All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
July 12, 2020 - The Charlie Kirk Show
01:08:12
Mark Cuban - Best of TCKS

On this exclusive best of TCKS REWIND, Mark Cuban joins Charlie for a wild and wide ranging discussion including anything from starting your career, entrepreneurship, and A.I. to Cuban's often high profile disagreements with President...

Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Success vs Failure 00:07:35
Thank you for listening to this Podcast 1 production.
Now available on Apple Podcasts, Podcast One, Spotify, and anywhere else you get your podcasts.
Hey, everybody.
I'm still in the middle of nowhere, but I wanted to make sure you guys still got your episodes worth from the Charlie Kirk Show.
We have grown our program probably 20-fold since the last time some of these episodes dropped.
So my exclusive conversation with Mark Cuban is one we want to share with you.
My conversation with Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks and billionaire.
It's a really fun conversation.
It's something that's going to be very entertaining for you.
Please email me your questions, freedom at charliekirk.com.
Freedom at charliekirk.com.
Type in Charlie Kirk Show, your podcast provider.
Hit subscribe.
Give us a five-star review.
And if you guys want a signed copy of the MAGA doctrine, do exactly that.
Screenshot it and email us, freedom at charliekirk.com.
Please consider supporting our program by going to charliekirk.com slash support.
Support us monthly.
Give us 50 bucks, 100 bucks, whatever you can afford.
It really helps our program stay self-sufficient, away from leftist boycotts, and BLM Inc. target assassination campaigns towards this show.
Really fun conversation.
You guys are going to enjoy this.
Buckle up, everybody.
Here we go.
Charlie, what you've done is incredible here.
Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campus.
I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk.
Charlie Kirk's running the White House, folks.
I want to thank Charlie.
He's an incredible guy.
His spirit, his love of this country, he's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created, Turning Point USA.
We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country.
That's why we are here.
Imagine I have a box of 100 garbage bags.
The boxes cost me three bucks.
I decide to sell them for six.
I walk up to the door on the street.
Hi.
Do you use garbage bags?
What an easy sell.
Literally, how would you like it if I brought you garbage bags every two weeks and you never had to think about garbage bags again?
Will you buy my garbage bags for $6?
Absolutely yes.
And that's all it took to start my first real business.
I took that, my little garbage bag route, probably the world's first and only garbage bag route, and turned it into not only my shoes, but so much more.
But more importantly, it gave me confidence.
It gave me the knowledge that I could put myself in situations of walking up to people I didn't know, you know, just walking up to their doors, and then presenting myself with confidence.
And that's why what you do today, just like what Charlie did, is so important.
Because rule number one is, unless you try, you're never going to know.
And whether it's a business, whether it's a project, whether it's a political career, you have to take that first step.
Because most people, here's what they do.
Tell me if this sounds familiar.
I have this idea.
Anybody ever have an idea they thought was really good?
Anybody didn't?
I'm going to worry about you.
I have this idea.
Then what do you do?
You tell your friends and they say, oh, it's a great idea.
Then you look it up on Google.
Oh, no one's ever done it before.
It's got to be great.
We're going to make billions.
And then you do nothing.
That's what most people do.
There's such a fine line between being successful and not being successful.
And most of that comes from just taking that first step.
And so the first piece of advice is don't ever sell yourself short.
Always go out there and try.
If I can sell garbage bags door to door just by saying hi, do you use garbage bags?
Just think, there's nothing you guys can't start either because you'll have the same impact whether it's your neighborhood, your school, wherever it may be.
Well, and Mark, you would agree with this.
When you're young, people open up doors for you that they would never, when you're 30 or 40.
I mean, I was 30 years old going, hey, I'm doing a school project.
Yeah, when you're a kid, look, anybody here watch Shark Tank?
That's what I'm talking about.
I like it.
Okay, I like this crowd.
So, I like that.
So, one of the guys in Shark Tank is Damon Johnny.
He wrote a book called The Power Broke.
And what basically he was saying is, when you got nothing to lose, why wouldn't you?
Why wouldn't you start a business?
And to Charlie's point, when you're a kid, everybody wants to help you.
So now is the perfect time.
Bill Gates started Microsoft when he was 16.
Michael Dell, who started a company called Dell Computer, who I used to do business back way back in the day, do business with, he started in his dorm room when he was 19.
If you watch Shark Tank, there's a kid, Benji Stern, who invented these new little shampoo balls that are better for the environment, cost-efficient, et cetera.
So instead of the little shampoo bottles, you would use these dissolvable balls.
16.
I'll tell you another Shark Tank story.
There's a girl, she had a woman now, her name was Lanny Lazari from my hometown of Pittsburgh.
She came on to Shark Tank with something called Simple Sugars, which was a scrub, a skin scrub that was scented with different fruits and different fragrances and the like.
She comes on and she makes her pitch and it airs.
And we're helping her ship and we're helping her sell.
About six months later, I've been answering her emails and questions all along, different business questions.
No, I forgot to tell you, at the time, she was 19.
19 years old.
She had started this company when she was 12.
Six months after the airing of Simple Sugars, I get a call from her, Mark, Mark, what am I going to do?
I'm like, what's the matter, Lainey?
What's the matter?
She's 19 years old.
She goes, I have a million dollars in the bank and I'm freaking out.
19 years old.
And it all started because she didn't think of a good reason not to start.
Why can't that be any of you with all your businesses?
Again, look at Charlie.
Charlie's running this whole show.
He's been doing it six years now, but he just said yes.
Taking that first step is the only thing that holds you back.
And there's always a million reasons not to do something.
Always.
You always create reasons.
I got soccer practice.
I'm tired.
I'm going to be the next Dirk Davitski.
Yeah, exactly.
Well, I tried that.
Didn't work out.
But we still got to play one-on-one, which we'll take care of that.
So, you know, I always find that the fear of failure is quite usually worse than actually failure itself.
The psychological trap that we put ourselves into, when you actually fail, you learn a lot.
And failure in this country, we talked about this a little bit before.
We actually embrace failure a lot more with forgiveness than most other countries.
Look, we all fail.
But the beautiful thing, I can tell you, I talked about my garbage bag business door to door.
I didn't tell you about my powdered milk company that failed miserably.
I didn't tell you about the time I got fired from my software job.
I didn't tell you about the time I got screamed at at another job and got fired at another job.
I can't tell you how many times I failed.
But the beautiful thing about this country is you only have to be right one time.
Embracing National Failure 00:10:56
It doesn't matter how many times you fail.
You can fail one time, five times, ten times, none, or 200 times.
But if you're right that one big time, that's all that matters.
And that's the opportunity each and every one of you have in front of you.
So when you try different things, as Charlie said, It's normal to be fearful, but when you do try them, so what if you fail?
You know, Thomas Edison said every failure got him close.
He learned what not to do.
And that's what failure is all about: learning what not to do and then getting to what you should do and getting it done.
Exactly right.
