Episode Transcript
[00:00:14] Speaker A: Hello, welcome to Call It Like I See it presented by Disruption Now, I'm James Keys and in this episode of Call It Like I See it, we're going to consider whether the tide may be turning against the drill baby drill mentality. Taking a look at some exciting developments with electric vehicles and some factors which may be changing the risk calculation facing fossil fuel companies.
And later on, we're going to explore some interesting research into just how common polyamorous relationships may be in the United States and see where that conversation leads us.
Joining me today is a man who, unlike some who like to run down and get one cow, likes to walk down and get them all.
Tunde. Ogonlana Tunde, are you ready to share more of your know how on how to be energy efficient, so to speak?
[00:01:07] Speaker B: Always.
[00:01:08] Speaker A: All right, now we're recording this on May 30, 2021. And in the past two weeks we've seen Ford unveil its upcoming F150 Lightning electric vehicle pickup. And it's showing some very impressive specs on this thing.
Now we've seen the staggering success of Tesla and essentially creating the EV market with an entire line of vehicles. But Ford releasing an all electric version of America's best selling vehicle definitely makes it seem like the EV trend is actually still picking up steam. So Tunde, tell me, what do you make of the looming introduction of this new Ford F150 Lightning? And do you think this EV thing is really happening?
[00:01:52] Speaker B: Yes, it's really happening. I think definitely the fact that an F150 was released that's electric.
Answers the second part. Definitely, emphatically yes. And you know, I think you can predict what I think about it, that it's pretty exciting.
Yeah. So that's my thoughts.
[00:02:10] Speaker A: No, yeah, I mean, well, yeah, I think that it's symbolic in a way that you have like, that's why I referenced it, America's best selling vehicle, that they're jumping into the fray with an all electric vehicle. And as you had pointed out to me, this thing is like the what it can do is just very impressive. You can power your house with this thing. It still has the towing capacity and all that type of thing. Like things that we didn't even consider are we have, you know, in Florida we deal with hurricanes and sometimes that knocks out the power for days and so forth. I've never considered the fact that might have a car in my driveway with that may power my home in that type of situation. It's just even though my power generates electricity. So, you know they're not just jumping in and saying, okay, yeah, we'll make one that is a cheap knockoff for the version that's actually, that does the work really, but they're really doing it. Like they got in the lab and said, okay, we're going to make this thing as good as a pickup truck and then also make it very convenient from other standpoints. And so, I mean, like, that it's that we're still seeing that level of innovation and push to make things better and better. That kind of opened my mind up to the fact that, hey, you know, what electric vehicles may really have beyond just the transportation aspect, but including the transportation aspect. I don't think we've seen the extent to which these things can actually make our lives better yet. Like, we're still on the incline as far as all the things they can do right now. Imagination is still kind of constrained to what actually has already been done, but there's a whole bunch that hasn't been done that probably could be done. That may be pretty cool.
[00:03:42] Speaker B: Yeah, no, it's fascinating and I think like you alluded to with the powering the home and it's got me thinking about things like camping. Just families go out there and you'll be able to power the electricity, your tent and you can cook your food and all that good stuff. And I see this over time, this decade, it's going to go to other industries as it continues to show promise in, let's say, the vehicle space.
There's already, in the marine industry, there's manufacturers now trying to make fully electric boats, so on and so forth. So I think it continues, and it's just fascinating because I'm thinking too, as you mentioned, they didn't give up quality in terms of value of the actual truck and its ability to haul heavy, heavy loads and things like that. It's got 536 horsepower.
And I also was impressed with the price starting at 39,000.
[00:04:45] Speaker A: Other good point.
[00:04:45] Speaker B: Yeah, it reminded me of the Tesla Model S when it first came out. And I can't remember exactly what year, but I'm guessing around a decade ago. Right. It was a 2011, 2012. And that started, I think, around 120 to 150,000.
[00:04:59] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:05:00] Speaker B: So it's a good example of how in a short period of time, as innovations continue and, and you know, the research and development from the industry continues, it brings down prices and this is available to a wider swath of consumers. So, yeah, very. Just like a very positive reflection of kind of, I think when it's done right, a new sector, a new industry, you know, the risk that was taken by Elon Musk, the capital markets, and now we're seeing that Ford as a, as a kind of more seasoned blue chip company, made a $22 billion investment in electric vehicles in general, just included this F150. But it's a good, it's like the good old way that business to me, when it's done right with everything, the kind of ecosystem, it's just a good reflection of that. Someone took a risk, he's rewarded with it. You know, we all know who Elon Musk is now and he's a billionaire. But then his innovation concept, correct, the consumer liked it so that, you know, it all went well and now the mature industry is saying, okay, we're going to do this too and, and that helps bring down price and blah, blah, blah. So.
[00:06:12] Speaker A: Well, you know what's interesting about that, the mature industry either jumps on board and tries to co opt or at least be a get a piece of it or they get phased out. You know, like that's kind of when you look back historically, so that Ford has the wherewithal, so to speak. And the, it's not foresight at this point, but just the, they're not entrenched in a position. They haven't pushed themselves, put themselves in a place where their identity or their, you know, their feet, the way to feel good about themselves is tied up in that we don't do ev, like we won't do electric vehicles because that, that's just wrong or that's just evil or something like that. And I think it illustrates a lot of times that we do need to allow the market to work in these situations, like on politically we see with trying to look at these problems, if there isn't a solution that someone has at that very moment, then the natural human tendency is to almost want to deny the problem. If you don't have an answer or solution, you deny the problem.
And so we have to be careful with that. If that mentality gets into our leadership, because then our leadership actually may put up roadblocks to prevent the market from actually solving the problem. Because the market will come up with solutions. When there are problems, you won't necessarily know what they're gonna be. If you did, then maybe you're the next billionaire, but someone will come up with it and they'll be rewarded in the market. And then as you pointed out, other market participants will then see that, that signal, that's the beacon saying, hey, there's money over here and they come get it. And so I think again, it's hard in the moment when there's anxiety, when there's like, oh my God, what are we going to do? This is happening. What are the answers?
