Listen to Episode

Read Episode Transcript

Hey everybody, welcome back. Besties are back and it's a bestie. Spacks giving congratulations to the Queen of Kinoa, his second company, David Frieberg announces today, hours before the taping of this special Thanksgiving pod. That he is taking metromile public through back and that bestie C. And here is the quote. Now as only chamath can tweet. Buffett had GEICO, I picked metromile. Unbelievable. I would just like to say I tell you, move markets. Yeah, LeBron James has three rings. Freeberg, tell us what is metromile and well, this isn't a self promoting podcast is it? I mean like no, but I think it's just, you know, it's your second company. I started the company in 2011 when I was running climate when I was the CEO there and you know we were climate was offering insurance. At the time. We learned a lot about the insurance markets and figured like hey, you know, telematics or connecting cars to the Internet, it's going to be a big deal and we're going to be able to completely change the auto insurance industry. So we set up this. Company, I was the chairman from the founding in 2011 and you know been been chairman and I've been an active investor in the business and every round since then. So the business has built some, you know, really compelling value proposition for customers and you know it's got really good unit economics and it's, you know needed its last round of capital to get profitable and it turns out, you know as we were thinking about that this summer that ASPAC was. A really good path for the business given the inflection point it's at. And the basic premise of the business is instead of paying for insurance by month or time periods, the innovation here is you pay per mile. Yeah, insurance today is like, you know, you fill out a form and you get a price for insurance and you pay that rate for six months of coverage. But you know, depending on when you're driving and how much you're driving, you should be paying a different price, right. So we, we kind of changed the model to a rate per mile. And so if you don't drive, you save, you know. So the average customer doesn't drive a lot. With Metro model, they save 47. Percent over what they were paying with, like GEICO or progressive reassurance. And you do that with that O DB port, it's like OD port plug in device and increasingly we're actually doing it directly by connecting to cars direct through a Ford and a couple other big automotive OEMs now have this ability to send the data directly out of the car because all Internet connected now. So so that allows us to just basically you know see how many miles you're driving and the rate per mile is what we bill you each month times the number of miles you drove on your on your card and you you didn't mention how you drive. I think that was a controversial concept for a while. You know, if you speed if you we know that the road map or yeah that that that is part of it today. But frankly 70% of the price difference you get in auto insurance is from the number of miles you drive and only 30% is really in this variance around behavior. You know, most people are generally pretty good drivers, so believe it or not. So the the real variance in terms of, you know, your risk to the insurance companies, how many miles you drive. So that really is the predominant factor. So if we can accurately track that. Now what's interesting is like in a world of autonomous cars where you're like turning on the car. To be autonomous or fully self-driving, at some point you know it's on and off, you should be getting a different rate for those miles, right? So if the car is, if your Tesla on autopilot on the freeway, that should be safer than you on the freeway, you shouldn't be paying as much for auto insurance even back you can. You can kind of think about how this moves into a world where everything is dynamically priced and dynamically build usage priced, usage priced and and and also fair. So if you're a good driver and you're driving well or if you're using autonomous features, you shouldn't pay as much and ultimately that translates into a truly. Kind of more dynamic service and that's really where the world has to go because those low mileage drivers or those good drivers or those drivers using autonomous features should be paying considerably less. So they'll start using our service and that'll force the other guys to raise their rates and it creates this huge, you know, kind of market mode. We're in the, we're in the very early days. I mean, it's like the first inning still. So we're, you know, we're we're just getting going chamath you chose to do a pipe with a SPAC explain to the audience what a pipe is people don't know, and what you loved about metromile. Sure. I think the what what is a pipe? A pipe is a private investment in a public enterprise. And basically what that means is that you're making the round bigger, right? So it's kind of like Sequoia does your series. And invest 10 million, I would come in and put another 10 million and now your Series A is 20 million same terms as the as sequoias round except you're now just grossing up the amount of capital. Why are why is that helpful? Well what it does is it allows somebody to price the deal. So in this case David Spax sponsor price the deal did the diligence and decided to underwrite metromile at that price and then they came to me and said hey you know do you want to come and join this round? Essentially, and I got to know the business, a lot of things that David said basically are true. The the thing that I will say is like you know, everybody talks about the value of machine learning, right? And data oriented learning. The most obvious thing that you can do is if you learn on top of a huge subset of data, especially out in the real world like driving data or any other kind of information is you should be taking risk on top of it. And This is why sort of. These next generation insurance companies to me are so interesting because it's probably where you're going to see machine learning be used that just massive, massive scale because you're just going to reprice risk and make it, as David said, much more dynamic. So anyways, they showed it to me. I I really like the the product, the metrics are really amazing. And so I joined it was great. I'm really excited for, I'm really excited for freedberg. Yeah, congratulations. Great, Jamal. And I've never worked on anything together, so it's awesome we're doing. Our first project here on the All in podcast together. Alright, so sounds that it. It sounds like a brilliant idea and I'm just ****** I'm not part of it. I know the feeling. I read. I read it like 2 besties for me. And sex. Yeah. Jason, do you know about this? I don't know anything I get out of it. I need to get my beak wet. You two got the wet? Their beak get my beak wet. You too? You too narcissistic? Besties have been have been running around. Touting every single Unicorn you guys have been apart application and Robin Hood. I missed my allocation. And bird or Uber or whatever. Yeah alright. New bestie rule. New bestie rule. Everybody gets a slice, even a little tasty poo. Everybody gets their beak wet from the old neighborhood. Like the old neighborhood, you know. Back a little share. Let's Jason why don't you start an AngelList syndicate for every all in podcast listener. Yes, all in podcast syndicate. It will be on the syndicate.com. I love you Angel list, but yeah. OK, yeah, we'll do it. We'll do the syndicate.com/all in podcast and then we'll aggregate all these subscribers and then just say 20%, Carrie and you guys can suggest that no, we we'll