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

So there are five scenarios in which the war could end. Because Trump is stupid enough to take on what Israel wanted to do, which was destroy Iran, but they've bitten off far more than they can chew. So scenario one is Iran destroys the Gulf power infrastructure. I think that's highly likely.

And if that happens, then Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Dubai, they'll become uninhabitable. And then scenario two, Iran disables Israel's nukes. I hope that happens, but there's this one. And it scares the shit out of me.

Professor Steve, I have so many questions. What is going on?

So this war is threatening everybody on the planet. And what Trump is doing at the moment is a pump and dump scheme. He's trying to drive up the oil price and exploiting it for his friends and for his own wealth in the process. So people are focusing upon the price of this. But the really important point is this, the Strait of Hormuz. So oil, fertilizer, helium all have to pass through the Strait of Hormuz.

And Iran have blocked that gap.

So they can say you do or do not pass, depending on your country's attitude towards our country. And that's quite terrifying because 20 to 30 percent of our fertilizer comes through this point. But if this is not available, the globe has a famine. Do you think he will send ground troops in? Yes, I do. But I'd hate to be one of those troops because it's a suicide mission. They've got underground military units of weapons and troops, but we have no idea of the scale.

Trump keeps saying that the war has been won.

Yeah.

What's going on there in your view?

I think he's been fed propaganda to tell him that he's winning the war by his immediate advisors because you cannot tell a person like that that they've made a mistake.

We'll talk about that as well. But you've developed a bit of a reputation because you're very good at predicting things. So which of these five outcomes do you think is most probable to happen?

Oh God.

This is super interesting to me. My team give me this report to show me how many of you that watch the show subscribe and some of you have told us according to this that you are unsubscribed from the channel randomly. So favour to ask all of you, please could you check right now if you've hit the subscribe button if you are a regular viewer of the show and you like what we do here. We're approaching quite a significant landmark on this show in terms of a subscriber number year over year and week over week,

it is just to hit that subscribe button and to double check if you've hit it. Only thing I'll ever ask of you, do we have a deal? If you do it, I'll tell you what I'll do. I'll make sure every single week, every single month, we fight harder and harder and harder and harder

to bring you the guests and conversations I've stayed true to that promise since the very beginning of the Diary of a CEO, and I will not let you down. Please help us, really appreciate it.

Let's get on with the show.

Professor Stephen, who are you? If you had to sort of distill it down to three areas of specialism, what would those be?

History of economic thought, financial instability, so what causes volatility in the economy, and the dynamics of money. And ironically, that makes me a minority in economics because most economists ignore money completely. It's a strange thing to hear. It's ridiculous, but it's true.

We'll talk about that as well today. I really want to focus on what's going on in the world right now because I have so many questions. It's all quite but it's true. We'll talk about that as well today. I really want to focus on what's going on in the world right now, because I have so many questions. It's all quite confusing.

Extremely.

And understanding the layers of motivation that Trump has, Iran have, Israel have, it's a difficult jigsaw puzzle to put together. I guess the question that I keep asking myself is like, what is going on?

You can't get away from the fact that we've basically elected a mafia don to president of the United States. You've got a guy who admires the mafia, who's running the country. So what we're getting in some ways is a shakedown rather than anything driven by any sense of political necessity. So that's a crazy element to begin with. And the American deep state, as it's called, has been anti-Iran for 40 or 50 years.

Israel has wanted to defeat Iran for that length of time. Trump is stupid enough, but also cunning enough, it's a combination of the two, to take on what Israel wanted to do, which was destroy Iran. They're now trying to do it,

and they're finding that they've bitten off far more than they can chew.

Trump is someone who cares a lot about people's opinions of him, and he must have known that this would be politically unpopular to target Iran at this moment in time.

I don't think so. I had a relationship with somebody with narcissistic personality disorder. So that's something over and above what I learned academically when I think about his behavior. And somebody like that,

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

Iran and started this war in part because he wanted attention?

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

I mean, what do you think about his rationale? He's saying that he attacked Iran because they

had nuclear weapons and they were, there was an imminent threat. We still don't know whether Iran has nuclear weapons. We know that Israel has. If you're gonna attack a country, then you should attack Israel, not Iran.

But you can't attack Israel, can you?

I cannot make sense of what politicians all over the planet are doing these days. There's a huge gap between what politicians are saying about global politics and what people in the street are saying about it. So people on the street have seen the Gaza genocide.

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

if I say free Palestine, or I say that outside on the street, I can be arrested. It's crazy. What, there's a huge divorce between what people are thinking and what the politicians are saying. And I can't give any explanation for that divorce apart

from believing that Israel has something over our political

leaders.

What do you mean? You think they have something over our political leaders?

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

when their populace is angry about those same policies. So you get demonstrations here, you know, free Palestine demonstrations, 80 year old female vicars being arrested for saying this sort of stuff. You go back 40 years ago, there was a belief in the public

and a belief amongst politicians that Israel had a right to exist and it was all pro-Israel. And now after 40 years, the type of abuses that have happened in Palestine have hit individual, ordinary people's attitudes to Israel. So ordinary people are saying Israel's the aggressor,

Israel's making the mistakes. But the politicians are all saying it's anti-Semitic to criticise Israel.

If you had to give a one sentence answer as to why this war started, because we sort of hypothesised a few things there. What would that one sentence answer be?

Again, this is trying to make sense of the senseless. I just think Israel wanted to destroy Iran. They thought they could do it, and they thought they had an American president who would help them do it. And they drastically underestimated

how prepared Iran was for that conflict.

Why would Israel want to destroy Iran? What's the context there?

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

they wiped out the invading Arabian armies in six days. They have this past history of being militarily dominant in the area. And they knew that Iran was too big for them to take on on their own. They thought they could get the Americans in there.

And I think they drastically underestimated how prepared Iran was for this situation.

When you say Iran were prepared for this situation, and it somewhat surprised Israel and the US, what is that preparedness you're speaking about?

Well, it's for a start, the fact that Iran witnessed that there were decapitation attacks on other countries in the region going way, way back, not just the last 10 years, but the last 40 or 50 years.

Decapitation attack?

You take off the leader, you kill the leaders, and then the leaders kill, the army's in disarray and you can come in and invade and take over. So getting rid of Saddam Hussein, that sort of thing. Wipe out Saddam Hussein's power base and then the whole system collapses. That was the Iraq story. But the Iranians observed that and they have broken their military into 31 divisions. There are 31 provinces, like 31 states in that sense, inside Iran. Their military is broken into those 31 units. They've got their own fail-safe system running in the background.

They've got their own resources, their own missiles, production systems, all that sort of stuff. So you've got to take up the whole 31 and then they'd have that sub area. So the only way you can beat the country

is by literally bombing it back to the Stone Age.

Which appears to be what they've been trying to do.

Trying to do, but the thing is it's a huge country. I mean, look at the scale of Iran. The maps always distort how large. So that is larger. That's more than half the size of Western Europe. It's got a population of 90 million, about one third or one quarter of the population of Europe, far more than Iraq.

I mean, it looks like it's double the size of the UK, or more. Or more than double.

I mean, you know one thing about the Mercator projection.

No, what's that?

It's that it makes the northern hemispheres twice as large as the southern. And arounds in the northern hemisphere, but not as far north as England. So the distortion gets amplified the further north you go. So it's bigger than France and Germany and Italy and Spain and possibly Poland in terms of area.

And then if you even see just looking on the map itself, you can see the corrugations there versus what you can see for- What's a corrugation? What's representing mountains. There's more mountains inside there. It's a horrendous terrain to fight a war on. I think what Trump is doing at the moment is a pump and dump scheme.

He's trying to drive up the oil price, tell friends beforehand that he's about to make an announcement which will cause the price to fall, and he's just oscillating this way up and down and exploiting it for his friends and for his own wealth in the process.

Do you actually think that's the case?

Yeah, I do.

Because, I mean, this must be hurting- How else can you make sense of this stuff? This must be hurting his friends economically because the stock market's going to take a dip if he's not careful. And his friends are all shareholders in different big companies.

But if you know, like one of Keynes' great lines was that there's no point in buying a stock which you think is going to increase in value over time if you think it's going to slump in the immediate future. So he's making an announcement which causes oil markets to panic so the price goes up. We've given him control of the most powerful country on the planet.

He knows if he make an announcement it moves markets. He has no compunction whatsoever in exploiting that to cause rises and falls in prices and try to exploit them himself and with his friends.

I did see that. I've got the data here on the floor showing those graphs. I generally looked at that and thought, yeah, you know, maybe, but it's also conceivable that Trump is quite a predictable character and he tweets at the same time every day.

And it's also, I think me and you both know that before the markets open on a Monday morning, he's going to want to say something really positive. He has a track record of doing that. So is it conceivable that they knew he was flying because it was tracked that he was gonna be on this plane journey, there's gonna be a press gaggle, we know he's gonna give an interview.

I actually think that was quite predictable. If I was a betting man, I would have gone Sunday night, Monday morning, I would have put a bet

on oil prices coming down, the stock market going up. Yeah, I'd like to give you an example that one of the things he said most recently, he talked about getting a present from Iran. And then he finally lets what the present was and was letting eight ships through the Strait of Hormuz.

Oh, is he now?

Now, those eight ships were not American, they were other allies. I think what he's thinking is that's going to mean the oil market gets calmed down, that means the price is gonna fall. So I can then do another pump and dump.

