Well, actually, this is a continuation to the next chart I wanted to show you, and it's a better continuation than I expected. So there's a growing suspicion that this whole thing has become a kind of circular money machine, that the quest for growth and the quest to justify stock prices and investments and valuations has only given the appearance of money being constantly in hand and active. So, Joe, let me show you this graph. This is a graph from Bloomberg. This is a chart from Bloomberg. You can see it even from a distance. I know this graph from afar. And although it is very difficult to analyze, including for me, there is almost no need to analyze it. -The important thing is to just get- -This chart is as much a vibe as it is than anything else. It's the atmosphere. -It's not just a visual, it's a visual – -Look at this incredible level of interlinking. This, to me, is the most interesting graph to see in AI. For those just listening, here it is – this is a graph centered around Nvidia. And basically everyone is investing in other people. So Nvidia invested in OpenAI and then also invested in one of these new cloud data center companies, CoreWeave, and CoreWeave buys chips from Nvidia and reuses the proceeds. So there are two. So basically everyone is linked to everyone else. -And again, it's a two-way street, yes.–And it's a two-way street, but it's not like you pay someone and they pay someone else. It's like you're paying them. And they pay you. Yes, you invest in them and they invest in you. So I'm going to invest in you. And you're not just buying chips from me, you're also investing in stocks. So clearly there is a web of complexity. I think this is what we associate with 2007 and 2008, and it's just an incredible web of justice, an enormous amount of relationships, and so on. And so is how difficult it is to decipher it. But there's another factor. It's back to the dot-com bubble. And if you look at a lot of the companies that were riding the dot-com bubble, they were actually profitable. The poster child for this was Yahoo.com or Cisco. So there are companies that say, “Well, maybe we're a little richer in the stock market.” But look, we know they're a real business. The problem was that underneath these actual businesses, there was a lot of financialization going on. Specifically, there were a lot of startups that were raising money through IPOs. And the IPO money they raised was immediately used to buy ads for Yahoo or Cisco equipment. And then when the IPO market shut down and the risk appetite in the stock market went down a little bit, and all of a sudden, the earnings of those giant companies collapsed. So, yes. Yes, what looked like a sustainable and healthy business was actually funded by financial markets. And I think the concern when you look at the AI boom is that all of these companies are doing very well. Nvidia is definitely a real business. There is definitely real income. It absolutely brings real benefits. No one is denying it. Is there some leeway in the appraised value? Indeed, that may be the case. I don't know, but it's very plausible. There are real businesses too. So I think the problem is that when we talk about the AI bubble, yes there may be rich valuations, but the concern is that the actual returns are not sustainable returns and therefore are not sustainable profits.
