Are We Screwed If AI Works? — With Andrew Ross Sorkin

Could AI cause a market crash by working too well? Let's talk about it with Andrew Ross Sorkin of CNBC and The New York Times, and the author of the bestselling book, 1929, who's here with us in studio today. Andrew, great to see you. Thank you for having me. Thanks for the show. Thanks for being here. Really appreciate it. So the book comes out about four months ago, and I think it's great that we're speaking now because the worry that you had brought up in the beginning, and obviously it's all about the depression and the market crash, and the worry that you had brought up was, look, we have $700 billion in capital expenditures going towards AI companies, and this could all go bust and that could cause a cascading market crash. But actually, what we're starting to worry about is the opposite, which is that what happens if it works? Wow. And right now, we've had, we're in a moment where last month, software stocks lost a trillion dollars in market cap because there was this fear that AI could just displace them, and it was moving at a pace that they wouldn't be able to recover from. Is there a worry that we'll have our own type of market crash, but just a completely different way? And that is that AI works and everybody is disrupted. You know, so I'm often asked, you know, is there a way, a modern day way to get to 1929? And what people are really asking is, is there a modern day way to get to 1932, which is 25% unemployment in America? And I always think the answer is actually less of a market crash and more AI. Meaning, if you ever wanted to think about what would this country look like with 25% unemployment, how would you get there? And I think the answer is potentially, if AI is as successful as I think we all hopefully want it to be, to the extent that you believe these valuations are real, all of the math behind it, the only way that really works to some degree is to create extraordinary productivity. And what does productivity mean? Well, it means a lot of growth at a lot less cost. How do you take out that cost? Well, we're both looking at each other and that's pretty much, we are the cost. Yeah, I mean, the robot employee is going to be a thing. It'll definitely be a thing. It's going to be a thing. My kids talk about it being a thing. I've got 15-year-old boys and we talk about what they're going to do, but then we talk about like, literally, are we going to have a robot in our house in five years from now? And what are all the things the robot's going to do? Physical robot, it might be a little bit longer, but will you, for instance, will you have a handful of AI assistants working for you in your various capacities and at the times at CNBC? That, I'm sure, will happen. But here's, I'm a little bit surprised to hear you open to the possibility that it's going to cause mass unemployment. And actually, we should talk about the percentage chance that you think that it could happen. But I'm skeptical, and I'm willing to change my mind about this, but I'm skeptical that it's going to cause this wave of mass unemployment. Maybe it will in the near term. But for something to be, if it does live up to the dreams that the AI makers have and it's something as capable as being able to do the jobs of, let's say, 20% of the workforce, wouldn't you anticipate a production boom that would come along with that and help grow the economy in a way that leads to more things for people to do? So that, to me, is the question. It's not, is there more things to do? It's who's going to have the money to do those things. So when I think about all of the young people, and by the way, I don't think that we have to have mass unemployment forever either. I think it's possible that there could be a painful transition period. And historically, by the way, when we've gone through these technological revolutions, there have been painful transition periods. And so if you're a young person today doing the job that, frankly, increasingly, it appears that a Claud or ChatGPT could even do, whether it's research or putting together a model or being a paralegal or name your role, you say to yourself, okay, if you're running one of these firms that historically hired kids out of college to do that, are you going to still hire those kids to do that? Is there a higher order kind of work that they can do for you now that you can get this work done by the AI? I mean, I think these are the real questions. And then there's going to be an economic one, which is, you know, tokens are not free. AI is not free, but how much cheaper is it ultimately going to be than a human? And when you look at the statistics, though, it's very interesting because software engineers, they're the ones who all the tokens are being spent on to do software engineering work, to build websites and applications and code. AI is more sophisticated in coding than anything else. But we're definitely not seeing a wave of layoffs of software engineers now. And you could sit back and watch these things code for 24 hours at a level of competency as a software engineer. And they're being hired. The job levels, the job numbers of software developers on Indeed are going up. You don't think that in two years from now, just in terms of just the magnitude, step change in terms of how good the technology is going to be, that it's not going to get that much better. I agree. If you just, if this is the level, I'll bet with you. But if you believe in the technology improving, which invariably it has to, and by the way, if it doesn't, then we're in a whole other different world. Then we're now talking about what happens if it succeeds. We're talking about what happens if failure, because then we really will have a bubble. But if it does improve the way I think the model makers, by the way, policymakers, investors want it to, I just don't see how we're going to be sitting around doing our own programming. I just don't see it. By the way, I write my own articles today. I wrote this book without AI. AI was too late for me. This took eight years, unfortunately. But five years from now, do you really think that people are going to write books even by themselves? I assume you would be co-authoring a book with AI. I imagine people will be writing articles at minimum with AI if AI is not doing it entirely, in which case then there's a question about sort of what is the role of the human in all of this. So my pushback would be on the idea of mass unemployment. I definitely think there will be a disruption. And I'm open to the possibility that it will be what you say. I don't know. I don't think you can completely discount it. I think in this discussion, though, and I'm curious what you think about this. It's almost been fully weighed to the we're going to have mass job loss because we can see what this technology can do. We can see its pace of improvement. I think in the public discussion, like you probably remember this Atrini letter a couple weeks ago where they believed that, okay, AI is going to be