Nvidia is becoming one of the most valuable companies in the world, so what's going on? We'll get into that, plus the stories setting the week's tone, and some great value 4 value music.
(00:14) Liftoff - Launch 5
(03:27) NVIDIA's incredible run and market cap surpasses Amazon's
(05:12) Reasons for continued bullishness on NVIDIA and price targets
(08:17) Altman's mind-boggling $7 trillion chip ambitions
(12:08) National security concerns and the importance of semiconductors
(17:11) Silicon Valley's Ambitious and Mind-Boggling Funding Goal
(23:04) CPI Report: Hotter Than Expected
(25:04) Scarcity and rising prices due to housing inventory reduction
(26:58) The Fragile Balance of Inflation and External Factors
(27:40) Concerns about inflation and Bitcoin as a hedge.
(30:04) Limited tradable supply, ETFs absorb significant portion of Bitcoin.
(30:26) Pomp's Smiling Confidence in Bitcoin's Unmatched Reputation
(32:22) Bitcoin's Potential as a Currency and Store of Value
[00:00:02]
Unknown:
Ignition sequence start. 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0. All engine running. Liftoff. We have a liftoff. Welcome back to The Launch, Episode 5. You know, NVIDIA is becoming a monster. So while I set up for Coda Radio this week, let's get into what's going on there. Why are they just blowing up? up plus the stories that are setting the tone this week and some great value for value music it is the launch episode 5 coming up first shadow man. Music. In August, I would say NVIDIA has just been on one hell of a run. They are now the fourth largest company in America, obviously driven by, I would assume, strong demand for AI chips.
But how long can it last? Is it really based on fundamentals? Is this a situation where when the chips fall as they may, those who sold the shovels will be ahead? CNBC tries to break it down. We're not oblivious to, you know, look, NVIDIA continues to amaze us. What else do you say? It's almost $740. It was just across $700. Now it's $740. It seemingly goes up all the time. We mentioned Arm Holdings was up 40% today. Yeah, it's a tiny float. And who knows what other reasons it continues to go up. It's just an unbelievable path. By the way, NVIDIA's market cap today passed Amazon's.
It's the first time, according to some reports, that that's happened in two decades. So, we asked Cristina Partsenevelos to come sit with us today and just take us through—this is incredible. You cover the space. I mean, you know, you look at it. I wonder what goes through your mind as you follow this. I have to question it. He's in the Middle East today. Yeah, in Dubai. He was making some comments, and it's just insane. His comments in the Middle East, though, were focused on just AI in general because they're in their quiet period, and he's been pushing infrastructure. He said that they see about a trillion dollars in accelerator market right now, and that could go up to $2 trillion.
So keeping costs in check, but that's pretty much telling you there's going to be growth in 2025. 25. So that's seen as a positive. To your point, Scott, and we're going to go over to just some of the reasons. You've seen the stock, what, soar 53% just this year alone after rising 240% last year, much of that happening more so in the second half of the year. So to answer your question, why? Why is everybody still so bullish on this name? First, talk about the big cloud companies, Meta, Microsoft, Alphabet, et cetera, Amazon, all promising to increase their capital expenditures.
That means they're spending more money on GPUs. NVIDIA benefits. Secondly, NVIDIA is launching Launching a new AI chip later this year, the B100, so that should help propel some momentum. NVIDIA also created a, I'm calling it a safe for China version AI chip and is reportedly taking orders right now. So that's keeping that 20% revenue pot intact. And then lastly, NVIDIA's software and enterprise business. We don't talk about it enough, but it's still nascent, still in the beginning stages. And this has led analysts to your point. You're talking about point increases, price targets. Amelius Research today, $920. The stock is $738 right now. That's got to be the high now on the street. Because, right, wasn't it like a week ago we got, I think it was Goldman, went up to $8?
Yeah. Yeah, I think I have that actually on the chart. So Goldman, JP Morgan, several of them have gone up within the $750, $800 range. But $920. Now we've crossed the $900. When are we going to hit $1,000, guys? When are we going to hit $1,000? But the interesting point is the share price actually surpassing right now the average analyst price target for the first time in two years. There are, and I just want to, you know, we have to talk about the negatives, right? Wolf, JP Morgan, a few are raising some concerns. Perceived. Supply is coming back online, which means that lead times would shrink.
Competition ramping up not only in China from Huawei, but the custom chips. That's probably more of a long-term problem, but made in-house by Google Meta. And then the obvious, Scott. The bar is so high for this company. So the size of the beaten guide and the stock reaction could be the next test of investor conviction, I should say, and confidence, especially in the near-term sustainability of this AI trade. So I'm looking at the chart now. Now, the 52-week low on NVIDIA is $204.21. And here we go at near $740. That's remarkable in and of itself. Now, big fans of the stock and those who have been in it a long time, Josh Brown, if you all recall, last week trimmed 20% of it.
Othwat DeMotorin, the so-called dean of valuation at NYU Stern. He's owned it for a long time. He's owned it much lower. He talked about the valuation being insane. Now, the valuation actually, you know this, Christina, is actually cheaper today than the 10-year average. The price appreciation has just been startling to see, but the valuation is actually lower than where it was a year ago, and it's lower than its 10-year historical average as well. So here's my question to you. Is it a bubble, or is it just getting started? Is NVIDIA maybe just the perfect company to sell the shovels during the next gold rush?
And AI is just going to just run for years? Or are we just about to see this thing pop? The cynical version in me says, yeah, we're about to see this thing pop. But then I see ridiculous, ridiculous bullish sentiment from Sam Altman, who's trying to raise $7 trillion. For some sort of AI chip ambition. Our team is on every angle of this story and what may come from it. Deidre Bosa, Steve Kovach, Christina Partsenevelis. Deidre, let's start with you. What do we know about Altman's ambitions and the price tag he has put on them, or someone has? Tyler, we know that they are mind-boggling. This is like the moonshot of all moonshots, and I'm going to use Google's definition here.
A moonshot is something that sounds undoable, but if done, could redefine humanity. That is what Sam Altman is reportedly looking at. Let's start with the number. According to the journal, it could require up to $7 trillion. That is seven times the expected size of chip sales in 2030. It's more than the combined market caps of Apple and Microsoft. It's 7 million millions written out, 12 zeros if you're counting. We'll put it up on the screen for you. Yes, you could barely fit it on one screen. Now, the project itself is aimed at reshaping the world's chip building capacity. Altman is going after one of the most complex, expensive, and geopolitically sensitive industries in the world.
And it's a project that would create an equally complex partnership between OpenAI, chip makers, investors, power providers, and governments. Perhaps the most interesting part of this is the why. OpenAI and Altman are on a quest to develop AGI, or Artificial General Intelligence, which OpenAI defines as systems that are broadly smarter than humans and so has the ability to teach itself, thereby creating new, even potentially smarter AGIs, depending on who you talk to, that could ruin humanity or could supercharge it. A lot would need to fall into place for any of this to happen.
