5/12/26: Bibi Blames Social Media For Anti-Israel Criticism, Derek Thompson On Billionaire AI Takeover

This is an I Heart podcast. Guaranteed human. Hey guys, Sagar and Crystal here. Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election and we are so excited about what that means for the future of this show. This is the only place where you can find honest perspectives from the left and the right that simply does not exist anywhere else. So if that is something that's important to you, please go to breakingpoints.com, become a member today and you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free, and all put together for you every morning in your inbox. We need your help to build the future of independent news media and we hope to see you at breakingpoints.com. This is really Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in his splashy 60 minutes interview on Sunday night, which Crystal and I covered yesterday. I also made some comments in regard to what he sees as rising antisemitism and he has a theory of why this is apparently happening. It is related to, you guessed it, social media. Let's take a listen to this first thought. We have seen the deterioration of support for Israel in the United States almost, I would say it correlates almost 100% with the geometric rise of social media and that by itself is not what caused it and I don't believe in censoring them or anything, but I'll tell you what happened. We have several countries that basically manipulated social media with bot farms, with fake addresses, to break the American sympathy to Israel, to break the American-Israeli alliance because they think it's in their interests and they do it in a clever way. You know, it's like you hear a text message. I'm a red-blooded Texan, I always supported Israel, but I can't stand what they're doing, I'm turning against Israel and then you trace the address to some basement in Pakistan, you know. And that's something that has hurt us badly. While we were fighting the physical military battle on seven battlefields, seven-front war, we were completely exposed on the eighth front, the media war, really the social media war. In a healthy political climate, he would be asked to apologize for those comments because he is implying that the American people are so stupid that dumb little text messages are what swayed them to start, especially he's talking about the American right, you can hear because he talks about this red-blooded American Texan, that's his way of talking specifically about Republican voters, conservatives, right-leaders in the United States are just so dumb that their opinions can't possibly be informed, that if they have lost, if their support for Israel is declining, it's because they are misinformed, ill-informed, or too stupid to actually just have an opinion that differs from Prime Minister Netanyahu as Americans, by the way, people who believe their country's interests, their interests, their family interests, their children's interests are out of line with the party, the Likud party, essentially. And Sagan and Toss is over to you with also the news that Israel is now bragging basically about banning Tyler Oliveira from entering the country. This is the next element, it's a Laura Loomer exclusive. She posts, Israel's minister of diaspora and combating anti-Semitism exclusively tells me, quote, it was his pleasure to make sure Tyler Oliveira could not enter Israel today upon landing in the country from the US. She mentions, of course, also that Tyler just completed an interview with Tucker Carlson in which they bashed Israel with lies, and then Tyler hopped on an LL flight to Israel so it's all just an op from foreign countries manipulating Americans, manipulating Tucker Carlson, using him, this is all from foreign money. It couldn't possibly be American people saying this is what is in my rational interest based on the best information that they could come up with. Yeah, you really should read actually what this guy said, the minister of the diaspora, he says, the party is over, anyone who comes here with the same of spreading hatred will be sent back where they came from. This follows the implementation of the new policy, entry into Israel or activity within Israel will not be permitted for anyone who disseminates anti-Semitic content, supports BDS or insights against the state of Israel and the Jewish people, the rule is simple, whoever insights against us simply will not be here. And of course, Tyler Oliveira, to my knowledge, the video which they are the most upset with him about is the one about, I think it was a Hasidic Jewish community, I think in New Jersey, okay, listen, go watch it, for yourself. Go watch it. You can decide whether it's anti-Semitic or not. I would say it fits within the broad catalog of the work that he've done. And that's, I mean, to me, that's the hypocrisy. Like if he does a video about illegal migrants in Europe, everybody loves him, right? Yeah. At least right-wingers, but they love, Somalians, they love it. Oh, no, you can't do that, right? And see, that's the problem. And that's, by the way, why that guy has, what, like nine million subscribers on YouTube. This is, we're just a politics show. This is like a cultural phenomenon. It is. My favorite Oliveira's video is when he went to Alabama and