And it's eye opening for people who've been paying attention to the last 20 years when companies like Amazon have basically just dominated and like the success has compounded with each passing like five year window. And it's strange to see costs start to matter for them. Like Brad Stone, he had a good article at Bloomberg and he wrote about the sum of the cost over the last few years. He said, especially in the final years of Bezos's tenure as chief executive officer through Gallady seemed to go out the window. Amazon spent big on everything from new offices in Seattle and Arlington, Virginia to Hollywood productions. For at the season, one billion dollar tab for more Lord of the Rings, which I said was ridiculous at the time. I said it was the time and it was even more ridiculous once you watched it. And acquisitions, eight and a half billion dollars for MGM, which no one thought was worth that much stone rates. The company also went on a wild spree of hiring employees and constructing warehouses, both to satisfy pandemic demand, but also to support that new one day delivery promise to prime members. And it's just interesting to see like costs matter for a company like Amazon and like a new reality where they're sort of playing in the same game that everyone else is, because for a long time, companies like Amazon and Facebook and the rest of the big five, they've all felt basically bulletproof relative to normal companies.

Yeah, and it's all relative. Like these are all, you know, Amazon doesn't make much profit, but I think they could. But particularly the other big tech companies just they still make tons of profit. The issue is that there are sort of stock prices predicated on the assumption that the growth and sort of profit would sort of continue indefinitely. And I think the and so the correction year, like the relative prices compared to your typical quote unquote real world firm are still much higher. It's all sort of relative to what they were, I think is sort of the thing. I mean, I don't think that, you know, I don't think that Amazon is doomed by any means. The question is, is it reasonable to sort of value them based on the assumption that this growth and dominance continues over the next 30 years? And they certainly were hiring at that. But I think the reality is the hiring was out of control. Like, like you had the last few years, it was crazy. And I think it was bad for Silicon Valley. It was bad for tech because you had these large companies. It was becoming completely irrational to be an engineer and work for a startup. Because like the, you know, you're never going to be competitive on a salary perspective that he is, well, there might be some sort of upside. But then even when the when you actually calculated out that upside, and then you had these startups raising at crazy valuations where it's like, like, what's going to actually have to happen for us to grow into that valuation? And then you almost had like this hoarding of talent by these these large companies. And this hoarding, I think, was was a very bad thing. And I, I again, this is very easy for me to say sitting in Taiwan with sort of a stable, stable for Amazon. Although the people that get bad, like, Hey, your your subscribers might be taking place. I get it. But if I if I sugarcoated it, because I was worried about that, then you shouldn't listen to me. It wasn't great the last five to six years where you just had these big five companies who ring up basically all the talent and paying them to not do what it wasn't super clear. And the optimistic take the silver lining is that there's actually now much more talent available to go into building new things. And it's happening in conjunction with this AI stuff. So maybe that's actually a paradigm shifter that makes new companies

possible.