Financial Crash Expert: In 3 months We’ll Enter A Famine! If Iran Doesn’t Surrender It's The End!

because the Trump is stupid enough to take on

“what Israel wanted to do, which was destroy Iran,”

but they're bitten off far more than they can choose. So scenario one is Iran destroys the Gulf power infrastructure. I think that's highly likely. And if that happens, then Saudi Arabia, Qatar, do you've got idea or become uninhabitable?

And then scenario two, Iran Disables, Israel's New York's. I hope that happens, but there's this one. And it scares the shit out of me. Professor Steve, I have certainly questions. What is going on?

So this war is threatening everybody on the planet. And what Trump is doing at the moment is a pump and dump scheme. He's trying to drive up the oil price and exploiting it for his friends and for his own wealth and the process. So people are focusing upon the price of this,

but the really important point is this, this is straight of our mules. So oil, fertilizer, helium, all have to pass through the straight of our mules. And Iran have blocked that gap. So they can say, you do all do not pass, depending on where your country's attitude towards our country.

It's an esport terrifying, because 20 to 30% of our fertiliser comes through this point. But if this is not available, the globe has a famine. Do you think he will send ground chips in? Yes, I do.

But I'd hate to be one of those trips because it's also a side mission. They've got underground, military units of weapons and troops. But we have no idea of the scale. Trump keeps saying that war has been won. Yeah.

What's going on there in your view?

“I think he's been fed propaganda to tell him that he's winning a war.”

By his immediate advisors, because new cannot tell a person like that that they've made a mistake. We'll talk about that later as well. But you've developed a bit of a reputation, because you're very good at predicting things. So what would you think of these five outcomes?

Do you think is most probable to happen? Oh, God. Guys, I've got a favor to ask before this episode begins. The algorithm, if you follow a show, deliver you. The best episodes from that show, very prominently in your feed.

So when we have our best episodes on this show, the most shared episodes, the most rated episodes, I would love you to know. And the simple way if you to know that is to hit that follow button. But also, it's the simple, easy,

free thing that you can do to help us make this show better. And I would be hugely grateful if you could take a minute on the app you're listening to this one right now and hit that follow button. Thank you so, so, so much. Professor Steve, who are you?

If you had to sort of distill it down to three areas of specialism, what would those be? History of economic thought, financial instability, so that what causes volatility in the economy, and the dynamics of money.

And ironically, it makes me a minority in economic because most economists ignore money completely. So, strange thing to you. It's ridiculous, but it's true. We'll talk about that in a while today.

I really want to focus on what's going on in the world right now, because there are so many questions. It's all quite confusing, extremely. I don't know, just starting the layers of motivation, but, you know, Trump has a round-half Israel have.

It's a difficult jigsaw puzzle to put together. I guess the the question that I keep asking myself is, like, what is going on?

You can't get away from the fact that we're basically elected

a mafia done to President the United States. You've got a guy who admires the mafia, is running the country. So, what we're getting in some ways is a shake-down rather than anything driven by any sense of political necessity.

So, that's that's a crazy element to begin with. And the American deep state, as it's called, has been anti-eararm for 40 or 50 years, Israel has wanted to defeat Iran for that length of time. Trump has stupid enough, but also cunning enough

to combination of the two, to take on what Israel wanted to do, which was destroy Iran. They're now trying to do it, and they're finding that they're bitten off far more than they can show. Trump is someone who cares a lot about people's opinions of him.

And he must have known that this would be politically unpopular to target Iran at this moment in time. I don't think so. I had a relationship with somebody with an narcissistic personality disorder. So, that's something over and above what I learned

“academically, that I think about his behavior.”

And somebody like that, they want to be the center of attention at all times. They can't stand it when somebody else is being spoken about. It's ridiculous, but it's a pathology. So, he's interested in people's opinions, so long as they're positive, and they're about him.

So, are you saying that he attacked Iran and started this war in part because he wanted attention?

That's always something with somebody who's got that disorder.

Yeah. I mean, what do you think about his rationale? He's saying that he attacked Iran because they had nuclear weapons, and they were, it was an imminent threat. We still don't know whether Iran has nuclear weapons, okay?

We know that Israel has. If you're going to attack a country, the nuclear attack israel, not Iran. Be attacked, attack Israel, can you? I cannot make sense of what politicians all over the planet are doing those days. There's a huge gap between what politicians are saying about

So, people on the street have seen the Gaza genocide.

They've seen all the conflicts Israel has started there. And I think the general sentiment in most countries in the world today is anti-Israel because of the way it's treating the Palestinians. And that's what people are thinking about. The top echelons, like in this country, as you know, if I say free Palestine,

I say that outside on the street, I can be arrested. It's crazy what there's a huge divorce between what people are thinking and what their politicians are saying, and I can't give any explanation for that divorce apart from believing that Israel has something over our political leaders.

Which you mean, you think they have something over our political leaders?

“I think there are, do we know about the whole Epstein?”

Do they, the way that there's Iranians refer to what's happening is they say they're fighting the Epstein class. And there's belief that there's something where Epstein has been working for the Israeli intelligence service and has blackmailed working material on a huge range of politicians. And that's the only way that I can explain the sort of things the politicians are supporting

when their populace is angry about those same policies. She got demonstrations here, no free Palestine, demonstrations, 80-year-old female vickers being arrested for saying this sort of stuff. You go back 40 years ago, there was a belief in the public and a belief amongst the politicians that Israel had a right to exist and it was all pro-Wizrael.

And now after 40 years, the type of abuses that have happened in Palestine have hit individual, you know, ordinary people's attitudes to Israel. So ordinary people are saying Israel's the aggressor, Israel's making the mistakes, but the politicians are all saying it's anti-Semitic to criticise Israel. If you had to give a one sentence answered as to why this war started,

“because we sort of hypothesized a few things there, what would that one sentence answer be?”

Again, this is trying to make sense of the senseless. I just think, Israel wanted to destroy Iran, they thought they could do it, and they thought that had an American president who would help them do it, and they drastically underestimated, have prepared Iran walls for that conflict. Why would Israel want to destroy Iran? What's the context there?

This goes back to religious elements, the Zionist state had the right to that whole region. And there's an expansionist element to Israel's behavior for the last 40 years. And the major rival they saw themselves as having in that sense was Iran. They can invade Jordan, they could attack Lebanon, they could do all these things. Of course, they, you know, the 67 war, they wiped out these,

there's an rape, invading Arabian armies and six styles. They have this past history of being militarily dominant in the area, and they knew that Iran was too big for them to take on on their own. They thought they could get the Americans in there, and I think they drastically underestimated how prepared Iran was for this situation. When you say Iran would prepare for this situation, and it's somewhat surprised, Israel and the U.S.,

what is that preparedness you're speaking about? Well, it's for a stop, the fact that Iran witnessed that there were decapitation attacks on other countries in the region, going way, way back, not just the last 10 years, but the last 40 or 50 years. And the decapitation take off the leader, you kill the leaders. And then the leader's killed the armies in disarray, and you can come in and invade and take over.

So getting rid of Saddam Hussein, that sort of thing. You know, wipe out Saddam Hussein's power base, and then the whole system collapses. That was the Iraq story. But the Iranians observed that, and they have broken their military into 31 divisions. There were 31 provinces, like 31 states, in that sense, inside Iran. Their military is broken into those 31 units. They've got their own failed slave system running in the background. They've got their own resources, their own missiles,

production systems, all that sort of stuff. So you've got to take up the whole 31, and then they'd

“have that subaries. So the only way can beat the country is by literally bombing it back to the”

Stone Age, which is appears to be what they've been trying to do. Trying to do, but the thing is

it's a huge country. I mean, looking at scale of Iran, the map's always distort how large,

though that is larger. That's more than half the size of Western Europe. It's got a population of 90 million about one third or one quarter of the population of Europe, far more than Iraq. I mean, it looks like it's double the size of the UK or more or more than double. I mean, you know, it's one thing about the McKay-to-projection. No, it's not. It's that it makes the northern hemispheres twice as large as the southern. And Iran's in the northern hemisphere, but not as far north as England.

So the distortion gets amplified the further north you go. So it's bigger than France and Germany, Italy and Spain, and possibly Poland in terms of area. And then if you even see just looking

There's more mountains inside there. It's a horrendous terrain to fight a war on.

“I think what Trump is doing at the moment is a pump and dump scheme. He's trying to drive up”

the oil price, tell friends beforehand that he's about to make an announcement which recalls a price to fall, and he's just oscillating this way up and down and exploiting it for his friends and for his own wealth and the process. Do you actually think that's the case? Yeah, because this is what you can make sense of this stuff. This must be hurting his friends economically, because the stock market's going to take a dip if he's not careful. And his friends

are all shareholders in different big companies. So you know, then also a little bit of energy. You know, one of the kinds of great lines was that there's no point in buying a stock which you think is going to increase in value over time if you think it's going to slump in the immediate future. So he's making an announcement which causes oil markets to panic so the price goes up. We're given him control of the most powerful country on the planet. He knows if you

make an announcement at Merz Markets. He has no compunction whatsoever in exploiting that to cause rises and falls in prices and try to export them himself and with his friends. I did see that. I've got the data here on the floor showing those graphs. I genuinely looked at that and thought you know, maybe, but it's also conceivable that Trump is quite a

“predictable bull character and tweets at the same time every day. And it's also, I think me and”

you both know that before the market's open on a Monday morning, he's going to want to say something really positive. He has a track record of doing that. So is it conceivable that they knew he was flying because it was track that he was going to be on this plane journey. There's going to be a press gaggle. We know he's going to give an interview. I actually think I was quite predictable. If I was adding that, I would have gone Sunday night, the Monday morning I would have put a bet on oil prices

coming down. The stock market going up. Yeah, I like that. For example, one of the things he said most recently, he talked about getting a present from around. And then he finally let's look at what the present was and was letting eight ships through the straight-of-haul moths. Oh, yeah. No, no. Those eight ships were not American. They were only other allies. I think what he's thinking is these, that's going to mean the oil market gets calm down.