tried to find people who'd kiss their cousins. Like this is the content America needs. Like this is like culture content. You know what I'm saying? Yeah, totally. Like this is like culture-era stuff. Like this is a YouTube tier which we are never gonna be in. I mean, we send Ryan Groom out to Alabama and try to find cousin kissers, could be interesting. We can send Ryan Groom to find fish fans in Alabama. Just be like uniting with brothers. But I think the point that remains here is they view it as a social media problem, not a reality problem. And look, it's Triton, it's funny, Tyler Oliveira, ha, ha, ha. Okay, that's not serious. What's serious are stories, like the one we're about to show you, which actually really do shock the conscience and make you go, huh, is this something that you wanna be either complicit in or supportive of and or, you know, it makes you just think, is this the country which we were told that it is? Right? And I think for a lot of younger lefties, humanitarians, what happened in Gaza is really shocking. From a right-wing perspective, it's also been the humanitarian, but the biggest discomfort comes from the level of control over discourse in our own country, right? It's because you really start to be like, well, hold on a second, you know, not some bleeding heart liberal, but you don't get to tell our bleeding heart liberals what to say and or do, and you definitely don't get to throw them in prison, right? Like that's our business, it's not your business. And that's what I think really starts to grate, I think, and it becomes something that's now happened altogether. It's been almost three years since October 7th. It just blew the doors really off of this. And then, you know, finally, it's a long-winded way of getting to the New York Times story, but I do think it's important because the reaction now from the pro-Israel diaspora or the Israeli government to the story pales in comparison to the way that they reacted when Ryan and many others started investigating the claims over mass rape on October 7th. And look, this is the most difficult and uncomfortable thing to talk about, but so be it, you know, it's become a major part of the discourse around this subject. The point remains, the New York Times story, which they published about mass rape on October 7th. Screams without words. Screams without words. Had several holes within it that did not hold up to serious journalistic scrutiny. And I'm not saying necessarily it didn't happen, but many of the claims that they made within that, that were investigated, again, not just by Ryan, but many others that looked into them systematically, many of them did not hold up over time. Okay, so then let's compare that, and I'm gonna let you set this up, to this now New York Times story from Nick Kristoff about rape of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli custody. Well, yeah, and let's just also, I mean, Ryan is always very careful to say this. He thinks the chance that there was no rape on October 7th is zero. It is unrealistic to say that there was no sexual violence or rape on October 7th, almost certainly there was. And there is evidence. The question is whether these claims were inflated for the sake of propaganda, and then misreported by outlets who had lapses in journalistic ethics, essentially. And now this is being turned around against New York Times columnist, Nick Kristoff. He is on the opinion side of the paper, and he ran this story just yesterday. We can pop it up on the screen here. D4, the headline is, the silence that meets the rape of Palestinians. He started by saying, it's a simple proposition. Whatever our views of the Middle East conflict, we should be able to unite in condemning rape. Supporters of Israel made that point after the brutal sexual assaults against Israeli women during the Hamas-led attack on Israel on October 7th, 2023. Now, he's very clearly starting on a point of agreement with many of the people who are now his detractors. He goes on to say, yet in wrenching interviews, Palestinians have recounted to me, a pattern of widespread Israeli sexual violence against men, women, and even children by soldiers, settlers, interrogators in the Shin Bet internal security agency, and above all, prison guards. Now, people took issue with the fact that Kristoff cited a report from the Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor, which people who are pro-Israel see as anti-Israel and biased for that reason. Kristoff in the piece, I will say, he does describe it as, quote, a Geneva-based advocacy group often critical of Israel. So in the piece, he caveats the evidence with that identifier descriptor of Euro-Med. But we can go on, probably the biggest piece of information that he included in the piece were allegations of trained dog sexual abuse. So this became an absolute, this became an absolute attack against him on X from people like Deborah Lipschatt. We can put this next element up on the screen. This is D5. This was Lipschatt saying the New York Times. I know she was. So she's a premier Holocaust scholar who's also, what is she, the Biden administration's anti-Semitism, very, very big supporter. So like a center left liberal. Center left, yep, yep, exactly. So Adam Lewis Klein publishes this graphic that says the New York Times published the