Oct 3, 2025 ยท 2025 #37. Read the transcript grouped by speaker, inspect word-level timecodes, and optionally turn subtitles on for direct video playback
Edit labels for this show, save them in this browser, or download a JSON override for the production folder.
Transcript Playback
The Great Platform Pivot
Human Transcript
Timed transcript
Blocks are grouped by speaker for readability. Expand a block to inspect word-level timing.
Speaker 1
Hello, everybody. It's Saturday, the 18th of October, 2025. Saturday is, that was the weekday, our summary of tech news. And there's only one story of this week. It's the bubble. Is there a bubble? Is there not? Keith Teer, and that was the week publisher. has his editorial and a lot of the articles connected with this. He entitles his editorial, Media, Forever Blowing Bubbles. Keith, are you suggesting that the idea of a bubble is the invention of the media, that you're blaming the media for all this bubble fetishization?
You know, you're not familiar with how the youth talk these days, Andrew. Mid means not the brightest. And that's what we've got here. Obviously, superficially, it's really easy to correlate lots of money flowing with the word bubble. And as a knee-jerk reaction, I would imagine a lot of people empathize with that. But it betrays a more fundamental examination of what's actually going on here. That's the point. And so the media, because it's focused on short-term readership or listenership or viewership, obviously seizes on headlines that attract attention. And its job is not to really understand, its job is to sell.
Yeah, I think that's a, I mean, you probably won't come as a surprise to you. It's always easy to criticize the messenger when you don't like what you're hearing. Firstly, I mean, there are lots of voices in the media who agree with you, who don't believe it's a bubble. So the media is not united. And in fact, you're...
Your content this week on that was the week points to that. There are lots of people who are ambivalent. There are lots of people who are skeptical. There are some who believe it's a bubble. Some believe that it's a kind of bubble. So blaming everything on the media and what you call mid thinkers, whatever that means, is absurd.
Well, I don't think I'm blaming them. I think I'm describing a phenomenon. I don't blame them. In fact, the opposite. I explain why it's their job to do exactly that.
But they, I mean, who are they, the media? I mean, there's so many different forces within the media. There's bloggers. There's people on Substack. There's everyone on YouTube. There's the TikTok crowd. I mean, there's traditional media, New York Times, FT, Wall Street Journal. What media are you talking about?
Well, maybe I'm mistaken, and I am generalizing, so you're right to accuse me of that. But as I think about what I saw last week, Even though you're right, as the newsletter shows, I created a whole section called Bubble Question Mark because there was so much of it.
I was pinging you every minute of the day, I think, this week. You and I have had a back-channel conversational debate about it over the last week. So this is dominating. I mean, you're right on this, that it is indeed dominating media, but that's what people want to read about, and it's important as well.
Yeah, but I mean... What I tried to do is use that as a canvas to actually talk about the real issue. And I start by making a point. I don't know if you'd agree with this point, but I make the point that all progress since the Industrial Revolution and even before comes from speculation, investing in scientific breakthroughs.
almost everything we... Yeah, and I think there are two debates here. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. And I think even those people who believe in bubbles wouldn't disagree that innovation comes from speculation and technological change. No one's debating that. And most people who believe that there is indeed maybe an AI-generated bubble are not necessarily AI skeptics. Most people would agree that in the long run, this is profoundly going to change everything. But we're talking about a short-term... financial threat of Wall Street being radically overpriced and there being some sort of sharp correction. I mean, that's the issue, isn't it?
Actually, nobody is arguing that there's overpricing. The only debate is if there's overinvestment. But nobody's arguing that the prices being paid are too great. Typically, it's about 15 times revenue being paid, which is, by historical standards, pretty normal.
Right, but Gillian Tett, who, I mean, she's a journalist, I guess, but one of the most respected financial journalists, asked if it's a Ponzi scheme. And she notes that the test, the 10 loss-making AI startups, OpenAI, Anthropic, XAI, et cetera, now command a collective valuation of close to a trillion dollars. So, I mean, that is a credible question to ask about whether the stocks are overpriced.
Right. So let's talk about that. Let's spend a few minutes and talk about that properly. She talks about a Ponzi scheme because she's part of this narrative that there's a...
No, hold on. Let me just be fair to Gillian. She's not saying it's a Ponzi scheme. She just... The first question... The first line of her piece in the FT is, is this just a Ponzi scheme question mark? And she doesn't actually believe it is one, but go on.