do, we'll do zero carry and will allow all the listeners to participate in our deals, which I think would be pretty cool. Listen, I have, I love it. Every time you loop my business into this, whether it's podcasting or syndicates, you take out the money and the profit. I tell you what. You have an idea. How about we spack this week in startups and you do it for no participation? I'm the father of growth. You know how you grow by making things free. You want to maximize demand, just make it free. By the way, on this topic, Saxy Poo had this incredible tweet this week which was basically like, wow, this is like my 95th Unicorn that went that filed to go public. I mean literally every single Unicorn that filed this week to go public. Sacks was an Angel investor, which is incredible, says says our goodies as an investor. But the best follow up tweet was Zach Weinberg, the cofounder of Flatiron Health, whose tweet was I just want to congratulate. Myself on nothing for having not been a part of any of these companies. I would like to congratulate myself for making no pets and taking no risk and getting no reward. No, I thought, I thought Zach's tweet was the best sax. Don't you find it tiring? Like all these investments that you've made? Like, no, these guys call you and wanna do meetings and chat all the time. I mean, you know this is gonna be like a huge amount of effort, right? Well, not, not, not I mean it, not real money in turn around. Well, you know, if you're not on the board, your obligation is basically to respond when somebody asks you for something that as an Angel investor it is a little different when you're actually like leading around and you're a board member. I was making these investments back in 2012, 2013, that's when. These seeds were planted, right? These were 50K100K250K checks, right? So the responsibility is proportional to the dollar amount. Somewhere a little bigger than that, actually, but yeah, I, I mean, I've written, I've written checks, you know, 7 figure checks in some of these companies. Well, checks according to your personal balance sheet that we got from your accountant this week, Phil, how you sent it? Yeah. We see here a transaction for House. Is it true you did the series B of house the entire series B dollar 45 share? No, no. I heard it was. You led the series me. No, no NEA LED that round. I mean I invested a lot as an individual. I did Co lead. The Series B or C of attapur, that was one that I did as an individual. That's incredible. Yeah, that's amazing. Gonna be huge. I have no idea what that company is, but that sounds awesome. They manage funds, they do portfolio software. Yeah, it's coming up on, you know, 100 million. There are that name. I'm just kidding. I'm totally kidding. I'm totally kidding. Let's start the pod. Jakal. Where are we going to start? Well, I mean, I think now that we've also promoted. Exactly. Well, I'm. I'm just happy to hear that that Jason was cut out of your deal as much as me and I yeah, when when I read about it on Twitter, I'm like, I better not be the only best to cut out of this thing. Alright, you're right. You're right. You're right. It is. It is getting awkward now because people who watch. This podcast assume that we do everything together. Like, literally they're like, well, you guys go grocery shopping together, you go on vacation together. You guys gonna live in the same together house? Yeah, yeah. It's that's not how it works. I think the first thing we should talk about is just this amazing moment in time when because of science, you know, in this podcast started during the pandemic we have had as predicted by freeberg. Gets to take 2V laps, he said. By the end of the year, we'd have vaccines, and they would have, because of this M RNA, if I remember correctly, 9095% efficacy and sure enough, the week after Trump wins. I'm sorry, loses. Sorry, sacks. He lost, actually, the week after Trump lost. I know you didn't vote for him the week after he lost. Moderna, Pfizer, then the next week. Moderna. And then the next week Oxford and I understand Johnson and Johnson is about to announce something and all of these have 90 to 95% efficacy and that there are going to be 4050 and 60 million doses in December, January and February just from the first two in America alone. So freedberg, if you were to put a number on when herd immunity hits, because probably 20 or 30% of people have had it, 20 or 30% of people have. Some natural immunity. How long is this gonna take and could we be able be doing this from, you know, a Warriors game next year? When are we gonna be able to do this in person? I think I don't know if it was test. Yeah. I don't know if it was Fauci or someone that's closer to the operation shared that they do think they can get 70% of Americans immunized by May. So my may, yeah. So you know, if you'll remember a few podcasts ago, I think I, I tried to explain a big part of the budget that went into this operation warp speed was to parallelize. Production of these vaccines while they were being tested. And so we've been scaling up the production and the manufacturing of these. If they weren't gonna work, we're just gonna crash them, right? A couple billion dollars, who cares? It's a good option for the American people. So we've got a ton of doses that have been produced. It's about packaging and distribution now. And that's, you know, supposed to be kind of underway with the plan to be that on December 11th or 12th when they give the emergency use authorization, these doses start showing up in. We went all in, we basically went all in blind. Like we just shoved the chips in and said we're gonna make these vaccines even if they're not. It's more like a a spray and pray Angel investment portfolio. You know, we we bought a bunch, we bought like 4 different things or five different things. We made a bets in all of them and hope that one of them pays off and it turns out they're all going to pay off. So, you know, or or or chunk of them are gonna pay off and we get to have them ready, you know, in time to kind of make a difference here. Now all that being said, if you look at the case numbers in the US right now, we could be as high as 30% of the American people. Have already been infected with coronavirus based on some estimates. So as of the June 30th paper that was published from those dialysis patients and they did a pretty good statistical interpretation of looking at antibodies and people's blood. They estimate 10% of the American population was infected by coronavirus as of June 30th. And then if you look at the number of people that have been infected since then and you apply the similar sort of multiple that you would assume based on tests, you know, there there's an estimate that we could already be up to 30% of the US population has been infected. Wow. And and therefore immune and they're theoretically mostly immune, let's just say that. Right. And so we share those anecdotes and so on. But yeah, let's just say generally, yes, immune. And so you combine that with these vaccines starting to roll out and we get, you know, a pretty kind of comfortable position in terms of the pandemic and and hopefully a couple of months here. And that's why the markets going nuts and that's why everyone, I mean, I don't know about you guys, but I got some conference invites this last week for conferences for next year that have been cancelled this year and we're being on hold. Yeah. So people are starting to to learn what for what time frame, third quarter or fourth quarter? Summer, July. Yeah. So people are now assuming that and they're booking hotel spaces based on it. That is extraordinary. Sacks, you