There are still a ton of questions that I know we're going to get into. A few of them, though, if chips are a national security issue, do we let Abu Dhabi fund a new landscape? Because you're going to need sovereign wealth money for this. Can a software CEO lead the charge when others, notably mega caps, chip companies themselves, struggling to catch up to Nvidia? All right, I want to pause. I want to pause. She's really going fast here. What she's saying is the only way you're going to get this much money is if. You tap the Saudis, which means oil money.
And then the other thing she's saying, which I think is valid, is how can a software guy run a hardware initiative at this scale? Which the reason why she's saying that is Deidre has lines into the hardware industry. And she knows that the CEOs that come in that are software guys tend to not do as well in those fields as the guys who understand the hardware or gals. Right. It is people who are native to the industry versus people who are native to an adjunct industry. That's what she's trying to say here. But she just, man, she's just blasting through it. So, number one, she's saying that Sam would have to tap oil money, which runs congruent to Silicon Valley.
And then number two, she is she's saying that simply when you're talking about this kind of scale to at this kind of hardware project, You probably need somebody who is a chip expert, not a software expert. Do we let Abu Dhabi fund a new landscape? Because you're going to need sovereign wealth money for this. Can a software CEO lead the charge when others, notably mega caps, chip companies themselves struggling to catch up to NVIDIA? And how do you raise $7 trillion? Guys, I was trying to figure out, what do you think the valuation would be of a $7 trillion investment?
You got me, but we'll come back to you in just a bit. Why don't you ponder that for a minute, Deidre? Joining us now on set to discuss this, is CNBC's technology correspondent Steve Kovach. I'm guessing if this is as big as these numbers suggest, that this has to have a major governmental drive behind it, one way or another. Exactly. And Deirdre alluded to that, too, the possible security issues. Let me just read. I asked OpenAI about this and a spokesperson told me, I'll just quote here. We will continue to keep the U.S. government informed, given the importance to national priorities and look forward to sharing more details at a later date.
So they are taking that into consideration. They are talking to authorities. At least that's what they say they're doing. But we know what the U.S.'s position here is. We've had those chip sanctions going from over to China. That's been kind of hurting NVIDIA a little bit and other chip companies unable to do business maybe in China in the same way. The word because this technology is seen as so fundamental to the future, it really is a race. And so national security is important. And national security and you name it, all down.
All right. I want to stop right there, actually. Do you buy that premise? Is it important to national security? What else did they say here? There's two things in here. In China in the same way. The word because this technology is seen as so fundamental to the future. Ah. Is this AI technology like ChatGPT fundamental to the future? Get in the chat room if you're listening live, Coder.show slash Matrix, or boost in if you're listening after the fact and let me know. I'll read it on a future stream. This is a, I would say, like a cornerstone of the argument is that what OpenAI is developing is absolutely essential to the future.
But I'd like to know if you listening agree to that assertion. Really is a race. And so national security importance. And national security and... And then I think that's a pretty strong assertion. That's number two. Is what happens with open AI and other AI-related developments, is it a matter of national security? I'd like to know your personal opinion. I'm not going to hold you accountable to see what happens. I just, I feel like this has been asserted quite a bit. And I'd like to know if you agree. Again, in the chat room, if you're listening live or Boost, if you're not in the chat room or listening after the fact.
Fundamental to the future, it really is a race. And so national security is important. And national security and you name it, all down the line. So all that gets tied up in there. We're talking about the $7 trillion whiz-bang, oh, my God, number here, too. Where did that number come from? Was that a number he put on the investment? I guess. That's what the Journal is reporting. That's what apparently he thinks it will take to do what he wants to do here. But who has $7 trillion? This is a question I would have for Deirdre here is, who has the $7 trillion besides governments?
It's not, you know, VCs can't do that. Yeah, sovereign wealth funds. Sovereign wealth funds would have them. And there aren't too many sovereign wealth funds that, you know, the U.S. government would be cool with us. Or a consortium of sovereign wealth funds. But for that, you'd have to go to the Middle East. Yeah. Which they're doing. But arguably, the UAE would be one of those that would potentially make sense and check a lot of boxes. And to be very, very clear, and I can say this for many of my conversations on the national security side and my interviews on the record with Gina Raimondo, the Commerce Secretary, 100 percent, without a doubt, semiconductors are a national security issue. They're only becoming more of a national security issue.
100 percent, without a doubt, semiconductors are a national security issue. How do you feel about that? You're probably pretty more. I mean, I don't know. You're probably more, given you're listening to this, probably more tech savvy than she likely is. So I would probably trust your opinion over hers. Do you agree? On the record with Gina Raimondo, the Commerce Secretary, 100 percent without a doubt, semiconductors are a national security issue. 100 percent without a doubt. I mean, 100 percent. That's a pretty extreme line. Do you agree? Secretary, 100 percent, without a doubt, semiconductors are a national security issue.
They're only becoming more of a national security issue. It also speaks to a broader industrial policy here in the U.S. That is much more national security focused. But the other piece of this, of course, is going to be the electricity and the energy needs that are associated with all these semiconductors and all this AI compute power, too. And I would imagine that would be part of the conversation you're having with, say, sovereign wealth funds or like a UAE that is energy rich. You know, OK, what are you going to manufacture over there? That seems like an invalid point at the end.
But her broader point about energy. Oh, well, she's spot on about that. What she's missing, though, is before we even run the chips, you got to make the chips. And to make the chips uses a ton of power. No matter how you split it, EVs, phasing out natural gas, trying to use solar, the explosion of AI, on-shoring chip manufacturing, Bitcoin mining, whatever it might be, power usage is going to be just crazy in the future. So we have to solve for all of it. Part of the conversation you're having with, say, sovereign wealth funds or like a UAE that is energy rich.
Exactly. Exactly. And that comes down to oil, doesn't it? And fossil fuels. And, you know, that's not what the Silicon Valley ethos really would want from this at the same time. Oh, my sweet summer child. Oh, yeah. Yes. Because Silicon Valley actually reflects in their actions everything they say. Oh, oh, to be so naive. That's not what the Silicon Valley ethos really would want from this at the same time. So this is ambitious. Like, ambitious is not even the right word for it. It is almost ludicrous. Mind-boggling. That's what I keep going back to. I can't think of a better word.
Yeah. And I mean, Deirdre covers VC funding quite a bit. I mean, Deirdre, when was the last time you heard a deal around funding even approaching $1 trillion? I thought a lot about that this morning, and it has to be SoftBank's Vision Fund. That was a $100 billion fund. There was bigger than anything we ever saw before. And this is magnitudes, magnitudes larger. And that can be catching that. So this is how crazy Sam is, is that the next largest fund was 100 billion. And old Sam boy here, he's trying to raise seven trillion. It's bonkers. He was either on shrooms or he's just trying to, like, have some sort of bragging rights about the craziest funding goal ever.