That means the price is going to fall. So I can then do another pump and dump. Let's explain the straight-of-haul moths. Oh, God. Is it okay? Is if we have to explain it for 16 year-olds? Because there's been lots of coverage on it. I think some people have kind of skipped past the importance of the region. What is the straight-of-haul moths and why does it matter? Well, that's the choke point in the Persian Gulf. To get through, you've got like 21 kilometres. That's an

incredibly narrow gap for ships to pass through. And that means that all the countries that

pump not just oil, but fertiliser, healing them, all these critical elements for the production

system, all have to pass through this point. And obviously, that's well within reach of any weapons from Iran. So they can say you do or do not pass depending on whether we approve or don't approve of your political, your country's attitude towards our country. You said fertilizer? Yeah, oil and helium? Yeah, helium. Where are they coming from? They're mainly coming from, I think, from mainly from the Saudi Arabian side. Okay, Saudi Arabian. Like Iran would have the

same things, but Iran would keep those for themselves. But Saudi Arabia is the main source of gases and oils which are refined in his byproducts. We get sulfur dioxide and we get helium. This is the helium? Yeah, okay. That's, you know, a couple of kilos of helium. But helium, it's an element which there's no substitute. So helium is inert. What does that mean? It means it

doesn't interact with other chemicals. You want to give it a try? I've never done it.

I don't think there's any in here. Oh, what a pity. Okay, what I would have done to give it a try. You got any real helium? Oh, bloody hell. Helium balloon. Does it change your voice? I don't know, is my voice changed? It did. I'll give my voice a try. Okay, okay. I've never done this before. I've heard of the parties. Okay, now I think my voice has changed somewhat from a... The fact you can do it. Oh, my God.

There's a riot. Where is helium coming from? It's coming from a gas field. So about 30 percent of the world's helium comes from a gas field which spans both a Saudi Arabia and Iran. If you don't trap helium, physically, somehow, it'll go as to outer space. That's the ultimate destination of the stuff. So it's trapped in the same things that trap oil. And then when you

drill for oil, you also get helium coming out and then helium is absolutely critical for the

“semiconductor industry. It didn't matter 100 years ago. And semiconductor is important for what?”

Everything. I mean, you know, you'll... You've take the semiconductor out of that. You've got a brick. The processes, the CPUs, the memory chips. They're all made. A helium is an essential element to make them.

need semiconductor, as you know, helium. If you cut off 30 percent of the world's helium supply,

you cut off the capacity to produce 30 percent of the world's semiconductors. And Iran have blocked that gap. And that means that we're suddenly lost 30 percent of the world's helium. I've got a quote from March 26 from leading helium expert Phil Kondluch. He said, "We're looking at a minimum two to three months shut down of helium production with up to six months before supply gets back to normal. And he explains,

"You can't stockpile helium because it leaks through containers." So once suppliers cut off, semiconductor production will stop entirely. South Korea gets 65 percent of its helium from Qatar in that region and makes 2/3 of the world's memory chips. They're government has launched an emergency investigation into the shortage. Nobody's talking about this. I know. And this is one reason that it's quite terrifying about the scale of what we're going through.

Because people are thinking it's going to be oil's going to be more expensive. That's the

sort of mindset we have. But in fact, critical elements of the production system

are being terminated by this conflict. You can't produce chips anymore. And you can't, well, you've got to hang on. You can't produce these chips either. Because the fertilizer disappearing. So you're holding a potato in your hand. Yeah. How are our potato chips going to be impacted by the world? Because of fertilizer. If we don't have the fertilizer, we can't grow the potatoes. And it's not just potatoes. It's the whole range of crops. We eat food.

Okay, we eat this green stuff. It actually starts as brown stuff. Because the fertilizer is an essential part of growing all the food we eat. And the fertilizer is produced by a process called the haybobosh process, which takes petroleum and nitrogen and fixes them in such a way that you can put this on the field. And your plants will grow courtesy of the fertilizer. If we didn't have fertilizer at all, guess how many billion people the planet could actually support? I don't know.

Between one and two. And fertilizer comes from this region. Again, 20 to 30% of our fertilizer

“comes through that region. Through the straight of the straight of our moss. Where's it coming from?”

It's coming again from the same gas field that's producing the helium. Produces a side effect of fertilizer. And you need, you know, I'm not a chemist, because I can get these things wrong. But you need sulfur dot. You need sulfuric acid as well as part of these production processes. 20% of the world's fertilizer, helium, sulfuric acid all pass through that straight. And if you take them away, then you can't make microchips, which is what careers

suffering from. You can't make fertilizer, which everybody will suffer from. If we lost 20% of the world's fertilizer, we'd lose roughly 20% of the world's food. And it calls a global famine.

We've never had this experience before. We've had localised famines. You know, countries like

India have had famines and parts of Africa and so on. But if this is not available, the globe has a famine. And what's the last tank you've got down there? There's one more in the floor. Oh my god. Okay. Hey, that's pretty good. It was accidental. But that's petroleum. Okay, it's petroleum tank. Obviously empty. 20 litres. So that's oil. That's oil.

“Oil. Okay. So if that's what we're losing right now. And people are focusing upon”

the price of this. But the really important point, and I can bring up one of my own charts here is the role of energy in production. Because if we don't have energy, we can't produce goods and services. And the link is incredibly tight. This is looking a change in energy and change in gross world product over the last 40 years. I'll throw this graph on the screen for people that want to say. So what you've got here is

the annual percentage change in gross world product and the annual percentage change in gross energy consumption. And they're virtually locked up and they're the same magnitude. So when energy goes up, GDP goes up. And when energy goes down, GDP goes down. Now we're losing 20% of the world's liplified natural gas. A substantial proportion of its oil as well. We could say a five or 10% fall in energy. We will certainly say a five or 10% fall

in global world gross world product. So explain that to me. So where is the oil in this region? Oh, it's everywhere. I mean, this is one of the accidents of history that the oil is a large part is concentrated here and a large part over here and a bit in Russia. So over here, for people that can't see your pointing at a ranzary or aerobia, a rack. And then there's a lot in the United States and there's a lot in Russia. And you've got some in Russia as well. And there was a

small amount like the North Sea had a substantial amount of oil as well at one stage. And the type of oil in this region, I hear is quite important. It's very, I mean, oil,

“there's no such thing as a homogenous product. What does homogenous mean?”

I might mean, everything is the same everywhere. If you don't get it here, you can substitute from something over here. That's a myth that economists actually unfortunately believe. They basically could persuade people to think that everything is homogenous. In fact, oil from Venezuela is almost like tar. Oil from here is blows like water comparatively. You know, different processing

something from over here. So once that goes, then the production system of the planet is damaged. This has been the shocking thing for me as a citizen has been the fact that a wall with one country could decapitate what 20 to 30 percent of the global production of oil. Yeah. And food, that's a vulnerability if I've ever heard one. I know. And this is like one reason I'm a critic of mainstream economics is they trivialize all this stuff. They don't teach their students how

critical this is. So most people like you, even people who don't pay HD in economics, even worse,

in that sense than other people, they don't understand how critical and how fragile our production systems are. So people can talk about a war in Iraq and think, oh, that's a war in Iran, that's going to cut off our oil supply. Now it's going to cut off your food supply. And for the average person listening now, what will they start to experience if this war doesn't immediately end? Two or three months, India is going to run out of fertilizer. And so

there'll be a famine in India. Food production on the planet could fall 10, 25 percent. And therefore, there simply won't be enough food for everyone on the planet. And then it's a question of who's going to starve? Now you think the wealthy countries are going to be safe. They'd like for Australia, my old home country has about 30 days oil supply. When it runs out, it can't get food from the farm to the city anymore. So Australia is incredibly vulnerable. We're all far more vulnerable than

we realize. And this war is threatening everybody on the planet. I got an interview yesterday, and I was with a wonderful guy who was like, actually weirdly, I sent the Uber at 2 a.m. And I looked up on the screen and he was listening to the director of the sea and then he looked up, he caught me in the back of the car, so he had a great chat. And he was saying to me, listen,

this isn't actually my main job, it's my third job. I do this because of the cost of living.