Whether you're working from home or on your fitness, you want to know what you're listening to is actually what you want to be listening to.
You like the Charlie Kirk show, not some person in the background watching the Rachel Nadow show.
That would be really bad.
Everyone needs a great pair of wireless earbuds.
But before you go dropping hundreds and hundreds of dollars on a pair, you need to check out wireless earbuds from Raycon.
You already know that Raycon start at about half the price of any other premium wireless earbuds on the market and that they sound just as amazing, just as amazing as other top audio brands you know.
Mr. Producer is using his Raycon earbuds right now and he loves them.
Their newest model, the Everyday E25 earbuds, are the best ones yet.
With six hours of playtime, seamless Bluetooth pairing, more bass and more compact design, it gives you a nice noise-isolating fit.
Raycon's wireless earbuds are so comfortable.
They're perfect for conference calls or for binging podcasts like the Charlie Kirk show.
Unlike some of your other wireless options, Raycon earbuds are both stylish and discreet, no dangling wires or stems to distract anyone during video calls.
Pick up a pair and see what the hype is all about.
Now's the time to get the best offer out there.
15% off, basically free money by Raycon.com/slash Kirk.
That's by Raycon.com/slash Kirk for 15% off, by Raycon.com/slash Kirk.
So, Mark, just for this audience, because I know we chatted a little bit, but what do you think of what's going on in the country right now?
Like, what's your take?
Do you care?
Do you not care politically what's going on?
Politically?
You guys know how I feel, more or less.
Yeah, let me just say that I hate politics.
I hate politicians.
I think that the real deep state are Democratic and Republican parties that they work so hard to keep the powers entrenched, the current powers entrenched, that they forget about some of the most important people in the country, which is each and every one of you.
I told you.
I agree with that.
I agree.
If I had my way, we'd get rid of all political parties altogether.
Because, thank you.
Okay, now I'm on a roll.
So, let me tell you what else I think.
Hold on.
Don't get too excited.
Let me do one more thing here.
Let me tell you why it's workable.
Because historically, we needed the power bases of parties to develop candidates and push them forward.
And we needed those candidates to tell people upstream what the constituents were thinking.
But it's 2018.
If Instagram can do surveys, if Snapchat can do surveys, if we can swipe right or left, we can ask people what they think.
And then when we ask Americans what they truly think, even though it's not legal to do a national referendum, it's still very possible for our politicians from president on down to not do polls, but literally ask their constituents what they think about an issue so we can find out what people think rather than our politicians trying to convince us what they think, what to think.
And I think that's the big change that has to happen.
That politics going forward should leverage technology so we can ask constituents, people like you, people like me, what we think, and then implement what we think, as opposed to battle it out and guess, you know, this candidate's going too far left and that's going to ruin everything.
This candidate's going too far right and that's going to, it's not about what the candidates think or do.
It's supposed to be about us.
We may be a republic, but we're still a democracy.
And we have the tools now to ask the questions, what do we want, what do we think, and how are we going to get there?
And to tell our politicians instead of just listen to our politicians.
And I think that's what's changed dramatically.
I agree with that.
Where I'll push back a little bit, though, is you're always going to have some political party, because parties generally represent ideas.
No, you'll have groups of people who get together.
They're always going to happen.
That's always going to happen.
But parties are defined by the money they raise.
You're going to have factions.
Would you agree with that?
Factions, yes.
But again, what do people talk about when you go to groups of Republicans, you go to groups of Democrats, it always comes down to money.
Always comes down to money.
And whoever has more money tends to have the advantage.
Trump beat Hillary, even though he was outspent 2-1.
But you're right.
You're right.
I mean, generally.
But then why are they focused so much on raising money?
I agree with you.
And I would say they typically serve the interests of their donors.
You want to hear their constituents.
You want to hear a story about that and talk about a really real Hillary screw-up that you guys will probably love.
So, and I got this from talking not to Brad Parscale, but to one of the other organizations that helped President Trump with his marketing.
And I think this really is what turned the election more than what was spent or how they did Facebook or how Brad did Facebook or other things, even though I think Brad's smart and I've actually used him for different projects.
And so the Hillary Clinton campaign completely bought out YouTube.
Every single ad on YouTube.
Completely bought for $2.4 million.
They decided they were so far ahead a couple days before, they just let it go.
They didn't want to spend the 2.4.
Brad came in, bought it for $1.8.
And literally, if you talk to them about the numbers and the click-throughs and from the states they got those click-throughs, they feel that in those three states that made the difference for 77,000, the firewall states, that those came from that one decision on YouTube on that final day.
So sometimes it's smart, sometimes it's happenstance, sometimes it's just stupidity.
But to their credit, they took advantage of that.
I'd rather be lucky than good.
Always.
Always be rather lucky than good.
But so, but we have obviously a very center-right audience here, right-center, I should say.
It's a good audience.
Would you say?
So wait, wait, wait.
Let me challenge that.
That's what I was saying.
Let me challenge that.
How many people are 18 or older?
And I'm guessing then the rest of you must be 18 or younger.
The reality is, if I looked at my 16-year-old politics, which wasn't much, my 17, 18, 20, 21-year-old politics wasn't much.
The one thing I learned from then till now is that it's all going to change, right?
And that the greatest skill that you can have is to be curious and to want to learn more and to pay attention and to challenge the status quo.
You know, I've given President Trump a hard time, and you can argue rightfully so or not.
But one thing I will give him credit for, got real quiet, I like that.
The one thing I'll give him credit for, and he's the only president ever really to have done this, and I think it's because he's a business guy at heart.
And I'm hoping that each and every one of you adopt this approach.
He always challenges the status quo.
Always, no matter what.
Now, part two to that is what you do after you challenge a status quo.
And that's where I tend to have my disagreements because I've always stood up long before I developed a relationship with Donald.
I've always stood up and talked to entrepreneurs, told people that worked for me that if you see somebody doing things the same way for an extended period of time and they think it becomes, and it's become conventional wisdom and that this is the way it's always supposed to be done, that's where your greatest opportunity is.
If you go in and change it for the better, amazing things can happen.
But going in and changing it for the better means digging in and learning it better than anybody else and not deferring to other people.
That's where the real opportunity comes from.
But I do give President Trump tons of credit for always challenging the status quo.
And if each and every one of you took that same approach, you might not identify yourself as center right, center left, center up, center down, center purple, center green, but just as curious.
And that's really why I wanted to come out here today.
Because if you take one of President Trump, I think his best quality and you apply it, look, if you would look at the conservative agenda four years ago, it's completely different than it is today.
Night and day.
And it's because he challenged the status quo in almost everything, for better or worse.
If each and every one of you take President Trump, in my opinion, his best quality, you wouldn't pre-identify yourselves as anything.
You'd say, let's just go break shit.
And that's the opportunity.
So I think it's an interesting point you're making.
He's a disruptor at heart, and he always plays the devil's advocate.
