come [11:26] back up, then they have to have actually [11:27] have a story." And guess what? The rates [11:28] came back up and growth stocks are still [11:30] working. [11:31] >> Well, that that you're right. That [11:34] narrative was definitely true for the [11:35] shitty growth stocks, [11:37] >> right? [11:38] >> Like the stocks that can never grow into [11:39] their [11:40] >> Yeah. But all these other ones actually [11:41] did grow into their valuations. That's [11:43] the crazy part. [11:44] >> All right. I'm just going to shoehorn [11:45] this Ray Dalia quote in here. So, Yahoo [11:48] Finance posted uh [11:50] >> Ray Dalia was kind of like your nemesis [11:52] lately. [11:52] >> Ray Dalia says, "Bubbles usually pop [11:54] when people have to sell to spend their [11:55] paper worth." Okay, here's a quote. [12:00] Everybody says I'm worth a billion [12:01] dollars, but okay, try to spend that. [12:05] This guy's out of touch. [12:07] >> Everybody Everybody says, "Uh, I'm worth [12:10] a billion dollars." By the way, I was [12:11] marinating over that take last week. [12:13] Everybody's out of touch. Yeah, of [12:14] course. You know what? We're all in [12:15] touch with our own lives. I don't Yeah, [12:17] I don't know what your life is like. I [12:18] don't know what most [12:19] >> everyone everyone's out of touch. The [12:21] funny thing is is that what would [12:23] actually cause rich people to have to [12:25] spend their wealth like their paper [12:26] wealth? [12:27] >> Everybody says I'm worth a billion [12:28] dollars. [12:29] >> What is But this this sounds like a [12:31] really smart quote. Like just what [12:33] happens if everyone has to go sell, [12:34] right? But what would cause really rich [12:36] people to actually have to go sell all [12:37] their assets? [12:38] >> What happens when boomers sell all their [12:39] stocks to uh in their 401ks? [12:41] >> Yeah, exactly. [12:42] >> Just get out of here with the nonsense. [12:44] >> All right. This is kind of impressive. [12:45] You talked about the growth stocks that [12:46] got killed. Uh this is from the the Wall [12:49] Street Journal. They they're talking [12:51] about the fact that options activity is [12:52] back to where it was in the 2021 [12:54] heights. And that was that was a mini [12:56] bubble to me. The mean [12:58] >> that was that was a mania. [13:00] >> That Yeah, in a lot of ways it was. But [13:02] so they look at a average single stock [13:04] option volume daily is right back up to [13:08] it crashed big time after 2021 and now [13:11] it's right back there. This is actually [13:12] kind of impressive that these these [13:14] degenerates did not go away quietly. [13:17] That was the whole thing. Once this [13:18] blows up, they're going away. They're [13:19] back. [13:22] >> You know what's not back? [13:24] >> One of the one of the one of the stocks [13:27] from the mania [13:29] uh Stitch Fix. The stock is at $2.75 and [13:33] you are doing your damnedest to keep [13:35] this company in business. That is a [13:36] snazzy looking What is that? A cardigan [13:39] overcoat peac coat. What are we looking [13:41] at? I don't know what [13:41] >> Dun and I were talking maybe maybe [13:43] military jacket. The funny thing is is [13:44] that I actually bought the the CEO for [13:47] that company was on Patrick Oonessy's [13:48] podcast and she told a great story and [13:51] it was a and I bought the stock and [13:52] actually did really well and then she [13:54] quit and I was like okay I'm out. I and [13:58] the stock is down like 95% since then. [14:00] It got I don't know. I'm like I must be [14:02] the only one who still uses them. You [14:03] can now like [14:04] >> upload your photo. [14:06] >> What a pandemic story this was. I mean [14:08] obviously this company's going to work. [14:09] Nobody could shop. But isn't this the [14:11] Isn't this why like some of the stuff [14:13] about shopping using an AI agent is a [14:15] little overblown? I think people have [14:17] shown that they enjoy shopping. [14:20] >> Maybe not for everything, but the whole [14:21] idea that like your AI agent is going to [14:23] do all the shopping for you and pick it [14:24] like I think people still want to do [14:26] that. I think people get whatever the [14:28] dopamine hit that is from shopping. Like [14:29] I enjoy shopping. [14:30] >> I love shopping. Who doesn't like [14:32] spending money? [14:34] >> Okay. Yeah, good point. Um All right. [14:35] Here's here's a story that where the the [14:37] the headline of the story does not match [14:39] the actual what's going on in the story. [14:41] So, this says this is on Bloomberg. High [14:43] earners stop maxing out 401ks betting [14:46] they can outsmart retirement savings. [14:48] Armed with a flood of online investing [14:49] advice, savvy savers on a hunt for [14:50] better ways to grow their money. Now, [14:52] you look at this and you go, "Oh boy, [14:54] this is this is a sign of the times." [14:56] >> Right? This is You read that headline [14:58] and you go, "This is this is not good." [14:59] But if you look at the actual story, [15:01] they interviewed a bunch of financial [15:02] adviserss and they're asking like why is [15:04] this happening? People I guess people [15:06] are not maxing out their 41ks anymore as [15:08] much as they did in the past. Even [15:10] wealthy people, people who make like [15:11] $150,000 or more are not doing it. And [15:14] they say, well, why is this happening? [15:15] And a lot of people have decided that [15:17] it's just more flexibility if you have [15:19] money in a brokerage account even though [15:20] you're paying taxes. And we've gotten [15:22] like on Ask the Compound, we've gotten a [15:23] million questions from people going, you [15:24] know what, I saved for my first 20 years [15:26] of my career. I'm in my late 40s now. [15:28] What if I want to retire early and all [15:30] my money is in a tax deferred retirement [15:31] account? I think it's actually better [15:33] for me to put money in a brokerage even [15:35] though there is a potential tax hit [15:37] there and even though a 401k is more [15:39] convenient. [15:40] >> My my take and this is a personal take. [15:42] >> I am so much better behaved [15:46] >> in my retirement accounts. [15:48] >> I have never done anything stupid. [15:52] >> Not one time have I done something that [15:55] I regret in my retirement account. Do [15:57] you know how many times I've regretted [15:59] doing something in my brokerage account? [16:02] >> 100 to one. [16:03] >> How often do you check your 401k [16:05] balance? Basically never probably, [16:06] right? [16:07] >> It's it's linked to my Fidelity [16:08] brokerage. So, I see it, but I'm not [16:10] >> But it's not like your brokerage where [16:11] you're constantly checking the [16:12] performance and the [16:15] >> Yeah, I and I think I I don't think I'm [16:17] an outlier here. I need my retirement [16:18] account to keep me to keep me to keep my [16:20] hands off the wheel. [16:21] >> I agree that there there's something [16:22] just convenient about it, especially it [16:24] comes right out of your account. It's [16:25] easy. It's automated. I agree that [16:27] there's something to that. I think these [16:28] are more people who are really trying [16:30] to, [16:31] >> you know, overopimize, but [16:32] >> I understand and and there's there there [16:34] is people there are people that are [16:36] optimizers that are machines like Nick [16:39] Mulli that can do it. I'm not one of [16:41] those people. [16:42] >> Yes. I agree. Most people need that [16:44] barrier. [16:45] >> I need like nope. This is 30 years. All [16:47] right. Out of sight, out of mind. [16:49] >> All right. So, I had a shoe shine moment [16:50] at the airport this past week. I [16:52] traveled a little bit last week. I've [16:54] got to tell you this. I I almost [16:55] recorded this conversation. I I almost [16:56] wanted to. So, I'm sitting at a flight [16:58] and our flight gets delayed. And I've [17:00] got a story about that later for the [17:01] travel section. And there's a young 20 [17:04] bro who's got like his hat on backwards [17:06] and he's got his AirPods in. He's got [17:07] his sunglasses on in the airport and [17:08] he's walking back and forth having a [17:10] conversation with another bro on the [17:11] phone. Okay? And I hear him talking and [17:13] he's talking very loudly so everyone can [17:14] hear them. You know those people, right? [17:16] They don't they want everyone to hear [17:17] their conversation. And he's talking [17:19] about how he's spending all this money [17:20] on concerts. He's like, "Guy, I blew [17:21] 1,500 bucks on his concert." And but and [17:23] I spent this much on his concert. And he [17:26] goes, "Bro," you know, he's one of those [17:27] guys that uses bro every other. It's a [17:29] crutch, right? I I can't judge cuz I [17:31] when I was younger, it was dude. We said [17:33] dude for every other word. So the people [17:35] who now use bro, [17:36] >> I say dude and bro. I I call it Chris. [17:38] Dude, bro, dude, you don't say dude or [17:39] bro. [17:40] >> Yeah. I do it ironically to my son [17:42] because he says it all the time. So this [17:44] guy says, "Listen, man. I I luckily I [17:48] was able to sell some stocks to pay for [17:49] this because otherwise I was going to go [17:51] in debt. And he goes if the stock market [17:53] stops going up I'm [17:57] like put a hand on his shoulder and just [17:59] just say like listen this I think this [18:01] is just something everyone needs to [18:02] learn. It was just it was [18:03] >> in my brain before as you're telling [18:05] that story I'm like ah shoe shine story. [18:07] Everybody knows everything about the [18:08] stock market. There's there's no more [18:10] signal there. And I don't think that's I [18:12] mean that's just that is pretty funny. [18:13] That's a good one. [18:14] >> Yes. Okay. All [18:16] right, I don't want to be totally locked [18:18] in as the anti- anti- survey guy all the [18:21] time that like questions everything, but [18:23] I do think it's worth questioning stuff. [18:24] So, I want to talk about the this