Human beings have shown a propensity. We've gotten this far, in a sense, coming up with answers to things that they didn't have answers for previously. And so allowing that process to happen, a lot of times can be exciting if you're able to take a step back and if you don't have leadership that actually tries to stand in the way of, of progress just for the sake of. Standing in the way of progress just for the sake of identity's sake or something like that.
[00:08:15] Speaker B: Yeah, I think it's interesting. I want to get back to leadership in a second, but as we're talking, it makes me realize this Ford move is very interesting, especially being an American car manufacturer and all that, versus, let's say like a Toyota or Hyundai. I know it's coming out with an electric vehicle this year, later this year. But it is an interesting point you make about the car companies kind of accepting this change. And I think it shows finally the distinction of maybe the car companies versus the oil companies, which is the oil companies really have been the ones resisting this because it directly affects the commodity that they're pulling out of the ground and selling to us. Yeah, so it's like the car companies, it's kind of like I kind of look at them now like they don't care what's powering the vehicle. They're just trying to sell more units.
[00:09:08] Speaker A: Well, they naturally, they've been in bed with the oil companies for so long that there may have been a lingering loyalty that they could have felt like again, that would have been a non rational reason to resist electric vehicles because it's like, oh, these are, these guys. We've made a lot of money together for the past few decades.
[00:09:23] Speaker B: Well, I'm not calling that. I'm just thinking that like we've talked about, once there was an option other than oil, they clearly went to it. Right. And once the consumers showed that they were gonna, you know, put their hands in their wallets and pay for these kind of cars. And once the cars became efficient enough, and I just feel like it's interesting that the oil industry is the one now that's looking like the real laggard. And this is actually, that's not a surprise.
[00:09:50] Speaker A: And let me, I'm gonna introduce something else. You can continue with your point. But because just when you bring up the oil companies, because yeah, outside of the introduction of electric vehicles, another huge factor in global warming is in fact the oil companies. The fossil fuel companies, you know, like their very business model, you know, at least up until this point, relies on polluting and on greenhouse emissions. You know, that's just, that's part and parcel with what they do. So yeah, they would be, they would be the core opposition, so to speak, of electric vehicles or moving in a different direction in theory at least.
But this week, literally just this past week, we saw two separate occurrences that could impact whether these types of companies are going to continue to double down on this business model, this polluting and greenhouse emission business model. First we saw activists, investors get some climate friendly board members elected to Exxon's board of directors.
And then second we saw Royal Dutch Shell get hit with a massive court order from a Dutch court ordering it to reduce its emissions by 45%, almost half by 2030.
Tunde, you know, you can, I know you want to tie in some stuff with the auto companies as well and leadership, but what do you make of generally that we have legal and philosophical battles going on and we're seeing it play out with these fossil fuel companies and in terms of how they're going to move in the future in light of the changing landscape from the market standpoint and then obviously in the environment.
[00:11:23] Speaker B: Yeah, I mean, I think it's not surprising to me. I think we're, I mean, I couldn't predict that this moment comes now, let's say middle of 2021, but I don't think it's hard to believe that there would be a time when we start seeing a real shift from fossil fuel. And I guess we're seeing the real cusp of that nouns and the beginning of it.
And so with the Shell example from the losing the court case in Europe, from my understanding that's a direct result of the Paris Climate Accord because the European Union has certain legal standards now for emissions and Royal Dutch Shell is a Dutch company and so they fall within the legal jurisdiction of all that stuff. My first thought knowing industry was, well, I wonder how long it's going to take them to move their headquarters to Bermuda or the Bahamas or Panama. I was just thinking in my. All right, so they get sued, they're a big company worth billions.
[00:12:19] Speaker A: A Royal Dutch Shell, they're out of the Netherlands.
[00:12:23] Speaker B: Yeah, they'll be out of the Netherlands quick. You know, they'll be down in St. Martin or one of those islands. You know, the Cayman Islands. They'll get, they'll get, their headquarters will be moved there. So who knows? I mean, look, that could be their answer, right? Is that they just move themselves out of the European Union's jurisdiction. Another answer could be that they do reduce these emissions and, and, and conform to what the court order said. So that'll remain to be seen. But then on the next one, with the activist shareholder move for Exxon, I found that a little more interesting just because, I mean, court order is a court order, but this was more of a kind of corporate warfare that actually we see it now in the news, but it's been culminating for years because it was a hedge fund called Engine One, Engine number one, that basically over the last few years, it kind of slowly and stealthily accumulated a certain block of shares in Exxon and it gave them enough juice to be able to get the attention of other large shareholders. And this is where again, to me, the ecosystem of this capital market stuff is very interesting. So some of the larger shareholders that this hedge fund was able to kind of get over to their side to vote for certain board members at this recent meeting were large pensions like the New York State Pension and CalPERS, which is the California state pension. And so I think, and that's a
[00:13:48] Speaker A: key point, by the way, I just want to add in because the Activist fund, while they did accumulate, you know, a good stake, it's still a 0.02% stake in X. It's not like they, they're controlling with votes. So but they got every other people the big, like you're saying, they had to get a lot of people on board, you know, and they were able to, but go ahead.
[00:14:06] Speaker B: Yep. Yeah. And I think that's where just, it's just interesting to me this, like I use the term ecosystem on purpose, that if you think about it, you've got pensioners, right? School, teachers, firefighters, cops from these large states, specifically in this case, New York State and California. Why do I say those two states? Because you probably have about, maybe about 70, 80 million Americans living within those two states. So long story short is those pension funds have hundreds of billions of dollars and that that money has to be invested for future obligations to the pensioners. And so what happens is those, those large pensions become shareholders in companies and have enough blocks, you know, own enough shares to have some influence when they're voting. And so that's why they're governed by
[00:15:02] Speaker A: a fiduciary duty to do what they think is going to make more money or making it, you know, maximize the return, correct. The decision makers in the pension fund.
