h money, they better build fast. Otherwise, the United States isn't getting their full value. I love that. He's not putting anybody in jail. He's just putting pressure on them. I like the pressure especially because he's being transparent about it.

Second, he's going to try to convince them to do fewer stock buybacks. That's where the company buys its own stock because it doesn't have any other better use for the money. So it keeps the stock price up because the company itself is buying it, but it doesn't do much for the world. It's just good for the stockholders. So he's trying to get them to use that stock buyback money and put it into American plant and equipment. I love that. I love that.

He also wants them to pay smaller dividends and use some of that money to go into the production facilities as well. So what he's trying to do is get American companies to say, you have a bunch of money. Not only are you overpaid, but you're using it in the least productive way that's good for stockholders, but it's not good for the country as a whole.

Now the beauty of this, if you haven't already caught on, is how in the world do the Democrats complain about this? If you're a Democrat, can you complain that Trump says CEOs are overpaid? No, you can't. You can't complain about that. If you're a Democrat, can you complain that Trump is trying to have them invest their money in things that would create more American jobs and prosperity at the expense of the stockholders? Are you going to complain about that? No. No, you can't complain about that. How about the same thing with dividends? Can you complain that he says you should do less for the stockholders and more for building plants, which would be good for the middle class, good for workers. You can't complain about that and none of it is illegal.

But let me ask you this. Could any other president pull this off? This is a form of leadership that I've never seen before and is just so impressive to me. Will it work? Will it make a difference? I don't know. But is it worth a try? Definitely.

Now if you're a CEO and you were happy doing your dividends that kept you in your job, you were happy doing your stock buybacks that kept you in your job. But now Trump is leaning on you in a very public way. So those same companies can say stockholders the president has asked us to put more emphasis on our building and building fast and less emphasis on dividends. So this year we're going to skip the dividend and we're going to build faster. Will they keep their job if they do that? Probably. Probably.

So Trump is giving them cover by putting pressure on them because now they can say, well, we're pressured. And that gives them the ability to do what probably is good for the country, which is put more money into manufacturing. So like I say, will it work? I don't know. Is it a good idea? Yes. Yes. Is he implementing it in a good way? Yes. It's pretty impressive. I've never heard of anybody even suggesting to do this. I've never heard of it.

All right. So that's leadership people.

So here's a complicated story that let's see if I can summarize. So there's a Georgia senator who apparently there's some kind of hearings or something. And we've learned that Nathan Wade, remember he was the boyfriend of Fani Willis. So if you don't know the whole background of this, it's too complicated to get into it, but most of you probably know the story that Fani was one of the people who went after Trump allegedly in a lawfare way as opposed to a reasonable way. And then the question that popped up from that is, was the White House ever involved in trying to lawfare Trump, which would be highly inappropriate? I don't know how illegal it would be, but it would certainly change our understanding of the story.

So is it true that Trump got in trouble just because he did some bad things and the Department of Justice was just doing what it does goes after people who do bad things, or was it part of a larger White House plot that had many, many moving parts to essentially overthrow the sitting government?

Well, here's what we just found out. That Nathan Wade, remember the boyfriend of Fani Willis and deeply involved in the prosecution of Trump. According to the Wall Street Apes, I saw a post on that. I'll just read what the Wall Street Apes said, that Wade had an 8-hour phone call at the White House the same day that Jack Smith was appointed as the guy to go after Trump. So that would suggest that there was a connection between the efforts.

And according to the Georgia senator who did a video on this, I didn't write down his name, Nathan Wade led an entire emissary of people from Willis's office out to Washington DC to meet with the J6 committee. So the J6 committee were the people who were trying to prosecute all the J6 stuff and get Trump in trouble for it, etc. And he said that nobody can recall what they did. They've all got amnesia, but they went out there and they had significant multi-day meetings. Right? So it was an emissary of people. Nathan Wade led them and they were there for days at the very beginning of the Jack Smith looking into Trump stuff.

