Siliconsciousness: AIrrogance: Why Some Tech Bros May Be Headed for a Fall

Welcome to Silicon Business.

The DSR network podcast focusing on the artificial intelligence revolution, politics, and policy. [MUSIC PLAYING] Hello, and welcome to Silicon Business. I'm David Rothkoff, your host, and this week is every week.

We are joined by a guest who can help us shed some light on what's going on on the world of AI and in tech that we try to cover and have been trying to cover for the past few years. This week, we are very pleased to have with us Joe Miller,

who is the senior enterprise correspondent in the US for the financial times. His reporting covers the forces shaping American power,

politics, and culture of maga, big tech, and AI,

the ideological realignment of the major parties, and the US is emerging grassroots coalitions. That's a lot, Joe. How are you doing? I'm doing well.

Yes, it's quite the gamut that I tried cover. So what I was hoping we could talk about a little bit, at least to start out with is something you've devoted some time to, and that's palent here. And the reason I'd like to talk about palent here,

“is I think it's an interesting case study”

with regard to several of what I see as big issues right now. These include the relationship between some folks

and big tech and maga, the relationship

between some folks and big tech and other political parties, the relationship, in other words, the Democrats. And how these things may intersect with what you might characterize as the overvaluation of some AI stocks, and how that may tie into potential AI bubble.

Sort of see where I'm getting at here. So let's talk a little bit about palent here. It has been for a long time, a company that's very, very high PE ratio, and not a lot of demonstrable or understandable earnings, partially because some of its earnings

are hidden from you. But partially because it seems very inflated to me. And we're not invested in advisors here, that's just my own personal opinion. What's your sense of how palent here sits

in that regard? Well, I don't think you're the only one to think that it's overvalued, in fact, until the last couple of days when palentier reported some more encouraging earnings, its stock was cratering.

And this is just a couple of years after it went public to great fanfare, and the hope that it would be challenging some of the other big tech giants that are more household names, such as Apple and Microsoft. But I think you're right to pinpoint palentier

as kind of the epitome of the big tech furore,

“if you want to call it that, that we're currently living through.”

And that is partially because palentier is a company that has grown in many ways of vibes for one to the better term. It very few people, even within the tech community, or within the investment space, can accurately pinpoint

what it is they do, or what their US peers, they are a deep tech company that has sort of thrived of this notoriety, of this idea that they can see into places that other people can't. And that has catapulted them into the big leagues.

And yet, very few people have paused. And at the very point to say, what is it that this company does? Why does it deserve this valuation, et cetera? And there's something we tried to do a little bit at the financial times.

And I'm not sure I came to a satisfactory answer beyond the fact that these are the times that we're living in. And if you have a CEO, when we can get on to that, like, like, Palentice, CEO Alex Carpe who goes out there and says all sort of, in the same things

and wades into politics at will, it's very easy to create this aura around a company and to have that run and run and run until eventually it stops.

“Yeah, I think the Palentice trailing PE ratio is something”

138, which oddly enough is roughly what the trailing PE ratios were on big.com companies right at the time of the big.com bust in 2001.

because we don't know whether the projected earnings

are actually going to come out, is 80, which is 33% higher than the ones for the doc.

“So I mean, I look at it and I think, well, that's precarious.”

Do we know, how do we trust its earnings as reported before we even get into the 80s synchrocies of its leadership and their relationship with this administration? And a lot of it has to do with the relationship with the Department of Defense and the Intel community.

And those relationships are hyper politicized. In other words, this Department of Defense and this Intel community is run by people who are calling for loyalty in their suppliers in a way that we don't normally see it.

And that strikes me as an area of fragility.

How do you feel about it? I agree it's an area of fragility. I mean, I think to step back and to explain, I suppose the same case for this valuation and for the bullish attitude towards parentaire over these years,

“I think you'd have to explain where the company came from”

and it emerged after 9/11 after the atrocities of 9/11 with the promise to help governments integrate data sets better and is actually to improve their surveillance and to help governments have a better sense of the global picture and where things are,

whether that is in the primarily at the time in the intelligence community or in mundane parts

of the government with the Department of Agriculture

or things like that. And that was a compelling proposition because as the internet age continued to blossom, there was more and more data around and you needed someone to connect these disparate data sets

and to clean up the mess left behind by the data age. And you could argue that that has become an ever more important function and an ever more necessary function as the number of data points have proliferated over the years. So that's the sort of the bullcase for Palantir.