anti-Zionist dog rape libel. And Deborah Lipschatt, quote, tweets this, have they the New York Times no sense of decency and journalistic responsibility? The Adam Lewis Klein post compares the New York Times to Der Sturmer. And includes this. And U.S. Striker. Yes, and includes the reminder as one New York correspondent Harretts notes that Striker was, quote, hanged. I mean, the fire Nick Kristoff social media graphics were blazing all over X yesterday. Still continue this morning. Continuing this morning. From the Israeli government too, let's be clear. It's not just about commentators. We're talking about the government of Israel, like the prime minister of Israel. Yes, and there have been efforts to debunk over and over again the Kristoff story. And Sagar, I just wanna tell this to you. I read the story after reading the backlash to it. So I read the... Yeah, with all the caveats in your head. Yes, so I read the story and I expected it to be much different based on the debunking. Because the debunking of the story is actually really a debunking of a couple different pieces of it. But not the broad picture of the story. Yes, so they're mad about Yoramed being cited. But actually... And there's like one particular account that they call into the question the motives of the... Now, why are we going through all this? Because what they're saying is that that's evidence that the entire thing is made up. And at the end of the day, it's firsthand account from what is it? 14 Palestinian men and women, lawyers, human rights workers, family members, the detailed account of rape and sexual assault with objects, general abuse, forced search searches by mixed gender groups, threats of rapes to intimidate detainees into silence or cooperation with intelligence services, victims including men, women and children as young as 15. And... Well, as we say, it's not just Yoramed. It's also Beth Salam. There are other groups that are cited in here. There are other people than the person who has this story that is horrific about being raped by a dog who is as a prisoner. That, the identity of that person who goes on the record is then being called into question by people who support Israel and are trying to debunk the story because they say this person is supportive of terrorism. And they are, again, on the record in this New York Times piece, but they are not the only source in the story. And when I went to the piece after reading all of the debunking, I expected it to be a story that was mostly based around the Yoramed report and this one person's claim. No, as you just pointed out, it is multiple human rights organizations reports. And it is 14 different people that Kristoff interviewed and then the New York Times obviously vetted in their editorial process. They have attorneys. So do I think the New York Times gets a lot of things wrong? Yes. This is a very hot story. How about this? Sue them then. Go for it. You know, that's my, my critique is, look, Israel and everybody else, you say it's all fabricated. Go for it. All right, Sue them. Let's open it up for discovery. Open yourselves up for discovery. Do it in US court and in New York state. All right, let's go. Fine, let's see what you've got. Sue, Nick Kristoff and let's see what you've got. And if what you've got is if you can open up all your files and you can prove in each of these individual cases that what they're saying is not true, then you will win. And you are correct that this would be some fake blood libel and or hit job. And what Kristoff can do is he can reveal what he was told, the fact checking, you know, that, and all that stuff that went behind it. And then we can see for ourselves or they can job on on social media. And we will continue to see basically, you know, calling this a blood libel or any of that, but any sort of like actual, you know, ability to quote debunk doesn't, you know, you said something about there about, oh, this is not just human rights. I would put all that out of there. And I would say to not just look necessarily at the, because that's the other problem. These people are often such an information vacuum that this is the only first time they may have ever heard anything. Do we not all remember the case of the Israeli shoulders who were literally on camera being caught doing this to Palestinian prisoners who then were jailbroken out of, by their own citizens and celebrated? That was called a blood libel. No, that's true though. That actually happened. And it just, here's the thing. It was a scandal inside of their country. All you need to do is read Israeli media. So if you were to read that and have knowledge of that and then read this, you're like, okay, well, that kind of makes sense, doesn't it? And if you were to read not even just about the conditions or some of these other things that happen, you know, with a lot of Palestinian detainees in Israeli prison. Now, at the end of the day, why do they care so much? The reason that they care so much about this story is because it makes them look like the same people that they're fighting, right? And that's the problem for them. The moral high ground is so important. Well, yes, it's the predicate for USAID. It's the predicate, not just for USAID, but for this declaration of we are a Western country. We're just like you. We're blood