able to take over work and then you'll have this cascading collapse. The thing that I wonder about is whether the economy, whether businesses in the economy will be content with what they're doing today. Because you'll have the capability increase, you know, in terms of work, but that also increases the capability increases of a company and whether they'll be satisfied with what they're doing today or then just go after their roadmap in a way they've never been able to before because they've been constrained on labor. Right, but that generally assumes then you have to be able to massively upsize the size of the pie, right? This is growth for everybody, not just, do I think that companies are going to say, I can be in that business. I can go after that guy. Yes, but there is, some of this is a zero-sum game. It is not like that the pie can just grow exponentially. I know there are people who believe that it could, but invariably, at least historically, it hasn't. There are sort of upper limits to even what growth could ultimately even look like. So, yes, I imagine there'll be people who will do even more, but I would also say, you know, I walked in here and I called Alex. I said, I think I described you as a, what's it like to be an independent media titan, right? In this role that you're in. And you've got a sort of satellite group of people who you use and work around you and things like this. And maybe over time, you hire some more people here and there, but maybe you wouldn't in the future. And maybe, you know, the sort of network that you'll have will be your agents that will do this for you. Well, if you don't have those people doing that work for you, what are those people doing? I've told this story before. I, myself, am a little bit of a small business. As I was promoting my book, I ended up having to hire a couple of different people, social media people, this and that and the other thing. And I was sent a contract, uh, which I needed to fill out. And typically I would have sent it off to a lawyer who would have charged me, I don't know, a couple hundred dollars, maybe a thousand dollars. And what did I do? I took the contract. I put it into ChatGPT. I said, tell me everything that's good and bad in this contract. It spotted the things that I already saw and spotted some others Well, actually, I'd be curious to hear where you believe the limits are, because I don't think it's exponential, but I think it can grow. I think if you were to take the example that you just gave, where now you're able to go in and negotiate this contract with AI, well, all of a sudden, that's time that you, you know, get back, money you get back, and you can work on improving your book, you can work on writing another article for The Times, researching a segment for the next day's Squawk Box. Yes, I become that much more productive. Right. But I'm now not employing more people. So I do believe this is, talk about inequality. I believe that the wealth and the great riches are going to go both to the model makers, some of the big tech companies, and probably the folks who already have had success, because they will be at the top of these food chains. And instead of hiring more people, they're going to hire more agents. Definite possible. I'll just make one more argument. Please, tell me I'm wrong. By the way, I hope I'm wrong. I pray that I am wrong. I hope five years from now, you will have me back on your broadcast, and I will say mea culpa. The world is such a better place. So let me just preface this by saying, I just want to flesh these ideas out. I think I totally accept the possibility that you might be totally right on this one. Can we have the listeners make a gamble on a prediction market about this? Okay, we're going to get to prediction markets in a moment. I would just say that when you start to increase what you're able to do, all of a sudden, economic activity happens that you didn't anticipate before. So for instance, with Claude Code, you know, I went and started building, you know, a workflow tool that I use for this small media operation that, like the people I work with, we can all gather together and use it to communicate and track progress and things like that. And then all of a sudden, I start plugging into services that I never would have paid for, you know, as someone who didn't have the access to the ability to build these things with Claude Code. So I think that as you find these ways to be more productive, there are opportunities and economic activity that gets created far better than the time you might have spent doing the drudgery work. But maybe I'm wrong. I want to hear all about your modeling a little bit later. You're going to have to tell me about this app of yours. Not that type of modeling. But there are places, just to end this segment, there are places where I could definitely see some real disruption. Accounting to me, I mean, watching Claude Code go out and build the computer programs, take over my web browser, take over my computer, and just go at it. You see that these things can work autonomously for a number of hours and do quite well, fix their mistakes, follow prescribed rules. And for something like accounting, financial modeling, you know, they could go out and grab the regulations from a certain city and then go out. And then that question of, well, what about the higher level work? Well, for accounting, you know, maybe you can do financial strategy for a company, but it just does seem like there are less roles than there are for that than about the. Throughout our entire economy. By the way, take journalism, for example. So you got a football game on over the weekend. You got the scores. You know what happened during the game. The value proposition for a journalist to be watching that game and to ultimately be reporting on that game is their ability to analyze the game. Potentially as a sort of a columnist to be able to sort of explain what happened in an entertaining way, but maybe have some insight into the player. And maybe they had a relationship with the player and knew a player, you know, had been in the exact same position five years ago and they have a whole bunch of different stats and all of these things. Some of that, not all, but some of that I imagine AI in the future will be able to replicate. It just, it just is. There's other parts, you know, AI can't walk into the locker room and start to interview the athlete or figure out what the coach did two days earlier and try to get somebody to tell them something off the record or behind the scenes. And that'll become a sort of higher order value proposition. But there's a lot of things that just, that are part of our daily life that I imagine will get automated. Okay. On the journalism example, I want to talk about this and then we'll move on because we have a lot of other stuff to cover. But this has existed for a long time. Narrative Science is a company that's been able to take the box score. And if they see a baseball team, you know, gets an eight in the ninth inning, they'll