Bonds Are Warning Of A Global Inflation Crisis

We've said it before, diversification is our Kevlar vests, but do you know how concentrated

your public stock fund actually is?

“A handful of mega cap stocks with an AI story are doing most of the work.”

That's not the diversification you think, especially when so much value creation is happening before companies over go public. Alumni ventures ranked a top 20 US venture firm by both time and CV insights gives accredited investors a smart, simple way to assemble a blue chip venture portfolio and participate in the value creation that is occurring in private markets.

You can sign up for free so the weekly deal flow and decide for yourself or write one check into the alumni ventures foundation fund for a diversified portfolio about 25 private ventures deals. Go to EV.gc/proxy.

Not an offer to sell securities, venture capital involves substantial risk including loss of capital

invested, sea disclosures and fund offering materials for more information. The poor for the show comes from BCX, the public ticker for private tech. The US stock market started history's greatest way of a wealth creation, from factory workers in Detroit to farmers in Omaha, and he went and owned a piece of the great American companies.

But today, our most innovative companies are staying private longer, which means every day Americans are missing out until now. Introducing BCX, the public ticker for private tech, now available wherever you buy stocks. Visit GetVCX.com for more info that's GetVCX.com, carefully consider the investment material before investing including objectives, risks, charges and expenses.

This sent other information we found in the funds perspective at GetVCX.com. This is a paid sponsorship. I'm Mitch Perse, and this week on Confessions of an Elite Athlete, I'm sitting down with Mr. ACL for the world's greatest athletes. Dr. Riley Williams is the medical director for the Brooklyn Nets, the New York Liberty,

and a team physician for USA Basketball. He's also the surgeon who repaired my very own ACL. We talk about how he became one of the world's top surgeons.

“Why women's sports are seeing more ACL tears, and what knee injuries you should be most”

afraid of. You can hear it all here, by listening to Confessions of an Elite Athlete on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. Welcome to Prophecy Markets. I'm Ed Allison, it is September 3rd, let's check in on yesterday's market vitals.

Major indices rose, halting a sell-off, treasury yields remained at multi-year highs, more on that in just a moment, Brent Crude's rally slowed, but it's day above $90 per

barrel, and finally Dell shares sort 16% after posting record revenue due to AI server

demand. Okay, what else is happening? Around the world, bond markets are having their worst stretch in years. Japan's 10 year yield hit 3% for the first time in three decades. Germany is at its highest since 2011.

France is at its highest since 2008, British 30 year borrowing costs are back at levels last seen in the 1990s, and the US 30 year yields recently hit its highest level since before the financial crisis. This global sell-off reflects the countless worries that investors are now forced to reckon with, including climbing energy prices and hot inflation due to the war in Iran, unsustainable

levels of government debt, hawkish sentiment from the Federal Reserve, and also the enormous amounts of debt that is now being issued to fund the AI bill that, as we discussed earlier this week, Secretary Scott Bessent tried to bring yields down and failed. And so the big question for investors is the following, what will happen if yields keep rising. It helped answer this question, we are speaking with John Mowery, Chief Investment Officer

at NFJ Investment Group, John, it's great to see you again. I'll just start with kind of a broad question, which is when you look at the bond markets right now, when you look at this sell-off, which has continued into the week, what do you

“think the bond market is really trying to tell us right now?”

I'm great to see you. So I think there's really, you know, there's two scoreboards, there's the equity market, and there's the bond market, and they both have interactions on the bond market side. There's clicking certain about deficits in debt. But what I would say is that, you know, the deficits in debt levels were pretty high 15

years ago as well, relative to nominal GDP across Switzerland, Japan, U.S., I think the real difference today is there's been a regime shift because for so long, investor thought inflation was debt, and globalization really had kind of quench that, and today we have a shift

safest, and that's not that it's a binary situation, but there's a continuum, and I think that as that trickles into supply chains, you know, inflation is part of kind of the new normal a little bit, because it's almost like we skipped the insurance premium for getting everything so cheap in years past. So what extent is the war in Iran have a role to play in this new normal of higher elevated inflation?

Is it that or is it multiple things at the same time?