I thought a lot about that this morning. And it has to be South Bank's Vision Fund. That was a hundred billion dollar fund. That was bigger than anything we ever saw before. And this is magnitudes, magnitudes larger. And that completely reshaped the venture capital world. The startup world led to supercharged companies like we were. Can you imagine what this would do to some of the chip companies? Let's bring let's move to the chip side specifically of the equation and let's and how Altman's plan could affect the existing chip heavyweights. Since we know some of the reporting suggests that they would be involved in this process.
Christina Parts and Eveless has that side of the story from the Nasdaq. Christina, what is your reporting unearthing on this? I haven't got them dynamic. I need to know if it's funny because you use the word could. And I'm going to stick with that because, like everyone's alluded to, it is quite a mind boggling number. But if, I'll use the word if, the funding does come through, this could bode well for equipment makers like LAM Research, KLA, Applied Materials, which already could also get an additional boost because of Chipsack funding, Morgan, that you just talked about.
We're expecting more awards to be dispersed in the coming two months or so. So that's a positive for a lot of these names you're seeing. Show me the money. There's also strength possibly in the chip designer simulation and verification. Let's leave it here. I think we get the point. I think that's plenty for the launch this week. but you get the idea. It's got everybody thinking, and of course, the AI money is still strong. Let's take a break. When we come back, I want to talk about something that's setting the tone for the whole week, but up first, we have Saturday Morning by Seth Fonda.
Makes me remember Saturday Morning cartoons, which I loved. See you on the other side. Music. Well, from the stories that are going to impact the tone of the week file, the CPI report coming in a bit hotter than expected has all of the analysts trying to figure out what the heck is going on. This morning's a CPI number, as we said, hotter than expected. Jim, everybody's talking about shelter six-tenths. That's two-thirds of it right there. Right. I wonder how much the—we tend to use the number eight million aliens, illegal aliens, legal aliens, immigrants, whatever you want to call them.
But I think that they've been a major source of rent increase because we have to shelter everybody. And the cost of sheltering is just going up because we've had a big burgeoning in population. We just don't talk about it. I think we should talk about it because it's something that is vital to make sure that we're a civilized country. And we right now have to put people in homes. We have to put people in apartments. And we have no choice. And I think that's moving up shelter. Whoa, whoa, whoa. Whoa, what old Slurs McGee here is saying, what Inverse Kramer is telling you is that the initiatives to house the immigrants have soaked up inventory and the price of housing is going up as a result, which has had an overall impact on the core inflation data.
Whoa, you're not supposed to say that. And I don't know if he's right or not. This is the first time I've heard anybody say it. It would make sense, though, if you've had millions of people coming in that need housing in cities that are doing initiatives around the country to house them, and then housing would be the most contentious in the city, where inventory is the tightest. So if that was the inventory that was being used and bought by the state, it would perhaps lead to a reduction in inventory. And we all know scarcity means the price goes up. Is old Slurs McGee correct here? What do you think? Or is this just trying to blame an unrepresented population?
I'd like to know your thoughts. Chat room if you're live, Boost if you're not. And the cost of sheltering is just going up because we've had a big burgeoning in population. We just don't talk about it. I think we should talk about it because it's something that is vital to make sure that we're a civilized country. And we right now have to put people in homes. We have to put people in apartments. And we have no choice, and I think that's moving up the shelter. Kind of ties in with what CBO said the other day about immigration, Jim, and that is that the economy is going to be $7 billion bigger because of the people we're letting into the country.
Well, look, these are undocumented immigrants. I think I do not share the negativity about this, by the way, because we have such a shortage of workers. And I think if we just adopt kind of a humane approach and also legislation in Washington, we will be able to make it so that everybody's productive. But in the interim, we have to we have to shelter people. And I think that this big influx of undocumented immigrants and documented has made it so that we have no choice but to have rents go up. I actually think home prices will not go up as much. Again, I want to emphasize I am not in the camp which just says this is something that is bad.
We have to take care of. I think it's just something that if we address, we can actually make it a positive call. So I'm I'm not as negative as everybody. What do you think? Is he way off? Is he right? It is a thing, but maybe we should just address it. I really don't have the expertise to tell you I can tell by the look on their co-host's face they really wish he hadn't said it I can tell you that much when they cut away from Jim, the faces on the guys that are there in the studio because Jim's remote. Oh man these guys are tired of working with this guy I know that face I know that face but here's my kind of cynical read on it It just takes one little thing to disturb inflation.
If housing gets a little contentious, well, then inflation goes up. We got lucky that energy is down. However, if energy had been up, which could happen, the CPI would have been even worse. If perhaps shipping gets really screwed up, maybe something going on in the Red Sea, CPI can get worse. It's like it just we're walking a tight, tight line right now. It doesn't take much, it seems. And that's why I'm concerned about anything kind of kicking off inflation again. Perhaps even just the Fed printing money again and people feeling rich and buying things again would just stress the it would stress inventory, would stress supply chain. Perhaps. I don't know.
Maybe that's why the Bitcoin ETFs have been absolute bangers is because people are looking for a hedge against inflation. And when I say bangers, I mean record setting bangers. The price of Bitcoin crossing back over the $48,000 level over the weekend. One month this after the launch of the spot Bitcoin ETF. This morning trading slightly lower. Joining us right now is Anthony Pompliano, founder of Pomp Investments. Good morning to you. Morning. This has been a bit of a wild ride because we talked about sort of selling the news or selling the rumor, buying the rumor, selling the news.
But now we've come back to buying. Yeah. I mean, look, the verdict's in, right? Right. Wall Street doesn't just like Bitcoin. They love Bitcoin. If you think of these assets, there's been over 5,500 ETF launches in history. Never have we had a fund get to $3 billion in AUM in the first 30 days. 5,500. Never, never before have we had a fund get to a billion AUM in 30 days. ETF launches in history. Never have we had a fund get to $3 billion in AUM in the first 30 days. Oh, I'm sorry, $3 billion. But it gets even better than that. It's better than that. It's not just one fund.
It's not just one fund. It's a two. Acrock and Fidelity both just did it. So two for the first time in history. And then if you look at Bitwise and 21Shares, ARK, they're both going to hit a billion dollars this year or this week. And so now you have four funds that are going to hit a billion dollars of inflows. But the most interesting part of this is the inflows. These funds are doing $500 million a day of net inflows. But there's only 900 Bitcoin that is actually coming into the daily incoming supply. And so when you look at that, it's like $40 to $45 million.
There's 12.5x more demand for Bitcoin than what's being produced on a daily basis. So how much of this do you think is being generated by the ETFs themselves? Well, I mean, you just measure the actual net inflows, right? And so you can just see there is way more buying pressure. So you're saying $3 billion for BlackRock. There's $4 billion now for BlackRock, $3.5 billion for Fidelity. And then you've got Bitwise and 21 shares will both hit about $1 billion this upcoming week. Total valuation, though, of Bitcoin on a market cap is $1 trillion. So isn't this a de minimis issue or no?
