Transcript
This isn't your average business podcast, and he's not your average host. This is The James Altucher Show. Today on The James Altucher Show. Once again, my good friend, Jim McKelvey, the cofounder of multi, multi,000,000,000 company Square. Square, of course, provides the payment processing for something like 30% of US businesses. So we Jim always has his finger on the pulse of the economy and what's really going on, not just what you're reading in the headlines. But more importantly, he's also deputy chairman of the Federal Reserve. So I get to ask him all the questions I've been wanting to ask about what the heck the Federal Reserve is doing for the economy just so I could understand a little better. And, also, when Jim and I first started this podcast, we were just randomly chatting, and he has some very interesting data to talk about that he found out from a company he invested in, data about the presidential election that kinda surprised me. And we talk about how to innovate a 3000 year old industry, and Jim has done that as well. So here's the podcast. Well well, what what other projects you're working on? So I'm making new drinking glasses. I love it. Studio. These are I wonder if I could get one. You wanna hold on? Yeah. Yeah. Let me go let me get one of these things. Hold on. Now did you, did you blow these in the glass blowing factory? Yes. Yes. These are these are made in the studio. And I've I had this idea about 7 or 8 years ago, but the idea, it's it's a glass, but it's half collapsed. I like that. And, you know, the idea is that you've got some sort of, you know, vessel that it just you it just looks unique. I mean, I've never seen anybody do this. I've seen, you know, the the the drinking glass has been done for, you know, 1000 of years, at least. Yeah. So this is really interesting. So and this goes along with your theories on innovation. So here's an industry that's been around for 5000 years. Yeah. And you just innovated in it. Like, there's there's there's colorful and creative glasses, but I've never seen, like, a warped glass like that. Like, what's so thinking about it in terms of, like, architecture, does does it have to be functional, the changes you're making, or is it just purely artistic? No. So to me, this was a rejection of, it it it started really there there were a couple of things that collided in my head. I had the idea 6, 7 years ago because, like, I wanted so I I have a friend who's a real, Scotch snob. Okay? And he's a guy like, before he'll give you a drink, he'll give you a lecture. Right? There's always this lecture that precedes the beverage. And he's still your friend? Yeah. Yeah. He's a good guy. He's a good guy. He's a good guy, but he's a Scotch snob. Right? So you know? And I drink a little Scotch. I'm not very good with alcohol, but, like, I drink a little bit of it. You know, I kinda come from that part of the world, so I figure I have to, you know, support the the the relatives. And when he the the the cool thing about drinking with him is it is such a singular experience with him. Like, you don't talk about anything unless it's the scotch. You don't talk and and and he has this whole focus that he brings to the, to the activity that makes the activity way more enjoyable than if I was just to go home and, you know, pound a shot. So, I thought about it, and and I thought, you know, I wonder if I could make a drinking glass that was so interesting that it would draw your focus back because, you know, normally, you know, you just drink without thinking about it. You know? I Right. Like, you know yeah. That'll sound great on your podcast. But, I mean, like, that act is completely I can do that in the in the in the pitch dark. I can do it. So I wanted a glass that you couldn't drink in the dark, like, that that would demand its attention to sort of bring your focus back down. So so there's a functional purpose. Like, it there's a reason to be. Yeah. I wanted the object to get more attention. And I just something that I've I've had thousands and thousands of glasses in my hands over the years that I've re remembered very few of them. And I thought, what if I can make one that was memorable? So I just wanted to do something that hadn't been done. Then I I I sat with that idea for probably 6 years, and then my studio just started importing this Swedish crystal, which I don't know if you know anything about glass chemistry, but the the way glass is made is this really arcane process. It involves all this toxic crap. But they basically replaced the lead with barium, which is safe but still gorgeous. So it's like the sparkle of the old sort of deadly lead crystal, but none of the deadly. And I got this crystal, and it's the first time in my life I've been wanting to work with this stuff. And this stuff is so sexy. Like, I never made clear. I I I've, you know, blown glass for 30 years with color, and now I'm just clear, clear, clear. So what what what I've been working on. What's the benefit textually of the barium? So it's, it increases the, the the coefficient of refraction. So it's it gets it more sparkly. It also makes the glass super clear. Mhmm. And I don't understand all the chemistry of it, but, it is a gorgeous thing to look like. If you if you take a normal glass and you put this crystal next to it, you will always pick the crystal. And and what are you gonna do? You you think you'll make a a a big glass line? Or can you Well, so I want to because, you know, the studio has been shut from COVID. So we've been basically closed, and all the artists who would normally have a steady stream of people through the gallery buying their work, like, these guys are starving. So so it's pretty tough times. And one of the things I realized, though, was that, you know, it's not that people aren't buying stuff during the pandemic. It's just that they're not buying our stuff because we're closed. Right. And and, also, people aren't leaving the house. So they're they're kind of buying more things they need rather than things they want. Yeah. I I don't know about the need wants thing, but I I know they're definitely not buying stuff that requires a physical trip somewhere. Right. You know? And you're probably right about the need want split as well. But in this case, I thought, you know, look. We should we should have as our repertoire or in our repertoire a product that you can buy, that you can make, you know, in the studio and nobody else makes it and would be really cool. And if and then you start to think about what that would be. And, like, Glass has been around for 2000 years. Like, James, most of the most of the good ideas are they've been done. Right. People have done all this stuff, and I've never seen this so part of this is just like nobody's ever made this. I'm look. Who knows? Maybe somebody has. But I've never seen it, and I've been looking. Yeah. I've never seen anything like that. And you and, again, it's it's like you say, 2000 years. It's interesting. You know, people always say even about the Internet, oh, it's too late to come up with a new easy business model. But here you No. There there's always here you are with with glass that's, again, 2,000 5 thou whatever, however many 1000 of years old, and you just made something completely new that I kinda wanna buy one of those right now. Well, I kinda wanna sell you one. So I'll try and get my a*s back in there tonight. You should put up, like, an ecom put up a Shopify store or something. Well, I haven't quite got the design down yet. I haven't quite like, there are a couple of things that are just not quite right about it yet. So but when I will. Believe me. I And how's the drinking experience? Like, does it does it make sense? It's not bad. It's, it's it's a little more thoughtful because you've got these areas where, like, you can literally have 2 streams out here. So it you know? It's like playing a harmonica. Yeah. Yeah. It's it's just fun. It's it's it's gotta be more thoughtful. Otherwise, it runs down your shirt. I don't know if anyone's gonna embrace this. No. But but that's interesting because you could argue this is the this is glass that will make you more mindful. This is a very, mindful sort of gla*s. Yeah. There's there's there's like, I you know, any marketing slogan that