be like, had a ferocious comeback and won the game because that's a data point they can turn. But we still, we love watching ESPN. In fact, and I guess watching live sports is the thing that we love. Oh, I don't think we're going to stop watching live sports. Right. The question is, are we going to read about them in the same way? You know, the service you described is looking at the delta between the scores and then is able to sort of be able to describe what happened in a particular way. What happens when the AI can actually watch the game itself? You know, if Sam Altman and Johnny Ive have their way, we will have something sitting on this desk, probably in six months from now, that may be watching what we're doing all the time. Right. In which case it'll have a persistent memory about all of our interaction. And maybe if we're watching the game, it'll be able to report on the game itself. Okay, but this is where I think it's different. So narrative science was able to do a great job with the box score. Maybe AI can watch the game. Nothing will beat the reporter going into the locker room and speaking to the closer and be like, what were you thinking when you threw that fastball down the middle? And then going to the other locker room and saying, how did it feel? No, no. And that is correct. I'm just- Rudimental questions. They matter to people. They matter. And people, by the way, Google's Notebook LM makes amazing podcasts on any topic you could want. I've seen one podcast. It did happen. One podcast hit the top 30 trending on Spotify. That was entirely AI created about the Epstein files and 84 part series taking those documents and turning it into a show. But by and large, we have the ability to create these shows and we would still rather see two human beings have that discussion. And you're freaked out by that Epstein podcast, aren't you? No, you're actually giving me an idea. Exactly. He just pointed, for those listening, he pointed to the book 1929. And I'm thinking, maybe Notebook LM could put together an awesome podcast on 1929. I think you should do that. See what happens. It'd be cool. Maybe a little bit of a... Interesting. Okay. Okay. Here we go. So, all right. We've done labor. Let's go to the capital. So the other side of this is, we talked in the beginning about if AI works, what's going to happen? So there's a labor risk. There's two competing forces here. There's all this money, you know, betting on this stuff to work. We know that will disrupt the economy. Like, let's just go back to the, you know, what are software companies going to do? If that $700 billion in CapEx that the tech giants are spending this year on AI pays off, you're going to have this entire hollowing out of the software industry, of maybe other industries that... I mean, I was looking before of the S&P 500, IT is one third. Now, part of that is the tech giants, but it seems like we have these colliding forces where either that bet needs to go bust, or there's going to be some serious consequences for everybody else. So maybe I'll be on the other side of this one where I'm not sure that software is dead just yet. Because I think to myself, sure, we can build our own model for whatever app we want to build for our company. But at the same time, a lot of these software companies already have an install base. They have some, some data, I imagine, I'd like to believe. And on top of that, they probably should be and are using AI too to be able to build their apps and their software. So I would imagine, unless you think that everything is just going to be built either by individuals and companies, or we're all hiring, you know, Accenture to come and instead of being the integrator, that is not going to be about integrating. It's just going to be about building custom software for everybody. I would think that some of these software companies will actually continue to have success. There's a partner at Sequoia who recently said something like, the one, the software companies that will survive are the ones that are actually managed services with a technology layer on top. Like that, I believe. The others, he said, are just one iteration away from being replaced by the model builders. So I think if you're really a services company, probably you're all right. But I think, I'm curious what you think about this. The companies that are not the AI chatbot makers, they tend to think that there's going to be a set of chatbots. There's going to be a bot you use when you want to have a conversation, like a ChatGPT style one, but one that you shop and one where you're doing your enterprise and your enterprise stuff and learning about get a bot that can do everything in this AGI way, maybe that need to specialize goes away or maybe it can teach itself. Sure. And then we're, yeah. No, no, I I completely agree, but I do think there will be at least one. How about this? I think I'll go with there's going to be one interface. I don't know if it's one bot, but one interface that you will interact with. I imagine likely talking rather than even typing. By the way, I'm talking now constantly to my phone in a way that I wasn't six months ago. Do you do that? Definitely. All the time. And we, I mean, we have three Alexa pluses in our Echoes in the house and we're talking to Alexa plus all the time. And were you doing that a year ago? No, because the capabilities have gotten so much better. Like my wife and I will have disagreements about something and she's European. I'm American. So we're typically fighting over what's better, the American system or the European system. We would never, we would tell the Echo previously to, you know, do that and it would play music or turn the lights off. Are you typing your news? Are you typing your newsletter? I'm typing it. You're typing it. I still believe in writing unassisted by AI because to me, that's the only way to think. Type it out. What about texting? Like writing to the bot and then no, no, no. So like an open class style thing. No, no, no. So my wife sends me a text saying, are you late? Which is typically what I am. And then it used to be that I'd write, yes, around 20 minutes behind. I type it. And now I just constantly like, yeah, I'm running late. Sorry. I'll be there shortly. I just, I feel like I'm doing that all the time now, you know, just a completely different way. So there, there's definitely come a point. So I'll use AI for lots of fitness stuff. Talking about, you know, diet, talking about workouts. And I used to be like typing it in. I'm like, why am I typing it in? You just press that microphone button. It transcribes it perfectly. And then in it goes. I don't know about you. You're into fitness. I know you are. I used to, yes, use MyFitnessPal all the time. I was like entering in the food, knowing you could do. They had a pretty good database. Yes. It took a long time. It was, it was annoying. I had to constantly go in there. Now I'll, I'll only use it for like a week at a time because then I sort of fall off, fall off the wagon. But I'll