shared this New York Times story. Why don't you summarize it for the audience and I'd love to get your thoughts in addition to this. As to what this recovery might look like if in fact we have more vaccine than we need, and even, you know, a reasonable number of Americans take it and don't believe that it's a conspiracy theory by Bill Gates to control and the Illuminati. And all that stuff. Yeah. I mean, this New York Times story is pretty remarkable. It's called politics, science and the remarkable race for a coronavirus vaccine. This came out, I think it just came out today in the New York Times, actually. Sorry, it's published. It published November 21st, updated November 24th. And it's pretty remarkable. It describes the effort by Operation warp speed, by the administration, by Pfizer, by Maduro. Net kind of gives you the behind the scenes play by play. And reading the article, you have to come away thinking that the Trump administration did a pretty good job with this whole warp speed project. I don't know if the New York Times realizes that is making the Trump administration look so good. Or maybe they don't care anymore because he's he's lost the election, but. The article does make the administration look very good. I mean competent, very competent. First of all, they shoveled money to the right people. They, you know, they they offered Pfizer money. Pfizer didn't want it or need it, but Maderna did. So they got a few billion dollars from aderna. They parallel processed a bunch of different attempts here so that if one company failed, the others might succeed. There was a sort of a Reaganite cutting of bureaucratic red tape wherever they could. There were examples in the story of the drug. Have been needing something, some supplies or or what have you, and they would call the administration and they would, you know, make it happen and then finally the administration didn't do anything to kind of mess with the science. In fact, they describe how this the, this new experimental M RNA technique that they used to generate the vaccine. They had the code for that within two days. They actually had the vaccine sort of printed, if you will, within weeks. And really what took all this time were the human trials, you know, the three stage human trials, which the administration did not do anything to speed up. And probably the irony of ironies, the supreme irony is there's a story, there's a. A bit in the story. It actually begins with the, this guy slowy, who's the head of the Trump administration's effort to produce the vaccine. He actually slowed down the Moderna human trials by about three weeks because they weren't including enough minorities in the, you know, in the in the trial, and that cost them three weeks. If it weren't for those three weeks, Moderna's vaccine would have happened before Pfizer and it would have come out about a week before the election. So you got to wonder. Like Trump has got to be pulling out his hair about what hair about about about this twist of fate, David. How does it attribute credit for warp speed? And I can, I'm going someplace with this. So I'm just asking you the question. Well, I don't the article is not trying to attribute credit. They're just kind of describing the behind the scenes of of how Pfizer Moderna came up with their vaccines and it just but but in in describing, you know Pfizer Moderna did the work of creating the vaccine, but in describing the ways that warp speed contributed, they did things that were only helpful and nothing that was harmful. And so in that sense it made the Trump administration look quite good. Yeah, I I think the point is that. The warp speed folks, which is probably the least well known working group working on coronavirus to the rest of the public, is because it was a lot of wonky insiders. It was a sign of almost proving the exact opposite of what Trump typically does, which is, you know, some idiotic nepotistic leaning where it says daughter or it's a son-in-law running around, you know, completely ineffectively, you know, doing something where they become sort of front and Center for taking credit. In this case, it was just a bunch of policy. Blocks, you never heard about the project. We only know about warp speed because a handful of us have talked about it and it turns out to actually have been good because they knew what they were doing and they do enough to to not try to seek the credit and just get out of the way. I mean it, it proves almost the antithesis of how the Trump campaign, you know, manage their time in the White House. Well, I mean, I, you have a point where you was kind of reading this article wondering, you know, where was Jared Kushner? Because if Kushner knew about this, there's no way he slows down the Moderna vaccine by three weeks. I mean that might have made the difference right there and whether Trump wins or not, Can you imagine the effect on the election if the vaccine had come out one week before November 3rd? I think Trump would have won decidedly if he had a vaccine or two out with 90%. But I think he had no credibility. Even though Moderna and Pfizer were saying late November and he said the vaccines are around the corner, he his whole tenure was based on so much lying. He was the boy who cried wolf, he was the. President who cried wolf by the time he told the truth and he was telling the truth about the vaccines he he it was like Oh my Lord he he told the truth and the final three months and I can I give you the opposite David of that which is that if Moderna basically says, hey guys, we have a vaccine that works for white people and a disease that's you know disproportionately killing blacks and you know Hispanics and brown people, Native Americans and all of a sudden people are like wait what the ****? Maybe they would have gone to Georgia and they would have just crushed them even more. And then you would have actually had the Senate flipped, too. So you could have had a whole kind of distribution of outcomes there. In a different case, you could have had an angry reaction as well. We, we don't know, I guess as well. Yeah. I mean, I I think it's ironic that an administration that was constantly accused of white supremacy probably lost the election because they slowed down this vaccine trial group to include more minorities. I know, but I think what we're saying is it wasn't the actual administration. It was somebody. Somebody you know what? You know what they were doing. We called that redemption in the movie, when the person actually loses because they did the right thing, it's kind of redemption freeberg. When you look at these M RNA vaccines, you were educating us about them last night and also for a long time. Tell the audience just one more time how these work briefly and what the potential for them is in the future, because I think a lot of us now are starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel. This is going to be over. We're going to be at conferences or going traveling to Europe or whatever it is next summer, but we are all going to be scarred for life thinking, you know, when is the next coronavirus? Just like for a decade we we were on pins and needles, when is the next 911? So this is going to be scar tissue. For a generation or two of people. When the next COVID comes, how quickly will warp speed 2.0 go? Yeah, it's it's a it's the right question because our approach to doing vaccines may have just changed permanently. So, you know, every cell has your DNA, and DNA basically codes proteins. Every 3 letters of DNA makes an amino acid codes for a specific amino acid. There's 20 amino acids. The way that DNA turns