brothers, right? That's what they try to say. It's not true, okay? They don't operate like that. They haven't been like that a long time. Now, are there a lot of people like that over there? Absolutely, don't get me wrong. But that does not mean that the government itself with Ben Gaviers and Smotritches and all these people, like, you know, listen to the, these liberal Zionists will even tell you, these people are in a different league. And then you combine this with, let's say, how they operate in the West Bank and some of these lynchings and other things that happen, these killings of either US citizens or others and the settler movement. And then you've got this treatment of some of these Palestinian prisoners or detainees or this new law that they just passed about executing. You got to add it all up in totality. And you would say, wow, you look a lot like Saudi Arabia, actually, which you claim you're a lot better than, but maybe you're just the same. And if you are the same, well, that's going to change the security calculus because then we're going to start being like, oh, this isn't an emotional relationship. This is like what's in it for the both of us argument. And, you know, maybe not a lot, actually. Well, and this is why Netanyahu is right now working to convince the American government to further crush cripple Iran. It's why he said in that same 60 minutes interview that his plan is to help Israel be weaned off his words, US support within the next decade. Now, Sucker, you could take the dog elements out of the story and you could take Euro Med out of the story and you would still have a strong piece from Kristoff who also cites, for example, the committee to protect journalists, which has surveyed 59 Palestinian journalists who were released by Israeli authorities after October 7th, quote, 3% said they had been raped and 29% said they had endured other forms of sexual violence. You can remove the elements of the story that are being, the most high profile elements of the story that are being picked apart right now. And you still have a story that can't really be picked apart in whole. And this is why there's a significant, these back lashes like this one are actually counterproductive for Netanyahu's purposes. And I really mean that for people who support Israel, back lashes like this one actually backfire because what they do is people see the backlash and they go read the story, right? And that's an experience for them where they can contrast and compare what they're being told with then what they see in the story. And it's one of those things. I think one of the big reasons, Sagar, that support has declined for Israel and the United States is that people because of social media, not because of foreign ops, but because of a lot of accurate information that is bypassing the media gatekeepers because of a lot of that, they have been able to compare what they were told for a really long time with some actual videos, some actual testimonies. And listen, people can make up their own minds. Yeah, read it, go ahead. Yeah, if you think it's, read this. Emily presented what they said is the criticism. You make up your mind for yourself, all right? Yeah, absolutely. I'll present, you know, look at the Israeli government's response and all that. You might find it very revealing. I certainly do. Take my own thoughts out of it, take her thoughts out of it. You can go read it and you can decide what you think for yourself. All right, let's move on. We have Derek Thompson standing by to talk about AI. Let's get to it. Very excited now to be joined by our friend, Derek Thompson. He's the host of the Plain English Podcast and the author of the Derek Thompson sub-stack, link down in the description. Thank you so much for joining us, sir. Appreciate it. Great to be here, thank you. Derek, you're always a very thoughtful person. Challenges some of the preconceived notions I have here on AI. I thought it was a bubble for a long time. Let's put this up here on the screen. You recently just pointed out actually, you say if you thought that the odds that AI was a bubble in 2025 were greater than 50%, I don't know how you can look at this and not shift your odds. The best time to flip flop is when reality changes. A leading AI company's run rate quadrupling in six months is some kind of change. You are looking specifically there at Anthropic, which has reached a 45 billion run rate one month after reaching 30 billion, a continuation of the tripling per quarter and 100x annualized growth that we've seen. So first, let's just sit with that. It does seem currently as if it's not a bubble. What does that mean and how certain are you? I think, I'm not certain at all. Okay, good. I mean, look, like it would be crazy to be certain. It would honestly be clinically insane to feel strongly about how the next five years are going to play out. I mean, this is a cliche, but it's always appropriate to begin with like the basic facts here. You have private sector companies spending $600 to $700 billion every single year on a technology that is still in its infancy. I mean, we haven't seen anything like this ever. My favorite statistic to share here is that the Apollo program spent between the 1960s and early 1970s, about $300 billion in inflation adjusted dollars. So now you have not the