Well, so... But let's just, you know, let's acknowledge that... The idea that it is a Ponzi scheme has been widespread this week, mainly focused on this concept of round tripping. That is to say, you know, NVIDIA is giving OpenAI money, OpenAI is giving NVIDIA money and so on and so forth. Right.
And so... Can I just jump in here? I take your point, but... I haven't said anything yet. No, but you have to distinguish between what you call the round tripping of improving or increasing the value of these companies versus the Ponzi scheme of AI in broad terms. But anyway, go on.
Yeah, well, actually, they're correlated. So if we describe the entire thing, let's start with where does the money come from? You know, the answer is investors. And so the next question, which investors? And the answer is huge venture capital firms, private equity funds, pension schemes and the like. And it's a lot of money. Most of the money coming into AI is speculative investment money. Every single one of those are completely experienced investors used to cycles of boom and bust. So that's the first thing. The money is coming in from the outside. It's not self-generational.
I mean, people... Wait, wait, wait. The second source of money is revenue. I don't know if you've looked at NVIDIA's revenues recently, but they're massive. It's the biggest revenue any company's ever had. OpenAI's revenue set to be... Say that again? The biggest... The biggest demand of revenue we've ever seen from a single company in history. And the rate of growth.
I'm going to tell you about to do that. I have to go to Google Finance and type in NVIDIA. and go to their earnings, because otherwise you'll make me do what I did last week, which is guess. And I won't be right because my brain doesn't remember things. So the revenue last 12 months was $130.5 billion with a 114% rate of growth year over year.
You didn't talk about rate of growth. Let's just talk specifically about revenue. Apple's revenue. is 94 billion. Okay, so you were right on that. So, okay, so I take your point. Go on.
So, actually, I'm wrong, Andrew. That's quarterly. Let me just click on it. Quarterly, in other words. Actually, Apple's revenue, and Apple is worth a lot more. Apple's revenue was 391 billion, but only a 2% rate of growth.
Yeah, but you can't just, it comes back to this point. You said, oh, NVIDIA has the biggest amount, the largest revenue in the history of capitalism, which is wrong. But anyway, go on. Yeah, but it doesn't really change the point. Yeah, but don't say things that aren't correct, because otherwise it just fogs the issue. We have more bubbles.
You're lucky to have me. Go on, go on. But the main point is that markets pay for the future, not for the present. So if NVIDIA has $130 billion of annual revenue growing by 114% a year, and Apple has $391 billion growing by 2% a year, the markets are going to value NVIDIA above Apple, which they do, by the way. NVIDIA's market cap is higher than Apple's because it's all based on next year's revenue and the year after that.
Right, but nothing can be guaranteed. But anyway, go on.
Words and timings
Right,butnothingcanbeguaranteed.Butanyway,goon.
Speaker 2
But back to the core issue, where does the money come from? A lot of it comes from revenue. And so the idea that there's this closed ecosystem and that it's a Ponzi scheme because people are investing in tulips isn't true.
Yeah, but you're creating, again, storm. And no one's saying that it's like the tulip boom. No one's saying it's a Ponzi scheme. We're just... They are. Some people are saying it. Yeah, but that's... I'm not interested in... that conversation. It's pointless. Let's talk about whether or not the markets are in a situation that make
make it very vulnerable to some sort of very sharp correction, which impacts all of us, because everybody has stock of one kind or another, particularly not everybody, but most people probably watching and listening to this. So that's the question rather than whether this is just, no one's really, no one's seriously arguing that it's a Ponzi ski. And no one's seriously arguing that AI is just some sort of tulip invention to enable some people to get rich fast.
I'm not sure I think the word bad is useful. I mean, the two pieces that you connect to by Tet, who's very good on AI having what she calls a cargo cult problem, and also John Thornhill, who has written for many, many years on tech, AI's double bubble trouble, is I think they both speak to the way in which, on the one hand, The bubble is for real. And on the other hand, it isn't. On the one hand, AI is a remarkably transformative technology that's going to change everything. But on the other hand, there's what Thornhill calls financial froth in the current market. I mean, is that? So that's the issue. Do you think that's a bad thing? No, I don't use the word good or bad. It's just the reality. It's the nature of things.
To me, it's interesting because it's so important on so many fronts and because... It's one of the key issues in terms of determining the world we're living in. I don't know whether I'd use the word good or bad. I think they're pointless.