say, just ate a sandwich. This is, you know, it was da-da-da-da-da-da-da. And it will say, yeah, that was 300 calories. And it knows all the, the macros. And it can keep it going for, you know, weeks or months on end. I do that too. I program in like, all right, I want to like follow this. It was Peter Atiyah, but I won't talk about it anymore. Like this health guru's advice. Can you give me like recommendations and count that stuff? And the crazy thing that you could do is after you've inputted that data for a while, what do you get in my, my fitness pal, just a lot of data. In a chatbot, you could be like, tell me about my trends. Where am I weak? Where am I strong? What happens when I'm traveling versus when I'm not? And you get real insights from it. It's nice. Have you asked it to assess you? Oh, oh, absolutely. I mean, it's a little narcissistic to do, but yeah. But it's also, yes. And when are you going to get that type of analysis from someone who's, you're speaking with all day long and has drawn from all the literature? It's impossible. If you say, please be my biggest critic, let me just tell you, this thing can be pretty harsh. Yeah. Well, that happened to me with the fitness stuff where it was like, don't worry about the four slices of pizza you ate. And I was like, can you be a little bit tougher? And it's like, you're weak and you're breaking. And I'm like, that's what I want. So the interesting thing that you've been talking about along this line on your book tour has been if the AI companies can't make good on all the money that's been invested and there's a lot of debt there, then we could see some form of crash. Has the fact that they're starting to make real revenue changed your perspective there or made you feel a little bit better? OpenAI is now at a $25 billion run rate and Anthropic's at a $19 billion run rate, although those numbers might be... I feel better about it in two contexts. One is that they're making more money. And two is that I think when you really dig under the covers of a lot of these commitments that these companies have made to others, meaning data centers that are going to be built on the back ends of these things, or even some of the investments that we've heard being made in NVIDIA, you know, early on saying they were putting in $100 billion. And I think when you realize, and then we were looking at them and calling them circular deals and whatnot, that they really were going to come in tranches, that everything was tronched. And those tranches make it safer because it doesn't mean that you're going to go out and spend $100 billion tomorrow, even though you don't have $100 billion today. So I do think that there, that there's, hopefully, we're in a bit of a better situation in that regard. I still don't think we've taken full account, though, of two component parts of this. What happens in great success from a technology perspective in terms of the efficiency of these models? Could we ever get to a point where you actually don't need all of these data centers, where a lot of the compute moves to the edge and then all of a sudden the economics of that sort of get upended? So you could see it get upended on that side. And then the other side is, you know, could the depreciation schedule of these chips either be way shorter or way longer than we think, and how is that going to work? So I think there's still a whole bunch of pieces of the puzzle that we haven't figured out. Yeah. That's the, that's kind of one of the hypotheses we've been playing with on the show now is, did Apple just do it right where Apple becomes the infrastructure for AI where it happens on your phone and on the Mac mini and the models become so efficient or purpose-built that you don't need the data centers? It may very well be that that's where this ends. Having said that, I would imagine that this should be the greatest opportunity for Google and Alphabet, effectively Alphabet, to truly take share because Gemini, if built the way I think it should be built, should be able to move you around their phone in shocking ways, right? It should be able to move into any app, control any app, do everything throughout the phone. I can't imagine that Apple, which really has made its name around privacy and controls and sort of a walled garden, even under this new deal that they're going to have with Google using Gemini as sort of their Siri, are going to let whatever that is go super deep throughout the entire phone. And so I would imagine that's why I've always, I've always thought this should be Google's time. Yeah. And here I am holding my iPhone and I loved my iPhone more than anything. iPhone products too. Yeah, but we haven't seen it yet. And even though Google's AI is better, people haven't left the iPhone for, um, for they haven't left the iPhone and gone to Gemini. So the book is 1929, 20 weeks on the bestseller list. Congratulations. Thank you. The thing that's kind of scary is, I think part of the reason why it's, I mean, it's about something that happened about a hundred years ago and it's getting a lot of attention. And I think part of that is because people see these parallels to now. We're in our own roaring twenties. We have our own market. That's rip roaring with a lot of people, you know, maybe even more uneasy about it now than they were back then. So, you know, I think a lot of folks look at the book and, and think, oh, it's a warning about today. And the truth is two things. One is when I began writing this book, I wasn't even thinking about today. That was not even on my radar. It was really much more about trying just to bring the public back to this moment so you could understand it. Because frankly, I didn't. And I thought once I got into it and started to understand these characters and who they were and what they had done, I thought, wow, this is an amazing world. The other part of it, though, is I think it's not just about today in a certain way. I know people look at the parallels today, but I think, I think we as the public citizens are always trying to play this sort of pattern recognition game. And we are always looking at history to try to understand the present in some ways. So, by the way, when I was working on this book back in 2021, I want to say, the whole GameStop phenomenon was happening. And I remember the publisher of the book was like, Andrew, could the book come out like now? And I was like, no, no, no, I'm totally not finished at all. But you could have, I could have imagined if the book had come out then, you would have said GameStop and AMC and meme stocks and all to grappled with that, and that's in large part because so many businesses today are private companies. And the marks, the sort of valuations, are not in the public market. It's not a day-to-day operation. And there is a whole sort of universe that I'd put in the category of mark to make believe. And the incentive system is such that you want that mark to make believe to go on as long as possible because if you are the equity owner, you don't want to mark your