Let's explain the Strait of Hormuz.

Oh God, yeah, okay.

As if we had to explain it for 16 year olds. Because there's been lots of coverage on it. I think some people have kind of skipped past the importance of the region.

What is the Strait of Hormuz and why does it matter? Well, it's the choke point in the Persian Gulf. To get through, you've got like 21 kilometres. That's an incredibly narrow gap for ships to pass through. And that means that all the countries that pump not just oil, but fertiliser, helium, all these critical elements for the production system, all have to pass through this point. And obviously, that's well within reach of any weapons from Iran. So they can say, you do or do not pass, depending

on whether we approve or don't approve of your country's attitude towards our country.

You said fertiliser, oil and helium?

Yeah, helium.

Where are they coming from?

They're mainly coming from, I think, from mainly from the Saudi Arabian side. The Saudi Arabian, like Iran would have the same things, but Iran will keep those for themselves. But Saudi Arabia is the main source of gases and oils which are refined and as byproducts. We get sulfur dioxide and we get helium. This is the helium? Yeah. Okay. That's a couple of kilos of helium. But helium, it's an element which there's

no substitute. So helium is inert.

What does that mean?

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

I don't think there's any in here.

Oh, what a pity. Okay, what I would have done to give it a try. You got any real helium? Oh, bloody hell, helium balloon.

Okay.

Ha ha ha. alone. Does it change your voice? I don't know, has my voice changed? A bit. I'll give my voice a try. Okay. I've never done this before, but I've heard it at parties. Okay, now I think my voice has changed somewhat from... The fact you can do it. Oh my God. That is a riot.

Where is helium coming from?

It's coming from a gas field. So about 30% of the world's helium comes from a gas field which spans both Saudi Arabia and Iran. If you don't trap helium physically somehow, it'll goes to outer space.

That's the ultimate destination of the stuff. So it's trapped in the same things that trap oil. And then when you drill for oil, you also get helium coming out. And then helium is absolutely critical for the semiconductor industry.

It didn't matter a hundred years ago.

And semiconductors are important for what?

Everything. I mean, you take the semiconductors out of that, you've got a brick. Okay? The processors, the CPUs, the memory chips, they're all made, helium is an essential element to make them.

For our iPhones, our tablets, our devices?

Everything, everything electronic. If you need semiconductors, you need helium. So if you cut off 30% of the world's helium supply, you cut off the capacity to produce 30% of the world's semiconductors.

And Iran have blocked that gap.

And that means that we've suddenly lost 30% of the world's helium.

I've got a quote from March 2026 from leading helium expert, Phil Cornblutch. He said, we're looking at a minimum two to three months shutdown of helium production with up to six months before supply gets back to normal. And he explained you can't stockpile helium because it leaks through containers.

So once supply is cut off, semiconductor production will stop entirely. South Korea gets 65% of its helium from Qatar in that region and makes 2 3rds of the world's memory chips. Their government has launched an emergency investigation into the shortage.

Nobody's talking about this.

I know, and this is one reason it's quite terrifying about the scale of what we're going through. Because people are thinking oil's going to be more expensive. That's the sort of mindset we have. But in fact, critical elements of the production system are being terminated by this conflict. You can't produce chips anymore, and you can't...

Well, Hang on. You can't produce these chips either, because the fertiliser is disappearing.

So, you're holding a potato in your hand. How are potato chips going to be impacted

by the war? Because of fertiliser. If we don't have the fertiliser, we can't grow the potatoes. And it's not just potatoes, it's a whole range of crops. We eat food, okay? We eat this green stuff. It actually starts as brown stuff because the fertilizer is an essential part of growing all the food we eat, and the fertilizer is produced by a process called the Haber-Bosch process which takes petroleum and nitrogen and fixes them in such a way that you can put this on the field and your plants will grow courtesy of the fertilizer.

If we didn't have fertiliser at all, guess how many billion people the planet could actually support? I don't know. Between one and two.

And fertiliser comes from this region?

Again, 20 to 30% of our fertiliser comes from that region.

Through the Strait of Hormuz?

Through the Strait of Hormuz.

Where's it coming from?

It's coming again from the same gas field that's producing the helium produces a side effect of fertilizer. And you need, you know, I'm not a chemist, okay, so I can get these things wrong, but you need sulfuric acid as well as part of these production processes. 20% of the world's fertilizer, helium,

sulfuric acid all pass through that straight. And if you take them away, then you can't make microchips, which is what Korea is suffering from then you can't make microchips, which is what Korea is suffering from. You can't make fertiliser, which everybody will suffer from. If we lost 20% of the world's fertiliser, we'd lose roughly 20% of the world's food. And it'd cause a global famine. We've never had this experience before. We've had localised famines. Countries

like India have had famines in parts of Africa and so on. But if this is not available, the globe has a famine.

And what's the last tank you've got down there? There's one more on the floor.

Oh my God, okay. Hey, that's pretty good. It was accidental, but that's petroleum, okay? A petroleum tank, obviously empty, 20 liters.

So that's oil?

That's oil. Oil, okay. And so if that ... That's what we're losing right now. And people are focusing upon the price of this. But the really important point, and I can bring up one of my own charts here, is the role of energy in production. Because if we don't have energy, we can't produce goods and services. And the link is incredibly tight.

This is looking at change in energy and change in gross world product over the last 40 years.

I'll throw this graph on the screen

for people that are watching.

So what you've got here is the annual percentage change in gross world product and the annual percentage change in gross energy consumption. And they're virtually lockstep and they're the same magnitude.

So when energy goes up, GDP goes up.

And when energy goes down, GDP goes down. Now we're losing about 20% of the world's liquefied natural gas, a substantial proportion of its oil as well. We could see a 5 or 10% fall in energy. We will certainly see a 5 or 10% fall in global gross world product.

So explain that to me. So where is the oil in this region?

Oh, it's everywhere. Okay. I mean, this is one of the accidents of history that the oil is a large part is concentrated here and a large part over here and a bit in Russia.

So over here, for people that can't see, you're pointing at Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and then there's a lot in the United States

and there's a lot in Russia. In Texas and you've got some in Russia as well. And there was a small amount, like the North Sea had a substantial amount of oil as well at one stage. And the type of oil in this region, I hear, is quite important. It's very, I mean, oil, there's no such thing as a homogenous product. What does homogenous mean? Everything is the same everywhere. If you don't get it here, you can substitute for something over here. That's a myth that economists actually, unfortunately, believe. They basically could persuade people to think that everything is homogenous. In fact, oil from Venezuela is almost like tar. Oil from

here blows like water comparatively. You need different processing systems to extract that oil than you need over here. If we lose this, we can't replace it with something from over here. So, once that goes, then the production system of the planet is damaged.

This has been the shocking thing for me as a citizen, has been the fact that a war with one country could decapitate what, 20 to 30% of global production of oil.

Yeah, and food.

That's a vulnerability if I've ever heard one.

I know. And this is like one reason I'm a critic of mainstream economics is they trivialise all this stuff. They don't teach their students how critical this is. So most people are like you, even people who've done a PhD in economics, even worse in that sense than other people, they don't understand how critical and how fragile our production systems are. So people can talk about a war in Iraq and think, oh, that's a war in Iran and that's going to cut off our oil supply. No, it's going to cut off your food supply.

And for the average person listening now, what will they start to experience if this war doesn't immediately end?

Two or three months, India is going to run out of fertiliser and so there'll be a famine in India. Food production on the planet could fall 10, 25%, and therefore there simply won't be enough food for everyone on the planet. And then it's a question of who's gonna starve. Now, you'd think the wealthy countries are gonna be safe.

They'd be like for Australia, my old home country, has about 30 days oil supply. When it runs out, it can't get food from the farm to the city anymore. So Australia is incredibly vulnerable. We're all far more vulnerable than we realise. And this war is threatening everybody on the planet.

I got on an Uber yesterday and I was with a wonderful guy who was actually, weirdly, I sat on the Uber at 2am and I looked up on the screen and he was listening to the Diary of a CEO and then he clocked me in the back of the car so we had a great chat. And he was saying to me, listen, this isn't actually my main job, it's my third job. I do this because of the cost of living.

And it really stayed with me.

Oh, so he's doing three jobs to stay alive, yeah.

Three jobs and he picked me up at 2 a.m. He's got a family. Yes. And you know, I'm going to say something which I probably, I don't say a lot, which came to mind, which is in the position I'm in now, I think it was a real reminder of my own personal privilege that I think is really important for someone like me that doesn't have an interview show, because you've got to be like intellectually honest with yourself or just like honest with yourself generally, that like as someone in my position

who has been fortunate enough to be able to make significant money, I can understand from having that conversation how detached I am.

From the world around you.

Yes, and that's like an uncomfortable thing to say.

You're a very unique soul because you've, I know, I've read a bit of your history, of course, and you've had that terrible period where you were unemployed you know, unemployed and what the hell do I do?

And shoplifting, food and stuff.

And you were ambitious, but you were, okay. If you don't experience poverty, you don't know what it's like.

Yeah, but even if you have.

You can forget it.

You can forget it. But you haven't yet. have those conversations because him saying, I'm working three jobs and this is, and picking me up at 2 a.m. in his Uber, and him telling me he's doing that because of cost of living, because he needs to pay the bills, immediately made me think of,

ahead of this conversation today, like, oh my God, if the prices go up 20% for people. He's out, he can't work 24 hours a day. It's just one of those moments where you go, fuck I know Steve, like man, you need to stay close to the plight of people that are, what do you call it?