He's a questioner, and he always plays the devil's advocate.
He always questions.
Whether someone says, they'll say China's great, he'll say China's bad.
He'll always push back.
Always.
Always.
And in a meeting with him, he does that with me all the time.
I'll say something, even though he totally agrees.
You really believe that?
Tell me what.
You really believe that?
You know, exactly.
We'll see what happens.
That's what he always, that's his new one.
And what I think you would appreciate, though, Mark, I got to be honest with you, a lot of the character attributes I admire most about you, I see in him.
He has perseverance.
He has relentlessness.
He believes in other people.
He has optimism.
He works really hard.
I think you guys would be very symbiotic, but I hear a lot of criticism from you.
No, because we used to get along great.
And look, I'm an American first.
Period.
End of story.
You know, I don't belong to any political party, and I never will.
And I've offered.
Insurance and Price Systems 00:14:42
I've put together a health care program.
I've offered it.
I've offered to work with entrepreneurs.
I've offered to work with small business.
I've put the offer out there.
You know, where we are very different is I like going to places where people disagree with me.
I have this thing.
I always like to check my whole card.
You know how you go to play cards and you always look and you know you have a jack underneath there, but you got to look 30 times just to make sure you have a jack underneath there.
And I tend to approach life the same way.
I want to reaffirm what I think.
I want to get new ideas and new feedback and question myself so I get smarter.
And that's why I like to come here because I want to learn from each and every one of you because you have different perspective and that's how I'll get smarter.
I don't know necessarily that the president, at least in my experiences with him, is the type to dig into the details at all.
And that's where we diverge.
In the past, when we would do things before his political environment, he would delegate to people he thought was the smartest person, right?
Now, I don't think he's quite doing that as much as I'd like to see, right?
Because he's been surrounding himself more with people that tend to agree with him than will disagree with him.
And so that's where we've diverged.
All that said, if he called me up and said, Mark, would you help me with health care?
Hey, I've been working on a program where I've spent a lot of my own money.
Talk about it.
I'd love to hear about it.
I'll give you the two-second version.
The reason that Obamacare does not work is because it's based on insurance.
There is no health care program ever that will succeed based on insurance because insurance has nothing to do with health care.
It's a financial instrument.
You're correct.
But I'm also a believer that everybody, there are 47 million people that are eligible for Obamacare, the ACA.
They're a bunch covered by Medicare, a bunch covered by Medicaid.
And so they cover the external sites.
But across the middle, there's the 47 million that are eligible for Obamacare.
And what I did was I sat down with 14 of the people that helped create Obamacare.
And I presented them my idea and I said, what are all the things we need to do to make sure that these 47 million people are covered?
I took all their ideas.
Then I sat down with a bunch of people from the far right, if you will, that are libertarian and laissez-faire-driven.
And I said, okay, we need to cover these people.
What do you think?
So I took all that in, and then I did what I should have done right off the bat.
I looked at my own companies.
I self-insure.
And then I looked at all the big companies across the country.
95% of companies with 5,000 or more employees self-insure.
And they self-insure, meaning they might use insurance little bits and pieces, but for the most part, they take on the risk themselves because it's only the financial risk that they're really absorbing.
So I put together a program and I sent it to the most far-left economist that I could find, a company called Sonicom.
And I said, here are the parameters.
And the parameters are: for the average family, the individual making $50,000 or less, and a family making $84,000 or less, I want to see if we can do an 8% on-demand solution.
And what that means is if you're not sick, you can do nothing.
So you guys, mostly on your parents' health care plans, but let's just say you're not and you're 27 years old and you need to determine what you want to do.
Now, if you want to buy insurance, you can.
That's your option.
It's a financial choice.
But I put together this program that said, all right, if you need health care, you go and get it.
If you can't afford to pay for it, then the government will guarantee your payment, but you will get dinged for up to 8% of your income that will be automatically deducted from your paycheck.
And that's the most you will pay.
Now, that 8% turns out to be less than you would have paid in insurance, but because you took out the insurance companies, because you took out all the administrative costs, because you took out the way everything is siloed, when I sent it to the economists and they scored it like OBM would score it, OMB rather, again, I'll backwards today, OMB would score it.
You know what they came back with?
Consumers would save $45 billion per year.
The government would save $40 billion per year.
And I'm like, okay, this works.
But the challenge has been taking it up the tentpole, right?
And so working my way up and getting it into the administration.
So let me just say it again so everybody understands, because I'm sure people will ask, or media or whoever will come back and ask me.
No insurance, completely out of the mix.
If you're healthy, if you want to get preventive maintenance, that's up to you.
When you feel you need to go to the doctor, and it will cover things that are covered by Medicare to start, and then we can add to that for other things that we don't need to go into here.
But the most that you will pay is up to 8% of your paycheck, and you'll pay up to that 8% until the amount is paid off.
So if you need a hip transplant and it's $15,000 and you pay your $100 copay, the rest is deducted.
If you make $30,000 a year, 8% of your net salary is being paid to pay this back.
Once it's paid off, it's paid off.
If after 15 years it's not paid off, it's written off.
After all that, you get to control who you buy your health care from, how much you pay because you can shop, and where you get it.
It's completely up to you.
That works.
Now, the hard part isn't getting people to believe it works, because I've shown it to senators and Republicans to get it done.
Well, but I think you're onto something with the insurance companies.
I come about it a little bit differently.
I think the problems in health care cost and health care delivery, not the health insurance.
Let me finish it really.
One quick example.
So you know LASIC eye surgery.
Sure.
It's not covered by insurance because it's considered a healthy surgery.
The price is a lot lower, yeah.
Right.
So LASIC eye surgery used to be $20,000 per eye.
Which is you're exactly right.
Which is in this program, right?
Right now you have networks that you have to work in because those networks are defined by the insurance companies.
So with 8% on demand, you can go to any doctor.
But what's going to prevent the health care deliverer from jacking up the price of health care if the government is negotiating with them?
No, the government's not.
The government's you're using the Medicare price points as a starting point.
But those price points are overly inflated, full of waste, fraud, abuse, and horrific delivery.
So if I go in, that's up to me.
So put aside LASIC.
But if I go in because I broke my ankle, right?
One hospital is $2,500.
Another hospital is $5,000.
That's not the way it works.
They don't quote it.
No, that's in this program.
So there's a price system.
Yeah, there's a whole price system.
There's a reference price system.
I support a price system.
There's a price system.
I agree.
The price system.
It's good.
So there's a price system.
But you can also negotiate past it.
So good.
So if the reference price list is $1,500 for your broken ankle and you go in and you say, look, I'll do it for $1,200.
If not, this other guy is going to do it for less.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm doing.
That's the way my health care program is.
So just so everyone knows, the way health care works, you walk in, you say, I have a broken knee, and you ask them what it costs.
They'll laugh at you.
They cover their prices.
And so I think transparency.