into proteins is through RNA. So RNA is kind of like a mirror. Copy of your DNA. It floats into these things called ribosomes in your cells and outcome proteins and those it's like a printer, right? And so those those ribosomes make your proteins using those amino acid sequences coded by the RNA. So the way that the. Vaccines work historically is you'll get a dead virus, which is basically the protein of a virus. Your immune system then learns to kill that or to that protein. Ohh man Jesus my dog. Your immune system then learns to remove that protein from your body and that's how you develop this memory, your immune memory to a specific protein. And so they put this dead art vaccine but virus in your body and hopefully your immune system learns a good response to it. M RNA basically puts the RNA in your body. That codes for that protein. Your cells then make that protein and because it's making a lot more of the protein in a more consistent, you know, way theoretically. The idea is your body develops a much more robust immune memory and immune response without it overloading your system where all the immune cells try and wipe that protein out right away and so on. The the challenge is you're putting RNA in your body and we've always been worried about, we don't know what the side effects of mixing RNA in your body would be. Is it going to change your DNA? Is it going to change your genetic makeup? Is it gonna cause other deleterious side effects? So this technology, this capability, this knowledge has been around forever. I'm not forever but for, you know, a long time. And the idea has always been we could use RNA in this way, but you know, no one wanted it. And we've used it in animals and we've used it in plants and we've seen the capabilities of of using RNA to do different things like this. But this is a big leap. And so, you know, we, we kind of leapt forward here getting to the point that we felt comfortable with, you know, RNA as a as a treatment like this and it's it's working. So in theory in the future it's tax points out you could take any virus or any bacteria, you could read its DNA. They do that in an hour. Then you could take chunks of that DNA and code RNA for that. Your body makes those proteins and theoretically produce an immune response. So that that's the, that's the science of like how do you, how do you create a new vaccine? I think that's the amazing part is the way it's described in this article is that it's almost like laser printing or 3D printing a vaccine. It's kind of like the equivalent of that. You just take the genome of the virus and you know, boom, you've got the vaccine and then all the other delay is about. Human trials and testing of it. But imagine if that there there was the next coronavirus is 10 times as deadly. You know something that's as spreads as contagiously as smallpox and as you know as deadly as Ebola or something like that. We could have a vaccine the next day, you know like you could we we could have a very challenged David would be as we'd have it the next day like we did here, but we would be going through this three phase trial and so I want to take a moment here and talk to chamath about something. Just challenge trials in the UK, they will start doing challenge trials. For those people who don't know what to challenge trial is essentially they expose you to something dangerous, IE a virus like COVID and then they give you the vaccine and then they give you the virus. As opposed to how we do A3 phase trial which is you give the vaccine to 30,000 people and A and a placebo to 30,000 and then you come back three months later and see how many people got infected and it takes time and money whereas. Challenge trials only take risk on the individuals who are part of it. Chimata, hundreds of people in the science community signed a letter, and in the UK they are going to be doing the first challenge trials in January. the United States is not doing these. I'm certain China is. Do you think it's a moment in time where we need to think about the ethics and morality of challenge trials specifically? And then if so, how do you execute them with that? How do you execute a challenge trial without it being unfair? Or too dangerous for people. Obviously, you're not gonna just go into a prison and say, hey, anybody wanna get 10 years off the sentence, join the challenge trial. That seems morally bankrupt. But we let people climb mountains without ropes. So. Right. Well, I think this speaks to a whole bunch of other issues that we've talked about on the pod before. You know, another example of this was section 230. Before, when we talked about it, we had a body of law that was created in a moment of time that essentially was about framing and understanding a specific pathway. And a way to use technologies that today look archaic and we have to rewrite the laws in order to just compensate and understand for where we are. So if you double click on trials as an example, if you have a solution for a rare disease you can go in a specific pathway with the FDA and get breakthrough in fast track approval. But if you for example have you know a novel immunotherapy cancer drug, you probably you cannot, you know you have to do a multi phase trial, a typical three phase trial you have to solve for very typical. Things like fatigue, et cetera, et cetera. All these things slow progress down now in a world where we were somewhat flying blind 40 or 50 years ago, we didn't have, you know, things like CRISPR. We didn't have, you know, a real understanding of the genome. We didn't have delivery mechanisms like cartee. You would say, OK, yeah, we should be really, really careful. But I would say that the more, you know, the more you can ease up on the rules because you can actually empower. People with a lot of information and it shouldn't take a disaster scenario for us to be iterative and experimental OI think the challenge trial is really important. I think the concept of them make a lot of sense. I think a lot of government should employ incentives to figure out who is eligible and why. But if you're a healthy adult, male or female, and you want to participate in a trial for whatever set of reasons, you should be allowed to do so and companies that want to run. Those trials should be allowed to run them. Similarly, if you want to find a complementary pathway through regulatory agencies to get drugs to the starting line, you should be able to do those too. And I think what we have to do is multipath. These compounds going forward, because I think that's where you accelerate all these Technologies's ability to actually solve these diseases freeberg why is it so controversial that a rocket ship company or, you know, people who want to climb on mountains without ropes or or a rocket ship company, like there are experimental pilots, we have astronauts. They they take unbelievable risk. We send thousands of troops into harm's way for many different reasons, many of which sadly. And they volunteer for those activities. Those people are volunteering and compensated. But when we look at science and we look at a challenge, trial scientists say this is morally reprehensible to compensate somebody for taking risk. When that's exactly what we do in the army. We do it with police officers and we do it with astronauts. Help us understand how scientists think so differently than, say, war. I don't know if it's scientists as much as it is, you know, regulatory framework like the. Some people would call it a nanny state. And, you know, there are things that the nanny state assumes. Individuals don't have the capacity to understand the extent of the