works, I guess, I'll have to to to tolerate. But just to me, it was something that I wanted I wanted an object, an everyday object that you couldn't ignore. You know? That wasn't demanding attention, but but was still pulling you in when, you know, when you used it. It it it didn't just automatically trigger those worn out processes. I don't know if it's gonna work. I'm I'm I'm playing with these things. I'm living with them. I'm drinking out of them, and, you know, so far so good. That that when people come to your house, do they do they ask for those glasses or other glasses? I don't have that many. I've got about 5. Okay. So oh, yeah. I've got a studio full of color. Like, the the prototypes, I may get one out of 10 of these things. They're super hard to make because you're trying to get the glass to collapse, but not completely. So it's, it's it's this exercising chaos. You're just you're trying to you're trying to introduce enough chaos and then freeze it before it just totally disintegrates. And has this felt, like, fulfilling artistically in a way probably that you haven't experienced in a while? Like, you you were so bogged down with book and promoting book, and then before that, business. Well, writing the book. Yeah. The book took, that was a solid 2 years of work. The Fed is the Fed is always the Fed. The Fed is this, you know, sort of base note of of activity, a little bit more these days. But, yeah, I feel so good getting into the studio and actually getting my hands on stuff and and working with people who who we got one guy. He's, he's one of the best glass blowers in the country. His name is David Levy. And he's working with me on these things. And when I watch David struggle to do the stuff that, like, we're trying to do, it makes me feel good. I was like, well, at least, like, the best guy in the world can't just make these things, and I'm the only one who can't. So we're struggling together, and it's it's just a really high level of collaboration. Plus, it's a physical object. There's something very satisfying about making a product that has, you know, mass and can break and, you know, like As opposed to the ones and zeros. Like, all you know, there's all this argument that all the innovation in the past 50 years has come from ones and zeros, and before that, it's come from transportation. And, but here's an example where you're able to just get your hands dirty and innovate. Yeah. And, you know, like, Square stock has gone through the roof lately, and people tell me about it because I don't follow the stock, so people have to call and tell me this. That makes zero difference in my life. I get I mean, I'm I'm, like, happy, but, you know, it's sort of an abstract happy. But this is this visceral. I feel like when I make something that's good, and it actually works, I'm like, oh, yeah. You know? So Well, I like it. Yeah. That's great. Well, I'm glad you showed me. And then, thank you for coming on the show, in short notice. We I I contacted you just yesterday. But I am curious about the fed, but, also, I'd like to talk to you about invisibly, which, you were just telling me about before we started. Oh, yeah. Maybe, let's start with the Fed. Start with the Fed. Okay. Let's start with the Fed. So so the Fed's basically said well, since we last spoke, the whole entire world's turned upside down. The the coronavirus obviously is still around. The lockdowns are mostly over, but kind of still feel like they're on. The economy seems like it's coming back, but in other ways, it seems worse than ever. And inflation seems like it's around, you know, 1 to 1 and a half percent, but in other ways, it seems very deflationary. The environment, it's hard to get a read on it. It feels more like the economy's tilted rather than gone up or down. And so I know the fed, has, you know, stated a goal of having an average of 2% inflation, which is slightly different than their goal before. What's what's the issue? Like, is there is is there actually deflation now? Like, what's what's the lay of the land right now? So my take is that we've been in this very, very narrow band of inflation in the US, You know, plus or minus, 1 point o around, you know, like, 1.75%. You know? That's and and we haven't gone above really too. So we've been sort of below that. But, you know, we've had this sort of target rate, but the target rate has always been, a cap. And the idea is that you don't get to cap and then you take action. And that's sort of silly if you consider that a lot of monetary policy has a huge time lag. And, like, everyone's like, oh, wow. You know, the Fed's changing everything. No. Not really. I mean, I think what's happened is that we've spent so much time now in this sort of low inflation period that we're just becoming more nuanced in the way we think of it and track it. You know? Right. So if you sit there and say, oh, well, is it okay to exceed a target for a period of time before taking action? Yeah. Or or or or or why unilaterally rule that out? And so, you know, what I'm looking at at the Fed is the tools that we're using are incredibly powerful in in some ways and and but they they've got this this huge time lag, so so why not adjust your horizon? And then the other thing that I think the Fed has done brilliantly that nobody's talking about is the effective use of buyer of last resort. You know, we've got $2,000,000,000,000 that we can spend if we need to to buy securities in markets that are unstable. And I think we have deployed, like, around a 100,000,000,000 of that. Like, that's nothing. That's 0 that's that's effectively 0. That rounds to nothing. Like, a $100,000,000,000 from the Fed rounds to 0 when you got $2,000,000,000,000 of ammunition. But it's like I mean, it's it's it's, you know, it's it's like it's like nuclear weapons. You have them, therefore, you don't need to use them. You know? In this case, the Fed announced that we were going to step in if need be. And, therefore, because we said that credibly, we didn't need to. And step in to do more than just buy treasury. But the the the standard tool for the Fed is to buy treasury bills. And then there's various things around that, but but the Fed has been aggressively saying, look. We could go out there and buy not only, you know, things like municipal bonds and other kinds of state debt, but even corporate debt. Debt. Yeah. Sure. And the idea here is that because we'll make a market, we'll make a market poorly. And when I say poorly, we will not be a good deal. Like, we'll save you from calamity, but we're not going to make you some sort of wild great deal so that you would be much better to go to the market. But because we back up the market, the market says, oh, well, the Fed's got our back. We'll keep functioning. So so I I wanna ask about this. So just just from basic stuff. So, you know, first off, everybody is always wondering, well, can the Fed keep printing money, and, there won't be hyperinflation, which sort of ignores the demand side of the supply and demand equation. And we spoke about this last time. You were mentioning that the demand for the US dollar is enormous. Yeah. And it's not okay. So here's the thing. Like, you can't take the economics that apply to a human and that you know, we tend to think of personal debt like government debt. Oh, the government owes a bunch of money. Oh, I owe a bunch of money. It's the same thing. No. It isn't. Like, you can't print money. The government can print money. Okay? So there's one big difference. And I did have a friend with a printer once who did, in fact, print $20 bills and use that, but that was a long time ago. Don't don't report me. Yeah. Well, you know, Konica Minolta was really a great thing for, for folks. And I used to, you know, I used to be on the receiving end because I used to, you know, run bars in skanky places there where those printed things would be, indistinguishable from real twenties at night. Yeah. We'd end up in all nasty, you know, counterfeit money. So, but that, Ted, you know, circle of life. Right? Yeah. But, I mean, you can't sit there and say the US is printing money. I mean, in some sense, it is. Okay? And in some sense, it all has to be paid back in some way. But if you actually start to precisely find the terms of, like, what is printing, what