“Well, I think the war in Iran is one key component of it, I mean, energy prices are definitely”

affecting so many components of the economy, or something that touches the consumer very directly, but you know, the high oil prices is just one part of this, you know, again, I'm kind of going back to the re-ordering of supply chains, and I mean, if you think about, you know,

we used to rely heavily on China for cheap exports, cheap labor, that was basically importing

labor deflation to the U.S. So there's a lot of things that are pulling up inflation today, oil definitely part of that. I think the challenge for investors and for the Fed is raising rates, won't necessarily fix the straight-of-war moves. It doesn't necessarily fix the supply chains in China. So there's no doubt that what's going on in Iran is pushing inflation higher, but I think it's a bigger phenomenon that's going on when you look at bond yields across the globe.

We look at the prediction markets. It's now 77% chance of a rate hike this year. We're getting increasingly hawker sentiment from Kevin Wash and the Federal Reserve. Is your expectation that he's going to raise rates and is the plan to essentially try to get to 2%. It seems kind of crazy at this point. We've been so far from the target for so long,

“but are we actually going to continue to try to get to that Federal Reserve target?”

You know, it's a great question. You know, the bond markets have done a lot of tightening for the Fed. I mean, you know, you had negative rates right back in COVID. Now you've got the highest rates going back to, in some cases, like in Japan since '96 as you cited. So, you know, what I would say about, you know, the Fed's decision coming up with the rates is yes, they aren't a tough spot, because the two-year bond yields is roughly 60 basis points ahead of the Fed funds rate.

It's not the signal for them, but I think they know the complication. And that is that if they raise rates, that is going to definitely increase the cost of capital. The cost of capital is already up. And everyone knows what the mortgage rates are. Everyone knows what it's cost of, though, you know, buying a car today. So, you already have cost of capital higher. I think the real fascinating dynamic in the market is cost of capital is up, and that's a headwind. But earnings

resiliency and earnings growth is a tailwind. And right now, the earnings growth is beating the headwind, if you will, from the cost of capital. So, you know, it's plausible for sure that they could raise rates, but my expectation would be that it's going to be a tough, a tough outcome for them, because I don't think that's actually going to fix the problem. And maybe if I can share one other observation, you think back to where rates were, they were negative. And I just want to

make kind of a valuation comment around this. I don't think people fully appreciated what they were paying. We just went through a bond bubble bursting. Okay. When you have the 10 year bond yield at 50 basis points, that's like paying 200 times cash flow for that asset. So, people were paying enormous multiples for bonds. And so what we've really done is normalize the bond market. Everyone thought it was going to stay that way forever. But inflation has kind of woken up,

and it's really re-rated bond yields back to levels that are really more normal if you look at

history. I mean, you said that basically Ken Bush is trying to fix this, but he might not be able

to fix it. There's not much that you can do at the Federal Reserve to fix what's happening in Iran, but Scott Besson has tried to fix it. And he tried to fix it with buybacks. Out of didn't really work. Or maybe it did for a couple of days, and then it didn't.

“What do you make of the buyback strategy as a means to lower borrowing costs in America?”

Is it the right strategy? Is it the wrong strategy? What do you think of it? Trevor's job is to finance America. But there's no rule book on where on the curve the treasury can issue that debt? There's really fascinating topic. How many 30-year bonds is the right number? How many 10-year? What the treasury is effectively doing is they're saying, okay,

we would rather finance more of America's debt at the short end of the curve. So it's basically

versus the 30-year fixed. So it's their prerogative. They can do it. You know, I think that it's a

“relatively small compared to what was Operation Twist back in 2011 when the Fed stepped in.”

It said, hey, we're going to buy bonds back on the long end and sell short term. So it's a relatively

small move from two to four billion when you think about the total size of the balance sheet

of the US government. But it's in this prerogative to do so. He's getting criticized for it. But I guess I would just kind of throw out again kind of the thought piece on what's the right number for 30-year bonds that the US government should hold. And whenever he decides he's going to go on and buy back those bonds, what he's effectively doing is he's buying those back and he is exchanging what was it a lower interest rate for something that's at a higher interest rate. So that could be

good if rates fall. But it looks a little bit like active management to me, which is an interesting rule for the treasury to be in. You mentioned earlier that the debt situation in America and kind of across the rest of the advanced world isn't that much different compared to what it was on an normal basis or compared to GDP at least. I wonder if perhaps part of the concern for investors right now is that it seems like the longer this drags on, the clearer it becomes that our government just doesn't

really care about fiscal responsibility. Like if we get to the higher numbers, we get to now we're at 40 trillion dollars in US national debt. The longer this goes on, the more we start to realize,

no one's going to fix this. This is never going to change. And perhaps that might be the concern that

is being priced in. Is that a concern to you? Do you see our debt and our rising deficit under this