government, which was funding the Apollo program, but private sector companies like Microsoft, OpenAI, et cetera, spending as much money as the Apollo program every five to six months. It's absolutely nuts. It's nuts. And if you're certain how this is going to turn out, you're crazy. That said, I think the basic reason to think that something is a bubble is to boil it down to basics, spending is outrunning revenue, right? In the 19th century, in the 1800s, the reason that the railroads were bubble is that they were taking on debt to build rail that was not used and said they would take on debt, they would spend all this money to build out the rail and they couldn't get money coming in because no one was living at the other end of the railroad. And as a result, they went belly up over and over and over again in the panics of the 19th century. Or you look at say the dot com bubble where a bunch of fiber optic cable was laid in the ground, hoping that demand would materialize. It didn't materialize on time. Instead, the Netflixes of the world, the YouTubes of the world that use that fiber optic cable didn't really come online until like 15 years after it was put in the ground. And as a result, it was a short-term bubble. So the critical question that we should ask here when we're trying to understand if AI is a bubble is, is the demand, is the revenue going to show up on time? Last year, I think the wise answer to that question was, no, this is simply way too much money to materialize before these companies are gonna realize that their cash flows are absolutely destroyed by spending all of this money on data centers and chips and electricity and all of that. But if you're living in a world where we're watching the fastest growing companies in the history of modern capitalism quadruple their annualized run rate every six months, well, that has to make you less certain that it's a bubble. Even if it's moving, say your overall like, bubble percentages as it is for me from like 55%, yes, it's a bubble to like 40%, it's a bubble. So that's basically where I am. I'm moving a little bit on the margins by trying to answer like a question based on first principles. Is the revenue going to catch up to spending? Last year, I thought, no, right now, I think, yeah, maybe. Wow, interesting. Well, speaking of data centers, we have this video that we can start rolling. It's going to be, this is a data center and you can hear the noise. People may have seen some of these videos going viral on social media, but I'm gonna ask a little bit about what this could mean for the bubble question actually, let's roll the clip. So, Derek, obviously what we've seen is a cratering political support for data centers around the country and we could debate whether or not people are correct in some of their assumptions about water and electricity and the like, but the fact of the matter is these are becoming political albatrosses for the companies that have pushed them time and again in different localities. And I'm curious, what you make of the question of how much that matters for these companies' ability to deliver if there starts to be a real uphill climb just to build these data centers and to get them in action. And secondly, how important the intense political support that these companies are getting from this administration actually is to their ability to deliver and prevent a potential bubble pop. I have asked a version of this exact question to executives at the top of OpenAI and Anthropoc. And I've put it in almost the exact same words that you put it. I said, you may not realize this, living out in California, but here in DC, I can tell you that there is a populist wave that wants to shut you guys down, that wants to make it politically impossible to build data centers in the United States, that thinks that artificial intelligence is, frankly, as the executives often promise, a kind of demonic force that is guaranteed to displace or disemploy or destroy tens of millions of jobs and they're going to try to stop you. What are you going to do next? One answer that I've heard is that what they're going to do next is build the data center's overseas. Period. And the data centers can be built overseas. Some of them are being built overseas. And if you look at the backlog of data center construction in the US, it's quite significant already. So I do think that a data center moratorium or even maybe less officially, a kind of pointillist populist backlash to data centers that makes it hard for them to be built in parts of the country, parts of the Rust Belt, parts of the Midwest, where a lot of them are coming online, even parts of Loudoun County near where I live in Washington, DC, sort of data center alley, it's absolutely possible that they could find it harder to build those data centers in the US and they're going to have to shift data center construction overseas. I'm not confident that that alone is going to stop the scaling of artificial intelligence. I think it's going to make it harder for it to be built in a place where we control and might have some unforeseen consequences. If, for example, data center construction is shifted to a country, let's say in the Middle East, where we don't have the kind of security over those data centers that we would hope to have in the US, what kind of