is money, like, all all that little it it gets really complicated. I'll give I'll give you an example. So we, we would normally say that if you're printing money, you're devaluing. Right? More of it means it's less valuable. Okay. Well, what if your printing money makes your currency more valuable because you are saving your economy, and therefore people think the dollar is gonna be a better store of value than the euro. Right. The demand then goes up for it. Well, the demand is not just US. The demand is worldwide. And you might be stabilizing the US and world economies by essentially printing money. So if demand increases, well, have you really printed more? Right? Because if more people need it and it's gonna be sitting in some, you know, Kazakhstani bank, well, yes. Like, if all that came into the US at once and tried to buy, you know, Oreo cookies, we might have a problem. But that's kinda not how money swirls around. So, like and and and and for those of you who are confused by this explanation, good. You should be. This stuff is confusing. I don't understand it. I talked to some really brilliant under economists who kind of understand it, but, like, I'm the idiot at the Fed meetings that always ask the crazy questions. But but, you know, it see it does seem like like let's say you let's say it's, quote, unquote, printed. And so out some other door, you're borrowing it from China or Kazakhstan or whatever. Yeah. And but you're you're you're using it to buy higher interest rate vehicles than you're borrowing from. So let let's say you're borrowing at 1%, but now you're buying corporate debt at 4%. You're kinda making money from it. And when, you know, and then you could pay back and keep the profit. And then when the when the money goes back in you pay the money back. The money's gone now from the system. Like, it's it's back in the the hands of the government. It doesn't exist anymore. Yeah. We just wipe it off the balance sheet. Like, we just unprint it. Right. And now is there a multiplier, though? Like, let's say, you buy debt, and so now, banks or companies or whatever start spending money because they're they're relieved of their of their debt. Is there a multiplier meaning, you know, the economy can grow too fast? Oh, yeah. We have a 15 trill or $50,000,000,000,000, economy. Right? Or no. That's the world. So $15,000,000,000,000 GDP I think we're 20 here. Yeah. But Yeah. Let's say 20. So so you let's say you print up a a trillion, and there's a 5 x multiplier. Meaning, if I spend a dollar on a newspaper, the newspaper guy buys a coffee, the coffee guy buys a flower, it's it's $1 of GDP grow of GDP So he inflated the world by 10%. Yeah. Yeah. So so, But in in good inflation. We've stimulated. Sorry. Stimulated. I'll use the erectile dysfunction analogies. We'll we'll right. So so we'll see. Would we see, like, a 30% GDP growth in the US? Depends on how much of that pie we take, I guess. I mean, again, see, this is the problem with this theory is that, you know, like, if you if you sort of run any of these theories to ground, there's there's nothing wrong with your theory. You know? But, like, nobody knows. Like, I I I'm telling you. Like, at least nobody I've met. You know, Chris Waller. I I gotta put in a plug for Chris. Chris is, Trump's nominee to be on the FOMC. He's the noncontroversial one. Uh-huh. Wonderful guy. Brilliant. Every time Chris explains something, I understand it way better. As a matter of fact, the best thing you can do if you wanna understand the Fed is just look up anything Chris Waller has written. It's so clear. He asked good questions, and he answers them without jargon. It's wonderful to hear, him explain something. And I talked to Chris about stuff like this, and he gives me very thoughtful answers, but but not usually definitive stuff. Because in in most cases, where it gets interesting is when you're in a situation you've never been in before, like, oh, say, the one we're in right now. Right. So so let's look at, like, a couple of different potential problems. And it seems like with every sort of economic problem, it can either be commerce that solves it by voting for a stimulus, or it can be the fed that solves it using its basket of tools. So, you know, like, one problem that people talk about is commercial real estate's gonna have an issue. And this this stems not only from, offices being abandoned or leases being let go, but also this eviction moratorium. Eventually, millions of people are gonna have to pay their rent, and they're not gonna be able to pay it. Then the landlords are gonna be in trouble. Then the banks might be in trouble, and it goes all the way up to the fed. So I'm just curious, could the fed kill 2 birds with 1 stone? So can they solve the problems of just kind of give an eviction holiday to renters, landlords, and even banks. And at the same time, this is a tool for increasing inflation because, essentially, you're giving out free money to everybody down the chain. You lost me somewhere there. I mean, I I can't are you saying that the you're suggesting that the Fed would The Fed would basically buy all the debt related to mortgages, which is all related to rents being collected, and then you would basically forgive the debt. Yeah. That to me sounds like you'd have massive adverse selection. Like, you'd package up all the toxic stuff. Because I know real estate people, and, like, they're very smart and shrewd, and they would just shovel all the crap into 1 pile, put a bow on it, get Moonies to rate it highly, and then pass it on, to, the bigger sucker. That that that that doesn't sound like a good situation. Like, I think what sounds like a good situation is some disruption, not total chaos, but some disruption in maybe an inflated market. And maybe we don't need offices. But just for the record, I'm building a massive office, in St. Louis, like, right now. Like, I have a I have a $100,000,000 construction project going on downtown St. Louis. Well, and I think I think St. Louis is gonna be a a winner in kind of the the resorting of the cities that's happening right now. So a lot of the first tier cities. I mean, you see it. Like, a lot of the first tier cities are are, you know, LA, San Francisco, Chicago, New York City. The people are leaving, and St. Louis, Denver, Austin, Miami, a lot of these Phoenix, a lot of these second tier cities are beginning to boom. So I think this is sort of the tilting of the economy, but where where these major cities are starting to crumble a little bit, but but the beneficiaries are the 2nd tier cities. And and but, again, though, I'm thinking, what happens with the you know, yes. Some offices are gonna go empty. We're seeing that in in all the major cities. What happens to the commercial real estate companies? Is there gonna be, like, mass bankruptcies in that level? Well And then the banks that get affected? Maybe. Although, I think a lot of rich people own a lot of property. Mhmm. So you might just have some, you know, haircuts being taken by the rich. I got no problem with that. Like, I have no problem with commercial real estate getting whacked because it's real estate. Like, you didn't it's a you know, if if you're the person that was dumb enough to loan, at, you know, 98% leverage or whatever the, you know, whatever the sucker deal you were past, do you deserve to get corrected a little bit? I I I I don't I don't know that you want even a super competent central bank stepping into markets. You know? I mean, look at what could happen, though? Like like, in New York, the the statistic, I don't know if it's true or not, but they say 1 out of 4 people have not paid rent since March, and this is residential now. Yeah. And what's like, you try to kinda figure out, like because we've never like you said, we've never had, like, problems at this kind of scale. No. Like, those people are not gonna be able to pay their rent at the end of this. They they didn't have it to begin with, and they certainly don't have it now. And so that means, you know, some landlords are wealthy companies. Others are just mom and pop, you know, who are renting an apartment or 2. What what happens in these scenarios where you're you're we're talking about millions of people? I don't know. I mean, that's that that I