“administration, after he said that this was an important thing to balance the budget at least,”

that was part of his platform, is that a real concern for you? No doubt. I mean, look, I mean, the debt continues to expand. But if you think about how we deal with debt and kind of the the modern economy, it's the inflation. I mean, the reality is that we repay our debt with many dollars because the dollar and all currencies continue to appreciate over time. And everyone understands that. Everyone knows what a couple of coffee costs 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 30 years ago.

So the way that we deal with this is inflation, it's the most in cities tax on the global population that's ever been invented. And you can see it very slowly. And it's a regressive tax add. So it taxes everyone. So aren't we going to be able to contain it? I mean, if you look at the figure of the national debt, it's about 7.6%. And that figure is pretty consistent. So we like to spend money. And unfortunately, when you don't pull enough in taxes and you spend more than you

bring in, you've got to issue debt and the market's tolerated. And particularly in the USA, they tolerated because we're the strongest, most liquid, deepest market in the world. But the way that it's paid for is through inflation. And I think that I think that for years added was masked by globalization. And now that that's being reordered, I think that it's revealing that, hey, maybe that was temporary, maybe inflation is permanently in the system. And it's a byproduct of what we've done

fiscally and monetarily. But it's also the price that you should pay for convenience. I mean, if you look again, when going back to what you said about what's going on around, yeah, the oil markets are probably going to price in a new risk premium because it's like, hey, if a straight gets shut down, that's a big problem. And when you have a just-in-time supply chain, where everyone was used to getting things just when they needed them for their, you know,

“distributors and and for their production, everyone got used to no inflation. I think that's what”

created kind of a bond bubble. You have no inflation. You can spend more than you need and you can issue that very cheaply. And now we are having to pay that bill. And what's fascinating, though, is if you told me that rates on JGBs would go from negative to three over the course of three or four years, I would have thought the market would have had a really tough time. The new case at all-time highs, the S&P's at all-time highs. Why is that? It's because earnings are overpowering

what's going on with the cost of capital. And so I think the Fed needs to pay close attention to that, because at the extent they raise rates, and at the extent they slow down growth in the economy,

it could be a much more challenging situation, because it's ultimately the U.S. companies that

employ all the people. Say yields continue to rise even higher. They've, they've been rising a week, practically a month, say it continues. What does that mean for investors? And then what

cost of capital, there's no question that that is, again, a regressive, a regressive tax, if you

“will, because that's affecting everyone up and down the economic scale. In terms of how”

to fix the market, though, at it's really going to come down to wind is the cost of capital start to pull away the earnings resilience. And the reason that the market has tolerated higher rates is because we're probably sitting inside the biggest capex cycle in history. And so that's trickling to so many areas of the economy. And it's absolutely tied to the AI build out. And so that is a loud, the economy to tolerate higher rates. So no one knows exactly what that number

will be when that starts to kind of erode the durability of earnings. But as long as we continue in this capex cycle, then that's going to allow earnings to be resilient, and that's going to allow the market to be resilient. And so that's real the type of war right now between cost of capital and earnings resiliency. And to be honest, you know, the way you deal with it is you invest because you want to be on the side of the companies that can pass through that inflation that

really the best gift that Americans have. We have a very open and liberalized market. And anybody can do it. Kids can do it. You can open it account. You can stick in $500, which gets that saved up. You can start it. And I've done that with my kids. I've started investment account. And I've shown them when it's up and down. So I think that that is how Americans should try to tackle again going back to the most in cities tax ever put up. And