story [18:26] in the Wall Street Journal that had a [18:28] that was going around and kind of went [18:29] viral. So, every 3 years, the Fed does [18:33] this survey of consumer finances. And [18:34] this thing is like the gold standard of [18:37] wealth in America, [18:39] right? So, Nick wrote a book using a lot [18:41] of this data. It's it's they do it every [18:42] three years. So 2019, 2022, 2025 just [18:46] came out. All the econ went crazy for [18:48] this. Okay, so look at the change in [18:51] median net worth adjusted for inflation [18:53] by age and it shows for people who are [18:55] 75 or older, it went up 35%. For people [18:58] who are 35 and younger, it was down more [19:00] than 20%. [19:01] And it was kind of uneven for most of [19:03] these people. And I looked at this data [19:06] and I thought [19:08] something about it doesn't make sense to [19:09] me because 2022 was a bare market. [19:13] Stocks down, bonds down, both down big. [19:17] 2022 is also a peak for inflation. Do [19:20] you know what the average inflation rate [19:21] is from 2023 to 2025 if you had to [19:24] guess? [19:25] >> 3.4 [19:26] >> 3% per year. Not that high. So all the [19:29] infla high inflation that already kind [19:30] of happened. [19:31] >> Mhm. So you had and again this is all [19:33] inflationadjusted data. So I kind of [19:36] went and looked in this because it's [19:37] crazy. So Cullen said that median real [19:40] household wealth has exploded 91% since [19:42] 2013. That's a massive number adjusted [19:44] for inflation. So I looked at a lot of [19:46] these numbers and I couldn't quite wrap [19:48] my head around it. And a lot of it is [19:50] there was it was like 140% increase for [19:52] for 30 under 35 from 2019 to 2022. So [19:58] have so even with the decrease in 23% in [20:01] the last three years that group has seen [20:03] the biggest increase under 35. [20:06] But I also dug into the data and they [20:08] they have this and I said well how many [20:10] people are actually answering these [20:11] surveys and again this this is the gold [20:13] standard. So I'm not trying to totally [20:15] debunk it but look at this. This is from [20:18] this survey. Uh in 2016 the general [20:22] population the people you' send this to [20:23] 65% of people would respond. Now it's [20:25] 45%. But wealthy people used to be 33%, [20:29] now it's 24%. [20:31] So rich people are no longer answering [20:33] surveys and do so at a much lower rate. [20:36] And so I'm just wondering if these [20:38] numbers are going to start getting [20:39] screwy and not be representative because [20:41] the last three years has been a raging [20:43] bull market. I know not everyone owns [20:44] financial assets. A lot of the data [20:46] showed if you own financial assets, you [20:47] did really well. If you didn't, you [20:49] didn't do as well. But I'm kind of [20:51] questioning these numbers a little bit [20:53] because rich people aren't answering [20:54] surveys anymore. So I think it's under [20:56] reportporting the wealth of the country. [20:59] Is that Do you think that's a fair take? [21:01] >> Totally. [21:03] >> Right. Because [21:04] >> Well, it's beyond fair. It's just I mean [21:06] I feel like what you just said, you laid [21:08] out a case that's not based on opinion. [21:11] It's based on numbers. And if [21:15] if you have less wealthy people [21:18] answering, [21:20] then the outcome will be skewed [21:22] lower. No. [21:23] >> Exactly. Am I miss am I missing [21:25] something? [21:25] >> That's what I'm saying. [21:27] >> Okay. [21:27] >> I don't know that there's not a way to [21:28] fix this. But that that's why I think [21:31] that everywhere the millionaire [21:32] millionaire book was so good cuz they [21:33] used actual tax returns of people. They [21:36] went to the actual source of the data [21:37] and got it. Not they didn't ask people [21:40] how do you feel? How are you doing [21:41] financially? They looked at the actual [21:43] numbers. That's why I think that book [21:45] was so important. [21:46] >> Another good data point in here is the [21:49] change since 2019. I saw a few people [21:51] sharing this, [21:52] >> right? Under 35 is up almost 90%. After [21:55] inflation, so that's the biggest [21:57] increase. So it it it could be that [21:59] maybe some of that original increase in [22:01] the 3 years prior was too high and this [22:03] one was too low and when you average [22:04] them out, they look better. But yeah, [22:06] that's the point. After inflation, [22:07] everyone is doing a lot better. [22:10] So still good news, I'd say. But I'm I'm [22:13] questioning a little bit. All right. Is [22:15] AI good for the economy and bad for the [22:17] economy? This J, you saw this Jason [22:18] Ferman chart here. [22:20] >> Yep. [22:21] >> Real construction spending [22:23] year-over-year. Data centers up 65%. [22:27] Everything else almost multif family, [22:30] single family home, residential, [22:31] healthcare, commercial, education, [22:33] offices, lodging, manufacturing, all [22:35] down. And manufacturing was down [22:38] [snorts] huge. So it look from this [22:41] chart looks like over the last year the [22:43] only thing getting built is AI stuff. [22:46] So, it's funny that everyone says, [22:48] "Well, AI is propping up the economy, [22:50] but is it's also kind of crowding stuff [22:53] out and holding everything else back." [22:54] Is that fair? [22:58] >> So, is there any possibility that we [23:01] could see a flipping of this if AI [23:03] suffers and this stuff comes back a [23:04] little bit? [23:06] Probably not in time to [23:07] >> No, it's not it's not like the stock [23:09] market [23:10] >> where they could just pass the baton. [23:11] Yeah. I think this this is going to this [23:13] is going to take a while. This might [23:14] this might get worse. But do you [23:16] remember so manufacturing down 24%. [23:18] Remember that was the big thing from the [23:20] tariffs that Scott Besson said it's time [23:23] no more Wall Street. It's time for Main [23:24] Street. We're going to bring [23:25] manufacturing back. That was the whole [23:27] idea of tariffs. We're bringing [23:28] manufacturing back to our shores. That [23:31] was the idea. Obviously, that didn't [23:33] happen. And if you look at it, uh the [23:36] New York Fed did this report. I'm sure [23:37] you saw this. Uh by February 2026, [23:40] tariffs had contributed 2.9 percentage [23:42] points to the goods price inflation. [23:44] Without them, goods prices would have [23:45] fallen significantly. So they show what [23:46] happened. They they look at what [23:48] happened. It says tariff tariffs raise [23:50] consumer goods prices and it it was a 3 [23:52] percentage point difference. [23:54] Dog coming in. [23:57] >> She is having a great time. [24:00] >> What are you doing? [24:00] >> It's a tough life. Tough life being a [24:01] dog, isn't it? [24:05] >> Hello. I'm not sure what she's doing. [24:08] >> They show the counterfactual without [24:09] tariffs and with tariffs. What happened? [24:11] and we got 3 percentage point increase [24:12] in goods prices. [24:15] I think this this is possibly one of the [24:18] worst economic ideas we've ever had. [24:21] There there's no you can know there's no [24:23] tangible benefit that you can say well [24:24] it did actually bring more manufacturing [24:26] jobs. It did bring there was no benefit [24:29] whatsoever to this. Not one. [24:31] >> One of the rare times where I think most [24:33] sane people said this is a terrible [24:36] idea. Not even like a partisan type of [24:38] thing. I feel like a lot everybody was [24:39] like whoa. [24:42] >> Other than the people on the te [24:43] everybody said like this is this is a [24:46] this is nope let's not do [24:47] >> you remember there was people going on [24:49] CNBC saying we need to have a recession [24:52] to do this to make this manufacturing [24:55] stuff happen. Now, you could say, [24:56] "Listen, hey, we're there's a ton of new [24:59] construction jobs for creating data [25:00] centers." That that's a that's probably [25:02] something that you could [25:03] >> Am I am I am I misremembering them [25:05] saying that the the Besson saying the [25:08] the economy needs to take its medicine? [25:10] >> Yeah, there's a lot of people saying we [25:12] need to go we need to have a recession. [25:13] >> Not not people like literally was was [25:15] Besson saying it? I don't I can't quite [25:16] remember. [25:18] >> I I'm sure I don't know. There was a lot [25:19] of people who said that. All right. I [25:22] have a controversial take for you [25:24] because I I I think right now So did you [25:27] read the book The Price of Time by [25:29] Edward Chancellor? [25:30] >> It's one of those books, Ben, that's [25:32] been on my shelf that I probably will [25:33] never read. I would like to, but [25:35] >> it's it's like the it's bonds, right? [25:37] >> Yes. [25:38] >> TLDDR. It's the story. It's but it's [25:40] also the story of why we need interest [25:42] rates. And it's it's kind of like the [25:44] pricing of risk and and interest rates [25:46] are like the price of time and the price [25:48] of risk and every it's like and the [25:50] whole point was 0% interest rates are [25:53] causing way more problems than they [25:55] could than fixing anything, right? And [25:57] the point was this is going to lead to [25:59] huge imbalances and big problems. And I [26:02] think you could make the case. Everyone [26:04] talked about how bad ZERP was going to [26:05] be and how it's going to cause a crisis [26:06] that never happened. I think you could [26:08] say that right now higher interest rates [26:10] are worse than Zerp was [26:14] for the economy. [26:16] Zerp really didn't cause any I mean sure [26:18] there was some venture capital risks [26:19] being taken and stuff funded. I think [26:21] you could make the case the current [26:23] situation is so bad for the economy for [26:25] how bad it is for housing, how bad it is [26:28] for borrowing that this right now is [26:30] worse than ZERP. [26:31] >> Okay. I feel like that's an interesting [26:33] point that I don't feel qualified to [26:35] answer. I'd like to hear like Neil Dada [26:37] debate somebody. I don't even know which [26:38] side Neil would be on, but um I feel [26:40] like that's an economist. That's [26:42] >> housing. The housing activity is [26:43] absolutely dead. That's 20% of the [26:46] economy. [26:48] I'm not saying we should go back to [26:49] Zerp, but I'm saying [26:50] >> okay, my knee-jerk reaction is no, [26:52] that's not right. I don't think [26:53] >> for our current economy, lower rates, [26:56] say 2 to 3% versus four to 5%. Lower [26:59] rates are better than higher rates. [27:01] >> Yeah. Wow. How quickly you just moved [27:03] the goalpost, Ben Carlson. [27:05] I I'm I'm not trying to say that we need [27:08] to go back. [27:08] >> Ah, what a take. Ben Ben Ben Carlson [27:10] says that two and a half% rates are [27:11] better than five in this current [27:13] economy. Stop the presses. [27:15] >> No, my big take is I think higher rates, [27:17] current level rates right now are worse [27:19] for the economy than ZERP was in all the [27:21] 2010s. [27:21] >> Okay. So, do you really believe that? [27:24] >> I I do believe that. [27:26] >> What What did Zerp cause? What what [27:29] imbalances did Zer cause that led to a [27:31] crisis? Give give it a week and let's [27:34] let's re we could rehash this. [27:36] I think I feel like you need to like [27:38] really think about this. [27:38] >> Yeah, I know. I want you to think about [27:39] it. I've thought about it. I [27:41] >> I feel you know what I I'm I'm very [27:42] busy. I'm going see Metallic though this [27:43] weekend. I don't feel like thinking [27:44] about it. You think about it. [27:45] >> 0% interest rates led to no crisis. [27:47] There was not a crisis that came about [27:49] because of it. Higher rates are going to [27:51] probably cause a crisis and they already [27:53] have in the housing market. [27:55] All right, here's another take. Ready? I [27:58] I'm full of takes today, so I'm just [28:00] going to keep throwing them at you. [28:01] >> Okay, go ahead. [28:03] >> So, Joe Weisenthal shared this thing [28:04] from um Egan Jones. [28:06] >> Wait, hang on. I have I have one just [28:07] one thing to say. I think there are [28:09] people that draw a direct line from Zerp [28:11] era to like populism, [28:14] right? Like Zerb caused wealth [28:17] inequality and I I reject that [28:19] wholeheartedly. [28:21] To me, that's nonsense. Our system [28:23] causes wealth inequality because right [28:25] now when rates are higher, people go, [28:26] "Well, this is bad for wealth inequality [28:28] because it's just rich asset owners who [28:30] are getting higher interest rates now." [28:31] >> So any any situation you can say this is [28:34] bad for wealth inequality. [28:35] >> All right. What's your next take? [28:37] >> All right. It's really weird that the [28:39] two biggest economies of the last 50 [28:41] years besides the United States, we [28:42] can't use them to compare to our economy [28:44] at all. Japan was like the biggest [28:47] outlier ever. Same thing with China. [28:49] It's very bizarre that the two other [28:51] biggest economies have no bearing in [28:54] reality to like economic theory. [28:56] >> So Egan Jones shows because think about [28:59] Japan. [29:00] >> 30 years of deflation, low interest [29:02] rates. It's kind of like, yeah, but that [29:03] was Japan. That's an outlier. China, [29:06] they show nominal G, they show all these [29:07] economic statistics from 2004 to 2025. [29:11] Nominal GDP growth. Canada or China [29:13] smoked us. Real GDP growth. Smoked us. [29:16] Um, average wage growth. Their wages [29:18] were up 13 times. Ours were up 2.2 times [29:21] 2000 to 2024. But then they showed the [29:23] shareholder our stock return, our [29:25] profits, our return on capital, all this [29:27] other stuff. There's no there's no [29:30] relationship between China's economic [29:32] performance and the performance of their [29:33] financial markets. And so it's like [29:36] they're the they're another outlier. You [29:37] have to just kind of be like, "Yeah, but [29:38] that's China. Throw them away." Like the [29:40] two biggest other economies are total [29:42] outliers that make no sense. [29:44] >> Mhm. [29:44] >> Absolutely no sense. in the last 50 [29:46] years. There's no [29:47] >> then you reason to it. [29:48] >> You are on a heater, my friend. [29:52] >> I got a lot of thoughts going on up here [29:53] that this uh Right. [29:56] >> Yeah. [29:56] >> All right. Did you Did you listen to the [29:58] Mark Zuckerberg um thing with John [30:00] Collison? Were they drinking? What's it [30:02] called? Pint something. Did you listen [30:03] to any of it? [30:04] >> No, but I did see him try and drink in. [30:06] And that was [laughter] that was funny. [30:08] >> Guess what? Mark Zuckerberg probably [30:10] can't split the G like yours truly. [30:12] >> Correct. No chance. [30:13] >> Uh that was very funny. He took a sip of [30:15] and it looked like someone had just like [30:17] I don't know [30:18] >> Did he swirl it around a little bit? [30:20] >> They he he drank a pint and a half they [30:22] said and that so they sit and they talk [30:24] and it was him and Alexander Wang who's [30:27] like the head of their AI build out and [30:30] this is this is obvious but they were [30:33] talking about like the huge huge [30:34] investment that they had to make to get [30:37] this and and Zuckerberg's like listen [30:39] there's no like dipping your toe in the [30:41] water here. It's like you either write a [30:43] huge huge check and try to make this [30:45] happen or you don't do it at all. And [30:47] they were like, "But our CFO said, [30:50] listen, if this is good, it's it's it's [30:52] all good. If we get a return on this and [30:54] it works, it's fine. But we're spending [30:56] so much money that if it's bad, [30:57] >> if it's if it's good, it's good." [30:59] >> Yeah. But she's she's this is her CFO [31:01] being like, "Listen, guys, if we spend [31:03] this money and this we get no return on [31:04] this, it doesn't doesn't work, this is [31:06] going to be really really really bad." [31:09] and they're like, "Yeah, there's there's [31:10] no there's no middle ground here." So [31:12] that that this is the thing. I guess [31:14] this is why the people who keep worrying [31:15] about AI risks is that there there's no [31:18] soft landing scenario here if this [31:20] doesn't work, [31:22] right? This is either it has to work or [31:24] there's a hard landing. [31:25] >> So I've got a take. The only rational [31:28] take for people that are speaking into [31:31] the microphone or onto their keyboard, [31:33] for people that are communicating, [31:34] trying to have an opinion with the [31:35] public, be optimistic. [31:38] It's sort of like it's sort of like [31:40] talking about the stock market. If the [31:42] stock market crashes, like you don't get [31:44] any points, everybody's still pissed [31:46] off. But if things go okay and you're [31:48] the boy who cried wolf, people just [31:49] think you're a joke. And I think it's [31:52] there's parallels here. Let's assume the [31:54] world doesn't end, right? Like just act [31:56] as if this is not Terminator 2. Great. [31:59] Everything's fine. But if it's 2034 and [32:03] you're still like hemming and hong about [32:05] we're all going to die, it's just like [32:07] you you become you become an unserious [32:10] person. [32:11] >> That's a good take. I I also like the [32:13] idea that I I think too many people have [32:15] thought about the dot risk and how that [32:17] was like a 12-year bare market for [32:19] stock. Like I think if there was a hard [32:21] landing, it would be very swift. We we'd [32:23] get a swift kick to the pants and then [32:25] guess what? AI is still probably going [32:27] to work. Well, I guess the the [32:29] counterpoint to that would be there's [32:30] just there's a lot of money that's [32:33] trapped burning on fire and what sort of [32:36] damage does that cause throughout the [32:37] economy? [32:39] >> But this to me [32:40] >> there's trillions of dollars that might [32:41] just be gone in that in that case. [32:44] >> But this is not like a metaverse web 3 [32:46] situation where it's like, okay, that [32:49] was absolutely nothing. That did that [32:51] whole thing was what were we thinking? [32:53] This [32:53] >> is this too simple? This has to work and [32:55] it has to work. I think so. That's kind [32:58] of what they were saying, like we have [32:59] we literally we have to make this work. [33:01] >> All right. So, maybe it doesn't. I don't [33:03] know. I I choose to to believe in the [33:05] dorks on this one. [33:06] >> No, but I tend to think that we're going [33:07] to get a like 30% bare market from this. [33:10] I I'm [33:13] 57% positive about this. Okay. There's [33:15] probably going to be like a 30% swift [33:17] bare market because some hiccup in AI [33:21] and then it's still [33:22] >> I say 90% likelihood of that happening. [33:24] I mean, at some point, obviously, [33:25] >> come on. But but it's going to be like [33:27] an unbelievable buying opportunity and [33:28] we're still going to get everything they [33:30] say and more about AI. [33:31] >> Okay. I hope you're right. Um I uh I [33:34] coded for the first time. This is [33:35] exciting. Ben, who says you can't teach [33:36] an old bald dog new tricks. [33:39] So after every animal spirit show, we've [33:43] got like I don't know 15 to 20 [33:45] categories in the dock. Stock market, [33:47] economy, personal finance, AI, blah blah [33:48] blah blah blah. And when we're done with [33:50] the show, somebody on our team goes in [33:53] there and will delete everything for us. [33:56] But oftentimes, not often, it happens. I [33:58] don't know, whatever. It happens where [34:00] we'll we're done with the show. 20 [34:01] minutes later, I see something I want to [34:03] drop in the dock. The dock isn't clean. [34:04] I have to clean the dock. Not a huge [34:06] deal. It's just a little bit tedious. [34:08] Certainly for the person whose job it is [34:10] to do it or whose responsibility is to [34:12] do it. And for