potential loss or the OR the nature of the risk. This is true for Angel investing, right? You have to be a qualified investor to invest in a private company without appropriate disclosures. And it's true in a lot of other contexts. So, you know, to give people the authority to make decisions like this, it seems like my I have no point of view that. Kind of making here but it seems like the the the the the government assumes or the elected officials assume or the populace assumes that there are things that people aren't really equipped to make decisions on because they can't understand the risk because they're not qualified and that and they get excluded from those activities but sacks is the you know Zacks how should we reframe stuff. Yeah. Yeah well I think how should we frame it. I think assumption of risk is is a is a really good principle and it is a way for people to engage in potentially harmful behaviors. Just cause of behavior is is potentially harmful doesn't mean you don't get to do it. In the United States, you're allowed to do things that are manifestly harmful to yourself, like smoking. Well, you know, you even, even even worse. If you're an organ, you can now do all kinds of hard drugs. I mean, you can assume that risk for yourself. So, you know, if if in Portland OR you can now take heroin openly in the street with no consequence, but you can't participate in a trial that could basically cure a cancer. That's insane to me. I'll tell you what's the script? Yeah, I'll tell you. I'll tell you the flip side of it. You're allowed. In Nevada to play roulette, I mean, what the ****? Like, you know, it's got a negative expected value statistically, factually for individuals, but the individual doesn't have the capacity, generally speaking, that's playing roulette to recognize that every dollar they're spending at the roulette table is likely going to be to to, you know, taken away from them. Like there's some percentage of that that's going to be taken away. There's a 5 percentage for the House on that, on that game. And and so we make the argument in some cases that people don't have the capacity to understand risk, but in other cases it's OK for them to not have the capacity to. To to take risk and I think that there is this notion of what some people call regulatory capture that probably encompasses both of these, which is that there is some degree of profiteering that has created some set of laws that kind of manifolds fastly capture that system in a certain way. So there are profitable casino enterprises that say let's get people to spend their money in a risky way that they don't understand and that becomes the law and then people in Nevada are allowed to do that. There are also pharmaceutical companies that will say we need to have huge regulatory burdens. So once we make that big investment and we get. Patent approval and we can lock in that drug, we can charge a lot of money for it. So I would argue to some extent that the regulatory capture associated with the profit hearing that happens on the back end in pharmaceuticals has in large part driven the structure around risk taking in in drug trials, particularly in the US I mean you can go get whatever drug you want over the counter in Mexico, right. I mean we have a very different system. It's the most. It's also happens to be the most expensive in the world and the the rationale is, well, you're the most protected. Well, the drug, the drug infrastructure here has created to your point because of regulation, the entire, you know CRO industry which is a multi, multi billion dollar industry, which basically is essentially a retardant of R&D velocity, right. It's entire job is to slow things down and create these double blinded studies by the way. And so many of these studies are not even double blinded, they're not even actually scientifically rigorous, they get basically blown apart after the fact. So what are they? Really in the business of doing, it's because they're they're exploiting a business model that was created by laws, laws that were written by regulators, regulators that were in the hands of lobbyists. None of those folks truly understood at the time, but especially today, what's really possible. So you know it, it does not make sense in the United States of America, just writ large, Simply put, that you can buy alcohol and drink yourself into the ground, buy cigarettes and smoke yourself to death. You know, jump away your money, gamble away your money where your negative EV. Were opened, you know, openly do illicit drugs. But you can't participate in a thoughtful trial backed by scientific research. In fairness to mouth, you can get away with smoking fentanyl in San Francisco and Oregon, but it is illegal to use that plastic straw. So be careful, folks. The laws are very clear here that plastic straw is going to get you in a lot of trouble. I don't know what the fine is, but it is completely. I mean, it would it wouldn't be so crazy if it were true. But to your point, like, you would actually get arrested for having a plastic bag. And you will for having fentanyl in San Francisco. Absolutely. They'll, they'll arrest you for the bag that the fentanyl's in, but chesa Boudin will not arrest you for the fentanyl in the plastic bag stacks. We've totally lost the script, but chamath sort of bridged this with the 2:30 discussion of common carrier. And hey, you know, we we had great intent with this law, but nobody saw social networks becoming this dominant, addictive, etc. So we need to be more nimble as a government and in changing these regulations, whether it's straws, fentanyl challenge trials or 2:30. You wrote a blog post about it. After we had our 2:30 discussion, a lot of people started talking about it. Have you come to some conclusion as to an exit ramp for 2:30 or a way to maintain it without, you know, throwing the baby with the bathwater? Yeah. Yeah. Well, OK. Just can I make one concluding thought on? Sure. Of course. Top. So the reason why innovations happened so fast on the Internet is because of. You know one word. Permissionless, right? Permissionless innovation. Nobody who has an idea for a startup needs to go get permission from someone in the government. You know, repeatedly. That's really what makes a difference. You know, Mark Zuckerberg as a, you know, sophomore in college can just build his project. Larry and Sergey's PhD students can just build their project, ship it, start, you know, getting users. And they don't have to get the permission of a regulator, whose incentive, by the way, is just typically not to get fired by approving something that might. Done on them and some, you know, in some bad way and to keep their job. Yeah, keep their job. I mean, imagine if, you know, imagine just take it like a random example, when Elon launched Starman. Remember when he put the, like, he launched the Tesla into space and there was like an astronaut in there and it was like this kind of really cool moment. I assume he just did it. I assume he didn't get permission from anybody to do it. But could a moment like that have really happened if he did have to get permission? No way. I'd be like making its way up. Through the chain or would know what to think of it. No one would know whether they could be the one to approve it. And then what if something goes wrong? What if the Tesla comes back down to Earth and, you know, it turns into a meteor or whatever? Those are the scenarios that be running through their heads. Nobody would have allowed it. Right? And so when you just let entrepreneurs do things like good things happen, right? And and that's why we've had so much progress on