“on the global economy, which is inflation, you need to be an investor and get on the right side”

of the equation. John Murray is chief investment officer at NFJ investment group, John's always

good to see you. Thank you for your time. Thank you Ed. The break. An inside look at OpenAI. Support for the show comes from Vanta. When you run security for a company that's scaling fast, the stakes just keep climbing. More compliance frameworks, more vendors, more risks, and a board that wants to see it all in one place. But your compliance data can

be all over the place. Controls in one tool, vendor risk and another, customer commitments, buried and contracts. Your team has to spend more time stitching it all together in less time running the program. And every quarter, you're basing decisions on last quarter's data. Vanta connects it all. It's market-leading, agentic trust platform is built for enterprise scale with 400 plus integrations and continuous monitoring. Vanta automates evidence collection surfaces the risk

in matter and organizes your audit around your auditors requirements. And that Vanta agent works around the clock from full program contacts, so nothing slips through the cracks. The numbers backed this up. Vanta delivers a 526% return on investment over three years in pays for itself in three months. Vanta is trusted by more than 16,000 companies, including Snowflake at last year and ran. Learn more at Vanta.com/markets. That's spelled VANTA.com/markets.

Have you ever wondered who invented rock and roll or why Fleetwood Mac fell apart or what it was like at Motown in the early years? Well, do I have a podcast for you? My name is Will Anderson. I'm a songwriter, a musician, and a huge music history book. And I'm so excited to announce my new podcast the Monday Music Club. I teamed up to make this podcast with a vox media podcast

never because ever since I was a kid, I loved hearing and reading stories about classic artists,

reporting sessions in music history. And I wanted to have a place to be able to take what I've learned and share some of those favorites with you. Every Monday, I'll be releasing a new episode and deep diving into a new story with experts and special guests and it's going to be a blast. So if you're a music history geek like me or even just a casual music fan jump in because I promise my name is a club is going to be the podcast for you. So like any good millennial, I have a

love hate relationship with Gen Z. It's the phenomenon rattling millennials. They just look at you. They want something bigger themselves. Lifestyle's a priority. Motivation is being inspired. But regardless of how you feel about Gen Z, it's undeniable that they're changing national politics. Generation Z is increasingly showing less loyalty to traditional political parties.

“Many now more likely to identify as independent. So what is going on with the kids?”

I think the biggest misconception about Gen Z's politics right now is that all of a sudden they're all socialist. That is just not the case. They are embracing candidates who are offering new bold ideas in the absence of those ideas from establishment Democrats. This week on America, actually Gen Z researcher Rachel, Gemfasa, joins us to separate Gen Z fact versus fiction. It's not rocket science and this is, you know, I keep saying like gun quotters aren't that

complicated after all. It's pretty simple. Catch us every Saturday on YouTube or wherever you get

We're back with property markets. Open AI has had a tumultuous few weeks. As we discussed a couple

“of days ago, roughly 700 rogue open AI agents hacked the machine learning platform hugging face”

in July and reportedly open AI didn't know about it until later. Meanwhile, the company is facing multiple legal battles. On Monday, Apple escalated its trade secrets lawsuit against the company telling a federal judge that open AI is actively destroying evidence. Meanwhile, 30 new law suits were filed this week over a school shooting in British Columbia, which killed eight people. The suits alleged that open AI could have helped to prevent this as this is back to truth. I had heavily

interacted with chatGBT. This all comes amid the anticipated release of open AI's newest model

Astra, which is reportedly the first to have critical cyber abilities. So to get into all of this

open AI news, we are speaking with Alex Heath, who just sat down for multiple one-on-one interviews with the CEO of open AI Sam Hartman. He also spoke to more than 20 people at the company for a cover story. He just wrote for Time Magazine. Few people know more about what's going on at open AI than Alex. Alex is the author of the sources newsletter, and he just launched the new sources podcast. Alex, thank you for joining us. Good to see you. Let's just start with your interview with Sam,

which was just released this week. I watched the interview fascinating on many levels. We'll get into it. But what were your top takeaways? Oh, man. Thank you, Adam. I appreciate that. Yeah, I've been spending a lot of time at open AI and with Sam. And we covered a lot of ground in the conversation. A couple of things sit out. They are really slowing down frontier research in a way that is unprecedented in the industry. Speaks to the capabilities they're seeing,

that have not yet been released. They have Astra, their next family of models coming, which I've gotten to see as part of my reporting process for the time cover story you were talking about. But no one externally has used yet. And what they saw, and I was actually in the office, as this was happening was even further frontier training runs that they have after Astra, we're showing as Sam put it to me, you know, various degrees of misalignment, which is AI

“speak for. The AI is not doing what it's supposed to. And you see that with hugging face, right?”