The breadline, yeah. And so many people are these days. So many people are. In advanced countries, not just third world countries, but certainly like in America and the UK, there are huge numbers of people

who are basically living from hand to mouth at the current system. So if we have a breakdown, they can't afford it. And in that situation, you can no longer use money as your way of deciding whether you can eat food or not.

I wonder if politicians know this, because part of the reason I say this is because Trump is a very wealthy man, multi-billionaire, reportedly. And if the prices go up 20% at the pump.

He makes profit. I mean, he actually, when he said he said in favour of the rising oil price, will make a lot of money out of it. He's a media association, rising price of something that I'm indirectly selling, that's good. He doesn't say what about people buying it.

The people who buy it can no longer afford it. You've got some food there on the table which shows how these conflicts and the pressure they put on some of these scarce resources can impact our ability to go and buy food. I think you've got two bowls of potatoes.

Well, let's actually make it fairer right now. Let's get the actual distribution correct initially. So you are talking about someone who in your situation, you've got that. Locan Uber's got this. And now you've got that. Loco Nubo's got this. And now you've taken away the oil price.

That's gonna make Trump better off, but he's down to the stage where, you know, he's not too far from that happening. And that's what we've pushed ourselves into with this war.

Do wars typically make inequality worse?

Very good question. I think wars are created when inequality is bad. If you go back to the Great Depression and see what caused World War II, it was largely the collapse of the German economy. When they repaid their debt, their private debt to America, or government, private government debt to America. That led to the rise of Hitler. Everybody thinks Hitler rose because of the Weimar inflation. That's what people normally think. In fact, when Hitler came to power in Germany, the rate of inflation was minus 10% because deflation, prices were falling. Unemployment rose from very low to 25% of the population. In that situation, people supported Hitler. He revived the economy. Happy to talk about how he did that later. But inequality leads to people being willing

to elect demagogues who say, we can save you. And then you get war coming out of it. What happened after the World War II is politicians realised that people had been through the Great Depression, which was horrific, and they'd been through the Great Depression, which was horrific, and they'd been through World War II, which was horrific. And in that period, people in America were talking about either a fascist world or a communist world.

So the Americans realised they had to improve the living standards of the average American substantially to get away from that. And if you look at, you know, in 1950s and 60s, that's what is called the golden age of capitalism. Because at that stage, you could be a single male

supporting a wife and four kids and have a comfortable lifestyle at the time. That was where we started from. So the war itself led to a focus upon equality, a focus upon fairness and getting as much as you can to the poorest in society.

And then we've forgotten that over the last 80 years. And we've now got back to massive inequality once more. So I think inequality causes wars. Wars in the aftermath make people focus on equality, not to allow that horror to happen once more. And then we forget and do the whole damn thing again one of the

Surprising things I learned the other day was that the country that is estimated to have the biggest reserve of oil Is Venezuela? Yep, the third country on this list that is estimated to have the biggest reserve of oil is Iran yeah, yeah now it doesn't take a genius.

Funnily enough...

Two countries have added, yeah. The second country being America?

Well, it says Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia, well that's already an American vassal.

Yeah, that's already basically, they're basically partners with America already. And funnily enough the fourth one is Canada. And if you're listening a lot to Trump's rhetoric, he said he was gonna take Canada and make it the 51st state or something. So it's just, it doesn't feel to me to be a coincidence that the countries that the US are invading and decapitating their leaders are the country that have the biggest oil supplies.

And Trump has already said, you know, immediately, he said, after taking out Maduro in Venezuela, pulling him out of his bed with his wife and flying him back to the US. He already said that the oil's on the way back to America.

Yeah.

One might assume that much of the motivation here with Iran is when they were in negotiations with them, maybe they weren't playing ball with the oil. Maybe they were threatening something with the oil and maybe it's such an economic waste.

Well, maybe most of Trump's friends, if he has them, are oil executives and they can see the benefit for them in controlling global oil. And the one part they can't control is Iran.

But I mean, it's backfired pretty horrifically.

I think one of the great sayings in humanity is, it's looked like a good idea at the time. Then you do it and you realise you've underestimated your opponent. You don't realise how difficult it is. Like you mentioned, you know, you're talking about how being wealthy can make you dissociate from the problems that ordinary people have.

It can also make you dissociate from reality in general. You don't realise how difficult it is to do something you wanna have done. So all these oil executives and people that Trump socialises with could have thought, take out Iran,

America dominates the global oil thing, and people that Trump socialises with, could have thought, take out Iran,

America dominates the global oil thing, we're all gonna be rich, okay? But they don't realise that Iran's been aware of this possibility for 40 years, and they're prepared, they're far better prepared than the Americans and the Israelis thought.

So you've got five scenarios laid out on these cards in front of you here that you think could happen next. I'm gonna ask you to explain to me what the five scenarios are, and then tell me which one you think

is most likely to occur.

So scenario one, which is the one that I think Trump is, I think Israel wants this one, Iran is destroyed, okay? If that happens, we're all gone, because to destroy Iran, you're gonna have to use nuclear weapons. Okay, you can't destroy it without obliterating it as nuclear weapons can do.

And that's the scariest. I don't think it's gonna happen. My main hope here is that Iran realizes that possibility and they've got a way to neutralize not America's nuclear weapons, but Israel's.

You think it's a possibility?

It's a possibility and it's what scares the shit out of me because if this happens, then we're all dead. Obviously a nuclear bomb doesn't just blow up an individual target, everything within reach gets exploded into the atmosphere. That's what led people to realise that you couldn't have a nuclear war back in the days when we had

mutually assured destruction as the policy. If you attack a country, then you will also die.

But can't they use narrow nuclear weapons? Is that not a thing?

Well...

Smaller nuclear weapons?

Well, again, if the country is smaller, you're talking about destroying Europe. The weapons you'd need to make sure you got every last potential element of Iran neutralised. You're talking about bombing something which is virtually the size of Western Europe.

The amount of weapons you've got to drop to do that. And you've got to, if you don't get it right, then they're going to come at you with what they've got left.

The world has dropped nuclear weapons before and people survive. Other neighbouring countries survived.

Only twice and only small weapons. The weapons we're talking about in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they're about equivalent to 20,000 tonnes of TNT. We're now talking weapons with a 20 million tonnes of TNT, the biggest nuclear weapons. And if you wanted to hit a country the size of Iran, and know you've neutralised it, so you destroy the whole thing, you're talking hundreds of those weapons. If you had to give a percentage probability of that outcome occurring,

would it be less than 1%? If we didn't have a madman in Washington, yes, it'd be less than 1%. We didn't have madmen in Israel, less than 1%. I think probably 5%.

5% probability that-

That's a possibility. I mean, again, this is trying to make sense of the senseless. Okay. But I'd put it at about less than 10%, but still scary as a possibility. If we end up there, we're all gone.

I mean, I know very little about all these things, so that's the disclaimer. I'd say that I don't think Israel would intentionally wipe out the rest of the world or cause a nuclear winter, because that would obviously impact them as well, but I am quite scared of the President's setting. And what I mean by that is, if we establish it being okay to drop nuclear weapons on people you don't like, the sort of domino effect of that for people in Ukraine and other parts of the world where there's conflict might then lead to mutually assured destruction.

Yeah, it's the last possibility you want to have happen. The fact that it's even possible to contemplate it is a terrifying prospect. Let us hope. Yeah. So, scenario two is Iran destroys the Gulf power infrastructure. I think that's highly likely.

Iran destroys Gulf power infrastructure. What does that mean?

What it means is that Iran, all the Gulf states have got their own power systems, mainly based on burning oil for obvious reasons. If you take out their power systems, then those countries become uninhabitable.

Is that what's happening already? Because I know Iran have attacked a few sort of power facilities in the region.

There've been a couple, well there was one attack on a Saudi Arabian power systems, and that took out two of the 14 units that are critical for creating liquefied natural gas. And apparently it'll take five years to rebuild them. And there are only five companies on the planet that can actually do that rebuilding. One quarter of the world's liquid natural gas comes through the Strait

of Hormuz. One tenth of that has been destroyed. So like two and a half percent of the world's energy supply is gone for the next five years until those are rebuilt. If Iran destroys the Gulf power infrastructure, then Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Dubai, they'll become uninhabitable.

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

Oh yeah, I mean, the pressure coming back from the Arabian states on America, I imagine is quite immense right now, saying don't do it. It's quite possible Israel could do it. They could attack Iran,

and then Iran does a retribution attack. Trump, if you would have seen his tweet this morning, I think he's put it off to April the 6th before he says he starts attacking power infrastructure. If he attacks power infrastructure in Iran, Iran has said we will attack power infrastructure in the Gulf states. So we've got to, you know, what, eight days. I think he's bluffing. I hope he's bluffing. But if he does do the attack, then Iran will respond by destroying either an equivalent component of the Gulf States or the whole infrastructure.

I don't think people quite realise how costly it is for regions like Dubai when Iran attack them. I was looking at some of the data, and according to current estimates and a historical risk assessments by Dubai officials, they lose a million per minute,

which is 60 million per hour, or 1.4 billion a day, when there's an unplanned emergency shutdown just of their airport.

Their airports, let alone their power systems, yeah.