Now, here's where it gets really interesting. Most of these things aren't trading. 80% of all Bitcoin in circulation has not moved in the last six months. You have only about $200 billion that's actually tradable. And so that means that these ETFs sucked up 5% of the entire tradable supply of Bitcoin in 30 days. I mean, Bitcoin has become Wall Street's favorite asset. Nobody, nobody, you see that smile? If you watch it on the PeerTube, he's got, Pomp's got this huge smile because nobody, nobody disputes it. And he just sits there. There's an awkward silence and he just gets the biggest stupid shitting grin ever.
Bitcoin has become Wall Street's favorite asset. What are you going to say joe i can tell you i'm not going to say i i five percent doesn't sound like a lot i here's what but i'm 30 days it used to take a lot for someone to invest in bitcoin yes it's real easy right now and i just i don't know are we going to 90 000 and a year it's that'd be too we people don't double their money by buying an etf in a year so i think that now i think it might be a currency that you can use because it's going to stay at 47 000 so what What drives me bonkers, these guys, right, they get paid to sit on a financial network, right?
It's not like they're on ESPN talking about a Bitcoin ETF. They're on CNBC television. They should understand this. But he doesn't understand that an asset class has a monetization path. And the very beginning of that is user adoption in a store of value. And when the market discovers the worth of the store of value, the price fluctuates and it goes up over time. Look back at gold 2,000 years ago. Bitcoin is retracing that path. It's just tracing it faster because it's digital. And then when he says it's too easy for the price to go up to 90K and people double their, you know, their ETF, I want to tell this guy to go screw himself.
Some of us have been holding Bitcoin for 13 years through every bear market, through everybody who tells us it's boiling the oceans, everybody who couldn't take five minutes to research the difference between crypto and Bitcoin. There's been nothing easy about it. So I think that now I think it might be a currency that you can use because it's going to stay at 47,000. It doesn't get to be a currency until it is a store of value. It's you're on a financial network. Look, the world is changing for sure. I mean, last year, the Nasdaq was up 50 percent.
Right. And so there's definitely these big moves that happen in the traditional markets. Bitcoin, obviously, is that on steroids. But the other thing that's now starting to happen, Fidelity just came out and they've got a fund. It's an all in one fund out in Canada. And they're going to put 1% to 3% of that fund into the Bitcoin ETF. And so what you're going to start seeing is not just direct inflows into the Bitcoin ETFs. You're going to start seeing them putting Bitcoin into all of their funds because it, from a risk-reward standpoint, drastically improves the performance of these portfolios.
And they're going to start to realize, if I'm lagging indicators, if I'm lagging performance, if I put a little bit of Bitcoin, 1% to 3% into this portfolio, it's going to enhance my returns. Bitcoin, I think it might be good if it stayed at forty seven thousand for a year, because then it would people wouldn't worry about buying a pizza that's worth a Mercedes two years from now. The the joke in the Bitcoin community is the real Bitcoiners want the price to stay low so they can accumulate more of it. Right. But obviously, when you have this much, then you've got to go a year from now.
It's where it's much higher. I think that if this continues, if we have twelve and a half times more demand than we do incoming daily supply. And remember, the halving is coming. So we can go from 900 Bitcoin to 450 Bitcoin a day. I mean, this thing's going back to its all-time high. It's pretty much guaranteed at this point. What's that other thing called, Becky? All right, that's enough. That's enough. Let's take another break when we come back. Another thing setting the tone this week, and I'm going to fire up the commercial streams. Stand by. Music.
Your buddy Jon Stewart's back at it again. He's back on The Daily Show. It kicked off this week, and he has been going around to spread the good word. He stopped by CBS Morning, and it was just as cringe as you could possibly imagine. It gets into a little bit of why he's going back, though, and why he's leaving Apple Plus or whatever it's called. So I thought that was kind of worth mentioning. Of course, this is the one thing that'll probably get us kicked off, the commercial streams, now that I have started them up. But welcome in commercial streams.
This is going to be the thing that gets me flagged. I'm an idiot. But Coder Radio 557 is just around the corner. Anyways, Jon Stewart's back, everybody, in time for the election. Love him or hate him, I'm sure you probably have heard about it. I'm sure many of you are curious. Is my beloved Daily Show going to change? Well, it might, subtly. And I know change can be painful, but from change comes growth. A moment for us is gone. Oh, my gosh. That is Jon Stewart's first night as a host for The Daily Show. On Comedy Central, as he says, handsome young man, 25 years ago.
So he went on to host the award-winning program, You Know This, for 16 years, becoming one of the most influential voices on television. Wow. Stewart stepped away in 2015, right at the top of his game. And starting tonight, he's back at the anchor desk at The Daily Show on Mondays. We won't talk about why just Mondays. Through the 2024 election cycle, he will also serve as executive producer. Comedy Central, like CBS, we have to tell you, is part of Paramount Global. And we're very happy to say John Stewart is in the studio. Paramount Global, baby. Yes. Come on. Who's got the tote bag?
Paramount Global tote bag. It's all in the green room, sir. Wait till you see the swag you're getting before you leave. I thought it was called Viacom, but now it's Paramount. Oh, no, it's Paramount Global. It's called Paramount. I want to talk about your new... They're just billionaires moving us around on a Stratego board. Yeah, you're Paramount Global now. And you're now located atop of the Paramount Mountains, sir. Yes, you are. I'm going to talk about that in just a sec. I want to know, you must have watched the Super Bowl. Your thoughts before we get into it. Your new adventure.
Uh, first of all, Patrick Mahomes, I have not seen someone with that preternatural ability to just, you just knew when San Francisco didn't score a touchdown in overtime that he was going to do what needed to be done. It's really remarkable to see a guy at that. I mean, people forget, I think he's only 28 years old. 28, yes. Which is... Three seconds, John. Three seconds left. Three seconds left. Oh, for the field goal. Yeah. Probably bring it down. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I thought three seconds left, and I was like, thank you very much. See you later. This is for an interview.
Three seconds left. I was like, all right. Good luck to you. This has been a lot of fun. You know what I find interesting is within the first minute of this interview, Jon Stewart seems to be going out of his way to display friction with mainstream media about the billionaires moving us around and the clock and all of that. Um, I don't know. I just, I think that's interesting when I reflect on the fact that he could have gone independent. He went back to his old show. He went backwards. You look at a lot of others, they're making a huge career. I mean, I don't, I don't mean to draw a comparison, but Jon Stewart's counterpart on the right might be Tucker Carlson.
Tucker is going huge independent. independent. Megan Kelly, Bill O'Reilly, all of them. Why didn't John do it? Hello, sir. Hello. Oh, hello. Hello. Where is? Oh, God, you sound so good. You're like right here in my ear. No place I'd rather be. I know, right? I know. So, you know, John Stewart's back. He's back on The Daily Show. I thought that was fake. Is that real? It's real. Don't you think think it's weird that he didn't go independent like tucker or megan kelly or papa bear why would he go independent because the guys that have gone independent have all like been crushing it, they're crushing it in view oh he's making he's making more money i don't know i think he's i think he's afraid he couldn't i don't know i don't know i don't know i just think it's because i'm like i'm watching this interview and he's like the entire time he's basically complaining about what a piece of crap mainstream media is so like why don't you go back to it buddy he's not wrong All right, are you ready to do a coder program?