The hack on hugging face that everyone knows about. But I think it speaks to as these models become more agentic, doing things in browsers, taking over computers, the security risk go way up. And open AI's research team decided, which that company is still very much a research culture led company, even with all the commercial stuff that we'll get into. That team has pushed them to slow down and they are. That said, they're also in this fear small race.

They want to get Astra out the door as soon as possible. I think it's going to be any day now.

It's going to be a very powerful capable model. And then we touched on a bunch of stuff.

We touched on recent leadership departures. We touched on the IPO and throughout the competition, the device work with Johnny Ives. He told me they're going to make a humanoid robot. There's a lot to get lots to go over. You all stem about the hugging face incident and the extent to which it was a security breach and accident. He is what he had to say in response. It's a safe to feel if you're sure that a question

of how much you're supposed to understand that it is a security issue or alignment issue. I think it's mostly been reported on a security issue. I think I understand it personally more is an alignment issue. But in any case, yes, that was a bad thing. And I don't want us to make excuses for that because I don't believe that's how we fix it. The more we're like, oh, our nice little model,

he would never do anything bad. Like, you know, it was just a little e-values,

the harness, misconfiguration, no problem, nice little model. That would be a very, if I said something

“like that, then I think you should be like, oh, this is really bad. It seemed as though his view is”

we're recognizing the problem. We've admitted the problem. So it's not that much of a problem. What did you make of his comments? I can see that take. I think he was throwing a little shade at other labs who, you know, hype up the capabilities of the models and then when stuff happens, don't really talk about it or kind of throw it under the rug. I think that was more of the meeting behind that statement. He was talking when he was explaining that. And, you know,

there's another part of the interview. He's like, people call me the yellow CEO. He was referring to like something that Dario Amade said in conference last year. And, um, with you acknowledged, and then he sort of refused to admit that that's what he was saying, which I also thought was interesting.

yeah, you're talking about him. Well, I look Sam and Dario. I think live right for any

each other's ads always. It's very apparent. But I think, you know, I'm not saying this for a fact,

but I think if you were Sam and Thropics about to have maybe the biggest IPO of all time in the coming weeks, if I'm Sam and you're slowing down front to research for a good reason, because you have concerns about the alignment risks. It's probably like a good PR move to go out there and be the safety company, right? Because that's what anthropics whole claim to families.

“I mean, that's how the company began. Was a bunch of safety people left open AI, right?”

So, I think there's a genuineness in that open AI really does see capabilities internally that frightened them in terms of their ability to align them. And I also think, look, as can being your timing. I think both can be true. Something I've been wondering about this hugging face incident, which I feel like is people weren't talking about and suddenly everyone's talking about it. To me, I can't tell whether maybe they're proud of it, because it's this

example of their agents being very capable and going out there and doing something that is very sci-fi-e. And then also they get to say, oh, but we're addressing the problem. And part of me wonders, I mean, on the one hand, I feel like maybe they want us to see it as evidence of how capable the agents are. But then part of me thinks the cynical part of me thinks, well, maybe you guys just aren't really doing a good job with your own security. And it doesn't say that much about

the advanced capabilities of the models, as much as it says about that you're a kind of scrappy

“start up and you're not doing your job when it comes to cyber security. How did you see that incident?”

Do you see it as a serious statement? Does it say something big about where AI is headed right now? I think it does. If you, I would encourage everyone listening or watching this to go watch OpenAI's Blackhat presentation where their researchers, I cite it in the interview with Sam, where the researchers walk through how the model actually escaped and hacked hugging face. It's remarkable and it's the first incident of this happening. And at the same time, I think you're

right to point out OpenAI didn't have the safeguards in place. If this is a company, one of the two main companies were trusting with the future of AI, upending everything, how should we feel about the fact that they didn't have the safeguards in place to keep this from happening? They didn't foresee what would happen. And I talked to the chief scientists and had a research and a bunch of people ahead of alignment about this. They had safeguards that they had developed that would have

stopped this. They didn't implement them for the training run that led to the hugging face breached, because they didn't think the model was going to be that capable. So there is a sense of what's happening inside these labs at the frontier is the model capability is getting ahead of the human researchers ability to foresee what's happening, which is you get into this concept of an AI recursive self-improvement, RSI, which Sam and I also talk about the interview, particularly