As we probably saw on the news, Iran had flown, it seemed like a couple of drones into Dubai's airport, which meant that it had to shut down. If they're losing a billion a day because that airport is closed, I think it's the biggest airport in the world.

It is economic pressure for Dubai, which will then trickle down to Trump and sort of force his hand. So they've got a clear incentive to cause chaos.

Yeah, and that's partly what Iran is saying. It's like a game of bluff. You don't want to do this bluff. If that bluff happens, then the Saudi Arabian peninsula becomes uninhabitable. And therefore, all the... I mean, if people are forced out of there,

most of the residents in those countries are not Saudis. They're third world workers from India and Pakistan and the Philippines and so on. They're being paid lousy wages to work on all these systems. If they leave because the power's not there to support them anymore, they try to leave,

then we lose the entire energy contribution that that region makes to the global economy,

and we're screwed. And that figure I cited includes not just lost airport revenue, but then the immediate impact on airlines' cargo logistics and the missed opportunity cost of thousands of high value business travellers attending the region. Dubai's GDP is roughly 30% dependent on the aviation and tourism sectors. So when

the airport closes, it impacts tourism, hospitality, real estate investing, global supply chains and everything. So it's quite remarkable, specifically with Dubai. Because Dubai, I think Dubai is a lovely place. I've been multiple times, I love going there. But it felt really safe. And so a lot of people-

No, it's not safe.

It's not safe.

Yeah.

Yeah, a lot of people had chosen to uproot their lives and move there. And you'd almost kind of forgotten you were in the Middle East to some degree. Yeah, yeah. But I think this is going to be a pretty traumatic reminder for a lot of people there. How fragile this area is.

And that's the lesson we're learning. It's the fragility of the society we take for granted.

So that was scenario number two.

Okay, scenario three. That's the one that really scares me because that is the Samson Doctrine. You know the story of Samson? No. Okay. Samson is an enormously strong individual who's strong because of his hair.

And then he gets conned. This is an ancient story from the Bible. And the woman who's conned him shaves his hair so he's weakened. And then they put him in a temple where he's standing between two pillars and his hair is gone. He's bald. He can't do a thing. They forget the fact that his hair is starting to grow. His hair gets to the stage where he's now got his strength back.

He pushes those pillars and the whole thing collapses and everybody dies. That's the Samson doctrine and that involves Israel's nuclear weapons. If they realize that they are going to lose this war and it becomes existential for them,

then one of the things they have claimed that they do is unleash destruction on the rest of the world, like Samson pushing the towers and the whole thing

comes collapsing down. This is, I mean, going back to the situation with Iran and Israel, one of the things I was thinking a lot about from some commentary that I'd seen is Israel really have a motive to get rid of Iran because Iran have repeatedly threatened Israel?

It's also because, I mean, Israel's trying to get rid of the Palestinians. And in that sense, Iran has been probably the major bulk when supporting the Palestinians to say, let the Palestinians survive,

let the Palestinian people continue existing. And the Israelis have been pushing and pushing and pushing the Palestinians out. You know, it's a hornet's nest. We're pervert to hornet's nest. Iran is responding right now,

I think in a very judicious way. But if the Israelis realise they're facing an existential defeat, that scenario, it would again mean civilisation potentially gets destroyed.

And just looking at some of the things that Iran have said about Israel, historically, the Supreme Leader of Iran stated in 2015 that Israel would not see the next 25 years. Other officials said things like the end is near. And in March, 2026, Iran's tone shifted

from ideological to purely retaliatory with the Speaker of the Iranian Parliament, Mohammad, stating that Iran has officially declared that it considers all Israel energy, water, and IT infrastructure legitimate targets for irreversible destruction with zero restraint.

If we think about this from a psychology perspective, you've got two neighbors. They're both either implying implicitly or explicitly that they want to wipe the other one out. Trump is sort of this third party in the arrangement who's not in the region so he might be a little bit safer. Those two parties that are against each other, one of them has nuclear weapons and the

other appears to be trying to make one. The neighbor that is Israel, presumably, cannot let that happen. Because if it gets to a point where they both have nuclear weapons and they both want to wipe each other out, I think-

No, I actually think that in the old days of mutually assured destruction, we're a more stable time than what we're in now. Because if you realize that if you attack, you also die,

you don't attack. But what if you think of death as being a better thing than life? You have to have a society

continuing after you die. If you're going to be a martyr, there has to be people who are going to mourn your death. If you believe being a martyr means everybody else also dies, then you don't do it. So do you think if Iran had nuclear weapons, it would be a safer world? I think it'd be safer because it would tell the Israelis stop attacking your neighbours.

I sat with a few nuclear experts and one of the things that was shocking that I learned is if the United States wanted to launch a nuclear weapon today, it is one person's decision. I heard that and that's what Trump can actually just make that decision. He can make the decision on his own. He doesn't need to consult Congress or anybody else. He has someone who walks around with a briefcase that has the nuclear codes in. Yeah, it's the footballs I call it. Yeah, yeah. And when I think about the same in this region, actually you don't need a whole state to decide that they don't like

their neighbor. All you need is one supreme leader or Netanyahu, to say, do you know what, I'm near the end of my life, and these people have really pissed me off.

Yeah, that's right. And that's, I mean, I thought there was at least some control, I saw that segment.

With Annie Jacobson, yeah.

I thought there was at least some control, he had to consult someone. But if, well, they had to have circumstances were justified not consulting someone. If he's got that right, then it comes down to what's the behavior of the person who carries the nuclear football. Does he let Trump get hold of it? And like there was another incident way, way back, I think in the 70s or 80s, that the Russian

early warning system reported that there was a nuclear attack on the way to Russia. And there was one submarine commander or one element of the submarine command system, and they had to have three people in the submarine who agreed to launch an attack, and this particular person refused. Now, if that hadn't happened,

if he'd agree with the other two, there would have been a nuclear war at that stage, and it wasn't real, it was a false alarm from the system. So, even the Russian submarine had three people who had to make that decision. So, we didn't have a nuclear war. Now, we've got one maniac in this White House who could do it.

Mason I'll play Annie Jacobson's clip now, where she talks about the idea of sole authority, which I think is an important thing for people to understand. Because when we think about who we're electing to lead our nuclear capable countries, you have to think about who you want to give sole authority to.

The United States president has sole presidential authority to launch a nuclear war.

What does that mean?

It's exactly like it sounds. What's so interesting is a lot of this stuff, this nomenclature that gets thrown at you, if you just break it down, it's sole, solo, presidential, he's the POTUS, authority. He doesn't have to ask anyone for permission. Not the SEC staff, not the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, not the Congress. I love the worried look on your face in this moment because it is, once you know that, you say, well, first you might Google, is it really true?

And you will get, for example, on Reddit, like, that's not really true. You'll get like hundreds of thousands of people, you know, coming in with their opinions about how that's not really true. Well, it is really true. It's absolutely true. And in fact, during the former President Trump administration, Congress became so sort of, I want to say motivated or alarmed

by this issue, meaning they were being asked questions by the powers that be. Is this actually true that they released a report stating specifically, and I quote it in the book, yes it is true. As commander in chief, the president has this sole authority,

he doesn't need to ask anyone. So what is scenario four in your envelopes there?

Iran disables Israel's nukes. Nobody can know, but I do believe that Iran has not developed

nuclear weapons. So you're hoping Iran disables Israel's nuclear weapons?

Yeah, I am.

I hope that happens, because that takes out the nuclear option. We won't see nuclear war as a result of this if the only nuclear weapons that we know exist in the Middle East are destroyed.

But if Iran starts disabling Israel's nukes and attacking Israel, that effectively,

there's going to be an even bigger problem. Well, not if we're talking conventional weapons. If it's conventional weapons and ground troops, then you don't end up with a nuclear winter and the death of everybody on the planet.

Wait, so you're saying you hope Iran invades Israel and takes out their nuclear weapons?

No, that's not necessarily invasion. It could be the missiles they've got left. Again, we don't know how capable their missiles are. The level of planning that Iran has done in this war, I had no idea of the fact they had those 31 regions, for example, until the war began. My special is economics, not global military politics. But once I learned that I thought, they have really thought this through. They have war-gamed what happens if they get attacked by America, and they've war-gamed it comprehensively. Now I hope they've also war-gamed if we start defeating Israel and Israel realises they're

going to be wiped out, then the possibility for the Samson Doctrine comes in. We have to disable that before it happens.

How could they possibly… they don't have a functioning military left in any sort of typical sense, do sense. In Iran? They don't have ships left, they don't have planes left.

They don't have ships, they don't have planes, but they have got missiles. And we don't know how many missiles they've got, we don't know where the missiles are. Certainly the Americans would have some intelligence, I think the word's gotta be used

with inverted commas these days, over where they are located in Iran. But if you listen to the Iranians talking about it, they say they've got hundreds of these facilities buried hundreds of meters below the ground. If the weapons they've developed, the advanced rocketry they've developed, they can evade Israel's iron dome. Maybe they can also get into and destroy

Israel's relaunch capabilities. And if that happens, I think that'd be the best possible outcome. Because we have a rogue state in the Middle East which has nuclear weapons, which will neither admit that it has or won't sign it. They're not part of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. They won't sign that treaty. We should never have allowed that to happen. And if Iran gets rid of them, I think the world's a safer place.

Israel are just gonna make more nuclear weapons. They have the resources.

You need a hell of a lot of technology and a hell of a lot of intelligent people to do that. They have it. You already lost the war.