And it really stayed with me. It's like three to doing the three jobs. Three jobs. Three jobs. And he picked me up at 2 a.m. He's got a family and he's working his butt off to keep the family alive. Yes. And you know, I'm going to say something which I probably, I don't say a lot which came to mind, which is in the position I'm in now. I think it was a real reminder of my own personal privilege

“that I think is really important for someone like me that doesn't have an interview show,”

because you've got to be like intellectually honest with yourself or just like honest with yourself, generally, that like as a, as someone in my position, who's been fortunate enough to be able to make significant money, I can understand from having that conversation. How detached you are. I am from the world around you. Yes. You're a very unique soul because you, I know, like rid a bit of your history, of course. And you've had that terrible period where you were, you know,

unemployed and what they all do. You're lifting food and stuff and you're ambitious, but you like, okay, if you don't experience poverty, you don't know what it's like. Yeah, but even if you have, you can forget it. You can forget it, but you haven't yet. Well, this is why it's so important for me to have those conversations, because him saying I'm working three jobs and this is, and picking up at 2 a.m. in his Uber and him telling me he's doing that because I cost a living because

he needs to pay the bills. Yeah. And immediately made me think I've had this conversation today, like, oh my God, if the prices go up 20% for people. He's out. He's got work 24 hours a day. I'm working on that. You can't work more hours in the day. And it was just one of those moments

“where you got fucking else. He's like, man, you need to stay close to the plight of people that are”

on the gridline and the breadline. Yeah. Yeah. And so many people out. There's so many people in

advanced countries, not just third world countries, but certainly like in America and the UK,

there are a huge numbers of people who are basically living from hand to mouth at the current system. So if we have a breakdown, they can't afford it. And in that situation, you can no longer use money as your way of deciding where you can eat food or not. I wonder if politicians know this, because it's because you know, Trump is a very wealthy man of multi-billionaire reportedly. And if the price has got 20% at the pump, he makes profit. I mean, he actually,

when he sees he said in favor of the rising oil price, will make a lot of money out of it. He's a media association and rising prices, something that I'm indirectly selling. That's good. He doesn't say what about people buying it? The people who buy it can no longer afford it. You've got some food there on the table, which shows how these conflicts and the pressure they

“put on some of these scarce resources can impact our ability to go and buy food. I think you've got”

two bowls of potatoes. Well, let's actually make a fairer right now. Let's get the actual distribution correct initially. So you are talking about someone who in your situation, you've got that like an Uber's got this. And now you're taking away the oil price. That's going to make Trump better off, but he's down to the stage where he's not too far from that happening. And that's what

I think wars created when inequality is bad. If you go back to the Great Depression and see

what cause World War II, it was largely the collapse of the German economy. When they repaid their debt, their private debt to America, our government, private government debt to America, that led to the rise of Hitler. Everybody thinks Hitler rose because of the lime iron

“inflation. That's what people normally think. In fact, when Hitler came to power in Germany,”

the rate of inflation was minus 10%, because deflation, prices were falling. Unemployment rose from very low to 25% of the population. In that situation, people supported Hitler. He revived the economy, happy to talk about how he did that later. But inequality leads to people being willing to and it likes demagogues to say we can save you. And then you get war coming out of it. What happened

after the World War II was politicians realized that people had been through the Great Depression,

which was horrific. And that means for World War II, which was horrific. And in that period, people in America were talking about either a fascist world or a communist world. So the Americans realized they had to improve the living standards of the average American. It's substantially to get away from that. And if you look at, you know, in 1950s and '60s, that's what is called the Golden Age of Capitalism. Because at that stage, it could be a single male supporting a wife

and four kids and have a comfortable lifestyle at the time. That was where we started from. So the war itself led to a focus upon equality, a focus upon fairness and getting as much as you can to the poorest in society. And then we've forgotten that over the last 80 years. And we've now

“got back to massive inequality once more. So I think inequality causes wars in the aftermath,”

make people focus on equality, not to allow that horror to happen once more. And then we forget and do the whole damn thing again. One of the surprising things I learned the other day was that the country that is estimated to have the biggest reserve of oil is Venezuela.

Yep. The third country on this list that is estimated to have the biggest reserve of oil is Iran.

Now, it doesn't take a genius. Fundamentally over two countries have added, yeah. The second country being America? Well, it says Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia. Well, that's already in American national. Yeah, that's already basically, they're basically partners with America already. And finally enough, the fourth one is Canada. And if you're listening a lot to Trump's retrocacy, he said he was going to take Canada and make it the 51st day or something. So it's just, it doesn't

feel to me to be a coincidence that the countries that the US are invading and to captivating their leaders are the country that have the biggest oil supplies. And Trump has already said, you know, immediately, he said after taking out Maduro in Venezuela, pulling him out of his bed with his wife and flying him back to the US, he already said the oils on the way back to America. Yeah. One might assume that much of the motivation here with Iran is when they were in negotiations

with them. Maybe they weren't playing boy bull with the oil. Maybe they were threatening something with the oil. And maybe it's such an economic oil. Maybe most of Trump's friends if he has them are oil executives. And they can see the benefit for them in controlling global oil on the on one path they can't control is around. But I mean, it would expect for it pretty

“horrifically. I think one of the great things in humanity is it's looked like a good idea at the time.”

Then you do it and you realize you underestimated your opponent, you don't realize how difficult it is. Like you mentioned, you know, talking about how being wealthy can make you dissociate from the problems that ordinary people have. It can also make you dissociate from reality in general. You don't realize how difficult it is to something do something you want to have done. So all these oil executives and people who Trump socializes with could have thought take out a

Iran, America dominates the global oil thing. We're all going to be rich. But they don't realize that Iran's been aware of this possibility for 40 years. And they're prepared. They're far better prepared than the Americans and the Israelis thought. So you've got five scenarios laid out on these cards in front of you here that you think could happen next. I'm going to ask you to explain to me what the five scenarios are and then tell me which one you think is most likely

to occur. So scenario one, which is the one that I think Trump is, I think Israel wants this one, Iran is destroyed. Okay. If that happens, we're all gone because to destroy Iran, you're going to use nuclear weapons. Okay. You can't destroy it without obliterating it as nuclear weapons do. And that's the scariest. I don't think it's going to happen. My main hope here is that Iran realizes that possibility and they've got to wait in neutralize not America's nuclear weapons,

shit out of me because if this happens, then we're all dead. Obviously, the nuclear bomb just just blew up an individual targeted. Everything within rich gets exploded into the atmosphere.

“That's what led people to realize that you couldn't have a nuclear war back in the days when we”

had mutually assured destruction as the policy. If you attack a country, then you will also die. The common use in our nuclear weapons is that not a thing? Well, smaller nuclear weapons? Well, again, if the country is smaller, you're talking about destroying Europe. The weapons you'd need to make sure you've got every last potential element of Iran neutralized. You're talking about bombing something which is virtually the size of

western Europe. The member weapons you've got to drop to do that. And if you don't get it right, then they're going to come at you with what they've got left. The world has dropped nuclear weapons before and people survive. Other neighbouring countries survived. Only twice and only small weapons. The weapons we're talking about go and then here here are a shamer and naga saki. They're about equivalent to 20,000 tons of TNT. We're now talking about weapons

with a 20 million tons of TNT, the biggest nuclear weapons. And if you wanted to hit a country

the size of Iran and no give neutralized and so you destroy the whole thing, you're talking hundreds of those weapons. If you had to give a percentage probability of that outcome occurring, would it be less than one percent? If we didn't have a madman in Washington, yes, be less than one

“percent. We didn't have madman in Israel, less than one percent. I think probably five percent.”

Five percent probability that's a possibility. I mean again, this is trying to make sense of the senseless. Okay, but I'd put it about them, less than 10 percent, but still scary as a possibility. If we end up there, we're all gone. I mean, I know very little about all these things, so that's the disclaimer. I'd say that I don't think Israel would intentionally wipe out the rest of the world or cause a nuclear winter because that would obviously impact them as well,

but I am quite scared of residents setting. And what I mean by that is if we establish it being okay to drop nuclear weapons on people you don't like, the sort of domino effect of that for people in Ukraine and other parts of the world, whether it's conflict, might then lead to, you know, mutually assured destruction. Yeah, it's the last possibility you want to have happen. The fact that it's even possible to contemplate it is a terrifying prospect. Let us hope. Yeah, so scenario two,

“is Iran destroys the Gulf power infrastructure. I think that's highly likely. Iran destroys”

Gulf power infrastructure. What does that mean? What it means is that Iran and all the Gulf states have got their own power systems, mainly based on burning oil for obvious reasons. If you take out their power structure systems, then those countries become uninhabitable. Is that what's happening already? Because I know Iran have attacked a few sort of power facilities in the region. There've been a couple of where there was one attack on a Saudi Arabian power systems, and that

took out two of the 14 units that are critical for creating lucrified natural gas. An apparent

it'll take five years to rebuild them. And there are only five companies on the planet that can actually do that rebuilding. One quarter of the world's liquid nor natural gas comes through the straight-of-home walls. One tenth of that has been destroyed. So like two and a half percent of the world's energy supply is gone for the next five years until those are rebuilt. If Iran destroys the Gulf power infrastructure, then Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Dubai, they'll become uninhabitable.