us, it's just it's [34:13] annoying. So, I typed into Claude, "Hey, [34:17] we've got 15 categories in in big bold [34:20] red font. [34:23] Can you help me delete everything [34:25] between every section?" [34:27] So, it gave me a bunch of code. It told [34:31] me what to do. I copied and pasted it [34:33] into somewhere inside of Google. And now [34:36] on top where it says file, edit, view, [34:39] insert, format, right? You know those [34:41] buttons on top of the Google doc? [34:42] There's a button that says episode tools [34:45] >> clear for next episode. [34:49] >> Great. [34:49] >> I mean, how great is that? [34:51] >> You didn't really code. You AI coded for [34:54] you and you copy and pasted it. [34:55] >> Of of course. But [34:56] >> but I see it. It's on here and it it [34:58] works. [34:58] >> So all of the trillions of dollars that [35:00] they're spending to save me six minutes. [35:02] Absolutely. [35:03] >> Yeah. [laughter] That's worth a trillion [35:05] dollars. All right. Here's a good one. [35:06] This this guy on Twitter, uh, Jameson [35:09] Big Deck Energy. So he he builds decks [35:12] for people and he said, "Here's here's [35:15] how AI has helped me with my real world [35:17] physical job." [35:19] >> So he's he's a he's a deck builder at [35:22] people's houses, like that type of deck. [35:23] >> Yes. He goes and builds decks. So you've [35:25] had this happen, I'm sure. Someone comes [35:27] and gives you a quote and then there's [35:29] like for the next four weeks there's [35:30] back and forth. You get the quote [35:32] >> with my with the HVAC people with my [35:34] Yeah, of course. [35:34] >> You get the quote like 10 days later or [35:36] something. So he says, "Listen, what I [35:38] do," he has this AI tool that takes all [35:40] the measurements for him. He he's he's [35:42] recording everything. So he has a [35:43] conversation with clients. He's [35:44] recording what he's saying. So there's [35:46] the back and forth. There's nothing that [35:48] gets lost. So he says he get he gets [35:50] done. He goes into his truck right [35:51] afterwards. He uploads all of the [35:54] recording. He transfers all the data [35:56] that he's done for his measurements. He [35:58] copies the transcript into chat GBT. [36:01] Then he says, "Send a recap to the [36:03] clients [36:04] >> from AI. Also, take this information in [36:08] terms of like the measurements and [36:09] everything, compare it to all of our [36:11] other proposals, create a proposal based [36:14] on previous proposals. [36:16] And he says it, sends it to him, and the [36:18] proposal is probably 90% right. He says, [36:20] "Good enough." The the person gets a [36:22] proposal immediately with action steps. [36:25] This is a great idea. [36:26] >> Great idea. I feel like often times when [36:29] you're looking for jobs, [36:31] >> whoever sends you the proposal first [36:32] wins. That happened with what was I [36:34] doing? Oh, uh, whatever, I was doing a [36:36] project. [36:37] >> The faster the better. [36:38] >> Yeah. Uh, by the way, speaking of like [36:41] fast corrections, [36:43] uh, DRAM, [36:45] the Round Memory ETF [36:48] down 32%. [36:51] >> Just like that. [36:52] >> Yeah. Well, South Korea has like a mini [36:54] blow up every two months, it seems like. [36:56] Uh this was we mentioned this. This was [36:58] like the super duper successful ETF that [37:01] came out of nowhere. Assets [37:03] >> down 5% again today. [37:05] >> Assets are still $23 billion. I mean [37:07] money is not coming out of this thing. [37:09] But uh [37:11] yeah, memory stocks down 32% real quick. [37:13] >> Wow. 35% correction. That's pretty good. [37:15] So, if you believe in this stuff, hey, [37:17] buying opportunity, [37:18] >> my beloved Western Dig, a stock that we [37:21] own inside of uh our momentum strategy, [37:25] which obviously this thing has lost it. [37:27] Uh Western Dig is holy Cut in [37:31] half. [37:32] >> Wow. Yeah, these these stocks are all [37:34] getting killed again today. [37:36] >> Wow. Sandisk I assume is in the same [37:38] boat. [37:39] >> That's gay. Sandisk. Yep. [37:40] >> Sandis micron only 40%. [37:43] >> Seate. All right. This is a funny one [37:45] that we didn't think about the other [37:46] day. Glenn McBride put this on LinkedIn. [37:48] He said, "Michael and Ben did not make [37:50] this comparison, but they did mention [37:51] both. I thought it was a contrast as [37:52] wild." So, 2% of households pay for AI. [37:55] 12.6% of households have a storage unit. [37:57] Six times more households pay to store [37:59] things that they don't use than pay for [38:01] access to super intelligence. It is kind [38:03] of funny when you think about it that [38:04] way. [38:04] >> That's great. That's great. Yeah, [38:05] >> that's the room for improvement. All [38:07] right, one more thing here. Um, isn't [38:09] this how the rest of the world catches [38:10] up? So torsen slack shows that actually [38:12] European countries are ahead of the US [38:14] on AI consumer adoption. Places like [38:16] Norway, Ireland, France, Spain, UK, [38:19] Netherlands, these people are all [38:21] adopting AI way faster than the United [38:23] States, which is kind of interesting to [38:25] think about. Isn't this [38:29] >> it says at the bottom people who yeah 15 [38:32] to 64 people have used generative AI [38:34] products [38:36] um using Microsoft data. So it might be, [38:38] you know, maybe they're using extra [38:40] technology. But [38:40] >> is your is your wife is your wife using [38:42] AI? [38:43] >> She loves chat GPT. She has [38:45] conversations with it all the time about [38:46] the kids stuff. It's it's all questions [38:49] about medical stuff and she's using it [38:51] all the time. Yes. [38:52] >> Kobe asked me for chat GPT the other [38:54] day. So he he tries to download apps and [38:55] they get sent to my phone for approval [38:57] or or denial and I denied it and he was [39:00] asking me why and I said, "You're not [39:01] getting it." And [laughter] [39:03] I I thought after I was like, hm, I [39:06] don't why can't he have it? [39:08] >> Think about how many questions little [39:10] boys ask? My son is going to go hog wild [39:12] asking questions at chat GPT. But I keep [39:13] telling him, you got to be nice. [39:15] >> Yeah, [39:15] >> don't be mean. Don't yell at him. But [39:16] isn't this the way the rest of the world [39:18] catches up to us, though? [39:19] >> Isn't this what finally makes the world [39:21] a little flatter? [39:25] >> Man, we're throwing out some big, big, [39:27] big proclamations today. I'm not sure [39:29] that You don't think AI kind of helps [39:30] the rest of the world catch up? The rest [39:33] of the world had did not have to invest [39:34] in this at all. It's just going to be [39:36] handed to them. Look at this super [39:38] intelligence. Use it. [39:43] Think about it. [39:45] >> You give me a lot of homework. [39:47] >> All right. You're going to come back [39:49] next week with like a bunch of [39:50] rebuttals. You're going to think about [39:52] it and you're gonna come back with all [39:53] the rebuttals so I takes this week. [39:55] Listen, I I was I spent a lot of time I [39:57] was traveling a lot last week. I just I [39:58] had a lot of time to think. [40:01] >> Well, I'm thinking I'm thinking, too. [40:03] I'm thinking about getting a sauna. [40:05] >> I know that's like the most cliche thing [40:07] ever. [40:08] >> Yes. Did you ever watch Good for Fortune [40:10] yet where they make fun of people in [40:11] saunas? It's It's such a great about [40:13] rich how rich people just love talking [40:14] about their saunas. It's it's [laughter] [40:16] it's like such a rich guy thing to So [40:19] the reason why I was thinking about that [40:21] is because who was telling me about [40:23] obviously somebody was telling me about [40:24] >> So I I go first I go in the sauna for 15 [40:26] minutes then the cold plunge [laughter] [40:28] back to the sauna. Oh, it's just great [40:30] for my circulation. Amazing. [40:32] >> That I will never be doing. I'm I'm not [40:35] into pain. Um [40:36] >> just sauna. So you're going to go one of [40:37] those big like barrel ones. [40:38] >> No, but listen. Yes. But but inside of a [40:40] sauna is nothing but thinking time [40:42] because you can't bring your phone in [40:43] there. It'll f [40:44] >> I can absolutely I you're right. I can [40:46] absolutely see you in a sauna with a [40:48] towel just laidback that I can totally [40:51] see that. [40:52] >> I very much enjoy a sauna. When I told [40:54] Robin about this, she was she just [40:55] sideeyed me and didn't even entertain [40:57] it. But [40:58] >> I'm the boss around here. [40:59] >> Instead of a sauna, get a hot tub. [41:03] >> We don't think hot tubs. I think I think [41:04] All right. Can I say something? I think [41:05] hot tubs are weird. [41:07] >> Okay. [41:07] >> Like, hey, you want to There's There's [41:09] people that have hot tub parties and it [41:10] just gets a bit spit. Hey, you want to [41:11] come over to my hot tub? No, [41:13] >> not at all. [41:14] >> Yeah, you're right. That's a little [41:15] weird to have outside people coming into [41:16] the hot tub a lot. I [41:17] >> And I don't I don't love a hot tub that [41:19] much, right? When you're when you're on [41:21] vacation and Yeah. It's like fun. It's [41:22] novel to jump in. You're you're it's hot [41:26] water. [41:26] >> So, we we just got we just got one like [41:28] a month ago. [41:29] >> All right. Well, guess what? I stand by [41:30] everything I said. [41:31] >> So, [41:32] >> not taking it back. [41:33] >> I was indifferent about it. Um my my [41:35] parents have had a hot tub for like 30 [41:36] years. They probably gone to like four [41:37] of them. My mom literally every day will [41:39] sit in a hot tub. She'll go in there [41:40] with a book and sit in the hot tub every [41:42] single day. She loves it. Uh my wife [41:45] really wanted one for the kids and boy [41:48] it's a lot of work. All the chemicals [41:49] and the she's like a mad scientist with [41:51] this thing and I'm I'm like it's your [41:54] thing. I You're the hot