market down because, by the way, then you can't raise new money. By the way, if you're the private credit firm, you actually also don't want them to market down because it's going to, therefore, impact your own value. I mean, so you can see it's a cascading effect. So I think there's a whole lot of people who are sort of holding on as tight as they can, hoping they can sort of bare knuckle this thing. Maybe we can get to a place where, I don't know, Kevin Warsh gets in the seat and we get some lower interest rates and things kind of ease off and maybe the world gets a little easier. Okay, so I definitely want to get into what's happening in private credit today. And I think that for listeners, you know, if we have technology listeners who are fully right into this. Can you just briefly explain what is this private credit, private equity thing and why isn't it happening in the big things, but briefly. Yeah, so very basic. In the old days, you'd go to a bank. If you were a company, you'd go to a bank. They'd give you a loan. You need money. Post-financial crisis, in large part because of a lot of the regulations that were put in place, there became a whole other world where people basically created funds that look a lot like private equity funds. You go out and raise maybe a billion dollars and you'd say, instead of using that billion dollars to go off and buy companies, we're going to loan that money out to folks. And by the way, we're not going to give you the money back for 10 years. So we're going to give out a 10-year loan and you'll get the money back in 10 years plus plus, hopefully. That's the concept. And that's what private credit is. But what it means is the banks are not doing it anymore. It's living in this sort of private arena, which means that there's very little transparency around it. And then on top of that, you had a lot of private equity firms that, by the way, started buying up software companies and other things. Thomas Bravo's bought a lot of them. There's another company called Vista that's bought a lot of them, a lot of software companies, a lot of SaaS companies, using the revenue, the sort of the monthly recurring revenue from those businesses to pay down these loans. You take an enormous loan so you go buy one of these companies. Well, if you decide the software company is no longer a thing and may not have this reoccurring revenue, all of a sudden its value has to come down. And all of a sudden, therefore, they would have to lose all their money. And then for the credit guys who loan the money, they would also, therefore, then lose money too. And that is the worry that a lot of the money that's funding this AI buildout is coming from there. Yes. Okay, well, there are starting to be some shocks in private credit. And I want to speak about what that might mean and whether that is going to be the source of further problems. And then we'll talk a little bit about prediction markets and maybe the Fed, the new potential Fed chair. And we're back right after this. I've interviewed a lot of great tech founders on this show. And one surprisingly universal challenge comes up again and again, finding the right domain name. It's something I ran into myself when launching big technology. The names you want are often taken and it's tempting just to settle and move on. But the founders I respect most don't settle on fundamentals and your name is one of them. It should immediately signal what you actually built. That's what I appreciate about dot tech domains. It just makes sense. It tells the world, your customers, your investors and anyone Googling you that you're building technology, clean, direct and no qualifiers. And I'm seeing more serious startups leading into it. Nothing.tech, 1X.tech, Aurora.tech, CES.tech, Pi.tech and so many more. If you're building something tech first, don't settle. Secure your dot tech domain from any registrar of your choice and make your positioning obvious from day one. Starting something new isn't just hard. It's terrifying. So much work goes into this thing that you're not entirely sure will work out and it can be hard to make that leap of faith. When I started this podcast, I wasn't sure if anyone would listen. Now I know it was the right choice. It also helps when you have a partner like Shopify on your side to help. Shopify is the commerce platform behind millions of businesses around the world and 10% of all e-commerce in the U.S. From household names like Allbirds and Cotopaxi to brands just getting started with hundreds of ready to use templates. Shopify helps you build a beautiful online store that matches your brand style. Get the word out like you have a marketing team behind you. Easily create email and social campaigns wherever your customers are scrolling or scrolling. It's time to turn those what ifs into with Shopify today. Sign up for your $1 per month trial today at Shopify.com slash Big Tech. Go to Shopify.com slash Big Tech. That's Shopify.com slash Big Tech. Fiscally responsible, financial geniuses, monetary magicians. These are things people say about drivers who switch their car insurance to Progressive and save hundreds. Because Progressive offers discounts for paying in full, owning a home and more. Plus you can count on their great customer service to help when you need it so your dollar goes a long way. Visit Progressive.com to see if you could save on car insurance. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates potential savings will vary. Not available in all states or situations. And we're back here on Big Technology Podcast with Andrew Osorkin. He's the author of this great new book, 1929, 20 weeks, on the New York Times bestseller list. So let's talk about this issue with the private credit. Keep going on what we were talking about pre-break. Reuters recently writes, private credit alarm bells echo 2007 subprime warnings. There's growing risk that the mounting stress in private credit could spill over into the public securities market. BlackRock, the world's biggest asset manager with some $14 trillion under management, said Friday it had limited withdrawals from a flagship debt fund after a surge in redemption requests. A few days earlier, alternative asset manager Blackstone said it raised the redemption cap on its B-Cred private credit fund to meet record withdrawal requests. We're also seeing similar issues with Blue Owl. And then some companies are going bankrupt, including an auto parts supplier, First Brands, and a car dealership, Tri-Color. So is this the beginning of the unraveling and why are people panicking about this now? Well, the reason they're panicking is not just that there's potentially something underlying concern in the economy. It's that so many of these funds were sold to the equivalent of the retail investor. It's not just to the pension fund that is supposed to wait for 10 years for the loan to come due and then get paid off at the end. A number of these financial services companies have created what they're calling semi-liquid products. So effectively, you