How could Israel lose the war?

You've got a population of 90 million in Iran and a population of less than 10 million in Israel.

But they've got, it's a sort of technological gulf.

It's not as big as we thought it was. We're only realising now the level of technology that Iran has. I mean, the things which Iran are doing in this war so far have surprised everybody who hasn't got the background of intelligence to tell them what's going on.

It's an educated, sophisticated culture, far more so than the curriculature we've got from the West has been about it in the past. So they-

They don't have nearly the same level of resources and technology and I would say maybe sort of sophisticated, yeah, advanced systems from a war perspective that Israel do?

We think, we don't know, we're assuming again.

Even the intelligence services, even their planes and their missiles and their defence systems are profoundly more advanced than Iran's.

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

I think that's in part because of what you said, because they've prepared for decapitation. If I was the supreme leader of Iran, yeah, that's the sort of approach I would have taken, which is, you take me out, and actually you've got a bigger problem, because now you've got to negotiate with 41 or 31 different sort of sub-militaries and that's an impossible task.

Yeah, yeah. And that's the Iranians were aware of that. And they've got a huge army, they've got, they can conscript far more people than Israel has. It's, to me, if it gets down to a conventional military, then it's possible that Israel could lose that as well.

On March 21, Trump threatened to obliterate Iran's power plants if they did not fully reopen the Strait of Hormuz within 48 hours. He then came out and said that he was pausing that because Iran were negotiating. And he says he thinks he's negotiating

with the right person. As of yesterday, Trump has announced a 10-day pause until April 6th on destroying energy plants, claiming that indirect talks are going very well and that Iran is begging to make a deal, according to The Guardian. So, what's going on there in your view?

I think he's gaming the markets. I really think he's using it to cause the oil price to go up and down and gaming at either side and somebody in his circle, people are making a fortune. You really think that's the case? Yeah, I do.

I mean… Because there's lots of ways to make money that don't involve crashing the global economy, losing the midterms.

Yeah, you'd think of that. You've got ethics, you've got empathy, you've got morals. Trump has none of those things.

Do you not think it's just, again, if we look at Trump's pattern of behaviour over time, even with the tariffs, the same pattern of behaviour occurred there, where he would come out and say, every leader is calling me, they can't stop calling me, they all want to make on you 10% wait no I'm not pause call me yeah yeah it's the same pattern of behavior it's you you make a threat system yeah you then blackmail the person to try and negotiate with you yeah when they don't you hit them with the thing hard and eventually in the end of the day you don't really do any of the stuff you threaten to do because you've sort of manipulated a person into getting your way it's the same pattern of behavior we going to smash you if you don't call me.

They do or don't call. He announces to the world that they caught. They're begging. Look, it says here, they're begging me for a deal. I'm going to give them 10 more days. To me, it sounds like he's trying to build

his golden bridge to get the fuck out of there.

What he's imagining is he would react to these things. He's obviously projecting his own behaviour onto the system, and it's projection rather than understanding. So if you decapitate, if you took out Trump, the fear of being assassinated,

yes, I'll bargain what you want me to do. He thinks that works in Iran, it doesn't.

You can look at his behaviour and sort of understand what he wants. He wants to win this war. And he wants, you know, he wants to win the war and get out of there because that's what he's been saying. We've won, we've won, we've won, every day, we've won. More missiles go in, we've won. So that's clearly what he wants to happen. The problem is winning

here doesn't seem like a straightforward thing. So it's my opinion now that they are a little bit stuck. Because if you leave now, you lose. Iran start firing at Israel, Israel don't stop even though you tell them to. They start firing at each other, the whole thing blows up, or they keep the Strait of Hormuz closed,

oil prices go up, it looks terrible, terrible, terrible for Trump. He might find himself in a Bush situation where his legacy, and I think that's such an important word for a man that can't be elected for a third term, his legacy is tarnished in the same way

that Bush's legacy was tarnished by going to war in the Middle East. I think his greatest fear, Trump's greatest fear, you'd think back through all of these moments over the last couple of years where he talked about the Nobel Prize. I think he's trying to put himself on the Mount Rushmore of presidents in history's mind.

And I think how this situation plays out now, the sole thing he's thinking about is his legacy. And right now, being stuck in a war and contemplating putting ground troops in is arguably the worst thing for one's legacy. Americans dead.

Yeah, and lots of Americans dead.

These wars are like, you think about Vietnam, these wars are never really won.

No, well, they did, America hasn't won a war since World War II. And even World War II was won by the Russians more so than the Americans. So we have this picture of America as being this invincible military power,

but it lost in Vietnam, it lost in Iraq, it lost in Vietnam, it lost in Iraq, it lost in Afghanistan. America's failed in all of these. This is another American failure, but on a scale far beyond what happened in Afghanistan and Vietnam. Do you think he will send ground troops in? Yes, I do. And like I've seen people talking about where the troops might land, and the only part of the deck and land is right towards this edge here with Pakistan, where they might land to between two and 10,000 troops.

I'd hate to be one of those troops because it's a suicide mission. Again, with those 31 provinces, the separated military commands they've got, the weapons they've got hidden underground, the troops themselves.

So if you know that there are Americans landing and you're Iranian soldier, you are going to attack them like nobody's business and not be afraid of your own death because you do think if you get martyred it's the remaining people that you are defending, there will be people who recognise you as a martyr. It's horrific.

If you had to give a percentage probability of them putting ground troops in?

I'd say more than 50%. We're going to find out in the next couple of weeks.

Much of the reason most people haven't posted content or built their personal brand is because it's hard and it's time consuming and we're all very, very busy. And if you've never posted something before, there's so many factors in your psychology that stop you wanting to post.

What people will think of you. Am I doing this right? Is the thing I'm saying absolutely stupid. All of these result in paralysis, which means you don't post and your feed goes bare. I'm an investor in a company called Stan Store, which you've probably heard me talk about.

And what they've been building is this new tool called Stanley that uses AI, looks at your feed, looks at your tone of voice, looks at your history, looks at your best performing posts and tells you what you should post, makes those posts for you. You can also just use it for inspiration. And sometimes what we need when we're thinking

about doing a post for our social media channels is inspiration. Building an audience has fundamentally changed my life. And I think it could change yours too. So I'm inviting you to give this new tool a shot and let me know what you think.

All you have to do is search coach.stan.store now to get started. This company that I've just invested in is growing like crazy. I wanna be the one to tell you about it because I think it's gonna create

such a huge productivity advantage for you. WhisperFlow is an app that you can get on your computer and on your phone, on all your devices, and it allows you to speak to your technology. So instead of me writing out an email, and I can just speak the email into existence. And it uses AI to clean up what I was saying. And then when I'm done, I just hit this one button here

and the whole email is written for me. And it's saving me so much time in a day because Whisper learns how I write. So on WhatsApp, it knows how I am a little bit more casual. On email, a little bit more professional. And also there's this really interesting thing

they've just done. I can create little phrases to automatically do the work for me. I can just say Jack's LinkedIn, and it copies Jack's LinkedIn profile for me because it knows who Jack is in my life. This is saving me a huge amount of time. This company is growing like absolute crazy.

And this is why I invested in the business and why they're now a sponsor of this show. And WhisperFlow is frankly becoming the worst kept secret in business productivity and entrepreneurship. Check it out now at whisperflow.ai. It will be a game changer for you. What is the best case scenario?

The Americans have to realise they've lost. They're not going to negotiate the terms of reparation and what Iran has proposed, when you look at Iran's terms, they're extremely reasonable. They're saying America leaves the whole Asia, and America no longer comes back in this region. No military bases, no agreements. This becomes Iranian protectorate,

that becomes an Arabian empire, or not Arabian, Iranian empire, because they're not Arabs, they're Persians. So this becomes like a Muslim part of the world. That's, you can actually take the whole region out to here. It's all Muslim.

And what's been happening, and this is part of the weird religious elements here, you've got the Sunni sect and the Shiite sect, which is a bit like the Protestants versus the Catholics. Go back 500 years, and what we're seeing here is like the hundred years war that occurred in Europe

back in the days when it was Protestant versus Catholic was a serious thing. So we're seeing a religious war being fought here and the Sunni majority, about 90% of Muslims are Sunni, they have focused on their rival with the Shiites. And so what they've done is they've sided with this mob to enable- The United States.

The States. So they've sided with the Christians to strengthen- The United States. The States to side. So they've sided with the Christians to strengthen their own Muslim sect, which is the Sunni sect against the Shiite sect, which is Iran is predominantly Shiite. Now what's happening here is as soon as the war started,

America, the reason the Arabs agreed to bases here, military bases, is they thought it would protect them from Iran. As soon as the war starts, those bases are obliterated, the Americans leave, and they realise that hasn't worked at all. So the deal the Sunnis made to side with the Christians

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

Don't cooperate with the United States and West of Wales.

And I think that's what's gonna happen.

You think that's gonna happen?

I hope so, because that at least gives us something which is relatively stable. This becomes a region that is Muslim dominated. When you're saying this, you mean the Middle East? I mean, the whole Middle East, Saudi Arabia around Iraq, Pakistan as well, because it's a Muslim country, Afghanistan, this region becomes Muslim dominated,

Shiites and Sunnis start to, I mean, the whole idea of Catholics fighting Protestants, that's completely dissipated. There's no level in the West anymore of large scale military type animosity between Catholics and Protestants. That's what's happening over here. The conflicts, those religious conflicts within the Christians

disappeared largely speaking. They're still happening within the Muslim religion. This

could persuade them that that's got to end. So we've got one more scenario, scenario five. Iran develops nuclear weapons. I'd rather This could persuade them that that's got to end. So we've got one more scenario scenario five Iran develops nuclear weapons. I'd rather for happen than five which of these five outcomes Do you think is most probable to happen? I?