And we're seeing that happen in parts. I mean if it sounds like these attacks have slowed down a little bit, but it was interesting that Iran's strategy was to attack their neighbouring sort of partners and specifically targeting a lot of their energy infrastructure. Is that in part to apply pressure? Yeah. If I attack Dubai, the leaders of Dubai are going to call Trump and say, "Listen, cut this out." Oh, yeah. I mean, the pressure coming back from the Arabian states on America,

imagine it's quite immense right now saying don't do it. It's quite possible Israel could do it. No, I could attack Iran and then Iran does a retribution attack. Trump, if you were to say this trait this morning, I think he's put it off the way for the six before he says he starts attacking power infrastructure. If he attacks power infrastructure in Iran, Iran has said we will attack power infrastructure in the Gulf states. So we've got to all, you know, eight days. I think he's

bluffing. I hope he's bluffing, but if he does do the attack, then Iran will respond by destroying either an equivalent component of the Gulf states or the whole infrastructure. I don't think people quite realize how costly it is for regions like Dubai when Iran attacked them. I was looking at some of the data and according to current estimates and historical risk assessments by

Dubai officials, they lose a million per minute, which is 60 million per hour or 1.4 billion a day when

power systems. Yeah. As we probably saw on the news, Iran had flown a seem like a couple of drones

into Dubai's airport, which meant that I had to shut down. Yeah. If they're losing a billion a day

“because that airport is close. I think it's the biggest airport in the world. It is economic”

pressure for Dubai, which will then trickle down to Trump and sort forces hand. Yeah. So they've got a clear incentive to cause chaos. Yeah. And that's partly what Iran is saying. It's like a game of bluff. You don't want to do this bluff. If that bluff happens, then the Saudi Arabian Peninsula becomes unimaginable. And therefore, all the, I mean, if people have a fall start of their, most of the residents in those countries are not Saudis. They're third world

workers from India and Pakistan and the Philippines and so on. They're being paid lousy wages to work on all these systems. If they leave because the power's not there to support them anymore,

if they try to leave, then we lose the entire energy contribution that that region makes to

the global economy. And they've screwed. And that figure I cited includes not just lost airport revenue, but then the immediate impact on airlines, cargo logistics, and the missed opportunity cost of thousands of high-value business travelers attending the region. But Dubai's GDP is roughly 30% dependent on the aviation and tourism sectors. It's when the airport closes, it impacts tourism, hospitality, real estate, investing,

global supply chains and everything. So it's quite remarkable, specifically with Dubai.

“Yeah. Because Dubai, I think Dubai's a lovely place. I've been multiple times. I love going there.”

But it felt really safe. And so a lot of people are not safe. It's not safe. Yeah. Yeah. A lot of people had chosen to upgrade their lives and move there. And you'd almost kind of forgotten you were in the Middle East to some degree. Yeah. But I think this is going to be a pretty traumatic reminder for a lot of people there. How fragile. How fragile it is. And like that's the list and we're learning at the fragility of the society we take for granted.

So that was scenario number two. Okay. So scenario three. That's the one that really scares me because that is the Samsung doctrine. You know the story of Samsung. Okay. Samsung is enormously strong individual, who's strong because of his hair. And then he gets conned. This is an ancient story from the Bible. And he's woman who's conned him, shave his hair so he's weakened. And then they put him in a temple where he's standing

between two pillars. And his hair has gone, his baldie can't do a thing. They forget the fact that he's here starting to grow. His hair gets to the stage where he's now got his strength back. He pushes those pillars and the whole thing collapses and everybody dies. That's the Samsung doctrine. And that involves Israel's nuclear weapons. If they realize that they are going to lose this war and it becomes existential for them, then one of the things they have claimed

that they do is enlist destruction on the rest of the world, like Samsung pushing the towers and the whole thing comes collapsing down. This is going back to the situation with Iran and Israel. One of the things I was thinking a lot about from some commentary that I'd seen is Israel really have a motive to get rid of Iran because Iran have repeatedly threatened Israel. It's also because Israel's trying to get rid of the Palestinians. And in that sense, Iran has

been probably the major bulkwood supporting the Palestinians. So let the Palestinians survive, let the Palestinians people continue existing. And the Israelis have been pushing and pushing and pushing the Palestinians out. You know, it's a hornet's nest. We're perfect to hornet's

“nest. Iran is responding right now. I think in a very judicious way. But if the Israelis”

realize they're facing an existential defeat, that scenario would again mean civilisation, potentially gets destroyed. And just looking at some of the things that Iran have said about Israel. Historically, the supreme leader of Iran stated in 2015 that Israel would not see the next 25 years. Other officials said things like the end is near. And in March 2026 Iran's tone shifted from ideological to purely retaliatory with the speaker of the Iranian

parliament Mohammed stating that Iran has officially declared that it considers all Israel energy water and IT infrastructure legitimate targets for irreversible destruction with zero restraint. If we think about this from a psychology perspective, you've got two neighbors. They're both even implying implicitly or explicitly that they want to wipe the other one out. Trump is sort of

this third party in the arrangement who's not in the region. So here might be a little bit safer.

Those two parties that are against each other, one of them has nuclear weapons and the other appears to be trying to make one. The need of that is Israel, presumably, cannot let that happen because if it gets to a point where they both have nuclear weapons and they both want to wipe each other out.

were a more stable time than what we're in now. Because if you realize that if you attack,

you also die, you die to attack. But what if you think of death as being a better thing than life?

“You have to have a society continuing after you die. If you're going to be a martyr,”

there has to be people who are going to mourn your death. If you believe being a martyr means everybody else so so dies and you don't do it. So do you think if Iran had nuclear weapons, it would be a safer role. I think it would be safer because of a telly of Israel is stop attacking your neighbors. I sat with a few nuclear experts and one of the things that was shocking that I learned is if the United States wanted to launch a nuclear weapon today, it is one person's

decision. I heard that, and that's what Trump can actually just make that decision. He can make

the decision on his own. He doesn't need to consult Congress when he videos. He has someone who

walks around with a briefcase that has the nuclear codes in. And anyway, if we continue, I suppose. Yeah, yeah. And when I think about the same in this region, actually, you don't need a whole state to decide that they don't like their neighbor. All you need is one supreme leader, or Netanyahu, to say, you know what, I'm near the end of my life. And these people have really pissed me off. Yeah. No, that's right. And that's, I mean, I thought there was at least some control.

I saw I saw that segment. Did any key tips on you? I thought there was at least some control. He had to consult someone. But if, I know, they had to have circumstances which justified not consulting someone. If he's got that right, then it comes down to what's the behavior of the person who carries the nuclear football. Does he let Trump get hold of it? And like there was, there was another incident, the way way back. I think in this 70s or 80s, the Russian early warning

system reported that there was a nuclear attack on the way to Russia. And there was one submarine commander, or one element of the submarine command system. And they had to have three people in the submarine who agreed to launch the attack on this particular person refused. Now, if that happened happened, if he'd agree with the other two, there would have been a nuclear war at that stage. And there was, it wasn't real. It was a false alarm from the system. So it leave even the

Russian submarine had three people. It had to make that decision. So we didn't have a nuclear war. Now we've got one maniac and this White House, so could do it. I'll play Annie Jacobson's clip now

“where she talks about the idea of soul authority, which I think is an important thing for”

people to understand, because when we think about who we're electing to lead our nuclear capable countries, you have to think about who you want to give soul authority to. The United States President has so presidential authority to launch a nuclear war. What does that mean? It's exactly like its house. What's so interesting is a lot of this stuff that's known when Clayton gets thrown at you. If you just break it down, it's so solo,

presidential. He's the protest authority. He doesn't have to ask anyone for permission. Not the sect F, not the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, not the Congress. I love the worried look on your face in this moment, because it is, once you know that,

you say, well, first you might Google, is it really true and you will get, for example, on Reddit? Like,

that's not really true. You'll get like hundreds of thousands of people coming in with their opinions, but how that's not really true? Well, it is really true. It's absolutely true. And, in fact, during the former President Trump administration, Congress became so sort of an

“honestly motivated or alarmed by this issue, meaning they were being asked questions by the powers”

that be. Is this actually true that they released a report stating specifically, and I quote in the book, yes, it is true. As Commander-in-Chief, the President has this sole authority, he doesn't need to ask anyone. So, what is scenario for in your own blitz that? A round of sails is Rails' nuicks. Nobody can know, but I do believe that Iran has not developed nuclear weapons. So, you're hoping Iran disables Israel's nuclear weapons? I have that happens,

because that takes out the nuclear option. We won't see nuclear war as a result of this, if the only nuclear weapons that we know exist in the Middle East are destroyed. But if Iran starts disabling Israel's nuicks and attacking Israel, that effectively, there's going to be an even bigger problem. Well, not if we're talking conventional weapons. If it's conventional weapons and ground trips, then you don't end up with a nuclear winter and the death of everybody on the planet.

Wait, so you're saying Iran invades Israel and takes other nuclear weapons? That's not a serial invasion. It could be the missiles they've got left. Again, we don't know how capable their missiles are. The level of planning that Iran has done in this war. I had no idea of the fact they had those 31 regions, for example, until the war began. My specialty is economic, not global military politics. But once I learnt that a thought, they have really thought this

comprehensively. Now, I hope they've also war-gamed if we start defeating Israel and Israel

realises they're going to be wiped out. Then the possibility for the Samson doctrine comes in, we have to disable that before it happens. How could they possibly, they don't have a functioning military left in any sort of typical sentence Iran? They don't have ships left, they don't have planes left. They don't have ships that don't have planes, but they have got missiles. And we don't know how many missiles have got. We don't know where the missiles are. Certainly, the Americans would have

some intelligence. I think the words got to be used with inverted commas these days. But some intelligence have a way they are located in Iran. But if you listen to the Iranians talking about it, they say they've got hundreds of these facilities, buried hundreds of meters below the ground. If the weapons they have developed, the advanced rocketry they have developed, they can evade Israel's eye and eye home. Maybe they can also get into and destroy Israel's

relaunch capabilities. And if that happens, I think that's that'll be the best possible outcome. Because we have a rogue state in the Middle East, which has nuclear weapons, which will neither admit that it has or won't sign it. They're not part of the nuclear non-proper, for the Federation Treaty. They won't sign

that treaty. We should never have allowed that to happen. And if Iran gets rid of them, I think it's

the world to save a place. It's really just going to make more nuclear weapons. They have the resources.