Well, that's because most of it's driven through insurance companies.
Of course, because they don't want you to know because they're reimbursed.
If you're a cash pay, you can negotiate.
But with this program, you have the option.
So there may be, let's say you have a heart problem, there may be a supercardiologist that's a lot more expensive, and the amount that we'll guarantee is limited, and you can't afford that person.
You have the option to pay more yourself.
So if you want to go to the best, if you like that doctor, you can use that doctor.
If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.
Well, you can find your doctor.
Harden himself.
I said you can find the best doctor.
If you want the best doctor, you can go get the best doctor.
If you have to go to the emergency room right now, it's horrible because if your doctor is not, if the emergency attending physician is not in your network, it's going to cost you a fortune.
I actually agree with a lot of what you're saying.
Some of the details we could talk about at length later on.
But what I love is that it's a business-minded solution, market-based type of...
Well, what you'll love anymore, I've spent a whole lot of money getting it studied and getting it scored.
And so this isn't me just saying, hey, this is a good idea.
This is me spending a lot of money bringing in a lot of people to say, okay, poke holes in it.
Tell me why it won't work.
Put it together in a way that will make Republicans, because it's full repeal and replace, happy, and Democrats happy because it immediately covers 47 million people.
Every single person who is eligible for Obamacare can use the system day one and you can get the health care you need and want and you get it far less expensively than having to pay into an insurance-based system.
One of the things we talk a lot about is the power of markets.
And you know this, and capitalism is going to be describing the three P's: prices, profit, and private property.
And the problem is, you just pointed out, in healthcare, there's no price system.
So people walk, because the insurance companies intentionally muddy it up.
Right.
And the insurance companies have become pseudo-monopolies in these states.
So one thing I would ask you: would you support allowing health insurance to be brought across state lines like auto insurance and home insurance and flood insurance?
Because that's a market.
Yeah, but that's shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic.
Because it's still healthcare.
It worked in auto insurance.
Yeah, but for health care, it's different, right?
Because people.
Tell me, okay.
Because if you're sick, you're not worried about getting the best price.
You want the best care, right?
And so the difference is, with my program, you can go to any hospital, any doctor, right?
And if they support the reference price list, you just go.
You walk in immediately, you show your driver's license, they scan your driver's license, then you get an okay from your employer to say we'll deduct the amount, and you're good to go.
Right.
But I guess the problem is that most health care is not emergency, not life or death health care.
Most health care is chemicals.
No, I get that, right?
But the markets are there.
So you want markets, right?
But you're suggesting you use insurance to go across.
That's a mechanism, that's a component of it.
Insurance, once you base anything on insurance for health care, it's guaranteed to fail.
You need some form of insurance.
It's a risk.
No, no, that's the whole point.
You do not need some form of insurance at all.
So then why would an employer provide health insurance at all under your program?
They wouldn't?
Well, it's up to them, but it's a value add.
It's a perk.
That's why they provided it in the first place.
When there were wage and price controls, they introduced health insurance as a perk.
Right, but alternatively, your plan would be to try to get people on this broader government-run risk pool.
If my companies, I would still continue to provide health care.
Right.
So do we.
I mean, Turning Point provides health care.
We have to under the Obamacare mandate, but that's But that would change.
That would change.
You would have the option.
Oh, that's interesting.
Okay, so now we're getting somewhere.
Get rid of forcing an audience.
Again, I can't say it.
I told this to President Obama.
Any system built on health care, any health care system built on insurance will fail.
I don't disagree with that.
But talking more broadly, I think one of the most powerful forces for good, and you agree, are markets.
And I see the decline of markets because of crony deals and because of insiders that are trying to create these pseudo-monopolies to have regulation written for the wealthy, the few, and the well-connected.
And I think you agree with this.
I mean, you've got to give examples.
Okay, well, let's give an example.
Dodd-Frank.
Dodd-Frank was a banking regulation that was passed right after the financial crisis, which was supposed to help the little guy and help small banks from over-depositing and doing reckless behavior.
What's happened in turn is J.P. Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, and the big uglies in Manhattan have actually gotten richer and more powerful because they can afford the compliance costs of Dodd-Frank.
So a well-intentioned Democrat bill has actually made the very enemy that they seek to destroy stronger and richer.
Anytime you have regulations, the bigger, richer companies are able to use it to their right.
So President Trump's gotten rid of over 800 regulations in a year and a half.
Would you say that's a good thing?
Some of them, yes.
Okay.
Some of them, no.
Right.
But let me just go to Dodd-Frank.
The problem with all of that, with Dodd-Frank, is they missed the most intrinsic problem.
In the late 90s, it used to be the big banks were partnerships.
And what that meant was you weren't protected by corporations.
Your money, your own personal money was on the line.
So the moral hazard was there and strong.
With Dodd-Frank, when companies were allowed to go public as corporations, banks were allowed to go public as corporations, yeah, all that changed.
The simplest change, which the banks would fight tooth and nail, is to require any brokerage/slash bank to be a partnership.
You solve all those problems.
Not going to do it, but then it's just a fight over regulation, right?
And then it's just which regulation.
And no matter until you go laissez-faire, which isn't going to happen in banking, then we can nickel and dime over which regulations impact.
And to his credit, he's fixing the smaller banks, which are the bigger problem, and go from there.
Well, and the small banks used to be the backbone of banking in the United States.
Small banks used to compose of 80% of all banking, now they're 20%.
It's been totally flipped on its head.
But again, but again, look, traditional banking is being challenged across the board no matter what.
There's crowdfunding, there's a thousand different ways to raise money, there's seed funding, there's so many different ways that capital is available that the banks are under assault.
They're dealing with big companies doing big deals, but that's not where the growth is, anyways.
Look, I want to talk to you about internet freedom.
Social media companies get to decide what content is suitable for the sensitive snowflakes among us and censor whatever they don't like.
Shouldn't you be the one to decide what you want to read or watch, not them?
There's one thing you can control: their access to your data.
And that's why I use ExpressVPN.
You see, the problem with big tech companies is that they not only do they censor what you read, they track what you do online.
They track what you're searching for, the videos you watch, and everything that you click.
They use this data to serve you ads and can match your activity to your offline identity using your device's unique IP address.
That's exactly why I use ExpressVPN.
I use ExpressVPN to protect myself from the Orwellian tech companies that want to attack your computer or your device.
These tech companies can't see my IP address at all.
Protecting Your Data Privacy 00:15:26
Sorry, can't see it.
My identity is masked and anonymized by a secure VPN server.
Plus, ExpressVPN also encrypts 100% of your data to protect you from hackers and the bad guys on the internet.
Does that sound complicated?
It's not, I promise.
ExpressVPN software takes just one minute to set up on your computer or phone.
You tap one button and you're protected.
So why give these tech companies a free license to know everything about you?
And then you turn around and sell off all your information.
It's time to take back your privacy at expressvpn.com/slash Charlie.