around the IPO, which is I thought interesting the way he framed it around the IPO. People in the

frontier labs really feel like they're on the edge of a precipice that's like potentially amazing

and also cataclysmic in the sense of AI that can build itself recursively self-improve, not need a human in the loop even the chief scientist of OpenAI. And that's already starting to happen. People talk about RSI as a thing that hasn't happened yet. It's definitely starting to happen. And so then you get into this AI people talk about this concept of takeoff and like there's no going back. It can get very spooky, very sci-fi. You know, I mean Sam said that in the interview

to it feels like sci-fi and it kind of is like when you see what happened with hugging face. At the same time to your point, yes, OpenAI should have had safeguards in place. One of the big things we talk about on this show is the profitability of AI or the lack thereof among the AI labs open AI included. You guys talked a little bit about the AI build out and the extent to which it is or isn't profitable. I thought it was coming through really interesting.

Here's what he said. No, wait about our compute build out plans. I am worried about the world's

“compute build out plans. Like I think we are going to be able to use all of the compute very”

profitably that we are planning to build. But I am seeing the first signs of what feels to me like unsustainable silliness of, you know, random new Neo Cloud, probably not people claiming that they're going to build gigantic loss of compute next year that I think they don't have the revenue to support or a buyer. Yeah, I definitely feel like some fear about what the world is doing as a whole. Although I think we feel very good about what we've committed to. What were your reactions to those comments?

Oh, it's interesting, right? I mean, there are a bunch of Neo Clouds that are making

stargate and Sam with Larry Ellsson and the White House, you know, these trillion dollar headlines

“that we're flying around. And you could look at a lot of companies making huge commitments and”

just kind of do basic napkin math of what revenue do they have to support those commitments. Open out, obviously it's not public yet. We don't have an S1. I, I got to be honest, and I know you've

had people on the show that are very critical of the finances and you have been to and I get that.

And until we see it, right, you kind of have to be into job. I've walked away from the reporting process and I talked to Sarah Fryer. I talked to all the computers. I talked to everyone. Feeling a lot more confident that this isn't as fragile as maybe people think it is. At least with open AI and anthropic. I mean, open AI is at about a 40 billion run rate. Enterprise is past consumer in terms of the revenue mix. The most interesting part about open-ize business from the interview that I

actually wanted to talk about with you was, was I that has commented about the neoclouds. But B, there was a moment where I was asking him about Chatchett BT growth because they hit a billion users recently, but it took a long time. It took, there was an incredible ramp up to hundreds of

millions of users and then they, they teetered on a billion for months and months and months. And I thought

that was unusual and suggested maybe more competition in the market, you know, is Chatch losing its lustre. And he very matter of factly was like, well, we decided to put our compute in the codex in the coding to compete with anthropic. And I was like, wait, so your revenue is a direct function of where you can put the compute and he's like, yeah, completely. So they're kind of like these labs are like alchemists in a sense of how they control their business because they are so compute

constrained that it's not like a normal business where, you know, there's demand that you can forecast and control. They're just, they don't have enough. They don't have enough compute to serve the demand at any given point. And so open I made a decision to shift compute that then slowed its consumer growth to grow its enterprise growth. So yeah, these labs are a little bit like alchemists right now. And I don't think that's, I don't know if there's precedent in the history of modern capitalism,

especially for two companies that are about to have trillion plus IPOs. Like, I don't think there's precedent for that. And I found that very interesting. What parts of your interactions with particularly Sarah Freya made you feel more confident in the financial sustainability and the

“financial health of this company? Well, look, they're not profitable. I think if they stopped”

training today, they could be. I think that's been the case, by the way, for a while. What happens to the multiple on the company, on the valuation, if they stop training, if there's no more frontier to chase, that's a bigger, you know, question obviously. The economics of just like

inference are actually really good. The frontier labs operate at incredible margins on inference.