I don't know. Not only do I not know. I don't know why anyone would want my opinion. But if you want my opinion as somebody who owns some property and also votes on some interest rates, I'm for letting the markets correct. Yeah. I'm I'm sorry. I know that sounds harsh, but, like, if if there's an implied guarantee on real estate investment from a central bank, you will have even more crazy behavior. Right. So I don't think we can ever make that guarantee. And if you're long on any one asset class and something happens to that asset class, you're gonna suffer badly. And if all your net worth is in commercial real estate right now, well, that might not be good. But I don't know. I I I'm just another guy with an opinion here. I I kinda see it from both sides. In the long run, you're definitely right. Like, let the market sort themselves out. I'm just wondering what happens in the interim. Just like, you know, when we when we last spoke, the idea was, okay. The Fed could keep doing this as long as stimulus is needed. But we see that with everybody locked down in their homes for 3, 4, or 5 months, unrest starts to happen. You know, some some amount of protesting, but then some amount of chaos hand in hand with that. And without giving a political opinion, it's just that's what's been happening. And, I wonder if the same thing will happen if suddenly you have millions of people who owe their rent, you know, which they're going to, and then maybe they can survive because they just leave. But then the people who own the property, they go bankrupt. And And and but the properties remains. So the building is still standing. Now the question of what's what goes into the building? And, I mean, like, I'm an artist, and I bought my first building, which is 15,000 square feet here in Saint Louis for $35,000. Well, actually, that was my 2nd building. But, I bought it. You get that cheap? What? That's pretty cheap. Now it was in a bad part of town. The building was falling down. I had to rebuild it. You know, it I probably spent $1,000,000 over the last 20 years rebuilding this place, and now it's gorgeous. But I got in for 35 k. And I set up a business in a crummy neighborhood. It was my studio, and that turned into a pretty good business. And it's employed a lot of people, and it's done a lot of good stuff. And that is a good example of what happens when you can't destroy the asset. So let's say there is a giant correction, and I kinda pictured this happening in Manhattan, but it's gonna happen all over the country. You know, rents are gonna fall. And what will happen? Well, people will still need places to live. People will still want to have places to work, although may they may not need them as much now that we're all Zooming and stuff. Right. But still, I'd rather be sitting in your living room where we did our first interview, looking at your awesome, you know, artwork and hanging out and feeling all important with that big fluffy microphone and, you know, like, like, I I feel like I'm in a schmuck now. You know? I'm sitting at my house. No. No. No. Your your house is fine. No. But, like, you know, not nearly as cool as your place. And I had to say that, you know, I would want I'm a I'm the sort of guy who'd wanna go to an office if if it was possible right now. But I think a lot of creativity is gonna be stimulated by, you know, driving out, super high rents and maybe driving people out of cities where, you know, the rich and privileged can congregate into places where, you know, just creative folks wanna hang out with each other and they can all afford to do so. Because right now, like, if I wanted to move to New York City as an artist, I couldn't. But maybe a year from now, I can't. Yeah. I mean, I wonder if it'll be a year or it'll be 10 years because it seems like some wave of bankruptcies has to or at least some mortgages have to be reworked because they can't charge rent less than their mortgage payments just in case there's another, you know, rent moratorium. No one wants to get stuck. Yeah. And, you know, the people who securitize this stuff are all gonna have heartburn, and, I'm okay with that. I mean, a little bit of the the end the final end user of the of that securitization is the 4 zero one k's and the pension plans that invest in the, hedge funds that do the securitizing. But, you know, I guess I guess when it's diversified out, maybe it's not it doesn't affect, like, CalPERS, you know, that much. I don't know. Well, I mean okay. So CalPERS is protecting people's retirement. And let's say Calvert takes a 5% whack because they bought too many office buildings. But the living costs for retirees in California dropped by 10% because now all of a sudden it's not as expensive. Yeah. Yeah. Good point. Okay. You know, I mean, like, and the other thing is you can't just say, well well, just because, you know, mutual funds are owned by people and people have retirement funds that we should, you know, juice the market forever because normal people own it. I think a lot of people are not participating in, you know, what Wall Street's doing and, like, at least none of my friends, like, at least in the Glass studio or, you know, coming in and asking me for stock tips. Yeah. Right. They're not in that market. They're they're you know, ask me for, you know, you know, do I know do do I need do I need them to do any work is what they've been asking me lately. Like, can I help you work on a project? And I've been yeah. It's It's different. Now here's here's another question, which is which is similar. But look at these cities now, like New York City, LA, San Francisco, Chicago. Clearly, their deficits are spiking. There's an exodus of people and capital, which means their tax base is gonna go down for for years, potentially. Is there any is there any solution where and, you know, all these cities are expecting the government to help them in some way, like maybe Congress and the stimulus package. But is this something where the Fed could say, hey. We could buy up Chicago debt and, again, kill 2 birds with 1 stone, get inflation in the system, and, you know, save Chicago, save LA, save San Francisco, or is that, like, register as a problem? I I I again, I don't think the gover I I don't think the Fed can be seen as a backstop on any individual asset? Because it's just gonna okay. So let's say we bail out Chicago or New York. Okay? Hypothetically. Well, what does that tell the mayor of Tuscaloosa who says, oh, well, I've been really running a tight ship here and not employing as many fire people firefighters as I want. But, clearly, I don't need to because I can't you know? Tuscaloosa bonds are just fine because the Fed's gonna step in just like they did to rescue, you know, Chicago. I don't think you can I don't think you can offer those guarantees? Right. This is this is why it seems like it's the economy is tilted. Like, there's money from the Fed and from the other stimulus package that's in the economy somewhere, but it's just it's it's not in the usual spots anymore. Yeah. It's it's all weird. And, look, I'll be the first to admit that I'm not an expert here, and, also, I I spend limited time with the experts. But when I when I am there, I shut up and listen. And I have not heard any clear idea of where this is all gonna land. You know? I mean, you're you you bring up a very good point, which is that there is a huge problem with city spending, especially cities like New York where their tax base is probably gonna be eroded on half a dozen different levels simultaneously. Right. And then there's going to be, you know, a fiscal reckoning, and we don't know how that's gonna get handled. Absolutely. We don't. And and and considering that and I'm I'm just playing this out. Considering that these cities are the US's face to the world, could this possibly affect foreign demand for the dollar? So people look to New York City as the financial capital of the country. Could people say, oh my gosh. Crime spiking, garbage collectors were all fired, health care is down because the hospitals are closing down because of the deficits. The dollar's gonna fall apart next. Well, I don't know. Like, you know, New York garbage collection has never been functional, at least in my walking through the piles on the street. Like, even