eir prices so we had most favored nation prices? Did you see that? Do you think any other president could have threatened? The others didn't even have the tool. Trump created the tool, the tariffs, and then threatened big pharma unless they brought $150 billion dollars of manufacturing back to this country and lowered their prices as much as, you know, 80 or 90 percent that otherwise they would get tariffed. So they didn't have any choice. And now he's going to call in the insurance companies and tell them they need to make less money. How would you do that except by threatening them? Maybe with also I don't, can you tariff an insurance company? I don't know what it is you tariff. You probably can't, but there's some way you can threaten them.

So it looks like Trump is literally just going to bully and threaten big pharma to lower the prices. So you can't tell me any other president could have pulled that off. Now, we'll see. We'll see if it's real or, you know, the pharma companies just find some other way to steal our money, but we'll see. Yeah, you replace their whole industry if they don't play ball. I think Trump is serious about lowering those costs, and I would guess he's going to pull it off. So if he pulls it off, he would be successful in eggs, gasoline prices, except for California, but that's our fault, and pharma. That would be pretty big. But he still would not be successful in groceries. Oh, he would also be successful in rent because by doing mass deportations, he has decreased the demand for rental places. So I don't think people are feeling it yet.

By the way, if you haven't seen the All-In Pod, the most recent All-In Pod, you have to watch it because it's just a brilliant explanation of what's happening with AI and a good point counterpoint about what's happening with costs. So Jason from the All-In Pod was arguing that the average consumer, average voter is now seeing lower prices, and that would be true. They see lower prices maybe in gas, but as long as their other costs are up, mostly groceries, I think groceries being the biggest problem, it's going to feel to them like nothing's happened. And it will feel to them that Trump did not do enough because groceries are up. And I would agree with that that they would feel like they had not gotten enough from Trump and what they feel will determine how they act in the midterms.

Now the other fascinating thing David Sacks was explaining that there are a lot of beliefs about AI that the public has completely wrong and that they're basically hoaxes. So some of the AI hoaxes and it might be premature to know that these are not true but one of them is that AI will definitely lower employment and Sacks was pointing out that the current evidence is that it doesn't, there's no evidence that AI has lowered employment but he also to his credit he also points out that it might be too early to know for sure that that's a permanent situation.

I would argue that the reason AI has not taken jobs yet is that AI doesn't work. So it's not about whether AI will take jobs, it's about whether it works and it just doesn't work. And so a few companies are getting massively wealthy, mostly Nvidia really, primarily one company. And they're just moving capital around. You know, the big companies are just finding reasons to pay each other big amounts of money. But that eventually if AI actually starts working it might have some impact on the number of workers but here's the argument that it would never do that. The argument that it would not do that is that AI makes workers more productive and if you could make workers more productive then the employers would want more workers because every worker they got would be paired with AI and would be able to add more to the bot