crisis does that create five years down the line? That's an interesting sort of second order consequence. But the answer that I've gotten from the executives is the economic principle to build this stuff is so great if we can't build it in Kansas and Ohio, we're just going to look at the UAE and cutter. Yeah, Derek, how does this fit with your abundance framework? I'm really curious that I've seen this huge debate play out online. You just mentioned Loudoun, they're like, hey, look, we're getting all this property tax revenue from these data centers. But we've also seen much of the backlash if we were to put it together, comes down to a few things. It comes down to electricity, it comes down to localism and really what that means is just control over your area. I also think it comes back to failed promises and failed specifically like promises about, oh, okay, Northern Virginia where we're both residents. Amazon HQ too, it's going to come in, it's going to do a, we were going to throw all these tax breaks, oh, didn't work out, actually we just ended up kind of being a boondoggle, none of it really materialized. It's almost like we've heard this from you so many times. It also comes at a time of deep dissatisfaction with the very same companies that are actually building this out, either from social media or others in terms of the way that consumers feel about this. But from a pure monetary perspective, let's say either abundance or in terms of, let's say long-term cheapening energy, I could see why somebody who's operating within your framework would be supportive of it. So how are you thinking about it? It's a great question. And the truth is that I'm not exactly sure that I have the perfect answer here. But, and I'd like you to hold my feet to the fire if you feel like this first answer is not sufficient. But I would like to begin to answer this question of what do we do about artificial intelligence within the abundance framework? Not by looking at AI specifically, but rather by looking at the first two chapters of our book are about housing and energy. At the end of the day, or really at the beginning of the day, at the beginning of the book, what we wanna do is make housing affordable and abundant and we wanna make energy affordable, abundant and clean. So what's important to me on energy policy is are electricity prices going way up? Or are they stabilizing and going down? And right now they're going way up. Well, why are electricity prices going way up? The best economic research that I have seen suggests that data center construction, while any ingredient in the jambalaya of why energy costs are going up is not the primary ingredient. The primary ingredient is not the exciting thing of artificial intelligence, it's the boring stuff. That the guts of the electrical grid that are necessary to carry electrons for the point where the energy is produced, say a solar farm to the point that it is being used, say your living room, those parts are getting more expensive and they're getting more scarce. It's becoming more expensive to build transformers, it's becoming more expensive to import copper wires, it's becoming more expensive to build the electrical grid in the first place. And as those costs go up, as the infrastructural costs go up for building electricity, in a way that has nothing to do with data centers yet, that is the primary reason why energy costs are going up. So I would wanna solve the energy problem. I would wanna meet people where they are and say, do you want your energy costs to go down? If you do, then let's solve for the bottleneck that exists rather than the bottleneck that is sexiest to talk about, which is data centers. To me, that's make it easier and faster to build and cite transformers and the guts of the infrastructure of the electrical grid. That's on energy. On housing, I have become really concerned by stories like the one that I read in the Wall Street Journal recently that suggests that certain parts of the country that were previously allocated for residential development, for building housing are being bought up by data centers. That to me gets a little bit close to taking land that was previously going to go to people and giving it to Silicon. And that's where I do think there might be some tensions between AI, which I'm not like wholeheartedly against, and abundance. I would like to find ways to write local laws that make it more difficult for data centers to buy land that was previously allocated for or is in hot demand for necessary housing. That's a place where I think AI and housing might be at cross purposes. But again, I hope you hear in my answer something that's sort of like, I hear that you wanna ask one question, which is how does AI fit with abundance? But I really wanna focus on what is abundance trying to do? Like what are the outcomes that we're interested in? We're interested in affordable and abundant housing. We're interested in affordable and abundant and clean electricity for people so that they don't have to worry the energy costs. And I wanna solve those problems directly rather than get distracted by AI policy and try to answer the problems by going into the back door of artificial intelligence. Yeah, I actually read before I let Emily answer, I remember reading a Chinese analyst who was like, we don't