And on November 18th, Nathan Wade had a phone call with the White House that allegedly was an 8-hour phone call according to Wade's billing. Now I wouldn't necessarily trust his billing to be accurate because he might have overbilled, but there's clear indication that there was collusion, whether illegal or not. I'm not saying it was illegal, but there's clear indication that there was coordination between the White House and the Department of Justice going after Trump.

So it's starting to look like if you suspected that the White House was behind what would be just terrible behavior to go after Trump, it does look like that's the case, but we'll learn more about that.

So I got two responses on X from Elon Musk yesterday on the same topic. So he's got this theory that robots and AI will make money worthless in the future because everything will be free. Do you believe that?

So let me tell you the concept. So I did a post on X about the idea of giving every baby $1,000 and then waiting 18 years and it'll be worth something when they're 18. And I asked the question, will money even have value when kids turn 18? And Elon weighed in and in response to will money even have value when kids turn 18, he said that civilization will either be gone or AI and robotics will eliminate scarcity. Either way, money won't matter. Wow.

And then before that I had reiterated his opinion about that before he had posted that. I knew his opinion and he agreed that I'd sort of got it right. He said pretty much it will happen quickly. So it will happen quickly meaning that money will become worthless.

Now I don't know what quickly means in this context but it obviously means sooner than 18 years. And so I thought it would be useful to you to kind of work through how that could be possible. Are you ready?

Now I don't know the full answer to this and I'm not yet agreeing with his take, but let me give you just a little bit of insight into why it might be true. So let's take one example. Your car insurance. How much is your car insurance? Well, if cars become almost entirely autonomous so that the humans are not driving, do you think you'll still have car insurance or will it be so rare that an autonomous car has an accident that they just wrap that into the sale price of the car?

For example, what if in five years you would never use a car that you had to steer because it would be too dangerous? You could if you wanted to, but if you bought one that was autonomous, the dealer, let's say it's Tesla, just adds $1,000 to the purchase price and says, we will cover the insurance no matter what happens if it's the car's fault. Then you never pay insurance again. You know, maybe you paid $1,000 on the price of the car, but you never had to pay it again.

What happens when robots and AI are your doctor? Well, maybe your cost of healthcare goes way down because you don't have as many human helpers. Maybe. But what about other production? Would it be possible that food prices would go down if you had AI and robots running the farms? Well, it depends how much the robots cost, right? But do we get to the point where robots can build other robots? And if they did, where would those robots get the raw materials to build the other robots? Wouldn't somebody own those? Well, robots could be mining the raw materials, basically just taking it out of the dirt and then turning it into other robots. And then those other robots could build other robots and you and I would never pay anything. Pretty soon there'd be a million robots and it was completely created out of stuff from the ground. Literally stuff in the ground.

So here's the part that I can't get past. Won't there always be something that is scarce? I can see how products would not become scarce because robots would infinitely build them and they would build themselves and they're just using material that's sitting in the ground. But doesn't somebody own the ground? You know, is there enough public land that even the raw earth materials could be mined from that?

So as long as somebody can hoard anything that's scarce and land is the most scarce thing, then how can you get to zero cost? Because the people who own the land can say, sure, you can build a free house on my land, but you're going to have to pay me for the land, right? Or they could say, yeah, you robots can mine some materials from the land, but I own the land, so you're going to have to pay me for access to the land. Or is there so much public land that they would never have to ask for private land and the private land would be worth nothing because there would always be some robot willing to build an entire new apartment building on somebody else's land or on public land.

So the question is will land still have value or is there just so much unused shitty land that could be used by the robots that your so-called valuable land just won't be valuable. I don't know.

So I'm I can't say that I'm 100% agreeing with the idea that money will become worthless because everything will be free. But you can sort of see how you could get there.

So what happens when the only thing a human can sell is the one thing a robot can't do? That's right. No, I just mean sex in general. Will it ever be true that you could have a better relationship sexually with a robot and get your oxytocin fixed? Or is oxytocin just a chemical and your robot can give you an oxytocin pill and a hand job and you'll think that's the b