Think the most likely outcome is Iran disables Israel's nuclear weapons because Iran has been so prepared for this conflict in a way that America has not, in a way that Israel was not. I hope they're also prepared for the eventuality of having to neutralise Israel's nuclear weapons. You think the highest probability is

Iran disabling Israel's nukes? Yeah, I hope I'm right. I mean,

if Iran gets destroyed, then this leads not to Iran developing nuclear weapons, but every potential rival for America on the Iran developing nuclear weapons, but every potential rival for America on the planet developing nuclear weapons. We go into a nuclear war dominated world.

Do you not think it's more likely that Trump is going to find himself a golden bridge to get out of this situation? He's going to call Netanyahu in Israel and say, stand down, please. I'm going to announce that we've won this war. I'm going to announce that we've done a deal. It's all over.

Well, without doubt, whatever happens, Trump is gonna say he won. Okay, that's again, the narcissistic personality disorder thing. He simply couldn't bring himself to stand on a stage and say, I lost.

I mean, think about the biggest insult that Trump ever made in his apprenticeship show. You're a loser, okay? Being a loser is the absolute worst possible thing than anybody can be in his mind. If he has to say, I'm a loser, then his life is over in that sense.

His self image is over. So whatever deal comes out, he's gonna say he won.

For the average person that's listening now, when they hear all this conflict going on in the world, from an economic perspective, is there anything they can be doing to protect themselves against some of these downstream consequences?

I think one thing is people, we've now got to the stage where you can buy your own solar systems for your house. You need something which means you're not dependent upon oil anymore. I think we've trivialised the dangers of climate change for the last half century. We've done very little about it to reverse it. This is telling people that if you're reliant upon oil, you've got a fragile existence. Even if it costs you more to build solar,

you've got to build solar as your own alternative energy system. Because without energy, there's no civilisation. And that's what we're learning the hard way from this conflict. So I think individual responses is going to be get some way to have your own power source. And for most people, that means having a solar.

One man that has done a lot for both solar and sustainable energy is Elon Musk.

He has. He's also helped get bloody Trump elected. So I think you've got to score that against him as well. But yeah, his work on solo and power and rocketry, I've absolutely admired that. And I see that as a critical positive contribution. But getting Trump elected, he played a major role in that. He should learn from that mistake and get the fuck out of politics.

He has backed off politics now, which is... I think he's realised how poisonous it is. Yeah, it sounds like he's realised you can't really change the beast. No.

He tried. Yeah. He should stick with the area where he's mature, which is what he does with energy systems and what he does with rocketry. He's really, I mean, in terms of legacy, he's tainted his legacy by getting involved in politics.

Go back to engineering. So you say that you think people should invest in solar for their homes to get their own energy sources so they're a little bit insulated from these sort of macroeconomics. Is there anything else they should be thinking about? You know, the average person, the cost of living crisis,

what happens next? What should they be doing now?

The thing that I'm most worried about, this is the your own food. I've never done it. I've got brown thumbs, not green ones. But I think if you can have any way to produce your own food, you've got a bit of insulation

against what's happening at the global level. The lesson that comes out of this is self-sufficiency. If we don't have self-sufficiency, then these sorts of global chaotic things can destroy you completely, with you having no recompense. If you have some degree of self-sufficiency, you can survive.

And how does one create self-sufficiency? Growing your own food is quite expensive and

slow, isn't it?

Yeah, extremely. So, how does one develop self-sufficiency in these sort of economic climates? Is it

saving money, or is it... I think it's having your own physical resources close to you that enable you to... Money doesn't matter if you can't buy the product in the first instance. The product doesn't exist anymore. So one thing that happened during World War II is a large amount of food was grown in the UK by people turning their gardens into market gardens.

I've heard you make a few predictions about the future of the economic markets. You know, you're famous for predicting 2008 and the financial crash that occurred then. I've heard you saying that you think because of AI, there's gonna be another financial crash around the corner within one or two years.

Yeah, what's happening with AI is a classic economic boom and bust cycle overlaid on the fact that AI can also eliminate a huge amount of employment, which we've never seen that possibility in the past on that scale. But a common pattern in capitalism is that

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

Joseph Schumpeter was the person who best described that, that Austrian economist from the early 20th century. So he said, you'll get the banks will finance a new investment area, that investment produces a new technology which causes a boom while you're building the technology.

But when the technology comes online, it undercuts existing businesses and causes a slump. So that boom and slump cycle, and AI is a natural example of that. And what you get is massive overinvestment in the first instance,

because everybody who invests in AI has the ambition of being the only AI provider on the planet. Therefore you get too many companies investing, there's too much money going into it. That's what causes a boom. But then when the technology comes online, because it undercuts existing technologies, you have

a slump. And when you look at the investment taking place at the moment, the big tech companies, Meta, Amazon, Microsoft, Alphabet, Google, Oracle, is on track to spend $720 billion on AI infrastructure in 2026 alone, which is less than 20% of the revenue that they're making.

We are seeing a 5 to 1 ratio of money being spent versus money coming in, which is historically unsustainable.

Yeah, and I think that's true. There has to be a slump coming out of this. And in a sense, that's part of the natural cyclical behaviour of capitalism. Because if you want to make a profit, you've got to bring in technology that undercuts everybody you're currently rivals with. So that's the railways are a classic example there. You had to get around by carriage instead. You undermine the carriage companies by bringing in the railways. But the ultimate benefit is society benefits because now you've got the railways for transportation. So that's

the same sort of thing that AI is doing this time around. But 90% of those companies are going to fail. I mean, this is kind of what we're seeing

already. So the failure rate of AI-specific startups has hit 90% in 2026.

Wow.

That's luck.

Yeah, you predicted that one correctly. Significantly higher than the 70% average for general technology. Roughly 95% of enterprise AI pilots fail to move into production when they incur massive costs. The other thing I think a lot about is a lot of startups

now are raising a lot of money at crazy, crazy valuations. I can think of one particular startup I know, they're making like a couple of million dollars a year. They've raised at a billion dollar valuation. And because they've got the word AI on them. And the thing is, because everyone's so such in a frenzy at the moment about AI,

they're probably gonna raise it at two billion valuation six months from now. When you think about what's going on there, someone somewhere is putting their money in. And they're going to lose it all. And they're going to lose it all. And when everybody starts losing all their money very, very quickly, you see this contraction.

Yeah.

Where everybody realizes that their paper gains, the gains they thought they had on paper because of valuation went up, have just evaporated. And when you see that, you have to quickly count your pennies. Yeah. and get frugal. And pull back in again. Pull back in again. Lay people off and so on and so forth. So I actually do personally believe

that we're probably within 24 months of a pretty severe contraction and that won't just impact these tech oligarchs, it'll impact all of us in different ways.

Yeah, it's a Berman bus cycle. I mean, the only thing which we've experienced in our own lives, which is similar, would be the telecommunications bubble and then the internet bubble between 1990 and 2001, 2002. We don't get bubbles in the internet anymore because that's now a stable technology in that sense. But it wasn't a big one. This is much bigger.

What do we do as entrepreneurs, as team members and companies, what do we do at this moment if what you're saying is correct, that there will be a-

A boom and bust.

A boom and bust. Which I think every smart person that I've spoken to agrees that there will be a bust soon. Their timelines vary. But what does one do right now, in March, April, 2026, to prepare for this?

Well, you put money aside if you can, you buy other assets you think are gonna survive the Berman bus cycle.

Like what?

That's the trouble. I mean, gold's been driven up, gold's now been driven down. People are buying Bitcoin, but Bitcoin is collapsing as well. In some ways, you can't,

it's like saying, what do I do during an earthquake to not fall over? In terms of insulating yourself, I really can't see a way of insulating yourself from the downturn, but I'm not worried about that as long-term consequences of AI, because this is the first technology which implies you can actually virtually eliminate labor as necessary for reducing output, because you can use AI rather than Clarks.

You can use, I know this is a long way from being feasible, but robots could replace process workers. And then suddenly, something which employs 70% of the global population is no longer necessary. And then what do you do in that situation? What I've seen, which I respect,

coming out of the tech bros in America, is they're talking in terms of universal basic income.

You think a universal basic income is a good idea? I do. We should probably explain what that is.

Yeah, well, it's the state provides everybody with enough money to stay alive. That's the basic idea. Rather than having to work for a living, at the minimum, you get paid an amount of money that means you can buy the goods and services

that are necessary to stay alive. You don't necessarily prosper, but you get enough to survive. And so that's the idea of UBI. Now at the moment to survive, you've got to have a job. And like that guy you mentioned is working

at three jobs right now. If he got a UBI, he wouldn't have to work at those three jobs. He might work at one, or he might actually consider his own business possibilities in that situation. So I think universal basic income is a necessity, given what robotics and AI can do to employment.

Every time I've tried to improve something in my life, like my businesses, my health, my relationships, I've noticed that the biggest shifts have come from being better informed. And when it comes to our health, most of us know very, very little. So when our team was approached about partnering with Function Health, it felt very much aligned.