By visiting my special link, you get three months of ExpressVPN service for free.
Who doesn't like to save money, right?
It's expressvpn.com/slash Charlie.
E-X-P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N.com slash Charlie, expressvpn.com/slash Charlie.
So I have a question that you might not have been asked before.
It's very simple.
Do you think America's in a better or worse place since Donald Trump got inaugurated?
I think some people are better off and some people are worse off.
Excited.
I mean, I think where I've supported, I like less regulation.
I really, really do when it comes to business.
But I'm also a believer in climate change.
You know, and I think that's a risk.
And I think it's, look, let's talk about climate change for a minute.
People here, do you think that 100 people who do you think that the scientists that confirm think that there is climate change are 100% wrong across the board?
No.
Even if they're 1% right, even if they're 5% right, we're risking our future.
Not my future.
Your future.
Your future.
Can I ask you a couple questions about 100%?
Okay.
So the 97% study, you've heard that 97% scientists agree.
We've never treated...
That's not the point.
No, no, we never treated science as a democracy, though.
We don't take a vote on Newton's second law.
Yes, we do.
We do?
Yes, we do.
No, we don't.
We don't scientific methods.
No, we do it by the people who are.
Look, this is a risk assessment.
If there's a chance, do you close your eyes when you cross the street?
I hope not.
I blame you.
Right.
Now, Even if you close your eyes, there's a 97% chance you're not going to get hit.
But at least you go, you walk across the street with your eyes.
I'm so glad you mentioned that.
So that's the next question: if we accept the premise, let's pretend we accept the premise that climate change is happening at the degree they say it is and human beings are contributing to it, which is questioned the scientific community.
If we accept that, then at what cost?
And then if at what cost, what?
How badly do you guys want to live?
So, but no, but serious.
But this is the question.
Seriously.
Anybody here put a price in their life?
Oh, you have?
So I could buy you?
But Mark.
But Mark, hold on.
This is important.
The Paris Climate Agreement said that we will have to regulate our economy with $2 trillion of extra regulation to maybe lower global temperatures by one degree by 2030.
Is that a reasonable trade-off, just one degree, so that we have to prevent expansion for the poorest people around the world, for poor Americans that need access to coal in the Northeast so that we can't do that?
And lower global temperatures?
I don't know.
Let me.
Maybe I'm dumb, right?
Oh, you're not.
But I like to maximize my opportunities to survive, right?
I like to minimize, and I don't really put a cost on any of that.
So, no, let me go now.
So, there's a probability, whether it's 1%, 2%, or 1 degree, 0.1 degree, 0.001 degree, there is a probability that you can assign to that that it will happen, right?
And if that probability, in my mind, is greater than zero.
I have three kids.
There's no amount of risk I'm willing, and there's no amount of money I'm willing to assign to that risk if I think it challenges the world that my kids will live in.
So, let's play that up.
I'm really worried about the kid in India or the kid in Vietnam or Laosu, Cambodia, where their prime ministers are saying we need access to coal now so we can have a lot of money.
You're really worried about those kids?
We have access to schools, hospitals.
I didn't hear what you said.
I said you're really worried about those kids?
I'm absolutely worried about those kids.
That's why I support neoliberal trade policies that have lifted most people out of poverty than any other idea.
Okay, so go ahead with me.
Less people are living in global poverty today than ever before.
But I care about the 600 million people in India that don't have access to a hospital.
And you know what the Prime Minister of India Modi said?
We cannot build coal-fired power plants fast enough, which will allow people to live longer and healthier.
And you know what I believe in?
I believe in each and every one of these people here that if we take the steps to minimize climate change to the best of our ability, not failure-proof, to the best of our ability.
What I have seen with technology, every step of the way my entire life, my entire adult life, I've dealt with technology.
We get to a point where we start inventing things and it hits the hockey stick curve, right?
And the inventions take off and change everything.
I remember being 16 years old and waiting in line for people that couldn't get gas because there were gas shortages.
And I would have to carry, I would carry gas cans, and people would pay me $2 to wait to get gas formed.
Now we export gas.
And you know why that was?
But because of the technology behind it.
We will come up with new technologies that change the equations for climate change and for diminishing the impact of climate change.
But if we don't take those first steps, if we don't invest in making that happen, not only will it not happen or take a lot longer, it might take longer than the lifespans of the people that are 18 years old.
This is good.
I'm not anti-environmental progress, but I would say the best way to get there is not through big United Nations global commissions or parents treating climate accords.
It's entrepreneurs like Elon Musk that are going to do it to take risks in the marketplace.
But they're not mutually exclusive.
They're not mutually exclusive.
Our country does make investments.
We've gone to the moon.
We continue to invest in space.
We invest in military.
We invest in artificial intelligence.
Space Force.
Oh, Space Force.
Space Force.
I thought he just walked away from Space Force.
But look, and we'll talk about AI before we leave, too, because that's important to your future.
But we do make investments.
And again, I go back to if we have enough kids your age speaking up and saying that you want a country where climate change is being dealt with and our government is investing.
That doesn't mean Elon Musk and other really smart people can't continue to invest.
They will.
So that's where I push back, though, is again, at what cost are we going to curtail?
We talk about people's lives.
You're right.
People's lives in India and Vietnam.
And here.
And here, yes, and people's lives in New Hampshire, where they live in darkness eight months out of the year and they need access to coal.
No, they do.
They need access to coal fire.
Okay, wait, I'll buy a truck and I'll ship them a bunch of coal, right?
Okay, but the point being is the climate accord that was signed by Obama in 2025 would have made us less competitive, would have put us back economically, and China would have violated every single word of it.
And they would have continued to have a leg up on us.
Let me give you.
Let me give you one of my favorite phrases on Shark Tank.
Perfection is the enemy of profitability.
When you look to make something perfect, as in India might screw it up, China might screw it up.
Somebody's always going to try to screw it up no matter what, because we're America and they're going to want to try to screw up whatever we do anyways.
And everybody's got their own self-interest.
That's markets, right?
They work in their own self-that's going to happen.
But I look here and I see hundreds of 18 give or take year-olds.
And I have kids that are about to turn 9, 12, and 15.
And I know that there's a greater than 0% chance that climate change is going to impact the quality of their life.
It might be on some coast somewhere.
It might be, who knows, right?
I don't know.
I'm not the expert on it.
But I know it's a greater than zero chance.
And if I'm not doing everything possible, and if I'm not, and I think our government is in a better position than any individual entrepreneur to help.
I don't agree with that.
So why don't we just do the same thing with defense?
Well, because defense is something that the government should do because we have about protecting the security of our citizens, right?
I'll tell you why.
Because there's a broad, there's a unanimous agreement amongst the U.S. citizenry that we have geopolitical threats, and there's not a unanimous agreement amongst the U.S. citizens that climate change is a threat to the U.S. citizen population.
Okay, well, defense.
So let me use your argument.