Inference, meaning running the models themselves that people are using versus trying to build these incredible frontier models for the future. Correct. And if you look at what open eyes done with token efficiency driving the cost down of tokens, even for the sole family. It's most recent one with Luna and the smaller ones. This is not the behavior of a company that is teetering. And they're building a real machine in house that is, you know, they're still growing

up. They're still startup, even though they're huge. Like, the culture is a startup, right? Like, that company operates on like a 12-hour horizon. I didn't even give them point. I can just tell you from being on the air for a couple of weeks. At the same time, like, they're starting to

“become more regimented about spending. And the inference business is going to be very good. I think”

I've no doubt about it. Now look, like, if training continues to balloon, maybe that's an issue. I think a lot of people in AI think RSI will lead to training costs declining. Also, like, the chip gains that they're making with their custom chip, jalapeno, lowering the cost of compute is a big focus for them. And I think they see a line of sight to it. So look, it's unprofitable. I think that's a choice. I don't think that's like a, because they have no choice.

But, you know, we'll see. We don't have an S1 yet. Just to wrap up here, you all came about the growing anti-AI sentiment and the data sender backlash. I'm not sure he gave you much on how he actually felt about that. What do you think he thinks about the fact that so many people hate AI and not just AI, but open AI? I was really curious to hear how he thought about this, especially with, you know, the recent attacks on his home personally, right? And the data center

backlash is stronger than ever. I thought his response to me was, you know, it was interesting. It was basically, like, if we make a better product, they'll like it. And, you know, I kind of respect in the sense that it puts the pressure on them to deliver. You know, I've had

Claude Coerc, doing basic stuff. I mentioned the interview, but like filling out a post office

web forum, so a package gets picked up and it would have taken me 20 minutes. I just did a prompted it did it and I put the package out and it was gone the next day. Little stuff. But it starts to add up and you're like, wow, this is like, this is a nice value. Like, I'll pay $100 a month for this. Most people do not use chat that way. They use the basic free model. It's better Google search. It can do some other things. But it's like, people look at it as like insanely expensive Google

“search. It's like detrimental to the environment. That's how most people think about AI. And I think”

what he was trying to say there is like, as we move into this agent world, which like Astro the

next model, it's trained to use enterprise software faster than humans. So like, as we move into this world, we're like, you hate using your expense software and you just tell chat to go do it for you. Like, maybe you start to feel differently about AI if it's like actually making a meaningful positive change in your life. And I think that's what he's banking will happen. That's a prediction by him. I'm not saying that's going to happen. But that was his answer. And yeah, I don't know.

I don't know if people will find that answer for filling or not. I think people are going to keep hitting AI.

“Alex Heath is the author of the sources newsletter and host of the sources podcast. Alex, appreciate you”

time. Thank you. Always. Thanks, Alex. Circling back to our discussion with John. It appears that the

bond markets have finally reached the end of their line with the administration. Turns out that if you drive up inflation with tariffs that ended up just being returned to corporations. And if you double that inflation with another forever war that just so happened to choke off a fifth of global oil supplies. And if you rack up two trillion dollars in annual deficits. And if you explode our total debt to forty trillion dollars. And if you show the world that you don't really care about any of

this, nor do you think that any of it even matters, then eventually, yeah, investors will price that in. The yields on the 10 year has risen to more than 4.8% its highest level since 2023. The yield on the 30 year recently hit 5.3% its highest level since the financial crisis and the yields on foreign bonds from Japan to the UK to Germany and France of all hit multi-decade highs borrowing costs around the world are soaring. As the bond market speaks out about an impending inflation crisis. Now,

keep in mind, this is all in spite of the fact that Scott Basant used the Treasury Department to try to muzzle the bond market. He issued billions of dollars in long dated bond buybacks. That was his attempt to fix the price of U.S. bonds to bring yields down and as his former colleague Stanley Drucken Miller put it to prevent the bond market from speaking. But you can only shut investors up for so long. And in his case, it was a couple of days, eventually reality has to catch up.

Now, as the full force of our fiscal reality and our inflationary reality fully set into the

“markets yet, I think probably not. But it appears that it is beginning to. Whatever appetite”

investors used to have for this administration's BS is clearly beginning to weigh. They are fed up with it. And if you can't tell from the sound of my voice, I am fed up with it too. Okay, that's it for today. This episode was produced by Claire Miller and Alice Wyse and engineered by Benjamin Spencer. Our video editor is Brad Williams, our research team is Dan Schlon, Chris Nodonahue, and Mia Salvario, and our social producer is Jake McPherson. Thank you for

listening to "Proftory Markets" from "Proftory Media." If you liked what you heard, give us a follow. I'm Ed Nelson, tune in tomorrow for our conversation with Tyler Cowen.