the Internet. And in so many of these other areas, we've had much less progress because you know what? What a system like that selects for is your ability. To go lobby regulators as opposed to just building your project and shipping it, I think that one of the things that maybe happens is that, you know, we we're all expecting or maybe some of us. I have definitely some version of a new deal and some grand bargain. And I wonder maybe whether the new deal and our sort of like our version of FDR over the next, I don't know, 10 years is the person that actually says we're going to have a wholesale rewrite of the regulatory infrastructure to account. Our technology, just. We're going to start someplace reasonable and small and we're going to make common sense reforms, just observing the times as they exist today, right. And we're going to go and systematically try to make these industries a little bit more resilient, a little bit more entrepreneurial, a little bit less corrupted by regulatory capture and lobbyists and laws that just don't make sense 100 years later. I mean, it'd be great if we could do that. The reason we can't is because how do you reform? The law without the lobbyists getting their fingers in it, right. And and the problem is there, there's no, there's no lobbyist for the company that doesn't exist yet, right? For the founder, for the entrepreneur who's got an idea in their head, but they haven't built their company yet. There's nobody representing that person in Washington, right. And what happens is you get new regulations in Washington, some agency gets created, they reach out and touch an industry. But now every player that's affected has to create their own lobbying. Not true, not true. And David, what do you think about this? What if the the advocate for the entrepreneur or the uncreated company and uncreated product is really the same as just individual civil liberties and rights? How are they really that different? Because really what it's doing is saying the entrenched organizational infrastructure that runs my life gets deconstructed and then power gets pushed down to be the individual that's tantamount to the same thing. I think, well, we we have seen some, we have seen some pushback. Well, I mean there is some silver lining here. If you look right now the citizens of California, obviously people have been fleeing and we've been talking about California and and the one party system here causing so many problems. But we did have Prop 22 pass and we now have 900,000 people have signed to recall Governor Newsom. And these seem to be some pushback against this sort of nanny state where people can't make decisions. And then additionally, today the SEC announced that they will allow gig working companies to give stock. To employees as part of their compensation. Up to 15% of their compensation. In fact. Hester. Uh, how do you pronounce her last name? It's not Pierce. You can't pronounce the word Pierce. Purse. Purse. Purse. No, it's spelled Pierce, but Hester purse. Is it worth following on the Twitter HESTERPEIRE Hester purse? I had her on my podcast this week in startups, and she they're they're really getting aggressive in changing the accreditation law. So anybody's gonna be able to be an accredited investor. You just become sophisticated through a testing mechanism. And now they wanna like gig workers get. By the way, sorry, here's a perfect example of a regulatory body and infrastructure that actually has changed with the times I think the SEC in in fact I think we maybe we talked about this a little bit the last time. I actually think one of the best Trump appointees has been Jay Clayton and I actually think Jay Clayton has done an incredibly good job and a lot of what he's done is just deconstruct this kind of nanny state and say people can become educated and make good decisions for themselves and. Because it's in some, it's an area that's relatively benign, IE, investing. People kind of just let it happen without a lot of pushback, and everybody kind of generally supports it. Democrats support it, Republicans support it, and the outcomes are really good. To your point, Jason, which is in a world of 0 rates, how do you expect any just, you know, average, ordinary middle American who just works a decent job to save for their retirement to actually make enough money while they're going to have to get educated and they're going to have to find a way of putting their money to work and in. In assets that have a better return, which literally was illegal up until very recently. Yeah, I mean, we you were having this, you were systematically letting the rich stay rich and you were blocking the poor from having an opportunity to advance. Like what if Apple Store employees could get their paycheck and say I want to take my paycheck 70% cash, 30%, you know, restricted stock units at this discount. Like we could let Apple Store employees make $1,000,000 after 5 or 10 years of working there. 1020 years from now and have generational wealth change. David Sacks, you had comment. Well I was gonna ask your mouth, do you think this type of deregulation is gonna happen in the Biden administration? Because what you're discussing is like a very really kind of classical Republican Reaganite idea, right. I agree. And and and I think what's gonna happen is you're, I think you're going to continue to see deregulation in areas that are benign and non controversial. So I think the SEC. The FCC, I think all of these places you'll see movement. I think you'll probably actually see a lot more choice and deregulation effectively in in Medicare and CMMI. I think those places will move first, and then I think it'll be up to some leader politician to then really rally the troops on some higher order bits. And one of the biggest higher order bits would be sort of around the broader healthcare. Infrastructure, Social Security, education, education, education is probably the biggest one that's that's like the it's just too sacrosanct for the Democrats. You cannot get elected without the teachers. And so unless there is a startup that completely disrupts teacher pay and teacher compensation, then the public school teachers unions will continue to dominate a lot of the federal and state policy. For the worst, unfortunately, freeberg if you had one. Regulation or series of regulations or regulatory body you would most like to see change for the good of humanity and, you know, Americans and the rest of the humans on the planet. What would it be? Probably help. Yeah, it's probably the drug process. The drug development process. You know, there was a. A gene editing. Program that ran and someone died. This was what year was this, 9799? And they basically halted all gene editing programs for 13 years. You know, many people died during that time. It was *******. It's a crazy crazy. Effect. Where you know they're the, you know the the one death is too many rule, you know, basically doesn't take into account the the kind of broader implications. On the downside. So, yeah, I I think that one's probably pretty important. But, you know, there's a good interview if you if you wanna hear some interesting thoughts. And I'm again, not trying to be an advocate for any political point of view, but Charles Koch goes on. Tim Ferris, have you guys heard this podcast interview? I've listened to it, yeah. Yeah. And he, he highlights a couple of really good examples about this regulatory capture problem, like if you're poor and you want to become a hairdresser and, you know, start a a salon or go work in a salon and make money. Having hair, the cost, and the burden for you to go get the