You're equating climate change to no, no, don't play that game.
You just brought up the Department of Defense.
No.
What I'm equating it with is people making choices to protect ourselves, right?
That there are multiple threats.
I'm not saying we don't invest in defense.
I think we do.
I think we underinvest in artificial intelligence and the things that will really impact us for the future.
That's our biggest risk.
Because if you want to play the tit-for-tat game, well, we haven't really been attacked other than 9-11 and December 7th, 1941.
So two instances, and we're spending $600 billion.
I don't agree with that, but that's the same type of logic approach, right?
So the point being, the point being.
We'll get that.
How about our coal miner?
We are going to face more and more climate threats going forward.
I get your point that the entrepreneurs like myself and green entrepreneurs more so than me are going to continue to invest.
But we stand to gain more for our citizens.
Put aside what everybody else would do.
I know they all fit together.
I understand climate is climate for all Earth.
It's for the whole pollutes.
It's the same atmosphere.
But the last time I've checked, we are a global leader still.
And if we're able to demonstrate impact, that we are having a demonstrable technological impact on climate change, people will follow our lead.
China will steal our technology and use it there.
We'll license it to India.
We'll license it to other heavy polluters.
And we'll have a better future, not just for my kids and the kids here, but for the kids in India and other places that you're concerned about.
But that doesn't happen if we just leave it to the free market because it's such a big problem.
See, it's such a big, expensive problem.
So big problems are better tackled by entrepreneurs.
Together.
No, no, I don't know.
Because I don't know.
I would say that risk-taking entrepreneurs have shown the problem.
So let's start.
There's a lot of progress.
So, for example, the USB drive has saved far more trees than Greenpeace ever will.
I'm not going to argue with that.
Right.
That's an entrepreneurial solution to, oh, my goodness, we're going to run out of trees because of all the paper in our world.
But I'm trying to think of the historical background.
Back in the 70s and 80s, people were worried about deforestation.
They were worried about too much.
No, they were worried about 10 megabytes of the power.
Well, also, by the way, just in the 1980s cover of Time magazine, they said we are going to have global cooling.
So I do have to say that.
That was true.
You know that.
Look, that's not the point either.
The point is there are big problems that we have to address.
But the best way to address big problems are people like you taking risks.
Let me give you entrepreneurs.
That's the best way to do it.
But there are certain projects that the government is in a better position to implement.
Let's talk about artificial intelligence because it's the same argument.
China says they have a 2025 mandate to dominate in artificial intelligence.
Russia says whoever, Vladi, my buddy Vladi, your buddy?
Collusion.
Da.
Sadity of Ladej.
So Kreitiya Vladei.
That's what I would say to him.
Little Russian.
I took high school Russian.
But with artificial intelligence, Vladi says whoever wins the artificial intelligence race will dominate.
Our biggest companies by market cap, Google, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, et cetera, are all focused on artificial intelligence.
But China is spending a whole lot more than they are in aggregate.
Our entrepreneurs are in aggregate.
China, because it's a communist country and President Xi gets to do whatever he damn well pleases, is implementing in ways that we couldn't even dream of because they don't care about privacy.
We need to be ready to address what they're going to be able to do in AI.
And our defense organizations are starting to.
But as a country, the administration is barely even acknowledging that it's an issue.
That is an investment that has to come from government.
We can't do enough independently with independent entrepreneurs because, trust me, I understand AI, and it's bigger than what any individual company can do because Google, Microsoft, et cetera, aren't worried about defense applications.
They're worried about making more money and they're using it to make more money.
So that's an issue.
And let me continue on.
Let me scare the shit out of you.
If you don't think by the time most of you are in your mid-40s that a Terminator will appear, you're crazy.
And the only thing holding it back is power supplies.
Power supplies.
Now, this may sound crazy for a lot of people, but the idea of autonomous weaponry and a mobile device run by a remote power device is going to happen.
I want it to be ours.
And I want to be able to know that the government is in position to defend against autonomous weaponry.
That has to be done by the government.
That's the same approach we have because it's such a big issue.
This is so interesting because I couldn't disagree more.
But let me tell you why.
Almost every time government disagreements what makes a market.
That's exactly right.
Almost every time government tries to solve a big problem, they make it worse.
War on poverty, public schools, you know, obesity coalitions.
Let me finish.
Now, with that being said, the president can talk about it.
He can encourage it.
He can try to influence it, do private public commissions, all that sort of stuff.
But as soon as you appropriate tax dollars towards something, here's what happens.
If you subsidize something, you get more of it.
When government puts money at something, usually crony deals are handed out.
You know that.
Right?
Crony deals.
We don't want that.
Market is much more efficient with those dollars.
Entrepreneurs from the bottom up are much more likely to come up with solutions to pre-existing issues than a top-down corporation seeking government funding would.
The final thing I'll say is this.
We don't have commissions to try to solve starvation from the government.
We have grocery stores with more food that they're throwing away than they're actually selling.
We have an abundance problem in America.
The Cost of Subsidies 00:13:34
And so if I think we want to solve the artificial intelligence problem, we should say this.
Let's make a national push for it.
Let's have a public consensus it needs to happen.
And then have a race to say we will beat China, but not by through government funding, but through our entrepreneurs.
People like you.
Let me ask you a question.
That's how we're going to solve the problem.
I don't disagree that there's inherent inefficiencies in government programs, right?
They're almost like VCs.
VCs get one out of ten right, and the one they get right covers, yeah, covers them.
I'm okay with most of that, right?
I prefer that a lot of big government programs go away.
Look, if I ran the show, you have no idea how I would change things.
But when it comes to big picture items, when it comes to global items, AI, if you believe in spending $600 billion or more for defense, but whatever the number is, right?
The future of warfare is built around through up and down artificial intelligence.
If we don't win that war, the next generation that are sitting there having this conversation for the next generation of high school kids, it's going to be how are we going to catch up?
That's why we need to invest.
Now, I don't know that we have the people in place in the government right now to make those investments.
I think that's a challenge and a problem.
I think we're truly a threat from autonomous weapons unless as a nation we either come to agreements with other nations on this and we have the ability to monitor them, you know, trust but verify.
But as big a threat as nuclear is, AI is even bigger.
Do you think we'll see singularity sometime soon?
Not in the next 50 years.
So you think it's at least some people have 2036 or...
Yeah, not in the next 50 years.
But again, I want to say this again.
For weaponry, we already have the ability to have weapons think.
There's already the ability for autonomous weapons.
And they're only going to go further, further, further as processors get more advanced.
Once we solve the battery problem, the portable battery problem, so these Terminators can be out in the field for an extended period of time, if we don't win that battle, this world's upside down.
That's what scares the shit out of me.
And climate change has that same.
Let me tell you this.
You assign a percentage probability to what I just said.
1%, 2%, 5%, you have to be concerned.
Climate change is the same way.
You assign a probability that things really could get bad.
1%, 2%, all the rest is Mishagash, right?