tub. You really [41:56] wanted this. Like so she is constantly [41:58] looking at the pH and it's a lot. [42:00] >> I can't I can't take care of anything. [42:03] >> Well, yeah, right. You have a pool. Um [42:06] All right. Did you see Did you read this [42:08] Bloomberg piece about long shots on for [42:09] Kelshi? It's funny. [42:10] >> By the way, Robin takes care of my pool. [42:12] I'm useless. I can't do anything. [42:13] >> Of course. Of course she does. Uh, so [42:16] you and I had the founders of Kelshi on [42:18] the show a long time ago, right when it [42:21] was first getting started. People didn't [42:23] really even know about Kelshi. We had [42:24] them on the on Talk Your Book. This was [42:26] how many years ago? [42:27] >> 2021. [42:28] >> Yeah, maybe. I don't know. And the idea [42:31] that they pitched to us was, listen, [42:33] this is going to be a way for you to [42:34] hedge geopolitical events without [42:36] because you could be right about the [42:38] fact that there's going to be an oil [42:40] price shock, but you might be wrong [42:41] about the financial assets he used or [42:42] something, right? [42:44] >> If if people are positioned for a [42:45] non-farm payroll day, just bet on that [42:47] number. [42:48] >> Yes. And so the idea actually made a lot [42:50] of sense and like the way that they [42:51] positioned it made a lot of sense. But [42:54] what the actual data shows is people [42:56] don't want that. As cool as that is for [42:59] a lot of people, people are using these [43:01] things for long shots, sports gambling, [43:03] and parlays. So, the thing is, I think [43:06] it's easy to poo poo and say like, why [43:08] do we need sports gambling? Why do we [43:10] need prediction markets? Why do we need [43:12] the lottery? Why do we need these things [43:14] people seemingly waste their money on? [43:16] And why? I don't know. People like to [43:18] use them. They find them entertaining or [43:20] they like the idea of betting on hope, [43:23] right? You I I'm a person who's [43:25] literally never bought a lottery ticket [43:26] in my life. I bought scratch offs, but I [43:28] know people who buy the play the lottery [43:30] every week. They put their numbers in [43:31] and they like to talk about what would I [43:33] do if I won? What would I do with the [43:35] money? People love that sense of hope. [43:38] >> Yeah. [43:38] >> So, I it's this is it's like part of the [43:40] human condition. [43:41] >> That's a very glass half full way of [43:43] looking at at [43:44] >> Yes. For for whatever reason, the human [43:46] condition, people love long shots. Okay. [43:49] So, [43:50] >> wait, hold on, hold on. Sorry. I just [43:51] want to say credit to you for bringing [43:52] that to the forefront because [43:54] >> is that is that saying that are we are [43:56] you saying that betting and the lottery [43:58] is good because of that hope that [44:01] exists? I don't think you're saying [44:02] that. [44:03] >> But everybody goes with like it's it's [44:06] horrendous. It is draining and I get I [44:08] get all that. But hey, [44:09] >> there's something to be said for for [44:10] hope. [44:11] >> You and I both false. [44:12] >> I have a someone a friend from high [44:14] school who I just recently heard through [44:15] the grapevine literally gambled away all [44:17] his his family's financial savings. I [44:19] know somebody [44:20] >> gambled gambled. Yes, you you you've [44:22] told me this too. Like this this is [44:23] going to ruin a lot of people's lives. [44:25] >> Yeah. [44:25] >> But for whatever reason, human beings [44:27] like this stuff. So for Kelshi, since [44:29] the start of 2025, half of all trading [44:32] volume has been on chasing potential [44:34] returns of at least a,000% betting [44:36] against mostly sophisticated traders and [44:38] market making firms on the other side. [44:41] 65% now are piling into sports [44:43] combination wages known as parlays. [44:45] >> Wait, hang on. This is insane. Did you [44:48] just read 41% of contracts? Did you just [44:50] read that? [44:51] >> For what? [44:53] >> 40 [44:54] >> 41% of contracts traded on Cali involved [44:58] a bet on an outcome given less than a [45:01] 10% chance. [45:02] >> And guess what? Those the outcomes of [45:05] that less than 10%. Way less. [45:08] >> So 12% 12% of contracts on Poly Market [45:12] involve a bet against a 90% plus [45:14] favorite. So this is everyone. It's all [45:17] on the extremes. Everyone is taking [45:19] longshot bets and hoping that they pay [45:22] off. And obviously they rarely rarely [45:24] do. I I read another NFL thing that said [45:27] from 2018 to 2023 [45:30] um bets on parlays just skyrocketed and [45:34] that's like all the bets people make is [45:36] parlays. And the funny thing is it's [45:37] like it's like building a world in your [45:40] head. This is the way I think the game [45:42] is going to play out. This person is [45:44] going to do [45:44] >> still doing parlays, Ben. I can't help [45:45] it. They're so addictive. [45:47] >> It's not just being right once. You have [45:49] to be right multiple times. [45:51] >> Credit to me. I don't but I don't I [45:52] don't do plus 600 bets. And if like it's [45:55] just those that doesn't interest me. [45:57] >> Actually, someone did make a comment [45:58] last week making fun of one of your [45:59] parlays about that like that you made [46:01] like five leg parlays, but your payoff [46:03] was like plus 110. [46:04] >> Five was way was very stupid, but it was [46:06] conservative. It was conservatively [46:08] stupid. [46:09] >> So my point is this is going to ruin [46:11] people's lives. There's going to be [46:13] backlash in the future. And I they're [46:14] also going to say, "Wait, we really let [46:16] the president's son be on the board of [46:18] these companies that there's going to be [46:20] push back eventually for these things." [46:22] But [46:22] >> to me, this is this is it's similar to [46:23] like the the alcohol issue. [46:26] >> This is people like people like to do [46:28] this. It's very harmful. People Yes. [46:30] >> People like drinking and and it ruins [46:32] tens of hundreds of whatever. I mean, [46:34] ruins lives and people enjoy it. [46:35] >> Well, Walter Bloomberg just people don't [46:37] like drinking anymore. We're not the [46:39] lowest consumption of alcohol in our [46:40] country's history according to Walter [46:42] Bloomberg this morning. wondering why [46:44] people are upset and not happy. [46:45] >> That's awful news. [46:46] >> They're not drinking enough. People [46:47] always People are blaming it on social [46:49] media. It's health consscious people. [46:54] >> Can I just let me just skip ahead a [46:55] little bit and then we could go back to [46:56] where we were. [46:58] >> So [47:00] Nike of course is getting demolished. [47:02] The business, the stock, it's all bad. [47:04] And Jordan Brands was down [47:09] mid teens [47:11] year-over-year. It's I mean that's [47:12] that's kind of a crash for like a [47:15] sneaker. That's wild. [47:16] >> If you look at the chart, it looks like [47:17] this stock has gone down every single [47:19] day this year. [47:20] >> That's really bad. So, I still buy [47:23] Jordans. I still think Jordans are cool [47:25] because I'm 41 years old. [47:27] >> I do, too. This is good for middle-aged [47:29] people like us because we're going to [47:30] get more deals. [47:32] >> So, it had me feeling old and we've been [47:35] talking about young people. Are they [47:37] screwed? Aren't they screwed? And I have [47:40] generally been the glass half full. [47:43] Young people will be all right. Um [47:45] there's a there's a there was a chart [47:46] from Nick Muli in his post today looking [47:49] at the median net worth of young renters [47:50] under 35 as a counterpoint to the story [47:53] we shared earlier about the the 2022 25 [47:56] median net worth change. But the median [47:58] net worth of young renters under 35 has [48:01] gone up dramatically over the last six [48:04] or seven years from like $5,000 to [48:07] $12,000. [48:09] Financially, [48:10] young people are, and listen there, how [48:12] many were there? 30 million people we're [48:13] talking about. I'm I'm generalizing. [48:14] It's hard to generalize with that many [48:16] people, but I'm generalizing. Young [48:17] people generally are doing pretty well [48:19] financially. The economy is okay. [48:22] Unemployment is 4%. It's obviously more [48:24] difficult for young people to get a job, [48:26] but like the economy is okay. [48:27] Financially, young people are okay. I [48:29] think mentally and socially, they're in [48:30] shambles. [48:31] >> Yes. [48:32] >> So, this this is is super dark. Um, [48:37] Derek Thompson interviewed Daniel Cox, [48:40] who is the author of a book called [48:42] Generation Uncoupled. [48:44] Let me read this. [48:47] One inevitable result of this has been [48:49] rising discomfort with friction and [48:51] prioritizing the avoidance of [48:53] embarrassment. [48:55] It's not a coincidence that concepts [48:58] like ick and cringe were introduced into [49:00] our lexicon by a generation with less [49:03] appetite for social risk and tolerance [49:05] for awkwardness. This is tragic. I share [49:09] one anecdote in the book about dance [49:10] clubs. Over the last few years, DJs have [49:12] started noticing that dance floors are [49:14] empty. Almost everyone stands around the [49:17] periphery holding their phones. It's [49:19] undeniable the impact that phones are [49:21] having on young people's willingness to [49:23] take risks. Nobody dances anymore for [49:26] fear that they will look stupid and that [49:28] their joyful girations will be [49:30] documented and disseminated online. This [49:33] anxiety about being surveiled is [49:35] constant and unavoidable. It's sort of [49:37] like walking around in the Matrix where [49:40] anyone you meet could potentially [49:41] document and share an embarrassing [49:42] moment, social misstep, or inartful [49:45] comment. It's made young people hyper [49:47] vigilant, less understanding, and less [49:50] forgiving. And this gets back to like [49:52] the the drinking less type of thing. [49:54] They're less social. They're less [49:55] they're less they're more afraid. To me, [49:58] this is like super dark. And I don't [50:02] know how we pull people back from this, [50:05] unfortunately. Like I I think this is [50:07] we're past the point of no return. And [50:10] >> I thank God that we grew up in a [50:12] different world. [50:13] >> Oh, I do too. I remember when I was a [50:15] senior in college, we had a friend with [50:16] a flip phone. We just started getting I [50:18] got a cell my first cell phone my senior [50:19] year of college. He opened a flip phone [50:21] and said, "Hey, look. This little flip [50:22] phone has a camera on it." And we all [50:24] said, "What are you nuts?" He said, "We [50:25] can take pictures." And we don't want [50:27] pictures of like I can't imagine how [50:29] much it changes your behavior. If I [50:30] would had a phone in my face all the [50:31] time in college, how like you have to [50:34] think about the way that you act more, [50:36] right? Like you no one wants that. It's [50:38] It's awful to grow up under a [50:40] microscope. They Someone asked Jensen [50:42] Wang one time in an interview last year, [50:43] >> would you rather grow up now as a young [50:45] person or back in the '90s when you did? [50:47] He said, "Of course, the '9s." [50:49] >> Yeah. There there would yeah it's it's [50:51] it life was so much easier to not have [50:52] to pretend to be something and know what [50:55] everyone else is doing online and [50:56] compare yourself that part for young [50:58] people they have they had no choice and [51:00] they had no chance. [51:01] >> Yeah. So it's to say nothing of like [51:02] home prices and everything like the [51:04] financial aspect that the real life [51:06] stuff like the stuff that matters way [51:07] more uh pretty pretty bleak. [51:11] >> Yes, I agree. I and I was doing my part [51:13] based on Derek. So this past week, not [51:15] only did I take my kids bowling on [51:17] Sunday and bow the game of my life, what [51:20] do you think is a good this the highest [51:23] score I've ever gotten in bowling? [51:26] >> I would say a great role is like pushing [51:30] 200. Anything over 180 is phenomenal. [51:32] >> Yeah, I got a 189. [51:34] >> Yeah, it's that's that's lights out. [51:35] >> I'm I'm my bowling game is I need to [51:37] join a league. It's I'm I'm I'm I'm on a [51:39] roll lately. [51:40] >> Okay, so [51:40] >> pun intended. I when I was in NASA [51:43] Community College, [51:45] uh, I took a bowling course because of [51:48] course, right? [51:49] >> Yeah. [51:51] >> And I enjoyed the out of it. I [51:53] mean, what's more fun than bowling for [51:55] credits? And I but I I didn't I never [51:57] knew that the impact of of of uh of [52:02] balls of bowling balls. So, if you try [52:06] and spin, and I know you're a spinner, [52:08] with the bowling alley balls, it doesn't [52:10] really spin. I went bowling like two [52:13] years ago with a dad who had his own [52:15] ball, and I did. I was like, I feel like [52:16] I had seen the light. I was like, "Oh, [52:18] shit." You don't buy a bowling ball cuz [52:20] you're a dork. You buy it cuz it [52:21] actually works, [52:22] >> right? It's not this 30-y old thing [52:23] that's been used a million times, and [52:24] it's slippery. And [52:25] >> so, if you had a proper bowling ball, [52:27] Ben, [52:27] >> I think I might need to get my own. I [52:29] want to get [52:29] >> You could be special. [52:30] >> I want to get like an Uncle Buck one [52:31] with a rose in the side, you know, and [52:33] it's clear. Uh, [52:34] >> speaking of the Buck, my my kids are uh [52:36] we're we're almost done with Cool [52:37] Runnings. They they love it. [52:39] >> Great one, right? [52:40] >> He was John Candy was so big in that [52:43] movie. [52:43] >> Yeah, that was towards the end, [52:45] unfortunately. [52:46] >> Yeah, I love him. Uh, we also actually [52:48] had friends over for a dinner party on [52:50] Saturday night. Okay, I'm doing my best. [52:52] And and we get done with dinner. All the [52:53] kids are all kind of the same age. We [52:54] have friends with four kids, so like we [52:56] have seven kids running around. They're [52:57] all We said, "Hey, go outside. Play [52:58] outside." And we're sitting there and, [53:00] you know, instead of just sitting there [53:01] and talking about your kids, I said, "I [53:02] I've got a very important question for [53:04] the two of you." This is another couple. [53:05] My wife and I get along with really [53:06] well. I said, "Do you guys play cards?" [53:08] They, "Do we play cards?" And I said, [53:10] "Yes, let's play cards." So, we play [53:12] cards, too. I'm I'm a man of my word. [53:14] >> What did you play? [53:16] >> Uker, which is a very Midwest game. A [53:18] bunch of people asked last week, "What [53:19] is Ben's card game?" It's kind of a [53:23] >> not cooperating. [53:25] >> She is odd. I don't know what she's [53:26] doing. [laughter] [53:29] Chinese dog's the best. [53:30] >> Jeez. Heavy breather. Such a mouth [53:32] breather. [53:34] >> Yeah, Uker. It's kind of like a [53:36] spadesish game, but it's a Midwest game. [53:38] You It's hard to explain. [53:40] >> You have to say please and thank you [53:41] between hands. [53:42] >> Yeah, something like that. Um, all [53:43] right, let's get back to bad stuff. That [53:45] was too much good stuff. Uh, [snorts] [53:46] speaking of real estate. All right, so I [53:48] looked at this in housing activity. Not [53:50] I mentioned high rates being worse than [53:51] ZERP. Okay, so high rates have not only [53:54] caused like a lack of activity in [53:55] housing market but I compared US [53:58] existing home sales to population [54:00] because in the US the population in the [54:02] two in the year 2000 was 280 million [54:04] people. Today we have more than 343 [54:07] million people. So I put it into claude [54:09] and I said adjust this for um sales per [54:13] 10,000 residents. So it shows on a [54:15] similar scale adjust for population [54:17] growth. We have been for three years of [54:21] GFC bottom level activity in housing. [54:23] The housing market bottomed for US [54:25] existing home sales and then shot [54:27] straight back up. We've been there for [54:29] three years now. This is quite possibly [54:32] the worst housing market that we've seen [54:33] since the Great Depression in terms of [54:34] activity. [54:35] >> Oh, depression. [54:37] Well, since the GFC. [54:38] >> This is worse than the GFC. Look at [54:40] this. It's worse [54:41] >> for housing activity. It's worse than [54:43] the GFC in terms of the length of time. [54:45] >> All right. [54:47] >> Uh, [54:48] >> bring back Zer. [laughter] [54:51] >> During the during the uh housing mania [54:56] or when did when did housing starts [54:57] really start to work and everybody's [54:58] scratching their head like isn't the [55:00] home market shitty? What's happening? [55:01] And when people when home sellers [55:03] weren't selling, it was just new [55:05] construction. [55:07] But now there was an article in the [55:08] journal that like [55:09] >> people are waking up to the fact that [55:11] this is just rates might not be going [55:13] down and if you got to move, you got to [55:14] move, [55:15] >> right? [55:15] >> And so the the subsidies that these [55:17] homes are offering, it's just like they [55:18] just can't compete anymore. The home [55:20] building stocks like KB Home and uh and [55:25] like PY, for example, and Lenard, like [55:26] they're they're getting mauled. New [55:28] multi-year lows. [55:30] >> It makes sense. They they should be [55:31] probably, right? [55:33] >> Rough rough rough rough housing market. [55:37] That's what I'm saying. Bring back those [55:39] 0% interest rates. [55:41] >> All right. Disney is raising prices [55:45] in a way that I think makes a lot of [55:48] sense. Uh many ticket types, passes, and [55:51] add-ons at Disneyland are not increasing [55:53] at all this time. All right. [55:56] >> Okay. [55:56] >> Premium products are getting more [55:58] expensive, like the highest level skip [56:01] the line service at Walt Disney World, [56:02] which can now run just shy of the 500. [56:04] Okay. This makes sense. [56:06] >> Yeah, [56:07] >> they're keeping entry- level prices [56:08] stable, but for the people at the top [56:10] that will pay whatever, them [56:13] >> keep raising prices. [56:14] >> I agree that make this is how you win [56:17] versus wealth inequality. [56:18] >> I've already been to Disney three times. [56:19] I'm good. [56:21] >> My wife is now planning a trip to [56:23] Universal. I can't. [56:25] >> Dude, Universal is great. [56:26] >> All right. I You told You've told me [56:28] that it's got really good. [56:30] >> It's a lot of fun. Kids are kids are [56:31] gonna love it. [56:32] >> I've got a few travel stories. much [56:33] better roller coasters. [56:35] >> All right, I've got an AI travel [56:36] anecdote. So, the one great thing about [56:38] living in a small smallish city with a [56:41] regional airport is that it it never [56:43] takes me more than 2 minutes to get [56:44] through um TSA screening. [56:46] >> Huge. [56:46] >> No, no one uses they don't they have [56:49] clear, but no one uses it. And no one [56:50] uses TSA pre-check because no one [56:52] travels as much. So, TSA pre-check, [56:54] there's never a line. I go through, but [56:55] there's always, you can't see, there's [56:57] two lines to put your security stuff [56:59] through the through the uh X-ray [57:00] machine, and you can't see the person [57:02] doing it, but there's one TSA agent who [57:05] takes who was the slowest person ever. [57:07] He looks at all of the stuff in your [57:08] bags forever. So, there's always a line [57:10] of like 15 people waiting for the bags [57:12] to shoot out, and the other one is just [57:14] going, you know? So, my think and this [57:16] one TSA screener, I always get caught by [57:18] him on accident. When will AI do this [57:20] and someone will just be there to watch? [57:21] Why isn't AI screening the bags for you? [57:25] Can it not