dy.

So people don't realize the horror and the torture that they put kids through in public school. If you haven't observed it personally, you would never believe how bad it is. So education could go to zero quickly.

But I've also said that car insurance could go to zero because once your self-driving car has basically no accidents, there's always going to be some, then the car maker can just add insurance forever to the purchase price of the car. So for an extra $1,000 purchase price, the car maker will cover all your insurance in case you have an accident for the rest of the life of the car. So that won't be free, but if you compare a one-time thousand cost over the ownership of the car, it's close to free.

Then somebody mentioned that Optimus, the robot, will soon be able to do child care. And I thought to myself, all right, if you compared a human to a robot today for child care, you would probably pick the human, right? But because the humans who do child care are not maybe not as trustworthy as they could be. Maybe you couldn't watch what they're doing as easily as you could if a robot was working for you and you could just ask the robot what's going on. I feel like child care is going to go to the robots really quickly, which would make the cost of it drop dramatically.

For example, if you already had a robot to clean your house or do ordinary things, you could say, "All right robot, for these work hours you're going to be doing child care." Because the robot doesn't need to rest. So as long as you have a robot, it can do child care.

Now imagine if somebody broke into your home and tried to do something bad to you or your home. Who would you rather defend it? A traditional child care person or a badass robot? I think it would be better security. It would be less likely to molest your child and it's just going to be better in every way very, very quickly and it could do multiple people. So your neighbor's kids could come over and one robot takes care of them so your kid is not lonely. But you'd have to choose carefully.

Then what about security? We're very close to the point where the robots could give you security better than humans. Partly because you couldn't afford a human, partly because you need three humans a day just to cover the 24 hours. And partly because the robot probably would be stronger and have better decision making, etc.

So that's at least four things that could almost immediately drop to no cost at all. So I'm not sold entirely on the idea that money will be worthless, but there sure will be a lot of times when that money is not going to look like it used to.

See what else is happening. So here's a wild prediction speaking of Elon Musk. So I actually, he predicted this, that there will be double-digit growth meaning the GDP within 12 to 18 months. Double digit. Now why that's ridiculous but might be right is that we were all cheering that the GDP went from 3.5 to 4.5 roughly. So we got all excited because it was over 4 percent. Elon says it's going to be over 10 percent within a year, maybe a year and a half. Do you believe that?

His reasoning is this. He says if applied intelligence, and that would be AI and robots used intelligently, is a proxy for economic growth, which it should be, he says triple digit is possible in less than five years. Triple digit. So now he's going from 10 percent a year to over 100 percent a year. If you could do that, does money become worthless? I don't know. I'm having a little bit of trouble intellectually following the argument, but it's a fun one.

Now the caution is this. I believe, I think Musk actually said this but I'm not sure, I believe he is intentionally moving toward an optimistic take on everything because he's so well watched that if he has optimism, his optimism will spread and become a positive thing. And this could be just some of that. It could be that he's just being so optimistic that he knows that's a good idea for society. It's better to be over-optimistic in this domain than it would be to be a pessimist. So I don't know how 100 percent accurate this is to his opinion, but it certainly would meet the target of being optimistic.

So just to put a wet blanket on this, Mark Cuban today was posting that he said, "I agree. We're talking about robot tax." Not we, but on X. And Mark Cuban posted, "I agree. We need to start discussing now what a robot tax would look like, a straight amount per hour of use per robot or cobot, doesn't matter what the shape or form is, and start coming up with responses to the inevitable quote we won't be able to compete economically with other countries' robots."

So of course people will say, "Hey you can't put a tax on my robot, China will get ahead." He says every country will face the prospect of national instability if the economics get out of whack, which is far more expensive than what you were paying in taxes on your robots.

Now I reposted this but that doesn't mean I agree with it. So I would say I'm early in the process of thinking about it. On one hand, if Musk is right that money will become worthless very quickly, then talk of taxing doesn't make sense. Just why tax if money isn't worth anything. But there should be some interim period in which money is worth something and we need more of it. So it does seem to me that it would be unavoidable for the government to put some kind of tax on it. And the theory would be, hey, if you're really increasing your productivity by triple digits, are you telling me that doesn't create any extra money for paying down our debt?