in the boom times. Yeah. So I don't know that we're gonna necessarily scare away them because look. World class cities are world class cities. And, you can argue that the US has at least one. It would be New York City. You can argue kind of that there's San Francisco and maybe LA, and I guess my friends at Chicago would get pissed if I didn't sort of put them in as an also ran. And and then you got a bunch of other, you know, sort of cool stuff. I'll probably see you in Miami this winter. I'll be down there too. You know? It it it's it's great. You know? But there's a ton of other stuff here that I think represents the strength of the dollar, not just our flagship cities. And, like, I'm a New Yorker on my mom's side. She grew up in Yonkers during the depression when my grandfather was a brewmaster, and he I mean, talk about a bad talk about a bad business. Like, he was brewing beer during prohibition for Dutch Schultz, who was like the Al Capone of New York City. And the only reason I found out that after my mother died, my uncle sort of grudgingly told me that, you know, grandpa used to work for the mob. And but not in any, like, cool thing. Like, he was just the guy that made the beer. Right? But that's you know, that was a city that was under terrible strain and stress. And I remember through the seventies, New York was terrifying. And then all of a sudden, it became this sort of cool, fantastic place for people to live. And I think that's probably gonna continue, but it'll it'll morph from you know, 2019, I think, will be finally remembered. I I I don't know where it's gonna go, but I don't think you're gonna I don't think you're gonna gut out the cultural institutions of New York. And a lot of the stuff, I think, you know, would drive out quarter the office tenants. Probably something interesting will occupy. Yeah. And and, also, again, I I do think talent and skill will be decentralized throughout the rest of the country now, and it'll so you don't if you if you're a young person in Phoenix, you no longer have to move to one of the first tier cities to have opportunity. Opportunity will start to flow all all around just just from the flight of of people leaving these cities. Yeah. But, I mean, that's that's not a new trend. I mean, like, remember the laser printer? When the laser printer showed up and all of a sudden, you can make your words look professional? You know? Before the before the laser printer, it was like you were either a schmuck who had a typewriter or a pen, or you were a serious company that had the ability to, you know, create type. You could typeset. And then all of a sudden, the laser printer leveled that field. Like, we've always had this leveling, like, constantly going on. You know? You know, cloud computing. Right? Now I can spin up massive infrastructure, that I couldn't do, you know, without standing up my own servers and having my own air conditioning and dedicated power. You know, I I used to, you know, build server farms, and, like, it's brutal. It's horrible. And I'm glad to, you know, make it Amazon's problem now. So I think there's this continual, replenishing of the tools. And, you know, we've got some great tools. We're using one of them right now, but we're gonna get more. And I think the creative people are still gonna wanna get together. Yeah. And in terms of, what what do you think would happen if the Fed did nothing right now? Like, if, basically, if the Fed let interest rates just float with the market. Well, I mean so let's comp let's contrast doing nothing with saying nothing and doing nothing. Okay. So if the Fed went offline and said like, if, you know, Jay just, like, walks into FOMC and does a mic drop. He's like, you know, pow out, you know, walks out of the room. That's probably not good. Right? You don't but but the people who are in charge are hyperrational, very thoughtful, and, and actually wonderful people. They're like a good set like, it's fun to hang out with these folks. So, and their hearts are in the right place. They're doing the right things, in my opinion. That itself has a very calming effect. Now let's draw the line there. Let's say that's all they were allowed to do. Let's all so let's say we secretly take away their tools, and we just allow them to pretend that they have the tools. That would probably work. They probably would not have to do anything for a long time. Conversely, if the guarantee wasn't there, if we didn't trust them, no matter how they tweak the tools, it's not gonna be good because markets can panic in nanoseconds now. And the trust is more important. So you really like, if the Fed did nothing because they chose to do nothing, that would be okay. If they were somehow instantly powerless where we thought they were crazy, that would be a disaster. So so what keeps the Fed up at night? Like, I would think some fear that the dollar might not have the demand that it it's historically had at least in the past decade or so. I I honestly don't know. I'm not I'm not privy to those conversations. Like, if if there is some sort of looming problem, don't see it. I mean, that's good to know. But look. I'm a deputy chair of 1 of 12 Federal Reserve Banks. Like, they don't call me first. Like, I they bring me in for comic relief. That's at at the at at at some of the meetings. You know? I I I'm I'm just that I'm I'm just not in the room. I ain't in the room where that where that happens. Well, I I would think from the vantage point so so let's look at it from the vantage point of Square. So Square is involved with, you know, a significant percentage of, you know, the payment processing of of US businesses. How's how's that looking in terms of, like, your the macro view of US business? So macro view from Square's perspective is super interesting because, you know, we tend to skew towards small businesses and individuals. And, there has been a lot of pain. A lot of companies have just gone away. But the ones that are surviving, and I would say the majority are surviving, are actually quickly adapting. And the speed at which they're adapting was amazing. There was a part, a point during April where Square was releasing a new product every day. And these were for all of our customers that whose businesses was changing every day. So, you know, you had a restaurant, well, your restaurant's now closed. But now you've got carryout. Well, carryout's a different business, so you have to do scheduling and you have to remote ordering and you have to contactless payments like that. And and so we were literally shipping a product on a 24 hour cycle. And that was just to keep up with the adaptations that our customers were making. So it was really heartening to see that and to see the speed at which it happened. I thought it was really good. So, and and then I I'm not allowed to report our numbers, But if you look at our last quarterly report, like, they're way up. Like, the the numbers that we are allowed to talk about, which I am ironically are not allowed to talk about, but the ones that have been published, if you look at them, you will see that the US economy, particularly small businesses, are surprisingly resilient. Oh, that's good to know as well. Yeah. So now you were telling me earlier about, this new product you have, invisibly, which is very good at predicting elections. What's the model it uses to predict, elections? Yeah. So quick quick shot on Invisibly. I founded a company, with the intent of trying to save journalism's economics. Because if you know anything, you know, of course, you do this because you're in the business. The economics of content is effectively broken primarily because consumers can't pay more for good stuff and less for bad stuff. In other words, the rate the reason the economy works is you and I, when we go out and spend money, are signaling. So if you move out in New York and move to Tuscaloosa, that's a vote. Right? You're not gonna spend your money over here, and that's gonna and and those votes get tallied. Like, if you buy a $20 hamburger, you're saying, make more things like this. You buy a $2 hamburger or a bean burger because you're vegan now. Like, those votes get tallied, and that's what the economy is. And your ability to pay more for good stuff and less for crap is your vote. That's