And it has become, as you say, attached very, very closely to one particular client, which is the US government, which remains the biggest client and the Department of Defense specifically, the Pentagon in which Palantir has been integrated

for one to a better word for decades now. And people I've spoken to and I'm sure they were used lots of people in the Pentagon. They even people who have qualms about Palantir's politics and its posture say that its tech is really helpful

to the Pentagon. The question is really now whether there are any other people who can do the same thing with less baggage, so to speak, with less of the political posturing, with less of the cause playing is some kind of all-seeing

Tolkienesque orb, which is literally what the company is named after. And so the commercial question is, will a Palantir's biggest customer under a different administration wake up and say, hey, there are more boring present companies who can do the same thing without any of this attached

problems, or will companies or the commercial part of their business feel the same way that there's too much noise around this company and maybe someone who can do 80% or 90% of the same thing for a cheaper, without all this controversy.

“That to me, I think, is the problem that Palantir”

is facing right now. It's not really a question of whether they provide a service, they certainly do the question of whether other people who are less problematic can provide the same service. - Well, okay, I'll accept that to a degree,

but it's also the question of the service they provide, because as we are in the area of AI, and this particular department of defense wants the unfettered AI that goes out and does whatever you want, and that raises security issues,

it raises privacy issues, it raises big brother issues of all sorts, that the services that they are providing, because that's what Pete Exeth wants, maybe services that are not embraced in the future. I mean, we see this in a lot of things, right?

This week, there's this whole debate over this company, Flock, which provides services to police departments that are surveillance services, because people have concerns. But it may just happen, and we're doing this

taping on the day of five primaries.

It may just happen that Democrats take over the house

“or take over the Senate, and start saying,”

well, you know, we'd like to know a little bit more about what you're doing. Please show us your products. Please, you know, and these investigations may be things that are problematic for the Democrats with Palantir.

Problematic with the types of services, Palantir is offering, and I would add, and maybe when I come in on this too, problematic for companies around the world that are saying, oh, this is, this is pal, and this already happening, this palantir,

this is not just some neutral corporate. This is deeply embedded in the department of defense, and they're doing all sorts of things

that we find uncomfortable or that we may not completely

understand, so we better keep them at an arms life. This podcast is underwritten in part by the US Embassy of the United Arab Emirates.

“It's editorial content is completely independent,”

and the views expressed are exclusively those of participating experts. It is presented live without editing. For further information about the UAE's efforts in the areas of artificial intelligence and technology,

go to the website of the embassy at www.ue-emBC.org and search for UAE-US tech cooperation. We thank them for their support. We thank everybody who's supporting this podcast for their support, and we look forward

to it developing and growing over time because the issue is so important. Well, David, I can tell you that there are certainly people with in-palantir that I've spoken to who agree with your thesis and who are worried

about precisely that scenario. What they would say, though, is that yes, palantir is not a neutral organization, just not like any other company on Earth and that it takes explicitly partisan,

well, it would say not partisan, but idea logical positions, let's put it that way, that leave it open to criticism and to fall out from either side of the political divide when various legislatures change hands.

But they would say that what they've always done

is essentially provide tools to democratically elected governments to do what they have been elected to do, and should the House change hands, should the White House change hands should, you know, the administration decide to go a different way,

then palantir would provide whatever service that government wanted and tweak its tools to suit that. So they would say, you know, that project may even, for example, that powers the Pentagon. You want more human input in that.

You want more oversight over what, you know, AI led drones are doing on the battlefield. We will give that to a Democrat. - What led, what was actually a more compelling argument if they hadn't personally picked the vice president

of the United States in this administration, if he hadn't actually done work for Peter Teele, if they had not actually funded the Republican point, they're not sitting on the sidelines saying, you elect your people, we'll do what they say.

They are in the game, and it's not that they're just in the game. Peter Teele and Alex Carp are on the extreme fringe of the Republican party in terms of a whole host of issues ranging from, I don't know, nationalism, why, you know, the plight of white South Africans

who are being allegedly somehow persecuted in South Africa to, you know, whether women should vote, you know, they're out there. And so it's, I just find it hard for them to say, oh, yeah, well, that's fine, but when they change will change,

because they're trying to determine how things change. - Well, certainly Teele has been a Trump supporter for a long time, you know, one of the founders of Palantir.

“I think that, you know, when the mood shifts,”

what you might expect to hear from Palantir as well, if you look at Carp's history, for example, until very recently he was an outspoken Democrat and, you know, a donut to Democratic candidates. But now he's an outspoken lunatic.