All right, I think that means the week's been launched.
Ignition sequence start. 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0. All engine running. Liftoff. We have a liftoff. Welcome back to The Launch, Episode 5. You know, NVIDIA is becoming a monster. So while I set up for Coda Radio this week, let's get into what's going on there. Why are they just blowing up? up plus the stories that are setting the tone this week and some great value for value music it is the launch episode 5 coming up first shadow man. Music. In August, I would say NVIDIA has just been on one hell of a run. They are now the fourth largest company in America, obviously driven by, I would assume, strong demand for AI chips.
But how long can it last? Is it really based on fundamentals? Is this a situation where when the chips fall as they may, those who sold the shovels will be ahead? CNBC tries to break it down. We're not oblivious to, you know, look, NVIDIA continues to amaze us. What else do you say? It's almost $740. It was just across $700. Now it's $740. It seemingly goes up all the time. We mentioned Arm Holdings was up 40% today. Yeah, it's a tiny float. And who knows what other reasons it continues to go up. It's just an unbelievable path. By the way, NVIDIA's market cap today passed Amazon's.
It's the first time, according to some reports, that that's happened in two decades. So, we asked Cristina Partsenevelos to come sit with us today and just take us through—this is incredible. You cover the space. I mean, you know, you look at it. I wonder what goes through your mind as you follow this. I have to question it. He's in the Middle East today. Yeah, in Dubai. He was making some comments, and it's just insane. His comments in the Middle East, though, were focused on just AI in general because they're in their quiet period, and he's been pushing infrastructure. He said that they see about a trillion dollars in accelerator market right now, and that could go up to $2 trillion.
So keeping costs in check, but that's pretty much telling you there's going to be growth in 2025. 25. So that's seen as a positive. To your point, Scott, and we're going to go over to just some of the reasons. You've seen the stock, what, soar 53% just this year alone after rising 240% last year, much of that happening more so in the second half of the year. So to answer your question, why? Why is everybody still so bullish on this name? First, talk about the big cloud companies, Meta, Microsoft, Alphabet, et cetera, Amazon, all promising to increase their capital expenditures.
That means they're spending more money on GPUs. NVIDIA benefits. Secondly, NVIDIA is launching Launching a new AI chip later this year, the B100, so that should help propel some momentum. NVIDIA also created a, I'm calling it a safe for China version AI chip and is reportedly taking orders right now. So that's keeping that 20% revenue pot intact. And then lastly, NVIDIA's software and enterprise business. We don't talk about it enough, but it's still nascent, still in the beginning stages. And this has led analysts to your point. You're talking about point increases, price targets. Amelius Research today, $920. The stock is $738 right now. That's got to be the high now on the street. Because, right, wasn't it like a week ago we got, I think it was Goldman, went up to $8?
Yeah. Yeah, I think I have that actually on the chart. So Goldman, JP Morgan, several of them have gone up within the $750, $800 range. But $920. Now we've crossed the $900. When are we going to hit $1,000, guys? When are we going to hit $1,000? But the interesting point is the share price actually surpassing right now the average analyst price target for the first time in two years. There are, and I just want to, you know, we have to talk about the negatives, right? Wolf, JP Morgan, a few are raising some concerns. Perceived. Supply is coming back online, which means that lead times would shrink.
Competition ramping up not only in China from Huawei, but the custom chips. That's probably more of a long-term problem, but made in-house by Google Meta. And then the obvious, Scott. The bar is so high for this company. So the size of the beaten guide and the stock reaction could be the next test of investor conviction, I should say, and confidence, especially in the near-term sustainability of this AI trade. So I'm looking at the chart now. Now, the 52-week low on NVIDIA is $204.21. And here we go at near $740. That's remarkable in and of itself. Now, big fans of the stock and those who have been in it a long time, Josh Brown, if you all recall, last week trimmed 20% of it.
Othwat DeMotorin, the so-called dean of valuation at NYU Stern. He's owned it for a long time. He's owned it much lower. He talked about the valuation being insane. Now, the valuation actually, you know this, Christina, is actually cheaper today than the 10-year average. The price appreciation has just been startling to see, but the valuation is actually lower than where it was a year ago, and it's lower than its 10-year historical average as well. So here's my question to you. Is it a bubble, or is it just getting started? Is NVIDIA maybe just the perfect company to sell the shovels during the next gold rush?
And AI is just going to just run for years? Or are we just about to see this thing pop? The cynical version in me says, yeah, we're about to see this thing pop. But then I see ridiculous, ridiculous bullish sentiment from Sam Altman, who's trying to raise $7 trillion. For some sort of AI chip ambition. Our team is on every angle of this story and what may come from it. Deidre Bosa, Steve Kovach, Christina Partsenevelis. Deidre, let's start with you. What do we know about Altman's ambitions and the price tag he has put on them, or someone has? Tyler, we know that they are mind-boggling. This is like the moonshot of all moonshots, and I'm going to use Google's definition here.
A moonshot is something that sounds undoable, but if done, could redefine humanity. That is what Sam Altman is reportedly looking at. Let's start with the number. According to the journal, it could require up to $7 trillion. That is seven times the expected size of chip sales in 2030. It's more than the combined market caps of Apple and Microsoft. It's 7 million millions written out, 12 zeros if you're counting. We'll put it up on the screen for you. Yes, you could barely fit it on one screen. Now, the project itself is aimed at reshaping the world's chip building capacity. Altman is going after one of the most complex, expensive, and geopolitically sensitive industries in the world.
And it's a project that would create an equally complex partnership between OpenAI, chip makers, investors, power providers, and governments. Perhaps the most interesting part of this is the why. OpenAI and Altman are on a quest to develop AGI, or Artificial General Intelligence, which OpenAI defines as systems that are broadly smarter than humans and so has the ability to teach itself, thereby creating new, even potentially smarter AGIs, depending on who you talk to, that could ruin humanity or could supercharge it. A lot would need to fall into place for any of this to happen.
There are still a ton of questions that I know we're going to get into. A few of them, though, if chips are a national security issue, do we let Abu Dhabi fund a new landscape? Because you're going to need sovereign wealth money for this. Can a software CEO lead the charge when others, notably mega caps, chip companies themselves, struggling to catch up to Nvidia? All right, I want to pause. I want to pause. She's really going fast here. What she's saying is the only way you're going to get this much money is if. You tap the Saudis, which means oil money.
And then the other thing she's saying, which I think is valid, is how can a software guy run a hardware initiative at this scale? Which the reason why she's saying that is Deidre has lines into the hardware industry. And she knows that the CEOs that come in that are software guys tend to not do as well in those fields as the guys who understand the hardware or gals. Right. It is people who are native to the industry versus people who are native to an adjunct industry. That's what she's trying to say here. But she just, man, she's just blasting through it. So, number one, she's saying that Sam would have to tap oil money, which runs congruent to Silicon Valley.