Well, all of these articles are trying to get you to read them based on the suspicion that something you should be concerned about, let's just say concerned about, is happening. And I'm saying everything that's happening is 100% good.
Yeah, well, I mean, that's just... I mean, I don't know what to make of that 100% good. I mean, it's because you're a teleologist and you believe in some sort of... I mean, Tet has her...
cargo cult problem, you have a progress cult problem. You believe that technology is leading the world to a better place and that anything that in any way interferes with that is a bad thing. I don't have such a sort of simplistic notion of history.
I don't think it's simplistic to acknowledge that when human beings collectively, that doesn't mean everyone, but groups of human beings get together and decide to invest speculatively in something they believe will transform the future in a good way, both for themselves and systemically for all of us, that that is how change occurs. I can't think of any alternative way of doing it.
Yeah, it's a macro view. I mean, I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that. I think change is a good thing. Let's try and drill down a little bit more concretely. You have an interesting piece from Scott Galloway, who's one of the most popular... professors of economics. He asks, how does the end begin? And he notes one of the most important realities that this boom or this froth, whatever you want to call it, this bubble is being driven by large tech companies by about 10 of them. Is that fair? Do you agree with Galloway?
Yeah, there's a massive concentration of wealth which I think is probably a precondition for this scale of change. There's a massive concentration of wealth in the hands of a small number of both companies and investors, driving a belief that we're on the cusp of life-changing developments.
Right, although I'm not sure. I mean, there are two things when it comes to, on the one hand, you've got these private companies where the money's coming from big VCs or big investors. And on the other hand, you have public companies like Apple and Google who are driving it so anyone can buy Google shares. And I thought, so I think everyone's in agreement with that. I mean, that's just the reality for better or worse. It's large companies and indeed large startups, a handful of startups like OpenAI, and anthropic that are driving all this now in a way thank god they exist well you keep on coming back to this morality issue let's try and get beyond that it's
worse so noah smith you also have a link to is always very smart he asked he makes the point that america's future could hinge on whether ai slightly disappoints and i think it's a really important point that he makes that the
the future of Trump's America or the Trump administration is really dependent on AI. It's ironic because Trump hasn't always been that friendly to tech, although he seems like on so many other fronts to be ambivalent. But increasingly, it seems to me, and this is the point that Smith, I think, is making, which is really interesting, is that the health of America and the health of The AI economy, the bubble, the froth, whatever you want to call it, the innovation is the same thing. Is that fair? Do you agree with that? Say that again, that the froth and the bubble. Whatever is happening, whatever you want to call it. You think it's healthy progress. Others think it's a bubble or financial froth. that the fate of America and the fate, or certainly the fate of Trump's America or the current administration and the state of this innovation economy, they've kind of merged, they're the same thing.
For better or worse, I mean, Matthew Inglesius, I'm not sure if you included his piece in it. I think you may have sent it over to me. He makes the point that the AI boom is propping up the whole economy. Now, he's not making a value judgment. He's just simply stating a fact. It's the same point that Scott Galloway is making.
Yeah, so my version of that point is is that most of the growth in GDP this year is accounted for by AI, which I think is what is in that second article. I can't remember the percentage, but it was quite a big percentage of GDP growth accountable to AI.
That's consistent with the belief that AI is going to grow GDP. And remember, global GDP is about 120 trillion. And some estimates by McKinsey and others suggest that AI could increase that by up to 20% over a decade. And so that's the payoff. In a way, that's what the speculation is hoping is true.
If, I don't know, say OpenAI really did have some sort of crisis, which it might do, it's likely, if it couldn't raise money, if, I don't know, if there was such a sharp correction in the markets that it was struggling to make money or that some of its numbers were perhaps a little inflated. But none of that seems credible. Well, it could do it. I'm just saying.
Anyway, my point is that I think that we have this merging, if you like, of the state and of the innovation economy in the US, where the interests of one and the interests of the other are actually, for better or worse, I'm not suggesting this is a good or a bad thing, it's just the reality of somehow come together. So this is maybe what some people think of as a post-neoliberal world, or this is the new economic order. Maybe it's the kind of economic nationalism or something that's different from before. I agree with you that some of the stuff on the bubbles is wrong. This isn't a dot-com boom. It's certainly not tulip fever. It's different. I mean, more bubbles have something in common, but everyone is different from the other. And what interests me is not what is similar about this, shall we say, exuberance, but what's different in the 2020s.