I mean, you know, I mean, you know, standing up on his chair, you know what I'm saying? He's sort of something's happened, right? - Something has happened, or at least that's the way people of the company portrayed, you know, his shift to me.

And it's true that a lot of the leadership now is, you know, mega-pilled for one to be better term. You know, they are heroes within mega circles.

Uh, it's also true that a lot of the rank and file

of the company are not like that. You know, they, uh, people generally from Silicon Valley, uh, you know, Silicon Valley technology not just tended not to be particularly mega until recently.

“Um, and so I think that they would definitely try”

and pivot back. I think you're right that it's now, you know, and that is why we did that big piece because it seems incredibly difficult to see how Palantir could convince a, you know, a democratic, you let organize a democrat,

led administration in the future that, uh, you know,

this leopard has changed its spots and is now, you know, fully on board with the, um, you know, progressive agenda. I think that would be quite difficult. But, you know, this has happened before, you know, Palantir has, you know, gone from, um, trying to please, uh,

you know, the Obama administration to then try to please the Trump administration and then flipping back and did manage to convince, for example, the Biden administration to keep it on board and not only to keep it on board, but to vastly increase its contracts and its business with the government. So, you know, this, this company has managed it before I agree with you.

“I think that it's going to be much, much more difficult this time.”

And that seems to be, to me, the short-sightiness of this leadership team. Um, and perhaps, uh, assign that their personal grievances and, um, you know, personal politics have perhaps, you know, overshadowed what corporate good sense would have mandated them to do. Yeah, well, you know, I think there is this kind of short-termism among some of the people

in Silicon Valley, they think, well, you know, let's get our PE ratios up as much as we can. Let's get as much stock as we can, let's monetize it as much as we can, you know, then we'll be billionaires in the rest of it won't matter. And they're, certainly, they're people, a palinter, a gun that rude. But they also have embedded themselves into the government one way or another.

I mentioned JD Vance, but, you know, the president's AI was for David Sachs and Peter Tillwant to college together, uh, you know, they've been in having these conversations with each other since they were young men. Um, and so then, you know, to a degree to which almost no other organizations, I'm, I'm, say this and I'm sort of doing the calculation. I have, except Elon Musk, maybe the elephants, uh, and, and the Trump organization,

uh, they're, they're just associated with this administration, um, and I did watch as they did the switch from, you know, Obama to Trump to Biden. And so it, and back then, they, you know, they were playing it more or less like every other tech company that they would hire some Democrats and the Democrats would go and write up ads for them and stuff like that and, you know, they'd lobby and I, people came to me. I knew some of these people and they would sit there and go,

over and you've got to sit down with, with, uh, you know, car piece such a genius and I was like, okay, okay, fine, you know what I had listened to all that, but, but they've gone so far in one

“direction this time and I just saw a couple of weeks ago, I think political or somebody said,”

well, now they're hiring Democrats again, and I'm like too little too late, band-aid on a gaping wound, what do you think? No, they're hiring lots of Democrats actually quite a few. As you say, trying to repeat that trick and, you know, I agree with you, I don't think it will work as well, but, you know, David a few months ago was having a conversation with someone not directly involved with Palette, but, um, you know, a leading Silicon Valley venture capitalist about how tech

is infiltrated, big tech is infiltrated this administration and about, you know, how many of them have, you know, some of them literally moved to DC recently in order to cement their influence here, and, you know, he said to me, and it's been, you know, sort of reverberating my brain ever sense that this was a matter of self-preservation for them, the way that, you know, the AI revolution was going, what, you know, their futures, their prosperity is so tied to decisions made by the federal

government that they needed to make sure that they have a foothold of permanent foothold in this administration and in future administrations. I think genuinely, you know, 18 months ago with the

four year of Trump's second victory, they almost acted as if they would never be another type of

administration again, you know, like the sort of progressive left had been defeated, the, the work of karate, whatever you want to call them, and that there would be no penalty for going all

but that was the thesis, and that remains the thesis in that they, they feel that, you know,

if a administration of a different color or a different stripe were to take hold of the AI regulatory agenda, particularly the most worried about AI, then they would, you know, pump the brakes, and that would be, you know, the end of that, and it's unlike previous technological revolutions, which could kind of happen in isolation, you know, there is no real way that the AI revolution can continue without some form of, you know, government input, whether that is sort of laser-fair,

lack of regulation, or, you know, huge interference, but one way or another, the government is

“going to have to say about how this goes forward, and that's what they're so worried about.”