can buy into the fund and when you buy into the fund, it looks like a stock. It looks like you're buying a stock. You could buy it on any given day. However, it's called semi-liquid for a reason. You can't sell it on any given day. On most days, you can sell it. But if too many people rush towards the exit at the same time, the firms are allowed to say, excuse me, we're not sending you your money back right now. We're putting up the gates. And that's what you see happening right now. And so that's creating its own concern, that sort of run on the bank kind of feeling. Now, the financial services firms behind these funds would say, look, this is a feature, not a bug. It's in the literature. If you actually not just read the fine print, but if you understand what the product is, that's what it is. But I think any time you have a product where you think you can get your money back and you really can't, people get anxious. But it's not AI, right? Like I'm looking at it and it's car dealerships and auto parts suppliers. Mm-hmm. I mean, I think that those are just a couple of the examples of companies that have struggled. But I think there's a broader question about, again, because technology, I don't wanna say technology is volatile, but maybe it is. And because technology can change so quickly, there's sort of a real question about like what is the future really like? Right. And if the future really is different than where it is today, that also is a problem. Well, this is sort of, you used the word exponential earlier in our conversation, and this is sort of where the rubber meets the road, right? Because all this money is being invested in AI data centers, hundreds of billions of dollars this year, hundreds of billions of dollars last year, probably more the year after, in the belief that AI is improving on an exponential. And so private credit is funding a good chunk of it, right? You have companies like Blue Owl, for instance, who's funding a lot of the development. If you stopped getting that exponential progress, that would basically be the thing that could cause a panic. And that's where you get the, nope, you actually can't take your money out and things can go belly up. Well, there's a whole bunch So it's down. I mean, look, I'm so addicted to this phone. I buy a new one every year or two. And so I imagine people are going to want the latest, greatest, next technology. And so what does that look like? (Right, but the current video chips are actually... The current video chips are actually being rented at prices higher from when they were bought. I mean, that just shows, I guess, the demand. But I'll tell you one story. I was in Utah skiing earlier this year, and we were on the ski lift with a guy, and I was like, what do you do? And he's like, well, I build data centers out here. I was like, oh. And I was like, well, what do you think? He goes, all of this will go bankrupt. Really? I mean, I don't think he has the full picture, but that's, I think, what it looks like to someone who is in construction and sees the level of buildout that's happening. And it just doesn't compute. It's unlike anything they've ever seen. But it paid for the lift ticket. Did pay for that lift ticket. So... Good time. Well, he's like, I'm going to get paid. Exactly. Right. The question is about the person funding that bill. So there is an interesting, in the times that we're in, there's this sort of interesting argument that I'd love to put to you and get your perspective on. I'm sure you, or maybe you haven't seen this. There was a post that went kind of viral on X called The Prison of Financial Mediocrity. And the Prison of Financial Mediocrity. This is like a late-stage capitalism thing? Well, basically, it was this person who talked about why we're... Because we've talked a little bit about, you know, risky bets and this person talked about how, he said, I'm absolutely betting the house that long degeneracy is the prevalent socioeconomic theme of the coming century. And here's what he writes. The implicit deal used to be simple. Show up, work hard, stay loyal, and you'll be rewarded. Companies offered pensions. Tenure meant something. Your house appreciated while you slept. The system worked if you trusted it. Staying at one company for 20 years, he says, is now a career liability, not an asset. Wages grew 8% while housing costs doubled and debt payments for young people increased 33%. The math doesn't support patience anymore. And this is sort of getting back to this theme of debt and the economy and speculation and bets when they shouldn't be made. Basically, what this person is saying is because the system is broken for so many people, that's why they're going to things like crypto, prediction markets, and sports betting. What do you think about this? So I don't disagree with the last part of what you said, which is that one of the reasons why people are moving to prediction markets and moving to what I would describe as the sort of lottery ticket approach to life, it's a little bit YOLO. Yes. Is a function of the inequality that we have in this country. I would argue to you that the American dream actually shifted in the 1920s of all times to this scenario of the lottery ticket scheme. I think what happened was you had a lot of people coming from all parts of the country into big cities. They were seeing the wealth that was being accumulated and they thought, how am I going to get a piece of this? The only way to get a piece of this is some kind of get-rich-quick scheme. That's the only way I'm going to get there. And so you had this sort of lottery ticket approach. What... I haven't seen the tweet you're talking about, but what I think this person is referring to is what I call the leave it to Beaver American dream. This was the paint-by-numbers American dream of sort of a 1950s American dream. If you went to college and you worked hard, you get a job, you get a house, a spouse, two kids, and a dog with a white picket fence, and it all kind of works out. I actually think that was an historical aberration. That was not the way it used to be. If you look at the 1920s, it was not like that. You look at the 1930s, it wasn't like that. The leave it to Beaver American dream that I think this individual is referring to began post-World War II in a universe in which the United States was a monopoly power. Every other country in the world was out of business. We owned everything. We were the only player. And as a result, you had the rise of the middle class. You had unions. We could charge monopoly rents. If you really look at when wages in America started to stagnate, when? Late 70s, early 80s. Why? Because the rest of the world all of a sudden came online, and all of a sudden, we were competing again for the first time. And all of a sudden, we started to raise questions about whether that leave it to beaver American dream could still continue. First of all, by the way, the leave it to beaver American dream was a very white dream. It was not a dream for all of America. They did not