So I want to engage with that, which is a very substantial question. I mean, it's night and day between this administration and the previous one in terms of how the state thinks about tech. And we've talked and made fun of Lena Kahn and so on during the Biden administration.
But it is the case that since David Sachs was hired by the current administration to be the AI and crypto czar, the government's action in legislating in a way that is consistent with the growth of both AI and crypto means that there's more of a partnership between investors investing in AI and government than there's ever been.
Right, and the partnership, some people might think that word is a euphemism, but anyway, go on. I mean, it's more than a partnership. Maybe it's a marriage rather than a partnership.
From the point of view of unlocking change, from that narrow point of view, it certainly feels like a good thing. Now, you know, you can get right into it with things like building a one gigawatt data center, which is what everybody wants to do. And certainly up until now in America, the regulatory regime would have meant it would take years to successfully get all the permits to do such a thing. And now they're waiving lots of regulations to allow it to be built here as fast as it could be built in let's say India or China so certainly you called it possibly economic nationalism I do think that there is a strong wave of economic nationalism everywhere in the world driven by de-globalization, which is driven by China's growth and everyone's fear.
Right. So this is perhaps the new reality. And coming back to this administration, I know one of the pieces you particularly didn't like, which you include in this week's newsletter is by Jared Bernstein and Ryan Cummings, warning our stock market is looking like a bubble, which suggests that indeed it's bad news, all this over-speculation. But you suggested, again, offline, that these two guys, Bernstein and Cummings, were not well-educated. Is that a reflection of the Biden administration? Both men were quite prominent in the Biden administration. Is that the problem with people like Cummings and Bernstein and the AI czar, your graduate student friend, that they're not well educated?
Well, I think they're not doing a very good job for the Democratic Party. Firstly, there's the facts. The stock market's PE ratio, that's price to earnings, is high by historical standard. It's about 15 times, if I recall rightly, and historically 10 times is more normal. So it is slightly above. On the other hand, GDP is growing and you're at the start of what everyone thinks is a boom. So it's not unreasonable that people will pay more for a fee.
You're not answering my question. Are these guys uneducated? Is there a problem with people like Lena Kahn and Bernstein that they're just badly educated?
Well, what I just said is the facts. They clearly don't know those facts. So they're badly educated. Well, how could they say the stock market looks like a bubble when the historical price to earnings ratio is not like a bubble?
I'm going to have to get them on the show. And Gillian Tett makes this point. And I'm quoting her. I think her piece actually is the best piece of the week. AI has a cargo problem. The headline actually gives the wrong view. It's not that kind of piece. Maybe we can blame the headline writers at the FT. But she makes the point that, and I'm quoting her, it's possible that the only way American capitalism can ever amass the scale of investment needed to create this type of ambitious infrastructure is via such manias. So this is the argument that she's heard being made in the White House. And I wouldn't disagree. I mean, you and I, I think, would probably agree.
I strongly agree with her, although I don't think it's a mania, so I wouldn't use that word. But the only way American, not just American capitalism, any capitalism can make this kind of investment is by deciding to.
Although I'm not sure if it's, is it, do you think they sit around the, I'm not sure about Trump, but his economic people, they sit around and think, this is what we want to do.
It's not, it isn't Trump because Trump isn't making the investment. It's actually a whole bunch of other people. I would strongly, encourage everyone listening to watch a bunch of podcasts like BG2, which is Bill Gurley and Brad Gerstner, or the All In podcast, which has Chamath and David Sachs and Friedman. And, you know, the Harry Stebbings 20VC, which has Rory from ScaleVC and the head of Sasta on. All of them are discussing how much should be invested at what pace with what pricing it's fantastically thoughtful and it's disparate groups who act independently but at the end they're all doing the same thing which is diving into this new possibility
And that's the media for you, Keith. That's the thing that you don't like. Tech, again, she concludes by suggesting that whatever you want to call it, bubble, exuberance, that something's going to change. And she talks about a number of different causes. She talks about rising interest rates, supply chain disasters, an energy crunch, new innovations like neurosymbolic AI that leapfrogs the transformers. This is something that Gary Marcus has often talked about. or just cheaper versions of existing AI like that from Deep Seek. Are any of these scenarios real, Keith?
Well, all predictions are that because the labor market is not growing, that interest rates have to keep falling. It's one of the two Fed targets. And by the way, inflation is what appears to be under control. So we've knocked that one off. Supply chain disasters. I don't know what that means, actually. Well, I'll give you one example. This morning was announced that Tesla has ordered parts for 180,000 humanoid robots. And, you know, it previously ordered a doubling of its Grok data center. It doesn't seem as if there's any supply problem.