[00:15:11] Speaker B: And it's a good point. So it's twofold. It's maximizing the return of the fund for the future obligation that they have to meet for the pensions that have to pay out over the years. But also, remember, just we're all humans and this is a big society. So these pensions also, they do get swayed by the employees of, you know, said state, you know, the cops, the firefighters, the teachers. So, you know, for example, when we had some of the school shootings in recent years, like the Marjory Stoneman Douglas shooting, I remember there was a big push after that for the pensions to divest of ownership of firearm companies.
And so we've had a similar pushes in recent years for, you know, pensions to be more conscious about the type of, you know, socially responsible investing. And it's called ESG investing. And so that then goes back to your point about the politics because we saw during different times there can be people that believe that that type of investing may or may not be good for shareholders. And so what we've seen in recent years is that Wall street actually has put its thumb on the scale and has said that these type of investments actually do better.
[00:16:28] Speaker A: No, I think that actually the ESG issue, and I will let you explain on there, you know, delve into that a little bit more. But the actually, I think the big takeaway I have from these is that it seems like the politics may get in the way. The politics may be noise in these types of situations. Like this stuff is happening now, the Paris Accord, setting aside the Shell thing, the Exxon thing, this is happening by operation of the capital markets. This isn't Joe Biden putting his thumb on the scale or leadership doing something like that.
This is shareholders looking at the long term and then like you said, looking at it from a social responsibility standpoint and deciding this is how they want their money invested, they want to move toward. They want to put on the board of a fossil fuel company, a company whose business model pulls carbon out of the ground and puts it in the air and say to come up with better solutions, come up with other ways to do it.
As we mentioned with the vehicle companies previously, you know, 10 minutes ago, when markets change, when things happen, the big titans at that time either can get on board with the trend and then sometimes they can become a new, a winner in the new world as well if they get on board early enough and do it well enough.
But other times, and what happens a lot of times is that they resist they are too comfortable in what it is, in the gravy train that they have. And they're unwilling to change, unwilling to adapt. And then therefore, they get left behind. So there is a real, real, real issue here. When you're saying you have members of the Exxon board or members, stockholders in Exxon, and then therefore trying to exert influence on the board, saying, we do not want you. We have all this money, we have this huge company, we have all this money invested in it. We do not want you to be one of the people that get left behind when the world moves forward, because you're still trying to fight a battle from 1980, or you're still trying to fight for pride or for politics, for political identity or whatever it is. And so they're trying to preserve this company moving forward as a big behemoth and saying, if you want to stay a big behemoth, we need to figure out ways to be big. And in the areas where the economy and the market is going, not just try to lobby and fight to keep the economy and market from moving forward, because it's gonna move forward. You know, you can slow that down, but you can't eliminate the movement altogether. So I found this to be very, very, very impressive and encouraging. Just from, you know, the inertia of society is moving. That's what this means. Basically, enough people see that the inertia, society is moving and, and they're trying to get where they have their money.
You know, they're trying to get that company on board with it. Like, look, you guys got to come on or else we're going to get left behind. We're going to be, you know, the people who don't make it, and there's going to be some other huge company that's making lithium batteries or carbon capture stuff, and we're not going to be that our money's going to be lost, you know, so that I think that part about it is, you know, like to see that foresight in action, because this isn't.
There is an altruistic nature, obviously, but this isn't all about, hey, let's just do, you know, let's just, you know, warm and fuzzy, let's go hug some trees. This is like, look, our viability to make money, big money, to be a big behemoth in the future is threatened because you guys won't look forward. You're too stuck looking backward.
[00:19:55] Speaker B: Yeah.
Now, it's interesting.
There's a couple things unpacked there. I mean, one is obviously the oil industry for decades has pretty much operated, I wouldn't say a monopoly because there's multiple companies, but an oligopoly or the right term for opec. Right, A cartel.
And have enjoyed massive benefits from the taxpayer, land leases, so on and so forth, domestically. And then you think about a company, sorry, which is I guess as big as a country, Exxon, the amount of massive infrastructure they've got globally, just oil wells and all that kind of stuff. So I understand them not moving and pivoting fast. But to your point about the shareholder activism, as you were saying it, I was laughing in my head thinking I could think of a few companies over the last 20, 30 years that probably wish they had some activist shareholders. You know, BlackBerry comes to mind. Yeah, Kodak comes to mind. Palm Pilot. Palm, yeah, you know, remember Palm said we don't think that anyone would ever want to have a cell phone and a smart thing all mashed in one.
[00:21:06] Speaker A: Correct.
They had the smart thing and then they were like, no, who would want a cell phone?
[00:21:11] Speaker B: Who would want a phone with this? Yeah. And then BlackBerry, like, who would want a touchscreen? You know, so it's just amazing. And then, you know, Apple's rewarded for Steve Jobs doing all that hard work with the iPhone. And so it's just fascinating that again, it's kind of like natural selection based on consumer demand. And, and the other thing I wanted to point out too, which I always watch these things because money really does talk in a sense, for better or for worse.
And when Exxon announced this, you know, I feel like had Exxon been taken over, I wouldn't say the board's taken over, but let's say they had this activist shareholders and replaced a couple board members with, you know, you know, quote unquote, tree hugger types. Let's say that was done 15, 20 years ago. I think that stock would have tanked because Wall street would have been so scared that, wow, this is bad, you know, this is going to mess up the gravy train. And I looked last week, for the entire week, the stock was down 0.93%. So not even a full 1%. So obviously it was slightly down. But I think, you know, that's kind of a normal. Yeah, that's what I was going to say. That's normal.