Just rambling because if you're wrong, the loss is enormous.
And you have to hedge against that.
Right.
Well, we're going to open up for questions, but I do want to finish this because the question is: how bad it'll actually get?
How can you prove it?
Second, the third question is: no, the third question is: can you actually prove without a shadow of a doubt that humans are contributing to rise of global temperatures?
And you can't.
There's a lot of scientists that believe when you have a climate that has trillions of hydrocarbons of different molecules with sunspots, solar flares, rising and lowering global temperatures.
Let me give you an example.
When the founding fathers wrote the U.S. Constitution, Scotland had a Mediterranean climate.
A hundred years later, Scotland has a climate much similar to ours.
There was very little carbon emissions over that 100 years, but we have evidence that the climate changed so dramatically that temperatures were gone by almost 25 degrees in 100 years.
What made that happen?
Well, there's an argument made sometimes things get cooler and hotter naturally without human interaction or carbon emissions.
So that's the question: are we going to hamper human life expectancy and production and third world?
Okay, so let me put a Trumpian hat on.
Let me put a Trumpian hat on.
Right, because what's the cost-benefit analysis and the opportunity cost?
Great.
Here we are, and would you agree that there's at least a greater than 0% chance that there are man-made hazards with the climate?
With a greater than 0%.
Of course, I would say.
Okay, great.
That's all.
So here we are with an economy that's booming, right?
Thank you, Trump, for booming the economy.
If not now, when?
Never.
Let the market solve it.
Markets solve problems.
Entrepreneurs solve problems.
So at what point do you look around and say, Miami's starting to flood?
And look, there's always excuses for everything, right?
Well, I'm not saying there's always excuses.
Mark, I'm going to put you on the spot here.
Sure.
It starts at the individual.
You fly a private jet?
Yeah, of course, but I buy carbon offsets.
But I buy carbon offsets.
The worst polluter.
But I buy carbon offsets.
I buy my carbon offsets.
I buy my carbon offsets.
You've got solar panels on your house?
We're starting to install them, but I buy carbon offsets.
I admire you.
We're buying carbon offsets for everything I do.
Everything.
And you know what?
The change starts at the individual, right?
No question.
No question about it.
They're not mutually exclusive.
None whatsoever.
But what I see is these philosopher kings that are popping up, Leonardo DiCaprio, that fly around on their private jet and say everyone else must live other ways, and then I live somewhere different.
The best change starts at the individual.
But here's what I'm saying.
If this is such a huge issue, which you believe it is, let's start a charity.
Let's raise billions of dollars independently of government, and that will be more efficient and more efficient.
That's not enough.
But look, if I thought that was enough, I would just give a billion or two dollars.
Do it.
It's not enough.
It takes regulatory change.
I guarantee you.
I guarantee you, if you pledged a billion, you could get another 100 billionaires.
You'd have a $100 billion charity to solve climate change.
And that would be more effectively spent than government would never do it.
It wouldn't change it because.
Oh, so it wouldn't change it.
No, no, what I'm saying is there are points when regulations help.
Would you agree there are regulations that help?
Without a doubt, but we're way past the point of normal regulation.
We have gone far off that region.
Well, wait, but don't we have the president that is the perfect president to introduce the right kind of regulation?
No, I think he should continue to cut regulation and cut regulations.
No, but for this in particular, we're not talking about general business regulation.
You have a president that across the board is cutting regulation.
This is the future of kids in this audience.
This is a greater than zero risk.
Regulation could at least potentially help and reduce regulation.
Right.
So I wouldn't say that any sort of form of regulation would be worth the cost-benefit analysis of hindering potential economic growth to try to potentially lower global temperatures because we're not yet certain humans are possibly maybe totally contributing to the state.
Do you realize there are limits to economic growth, right?
That sometimes economies overheat.
That if you do have too much growth and interest rates go up.
Now, in our particular case, if interest rates go up too high because our debt's going up so dramatically right now, it could be a big problem for us, a really big problem for us, right?
But different question.
Again, the point is you have to hedge, right?
There are no absolutes.
And when you're dealing with lives, sometimes you have to put economy aside.
Again, entrepreneurs, me, whoever, you all hopefully will come up with solutions that will be better.
And at that point in time, the government can say, we don't have to be here anymore.
You take over.
Just like health care, right?
Healthcare, Obamacare, I was all for it because more people got covered.
But I knew that there was a better way.
They're not mutually exclusive.
You can have government work on big problems, not the little ones, the big ones, right, and have an impact.
Look, if it were up to me, it'd be health care, it'd be climate change, it'd be artificial intelligence, maybe some other safety items.
And that's it.
Maybe finance, right?
That would be enough things to regulate.
But those are the big things that have to be regulated.
You can't just exclude them.
I think we're going to open up for some questions.
I love this stuff.
It makes great Mark.
I love it.
This is good.
Hi, my name is Lucy, and I'm about to be a senior at IU.
Wood, go Hoosiers.
Yeah.
And I'm kind of having a crisis because I don't know if I should go to grad school and get my MBA.
What is your opinion as someone who graduated from IU?
I'm not a fan of getting MBAs at all.
I'm a fan of going to college, but not a fan of getting an MBA.
Why?
Because there's so many online ways to learn, and I think you can get far more experience in the workforce and learn more and be in a better position to succeed.
Because realize, look, there are so many online MBA equivalents that if you're disciplined enough, you can do it for a lot less money and still get a quality education.
Now that said, I'm a big believer in going to college, right?
I'm just not a big fan of MBAs.
Even at IU.
Over here.
Hi, my name's Kiana, and I was wondering if Charlie went on Shark Tank six years ago, would Turning Point USA be something you'd invest in?
Absolutely.
Well, there we go.
Sometimes you bet in there comes the company.
Sometimes you invest in the horse and sometimes you invest in the jockey.
I'd invest in the jockey for sure.
Thank you, Mark.
All right, one more over here.
Rob Dick.
Hi, my name is Benjamin.
I'm 6 p.m. from Colorado.
So me and my friends we were talking over here, we wanted to ask you about the health care, how you're talking about your government proposed health care.
And we worked for a guy who was running for governor in Colorado, and his idea was that the government should not be involved in health care.
There should not be big businesses in health care.
He said that his idea was there was clinics that he went to and he visited in Virginia and they were completely run by nurse practitioners.
And he said if he was elected governor, that would be his plan for Colorado to completely get the government and the big businesses out of health care.
The problem is, in 1986, we passed a law that said if someone goes into a hospital, they've got to be taken care of.
President Reagan passed that.
When somebody is sick and ill, we end up paying for them somehow, some way.
The question is, and if they don't have a job, they're going to be on Medicaid.
If they're older or sick in certain circumstances, they'll be on Medicare.
Everybody else in the middle, just because you're not paying for them directly doesn't mean you're not paying for them.
And when people are sick or hurt or dying, we all pay for them one way or the other in productivity or other ways.