And then number two, she is she's saying that simply when you're talking about this kind of scale to at this kind of hardware project, You probably need somebody who is a chip expert, not a software expert. Do we let Abu Dhabi fund a new landscape? Because you're going to need sovereign wealth money for this. Can a software CEO lead the charge when others, notably mega caps, chip companies themselves struggling to catch up to NVIDIA? And how do you raise $7 trillion? Guys, I was trying to figure out, what do you think the valuation would be of a $7 trillion investment?
You got me, but we'll come back to you in just a bit. Why don't you ponder that for a minute, Deidre? Joining us now on set to discuss this, is CNBC's technology correspondent Steve Kovach. I'm guessing if this is as big as these numbers suggest, that this has to have a major governmental drive behind it, one way or another. Exactly. And Deirdre alluded to that, too, the possible security issues. Let me just read. I asked OpenAI about this and a spokesperson told me, I'll just quote here. We will continue to keep the U.S. government informed, given the importance to national priorities and look forward to sharing more details at a later date.
So they are taking that into consideration. They are talking to authorities. At least that's what they say they're doing. But we know what the U.S.'s position here is. We've had those chip sanctions going from over to China. That's been kind of hurting NVIDIA a little bit and other chip companies unable to do business maybe in China in the same way. The word because this technology is seen as so fundamental to the future, it really is a race. And so national security is important. And national security and you name it, all down.
All right. I want to stop right there, actually. Do you buy that premise? Is it important to national security? What else did they say here? There's two things in here. In China in the same way. The word because this technology is seen as so fundamental to the future. Ah. Is this AI technology like ChatGPT fundamental to the future? Get in the chat room if you're listening live, Coder.show slash Matrix, or boost in if you're listening after the fact and let me know. I'll read it on a future stream. This is a, I would say, like a cornerstone of the argument is that what OpenAI is developing is absolutely essential to the future.
But I'd like to know if you listening agree to that assertion. Really is a race. And so national security importance. And national security and... And then I think that's a pretty strong assertion. That's number two. Is what happens with open AI and other AI-related developments, is it a matter of national security? I'd like to know your personal opinion. I'm not going to hold you accountable to see what happens. I just, I feel like this has been asserted quite a bit. And I'd like to know if you agree. Again, in the chat room, if you're listening live or Boost, if you're not in the chat room or listening after the fact.
Fundamental to the future, it really is a race. And so national security is important. And national security and you name it, all down the line. So all that gets tied up in there. We're talking about the $7 trillion whiz-bang, oh, my God, number here, too. Where did that number come from? Was that a number he put on the investment? I guess. That's what the Journal is reporting. That's what apparently he thinks it will take to do what he wants to do here. But who has $7 trillion? This is a question I would have for Deirdre here is, who has the $7 trillion besides governments?
It's not, you know, VCs can't do that. Yeah, sovereign wealth funds. Sovereign wealth funds would have them. And there aren't too many sovereign wealth funds that, you know, the U.S. government would be cool with us. Or a consortium of sovereign wealth funds. But for that, you'd have to go to the Middle East. Yeah. Which they're doing. But arguably, the UAE would be one of those that would potentially make sense and check a lot of boxes. And to be very, very clear, and I can say this for many of my conversations on the national security side and my interviews on the record with Gina Raimondo, the Commerce Secretary, 100 percent, without a doubt, semiconductors are a national security issue. They're only becoming more of a national security issue.
100 percent, without a doubt, semiconductors are a national security issue. How do you feel about that? You're probably pretty more. I mean, I don't know. You're probably more, given you're listening to this, probably more tech savvy than she likely is. So I would probably trust your opinion over hers. Do you agree? On the record with Gina Raimondo, the Commerce Secretary, 100 percent without a doubt, semiconductors are a national security issue. 100 percent without a doubt. I mean, 100 percent. That's a pretty extreme line. Do you agree? Secretary, 100 percent, without a doubt, semiconductors are a national security issue.
They're only becoming more of a national security issue. It also speaks to a broader industrial policy here in the U.S. That is much more national security focused. But the other piece of this, of course, is going to be the electricity and the energy needs that are associated with all these semiconductors and all this AI compute power, too. And I would imagine that would be part of the conversation you're having with, say, sovereign wealth funds or like a UAE that is energy rich. You know, OK, what are you going to manufacture over there? That seems like an invalid point at the end.
But her broader point about energy. Oh, well, she's spot on about that. What she's missing, though, is before we even run the chips, you got to make the chips. And to make the chips uses a ton of power. No matter how you split it, EVs, phasing out natural gas, trying to use solar, the explosion of AI, on-shoring chip manufacturing, Bitcoin mining, whatever it might be, power usage is going to be just crazy in the future. So we have to solve for all of it. Part of the conversation you're having with, say, sovereign wealth funds or like a UAE that is energy rich.
Exactly. Exactly. And that comes down to oil, doesn't it? And fossil fuels. And, you know, that's not what the Silicon Valley ethos really would want from this at the same time. Oh, my sweet summer child. Oh, yeah. Yes. Because Silicon Valley actually reflects in their actions everything they say. Oh, oh, to be so naive. That's not what the Silicon Valley ethos really would want from this at the same time. So this is ambitious. Like, ambitious is not even the right word for it. It is almost ludicrous. Mind-boggling. That's what I keep going back to. I can't think of a better word.
Yeah. And I mean, Deirdre covers VC funding quite a bit. I mean, Deirdre, when was the last time you heard a deal around funding even approaching $1 trillion? I thought a lot about that this morning, and it has to be SoftBank's Vision Fund. That was a $100 billion fund. There was bigger than anything we ever saw before. And this is magnitudes, magnitudes larger. And that can be catching that. So this is how crazy Sam is, is that the next largest fund was 100 billion. And old Sam boy here, he's trying to raise seven trillion. It's bonkers. He was either on shrooms or he's just trying to, like, have some sort of bragging rights about the craziest funding goal ever.
I thought a lot about that this morning. And it has to be South Bank's Vision Fund. That was a hundred billion dollar fund. That was bigger than anything we ever saw before. And this is magnitudes, magnitudes larger. And that completely reshaped the venture capital world. The startup world led to supercharged companies like we were. Can you imagine what this would do to some of the chip companies? Let's bring let's move to the chip side specifically of the equation and let's and how Altman's plan could affect the existing chip heavyweights. Since we know some of the reporting suggests that they would be involved in this process.
Christina Parts and Eveless has that side of the story from the Nasdaq. Christina, what is your reporting unearthing on this? I haven't got them dynamic. I need to know if it's funny because you use the word could. And I'm going to stick with that because, like everyone's alluded to, it is quite a mind boggling number. But if, I'll use the word if, the funding does come through, this could bode well for equipment makers like LAM Research, KLA, Applied Materials, which already could also get an additional boost because of Chipsack funding, Morgan, that you just talked about.