Well, you know, it's interesting, because I've watched this for a long time, I've more gray here than you do, but you'll get the gray here sooner or later. It's coming, one or two. Yeah, well, you know, you'll say, I'm going to write a book about all this, and then you'll go back and you'll see eight years ago, the dot com guys, well, like we don't need Washington. We're out here, we're rich, we're doing our thing. The advantage we have is that we're not

tied up in that mess. And then, as they saw AI develop three, four years ago, they started to go, you know, maybe we ought to, and they started funding, think tanks, and they started getting here, Jeff Bezos put out here. Other people put out here, and they started hanging out, and contributing, and so forth. And in typical Silicon Valley fashion, you'll forgive me, I have many friends from Silicon Valley, but they, in typical, they thought, well, we're smarter

than these people, we, we'll figure it out, we'll do what Washington has never seen before,

but of course, what they did was what Washington has seen over and over and over again. They came in, they put all their chips on red, instead of on blue, or however you want to come up with your metaphor, and they thought, well, you know, we've got, we've got this leaked, but not only did they misunderstand how things have been flow inevitably, because the

“American people almost always vote for change, which is, you know, that's why they have been”

flow, but they also, there was this other phenomenon. And, you know, this is a sort of, you know, let our hair down podcast, so sometimes I'll say things that are a little, you know, they may be not very FTS, although, you know, we do a podcast each week with a guy from the FTS, so he's you know, he's used to it, but he's off the leash there. Yeah, he's a little off the leash, so he's in the best possible way, we've been doing it with him, Edwards, for the past 12 years,

but, but, but here's the thing that they didn't really fully calculate, and nobody writes about

this, because it's not nice to write, but the, the dot com people who sort of became the faces of AI, almost universally proved to be jerks. And, you know, they sort of came out and, you know, Jeff Bezos was a jerk this way, Elon is absolutely out of his mind, Peter Teele, and Carp, they're awful, the elephants you're taking over the media businesses and so on and so forth. And all of a sudden, AI, which could be like the revolution of our age, you know, the reinvention of fire, the

Industrial Revolution all over again, could help people's lives. Now, if you go to the average person under 30 and just say, AI, you could say, there is a AI in your refrigerator, help you know in the order of mouth, they're like, no, I don't want, I'm against it, I am against AI. If they have somehow made AI toxic, because their personalities and their approach to this problem have been toxic. And, and there are a few exceptions to this, you know, I think Jensen

Wong and some other people in videos over, they've sort of play this a little smarter, but, but, but, but I've got to say this is that the, you've got three phenomena simultaneously, you've got them in bed with one party, you've got them doing some things behind closed doors that make people real uncomfortable about privacy, security, national sovereignty, some other kinds of things. And then you've got this issue that there are also kind of a toxic brand. And that's that is a

trifecta that's hard to deal. If you're enjoying this episode and want to get even more out of the

“DSR network, you need to check out our sub-stack. The DSR network sub-stack is the absolute best”

way to follow deep state radio, the DSR daily, where it's matter, need to know, so a consciousness, AI, energy, and climate, and the daily blast. Sign up to get notified every time a new episode drops and stay up to date on the latest news and expert analysis. Right now, we're offering 20% off

two days early, 50% off of David's need to know sub-stack and more. To get your 20% off, go to

“DSR network.substack.com/agist26. That's DSR network.substack.com/agist26. Yeah, they made a bet, I think,”

that they would be more popular than politicians. And it's a bet they are, you know, losing daily

weekly monthly. I think I've been really powerful. I've been really starting to see when you think

of how low that bar is, right? It really is. It really is. Right. And you know, and I think they're learning a lesson in real time about how non-transferable genius in one sphere is to another one. And I've been delighting, following Elon Musk's various political interventions, how bad he is at politics, you know, at understanding, you know, the very basics of the, you know, the political wins in various different places and what the chances are of, of getting him to turn the other way.