Just blips in the ups and downs of the market. So the fact that there wasn't a huge sell off in Exxon based on this majorly public announcement says a lot to me. Just like we've talked about in other shows, it shows that Wall street is definitely not afraid of ESG and this kind of sustainable investments. And it makes sense because when you think about it, and I was thinking about this, this weekend actually, I had an issue with my own car, which is not an electric vehicle, and I had, I had some sort of leak in my radiator. And what happened is the coolant was leaking and so the fan was going in overdrive and it was making a lot of noise.
And my wife started the car. I'm looking under to see if there's a leak. And it just dawned on me. I'm hearing all this noise. There's a fan rotating. I've got stuff leaking out. And I just thought, I really thought about an elect because I guess reading for this, preparing for the show, I'm thinking about the Ford and I was just thinking, like, it's amazing how messy just our fossil fuel system is.
That's what I mean. Like there was grease leaking and then all the moving parts it took and the fan and the noise. And that's what I'm saying. Like, clearly that type of energy usage was great. Late 1800s to now. Right?
[00:23:42] Speaker A: That's a lot of combustion.
[00:23:43] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:23:44] Speaker A: Undoubtedly a leap forward.
[00:23:45] Speaker B: Correct. Like the wheel. I mean, there's no denying it. And it's the technology that got us here as humanity and it's great. But I just think, like we're saying, right, that people that are now fighting this battery operated stuff and all that is like when we hear these old jokes. I mean, I think it was Henry Ford sent to Woodrow Wilson an offer to offer the White House a Model T Ford. And I think the famous thing was that the secretary for the President wrote back, no, thank you. We don't ever think that thing will. This, this automobile thing is going to take hold. We'll stick with our horse and buggy. And that's a true story. And I think it was Wilson, the President. But, but I just feel like that's where we're going. Like, you know, people are going to fight it. It's, it's. People don't like change. We're going to have a segment of society that takes longer to come and accept this than, than, you know, the rest of everyone. But I think, you know, the whole thing about early adopters and all that, I think we're past that now. And I think we're getting to the point that, that now this electric vehicle thing is being accepted.
And it's not just vehicles. I was thinking about the power tools I have for my yard, all these other Things are battery operated. So it's kind of like we're getting used to this more so than I think 10, 15 years.
[00:24:56] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah. I've seen like the battery powered lawnmowers and things like that.
That strikes me, I look at that, like, huh, that's growing up. Cutting the grass was a. You know, you pull the cork, do all that stuff and it. I can't imagine just going out there pushing a button and then it just comes on. But I mean, and you said it actually, you phrased this in a way a while back on one of the shows that stuck with me when you were like, you know, this just. There's no replacing that level of efficiency. It's just battery to axle. Like, it's just. There's no. They don't have all these gear, all this stuff going on. It's just like, all right, need power. Boom. Put the power there.
[00:25:26] Speaker B: And so it's the other thing. I was watching this to finish off that point right there because I was fascinated to hear this, that the electric vehicles on average only have two 20 moving parts.
[00:25:36] Speaker A: Wow.
[00:25:37] Speaker B: Right, like, and then you think, that's what I was thinking about.
[00:25:39] Speaker A: Much less that can go wrong.
[00:25:40] Speaker B: Yeah. And that's what I was thinking about when I was underneath my car this weekend. Like, just about all the moving parts in there, you know, like the fan, the belts, the this, that. And that's what I mean, it's not.
[00:25:49] Speaker A: It's in your brain now, man. Now you look at your car, you're just. Now you know that there's an alternative and you're like, what in the world?
[00:25:56] Speaker B: No, it's funny because I thought about it too. Like, it shifted my whole paradigm, honestly, of how I look at these things. Because, look, I've got. And not to be here, bro. Bragging on our show. I enjoy my car. I've got a Mercedes 550 and it's an expensive car. I really looked at the car after this weekend and thought, I don't think I'm ever going to spend that kind of money on a car again.
Because for the first time, it really just was like something to take me from A to B in a different way. Like, you know, I was just thinking about the efficiency of, man, this car is so messy and there's so many moving parts and all that. Why would I spend so much money on something like this again?
Like, I just literally just want to get an electric car with a battery and just go somewhere and be done with it. And obviously I recognize, look, I'm A business guy. The world will figure out how we're all going to be vain. And so, you know, I'm going to have to show up to banquets and go to valet. And so I know I'm going to want to have a nice vehicle. Right. And play the game. But it just got me thinking much.
[00:26:52] Speaker A: You have to battle the, just to add something.
As a wealth manager, you have to battle the impressions that you leave. As far as that, you're right.
People can't. People want their wealth manager to look
[00:27:03] Speaker B: like, yeah, it's like a serious thought that was in my head. Like, all right, like, obviously I want to look the part, but I don't think I can, you know, spend nearly six figures on a vehicle going forward. When you look at the simplicity that's coming with this battery stuff. Yeah, and that's what I mean to your point, I think, and that's why I think we're past the early adopter stage. Because this is not about, am I doing this for the environment. This isn't about me being a tree hugger and all that. As much as I like to say I'm a tree hugger. Right. I care about the environment, but now it's becoming really about efficiency.
[00:27:35] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:27:35] Speaker B: Like, I'm thinking about this coolant fan. It's I, you know, we just spent $1,100 on trying to get it fixed and now I got to take it back.
Right. Like, and I'm, you know, I'm off my CPO warranty. So now I'm out of pocket and it's just all these things. So, you know, that's all I'm thinking about.