care about data centers we should have cheap power. He's like, we don't care, dude. He's like, we have cheap power everywhere. And so as a result, it's not a problem for us. And I think that fits very much in your framework. But I know Emily has a question. Well, I was actually just gonna ask like if Matt Stoller were here, Derek, he would wanna also push on the question of corporate power and how, you know, as I was talked about your co-author, as your client has talked about this a bit lately as well, there are several AI companies. We're not talking specifically just about monopoly, although regionally, I guess that might be a different question. But how do you think the issue of concentrated power in the market either undermines or confirms basically the abundance theory that you laid out in the book? Well, artificial intelligence is interesting from a corporate power standpoint. Because in the one hand, it is absolutely clear that if you look at the stock market, stock market returns are overwhelmingly driven by AI companies. And that feels... 30% of the S&P 500 is mag seven. And that feels like corporate concentration. But when I look at AI specifically, I see an industry where there are a lot of companies trying to race to the frontier. It's not yet entirely clear to me that what we're seeing within AI is monopoly power. I see a lot of companies spending an enormous amount of money to make a product that is currently quite subsidized for many consumers in terms of final token prices. And so I don't yet see in artificial intelligence that which we are used to seeing in a classic monopoly. And therefore, I'm not sure that sort of anti-monopoly frameworks, the perfect frameworks to deal with the power of artificial intelligence. I'll tell you what I'm more concerned about, sort of scoping out beyond frames of abundance versus anti-monopoly. Anthropic in secondary markets looks like it's valued somewhere between one and $1.4 trillion. Open AI has talked about going public at near $1 trillion. All of the companies that are building artificial intelligence are worth trillions of dollars. We're walking into a world that's going to have a lot more billionaires. And while I am not ideologically anti-billionaire and I'm not ideologically of the position that all billionaires earn their money through theft and illegal and extra-legal means, I do think that the concentration of income among billionaires is very likely going to slow walk us into a world or race us into a world where billionaires are going to account for something between 20 and 50% of all political spending in national elections. The amount of attention and political will that can be bought with that kind of money should make people concerned. It should make us feel that the democratic process is being concentrated among a small number of people who are determining the kind of issues that we debate and the kind of issues, the kind of topics that people choose to run on. That concerns me. And I'm not sure where we should begin to solve that problem. I'm not sure how we should end to solve that problem, but I do think I know where we should begin, which is that one of the first things that the Trump tax credits did is that they reduced the corporate tax rate on C-corps and S-corps, sort of sole proprietor companies. An enormous number of millionaires and billionaires are essentially saw their overall effective tax rate decline by something like $300,000 on an annual basis because of that law. The first thing I would do is roll back that law. And the second thing that I would do is really think hard about the reality that we have right now, which is a lot of billionaires paying a lower effective tax rate than your typical plumber or your typical Starbucks worker. Let's fix that. Let's create a new minimum basic tax rate for billionaires to speak up to the fact that, yes, we're walking into a world where the economy is growing, we're making these new technologies, it's minting billionaires. Those billionaires, I think, certainly need to pay up rather than a world where they account for 50% of political spend and, oh, look what just happened, the new political regime just cut their effective tax rates by another 20%. That seems like a world that I don't want to live in. My last question for you, Derek, you're always very thoughtful on this, is how people are feeling. Let's put E5 up here on the screen. This is from your newsletter about how the 2020s broke our brains. It's the tragic 20s and Americans cannot stop feeling a lot hot garbage. You point out the University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Survey, Job Satisfaction Survey is the lowest on record. The General Social Survey and the World Happiness Survey found happiness plunge in the 2020 has since been mired at levels significantly below. This is part of where I start to link AI and where a lot of existential fear comes from. In my opinion, just my own general observation is people definitely do feel like being online more and being hyper fixated and or beholden to technology has definitely been worse for them, maybe not materially, but emotionally, and this is where a lot of the backlash starts to come from. This is the same thing I talked about with localism. So how are you thinking about that? Also within this AI framework, not