do it way better than a human [57:27] and not miss anything? Won't the the [57:29] rate for I don't want to take people's [57:30] jobs here, but [57:31] >> yeah, I was about to say, why are you [57:32] trying to fire people, Ben? [57:34] >> All right, I have I have a crazy travel [57:36] story here. I I me I'm listening to the [57:39] bro talk about his stocks. My flight got [57:40] a little delayed. I have a very close [57:42] layover to catch in Chicago. Okay, I not [57:45] a lot of time. And our flight got [57:47] delayed for like a half hour. Finally [57:48] get on. Okay, fine. I think we're going [57:49] to make it. And everyone kind of [57:50] breathe. side of relief. Doors are [57:53] closed. The the flight attendants are [57:54] doing their thing where they show the [57:56] mask and they're talking and all of a [57:57] sudden this [57:58] >> Can we get rid of that charade nonsense? [58:00] Who's that for? [58:01] >> I don't know. [58:01] >> In the case of uh Yeah. In case the [58:03] plane we're all going to die. Stop with [58:04] the charade. Let's take off. [58:06] >> This young 20something and we're ready [58:08] to pull out. You know, the thing is un [58:10] un hitched. The guy whispers to this [58:14] this flight attendant. She says, "Stop [58:15] the thing right now." comes up bring [58:18] they're having like a huddle with the [58:19] pilot and this guy and I'm sitting up [58:21] close to the front and he says I have a [58:24] personal emergency and they say okay sir [58:26] what's the matter he I just have a [58:27] personal emergency I have to get off the [58:28] plane and he pilot talks to him so they [58:31] literally have to shut everything down [58:32] open the door let this guy off now he's [58:34] sitting in the in the jetway thing and [58:37] the pilot goes out to talk to him and [58:38] finally someone goes someone guy in the [58:40] front goes what the hell is going on [58:41] here I got a flight to catch if this guy [58:43] wants on the plane let him on if not [58:45] they said well the pilot's talking to [58:46] him if he wants to get back on the plane [58:47] or not. And we're all going, "No, you [58:50] no, tell him he's off." Right? So, [58:52] finally the flight attendant goes, "Hey, [58:54] listen, sir. There's another flight 3 [58:55] hours later. Take that one. See you [58:57] later." Close the door. This guy had [58:59] like a panic attack or something. Right? [59:02] So, my flight finally lands. I'm landing [59:04] in Chicago as my next flight is boarding [59:06] and I'm thinking, "Oh my gosh, I'm going [59:07] to be here for like five hours waiting [59:08] for another flight." So, I I cinch up my [59:11] backpack, you know? I put it on. I have [59:12] my my um roller bag as well cuz I I [59:16] didn't check a bag and I have to go from [59:19] like K to G. It's a long I'm looking at [59:21] on my phone. It's a long one. And the [59:23] guy in front of me has to do the same [59:24] thing is I'm on your same flight. Like [59:25] we got to hustle. So the flight is [59:28] already boarding. So I get off the plane [59:29] and I take off and you know how hard it [59:32] is to run with a backpack in an airport. [59:34] But it's it's a very stressful [59:36] situation. But I'm running through the [59:37] Chicago airport and I feel like I'm in [59:39] Home Alone. run. Rudolph run is going [59:41] through my head and I'm hauling and I'm [59:43] putting my running back skills to use. [59:44] I'm cutting against the grain. I'm [59:46] going, you know, I'm moving. People are [59:47] looking at me and I'm just I'm flying [59:50] and uh I'm my backpack is going [59:52] everywhere and it's pushing me around [59:54] [laughter] and I walk I get there right [59:55] as the last boarding group is just gone [59:57] in and I make it in and boy I this other [60:00] guy he must have been 300 yards behind [60:02] me. I smoked him. [60:04] >> I still got it. He barely made it. He [60:06] got on. He's sweating. Oh my gosh. And [60:07] we both made it. But man, that is a [60:10] stressful thing to do, but it's also [60:12] quite exhilarating. [60:13] >> Running through an airport is kind of [60:14] exhilarating. [60:15] >> That's not fun. [60:17] >> Yeah. But made it uh Yeah. But yeah, way [60:21] too much kids glove with a guy having [60:23] like a personal emergency. Like we want [60:25] give us something good, right? He's got [60:27] nothing. [60:27] >> All right. You talked about this last [60:29] week. [60:30] >> Paramount $52 billion in debt. You said [60:33] that like they was oversubscribed and [60:36] Wall Street Journal says like if they [60:37] would have done this four months [60:38] earlier, they would have saved $400 [60:40] million in annual interest payments. [60:42] There is just there's no way that this [60:44] works out. There's never been a media [60:46] deal where they've taken on this level [60:47] of debt that's actually paid off. Like [60:49] even if they said, "We're going to [60:50] become the next Netflix." [60:52] >> When you said paid off, do you mean do [60:53] you mean do you mean do you mean paid [60:54] off as in the bond holders get paid or [60:56] the equity investors get rewarded? [60:59] >> Like equity investors get rewarded. [61:00] There's no way that in 10 years I look [61:02] back and go, man, that Paramount Warner [61:03] Brothers deal was awesome. There's no [61:05] way that this works. No way. [61:06] >> I would This is a This is a This is a [61:08] plus, 1100. I agree. Um, [61:12] so [61:14] there was a story in Barons over the [61:15] weekend about the horror boom. Uh, Other [61:18] Mommy was the number one at the box [61:19] office. It did uh it did a third of [61:23] total sales over the weekend, $85 [61:24] million. It took 27. [61:26] >> Did you see [61:26] >> this movie bombed? I was ex I was very [61:30] much looking forward to it. The trailer [61:32] was super scary. Um [61:35] uh looked horrendous as some of the [61:39] garbage, but people don't care. People [61:41] love horror. Another bomb social [61:43] reckoning [61:45] as as predicted. No surprise there. [61:48] Nobody wants to see that nonsense. Uh [61:50] somebody emailed us last week. We were [61:51] talking about Disclosure Day. [61:55] Um, not one person, by the way, emailed [61:57] us in defense of that movie. [61:59] >> No, hard to defend. [62:00] >> So, somebody was like, "You know what? [62:02] It's okay. It happens." Uh, Scor says he [62:04] lost his fastball. So did Spielberg. I [62:06] still ride with Marty. I I enjoyed I [62:10] enjoyed The Irishman quite a bit. Not [62:12] going to apologize. And I also like [62:13] Killers of Flower Moon. But I was [62:14] looking at Disclosure Day. It got a 79% [62:16] of Rotten Tomatoes. I'm like, that's [62:18] really weird. From the critics, 69% from [62:21] the audience. So, I had I had Seawn [62:23] chart this for me. Spielberg's Rotten [62:26] Tomato scores over time, and there's [62:29] really nothing in the chart that would [62:31] suggest that he's that his skills as a a [62:35] have deteriorated. [62:36] >> That's because Rotten Tomatoes has been [62:38] inflated. [62:39] >> So, this next chart, I show this I I [62:41] found this in Nick's blog post this [62:43] morning. [62:44] >> Do movie scores even matter anymore? the [62:46] average critic movie scores by release [62:47] year and this chart is from Miko Tage [62:51] Ziggar I think I can't really tough name [62:54] and I can't really read it small font [62:55] but anyway uh in 2003 the average score [62:58] was 57 and now it's 72 so Rotten [63:02] Tomatoes as a as a arbiter of truth like [63:06] so many other institutions of ours [63:08] unfortunately can't trust it so you know [63:11] what you can trust Ben dollars look at [63:14] the Spielberg box office adjusted for [63:16] inflation [63:18] since [63:20] his last I don't know 15 movies or so. [63:22] There's a lot of freaking duds in there. [63:24] Disclosure Day, Fablemen's Westside [63:26] Story, Ready Player One did. Okay. I [63:29] mean, there's just a lot of lot of lot [63:31] of [63:32] >> So, he hasn't had a really good movie [63:34] since War of the Worlds. [63:37] >> Uh, I did not like that movie. Um, [63:40] >> Tom Baseball. Come on. [63:42] >> Yeah. Not great. I I kind of I like [63:44] Bridget's Prize. I thought that was [63:45] okay. [63:47] >> But his last certifiable banger as far [63:49] as I'm concerned. [63:52] >> God, I can't read. Is that Catch Catch [63:54] Me If You Can in 2002. [63:55] >> No one's re-watching Lincoln. That's you [63:57] watch once and then you never watch it [63:58] again. [63:59] >> Was Munich good? I know they liked it in [64:01] uh Knocked Up. I saw it once. I don't [64:03] remember it. [64:04] >> I didn't I I saw it in theater. That's [64:05] another one you probably don't want to [64:06] see again. [64:08] >> You're right. So, Catch Me If You Can [64:10] and Minority Report were like two [64:11] bangers in the same year. He hasn't [64:13] really had a really good movie since [64:14] then. Just a just some okay movies. [64:16] >> Yeah, [64:17] >> Duncan said Munich was very good. I [64:18] remember it was that was a pretty good [64:20] one. [64:20] >> Okay. [64:21] >> Oh, okay. I have an announcement to [64:23] make. Next month we we announced our [64:26] Broadway show in December. Next month I [64:29] am doing a book event in Italy. Okay. [64:32] You see the Italian cover by book here. [64:35] Rishio and Redimento. Riskreward. So I [64:38] [laughter] [64:39] >> you sound like Brad Pitt doing Italian. [64:42] >> So Duncan and I actually joked about [64:43] that that I'm going to be like Brad Pitt [64:45] in in Glorious Bastards doing [64:48] No. Yeah. [64:50] >> I I meant to say that. Is he the best [64:53] leading actor who is a character actor [64:55] in history? I think I don't think it's [64:56] close. [64:57] >> He's done not only did he do The Louise, [65:00] True Romance, Snatch, Burning Do and [65:03] Louise. That was a very minor role. I'm [65:05] saying he for his minor roles, [65:07] >> his character acting as a lead man. [65:09] >> True roance [65:10] >> 12 Monkeys, Burn After Reading, Fight [65:12] Club kind of the Mexican kind of like in [65:14] glorious