So we have to come up with a solution.
And personally, I think healthcare is a right.
And it's just a question of what's the best way to deal with it.
We could have a long conversation about that, but we'll move on.
So, one, I'm enjoying this conversation.
It's nice to be able to actually converse and not agree all the time.
But it sounds like you were talking about actually implementing the technology that we currently have and having regulation implement it right now.
I'm thinking you may more be intending to invest into actual invention of new technology that's more useful because current technology as it stands is not usable in its current stance for being efficient.
So I'm asking, are you more interested in actually investing into the invention or the implementation of current technology?
Well, I mean, invention and current technology, whatever.
I'm looking for opportunities.
I'm always opportunistic.
And so, you know, when I invest in AI, I'm looking for new ways to change the world.
I'm looking for new ways to change industries.
I always try to look for ways to disrupt.
So that's how I invest.
Okay, we'll get it.
Hi, I'm Matthew, and I'm 14 from Washington, D.C.
And since you seem very invested in future technologies, based on current events, do you think Elon Musk is qualified to take people to space and to different planets with SpaceX?
We'll find out.
I don't know.
Excellent being my last one.
Hi, Mark.
I'm Maggie.
I'm actually from a long line of entrepreneurs, and I started my own business when I was 15.
Congratulations.
Thank you.
In your opinion, what are the unforeseen downsides to success in business and politics?
Yeah, you know, success, early success can be a lousy teacher because you tend to get overconfident and think that you have the answer to everything.
And, you know, that's why I mentioned earlier, I always try to check my Hulk card because I recognize that I'm not right about everything.
And so really, not being arrogant.
And I'll tell you something else I've learned, particularly as I got older, is that the power of nice is really, really important in business.
That just being nice will give you such a huge advantage over other entrepreneurs and other businesses that just trying to be a little humble and realize you can be wrong, that's where a lot of entrepreneurs who have had early success really run into a problem.
The one thing I'll add, six words you should say every day.
Say, I don't know, and say, tell me more.
Those are the six things you should always say.
Never be afraid in a conversation to say, I don't know.
And then never be afraid to say, tell me more.
Every day, say those six words.
And if you think you know everything, you don't.
I'm learning something every day.
I try to read a book a week.
Power of Being Nice 00:02:55
Tell me more.
Curiosity is the most important attribute of a successful entrepreneur.
All right, this is a little bit of a sense.
Hi, my name is Amara Titus.
I'm from North Carolina.
And my question was, what's the weirdest product that has ever been introduced on Shark Tank?
Weirdest product, there's so many weird products on Shark Tank.
We've had a fart candle.
You don't know what it's like being on national TV having to, it was nasty.
There's just so many.
But watch all the replays.
You decide.
Yeah, potato parcel.
That was interesting.
We have one more.
Want to draw a cat for you?
I think we have time for one more.
Hello, my name is Matt.
Hey, Matt.
So I'm a computer science student, and I'm definitely cybersecurity and AI is like a big problem.
So I don't know if you're right or what.
I'm still looking for answers on that myself.
And another thing is about climate, I love the conversation you were having.
So I just kind of wanted to get your opinion more on what exactly we should be doing with AI and with climate.
For those of you who, you know, you're young, if you don't pay attention to what AI is, if you don't go to, let's say, Amazon AWA, or just go, what I would suggest is go to YouTube and just type in Introduction to Machine Learning and just watch it to see what it is.
Type in Introduction to Neural Networks.
Just watch some of the presentations that are on YouTube.
The impact that the Internet has had and the changes that your parents went through more than you because you grew up with the Internet is minimal compared to the impact that AI is going to have, is having and will have.
What's changed over the past couple years that's really accelerating it is the speed of processors, these things called GPUs, which were originally just used for gaming, but now they keep on getting more and more advanced, smaller, faster, and able to do more, which allows more processing to happen in a small space.
That's going to change how things are done.
Literally, who you work for, how you work, the type of work you do is going to be completely different than your parents within the next 10 to 15 years.
And so paying attention to AI.
And so what you're doing with computer science is great.
But even if you have no interest in computers, no interest in programming, it doesn't matter.
Just like, you know, you laugh at your parents who might or might not understand Snapchat and Instagram and Twitter and the like, you know, you're going to have to understand AI or people are going to laugh at you.
And one last thing I want to say.
I remember earlier this morning, Charlie was speaking and he said something about Saudi Arabia, I remember, and how Saudi Arabia really isn't a very moral country and we don't share their values.
Market-Driven Green Solutions 00:03:00
So in the long term, I definitely agree with Charlie that we should have more market solutions, but I kind of wanted to hear what you think because in the short term, we're very dependent on Saudi Arabian oil right now.
And I'm thinking we probably should be funding through the government, actually.
A lot of people here are going to disagree with me, but we should be putting subsidies towards green energy so we don't have to rely on these immoral countries.
Yeah, I mean, I'm not going to judge Saudi Arabia one way or the other.
I don't know anybody from there.
Or a couple of people, but an argument could be made both ways, obviously.
Charlie would tell you to come up with a market-driven solution.
I would tell you for our biggest problems, sometimes the thing about market-driven solutions, there's always opportunity, and an entrepreneur will typically end up winning almost all the time.
But in the interim, we still as a country need solutions.
And where we can set a foundation that helps entrepreneurs and accelerates entrepreneurs for big problems, I always think that's a good thing.
Well, let's give it up.
Just thank Mark again for coming.
Let's give it up for Mark.
And for Charlie, it was a lot of fun, buddy.
Really?
We don't agree on everything, but this is what America's all about.
Disagreement, civility, exchange of ideas.
So thank you, Mark.
We appreciate it.
Thank you.
I want to thank those of you that are supporters that go to charliekirk.com slash support to help cover the costs of this show.
We do 12 to 14 episodes a week.
We try to bring as many as we can commercial-free, and we are able to do those commercial-free episodes, especially the longer form episodes.
Those of you that support us on a monthly basis, we're going to be emailing you about a Zoom call that I'll be doing once a month for our monthly supporters, but allows us to be free from boycotts, to speak the truth, and not have to worry about these coordinated leftist attacks against those of us that dare call out what's happening in our country.
So please go to charliekirk.com slash support and thank you for chipping in whatever you can.
It helps us tremendously.
What a great conversation that was.
Please consider getting involved at Turning PointUSA at tpusa.com.
tpusa.com.
Email me your questions, freedom at charliekirk.com.
And the first 15 people to do so of subscribing to the Charlie Kirk Show, giving a five-star review screenshotting and emailing it in at freedom at charliekirk.com will get a signed copy of the MAGA doctrine.
Thank you for supporting the Charlie Kirk Show at charliekirk.com slash support.
We value our supporters so much, and we'll come up with some more episodes very soon.
God bless you.
I'll be back in the saddle very, very soon.
I appreciate you.
Thanks so much.
Export Selection