[00:27:52] Speaker A: There was one other thing that you had mentioned, you referenced, and I just wanted to, so that we're complete within the show. The esg. And what that is, is environmental, social and corporate governance. And essentially what that is is where corporate boards and corporations are governed and judged by looking at factors like sustainability and societal impact and what has been seen, what's been observed, you know, like, this isn't the theory, but what's been observed is that these companies, companies that consider ESG factors in terms of how they operate, generate a higher rate of return than other companies. And so you can merge this kind of in, you know, in terms of what the, the Exxon, the Exxon activist board members are doing. You can say that, okay, they're looking more at an ESG type of situation. It's not, I don't think formally ESG in that sense. Like, they're not being judged and graded on that. But it is towards more of that kind of mentality which, you know, the burn it all down as you, you know, as you move forward approach is just, has not been demonstrated to be as, as effective at generating a consistent return on investment as the ESG stuff. So that, and that's something else. And we'll, we'll deal with that in other shows as well that society is wrestling with because historically and up until this point, people have considered the cutthroat. I don't give, you know, I don't care about anything. I want to externalize my, my costs and internalize all my profits and the world be damned. People have looked at that as the higher, that's going to be the higher rate of growth or the higher profit. But that's just been challenged by the actual data more recently.
Yeah, so. And then I wanted to speak on the shell thing as well, just briefly. I know you touched it and I wanted to comment the significance of that now, whether they start jurisdiction hopping, you know, aside. But the significance of that actually just, I think shows that Europe is really taking this stuff more seriously than we are at this point. You can argue they have all along, you know, they tax gas and much higher than we do in America already, which changes the calculation on whether you know how much you want to drive and whether you have a car and all that stuff. But the fact that they are being, what they're being penalized for basically, is having a product that creates so much emissions, it's so bad for, so bad for the Earth. And that violates the Paris Accord in terms of the level of pollution and the level of emissions. And so that a court in their home country is saying, actually, you know what, for environmental reasons, because we as a jurisdiction are part of this treaty you are violating and we're going to tell you to reduce your emissions. 45% is a lot. That's almost half in nine years. Now, I'm one that thinks that they can do it. It's not like they wouldn't be able to do it. It's that they don't feel like doing it or either they don't feel like it because it's change and people naturally are resistant to change or some people, many people are naturally resistant to change or they have some philosophical or political identity thing where they just want to say, screw the environment, I don't care, you know, like, I don't know what that is, you know, from that standpoint. But that's also anything that changes the risk calculus, the calculus of Profit versus cost, when you have these things, has ripple effects. So another country seeing this, this is now precedent, it may not be binding precedent, meaning another country has to follow this. But I don't know if another country then sees, well, hey, maybe we should be a little more aggressive, excuse me, Another company sees and says, maybe we should be more aggressive in not getting in a situation where we're going to be dragged into some court somewhere and be ordered to do this and then have to try to do all these, if we're going to try to avoid it, have to do all these things to get away from it. So again, it's the when, when the risk calculus is there is no cost to pollute and to have unrestrained emissions and there's a lot of benefit to it, then that's going to bias people to doing that more. So, whereas when the risk calculus change, it creates basically a different form of incentive, so, and negative incentives, so to speak, to move away from this. Whereas the, the EV may create a pot, may be going for a positive incentive, doing more electric vehicles, maybe doing a positive incentive, like we're after more money, right? We're trying to make more money here. Whereas this may be, hey, we're trying to not lose money here by, by going in a different direction. So I found that to be notable as well. You know, again, from the legal mechanism of it, it's messier, like you said, because it's, it's one jurisdiction. And then they may try to do this or whatever, but it's, it's still notable. I mean, these type of things can snowball, basically, and that's something of note. And I mean, I don't think, as you said, we could imagine that this could happen 10 years ago, 15 years ago, but we wouldn't know it would happen now. And that this stuff is happening and there isn't some political uproar is encouraging to me.
It almost seems like a lot of people just have it in their mind that this is going to happen.
[00:32:56] Speaker B: No, I think it is. And this isn't a good example where I just think the consumer spoken and the technologies there. And I would say the consumer, not people like, let's say you and I, in the example I gave about my car and thinking about buying a different type of, you know, an electric vehicle eventually. I think the consumer also being the business consumer, because I'm thinking about companies like Ryder or Hertz, you know, it's, you know, imagine you own a big fleet of trucks and all this stuff, and now you're seeing that there's this, you know, the electric Hummer or the electric F150. And it's like, okay, if, imagine the cost to those kind of large logistic companies with things like service and repair.
[00:33:37] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:33:37] Speaker B: Talking about all this, you know, and then think about like President Biden, I know, made the goal for, I think by 2030, the entire U.S. federal fleet.
[00:33:49] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:33:49] Speaker B: So that would be, let's say U.S. you know, law enforcement vehicles, if you're a U.S. marshal, driving a truck, U.S. military vehicles.
So you figure anything that's not a tank or a plane that, let's say would fall under their classification of a car or a light truck would be electric. And I'm thinking about, imagine the savings for the US Government, the taxpayer over the long time, long haul. I mean that not buying gasoline and not having to worry about fixing alternators and starters and belts and combustion engines, timing belts and all that.
That's what I'm saying is that I think that that's, that's where it goes back to the Wall street thing, where I think Wall street and the business community is saying, hold on, this stuff is cheaper and more efficient.
[00:34:33] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:34:33] Speaker B: And that's what I'm saying. It's no longer like.
[00:34:35] Speaker A: And it's trending in a way where it's getting even more cheaper and even more efficient.
[00:34:39] Speaker B: And it's ease of use. I mean, think about it. It's like using a golf cart. You just put your foot on a pedal, literally, and go. And it's. And so that's where I just think that, yeah, the trains left the station now. And I don't think, because I think this is where there's going to be a higher appetite for this. As like you're saying the technology continues to get refined and better. Because think about just three, four years ago, we weren't where we are today with this battery technology. So imagine by 2025 or some year like that, I mean, it's going to be so much more efficient.