“You need to have a lot of technology and a lot of intelligent people to do that. They have already”

lost the world. How could Israel lose the war? You've got 90 million in Iran and a population of less than 10 million in Israel. But they've got, it's a sort of technological golf. It's not as big as we thought it was. We're only realizing now the level of technology that Iran has. I mean, the things which Iran are doing in this world so far have surprised everybody who hasn't got the background of intelligence to tell them what's going on.

It's an educated, sophisticated culture, far more so than the caricature I've got from the West has been about it in the past. So they don't have nearly the same level of resources and technology and I would say maybe sort of sophisticated, yeah, advanced systems from a war perspective that Israel do. We think we don't know we're assuming in the intelligence services even they're like their planes and their missiles and their defense systems are like profoundly more advanced

in Iran's. If that was the case, we wouldn't be having this conversation. It's three weeks after the war began or four weeks, you know, the original belief that Trump has would be over in one day.

“That's proof false. I think that's in part because of what you said because they've prepared for”

degradation. If I was the supreme leader of Iran, yeah, that's the sort of approach I would have taken which is you take me out and actually you've got a bigger problem because now you've got to go shape with 41 or 31 different sort of sub-militries and that's an impossible task. Yeah, yeah, and that's the Iranians were aware of that and they've got a huge army. They've got they can constrict far more people than Israel has. It's to me if it gets down to it,

it conventional military, then it's possible that Israel could lose that as well. On March 21, Trump threatened to obliterate Iran's power plants if they did not fully reopen the straight of Homo's within 48 hours. He then came out and said that he was pausing that because Iran went negotiating and he says he thinks he's negotiating with the right person. As of yesterday, Trump has announced a 10-day pause until April 6, on destroying energy plants, claiming that

indirect talks are going very well and that Iran is begging to make a deal according to the Guardian.

“So what's going on there in your view? I think he's gaming the markets. I really think he's”

using it to cause the all-night tries to go up and down and gaming it either side and somebody in his circle, people are making a fortune playing. Yeah, I do. I mean, because there's lots of ways to make money that don't involve crashing the global economy losing the mid-term. Yeah, you think of that. You've got you've got ethics. You've got empathy. You've got morals. Trump has none of those things. Do you not think it's just again,

if we look at Trump's pattern behavior over time, even with the tariffs, the same pattern behavior occurred there where he would come out and say every leader is calling me, they can't

stop calling me, they don't want to make a deal. I'm going to do a tariff on you 10 percent.

Wait, no, I'm not pause call me. Yeah. It's the same pattern of behavior. It's you make a threat system. Yeah. You then blackmail the person to try and negotiate with you when they don't, you hit them with the thing hard. And eventually, in the end of the day, you don't really do any of the stuff you're threatening to do because you've sort of manipulated a person

me. Yeah. They do or don't call. He announces to the world that they call. They're begging.

“Look at sense here. They're begging me for a deal. I'm going to give them 10 more days.”

To me, it sounds like he's trying to build his golden bridge to get the fuck out of there. What he's imagining is he's dealing with somebody like himself and Iran. Okay. He's projecting what hell. He would react to those things. He's obviously projecting his own behavior under the system. And it's projection rather than understanding. So if you decapitate, you know, if you took out Trump, the theory of being, you know, as I said,

I said, yes, well, bargain, what he want me to do. He thinks that works on Iran. It doesn't. You can look at his behavior and sort of understand what he wants. He wants to win this war. And he wants, you know, he wants to win the war. And that's and get out of there because that's what he's been saying. We've won. We've won every day. We've won. More missiles go in. We've won.

So that's clearly what he wants to happen. The problem is winning here doesn't seem like a straightforward

thing. No, it's not going to happen. No pun intended with Australia for Mozi, but it really doesn't seem like a straightforward thing. So I, it's my opinion now that they are a little bit stuck. Because if you leave now, you lose. Yeah. Iran start firing Israel. Israel don't stop even though you tell them to. Yeah. They start firing each other. The whole thing blows up. Or they keep the straight of almost closed. All prices go up. It looks terrible, terrible, terrible for Trump.

We might get, he might find himself on a Bush situation. Yeah. But he's legacy. And I think that's such an important word. And now that can't be elected for a third term. His legacy is tarnished in the same way that Bush's legacy was tarnished by going to war in the Middle East. I think his greatest fear, Trump's greatest fear. Do you think back through all of these moments over the last couple years where he took up the Nobel Prize? I think he's trying to put himself on

the Mount Rushmore of Presidents in history's mind. And I think how this situation plays out now, the sole thing he's thinking about is his legacy. And right now, being stuck in a war,

“and contemplating putting ground troops in, is arguably the worst thing for one's legacy.”

Americans dead? Yeah. And lots of Americans dead. These wars are like, you think about Vietnam.

These wars are never really one. No. Well, they did, America has one of war since World War II.

And even World War II was won by the Russians more so than the Americans. So we have this picture of America as being this, you know, invincible military power. But it lost in Vietnam. It lost in Iraq. It lost in Afghanistan. America's failed in all of these. This is another American failure, but on a scale far beyond what happened in Afghanistan and Vietnam. Do you think he will send ground troops in? Yes, I do. And like I've seen people talking about where the troops might land.

And the only part of the deck in the land is is right towards this edge he with Pakistan. Where they might land two between two and 10,000 troops. I'd hate to be one of those trips, because it's also a side mission. Again, with those 31 provinces, the separated military commands. They've got the weapons they've got hidden underground. The troops themselves. So if you know that there are Americans landing in your Iranian and a soldier, you are going to attack them

like nobody's business. And not be afraid of your own death because you do think if you get mad and it's the remaining people at your defending, there will be people who will recognise who was a martyr. It's horrific. If you had to give a sort of percentage probability of them putting ground troops in, say more than 50%. We're going to find out in the next couple of weeks. Much of the reason most people haven't posted content or got their personal brand is because

it's hard and it's time consuming and we're all very, very busy. And if you've never posted

something before, there's so many factors in your psychology that stop you wanting to post. What people will think of you? Am I doing this right? Is the thing I'm saying absolutely stupid? All of these results in paralysis, which means you don't post. And your feed goes better. I'm an investor in a company called StanStore, which you've probably heard me talk about. And what they've been building is this new tool called Stanley that uses AI.

Looks at your feed, looks at your turn of voice, looks at your history, looks at your best

“performing posts and tells you what you should post. Makes those posts for you. You can also”

just use it for inspiration. And sometimes what we need when we're thinking about doing a post for our social media channels is inspiration. Building an audience has fundamentally changed my life. And I think it could change yours too. So I'm inviting you to give this new tool a shot and let me know what you think. All you have to do is search coach.stan.store now to get started. This company that I've just invested in, it's grown like crazy. I want to be the one to tell

you about it because I think it's going to create such a huge productivity advantage for you. With the flow is an app that you can get on your computer and on your phone on all your devices and it allows you to speak to your technology. So instead of me writing at an email, I click one button on my phone and I can just speak the email into existence and it uses AI to clean up what I was saying. And then what I'm done, I just hit this one button here and the whole email is written for me.

And it's saving me so much time in a day because whisper learns how I write. So on WhatsApp it knows how I am, a little bit more casual, on email a little bit more professional. And also there's this really interesting thing they've just done. I can create little phrases to automatically

it knows who jack is in my life. This is saving the huge amount of time. This company is growing

like absolute crazy. And this is why I invested in the business and why they know I'll sponsor of this show. And whisper flow is frankly becoming the worst kept secret in business productivity on entrepreneurship. Check it out now at whisper flow, spot W, I, S, P, R, F, L, W, dot A, I, slash Steven.

“It will be a game change if you. What is the best case scenario?”

The Americans have to realize they've lost. They've not gone into negotiate the terms of reparation. And what Iran is proposed when you look at Iran's terms, they're extremely reasonable. They're saying America leaves the whole Asian, America no longer comes back on this region. No military bases. No agreements. This becomes Iranian protectorate that becomes an Arabian empire.

Or not Arabian Iranian empire because they're not Arabs. They're Persians. So this becomes like a

Muslim part of the world. That's if you can actually take the whole region out to here. It's all Muslim. And what's been happening? And this is part of the weird religious elements here. You've got the Sunni sect and the Shiite sect, which is a bit like the Protestants versus the Catholics. Go back 500 years. And what we're seeing here is like the 100 years war that occurred in Europe. Back in the days when it was Protestant, both as Catholic was the serious thing.

So we're seeing a religious war being fought here. And the the Sunni majority, about 90 percent of Muslims are Sunni. They have focused on their rivalry with the Shiites. And so what they've done is they've sided with this mob, to the United States, this is the states,

to the side. So they've sided with the Christians to strengthen their own Muslim sect,

which is the Sunni sect against the Shiite sect, which is Iran is predominantly Shiite. Now what's happening here is as soon as the war started, America, the reason the Arabs agreed to her bases here, middle tree bases, as they thought it would protect them from Iran. As soon as the war starts, those spaces are all bitter-rated, the Americans leave. And they realize that hasn't worked at all. So the deal, the Sunni's may decide with the Christians,

has proved to be an extremely bad deal. You're going to have to have to change in who reals these countries to enable it to happen. But I think the persuasive coast coming out of this within the Muslim areas is Muslims stick together. Don't cooperate with the Christians.