We're expecting more awards to be dispersed in the coming two months or so. So that's a positive for a lot of these names you're seeing. Show me the money. There's also strength possibly in the chip designer simulation and verification. Let's leave it here. I think we get the point. I think that's plenty for the launch this week. but you get the idea. It's got everybody thinking, and of course, the AI money is still strong. Let's take a break. When we come back, I want to talk about something that's setting the tone for the whole week, but up first, we have Saturday Morning by Seth Fonda.
Makes me remember Saturday Morning cartoons, which I loved. See you on the other side. Music. Well, from the stories that are going to impact the tone of the week file, the CPI report coming in a bit hotter than expected has all of the analysts trying to figure out what the heck is going on. This morning's a CPI number, as we said, hotter than expected. Jim, everybody's talking about shelter six-tenths. That's two-thirds of it right there. Right. I wonder how much the—we tend to use the number eight million aliens, illegal aliens, legal aliens, immigrants, whatever you want to call them.
But I think that they've been a major source of rent increase because we have to shelter everybody. And the cost of sheltering is just going up because we've had a big burgeoning in population. We just don't talk about it. I think we should talk about it because it's something that is vital to make sure that we're a civilized country. And we right now have to put people in homes. We have to put people in apartments. And we have no choice. And I think that's moving up shelter. Whoa, whoa, whoa. Whoa, what old Slurs McGee here is saying, what Inverse Kramer is telling you is that the initiatives to house the immigrants have soaked up inventory and the price of housing is going up as a result, which has had an overall impact on the core inflation data.
Whoa, you're not supposed to say that. And I don't know if he's right or not. This is the first time I've heard anybody say it. It would make sense, though, if you've had millions of people coming in that need housing in cities that are doing initiatives around the country to house them, and then housing would be the most contentious in the city, where inventory is the tightest. So if that was the inventory that was being used and bought by the state, it would perhaps lead to a reduction in inventory. And we all know scarcity means the price goes up. Is old Slurs McGee correct here? What do you think? Or is this just trying to blame an unrepresented population?
I'd like to know your thoughts. Chat room if you're live, Boost if you're not. And the cost of sheltering is just going up because we've had a big burgeoning in population. We just don't talk about it. I think we should talk about it because it's something that is vital to make sure that we're a civilized country. And we right now have to put people in homes. We have to put people in apartments. And we have no choice, and I think that's moving up the shelter. Kind of ties in with what CBO said the other day about immigration, Jim, and that is that the economy is going to be $7 billion bigger because of the people we're letting into the country.
Well, look, these are undocumented immigrants. I think I do not share the negativity about this, by the way, because we have such a shortage of workers. And I think if we just adopt kind of a humane approach and also legislation in Washington, we will be able to make it so that everybody's productive. But in the interim, we have to we have to shelter people. And I think that this big influx of undocumented immigrants and documented has made it so that we have no choice but to have rents go up. I actually think home prices will not go up as much. Again, I want to emphasize I am not in the camp which just says this is something that is bad.
We have to take care of. I think it's just something that if we address, we can actually make it a positive call. So I'm I'm not as negative as everybody. What do you think? Is he way off? Is he right? It is a thing, but maybe we should just address it. I really don't have the expertise to tell you I can tell by the look on their co-host's face they really wish he hadn't said it I can tell you that much when they cut away from Jim, the faces on the guys that are there in the studio because Jim's remote. Oh man these guys are tired of working with this guy I know that face I know that face but here's my kind of cynical read on it It just takes one little thing to disturb inflation.
If housing gets a little contentious, well, then inflation goes up. We got lucky that energy is down. However, if energy had been up, which could happen, the CPI would have been even worse. If perhaps shipping gets really screwed up, maybe something going on in the Red Sea, CPI can get worse. It's like it just we're walking a tight, tight line right now. It doesn't take much, it seems. And that's why I'm concerned about anything kind of kicking off inflation again. Perhaps even just the Fed printing money again and people feeling rich and buying things again would just stress the it would stress inventory, would stress supply chain. Perhaps. I don't know.
Maybe that's why the Bitcoin ETFs have been absolute bangers is because people are looking for a hedge against inflation. And when I say bangers, I mean record setting bangers. The price of Bitcoin crossing back over the $48,000 level over the weekend. One month this after the launch of the spot Bitcoin ETF. This morning trading slightly lower. Joining us right now is Anthony Pompliano, founder of Pomp Investments. Good morning to you. Morning. This has been a bit of a wild ride because we talked about sort of selling the news or selling the rumor, buying the rumor, selling the news.
But now we've come back to buying. Yeah. I mean, look, the verdict's in, right? Right. Wall Street doesn't just like Bitcoin. They love Bitcoin. If you think of these assets, there's been over 5,500 ETF launches in history. Never have we had a fund get to $3 billion in AUM in the first 30 days. 5,500. Never, never before have we had a fund get to a billion AUM in 30 days. ETF launches in history. Never have we had a fund get to $3 billion in AUM in the first 30 days. Oh, I'm sorry, $3 billion. But it gets even better than that. It's better than that. It's not just one fund.
It's not just one fund. It's a two. Acrock and Fidelity both just did it. So two for the first time in history. And then if you look at Bitwise and 21Shares, ARK, they're both going to hit a billion dollars this year or this week. And so now you have four funds that are going to hit a billion dollars of inflows. But the most interesting part of this is the inflows. These funds are doing $500 million a day of net inflows. But there's only 900 Bitcoin that is actually coming into the daily incoming supply. And so when you look at that, it's like $40 to $45 million.
There's 12.5x more demand for Bitcoin than what's being produced on a daily basis. So how much of this do you think is being generated by the ETFs themselves? Well, I mean, you just measure the actual net inflows, right? And so you can just see there is way more buying pressure. So you're saying $3 billion for BlackRock. There's $4 billion now for BlackRock, $3.5 billion for Fidelity. And then you've got Bitwise and 21 shares will both hit about $1 billion this upcoming week. Total valuation, though, of Bitcoin on a market cap is $1 trillion. So isn't this a de minimis issue or no?
Now, here's where it gets really interesting. Most of these things aren't trading. 80% of all Bitcoin in circulation has not moved in the last six months. You have only about $200 billion that's actually tradable. And so that means that these ETFs sucked up 5% of the entire tradable supply of Bitcoin in 30 days. I mean, Bitcoin has become Wall Street's favorite asset. Nobody, nobody, you see that smile? If you watch it on the PeerTube, he's got, Pomp's got this huge smile because nobody, nobody disputes it. And he just sits there. There's an awkward silence and he just gets the biggest stupid shitting grin ever.
Bitcoin has become Wall Street's favorite asset. What are you going to say joe i can tell you i'm not going to say i i five percent doesn't sound like a lot i here's what but i'm 30 days it used to take a lot for someone to invest in bitcoin yes it's real easy right now and i just i don't know are we going to 90 000 and a year it's that'd be too we people don't double their money by buying an etf in a year so i think that now i think it might be a currency that you can use because it's going to stay at 47 000 so what What drives me bonkers, these guys, right, they get paid to sit on a financial network, right?