[00:35:07] Speaker A: And what it does also. And like, this is the piece that I kind of led with, but I just, I can't emphasize it enough is it also opens up the imagination of everyone else. Like as people see, see this, then the possibilities expand because somebody will say, oh, well, if you can do X, then why don't we do Y? And then somebody sees Y and they're like, oh, if we can do Y, why don't we do something else? And then so as we see more the, our, our conception of what's possible expands, you know, and so it, to me it's just, it the, the trend is encouraging. It's exciting, you know, like I'm, I'm really looking forward to seeing what's gonna happen over the next five years with this.
And you know, if I'm going to have a car that if my lose power then I'm just going to plug my car into my house and power my house for a couple of days like that still that broke my brain. I'm just like, what is that easy? Like that seems like that should be a very difficult problem that I have if power's out for three days, not just oh yeah, no big deal. So I mean it's. And then like you said, it almost harkens back and we can close this point with this. But it almost harkens back to like when we were kids and you know, you have the, or our kids now that have these little electric vehicles, like they've been using the electric vehicles all along. Just, you just push the pedal and it goes and so forth and it just seems so much easier, so much more simple than your car. And obviously it is but the fact that that level of technology on these little, you know, these little kids toys now can actually power your car in like almost a luxury setting, you know, and all this type of stuff just like, wow, we've come a long way. And you know, it's. The changes are happening faster, you know, so it's going to be exciting to. What happens next.
[00:36:44] Speaker B: One thing I want to point out before we jump to is interesting from a cultural. Like you said about the cultural and political aspect because I remember there was a time probably in the last 20 years where a lot of Americans were talking about the desire, let's say, to find an alternative for oil more so because of the conflicts in the Middle east and kind of.
[00:37:03] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:37:04] Speaker B: Like not only is oil dirty and messy as a actual like what it is. Right. It's. But it also creates conflict and has been messy around the world. So if, if you know, first of all from a. Our own national security and our own ability to sustain ourselves, you know, we have the ability to power ourselves through coal, wind, nuclear, meaning a utility could then produce electricity to go into these batteries. So I think from.
It just seems like this, by the
[00:37:34] Speaker A: way, that's another place where we'll continue to innovate, you know, how we actually generate the electricity. That technology is improving by the day as well. Yeah.
[00:37:42] Speaker B: And that's what I'm saying is that it just seems like this has so many long term benefits that's what I mean, that in the long run, hopefully we also reduce the type of conflicts that oil has created, let's say, during the 20th century and up till now. So. Yeah, I know.
[00:37:58] Speaker A: I mean, it figured out other ways, but it'll probably just. It'll probably just change the nature of the conflicts.
[00:38:02] Speaker B: Like, we'll figure out how to have other conflicts, but at least they won't be as messy, right?
[00:38:07] Speaker A: Or. Yeah, well, they just will be about something else. You know, it'll be, you know, like you said, it'll be the whatever new status symbol people want to come up with. So, you know, that's kind of just, you know, like I say, I predict
[00:38:18] Speaker B: we're going to fight it over the wind when it's wind farms, and then we're going to fight over the sun when it's all solar farms.
[00:38:24] Speaker A: Oh, my goodness.
[00:38:25] Speaker B: We'll figure it out. Watch.
[00:38:26] Speaker A: Yeah, we'll figure out a way to fight for sure. I'm sure we will figure out a way to fight. So now we wanted to switch gears, and this was an article that caught our attention this week.
The headline, actually, obviously, is very shocking to. The headline goes into just basically how common or relatively common polyamorous relationships are, which is relationships where you have consenting and knowing adults more than just a monogamous situation, more than just one and one. But there is multiple people there or three or more that are all in a relationship, so to speak, together.
And the number it threw out, which was interesting, was that the study said that one in nine Americans had been in relationships like this, but the one that was a trip to me was, okay, so one in nine have done it, but one in six would want to do it. So there's a lot of people that are like, I haven't done that, but it looks good to me or it looks interesting to me. So you could go in any different direction with it, many different directions with this.
So try not to get yourself in trouble. But what stands out to you here with this, with the idea of the polyamorous relationships, or like I was talking about there, the fact that there are a lot of people that seem like they're pretty interested in it.
[00:39:47] Speaker B: Let me reset this conversation. So what stands out to me is what you just said about trying not to get myself in trouble because I was preparing for this one, and all I could think about is how am I not going to upset my wife as I talk about this subject openly.
So the only way for me to say it is, of course, I would never think of anything like this for myself.
[00:40:09] Speaker A: You're not? Well, see, but you have a lot of people with you. 5 and 6 said that they didn't. So, I mean, 1 and 6 should sound like a lot, but 5 and 6 is more than that.
[00:40:17] Speaker B: I would never think of wanting to have another person in my relationship come between me and my wife.
[00:40:22] Speaker A: Well, no, they wouldn't come between. She would be a part of it. She would be part of the decision making. Trust me.
[00:40:27] Speaker B: That's why I'm talking like this. Cause to my wife, it would be coming in between. Trust me, there's no hope for me to enjoy this polyamorous thing ever in my marriage. So she's very selfish, but I can't fault her for that.
But it's interesting. I mean, it's funny. I mean, just like, we're having a good laugh.
It's interesting. I'm not surprised seeing these stats, though, because I just figure, you know, we know people, like people, that's why this. I wouldn't be surprised if the stat was higher. That's what I'm saying. Like, and I think if you have ever delved into reading about any of this stuff, kind of like human societies and, you know, just how we've all operated over thousands of years. I mean, there's different ways that people have dealt with relationships, marriage, sex, all that. So, I mean, I'll give you an example. My. Of course, my name's Tunde, Lana. So it doesn't escape anyone listening to that, that that's not an Irish name.
My grand. My father was from Nigeria and I didn't know my grandfather, but the story was that he had four wives and in Nigeria and that there's.
Yeah, at the same time.
Yeah. No, not sequential at time. And part of it was, I believe it had to do with, you know, at the time, you know, he was Muslim. So I think it had to do also with the fact, you know, that's the way that it was done in Islam and maybe back in the day.