The energy crunch is a little bit more concerning because the amount of energy needed is far beyond the current energy levels. And so you're relying on slow moving innovation in either nuclear fission or fusion. Right now, only fission is realistic. And so energy is a real one.
New innovations and leapfrogging transformers with cheaper AI is definitely going to happen, but everyone benefits from that. It means actually the scale of innovation can decline, but the outcomes can accelerate.
I don't agree with that. I mean, I agree that it's probably going to happen, but I'm not sure it benefits everyone. If the price comes down radically, then the business models change as well, don't they?
Well, not really, because the whole business model of AI, at least if you believe open AI, is it's free for consumers. Is it? Absolutely. Almost everything open AI
viable business how else they can make money well because their money that money is not coming from the average consumer like in my household jenny doesn't pay my wife doesn't pay for opening i i do why because i want access to the latest things to test them she she's happy to use the free the free so basically you're writing off
Well, the energy one is real, and she's right about the declining costs. But declining costs per token, which is how you enumerate AI, is how much is the cost of a single token, that's real. But the number of tokens consumed is rising even faster than the cost is lowering. So the total consumption is going up. Yeah,
I mean, my sense is there could be some sort of black swan moment, a war, some sort of environmental catastrophe. So it's hard to tell. I mean, so you don't believe... So I want to move on, Keith. So for you, and you quote... The famous West Ham bubble song, I'm forever blowing bubbles, pretty bubbles in the air. They fly so high, they reach the sky and like my dreams, they fade and die. You don't believe it's a bubble. You believe that this exuberance or this economic vitality, whatever you want to call it, is not only for real, but somehow inevitable. There's not even going to be a slight correction, you don't believe?
Blame the media. It's my media's fault. So I don't mind the word bubble. I just don't like it being used in a pejorative. Because I don't think it's a bad thing. I think it's an inevitable necessity to major change.
OK, but Ansem, I know you and you keep on repeating yourself on that. I take your point. But in the next, I don't know, in a year's time, nothing bad is going to happen for the next two years. OK, well, we will see. Nothing bad is going to happen for the next two years. Bad meaning a sharp economic correction.
Completely the opposite. It's going to be a bull market.
Words and timings
Completelytheopposite.It'sgoingtobeabullmarket.
Speaker 1
Well, for those of you who are still on the sidelines. Keith has spoken. It's a bull market, so put all your money into big tech, especially Google, because that helps me. You also cite an interesting piece by Mike Lukides from O'Reilly Publications on Enlightenment. It's one of your favorite words, and it kind of connects with our interview of the week, which was from a keynote interview of the week with Caroline Levender from, Rice University, who has a new book out called Invent Ed, and she suggests that colleges now need to become startups rather than museums. They should teach failure. What is the opportunity for the enlightenment, Keith? It's a word I'm not very keen on, so to speak, but it's a word you like, and you think it's relevant for our current moment.
Look, I think I seized on this mainly because of his use of the word. I think, therefore I am, is his quote from Descartes, which is doubling down on the fact that AI is a human invention. And what we're at the start of, and he's talking about a Daniel Bell piece, by the way. Yeah,
and Daniel Bell, who's a professor of history at Princeton, has been on the Keen on America show, so. not talking about AI, but Bell apparently wrote a piece suggesting that AI is shedding enlightenment values. So you're not alone in liking the idea of enlightenment values, whatever they are.
So what he's trying to do here is, he's asking a question more than giving an answer, which is, if you have access to AI, what happens to human thinking? And he does that from the standpoint that human thinking ultimately is the key driver of everything. So there's no such thing as AI independent of human thinking. Can human thinking itself be enhanced by AI? And I assume we all think the answer is yes. I mean, you and I both use AI in our thinking every week.
But anyway, it's tired. I use the wired term tired. Yeah, I agree. I used enlightenment in my subtitle this week, and I partly regret using it, but I can't think of a better way to talk about while the next day that the
human life right essay on that maybe we'll have to get open ai to do that finally post of the week which i think kind of connects with everything we've been talking about It's by one of your favorite venture capitalists. I can't pronounce. How do you pronounce his name, Keith? Rulof Buter. Rulof Buter, who says venture is not an asset class. Asset class is scale. Venture doesn't scale with more money. It's a bit technical, but actually, I think, in a way, speaks to everything we've been talking about today.