“Don't cooperate with the United States. And I think that's what's going to happen.”

You think that's going to happen. I hope so, because that at least gives us something which is relatively stable, this becomes a region that is Muslim. We're saying that this, you mean the Middle East. The whole Middle East, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Pakistan as well, because it's a Muslim country. Afghanistan, this region becomes Muslim dominated Shiites and Sunni's start to, I mean, the whole idea of Catholics fighting Protestants, that's completely dissipated.

There's no level in the Western anymore of large scale military type animosity between Catholics and Protestants. That's what's happening over here. The conflicts that those religious conflicts within the Christians disappeared largely speaking, they're still happening within the Muslim religion. This could persuade them that that's got to end. We've got one more scenario, scenario five, around developing nuclear weapons.

I'd rather fall happen than five. Which of these five outcomes do you think is most probable? Tapping. I think the most likely outcome is around disciples, Israel's nuclear weapons, because Iran has been so prepared for this conflict in a way that America has not, in a way that Israel was not. I hope they're also prepared for the eventuality of having to neutralize Israel's nuclear weapons. You think the highest probability is around disabling Israel's

news. Yeah. I hope I'm right. I mean, if Iran gets destroyed, then this leads not to around developing nuclear weapons, but every potential rival for America on the planet developing nuclear weapons. We're going to a nuclear war dominated world. Do you know what I think it's more likely that Trump is going to find himself a golden bridge to get out of this situation? He's going to call Netanyahu and Israel and say, "Stand down, please." I'm going to announce that we've won this

war. I'm going out that we've done a deal. It's all over. Well, without doubt, whatever happens, Trump is going to say he won. That's, again, the narcissistic personality disorder thing. He simply couldn't bring himself to stand on a stage and say, "I lost." I mean, think about the biggest insult that Trump ever made in his apprenticeship show. You're a loser. Okay. Being a loser is the absolute worst possible thing that anybody can begin his mind.

“If he has to say, "I'm a loser," then his life is over in that sense. He's self-image is over.”

So, whatever deal comes out, he's going to say he won. For the average person that's listening now, when they hear all this conflict going on in the world from an economic perspective,

I think one thing is people, we've now got to the stage where you can buy your own solar systems via house. You need something which means you unlock dependant upon oil any more. I think we've trivialized the dangers of climate change for the last half century. We've done very little about it to reverse it. This is telling people that if you're alive upon oil, you've got a fragile existence. Even if it cost you more to build solar,

you've got to build solar as your own alternative energy system. Because without energy,

“there's no civilization. And that's what we're learning the hard way from this conflict.”

So, I think individual responses is going to be get some way to have your own power source and for most people that means having a solar. One man that has done a lot for both solar and sustainable energy is Elon Musk. He has, and he's also helped get bloody time collected. So, I think you've got to score that against him as well. But yeah, his work on solar

then in power and rocketry, I've absolutely admired that. And I see that as a critical positive

contribution. But getting Trump elected need to play the major all in that. He should learn from that mistake and get the fuck out of politics. He has backed off politics now, which is, I think he's realized how poisonous it is. Yeah, sounds like he's realized you can't really change the beast. No, he tried. Yeah, he should stick with the arrow, he's mature, which is what he does with energy systems and what he does with rocketry. He's really, I mean,

in terms of legacy, he's tainted his legacy by getting involved in politics, go back to engineering. So, you say that, you think people should invest in solar for their home to get the around energy sources of a little bit insulated from these sort of macroeconomics. Is there anything else they should be thinking about? You know, the average person, the cost of living crisis, what happens next? What should they be doing now? The things that I'm

much worried about, this is the impact upon food. I'm the last person to talk about

growing your own food. I've never done it. I've got brown thumbs, not green ones.

“But I think if you can have any way to produce your own food, you've got a bit of insulation”

against what's happening at the global level. The listener comes out of this is self-sufficiency. If we don't have self-sufficiency, then these sorts of global chaotic things can destroy you completely, with you having no recompense. If you have some degree of self-sufficiency, you can survive. And how does one create self-sufficiency? Growing your own food is quite expensive and slow isn't it? Yeah, extra am I.

So, how does one develop self-sufficiency in this sort of economic climate? Is there saving money? Or is there- I think is there having your own physical resources close to you that, then no, it's money doesn't matter if you can't buy the product in the first instance. The product doesn't exist anymore. So, one thing that happened during World War II is the larger amount of food was grown in the UK by people turning their gardens into market gardens.

I've heard you make a few predictions about the future of the economic markets. You know, your famous for predicting 2008, and the financial crash occurred then. I've heard you saying that you think because of AI there's going to be another financial crash around the corner within one or two years. Yeah. What's happening with AI is a classic economic berm and bus cycle overlaid on the fact that AI can also eliminate

a huge amount of employment, which would never seem that possibility in the past on that scale.

But a common pattern in capitalism is that some new technology will be developed like railways, for example. Some people see the potential profitability of railways. Everybody pauses in creating railways. You get too many railways built. 90% of the companies that create the railways go bust, but then we all have these rail systems that we benefit from afterwards. So, that's the classic pattern which Joseph Shompaid, I was the

person who best described that Austrian economist from the early 20th century. So, he said, you'll get the banks will finance a new investment area, that investment choosing new technology, which causes a berm while you're building the technology. But when the technology comes online, it undercuts existing businesses and causes a slump. So, they're berm and slump cycle, and AI is a natural example of that. And what you get is massive over investment in the first

instance, because everybody who invests in AI has the ambition of being the only AI provider on the planet. Therefore, you get too many companies investing as much money going into it.

“That's what causes a berm. But then when the technology comes online, because it undercuts”

existing technologies, you have a slump. And when you look at the investment taking place at the moment, the big tech companies matter Amazon Microsoft alphabet, their own Google Oracle, is on track to spend 720 billion on AI infrastructure in 2026 alone, which is less than 20% of the revenue that they're making. We are seeing a five-to-one ratio of money being spent versus money coming in, which is historically unsustainable. Yeah, and I think that's true.

cyclical behaviour of capitalism. Because if you want to make a profit, you've got to bring

“a technology that undercuts everybody, you're currently rivals with. So that's the railways or”

a classic example there. You know, you had to get around by carriages instead. You want to mind the carriage companies by bringing in the railways. But the ultimate benefit society benefits because now you've got the railways for transportation. So that's the same sort of thing that AI is doing this time around. But companies, 90% of those companies are going to fail. I mean, this is kind of what we're seeing already. So the failure rate of AI specific startups has

hit 90% and 20, 26. Wow. That's like. Yeah, you predicted that one correctly. Significantly higher than the 70% average for general technology, roughly 95% of enterprise AI pilots fail to move into production when they incur massive costs. The other thing I think a lot about is a lot of startups now are raising a lot of money, a crazy crazy valuation. So I can think

of one particular startup I know. They're making like a couple of million dollars a year. They've

raised at a billion dollar valuation. Well, yeah. And because they've got the word AI on them and thing is, because everyone's so such and a frenzy at the moment about AI, they're probably going to raise at a two billion valuation six months from now. Yeah. When you think about what's going on there, someone somewhere is putting their money in and they're going to lose it all. And they're going to lose it all. And when everybody starts losing all their money very, very quickly, you see

this contraction where everybody realizes that their paper gains, the gains they thought they had

“on paper because of valuation went up, have just evaporated. And when you see that, you have to”

quickly count your pennies. Yeah. And get through and pull back in again, pull back in again, lay people off and so on and so forth. So I actually do personally believe that we're probably within 24 months of a pretty severe contraction. And that won't just impact these tech oligarchs. They're impact all of us in different ways. Yeah. It's a Verman bus cycle. I mean, the only thing which we're experienced in our own lives, which is similar, would be the

telecommunications bubble. And then the internet bubble, who we're not in 90 in 2001, 2002. We don't get bubbles in internet anymore because that's now a stable technology in that sense. But it wasn't a big one. This is much bigger. What do we do? As entrepreneurs, as team members and companies, what do we do at this moment if what you're saying is correct that they will be a modern bus. I've been in bus. Which I think every smart person that I've spoken to agrees,

that there will be a bus soon. Yeah. They're timelines vary. Yeah. But what does one do right now in March, April, 2026 to prepare for this? Well, you put money aside if you can. You buy other assets. You think you're going to survive the the Berman bus cycle. Like, well, that's the trouble. I mean, gold's been driven up, gold's now been driven down. People are buying Bitcoin, but Bitcoin is collapsing as well. In some ways, you can't, it's like saying, what I do

during an earthquake, to not fall over. In terms of insulating itself, I really can't see a wave insulating itself from the downturn. But I don't, I'm not worried about that as long term

consequences of AI. Because this is the first technology, which implies you can actually

virtually eliminate labor as an accessory for reducing output. Because you can use AI rather than Clarks, you can use, I know this is a long way from being feasible, but robots could replace process workers. And then suddenly, something which employers 70% of the global population is no longer necessary. And then what do you do in that situation? What I've seen, which I respect coming out of the tech pros in America, is they're talking in terms of the universal

basic income. You think a universal basic income is a good idea. I do. We should probably explain what that is. Yeah. Well, it's the state provides everybody with enough money to stay alive. That's the basic idea. Rather than having to work for a living, at the minimum, you get paid an amount of money that means you can buy the goods and services that are necessary to stay alive. You don't necessarily prosper, but you get enough to survive. And so that's the idea of

who you'd be at. I know at the moment, this is why I've got to have a job. And like that guy mentioned, is working at three jobs right now. If he got a UBI, he wouldn't have to work at those three jobs. He might work at one,

“or he might actually consider his own business possibilities in that situation. So I think universal”

basic income is an necessity given what robotics and AI can do to employment. Every time I've tried to improve something in my life, like my business is my health, my relationships. I've noticed that the biggest shifts have come from being better informed. And when it comes to our health, most of us know very, very little. So when our team was approached about partnering with function health, it felt very much aligned. Their team has developed a way of giving you a full 360 degree view of your

health. Many of the things that are going on in your body in the form of different tests. You do one blood draw, and it gives you access to over 160 lab results, hormones, heart health, inflammation, stress toxins, the whole picture. I use it and serve many of my team members. You sign up and you

in-range results, my out-of-range results, and there's a little AI function too. So if I have any

“questions about my out-of-range results, I can just go in there and ask it any question I want.”