And it is amazing. It doesn't seem to have an effect. You know, I think people overstate his

intervention in politics, because, you know, he can spend as much money as he likes, but he seems to

spend them on, you know, lost causes. A lot of the time, you know, he picked it. Obviously there was Wisconsin Supreme Court race last year, which was a dad. You know, he backed a candidate to succeed Mitch McConnell in Kentucky. You didn't even make it to the Republican primary. I mean, it happens

“time and time and time again. And I think there is this hubris in Silicon Valley about pretty much any”

other, you know, sphere that they think that because they've made these enormous fortunes and because they clearly have immense aptitude in, in one area of life that they could then walk into, you know, something, you know, as, you know, as nebulous as politics and, and work it all out and work it all out quickly. We're in a, we're in one cycle, you know, within one sort of, you know, primary race and invariably it falls flat. And I think that that is, you know, reason for optimism is a lot of headlines

about, you know, the big tech oligarchy taking over, washing, you know, I think it's an attempted takeover. I'm not sure it's a successful one. No, no, it's clearly not, you know, David Halverstam famously wrote a book about the kind of people who are advising John Kennedy at the time of the Vietnam work called the best and the brightest. And I get courage to call your book the geniuses, but ironically, because they all thought they were, I, I know you're not writing, but I'm just, I'm just, you know,

“well, I might do now. Yeah, yeah, no, you maybe you should, but, but I, I'm just sort of teasing you”

with this, but there is one other factor I'd like to get to before we wrap up, because, you know,

one of the things that they said to the Biden administration was AI is the crucial link to your

national security going forward. And the one thing you want to do is make sure we beat the changes. So you've got to coddle us and take care of us and invest in us and spend in us, but also protect us, small yard, high fence, keep those Chinese out. And see, here's what's happened. That didn't work. And the Chinese are actually better at this and ahead of us in a lot of key areas of AI. And because they're open sources we've seen in in recent weeks with the, the security

breaks that we have now seen in several places, but in almost every respect, China's doing pretty damn well with AI, and they're making progress on semiconductors, and they're making progress on more efficient, different kinds of models. And the rest of the world is saying, I don't want to lift the United States as lost as mine. I can't rely on them as a supplier in all things. And even if I've doubts about the Chinese, I'd rather be able to play one against the other

than be all in on one or all in on the other. And so I think that Chinese are, you know, I've mentioned three factors that are problems for these people. There are four, because the formula is just not working. And as it turns out, you know, we needed the Chinese to address this hugging face issue. David, I think, and I can't believe, I'm saying this, I think you give the administration far too much credit and indeed these companies. I can't believe it.

I can't believe it. No one has ever said that to me before. I think you are, seeing coherence way. How dare you? Let me explain. I think, I think you're seeing coherence where there is none.

settled, you know, allowing video to sell them, them chips, you know, they, they say we need to win

the race with China and therefore we should have, you know, unfettered, you know, no rules of the road, no regulation on AI. And then they regulate by ad hoc enforcement, by pulling models off the shelf, whenever they feel like it without explaining it, without telling allies, why this is happening or in detailing the public, I do not think there is any coherence there. And I think that if you look at the polling, you find that the public isn't buying any of it,

is deeply confused by, you know, these arguments, you know, I could spend, and I have done, you know, three minutes with a Trump official, and I could pick holes in their AI policy with a couple of questions, you know, and then they start sort of murmuring into their handkitchefs. And, you know, coming up with new new bromides, etc. It's ridiculous on the face of it. I mean,

let's, let's, let's, let's, let's for a second, even imagine that, you know, they were

serious about the threat from from China. I mean, first of all, you're telling me you need no

“regulations in the US because you need to compete with China. That famous deregulatory state of China,”

where companies are free to do what they like and to develop technology at their own pace without government intervention. I mean, that's non-sensical. I mean, if Chinese AI is, is powering ahead of American AI, it is doing so because of government intervention, because of the regulation and strict regulation in China, not for the lack of it. And then you have all of these, you know, other arguments about, you know, the Chinese influencing campaigns

to to protest data centers, etc. None of it, you know, proven, and the sort of thing that really, really angers people who are upset about these things for obvious and organic reasons, I think that what you have here is a bunch of people who have absolutely no strategy, no, no political now, no understanding of how to communicate to people, grasping at straws, trying to come up with justifications for, you know, whatever it is, they've decided they need to

“trust the right thing. Who are those people? The AI people are the Trump people. Both, I think”

because I was going to add another group. Have you spent much time on Capitol Hill? Unfortunately, yes. Yeah. And then the number of people who on a Capitol Hill who actually understand these issues could fit in a phone book. Yes, for our younger listeners, you don't know what a phone book fits, but I mean a very small space. But here are these issues that were completely irrelevant or, or esoteric beyond belief, three years ago. And now there is not,

there is not a congressional election in the United States right now, where things like data centers and AI are not a front and center, and people are talking about it at their local school board meetings, community board meetings. So something has changed, but the legislative side hasn't picked up speed on the side. It's very interesting to watch the incentives at play, you know, because