Yeah, well, so Rulof did an interview with Jack Altman, who is Sam Altman's brother. That's one of the podcasts I strongly recommend people watch. It's usually very, very good.
He's a venture capitalist himself. He runs his own venture fund. So Rulof here is saying that venture capital is a game of a small number of of investors finding the big companies of the future and winning, whereas most investors can't do that. Therefore, venture capital is not an asset class because most venture capitalists...
An asset class is something where there's predictable outcomes over a long period of time, like the S&P 500. Whereas venture capital, he makes money, it's more like gambling, because unless you're in the small number of funds that win, you're gonna lose your money or a lot of your money. So therefore, he's not quoted there, but he makes a subsequent comment, which is, you'd be better off investing in an index, which of course was music to my ears because of SignalRank. And so,
What it comes down to is he's saying too much money is chasing the number of companies that can become the big winners. There's way more money than there are winning companies. Therefore, most of that money is going to be lost. And he's right. But that's normal. Venture capital has always been like that.
That's an important point. So is that the reason ultimately to believe that what's happening now isn't that unusual? It's just the nature of things. It's the nature of an economy where technology is changing dramatically and there's a lot of investment money.
Yeah. I mean, if you look at the history of venture capital as a whole, it makes money. but the number of funds inside it that make that money is the top 10%. So 90% of venture funds don't make money, or make only a tiny amount of money. And sometimes they back things that are fake, like for example, the interactive TV boom of the 1990s, where all the money- That is fake, it's just relatively wrong. It didn't pan out, yeah. Other times they back things like the internet that does pan out. And, you know, mobile also panned out. And the question is, is AI more like interactive TV or is it more like the Internet and mobile?
No, he doesn't. I mean, to be fair to Gary Marcus, he still believes in AI. He just doesn't believe in generative AI or at least the generative AI that Sam Altman... seems to be championing but let's not make this about yeah yeah gary so have we accomplished anything in this conversation keith are we on the same page do you
think well i i i think we're coming at it from different starting points but i think we converge around um Firstly, it's normal. Secondly, it's inevitable.
Thirdly, some people... Well, I don't know if I'd say it was normal. I certainly wouldn't use that word. Or inevitable. I don't think anything's inevitable. Okay, so I think it's normal and inevitable. You don't. Well, what's inevitable? AI is inevitable or this boom is inevitable?
Speculation at the time of potential major changes is inevitable. And the outcome is, you get to make your own belief there. I believe the outcome is gonna be massively bigger than any of the costs. And venture capital, in as far as it plays a role, most will be losers. So there'll be setbacks at the level of individual funds and maybe even macro setbacks here and there, like there was when the internet correction happened in 2000. But the long term is this is a net plus, a systemic net plus for all of us. And therefore, we shouldn't be trying to stop it or pour cold water on it.
Well, I think no one's trying to stop it. And pouring cold water on it is merely trying to analyze what's happening. I don't think anyone's against it, although net plus in the long term seems a bit vague. I think my summary is, and there was a very good piece by Greg Ip, one of your media people, in the wall street journal and i'm quoting the title from sports to ai america is a washing a washing speculative fever washington is egging it on and for me that's the interesting thing about this i i try to avoid these words good and bad because i just think they're pointless and They're just confusing. But I think that's true. I think America is a world. We talked about this last week, that after it was one of the pieces that suggested that after postmodernism, we have a speculative culture. And I think that's a piece of this. Everyone's betting on everything, whether it's kids betting on sports on the Internet or VCs or you or I. I mean, the defining word of our age, for better or worse, I'm not saying it's good or bad, is speculation.
You could say that I'm an abundance person, which, what's his name in the New York Times? Ezra Klein. Ezra Klein talks about. And I really want government to facilitate abundance. And I don't know tribalize the way I think so I don't want to be a Trump person or a Biden person or anyone else's person I just want to believe in things well Keith wants to
believe in things I want to understand things interesting conversation I'm sure we will come back to it Keith Neither of us will forget what the other person said. There'll be lots more to talk about next week. I'm actually interviewing Tim Wu, who has a new book out on platform economics. I think that'll be an interesting conversation in the upcoming week. I'm also interested in the Trump administration's relationship with crypto. I think that's an important piece. So lots to talk about. We will talk next week. Keep well, Keith. Keep speculating. Keep booming and bubbling. We need you. Thank you.