not possible with media. Media is either subscription where it's a buffet, all you can eat, or it's advertising supported, which is like basically saying, hey. Every hot dog in Manhattan costs $5. Every if we if we said every meal in Manhattan costs $5, you'd say, oh, great. I'll go out and get a great meal tonight. And my answer is, no. You wouldn't because all the good places would close instantly, and they would be replaced by places whose business model is to create any crap that is worth $5. But since they can never earn more than $5, they would never put in any extra effort for high quality. And that's effectively what programmatic advertising has done to the media ecosystem. That's why the newspapers are dying. It's not that we don't want quality. It's not that we don't want journalism. It's not that we don't want all this good stuff. It's that we have no mechanism pay to pay for it. Because if I pay for something through my eyeballs, I monetized by the amount of time I've spent watching. So that's like me charging you for food per calorie. You know? A dollar per kilocalorie is what food costs. And how do you good do you think food would be? No. I guess on subscription services, I can make my vote a little bit by choosing, oh, I'm gonna get HBO Max instead of Netflix. Yes. Yes. You can vote for, the Vegas buffet of your choice. You know, eat at the Rio, eat at Caesars, eat at, you know, Texas Roadhouse, but you're still voting for a bit. It's a very gross sort of Yeah. And the problem is I might want to watch one show at Netflix and one show at HBO, and then I gotta get both services. Yeah. So, anyway, there's a theoretical solution for this that, I kinda I don't know that I came up with it, but I certainly recognized it a couple couple years ago and started to build this company called Invisibly to do this. And the point was to give consumers control. And I won't go into all the trials of it Invisibly, but we came out with our first product. It's not a consumer facing product. It's an advertising product. But one of the things that we can do is because we allow the consumer to feel protected and in control, they feel very safe. And it turns out that if people feel safe, they will honestly answer questions. And, one of the things that I get when I travel sometimes to California is people who are closet conservatives coming up to me, and they will confess because they know I'm from Missouri. Missouri is a red state. Now I happen to be sort of politically well, I'm neutral now. But were it not for that, I'd be a little bit more on the blue side. But the point is, just because I'm from a conservative state, they feel like they can talk to me. And they tell me stuff, and I usually try to respond in a neutral manner. But we developed this tech that, for some reason or another, people feel safe answering questions. So when we ask them questions about who they're gonna vote for, they honestly answer them. We've trotted this out in 3 of the primaries. It has called the final vote within a point each time. This is unheard of. Right. Particularly since the polls were so off in a lot of the Democratic races. Yeah. So I was How do you make the consumers feel safe? Like, what does that mean? So part of it's how we ask the questions, part of it's the questions we ask, and part of it's where we ask the questions. So we meet them where they are on sites that they're visiting. These are not Google and Facebook because they know they're listening on Google and Facebook. But these are, you know, like, sites that have recipes and, you know, the hot rod sites and, you know, you know, fuzzy animals and, you know, crazy conspiracy theorists. Like, it's it's like the gamut of content. Just without judging. Like, you take aggregate all these massive amounts of content and without without without exercising a bias over what people should or shouldn't be reading. And then you ask some questions that, in the context of that content, don't interrupt the content. So in other words, we don't we don't pop up a survey box and say, answer the survey and then pop you out of what you're reading to some other place. We were surprised at how accurately this is predicting, elections. Now, James, I I I have to be completely candid. I can't tell you why it works. Like and and I was I was it was funny. I was talking to a guy who's a who's an oncologist the other day because we're doing some I'm funding this cancer research company, and nobody knows understands the mechanism of action for this drug that we're developing. Like, they like, the drug works, but we don't know why it works. So the medical community is all scratching their heads because they like to know why. And this very learned oncologist said, look. We just think we know why stuff works. We have a theory that everybody accepts, but a lot of the stuff that you think of is, you know, having this, you know, method of act or mechanism action is is something different. So the bottom line is, Invisibly has a survey tool. It's working. We don't know why. It's been deadly accurate. It's 3 for 3 on calling elections in 2020. So we thought, well, what the hell? Let's try it out. Trump's ahead. Did you know, like, what's like, state by state? Like, is he electoral college yet? I can tell you Trump is, well, I don't I don't have it I don't have it in front of me, and I really do wanna sort of break it in the in the post if they'll if if they'll let me have the ink, I wanna I wanna break it. Because I think Sure. I think the world needs to know that we're about to repeat 2016. Where is bigger? Like, do you see is it, like, unusual No. It's it's it's very close. According to our information gosh. You get this. I I I'm so I'm doing this from memory, and it's my memory is 2 days old. But the last I saw, Biden is not the clear victor, and he's behind in some of the swing states where I look at the traditional polls and they got bite them up by 8 points. It is not the our our data does not say that. Our data says that Biden is potentially in trouble, and we are potentially looking at a repeat of 2016. 16. And so so when you contact, like, the Republicans and the Democrats, do they buy data from you? Or, like, how are they making use of this? It's really interesting. I would I would have expected the Republicans to be the Democrats and the Democrats to be I'm I'm getting my biases are being challenged. The Republicans have been super open minded to the data. Okay? So this is the party that I associate with climate change deniers. Like, I I I I happen to think that people who deny climate change tend to vote republican more. So my personal bias is, oh, people who sort of deny science will tend to be more republican. The people who we've spoken to, the republican, they're they're they're on it. They're really good. They're they're good with the data. They're using this. They're they're asking us really intelligent quest. They're they're, like, on it. They're really good. The Democrats on the other hand, I've reached out to some Democrats. They're like, you guys ought to know what the Republicans are doing just to keep the thing fair. They've been very smug. They've been like, we're up in the pub. Like, I think they oh, no problem. Someone will get back to you know, that whole sort of blow off that you get? It was sort of shocking because I figured the democrats were gonna be more, you know, sort of data driven and, you know, just sort of tuned into the fact that, well, they really mispredicted the last election, and that might happen again. But there seems to be a lot of denial on that side. So I you know, the the party that I would normally associate with, you know, sort of ignoring science is super scientific, and the party that I would normally associate with being, you know, more, you know, data driven is being less data driven. And so I one of my biases has now been, you know, corrected. I'm I'm I'm now more politically neutral. I'm like, oh, okay. Well, I was wrong. So When do you think you guys will release this data? Hopefully, this week. So, so we are so invisibly.com, we do put up polls, and we do share our data. I just want people to have accurate measurements. Like, if if if the population is gonna do something and we're trying to survey in advance to determine what's what