Their team has developed a way of giving you a full 360 degree view of your health, many of the things that are going on in your body in the form of different tests. You do one blood draw and it gives you access to over 160 lab resultsormones, heart health, inflammation, stress toxins, the whole picture. I use it

and so have many of my team members. You sign up and you schedule your tests and once you're done you get a little report like the one I have here. I can see my in-range results, my out-of-range results and there's a little AI function too so if I have any questions about my out-of-range results I can just go in there and ask it any question I want. And these tests are backed by doctors and thousands of hours of research.

It's $365 for a yearly membership. Go to functionhealth.com slash DOAC and use the code DOAC25 for $25 off your membership. This is something that I've made for you. I've realized that the Diverseo audience are strivers, whether it's in business or health, we all have big goals that we want to accomplish. And one of the things I've learned is that when you aim at the big, big, big goal,

it can feel incredibly psychologically uncomfortable because it's kind of like being stood at the foot of Mount Everest and looking upwards. The way to accomplish your goals is by breaking them down into tiny, small steps. And we call this in our team, the 1%.

And actually this philosophy is highly responsible for much of our success here. So what we've done so that you at home can accomplish any big goal that you have is we've made these 1% diaries and we released these last year and they all sold out.

So I asked my team over and over again to bring the diaries back, but also to introduce some new colors and to make some minor tweaks to the diary. So now we have a better range for you. So if you have a big goal in mind and you need a framework and a process and some motivation,

then I highly recommend you get one of these diaries before they all sell out once again. And you can get yours at thediary.com. And if you want the link, the link is in the description below. And you think up to 50% of working class jobs could be wiped out because of AI and robotics.

I mean, that's been a prediction from the leaders of some of the biggest companies in AI. I heard the leader of Anthropic recently say the same thing. That he thinks 50% of jobs could be wiped out. I think the shocking thing that we've talked a lot about in the show is just, you know, there's been other sort of economic or industrial revolutions in the past

that have caused for job displacement. But none, I would argue, at this speed.

No, and none that can replace virtually everything. I see, there's a classic story I read back when I was talking about the global financial crisis, came out of the New York Times article where they went to interview workers in an air conditioning factory. And there was one woman they found there

whose job it was to place a thermocouple inside the air conditioning units as they went past. So there's 3000 of these going past her a day. She's just placing one of these thermocouples where it needs to go inside the circuitry of the air conditioning unit. And she said, you don't have to love your job as long as it pays you money.

It was a totally boring job. That's all she's doing. The thing is, the reason she got that job was she couldn't make a machine to replace her because the air conditioning units don't necessarily end up precisely at the same point. To make a machine that would do that is really difficult. Now, if you train a robot on it, the robot perception can ultimately get to the point where the robot can place that piece inside there. That particular unskilled job disappears. So people who work in jobs like that

no longer have a possibility of getting a job.

I think even, you know, Anthropic released a report, Anthropic are the makers of Claude. They released a report saying that entry-level positions They're seeing a 13% decline already in people getting those entry-level jobs and actually as an employer Someone that spends literally all last night. I was looking through our inbox our recruitment inboxes at candidates and talent I have noticed myself changing. I've noticed that People that I would have

Given roles to maybe six months ago, I now have to think long and hard about whether there's going to be technology that can do those exact roles instead. And it was a really shocking thing. I was saying to the team last night at 1 AM in the office,

I was like, this is a prime example of a candidate. I was looking at this particular candidate that six months ago, I would have bitten their hand off. But now, I have to pause. Because my innovation team in the corner of the office, they're able to do that now with these AI agents instead.

And so I am, you know, you hear a lot about the theoretical impact of AI.

But you're actually making the decision yourself.

And then it's theory, it's theory. It's this thing on my Twitter feed, like blah, blah, blah, whatever. You hear it on a podcast, you go blah, blah, blah, whatever. And then you find yourself actually behaving that way. Your behavior is changing, and you're going, oh. It's very hard to know the types of people

to hire into our company. And I've kind of almost segmented them into these two groups, where you've got people that have very deep expertise. I'd say it's three groups. People that have very, very deep expertise on a particular thing. You know, like my CFO. Group number two, I'd say,

are people that are AI proficient.

Who can actually handle this stuff and be the people who manage the agents.

Yes, and they can redesign our workflows across every department in the company to be agentic. About AI agents, that's kind of like the word you use. So agentic workflows. And then the third group of people are people who have skills that are highly beneficial, human to human and in real life. So like human to human salespeople

that deal with relationships.

And are very good at it.

And are very good at it. Because there are still a certain type of sale where people want to meet the person, shake their hand and say, okay, you're responsible for this deal. We're still in a situation where people don't want agents to do that. Those are like the three groups. What I didn't say is young people who have just come out of university,

maybe don't know anything about agents, they don't have the deep expertise yet. And when you look at the data, we'll throw some of the data up on the screen, that these sort of entry-level white-collar jobs are the ones that are right now suffering. Some of these investment companies would hire like 300 or 400 analysts to look at companies

and make decisions. That is one example of a role that's very at risk now. We've got an investment fund. We need one analyst, Molly. Six months ago, we were interviewing more analysts. We now realize that we just need Molly

and we need to give Molly AI. And she can set up, I think Molly said to me yesterday when I left the office, when she left the office at midnight, she's now set up three agents, these AI agents, as her team. Those would have been three people.

Well, I saw a demo of that, like I've developed a software package called Ravel, which I've got one programmer for. And I teach an online course as well, and I give Ravel as part of that online course. And one of the members of the course said he's using an AI to build Ravel models. And he's also using an AI to write the code behind Ravel.

Nick gave a demo of this a couple of days ago. And I watched it happen on screen as he built a model, a simulation system. And it was messy on one stage, but it produced the correct mathematics. So, he's showing you can actually, he's trying to tell me that we should get my main programmer to learn to drive agents to do the whole thing. Now, my main programmer has said, look,

there's things that I can do that an AI cannot do. He's one of your highly gifted people. And he said, it wouldn't be worth my while to have me telling an AI what to do because what I lose in terms of my own initiative, I can't, I just sort of balance out. It's really a, okay. But he has a junior programmer,

then the junior programmer would be one who's trained to drive the AI.

I do think programmers are fine. Actually, there was some stats that I saw the other day that showed there's been this huge demand in people trying to hire programmers. It's interesting, because you hear stats from Spotify. Spotify saying, we haven't written a human line of code since December. I'm very good friends with the guys at Spotify.

I was actually with the CEO the other day, a couple of weeks ago in Austin. And you hear that. And I did check that with them. That's true. So you assume that that meansons paradox is the old analogy. It becomes cheaper.

You use more of it.

Yeah. So like when coal became cheaper, people were worried that maybe the coal industry was out of business or trains, whatever. But actually what ended up happening is people just drove more trains, and they used them for other things,

like transport. And the same applies, I think, for AI. creating technology becomes easier, every company starts using more technology. So media companies, lawyers, you name the company, executive assistants, they all become coders. And actually the demand for highly, for really anyone who knows how to code a program,

we're seeing it, it's exploding. But I just think the job disruption in the near term for most people is gonna be pretty.

Yeah, I mean, there's ways in which AI and robotics should be welcomed because it means the possibility exists and it's only a possibility that we can no longer have to be exploited to get an income. Because if you look at the Marxist attitude

towards capitalism as a workers, capitalists exploit the workers. The real world is we've been exploiting energy, mutually, both labor and capital exploits energy. We could have a future where we don't have to work for a living and therefore you could do

what you wanna do for a living. It's a Star Trek future, that's the possibility that it promises. But at the same time, it could actually eliminate the jobs that people currently rely upon. And what I fear is we have two possibilities. We have a future where

Star Trek's high future, where you have replicators that make the goods we consume and we all live with an energy abundant life. Or the Hunger Games, where there's one little elite that has all the robots and lives extremely well, and we tolerate and oppress the vast majority, and they end up, you know, Hunger Game entertainment. Those are the two possibilities we face.

I do think the cost of goods and services will come down, which is great. I think robotics, you know, if Elon is right, and I often say with Elon, like his timelines are not always accurate, but he does tend to deliver magic.

He ultimately delivers, but, you know, he always overpromises and delivers later than he plans.

And if he's right about when he says there's going to be more humanoid robots, his Optimus robots, than humans, and he says also in his predictions that there's going to be no need to study to be a surgeon because the robots are going to be so much more advanced and better than any living surgeon. That would imply that surgery and other sort of medical diagnoses and procedures are going to be incredibly cheap, incredibly quick. Great.

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

Do we have enough to produce eight billion of them and maybe you know surgeons do much more than just operates Yeah, there's a human element to the medical profession, which I think is sometimes unappreciated Like I would I don't know if I'm quite ready to go talk to a robot about my health yet. Maybe I'll adjust. I wanted to come back to something you actually said earlier.

You talked about Bitcoin briefly. I've heard you say that you think Bitcoin's going to zero.

Yeah.

Okay, this is worrying. I think I have some Bitcoin. You're an economist.

You're saying that Bitcoin is going to zero. because ultimately because of its reliance upon energy. I mean, I, you know, you know Max Kaiser and Stacey Herbert, have you met them at all? No. They were sort of the original proselytizers for Bitcoin and they're now living in, I think El Salvador, which has adopted Bitcoin as a form of currency.