just these new billionaires, and obviously that leads to the notion we're like, wow, we're really being controlled by all of these people who have just become minted from all across the United States, but also the very technology that they got rich off of, these two things. Yeah, I think this is a really, really important question. And it's important in answering it that I don't suggest there's any one answer. What we have seen in the 2020s is basically every single poll suggests that Americans are telling pollsters that they're more miserable than they've been in like the 50 to 70 modern history of polling. And one way you can frame that question is to say, if America is so rich right now, and we are richer overall than we have been in any other decade, then why are we so miserable? And I think that the answer as to why we're miserable has to do with at least several things. There are several things that were linked both in that tweet in the underlying, in the underlying essay. One is that I think the pandemic never really ended. I think the pandemic never really ended biologically. There's still a lot of people who live with long COVID. I don't think it ended economically because one legacy of the pandemic was inflation and we still live with inflation. I'm talking to you now, I think just an hour and a half after a new CPI report found inflation hit its highest level since 2023 and is still going up and expectations of inflation are still quite strong. We're living in a period after which interest rates in order to combat inflation rose by their fastest level ever. And one thing that's done is make it significantly more expensive for young people to buy a house if they're coming into the market after mortgage rates went up rather than boomers who are often living in homes where they're paying an interest rate that was achieved or the mortgage rate that they got in the 2010s. So I think there's a lot of envy and a lot of hurt about that. And then also I don't think you can rule out technology. I think that there were a lot of people in Silicon Valley that promised that our phones and social media were going to connect us in new and wonderful ways. And I think that they connected us in new and horrible ways. I think that phones are bad for us. I think that they are compulsive. I think that they create negative social comparison. I think we have very clear evidence that for young people and especially young women, they are really bad for anxiety. And for other people, I think they just kind of make us feel like what did I say in the tweet? Kind of like hot garbage. Like I don't know a lot of people who spend hours on their phone and then look up into the real world and say, God, I'm so happy that I spent all that time on my phone. I think we live in like a regret economy where we regret a lot of our leisure, rather than feel good about it. And that's not good either. Finally, you have AI. And I think, even if use of AI isn't making people miserable, I don't really think it is yet for the most part. Look at the way that the people who are building this technology are talking about it. Dario Amade and Sam Altman making this technology are promising us that it's going to disemploy tens of millions of people. This is an extraordinary way for a technologist to talk about the thing they've chosen to devote their lives to build. And it's freaking out a lot of people. And at a time of low hiring rates, it's making a lot of young people feel unbelievably anxious about not only will they get a job in the next five months, what about the next five years? What about the next 10 years? If artificial intelligence is just gonna destroy the bottom of the corporate ladder. So there's all these reasons to feel like the 2020s have been one fucking thing after another, right? Just war after war after war and existential crisis after existential crisis. It's a pandemic, it's climate change, it's artificial intelligence. So yeah, I think we feel like hot garbage and I think people are often right to feel like hot garbage and I'm not gonna say they should quote unquote feel better just because we're overall richer. But I do want both commentators and political leaders to speak to this sort of portfolio of concerns. Not to lay all of this at the feet of just artificial intelligence or just smartphones or just whatever the interest rate. I do think that the reason the 2020s have been, as I said, the terrible 20s or the tragic 20s is just the accumulation of a lot of difficult things that have broken our brains. And I hope that people, when they really try to answer the question why we're miserable, speak to all of it. I agree. We kept them longer than we originally promised but he's just so good. Derek Thompson, Derek Thompson, sub-stack down in the description and listen to the Plain English Podcast as well. Always enjoy talking to you, man. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it. Bye guys. We went a little bit longer with Derek than originally planned. So the economy segment, Crystal and I can cover that tomorrow. We'll see you then, Crystal and I on a Wednesday. So get ready for that. Thank you, Emily. Oh wait, no, no, no, no, no. No hands, keep them glued down on the table. All right, we'll see you later. See you guys. This is an I Heart Podcast. Guaranteed human.