“I think that Trump and the Trump administration, you want to understand their stance on AI. All you”

really have to understand is that Donald Trump sees AI as the underpinning of the current, you know, economic U.S. economic growth, and he's not wrong about that. Many economists would agree that that is the driving force of, of current, that the very weak foundation or of very brittle foundation that U.S. economic growth is currently based on. And he sees it as an opportunity to meant his legacy that if, you know, U.S. AI does end up being dominant, he can say I'm the president

that I should bear in. In Congress, obviously, the incentives are very different. They are hearing from their constituents, you know, there's anger everywhere. There is, you know, standing up for AI is not a winning platform and either party in any constituency, anywhere perhaps, with a narrow exception of the, you know, the zip code that contains the venture capitalists that are invested in, in all of this, you know, that the, so the incentives there are clear, and for the companies,

I think the incentives are to essentially try and get the government out of their hair and use, you know, whichever rules they need to to get to that end. And you are seeing this kind of these three incentives mix in this very kind of uneasy, you know, dynamic that we now have in D.C. and the, the result is, is paralysis and the result is, is actually no one is really winning. There is no, no stretch, no one is coming out of this, the victim, really.

Well, so I know you've, you've had about of the flu recently and I don't want to over extend you and send you back to your bid. But I will ask you one last question and it's going to bring us back

to the first, but it's kind of surprised twist in this story and it's not a good way.

Because we were talking about the valuation of Palantir and so forth. Well, global markets right now

big AI stocks, magnificent seven, the big tech stocks. And yet, we have seen some signs in South

Korea with Palantir before they had this little booze. And elsewhere, that that may be fragile, that the AI bubble may burst. If that bursts, Trump's calculation will not only be wrong, it'll be real real wrong because it will send the world into, you know, potentially a very big economic downturn. As, as, as you talk to people in this space, how worried are they that the

“over enthusiasm that the enthusiasm for AI was over enthusiasm? It depends who you speak to. I think”

that investors are very worried about that, lawmakers to a certain extent too. Parts of the

administration who think more deeply about this perhaps as well. But I think there's just a general consensus that they have to do whatever they can to keep this train going forward because, you know, the fallout could be, you know, more seismic than losing the midterms, more seismic than losing, you know, 2028, it could theoretically, you know, if the blame was attached to Trump and to his accolades for the Armageddon that would follow. I mean, that could keep that, you know, side of the

ideological spectrum outpower for a decade or two. And he's still in some ways living with the

aftermath, the political aftermath of the financial crisis in 2008. There are some predictions that, you know, if the AI hype turns out to be, you know, a complete mirage that would be in for a lot more pain than that financial crisis caused. I mean, personally, I don't quite subscribe to that.

“I think we probably end up in, you know, somewhere between the two where, you know, the enthusiasm”

will temper somewhat. There will be some losers that will be, you know, moments of, uh, teetering on the edge. But I do think there is something to, um, the technology that underpins this that is, you know, actually valuable and that we were. But, you know, David, you know, with, as with all of these things, it's a matter of timing, isn't it? It's a matter of who is presiding over the boom moments and who's presiding over the bust moments. And I think, you know,

you would be a brave punter to look at the next, you know, what have we got, you know, two and a half years to the next presidential election and say that there is enough path to keep this motor going for, uh, you know, the rest of this cycle. So that, uh, so that Republicans and Trump gets,

“get to reap the, you know, rewards of it and punt the fallout onto Democrats. I think this”

possible that will happen is probably unlikely. Well, you know, both things can be true, right? I mean, in the dot com bust, uh, you know, you had a big correction. It had a big negative economic effects. But the internet revolution took place and the dot com companies are still big companies today. Uh, and so you can, you know, somewhere between a PE ratio of 140 and the average PE ratio of 40, there's a place where the world can be comfortable or 30 whatever it is,

33 or something. But, you know, so I think you would also be a responsible punter if you didn't expect some correction. Um, and, uh, we'll see how that happens. Anyway, maybe we'll be able to get you back to have this conversation again at some point in the future when you can announce your book. I'm kidding. And, uh, but in the meantime, I hope you feel better and thanks very much for joining us, here for this episode of Siliconjustice. Thanks David. It was a real pleasure. Thank you.

This was Siliconjustice, a production of the DSR network.