When they told me about Bitcoin, I could have bought it for a pound of Bitcoin, which would have been, I would have been a bloody, would be wealthier than you if I'd done that. The reason I didn't was they explained that the way that the public ledger is kept safe is that it takes too much energy to break it.

So each transaction requires 10 minutes of computer processing time globally, by the looks of it, to actually create an extra Bitcoin. And that means it's too expensive for somebody to try to break the ledger. That means it's got a huge requirement for energy use.

And I believe, knowing what I know from climate scientists, that at some point we're gonna realise we're using far too much energy on the planet. We've gotta cut the energy consumption. And the two easiest things to cut out to reduce energy consumption are cryptocurrencies

and international travel.

But aren't you seeing that nuclear energy is becoming vogue again, and they're talking a lot about?

It's the amount of time it takes to build that stuff. I mean, China's building nuclear power stations at a hell of a rate, and much, much cheaper, more cheaper than America is doing.

So let's become a big hot topic of conversation.

Yeah, again, there's a guy called Simon Maitchow, whom I recommend you get in touch with as well. And Simon is an engineer who claims that we simply don't have the physical minerals necessary to support a completely solar and wind-based energy system. He's got people who criticise his analysis, definitely. But we still are using far more physical resources than we're aware of at the moment on the planet. And the availability of various critical elements that we need for the system we have right now, it's much less abundant than we would like it to be. So a lot of these things about, you know, robotics taken over, do we have the minerals for it? Solar power, do we have the minerals? The

answer is not yes, okay? Sometimes the answer is no, other times it's dubious. But I think that energy requirement alone is a problem.

You're saying that we're going to have to cut back on our energy consumption.

Yeah.

But I mean, the direction of travel has been we've been able to produce more and more and more and more energy.

And we're dumping it into the environment. The problem about the use of energy is it's happening on a planet. Can the biosphere cope with the waste that we dump into it as a result of using that energy? And that is something which economists are completely stupid on. Beyond stupid, they've

trivialised the dangers of the amount of resources we use and the amount of energy we use. So I don't think that energy future is possible on this biosphere at the moment. It's possible in the future if we get off the biosphere. So in that sense, I'm even more of a space cadet than Elon Musk is. I think we have to plan to take production off planet. But while we're constrained on the biosphere, the biosphere's constraints will stop us using as much energy as we wish to use. What are your closing statements on this whole

situation with the war and Iran and everything that's going on from a geopolitical perspective?

Basically, our system is far more fragile than we've convinced ourselves that it is. And we can make observations about potential futures which presume a robustness we don't have. And if that robustness is destroyed, either by military conflict or by overextending what we put into the biosphere, then we can fall off what's called the Seneca cliff. We can go from an abundant future to a collapse.

And what would you say the people at home should be doing to course correct the path we can fall off what's called the Seneca Cliff. We can go from an abundant future to a collapse.

And what would you say the people at home should be doing to course correct the path that you think we're on?

Stop electing fools. Electing Trump was an enormous mistake. We've got politicians who follow what's called neoliberal political philosophies. They're what put us in this problem. It hasn't worked.

We need to reverse back to having a human-oriented and physically realistic view of how the economy should be managed and how the biosphere should be managed. We have to take care of our home. And in an essential sense, we're destroying our home and thinking we can keep on doing that indefinitely.

We can't. Our poem is planet Earth. Planet Earth has got physical restraints. We haven't respected them. Planet Earth will tell us what it thinks of that this century.

And which leaders do you think we should be electing? Do you think we should be electing-

I don't think, I think even electing leaders itself is a mistake because what we then do is end up getting, we pander to narcissists. We pander to people who believe they can solve all our problems. We end up with megalomaniacs making decisions. If you look back at where Athenian democracy came from,

Athenian democracy didn't use elections. It used a process of like random number generators to select intelligent people to fulfil essential roles in those societies. And they weren't even people you got to know by name in that sense. We know Trump here, we know Starmer here, we have Albanese over here. We ended up getting narcissists and megalomaniacs directing us. And they're the last people you need to make decisions.

When you're thinking about your own money, as an economist, what are you doing to protect your savings?

I'm not doing much. I mean, I've been a crusader for reforming economic theory for my whole life. I've sort of neglected this side of things to my detriment, I've got to say. But I really am focused on what's sustainable

for everybody rather than what I can make as my own cut. And I don't think we've got a sustainable economy at the moment. We have a philosophy of economics which leads to breakdowns.

I'm asking that because I've got so many friends and listeners that ask me often, like, should I be buying a house right now? Do you think I should be investing in gold? Do you think I should be saving my money? Should I be, I don't know, investing in technology companies? And I'm wondering if you had a perspective for them.

Not on that, no, look, I've really left that area alone. I'm actually looking at the overall system and saying, how do we make the system sustainable so that people can live within it? what we've got is an unsustainable system. And you're asking me how do people survive within an unsustainable system? Answer is they don't. We always think we can do something

at the individual level to cope with what's happening in the system around us. That only works if the system around us is stable.

What is a better system then?

I think what China has done is a better, in a better direction. They have a collective focus as well as an individual focus. What's their system called? It's called communist.

So you think communism is better than capitalism?

I think a system which reflects the need for a cohesive society as well as individual gain is needed and the system in China is closer to that than the system in America.

In China, listen I don't know a ton about this, but they have a leader who stays in power. And that's the potential weakness. And suppresses the people's decision-making, entrepreneurialism.

Equally, you've got a system to get into the Communist Party, you've got to have, you've got to be educated to get in, and you have to perform to some extent in the region in which you begin your role.

But you're not saying you think the West should adopt communism, are you?

No, I'm saying the West should adopt a system which reflects the need for a cohesive society.

Is that socialism?

Socialism is closer to it. I mean, the words are all tainted. Okay, if you go back, you know, do you eat Cadbury's chocolate?

I try not to.

You have, haven't you?

Once or twice. If you go back, do you eat Cadbury's chocolate? I try not to. You have, haven't you?

Okay. Cadbury's was a socialist enterprise. It was formed as a belief we have to want to give the workers the best possible situation while also selling a profitable product. Mondragon in Spain is another cooperative

started by a Catholic priest of all things. We tend to be very binary in the West. We say you either have competition or you have cooperation. We need to be more like the East in the sense of the idea of yin and yang. You have to have both, okay? Cooperation and competition.

And so that for you is the closest thing is socialism?

The closest is socialism. And what China... China has done that better than Russia. You go back to the USSR. They were disastrous in terms of product development. China's been extremely successful on that front. They've learned from the mistakes of being too centralised and too top down in Russia to have both the top down and the bottom up dynamic going on.

What's wrong with capitalism? And capitalism is what the UK and the US have adopted as their sort of economic model.

It's seen competition absolutely ruling and ignoring cooperation. Now the real, the successful society combines both. You have cooperation, you also have competition. And we've pushed it far too far in the competitive end and not enough in the cooperative.

And what comes out of that as well is this cooperative competitive tends to be short-term focus. What can I make a profit out of in time that the money that I've borrowed is, I'm gonna be able to make more of a profit

than the interest I'm paying on the money I've created. And if the interest, if the longer it takes to get the repayment, the less likely you are to make the investment. So what you get is a focus upon short term with just a market system.

Whereas with the long term, you say, what's gonna last for 100 years? And what that means is, you build the infrastructure for the long term while you allow competition to occur in the short term. It's getting the balance right. We've got the balance extremely wrong.

Professor Steve, thank you. I highly recommend people go check out your YouTube channel where you make videos all the time about what's going on in the world. You give your opinion on economic issues, political issues, the Iran war. So if people are listening and they want to learn more from Professor Steve, then look down below and you should see his YouTube channel linked

next to our name because we're going to try and collaborate on this post. And I'll put you the link to your channel in the description below for anyone that wants to check you out and subscribe. It's so fascinating, especially the stuff around the raw materials coming out the straight-up from the US, because I really had no idea. It's just quite staggering to me that we're so dependent on one region of the world. And I think from watching your videos over the last couple of weeks, it's really made me understand the unintended consequences of war generally,

but specifically this war in Iran. So thank you for turning the lights on for me. I really, really appreciate this. And I hope we can meet again soon and have a conversation. And hopefully, you know, this all resolves itself in a way that's good for everybody.

I'm sorry, I'm having my 73rd birthday tomorrow. I have my 74th as well, but I think there's a question mark over that now.

Well, I did hear it was your birthday tomorrow. I think the team have gotten you a little something. Okay.

Happy birthday to you. I'm embarrassed.

Oh my god.

Happy birthday to Steve.

My god, thank you.

Happy birthday to you. Holy hell, I'm listening. Thank you. Should I blow the candles out? Yes, thank you. Happy birthday to you.

Holy hell, I'm listening. Yay!

Thank you.

Should I blow the candles out?

Yes, you should. Okay, you get a wish. You blew them all out, so you get a wish.

Well, I wish for peace in the Middle East.

Okay, let's hope so.

That's probably the main thing to say about right now. That is a gorgeous cake, I have to say. It's a marvellous cake. That's mocking our own homework. This better be eaten by the crew because I'm not going to eat all this myself. Anybody get out a knife and start slicing up? My god.

Thank you so much.

We're done.

Thank you.

YouTube have this new crazy algorithm where they know exactly what video you would like to watch next based on AI and all of your viewing behaviour. next based on AI and all of your viewing behaviour. And the algorithm says that this video is the perfect video for you.