It's not like they're on ESPN talking about a Bitcoin ETF. They're on CNBC television. They should understand this. But he doesn't understand that an asset class has a monetization path. And the very beginning of that is user adoption in a store of value. And when the market discovers the worth of the store of value, the price fluctuates and it goes up over time. Look back at gold 2,000 years ago. Bitcoin is retracing that path. It's just tracing it faster because it's digital. And then when he says it's too easy for the price to go up to 90K and people double their, you know, their ETF, I want to tell this guy to go screw himself.
Some of us have been holding Bitcoin for 13 years through every bear market, through everybody who tells us it's boiling the oceans, everybody who couldn't take five minutes to research the difference between crypto and Bitcoin. There's been nothing easy about it. So I think that now I think it might be a currency that you can use because it's going to stay at 47,000. It doesn't get to be a currency until it is a store of value. It's you're on a financial network. Look, the world is changing for sure. I mean, last year, the Nasdaq was up 50 percent.
Right. And so there's definitely these big moves that happen in the traditional markets. Bitcoin, obviously, is that on steroids. But the other thing that's now starting to happen, Fidelity just came out and they've got a fund. It's an all in one fund out in Canada. And they're going to put 1% to 3% of that fund into the Bitcoin ETF. And so what you're going to start seeing is not just direct inflows into the Bitcoin ETFs. You're going to start seeing them putting Bitcoin into all of their funds because it, from a risk-reward standpoint, drastically improves the performance of these portfolios.
And they're going to start to realize, if I'm lagging indicators, if I'm lagging performance, if I put a little bit of Bitcoin, 1% to 3% into this portfolio, it's going to enhance my returns. Bitcoin, I think it might be good if it stayed at forty seven thousand for a year, because then it would people wouldn't worry about buying a pizza that's worth a Mercedes two years from now. The the joke in the Bitcoin community is the real Bitcoiners want the price to stay low so they can accumulate more of it. Right. But obviously, when you have this much, then you've got to go a year from now.
It's where it's much higher. I think that if this continues, if we have twelve and a half times more demand than we do incoming daily supply. And remember, the halving is coming. So we can go from 900 Bitcoin to 450 Bitcoin a day. I mean, this thing's going back to its all-time high. It's pretty much guaranteed at this point. What's that other thing called, Becky? All right, that's enough. That's enough. Let's take another break when we come back. Another thing setting the tone this week, and I'm going to fire up the commercial streams. Stand by. Music.
Your buddy Jon Stewart's back at it again. He's back on The Daily Show. It kicked off this week, and he has been going around to spread the good word. He stopped by CBS Morning, and it was just as cringe as you could possibly imagine. It gets into a little bit of why he's going back, though, and why he's leaving Apple Plus or whatever it's called. So I thought that was kind of worth mentioning. Of course, this is the one thing that'll probably get us kicked off, the commercial streams, now that I have started them up. But welcome in commercial streams.
This is going to be the thing that gets me flagged. I'm an idiot. But Coder Radio 557 is just around the corner. Anyways, Jon Stewart's back, everybody, in time for the election. Love him or hate him, I'm sure you probably have heard about it. I'm sure many of you are curious. Is my beloved Daily Show going to change? Well, it might, subtly. And I know change can be painful, but from change comes growth. A moment for us is gone. Oh, my gosh. That is Jon Stewart's first night as a host for The Daily Show. On Comedy Central, as he says, handsome young man, 25 years ago.
So he went on to host the award-winning program, You Know This, for 16 years, becoming one of the most influential voices on television. Wow. Stewart stepped away in 2015, right at the top of his game. And starting tonight, he's back at the anchor desk at The Daily Show on Mondays. We won't talk about why just Mondays. Through the 2024 election cycle, he will also serve as executive producer. Comedy Central, like CBS, we have to tell you, is part of Paramount Global. And we're very happy to say John Stewart is in the studio. Paramount Global, baby. Yes. Come on. Who's got the tote bag?
Paramount Global tote bag. It's all in the green room, sir. Wait till you see the swag you're getting before you leave. I thought it was called Viacom, but now it's Paramount. Oh, no, it's Paramount Global. It's called Paramount. I want to talk about your new... They're just billionaires moving us around on a Stratego board. Yeah, you're Paramount Global now. And you're now located atop of the Paramount Mountains, sir. Yes, you are. I'm going to talk about that in just a sec. I want to know, you must have watched the Super Bowl. Your thoughts before we get into it. Your new adventure.
Uh, first of all, Patrick Mahomes, I have not seen someone with that preternatural ability to just, you just knew when San Francisco didn't score a touchdown in overtime that he was going to do what needed to be done. It's really remarkable to see a guy at that. I mean, people forget, I think he's only 28 years old. 28, yes. Which is... Three seconds, John. Three seconds left. Three seconds left. Oh, for the field goal. Yeah. Probably bring it down. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I thought three seconds left, and I was like, thank you very much. See you later. This is for an interview.
Three seconds left. I was like, all right. Good luck to you. This has been a lot of fun. You know what I find interesting is within the first minute of this interview, Jon Stewart seems to be going out of his way to display friction with mainstream media about the billionaires moving us around and the clock and all of that. Um, I don't know. I just, I think that's interesting when I reflect on the fact that he could have gone independent. He went back to his old show. He went backwards. You look at a lot of others, they're making a huge career. I mean, I don't, I don't mean to draw a comparison, but Jon Stewart's counterpart on the right might be Tucker Carlson.
Tucker is going huge independent. independent. Megan Kelly, Bill O'Reilly, all of them. Why didn't John do it? Hello, sir. Hello. Oh, hello. Hello. Where is? Oh, God, you sound so good. You're like right here in my ear. No place I'd rather be. I know, right? I know. So, you know, John Stewart's back. He's back on The Daily Show. I thought that was fake. Is that real? It's real. Don't you think think it's weird that he didn't go independent like tucker or megan kelly or papa bear why would he go independent because the guys that have gone independent have all like been crushing it, they're crushing it in view oh he's making he's making more money i don't know i think he's i think he's afraid he couldn't i don't know i don't know i don't know i just think it's because i'm like i'm watching this interview and he's like the entire time he's basically complaining about what a piece of crap mainstream media is so like why don't you go back to it buddy he's not wrong All right, are you ready to do a coder program?
All right, I think that means the week's been launched.
Liftoff - Launch 5
Reasons for continued bullishness on NVIDIA and price targets
National security concerns and the importance of semiconductors
Silicon Valley's Ambitious and Mind-Boggling Funding Goal
Scarcity and rising prices due to housing inventory reduction
The Fragile Balance of Inflation and External Factors
Concerns about inflation and Bitcoin as a hedge.
Pomp's Smiling Confidence in Bitcoin's Unmatched Reputation
Bitcoin's Potential as a Currency and Store of Value