And with a little bit of tax, because the domain would be enormous, so you wouldn't have to tax at 50 percent per robot. Maybe I'm just going to take a swing. Maybe 5 percent tax per the value of each robot, something like that. Would that be enough to pay down the debt or at least get us out of an emergency situation with the debt while we wait for the day when money is worthless?

So there's the interim transitionary part that's a little vague how that's going to work if it works at all. But I do agree with him that there's going to be a conversation. I hate using that term, but we do need to get serious about thinking will robots be taxed? I tend to agree with him that if we taxed our robots a little bit, it wouldn't put us behind compared to say China if we overtax them. Yeah.

Then of course, right? So there's probably some number that doesn't hurt you at all in the same way that the tariffs didn't hurt us like we thought they would. Economics is so unpredictable that it's really hard to know if and when a tax on robots makes sense. You know, your common sense might not be up to the task. I feel that's my case. I feel like my common sense, which usually works pretty well, you know not that there is common sense, but I don't know. I do not know.

All right. In other news, I think we're ready for a sip. Boop.

All right. I'm just going to rest and look at your comments for a minute. If you want less of something, tax it. Yeah. Yep.

So I guess Trump wants the vaccine schedule for childhood to be totally changed from 72 doses when the kid's born basically all the way down to 11. So that would be similar to Denmark. What do you think of that? Is that a good idea? I don't know. I'm no doctor, but people are definitely worried about loading up little babies with too many vaccinations in the beginning. So it seems like there's at least a good argument for stretching them out. And if we can look to Denmark as our model of what works and what doesn't, well maybe that's a little bit safer. So I don't have an opinion on this. I will default to people who are much smarter. I'll just note that it's happening.

Well, the company called Groq with a Q on the end instead of the K on the end, which I believe is one of Chamath's companies from the All-In Pod, I think he was a key investor in that. Apparently they've got some kind of deal. I heard yesterday that they sold the company, but maybe it's just a working deal. So they've got some kind of AI inference technology that OpenAI was interested in. So it looks like a big win for Chamath. Chamath, congratulations. That's a very big win. Somebody said something like $4 billion. I don't know what the real numbers are, but they're big numbers. So he's been busting his butt on this startup and wow. Wow. That's very impressive. Good work, Chamath.

I saw a quote today from a writer from Blaze Media that I really liked. So JT Young writing from Blaze Media said, "Democrats caused the affordability crisis with their progressive policies and now pretend to be shocked by it." But here's the fun part. Democrats are now left with a single strategy, campaigning on the consequences of their own incompetence and hoping voters forget who caused them. That is such a good reframe. So that the Democrats, the only thing they have is affordability and they're the ones who caused the problem and it's unlikely they have a solution. That's pretty funny.

Did you know that the DNC itself, that's the Democrat organization, is also in debt? Unlike the Republicans, the DNC is $16 million in debt. Does it seem to you that Democrats overspend in every category, including their own organization? And it just doesn't seem like Republicans are doing that. So Republicans have a nice little war chest.

Well, Rand Paul came out with his Festivus report for 2025. He found 1.6 trillion in waste and fraud. 1.6 trillion in waste and fraud. Now people will debate how much of that is waste and fraud, but I always say the first trillion is the easiest to spot. And once you get that first trillion, do you believe that there's 1.6 trillion in waste and fraud that he could find? I do. You know, I've said this now a number of times. I could not understand the world, the political world, unless the fraud numbers were over a trillion dollars a year. And apparently they are. They're over a trillion dollars a year. And apparently it's also identifiable. That's the weird part. It's totally identifiable.

All right. Here's a funny story. You've heard that some North Koreans had figured out how to get jobs at Amazon and they just acted like they were remote workers. And apparently Amazon has blocked 1,800 job apps from these suspected North Korean agents who when they get a job, they just do the job and then they get paid and they give the money to presumably the regime.

Now the first time I heard this story, I assumed that the reason that the North Koreans were doing this was to get access to our technology and maybe to do some mischief. But it looks like maybe their primary motive, maybe not the only motive, but their primary motive is just to get a job and to put the money into the regime, which would suggest that their incentive is to do the very best job they could because not only could they get fired, but they could get executed. So it could turn out that they've always been the best employees Amazon's ever had.