But the idea. I remember my mom telling me these stories because I guess hearing it from his side of the family, that there was a lot of rules behind that. It wasn't just like, oh, let me just get a bunch of chicks and marry them. Like, you have to show, like, the society or the town you were in that you could actually afford these women. You could afford to take care of the family. So there was some cultural structure around this.
And so, you know, I've gone back to the ancient Rome. You know, you hear about the way that people had relationships. And so I just find it. That's why this is just interesting that I've heard people argue that our Western way, and let's say this Victorian age style of marriage that let's say we've adopted from Britain, you know, culturally from the last few hundred years, is kind of unnatural. And that's why so many men generally, because we've been more of, like I say, patriarchal society, but in today's world, women more too are, you know, cheat and look for other partners. Because it has been said that this is an unnatural way for adults.
[00:42:55] Speaker A: Yeah, that the expectation.
[00:42:56] Speaker B: Yeah, that the expectation to be with one person, you get married at 21 or 25, you know, traditionally, and that you're going to live till 80 and never have want for another human being is somewhat unnatural. So it's interesting. That's why I just say this is always. I can have a lot of fun and get in trouble, but I want.
[00:43:15] Speaker A: That's no fun tune dad I'll tell you this at a high level, though,
[00:43:18] Speaker B: but I want to stay moot.
[00:43:19] Speaker A: The interesting thing to me about this, and just in general, like, you talk about like that Victorian age or Victorian style, like, oh, this is how you do it. It's very rigid and I always find, like, people are. There's a wide, obviously, I'll say something very. That is easily observable. There's a wide variety in people, wide variety in people's appetites, things like that, in terms of what they, you know, what their appetites are and also the scale of them. And in our society, in a lot of ways it does seem like people who have the lesser appetites, which. There's no problem with that. There's no, you know, there's no thing, like for some people, I'm sure the one man, One woman from 20 to 80 works just fine, you know, I'm sure it does. Like, but it seems like those are the people that in our society at least set the rules for everyone.
And so it's. I wonder why that is, but I've wondered that for a long time. It may be that people who have lesser appetites just are more intent on trying to impose their view of things on everyone else, whereas the people who may have a greater appetite, and I say lesser and greater, again, not as good or bad, but just like the scale of the, of the, of the appetite.
It's, you know, I, I wonder, I just always wondered. And so, and this is one of those situations where like, yeah, the person who at some point A group of people or something like their desire only was for one person for the rest of their life. They decided that that was going to be the rule for everyone. And it was like, well, why did that person, you know, why did that group be the one that imposed that on everyone else, if that is? And I think to your point, it's probably not natural for everyone. It's probably natural for some people, you know, and that's great, you know, but the fact that we have such a breakdown and have had such a breakdown over decades and stuff, that I would think is an indication that it doesn't work seamlessly, it doesn't work smoothly. And then we have other animals, different types of animals have different types of relationships as far as how they handle the society, how they handle the procreation and so forth. It's not just one size fit all. And then even different human cultures have handled that differently, as you were talking about. So I'm just interested by the whole conversation, you know, because I'm one that believes that there's more than one way to skin a cat, so to speak. And so, like the introduction of different ideas or people trying different things, things that may work for them, things that may not work for them, that may work for some people, but not work for other people. I'm not threatened by that, you know, and so, like, taking that out of myself, like, I don't think that whatever I do is the only way to do it. I think that it's good. That's why I do it that way. But I'm not interested in imposing that on everybody else, you know, so.
[00:45:53] Speaker B: Well, let me jump in real quick because you said something interesting, which was
[00:45:57] Speaker A: more than just one thing.
[00:45:58] Speaker B: Yeah, interesting. Well, that'll be for the audience.
I'll tell you what stuck out to me. No, but the.
No, just when you were saying the greater and lesser appetites, it's. I. I see it a bit different. If you.
I think that if you look, even the Ten Commandments, I mean, think about it. We've talked about it. The Ten Commandments were, I guess, recorded during the Bronze Age, and they actually are a great legal system for a small society. Like, if you had a town or a village of a thousand people, you'd want to say, thou shall not steal. And then one of the main ones, right, like thou shall not commit adultery and covet thy neighbor's wife and all that stuff. And then you look at, you know, I think our Western society, you know, picks on Islam a bit in today's world, in Terms of how women are treated.
But if you look at.
In all Orthodox religions, of the three Abrahamic religions, I'll say Judaism, Christianity and Islam, women are pretty much treated the same. If you look at Orthodox Jewish, you go to a synagogue, the women are, you know, sit separate from the men. They all have to wear head coverings. They can only wear dresses, no pants. And if you look at, you know, the Catholic Church and, you know, all the. All the hierarchy are men.
[00:47:20] Speaker A: Women are separate Orthodoxy, by the way.
[00:47:21] Speaker B: Yeah. In the Eastern Orthodox. And the women wear head coverings, all that. So my point is, is that a lot of. I think the way that we've evolved around marriage and the way that our society deals with women, to be honest with you, and how they can dress and appear not modern Western society that you and I grew up with here in the United States. But I'd say almost every society prior to this really stems from the religion, which then stems from the fact that I think that because of who we are as men, I'll blame us.
Societies would be so messy if they didn't create these kind of guardrails. Like, that's what I'm saying. Like, I think about. We've talked about on other shows like. Like the Taliban and how burkas or women aren't allowed to drive without a man.
A lot of that is men who fear other men and they're insecure about that their women will get preyed upon by someone else. And I think what makes this polyamorous article interesting was there was a section about people that would do it again. And I think about a third of the people polled said they wouldn't do it again because they're. They recognize they're too possessive.
[00:48:33] Speaker A: They're them themselves. Yeah.