And these tests are backed by doctors and thousands of hours of research. It's $365 for a yearly membership. Go to function health.com/deoac and use the code deoac25 for $25 off your membership. So this is something that I've made for you. I've realized that the diversity of audience are strivers, whether it's in business or health. We all have big goals that we want to accomplish. And one of the things I've learnt is that when you aim at the big, big, big goal, it can feel

incredibly psychologically uncomfortable because it's kind of like being stood at the foot of Mount Everest and looking upwards. The way to accomplish your goals is by breaking them down into tiny, small steps. And we call this an our team the 1% and actually this philosophy is highly responsible for much of our success here. So what we've done so that you at home can accomplish any big goal that you have is we've made these 1% diaries. And we've released these last year and they

all sold out. So I asked my team over and over again to bring the diaries back, but also to introduce some new colors and to make some minor tweaks to the diaries. So now we have a better range for you. So if you have a big goal in mind and you need a framework and a process and some motivation that I highly recommend you get one of these diaries before they all sell out once again. And you can get yours at thediary.com. And if you want the link, the link is in the description below.

And you think up to 50% of working class jobs could be wiped out because of AI and robotics. Yeah. I mean, that's been a prediction from the leaders of some of the biggest companies in AI. I had the leader of anthropic recently, say the same thing. They're 150% of jobs could be wiped out.

“I think the shocking thing that we've talked a lot about in the show is just, you know,”

there's been other sort of economic or industrial revolutions in the past that have caused for job displacement. Yeah. But none, I would argue at this speed. No, and none that can replace virtually everything. As you find it, there's a classic story I read back when I was talking about the global financial crisis, came out of the New York Times article where they went to interview workers in an air conditioning factory. And there was one woman they found

there whose job it was to place a thermocouple inside the air conditioning units as they went past. So there's 3,000 of these going past for a day. She's just placing one of these thermocouples were at needs to go inside the circuitry of the air conditioning unit. And she said, "You don't have to love your job as long as it pays you money." There was a totally boring job that's all she's doing. The thing is the reason she got that job was she couldn't make a

machine to replace her because the air conditioning units don't necessarily end up precisely at the same point to make a machine that would do that as really difficult.

Now, if you train a robot on it, the robot deception can ultimately get to the point where

the robot can place that piece inside there. That particular un-skilled job disappears. So people who work in jobs like that, no longer have a possibility of getting a job.

“I think even anthropic released a report, anthropic of the makers of Claude,”

they released a report saying that entry-level positions, they're seeing a 13% decline already in people having their entry-level jobs. And actually as an employer, someone that spends literally all last night, I was looking through our own book, our recruitment inboxes at Candidates and Talon. I have noticed myself changing. I've noticed that people that I would have given roles to maybe six months ago, I now have to think long and hard about whether

there's going to be technology that can do those exact roles to instead. And it was really shocking thing. I was saying to the team last night, like one year in the office, I was like, this is a prime example of a candidate. I was looking at this particular candidate. That six months ago, I would have bitten that hand off. But now, I have the pause, because my innovation team in the corner of the office, they're able to do that now with

these AI agents instead. And so you hear a lot about the theoretical impact of AI, but you're actually making the decision yourself. And then it's theory, it's theory, it's this thing on my Twitter feed, like blah, blah, blah, whatever. You hear on a podcast, you give blah, blah, blah, whatever. And then you find yourself actually behaving that way. You're behaving as changing and you're going, oh, it's very hard to know the types of people

to hire into our company. And I've kind of almost segmented them into these two groups where you've got people that have very deep expertise. Yeah. I'd say it's three groups. People that have very, very deep expertise in a particular thing. You know, like my CFO, group number two, I'd say, are people that are AI proficient? Who can actually handle this stuff and be the people who manage the agents? Yes. And they can redesign our workflows across every department in the company to be

agentic about AI agents. That's kind of like the one who's so agentic workplace. And then the third

group of people are people who have skills that are highly beneficial, human, human, and in real life.

there are still a type of sale where people want to meet the person, shake their hand and say,

okay, you're responsible for this deal. Yeah. We're still in a situation where people don't want agents to do that. Yeah. There's like the three groups. What I didn't say is young people who have just come out of university, maybe don't know anything about agents. They don't have the deep expertise. Yeah. And when you look at the data, we'll throw some of the data up on the screen. It appears that these sort of entry-level white-collar jobs are the ones that are

likely to suffer. Yeah. Some of these investment companies will hire like three or four hundred analysts to look at companies and make decisions. That is one example of a role that's very at risk now. We've got an investment fund. We need one analyst, Molly. Six months ago,

we were interviewing more analysts. We now realize that we just need Molly. And we need to give

“Molly AI. Yeah. And she can set up. I think Molly said to me yesterday when I left for the office.”

I mean, and she left the office. I've been like, she's now set up three agents as agents as her team. And what those would have been three people? Well, like I saw a demo with that, like I've developed a software package called Ravall, which I've got one program of four. And I teach an online course as well. And I'd give Ravall as part of that online course. And one of the members of the course said he's using an AI to build Ravall models. And he's also

using an AI to write code behind Ravall. Nick, if I demo this a couple of days ago. And you know, I watched it happen on screen as he built a model of simulation system. And he was messy on one stage, but it produced the correct mathematics. So he's showing you can actually, he's trying to show me that we shouldn't get my main program. It's a learn to improve drive agents to do the whole thing. Now my main programmer has said, look, there's things that I can do that an AI cannot do.

He's one of your highly gifted people. And he said it wouldn't be worth my while to have me telling an AI what to do because what I was in terms of my own initiative, I can't. I just sort of balance out it's really okay. But he has a junior programmer. Then the junior programmer would be one who's trying to drive the AI. I do think programmers are fine. Actually, there were some stats that I saw in the day that showed there's been this huge demand in people trying to hire

programmers. It's interesting because you hear stats from Spotify. Yeah. Spotify saying we haven't written a human line of code since December. Yeah. I'm very good friends with the guys at Spotify. I was actually with the CEO of the day, a couple of weeks ago in Austin. And you hear that and I did check that with them. That's true. So you assume that that means we don't need programmers anymore. But you think about like Joven's paradox. When something becomes, you know, Joven's

paradox is the old analogy. JP is more of it. Yeah. So like when Cole became cheaper people were worried that maybe the coal industry was that of business or trains, whatever. But actually what ended up happening is people just drove more trains. They used them for other things. Like

“transport. Yeah. And the same applies I think for AI when creating technology becomes easier,”

every company starts using more technology. So media companies, lawyers, you name the company, executive assistants, they all become coders. And actually the demand for highly effort really anyone who knows how to code a program. Yeah. We're seeing it. It's exploding. Yeah. But I just think the job disruption in the near sum for most people is going to be pretty, yeah. I mean, I think there's ways in which AI and robotics should be welcomed. Because

it means the possibility exists. And it's only a possibility that we can no longer have to be exploited to get an income. Because if you look at it over there at the Marxist attitude towards capitalism as a capitalist exploit, the workers. The real world is within exploiting energy neutrally, but labor and capital exploits energy. We could have a future where we don't have to work for a living and therefore you could do what you want to do for a living. At the Star Trek

Future, that's the possibility that it promises. But at the same time, it could actually eliminate the jobs that people currently rely upon. And what I fear is we have two possibilities. We have a future where Star Trek's high future, where you have replicators that make the goods and we consume and we all live with our energy abundant life or the hunger games, where there's one little elite that gets us all the robots and lives extremely well. And we tolerate and oppress

the vast majority and they end up, you know, hunger game entertainment. Those are the two possibilities

“we face. I do think the cost of goods and services will come down which is great. I think robotics,”

you know, if Elon is right, and I often say with Elon, like his timelines are not always accurate,

but he does tend to deliver magic. He ultimately delivers, but you know, he always either promises

and delivers later than he plans. And if he's right about when he says there's going to be more humanoid robots, his optimists robots than humans. And he says also in his predictions that there's going to be no need to study to be a surgeon because the robots are going to be so much more advanced and better than any healing surgeon. That would imply that surgery and other sort of

How do you pay for them? That's the next question. Yeah, so yeah, how do you pay for them and do people want to, you know, so it's also the physical requirements. I mean, the amount of copper inside a robot, you're talking, you know, several kilo per robot.