benefit during that period. And as I said, I think it was actually an historical collaboration. I thought it was a 30 or 40 year period of time that obviously happened, but I don't think you can always go back and look at that and say, well, that's the way it should or could be because I think we live in a completely new universe. Right. But the argument that this person is making is basically saying that the only place people feel agency right now is in the casino. Even though they know that prediction markets are rigged with insider trading, that's where they feel like they actually can control their life. Look, I've experienced this in a very unusual way. You know, anchoring on CNBC in the morning. I remember during the SPAC, what would you call that, the SPAC trend, SPAC craze, or even the GameStop craze? You know, I would be cautioning people in the morning. I would say, look, guys, this SPAC thing is going to end badly. Folks, this GameStop thing, it cannot, it just, I've seen the movie. I know how it ends. I'm telling you. And the reaction that you would get was, Andrew, you are so paternalistic. Stop trying to protect me. You are not protecting me. In fact, by you thinking you're protecting me, you're protecting the man. That's what they would say. Because I do think that people think that they have agency in these casinos, and they want the lottery ticket. That's what they want. But I, I, I mean, it's just, it's an irrational thought to me that I can't even think straight about it. Yeah, I mean, it's not institutional debt, right? Which is what causes these crises. But it is, I think it's a pretty big risk right now for the societies where this exists. I mean, you've heard the stories, I'm sure, of people taking their student loans and putting them into FanDuel. Now, I'm sure that doesn't happen all the time, but everybody out there is sports betting, and a lot of people are losing. People forget, by the way, about lottery tickets. I don't know if you've ever thought about this. You know, in most states in America, you cannot buy a lottery ticket with a credit card. It's illegal. You can only buy it with cash or a debit card. And the reason is because they don't want people to overextend themselves by buying lottery tickets. And yet we've now built this entire apparatus for even much larger gambling, if you will, in terms of prediction markets, sports betting, and everything else. And people are just YOLOing it on debt. Yeah. I mean, one more thought about this. In the book, you highlight that actually in the 20s, in the era of speculation, they talked about it as democratizing finance, which is a tagline that's come back. I mean, it's what Vlad Tenev talks about all the time, democratizing finance. CEO of Robinhood, yeah. CEO of Robinhood. I mean, that's the whole idea is trying to democratize finance, trying to, you know, the prediction market guys would say, you know, you have an expertise in something. I want you to have access to be able to make money using that expertise. So, but then the question would be, well, why should people be shut out from these? Like, why, why just, you know, let's does actually bring it full circle. Right. The private equity people have made a ton of money by exploiting this ability to invest in opportunities that are not available to the everyman. So why should they be shut out of or why should they be cautious when those that have this brighter appetite for risk are doing great? So this is a great question you're asking. And it's really like a philosophical one more than anything else. In the United States, we have investor laws that effectively suggest if you don't have a million dollars, that there are certain types of investments, typically in private equity, venture capital, and other things that we don't allow you to make because we think they're risky. And the view is that if you don't have a million dollars or, or let's just say, educated enough, but we'll take the education piece out, that sort of money dollar number sort of uses a proxy for that in some ways, that without the million dollars, you can't afford the loss. And the truth is, depending on how you run a country and a social safety net and a system, if you can't afford the loss, then the loss gets fully socialized. So this becomes the fundamental question. Now, you could also Avoid a really nasty situation if we just print money. But you're right, with $38 trillion of debt now, by the way, back in 1929, there was a government surplus, a budget surplus at the time. And the next time, well, someone's got to probably write a check for $5 trillion or whatever it's going to be. And so if that happens, you tell me, is there some invisible line that becomes a red line where the investor class in the world says, we're going to lend you money, but you've got to pay us like two, three times what you used to pay us. And if that's the case, then you do move into an austerity period. And then all of a sudden, you are back in the soup. And this is kind of what I was setting up is that we, through these crises, when the Fed has stepped in, have had decent independence of the Fed. And it doesn't seem like that's going to be the case. Like those walls are in the middle of eroding. There's a criminal probe from the White House into Jerome Powell about this renovation that he did of the Fed headquarters. And right now, Kevin Walsh, who's been nominated, that nomination is being actually held up by Tom Tillis, who's not happy with the fact that the executive is, or the White House is, you know, influencing the Fed in this way. How important is Fed independence, how important is Fed independence from politicians who obviously will want that money to be spent no matter what, if we're going to have a system that doesn't get into another crash? So I'm generally of the view that Fed independence is hugely important, especially because typically, if you do get into a crisis situation, you often have to make hugely politically unpopular decisions. If you just were playing politics, you might not do some of these things, and that's a problem. The question that I don't think we will know until a year or two or maybe even three from now is Kevin Walsh, who I've known, by the way, for many years, who is very, very bright, clearly has gotten this job in part because the president believes that he's going to follow what either the president wants or that currently their thinking is aligned. To lower rates. To lower rates. It'll be very interesting to see whether, A, Kevin Walsh stays in line with the president. I, by the way, think he could be an independent actor, ultimately, because interestingly, once you get this job, the job is yours. It's a little bit like becoming a Supreme Court justice. There are people that the president's appointed that have then, you know, decided against him. So I think it's possible. The other thing is, the Fed is a little bit like the Supreme Court also in that just because you are the chair, in this case, Kevin isn't the one who isn't the only vote. He has to