necessary approvals from the cosmetician association is too burdensome for, you know, the average person who's poor needs to become a hairdresser, and it's just insane that you can't just go be a hairdresser. The government, government needs to ensure that people don't get bad haircuts. So you could say it's worse. It's worse. Yeah, you could. You you can. You don't need a license to be the engineer that writes the machine learning code that either drives a car autonomously or that, you know, helps propel disinformation into social network. But you do need to have a license to give someone a buzzcut. Oh, that's a bingo statement right there. Yeah. I mean, in fairness, I'm, I'm checking out sacks's new haircut. Here, and I'm kind of thinking so there should be more regulation. There might. I was practicing without a license. You work, I mean, yeah, but you do that. We can't see the result of this. You want to take this 13 sacks sacks. You're so you're so white and pale. You're you're blending into the background shade. It's impossible to see where your skin ends. Your hair starts, and the and the shade. But I feel like the the, the regulatory, if you think about the framework, you know it extends into education too, like you can't go get an entry level job without a quote UN quote college degree. How ******* useful is a college philosophy degree to someone that's trying to get an entry level job working at XYZ Bank? Right? Like it's it's a bit absurd that the structure is set up so that there are whether it's, you know government or not, but there is effectively a hurdle which is this alternative to regulatory capture, but it's like call it embedded system, you know? Capture like there is a significant kind of hurdle that you have to get through the costs a lot and the the point of entry has gotten too high for most and it really stalls things out and it's gonna cause more damage than good. Well, and it's also been completely disconnected from the reality of your employment potential. People are going into debt for $200,000 in a liberal arts degree that provides no scale. That is. Do we all agree that makes sense? Like, does anyone on this in this group argue for needing a bachelor's degree for everyone? No. Like, I don't think I I think, I think it's useless. I what do you guys think of ISA's income sharing agreements. These have become kind of Lambda school does them bunch of other schools. David, you saw a startup we just invested in that's doing them. And I think you like them at the demo day we did with craft. Maybe, you know, this idea is who should take the risk for an education. And when you look at an ISA, an income sharing agreement, what they're saying is the school takes the risk. They let you come to school for free. They give you what would be the equivalent of let's say a $15,000. Coding camp or growth marketer, uh, risk. Then you pay double that amount over 567 years as a percentage of your income. But if you don't get income, if you don't break 50K a year, you don't have to pay it back. And if you decide to go back to school or your income drops below 50, you don't have to do it. Can you imagine if a college had to make that promise? They should do it. They should start in college sports, but they should do it. Imagine you could. You know, Duke basically went and recruited kids and said, listen, we're gonna pay you to come to Duke, we're gonna get you educate educated, we're going to teach you how to play basketball better than anybody else, and we're going to take 5% of your future earnings, yes or no. You're not going to have to go to boosters. You're not going to have to take money, you're not gonna have to do any of this stuff on the side, but just be your best, learn to play the game. We'll get your reasonable education, we'll give you a good infrastructure and we take 5% of the back end with the, I think. So you could cap the upside, right? Or maybe there's maybe there's no cap and and but but why do we always have to care about all of this? Like it's like, you know, it's like, whatever, maybe it's 5% for the rest of your life, you're gonna pay the government 50%. You get nothing in return. So if you pay 5% and you get Coach K to teach how to shoot a jumper, it's better than that. Right. So why isn't it possible? And I remember how people had this unbelievably paternalistic allergic reaction to income sharing agreements when they were first talked about, they called them indentured servitude, modern slavery, slavery. And it was like, Oh my God, ohh, so insulting to the concept of signing a contract with an agent to represent you when you first start out in any industry, music or or sports or film or whatever. What, you could sign a agency agreement where the agent is a Rep for 1020 years, right? I mean, some of those agreements. Can have long tails on them and that's effectively the same. You know look at what's even worse had a cap look at look at we we can talk about this in a second but like you know did you see what happened with Chappelle the last couple of days? Where chappelle. Yeah. Let's go. Yeah. Did you watch the video? I loved it. Yeah. The video is incredible video is incredible. So the the the quick story on this is Chappelle basically did he had a request he went to Netflix and he said take down Chappelle show, Netflix took it down and he did a little stand up. It's on his Instagram. It's like 18 minutes. It's it's fabulous as most. Peak Chappelle's peak. Chappelle. And he basically told this story, which essentially the punch line is like, you know, he signed a contract where he just got completely ******. And he's like, this is happening every single day in so many markets. And so the idea that then you have actually a different market, which disrupts something by actually creating transparency and something reasonable is all of a sudden completely immoral, makes no sense to me. So there's abuses happening all the time. That is what? The the contract that Chappelle signed was indentured servitude. He doesn't even have the rights to his name. He cannot turn his name and likeness, right? Yeah, he if you wanted to create the Dave Chappelle show again, he's called the DC show, but this is the perfect somebody owns his name. What the ****? But the security in all mediums and platforms from this is a perfect tie back to the earlier statement about, you know, do you have the appropriate kind of understanding of the risk you're taking or the benefit that you're getting? I think Kanye has been doing this whole thing about he doesn't own the masters. His music originally, right at the moment that he signed that contract, when he signed over all the Masters, you know, the master recordings and all the future revenue rights to his music, he was getting paid a ton of money in his mind at that time. He said, Oh my gosh, I'm getting whatever it was. Let's say it's $5 million, I'm getting $5 million, the most amount of money I've ever seen. It is absolutely worth me giving over the masters of this music and the future royalty rights to this music for 12 songs or whatever. It is for me to get $5 million today and I can live an amazing life and it will change everything for me. Who is to say that he was not, you know, of the appropriate sound mind and understanding to decide in that moment to take that $5 million and give up all future royalties to his music? Well, Chappelle's, Chappelle's argument was the people who are in that ecosystem are all friends. They're all working together and they've commoditized the artist and they collude to do this kind of people side limiting deals. And I think what makes Silicon Valley so special is that we