bastards like he is the best [65:17] character actor who's also the leading [65:18] man in history and there's not a close [65:19] second. [65:20] >> Yeah, because um Yeah. [65:23] >> Anyway, there will be a link. So, this [65:25] is November 4th at 6 p.m. in Milan. [65:28] >> Will it be streaming? [65:30] >> I don't think it'll be streaming. [65:31] >> Is this the same thing that you did 10 [65:33] years ago? [65:33] >> Nope. This is different. This is a This [65:35] is a This is the Italian version of my [65:37] book. So, there's going to be signed [65:38] copies of my book in Italian. We're [65:40] going to do a live event. I'm going to [65:41] do a live podcast. Um, Ricardo Spada has [65:44] a podcast in Italy called The Bowl. I've [65:45] been on before. He's going to interview [65:47] me. There's going to be I'm sure I'll I [65:50] mean, I have to dress nice. I'm going to [65:51] be Milan. So, of course, there'll be [65:53] nice lightweight jackets and it's going [65:55] to be a fun evening. It's going to be [65:57] great. Signing books. There will be a [65:58] link on the If you're in the Milan area, [66:00] you know, want to come next month. I'll [66:03] be in Milan. I can't wait. [66:04] >> It's great. [66:05] >> I I I love love love Italy. It's my [66:07] second favorite country. All right. [66:09] >> Recommendation. [66:10] >> What's your first? [66:11] >> What? United States, obviously. [66:13] [laughter] [66:16] >> I'm a company man, right? [66:20] >> Uh, no, it's Canada. Uh, all right. [66:22] Recommendations. I texted you this [66:24] weekend and I said, "Don't look back in [66:26] Anger, which is the Oasis doc on [66:28] Disney/Hulu." Now, I watched the whole [66:31] thing. Did you watch it yet or not? [66:32] >> No. Did you see us? [66:34] >> They did show pictures of the Rose Bowl [66:36] when they had the the fireworks [66:38] afterwards. So, I thought about this. [66:40] They really captured the joy of the [66:42] concert. And they even made a comment. [66:44] Um Liam Nol Gallagher said, "Americans [66:47] have such a big stick up their ass or [66:49] they probably said ours." He said, "And [66:51] it was so great to see them like let [66:53] loose a little bit at the concert and [66:55] enjoy themselves." And I thought that [66:56] they really captured the joy of this [66:58] event for we talked about it at the [67:00] time. just the vibes of it were just off [67:02] the charts good. [67:04] >> And that's great. [67:05] >> I I so I thought about my top three [67:07] concerts of all time. This is one of [67:08] them. And it it has to do with like your [67:11] not necessarily the band, but it's like [67:13] time and place vibes at the concert. And [67:16] so like I had when I was in college, I [67:17] went to Vienna and we saw these I [67:19] mentioned this the Counting Crows at a [67:21] palace right at this old Shun Brun [67:24] Palace in Vienna. Just 25 college [67:26] people. We saw Elton John there too. [67:29] after college went to a Jimmy Buffett [67:30] concert in Chicago. All my old high [67:32] school friends, Courtney and I just [67:33] started dating with my brother like [67:35] great great memories of Jimmy Buffett. [67:37] This one was there and I think part of [67:38] it is [67:41] we were the last same generation people [67:42] in the '9s. So, it's all people 35 to 50 [67:44] who grew up in the '9s and and they talk [67:46] about this on the podcast a little bit [67:48] like how and I think watching the [67:51] podcast there will never be another Liam [67:53] Gallagher that because if you tried to [67:56] be like him today you would just be a [67:58] poser and you'd be trying to like [67:59] pretend like you're a rockstar. He's the [68:01] last true great rockstar we had. [68:04] Remember him in the park? [68:05] >> Like Liam Gallagher is the last true [68:07] rockstar we had who just wanted to be a [68:09] rockstar. He wasn't doing it to like put [68:10] on a show. That's just who he was. that [68:12] you could not do that today without like [68:14] having a team of people advising you on [68:17] how to be a rock star. [68:18] >> Yeah. [68:19] >> Anyway, I thought it was really really [68:21] well done. It really captured like the [68:23] joy of the concert. And the the other [68:25] thing I never realized there was another [68:27] Oasis doc that kind of showed leading up [68:29] to them breaking up as a band. And this [68:31] is kind of after that. They didn't speak [68:33] for 15 years. [68:36] 15 years. They didn't speak a word to [68:38] one another. They both have kids. the [68:40] kids, so their cousins had never met [68:42] each other. So on tour, the kids got to [68:44] hang out for the first time and they [68:45] said they were all out getting drunk [68:46] together and pack and like puking in the [68:48] back of the vans and stuff on the way to [68:49] the concert. Just great great stuff. Um, [68:54] one more. Uh, this was on Anthony [68:56] Jezelnik's book club, The Glass Hotel by [68:58] Emily St. John Mandel. Uh, so I've read [69:01] her other two books. One was Station 11, [69:04] which is an awesome miniseries on HBO, [69:06] one of my favorites. She did another [69:08] book that was about time travel. So, [69:10] Station 11 is um apocalypse postapoc [69:14] apocalyptic. [laughter] I can't fit [69:17] [gasps] [69:19] one of those words. This This one was [69:22] about a Ponzi scheme. Allah Bernie [69:24] Maidoff. So, all of her books have been [69:25] completely different, but I this was [69:27] interesting. We talked last week about [69:28] like how having so much money it's like [69:30] it doesn't mean anything to you. So, [69:32] they they talked about this this woman [69:33] said, "You know what? I've learned about [69:34] money. I was trying to figure out why my [69:36] life felt and this is like super duper [69:37] wealthy people. Why my life felt more or [69:39] less the same in Singapore as it did in [69:41] London. And that's when I realized that [69:42] money is its own country. [69:45] >> That was really well said. [69:46] >> Good writing. [69:46] >> I really like the book. [69:48] >> So, Ben, I cut the cord, [69:52] >> but the problem now is I can't I don't [69:54] have access to like channel 245. I guess [69:57] I need like an antenna. I don't know how [69:59] to do it. [70:00] >> What did you get YouTube TV? [70:01] >> I didn't get YouTube TV. So last, so on [70:04] Sunday, [70:06] uh, I'm at home listening to the [70:09] freaking Giants on the radio like it's [70:12] 1996. [70:14] >> You have to get you have to get YouTube [70:16] TV. What are you doing? [70:17] >> Did you see how the Giants game ended [70:18] with the tie with the Jaden Daniels Bone [70:20] Head? [70:21] >> So I'm listening to that and it was just [70:23] it was it was [70:26] >> What are you doing YouTube TV? It still [70:27] counts as cutting the cord if you get [70:28] YouTube TV. [70:29] >> But isn't is it the same price? Why [70:30] would I get YouTube TV? because you need [70:33] it for sports. [70:34] >> Yeah. [70:34] >> Do you want to listen to the Giants game [70:36] on the radio for the rest of the season? [70:38] >> Um, all right. I uh No, I [70:40] >> YouTube YouTube TV is great. [70:42] >> I need to do something. So, did I [70:43] watched uh I watched Animals the Ben [70:45] Affleck movie. [70:47] >> What is that on Netflix? [70:48] >> All right. No, no. Uh Rod and Score [70:51] Inflation here. Critics gave it a 32. [70:54] Audience gave it a 42. Uh [70:58] I understand why it got panned. I kind [71:00] of liked it. I like I I was I was [71:02] entertained. I had a good time. The [71:04] ending was, you know, whatever. It was [71:05] it was silly uh in certain respects, but [71:08] I was I was entertained and I thought [71:09] about I thought about this after [71:10] watching the movie. So, there was a [71:13] clear message that Ben Affleck was [71:16] trying to send or was trying to convey [71:19] and I am [71:22] for the most part a pretty poor watcher [71:24] of movies. I would say for as much as I [71:26] love movies and this is part of the [71:27] reason why I love going to the theater [71:29] and watching an airplane because there's [71:30] I'm distraction free but it's very rare [71:33] that I watch a movie and I'm like oh he [71:36] was they were trying to say something [71:38] normally I'm just like totally oblivious [71:41] to like and I love I love listening to [71:43] people talk about what they were trying [71:45] to say like you know on the big picture [71:46] and stuff but I never I never pick up on [71:49] anything. I'm like, "Oh, oh, okay. I [71:51] just thought it was I just thought it [71:52] was just like a guy that was, you know, [71:53] having a bad day." [snorts] [71:54] Uh, [71:55] >> you don't go too deep on the movies. [71:56] >> No, I am a I am a surface level watcher [71:58] at best. And I surface level watched the [72:01] out of this movie and I I had a [72:02] good time. [72:03] >> All right, I'll give it a try. He He [72:05] directed this movie, too. [72:06] >> He directed it. [72:07] >> Okay. [72:08] >> Yeah. It's not a It's not a very good [72:09] movie, I wouldn't say, but classic [72:12] kidnapping movie. There's a twist. [72:14] >> If there's a straight to streaming [72:15] movie, you can't have high expectations. [72:18] We're not there yet. [72:19] >> Yeah. [72:20] >> All right. [72:20] >> Uh, you still watching the the Ham Show? [72:24] >> I love it. It's really, really good. [72:26] American Hospital. I [72:26] >> haven't seen episode five yet. [72:28] >> Yeah. The one the one where he talked [72:30] about his losing his daughter. [72:33] John Ham is just amazing. I love that. [72:34] >> He's He's terrific. Okay. Um, that's it. [72:39] I believe Ben, we're good. [72:41] >> Check the show notes for links to the [72:43] Broadway show December. Get your tickets [72:45] now. They're going to go fast. [72:46] >> All right. So, I've got some homework. [72:48] I've got some things to think about to [72:49] reflect on your your takes, which were [72:51] scorching. [72:52] >> Put them in the oven. [72:53] >> All right. Animal Spirits of the [72:54] Compoundnews.com. We'll see you next [72:56] time. [73:03] [music]