convince all of these other people to do what he wants. And I would imagine in the first six months, it's going to be a challenge to get everybody to back this view. I think that there might be a honeymoon period. Maybe they sort of throw a bone, throw an early bone. But I think there's going to be meaningful disagreements on that board about which way the economy is going and how fast to act. Especially, by the way, if you have a continued war in the Middle East, in Iran, and, you know, we have this jobs issue, we obviously have continued inflation issue. The answers are not so obvious. All right, let's do a quick lightning round before we go. How do you stay in such good shape? I mean, you are doing CNBC, The Times, writing a book. You're at MyFitnessPal. What's the secret? Well, maybe it's ChatGPT now. What I try not to eat too much food after basically 6 or 6:30 because I try to be in bed by like 9 or 9:30. That helps. Well, but I'm also waking up at 4:30, so it's a little complicated. So I think food late at night is the enemy, and I don't drink at all. At all? At all. When was the last time you had a drink? Oh, my goodness. I can't even remember. Maybe a sip of like one of my wife's margarita at Christmastime or something. But like, hardly ever. Otherwise, nothing. Okay. And I'm averse to sun. Sun. Sun. Just sun in general. Yeah, like I wear hats. I'm like always like I just think that's good for the skin, sunscreen lotions. Yeah. Agreed. All right. Thank you. That's a mystery I've been wondering because, I mean, for someone with your output, it's very impressive. All right. Why not wait for the next crash to invest? Why not wait for the... Because the truth is, it could be a while. And, you know, famously, if we go back to 1929, Charlie Merrill, who was the co-founder of Merrill Lynch, famously told everybody to get out of the stock market in 1928. And you would have thought, oh, this guy is really smart. Except the stock market from 1928 to September 1929 went up 90%. So it's possible if you're waiting, you could be waiting four or five years. And then even if it goes down 25%, 30% from there, you've missed it exactly. DealBook is one of the best. What do you think the key is to running a great event? The DealBook Summit? The Summit. I think that the best events are those events that have these sort of memorable moments, that there's like little takeaways that everybody who's watching it is looking and not only seeing, not necessarily seeing the same takeaway, but that they're looking for these little morsels. But you can't... Can you plan for that? Like Elon Musk telling someone to F themselves? I mean, having him... You can't plan for it, but you can in a way. I mean, I do think that I spend an extraordinary amount of time, oftentimes 20, 30 hours prepping for each of those interviews. I mean, it's a wild situation the month or two beforehand. I really basically do practically nothing except that. And you can't control an interviewee, but I think if you have lots of different places that you can go and places you can move the conversation around to, you can create opportunity. Why doesn't Jeff Bezos speak more often? I mean, he was at DealBook Summit. He was at DealBook two years ago. Yeah. I feel like every time he speaks, it's a very worthwhile conversation, but he doesn't talk. I completely agree with you. I think he's fascinating. I think he's got some very fascinating views. And not just that, I think he's obviously in the middle of everything between Amazon, what Blue Origin is doing, obviously the Washington Post. You know, one thing that he said during that interview, which I do think maybe explains why you don't hear as much from him, is I asked him what he feels misunderstood about. Right. And he said that he gave up a long time ago on being understood. He said it was hard enough to be understood by your family, let alone the idea that you were ever going to get the public to really understand you. That might be your answer. That could be it. SpaceX IPO, obviously the biggest of all time. Do you think it outpaces OpenAI's? Oh, I imagine it does. I mean, we're talking, I think the number is now $1.75 trillion with a T. I think right now OpenAI doesn't start with a T yet, but maybe it will. It could, it could, but I don't think it's coming in on two Ts yet. Not yet. Do you think there's going to be enough money to fund all these IPOs? If you think about SpaceX, OpenAI, Anthropic going out within a year and a half of each other. I think the big question is, you know, we're talking about these extraordinary valuations, but we need to really see how much each of these companies plans to raise because it's not that they're raising $1.75 trillion. They could very well raise a billion dollars and still have that kind of valuation. So I think we're going to have to really dig into what these filings look like when they come out. I imagine they're going to want to raise a lot of money. I imagine they're all going to want to raise a lot of money. And that's why I think there is such a race to go first, because I think it gets to both the question and I think almost implied answer, which is, you know, if SpaceX goes in, call it June, and they take a big chunk of money out of the market, if you will, then whoever comes next may have a little bit less, you know, smaller bite. And whoever comes after that probably has a smaller bite after that. What do you think of these new leaders, Dario Amadei, Sam Altman? They're less careful than the rest, it seems. You know, I find them fascinating. They are real founders. Yes. And I think one of the things that we've all become accustomed to in recent years is a lot of companies are no longer run by the founders. They're run by managers and operators. And I think when you are a founder, you have this license and authority to sort of really either make decisions or, and not just make decisions, but say things sometimes that are unpopular. I mean, I, by the way, I give great credit to Dario in this whole wild fight he's having with the Pentagon for just how outspoken he's been at a time, frankly, when most CEOs in America, you know, are hiding under the table right now. Yeah, I think lack of care, like being less careful, that's a compliment for me. Yeah. I think that they speak in a real 10 to 1. And so when the market fell 50%, nobody could hold on long enough to get back to even negative 17%. They'd sell their home, mortgage their house, lose their job, all the things. I think that's harder to do today, in part because individuals don't have that much leverage in the system. So I'd like to think not. And I also think we have this extraordinary playbook, which we now know works to some degree. But I think when you layer on AI and technology and the current state of national debt, it could all get complicated pretty quick. All right. The book is 1929. Andrew Ross Sorkin, thanks so much for joining us. Thank you for having me. All right, everybody. Thank you for being here. We'll see you next time on Big Technology Podcast.