Do we have enough to produce a billion of them? And maybe, you know, surgeons do much more than just

“operate. Yeah. There's a human element to the medical professional, which I think is sometimes”

unappreciated. Like, I would, I don't know if I'm quite ready to go talk to a robot about my health yet. Maybe I'll adjust. I wanted to come back to something you actually said earlier, you talked about Bitcoin briefly. Yeah. I've heard you say that you think Bitcoin's going to zero. Yeah. Okay. This is worrying. I think I have some Bitcoin. You're an economist. Yeah. You're saying that Bitcoin is going to zero. Why? Because ultimately, because of its

relies on energy. I mean, I, you know, you're your next, your Max cars around Stacey Herbert. If you met them at all? No. That was sort of the original proselytises for Bitcoin. And then now, while living in, I think I'll salvage all, which is adopted Bitcoin as a form of currency. When they told me about Bitcoin, I could have bought it for a pound of Bitcoin, which would have been, I would have been a bloody, maybe wealthy than you if I'd done that. The reason I didn't

was that I explained that the way that the public ledger is kept safe is that it takes too much energy to break it. So each transaction requires 10 minutes of computer processing time globally, but it looks of it, to actually create an extra Bitcoin. And that means it's too expensive for somebody to try to break the ledger. That means it's got a huge requirement for energy use.

“And I believe knowing what I know from climate scientists, that at some point we're going to”

realize we're using far too much energy on the planet. We've got to cut the energy consumption and the two ways you're seeing us to cut out to reduce energy consumption, a crypto currency is an international travel. But on you think that, you know, nuclear energy is becoming vogue again and they're talking a lot, you know, about it's the amount of time it takes to build that stuff. I mean, China's building nuclear power stations at a hell of a rate and much,

much cheaper, or cheaper than America, is doing. So let's become a big, god-topic of conversation. Yeah, again, there's a guy called Simon Marchow, how am I recommend you get in touch with his well in Simon is an engineer who claims that we simply don't have the physical minerals necessary to support a completely solar and wind-based energy system. He's got people who criticise his analysis, definitely. But we still are using

far more physical resources than we're aware of at the moment on the planet. And the availability

of various critical elements that we need for the system we have right now, it's much less

abundant than we would like it to be. So a lot of these things about, you know, robotics, take-in-over, do we have the minerals for it, solar power, do we have the minerals? The answer is

“is not, is not, yes, okay. It's sometimes the answer is no, other times it's dubious. But I think”

that energy requirement alone is a problem. Using that, we're going to have to cut back on our energy consumption. But the direction of travel has been we've been able to produce more and more and more and more energy. I'm going to think it into the environment. The problem about the use of energy is it's happening on a planet. Okay. Can the vast sphere cope with the waste that we jump into it as a result of using that energy? And that is something which

economists are completely stupid on. Beyond the stupid, they've trivialised the dangers of the amount of resources we use in the amount of energy we use. So I don't think that energy future is possible on this vast sphere at the moment. It's possible in the future if we get off the vast sphere. So in that sense, I'm even more of a space cadet than Elon Musk is. I think we have to plan to take production off planet. But while we're constrained on the vast sphere, the

vast sphere's constraints will stop us using as much energy as we wish to use. What are you believe closing statements on this whole situation with the war and around and everything that's

going on from a geopolitical perspective? Basically, there's our system as far more fragile

than we've convinced ourselves that it is. And we can make observations about potential futures, which presume our robustness we don't have. And if that robustness is destroyed, either by military conflicts or by overextending what we put into the vast sphere, then we can fall off what's called this in a ccliff. We can go from an abandoned future to a collapse. And what would you say the people at home should be doing to course correct the path that you think we're on?

Stop electing fools. Electing Trump was an enormous mistake. We've got coal politicians who follow what's called neoliberal political philosophies. Therefore, put us in this problem. It hasn't worked. We need to reverse back to having a human-oriented and physically realistic view

care of our home. And in a central sense, we're destroying our home. And thinking we can keep on doing that indefinitely. We can't. Our poem is Planet Earth. Planet Earth has got physical restraints. We haven't respected them. Planet Earth will tell us what are things of that this century. And which leaders do you think we should be electing? Do you think we should be electing? I don't think, I think even the leading leaders at self-asimistic, because what we then do

is end up getting, we we we paned at an narcissist. We paned at the people who believe they can solve all our problems. We end up with megalomaniax, making decisions. If you look back at where a Athanian democracy came from, Athanian democracy didn't use elections. It used a process of

like random number generators to select intelligent people to fulfill essential roles

in those societies. And they, they weren't even people you got to know by name in that sense. We know Trump here. We know Stama here. We have Albanese over here. We end up getting narcissists

“and megalomaniax directing us. And they're the last people you need to make decisions.”

When you're thinking about your own money, as an economist, what are you doing to protect your son not doing much? I mean, I've been a crusader for reforming economic theory for my whole life. I've sort of neglected this side of things to my detriment. I've got to say but I really am focused on what's sustainable for everybody, rather than what I can make as my own cut. And I don't think we've got a sustainable economy at the moment. We have a philosophy

of economics which leads to breakdowns. I'm asking that because I've got so many friends and listeners that asked me often. Like should I be buying a house right now? Do you think I should be investing in gold? Do you think I should be saving my money? Should I be investing in technology companies? Yeah. And I'm wondering if you had a perspective for them? Not on that. No, look, I've really left that area alone. I'm actually talking at the overall

“system and saying how do we make the system sustainable so that people can live within it?”

And what we've got is an unsustainable system. And you're asking me how to people's

survive within an unsustainable system. Answer is they don't. We always think we can do something

at the individual level to cope with what's happening in the system around us. That only works at the system around us as stable. What is a better system then? I think what China has done is a better direction. They have a collective focus as well as an individual focus. What ever system class? It's coal-carbonist. So you think communism is better than capitalism? I think the system which reflects the need for a cohesive society as well as individual

gain is needed. And the system in China is closest to that than the system in America. In China, I listen, I don't know what's on about this. But they have a leader who stays in power. And that's one that's the potential weakness. And suppresses the people's decision-making,

entrepreneurialism. And equally you've got a system to get into the communist party. You've got to have

“a Harley. You've got to be educated to get in. And you have to perform to some extent in the”

region of which you begin your role. But you're not saying you think the West should adopt communism. Now, I'm saying there is West should adopt a system which reflects the need for a cohesive society. Is that socialism? Socialism is closer to what I mean. The words are all tainted. If you go back, do you know, do you eat Cadbury's chocolate? I'm trying not to. You have adventure. I have to express a socialist enterprise. It was formed as a belief we have to

win a good work as a best possible situation while also selling a profitable product. Mondragon in Spain is another cooperative side of our Catholic priest of all things. We tend to be very binary in the West. We say you need to have competition or you have cooperation. Huh? We need to be more like the East in the sense of the Algerian egg. You have to have both. Okay. Cooperation and competition. And so that viewers, the closest thing is socialism.

The closest is socialism. And what China? China has done that better than Russia. So you go back to the USSR. That was, they were disastrous in terms of product development. China has been extremely successful on that front. They've learned from the mistakes of being to centralised and to top down in Russia to have both the top down and the bottom up dynamic going on. What's wrong with capitalism? And capitalism is what the UK and the US

have adopted is that sort of economic... Yeah. Well, it's seeing competition, absolute ruling and ignoring cooperation. Now the real, this fifth successful society combines both. You have cooperation. You also have competition. And we're pushed and far too far in the competitive end and not enough in the cooperative. And what comes out of that as well is this cooperative, competitive tends to be short term focus. What can I make a profit out of?

In the time that the money that I've borrowed is I'm going to be able to make more of a profit than the interest on paying on the money up of created. And if the interest, if the longer it

a focus upon short term, the just a market system, whereas with the long term, you say what's

going to last for a hundred years. And what that means is you build the infrastructure for the long term while you allow competition to occur in the short term. It's getting the balance right. We've got the balance extremely wrong. Professor Steve, thank you. I highly recommend people

go check out our YouTube channel where you make videos all the time about what's going on in

the world. You give your opinion on economic issues, political issues, they ran war. So if people

“are listening and they want to learn more from Professor Steve, then look down below and you should”

see his YouTube channel linked next to our name because we're going to try and collaborate on this

post. And I'll put you the link to your channel in the description below for anyone that wants to check

you out and subscribe. It's so fascinating. Especially the stuff about around the raw materials coming out the straight up on this. I really had no idea. It's quite staggering to me that we're so

“dependent on one region of the world. I think from watching your videos over the last couple of weeks,”

it's really made me understand the unintended consequences of war generally, but specifically this war and around. So thank you for telling the lights on for me. I really, really appreciate this. And I hope we can meet again soon and have a conversation and hopefully, you know, this all resolves itself in a way that's good for everyone. I'm having my 73rd birthday tomorrow. I hit my head on 74th as well, but I think there's a question mark over that now. Well, I did hear it

was your birthday tomorrow. I think the team have gotten you a little something. Okay. Thank you. I'm embarrassed. Oh my god. Oh my god. Oh my god, thank you.

“I'll leave it on this. Thank you. I'd like the candles out. Yes, you should.”

You blew them all out. You got a wish. Well, I wish for peace in the middle east. Okay, let's just believe in the main thing to say about right now. But it's a gorgeous cake after it's a marvelous cake. It's not going to ruin homework, but it's going to be gone. It's better be eaten by the crew because I'm not going to eat all this myself. Okay. You've got to get out of the knife and start slashing up. My god. Thank you so much. We don't thank you.

[Music]