[00:48:36] Speaker B: And that's what I'm saying. Like, I think that because as humans, you know, when it comes to sex and emotional states, 100% of us become irrational. And so I think the way that we've evolved with things like marriage and all the different ways that societies do things, the way women have to cover themselves in a lot of societies, all stems from the idea that if you don't have certain guardrails up, like you said, the more passionate, especially those with testosterone probably will make society less productive because everyone will be focusing on that stuff and not on actually like working and farming and doing what.
[00:49:13] Speaker A: No, you're right 100%. I think you're correct about that, actually. I think that I look at these a lot of times as ways to maintain order.
[00:49:23] Speaker B: Poor women. Women gotta Suffer. Cause we're such assholes.
[00:49:26] Speaker A: That's really what it is.
[00:49:27] Speaker B: Like, for thousands of years, women have been under our.
[00:49:30] Speaker A: I don't know if I've told you this before, I don't know if I told you this before, but like, I've thought about that. Like, I actually think that monogamy was put in place to. So that there aren't a bunch of men who don't have any women causing trouble all the time. Like, they're trying to spread out, spread the wealth, so to speak. Like, because, yeah, men don't know how to control themselves. If you look at, like, look at societies, like, that's like, it is a concern that if you have. If your grandfather has four wives and then there's three other guys that have none, then society is like, whoa, whoa, whoa, what are those other guys gonna do? Like, are those guys gonna start causing trouble now? Like, so you almost.
The rule seems to be set up in a way, you know, from a societal good standpoint as what works for.
As what, at least it's believed work for human beings. But it's very patriarchal. You know, that's not asking, you know, so to speak, taking into account what the women would like or what fulfills them or whatever. Because I look at lions, for example, as just an interesting example in what I'm talking about and that, you know, like, you have the male, the head lion, and then the women hang out with him, and then you have these other lion males that are just on the outside. Like, they're, they're like not part of the. In group. And if they come in, they have to fight, you know. And so it's like the humans are like, all right, we're not going to do that. We're not going to just have, you know, whatever top of the chain guys with all the people and then have these other guys that just weren't able to carry a household. You know, like, we, we want to spread the wealth.
[00:51:00] Speaker B: And again, you're saying we're more socialist with our, With, I think with our interpersonal relationships. We want to spread the wealth.
[00:51:09] Speaker A: I think human beings are socialists when it comes to marital relations. That's what it is.
[00:51:16] Speaker B: Because you're right. It would be like third world if we let just like the lion, you know, the king of the jungle, just have his way, right? Yeah, that's the way, I guess. But no, that's the way it used to be.
[00:51:27] Speaker A: All people would be doing would be trying to take him out. Like, that's it.
[00:51:31] Speaker B: But that's the way it was back in like the sultan days. Right. Didn't these guys have like a harem? They'd have like 100 chicks.
[00:51:36] Speaker A: No, we're stating it, I think on purpose. But yes, that's happened in many societies around the world and you can derive some stability from that if you got the heavy hand and the army behind you.
[00:51:47] Speaker B: I'm going to call my wife.
[00:51:49] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:51:50] Speaker B: I'm going to start selling something different here.
[00:51:52] Speaker A: I think we could get out of
[00:51:53] Speaker B: here before we know what I'm going to do. I'm going to call my wife and then it's going to be part of this switch. I'm going to, I'm going to propose this polyamorous thing while we're in the flatbed of our electric F150 light looking
[00:52:05] Speaker A: up at the stars.
[00:52:06] Speaker B: Looking up at the stars. Yes. Powering the house.
I'm going to say because I was so efficient, I deserve over reward. Hey, man, there we go. I'll let you know how that works out.
[00:52:15] Speaker A: By the way.
I, I, I, I'll.
[00:52:18] Speaker B: Audience stand by for if James has a no this week, then that'll, that'll explain how it works
[00:52:26] Speaker A: N that, that's, that's crazy. But I mean, just to wrap on that though, I mean the, the fact that it's easy for people who don't live that, you know, which myself is included. I mean, I, I don't live in a polyamorous type of relationship, but like it's easy to kind of look at that and almost in a way of somebody's being taken advantage of and it's to not to take it out of the construction of mentally that like, that just works for some people and that's cool, you know, like. But I'm very interested and as we talked about here, the interplay between what works for the individual or what works for small groups of individuals versus what works for society at large and how in conflict sometimes those can be and then what happens in those situations when those are in conflict, at least in terms of people who are out here trying to make rules for everybody else, you know, what they think you should be doing and what you shouldn't be doing for societal stake or because of what they think is right or whatever.
And you know, it creates an interesting interplay because if 1 in 6 say they want to try it out, it's probably more than that because remember, everybody's human being. Everybody's been conditioned to think that people would judge them for saying that they'd be interested in that or so forth. So it's something that's in our head, in, you know, a significant number of people's heads, though, you know, and so. And that's just interesting. I mean, that's interesting that, like, everybody doesn't think the same and, you know, and that's kind of why the world works. If everybody thought the same, then things would bog down and grind to a halt pretty quickly.
[00:53:54] Speaker B: Very true.
[00:53:55] Speaker A: So. So, yeah, we can wrap that up.
[00:53:57] Speaker B: Our whole society. Oh, go ahead, everyone. I was saying, that explains our whole society side. If everyone thought the same, we wouldn't have all the exciting fireworks.
[00:54:04] Speaker A: Yeah. Good and bad, you know, or maybe we probably still have bad ones, but we wouldn't have all the same good stuff. So, yeah, we can wrap it from there, man. I think you made it out safely. Tune today.
[00:54:15] Speaker B: You've made it to safety.
We'll see if I'm here next week or not. Let's see.
[00:54:22] Speaker A: So we appreciate everybody for joining us. Everybody, you know, say a prayer for Tune Day.
And I'm Chase Keys.
[00:54:29] Speaker B: I'm tuned to Edwin Lana. We'll see if I show up next week.
[00:54:32] Speaker A: We'll see if he's here with us. Subscribe, rate, review, and we'll talk to you next time.