the will of the people are, we've got a great tool and it's been working. So I'm hoping that some good will come out of this. You know? Measuring sentiment and being able to predict seems it seems like a good tool to have. So Kinda funny how prediction markets wouldn't pick up on this underlying data, you know, before, before the polls do or, you know, before you given that, this is real information, it's just kind of hidden, it seems like prediction markets are usually good ways to to get the real information. I think they are. I mean, I there were some studies after 2016 that some of the, some of the odds makers were more accurate than some of the pollsters. But, again, I don't find I don't follow gambling very well, so I don't know how that world works. Yeah. No. I I I'm not seeing it right now. I'm seeing the prediction markets not, you know, not really changing over the past month. It's been it's been kind of unusual, actually. Oh, maybe I should pick up some cash. Yeah. There's definitely some arbitrage. I've seen some weird weird things in those markets. And, you know, but all the all this reminds me too of, you know, in in your book, the innovation stack, I've thought about this more constantly, and I even, quote your your book in my next book Thank you. Which is this idea that if you wanna create and I'm gonna I'm gonna, just destroy the way you're thinking about this probably. But if if you wanna create a $1,000,000,000 company, one possible model is to service the bottom third of an industry. Yes. Essentially what you did with Square and kind of build your innovation stack from from there. And, you know, you'll encounter problems because there's there's a reason why this this population might never have been served before, so you'll you'll you'll solve these problems and build a stronger company as a result. And I'm you know, and that and that's also, to some extent, a a real beautiful classic way of that disruption works. Like, a company gets you know, their their highest paying customers sort of demand higher and higher services and more and more expensive services. Yep. And so, eventually, a company, gets disrupted from underneath. Like, you know, Visa and Mastercard, to some extent, got disrupted, by Square to some to some extent. And Those guys are have you looked at them lately? They're very, very strong. They've come they've they've they've a 100 x ed. I mean, maybe not 100 x, but yeah. Well well, you opened at least door for them. The x. You you opened up the door for them to all these new businesses. Well, yes. That's what, I mean, that's what Square did. Like, it did not disrupt Visa and Mastercard. They're way stronger now than when we started. Yeah. So I guess who did you do you disrupted the banks maybe that's No. We didn't disrupt we didn't disrupt beans. Like, what we did was we included more people. Yeah. So this is this is actually one of the things that, that I study in the book, which is the disruption, in fact, for companies with innovation stacks doesn't occur, in any in any meaningful way. In other words, so heard Kelleher beat beat this into my head, which is that when Southwest entered a new market, all the other carriers increase their traffic in that market at their current rates. So, you know, Southwest would you know, United would have 2 flights to, you know, Phoenix, and Southwest would enter the Phoenix market. And all of a sudden, United would have 4 flights to Phoenix. And they were full. They all of a sudden, just the massive amount of uplift, the Southwest was creating actually lifted their competitors as well. That's interesting because, like, Southwest is an interesting example against, like, classic disruption theory that, you know, eventually, you would expect companies like Southwest or McDonald's to, you know, upgrade their services until there was a competitor could disrupt from beneath again. And that just never happened with Southwest. They always kept, like, to to their core, they always kept to the, you know, low paying customers and and They have, although recently so since Herb left, there's been a long period where Southwest has been increasing their fares. They're no longer the low cost carrier in most markets. They've abandoned low price. And I track in the book how that's affected their dominance in the market. Southwest, under Herb Kelleher, had one competitor that entered the market, JetBlue Right. And survived. Everybody else and there were, I think, 50. I mean, it's a massive number. They all died. Yeah. Remember the People's Express? Was it Oh, yes. Yeah. I almost remember the guy's name, but there there were, like, dozens of them. Yeah. You know, like, just dozens of them. You know, just this shrapnel pile of aluminum twisted and burning, from all these airlines. And there were, there was one survivor that was JetBlue. And the only reason there was JetBlue was because Southwest ignored the New York market for 25 years. Yeah. They basically took the biggest travel market in the United States and said, oh, we're not gonna serve it. Like, you know, unless you consider Islip like New York, which they didn't. So that one exception is in stark contrast to what's happened to Southwest since Herb left and they abandoned low price. You've now got half a dozen carriers. Virgin America, which was sold, but it was successfully sold. I mean, Virgin was making money when it was sold. Spirit, Frontier, Allegiant. I mean, they're they're now 6 new airlines in Southwest space, that are surviving. You know, and and then and then I'm always curious. What do you think about, like, a company like Apple didn't seem to worry about being disrupted from below? They kept how did they avoid being disrupted from below as they, you know, increased prices and, you know, introduced, you know, more expensive iPhones and laptops and so on? I I don't really understand the full dynamics of of Apple. I mean, they started with a hugely powerful innovation stack. So if you take a look at what they've done across the spectrum of hardware and software and then just design on top of that, then the power of the, you know, I of Itunes and the Apple Store and the App Store, And, you know, they're probably 7 or 8 really powerful phenomenon if impacting Apple. One of them is an innovation stack. They absolutely had that. But then you've got this, you've got what's you know, what we call a marketplace lock in, which is hugely powerful. Even more powerful is, viral growth, which it turns out, you know, they one of the things that keeps people from buying iPhones, and I don't know because I don't have an iPhone. Because I I carry an Android because I wanna be more like the people around me. So I carry Android because, like, the guys in my world can't afford iPhones. But my iPhone friends tell me that they will continue to buy Apple products just so that their text messages appear in a different color. And I don't know if it's blue or green. You know what I'm talking about? Oh, yeah. Yeah. Like, if you're like, if you're not in this you're if you're not in the Apple Club, your text look they basically say, Jim's poor. Jim doesn't get it. Like, my tech like, the the back I don't supposedly, this is a thing. But, like, that's lock in. Like, they've got they've got lock in at so many levels. And then they do continue to come out with great products, although I still question what the next sort of breakthrough product is. It's not the Apple Watch. Right. Yeah. I don't know either. And I I always think that they're gonna kinda flatten in terms of innovation, but it just keeps going. So, I mean, it hasn't hasn't slowed down yet. So Yeah. And I've deep, deep respect for Apple. They're they've been really cool. Well well, Jim, thank you so much again for, I had all these questions about the Fed. You cleared up my questions once again on I I hope not. I mean, because I'm totally confused. I'm You say you're confused, but but you I just put you in the club of you know, you don't feel bad. What I've been able to use, I've forgiven your sins. You know? You know? No. It it's it I've I've been trying to wrap my head around all these things because it's so it's so complicated at every level, but I think each time, you know, I understand a little bit more what's going on, and and, hopefully, the the listeners do as well. And and I think there's some comfort in what you're saying as well that, you know, I I do get worried that the length of this crisis, it keeps going in more and more chaotic ways, but there's no nothing to really do about that. And so other than financial backstop somehow. So so let me give you a couple pieces of good news just to end on. Number 1, and I know this personally because I gave a bunch of money to Washington University's medical school to work on a vaccine. We have a fantastic coronavirus vaccine that has passed mouse and, primate trials and is knocking the virus out. Like, it makes you noncontagious. And it's not even a shot. It's a nasal spray. Not that stupid Q tip that, like, makes you forget what your last name is. But, like, the, just like a spritz in the nose. So now, there's to put the spray like a dead version of the virus in your nose? It's it's no. It's, they target one of the oh, god. Ask me for biochemistry. It's it's, it's it's the spike protein on the SARS CoV 2 virus, and they've oh god. I I'll I'll just I'll just piss off the people who know if I try to answer the question. I don't know. I don't know. I'm I'm I'm just I'm a dumb check. I gave them a bunch of money, just to get It's got some it's got some characteristics of the vaccine. I could I could I could look this up. Unfortunately, I don't. And and the last time I had to answer this question, I had a cheat sheet in front of me with all the proper pronunciations. But it is a, here here's what's interesting. The scientists who were telling me about this in the first meeting were very, you know, they were scientists. They were guarded in their words. They were, conservative in their aspirations. They said, well, we have this research, and we think this could be potential. The second meeting, they were like, this just works. Like, I mean, they were like high they were so I mean, for scientists again. They were excited with the results. So so the good news is this is one of about a 160 vaccine candidates, and I've seen one up close and personal and the people who worked on it here in Saint Louis. And it's going to work unless it turns out to have some weird side effect in humans, which they gotta test. So we gotta get past all that. But knocking out the virus, check. Okay? So so that's good news. And what do you think the timing is on that? Early 2021. Okay. I mean, if I had to guess, I'd say March, but I'm not allowed to guess because I'm not in the labs. So, but that would be my guess. So we'll have a whole year of pandemic and then, you know, who knows? But the good news is, like, this this at least one that works, and my guess is there are probably 20 that are better than this. Just stuff that I don't know about. You know? So there's there's there's good hope for a vaccine at some point. The the the second piece of good news, is that downturns, for some reason, historically correlate with great opportunities for entrepreneurs. And I think it's probably because when things are chaotic, people accept new ideas faster. So if you're sitting on a new idea, if you're sitting on something that's actually better, like a crazy glass that nobody would ever wanna, you know, consider normally because everything's working too well, the glass is probably a bad example because it doesn't solve a problem. It creates a problem. But one of the hardest things to do is get your new idea noticed. And during times of crises when everyone's in a panic, we are way more accepting of new ideas. So it's a good time if you've got one. Yeah. And, also, I think in a situation like this, a, there's more problems, so more problems to solve. And, b, a lot of people are hiding under the chair, and, you know, I think there's probably less entrepreneurs at work. Although, I don't know that for sure. It's just a guess. Yeah. I don't know. Be interesting to measure, but but we'll see the results. I think you're gonna see this as a I think you're gonna see a creative, bloom come from this time. We'll see it in years to come, but I this these are historically times that are great for entrepreneurs. Yeah. No. I I agree with that. It's the this is the first time in a long time I've been excited about entrepreneurship, so I I've definitely seen that happening. And that's good to have the the good news. So but but, yeah, a a lot of good news. I do agree that, you know, there's gonna be opportunity to disperse throughout the whole country. Yeah. That's good. You maybe be a little more comfortable about how things are gonna shake up, and people will survive. And, you know, hopefully, the Fed achieves its goal of to average 2% inflation without going and I agree that that the likelihood of superinflation is probably really minimal just because there's so much innovation still happening. There's so much where else will people put the dollar? I can't even imagine there's anything else other than the dollar for peep for foreign investors. Not right now. I mean, they're the the the if if if there's a viable alternative, it has not shown itself. Could could could something like Bitcoin or gold ever, you know, have too much demand? I doubt. No. We're not gonna go back to gold. Gold's insane. Bitcoin and the cryptos are, you know, sort of mathematically dangerous. The dangers at a couple of areas. I I and and I support them up to a point, but I also say, look. We have not figured out one of the biggest variables, which is how governments will respond to losing control of their currencies. Yeah. And I guess, there's a lot of uncertainty. You know, I don't know. I I I don't wanna say anything that I don't know, but there's various issues with a 51% of Oh, yeah. The the the other 51% attacks and, like, what happens when, when quantum computing comes in. Yeah. Like, how you solve cryptography then. Yeah. Like, does cryptography get weird under quantum computing? And the answer is, I don't know enough math to answer that question, but I can at least ask it and say that it's not a clearly it's not a it's not a clearly solved problem. People smarter than I will solve it, but some of those people will solve it and then use it to exploit the system until yeah. So there's all that. My big question with crypto, and nobody's ever answered it, is what happens when governments who respond slowly and respond awkwardly and respond brutally, decide that they do not want to allow people to have anonymous forms of payment. Right. So that but then you get into something like how do government how do governments respond to the Internet? So in in crypto's case, it might be some country like Argentina. Their currency falls apart. The population switches to crypto, and that kind of triggers a domino on other countries. And then, you know, countries just have to sort of tag along to to participate, but I don't I don't know how that works in a country like the US where, you know, the currency is very much tied to how we collect taxes. Yeah. And, you know, the other thing is you want governments in control when things go wrong. Like Yeah. I would argue that what a central bank like the Fed is doing right now is preventing a world crisis of tremendous proportions. You know, even though we got a health crisis, we've largely avoided, like, the calamity of a massive, you know, worldwide depression. And that's partially and perhaps largely due to actions of a central bank, and that's because they control the currency. And if you take that control out of the hands of people, you know, like, there are planes that are completely autonomous now. They can take off and land themselves, and I don't wanna fly in 1. Right. I want a pilot. I want a guy who's who's bored most of the time. As a matter of fact, I hope he's bored the entire flight. That's what I want. Well, hopefully, we get back to boring times. Yes. 2020 has definitely been a little too interesting. There's the less interesting times. Alright, James. Well, I hope I hope I see it somewhere this, in in reality when we can actually get a room here. Either in in New York or or I'll let you know when I'm in New York. Let me know when you're in Miami, and we'll we'll we'll collide at some point. So Cool, man. Looking forward to it. Thanks a lot, Jim. I really appreciate it. Always a pleasure, man. Bye bye.
Comments