collude the other direction we want. People to equity participation and we want the social contract of Silicon Valley is I'm giving you equity. I hope your your penny stock becomes worth $1500 and that you create multi generational wealth and you become an Angel and but I don't know. Look if I if I'm an Angel investor or wanna be an Angel investor and some schmo tricks me into investing in his ****** company and I just lose $20,000 but I didn't know how to determine whether that company was ****** or not because I've never done investing before. Read my book. Is it for the government to regulate that circumstance and say you know what you need to be a quote UN quote? Qualified investor to be able to discern a good company for a bad company or ******** from not and the same for these contracts, right. Like, I mean so you know, we're making the argument, I think for the the, you know, the regulatory framework for preventing people from being able to have freedom of choice. And I think like earlier you know that the case was made like people should be able to make have freedom of choice at any point. Why should the government kind of step in and make a decision for me? I think that they're. I'm not. I'm not advocating advocating for government intervention. My my only point is that there are morally reprehensible. Things that are happening today using contracts and that you know, something like an income sharing agreement actually writes the ship in so many ways. That's definitely the burden of capitalism ultimately. You know, it it devolves to that, right, where like, oh you're sick, you're you have cancer, pay me $1,000,000, I'll give you this drug. So Hollywood's a little bit of its own beast where there's all these gatekeepers and the gatekeepers are always trying to get control over, you know, the creative product. And so, yeah like, you know, signing contracts with those sharks is. Always a dangerous thing to do. I think Silicon Valley is very different. We have much more of a culture of of equity. I think the income share agreements are much more in that vein. And I think they're a great idea for like any trade that demonstrably increases your earning power, right. So the beauty of Lambda school is they pay for you to get an education. Being a coder, it then increases your salary and they get a piece of that that's like a win win for everybody. I think where this goes, if these Isas are successful, is that every trade that's valuable. Will get its own ISA type school and then that gets peeled out of a university education. So what's left for colleges to do is basically, you know, all the stuff that doesn't add value. There are museums, they're basically like these monasteries again, right? They go back to being monasteries, not places where you get skills we need to set. We need to celebrate vocational capability because I think, like, you know, we have, we have so celebrated this mythical bachelor's degree and it just means ******* nothing. It like, it doesn't trade, learn a trade, and that's just as frankly that should be as respected or more. But in in the American culture, you don't do that right now. I've never understood that. If you go, for example, to different countries around the world, Europe's a good example actually of this because it's the closest analogue in terms of quality of living to America. There's a real celebration of people who choose vocational tradecraft because there's an entire educational infrastructure that you can onboard yourself into. You can become a skilled person. And you can have a really good, decent life and the pride in the work and there's pride in that work. And in America, you know, you covet this piece of paper. The piece of paper is really just a scam that allows, you know, administrators to basically pay themselves millions of dollars and or run an asset management business as a the Trojan horse of that purpose. It just doesn't make any sense. And so, you know, I don't know, I just think, I just think the most amazing thing about these companies. Been digging into them because I'm looking for more to invest in. And these companies, these companies that are the trade schools that are based on themselves, on ISIS. And there are ones who are doing welding and plumbing and all kinds of different things and they are ISA platforms that are providing ISIS to any school that wants them and doing like the sort of a WS of ISIS. Anyway, these far, what this firm told me was inside of one of these trade schools, they spend 50% of their time on placement, 50% on education. And that our college they spend 99 point X amount of time on the education and less than 1% on placement, which kind of attracts right? I mean we went to college, I don't know if it's changed much, but the career services center was like this two person office like in the worst part of campus. And they don't. When you're doing an ISA, if you accept more people who are unqualified and can't, aren't ready for the education, are not motivated for it, it works against you because they're not gonna pay back the ISA. So you then get sharper, you know, you sharpen the blade of who gets accepted. You start accepting the right people. These colleges, they would accept anybody who would come in and take the loans. That was your qualifier is. Did you pass your loan? The ISA is a service idea, is a brilliant idea. I would invest in that. I I like that idea as an investment way better than running one of these schools, you know that that that's basically issuing the ISIS themselves. But how amazing is that? That we live in a country where people are willing to, you know, as a movement now, people are willing to fund your education because they know it's going to increase your earning power and then they'll get paid on the back end. That's like fantastic and like, that's all happening. All that innovation is happening right now. Without the government needing to get involved or a big government loan program and the historical getting saddled, people aren't calling it indentured servitude. Literally. Like the Voxes and the New York Times of the world. And it was. Servitude is having a $250,000 debt that you've got to pay down you can never get rid of in bankruptcy for the rest of your life. Yeah, that's real indentured service. I think the problem is that, you know, East Coast left-leaning editorial publications, they have to themselves justify their $190,000 bachelor philosophy from Oberlin College. So, you know, if you, if you take that, you know, Oberlin is the number one listener base we have on this. Podcast yeah. You just lost. Yeah, go. But you're right. Once you've taken out every valuable trade and and move them from a university where you gotta pay 100,000 a year to an ISA where it costs you nothing, like what's left. Is this going to be people studying lots of hope? Yeah, people. Sexuality, intersectionality studies. They'll be studying the past. They'll be studying the past. Yeah, what a disaster to collapse upon itself. Alright, as we wrap up here, let's just take a moment to think about what some people are calling the big reset. It's Thanksgiving. We have a change in management in the country, which is is obviously polarizing, so I'll put that aside. But I think what's happened with these vaccines and science is truly miraculous. And let's face it, a lot of people, there's a lot of pain and suffering this year. A lot of people lost their jobs, a lot of people lost their restaurants. A lot of people are suffering from mental, mental illness. Some people are having to take care of their kids and get to know them. I mean, it's been hard for a lot of people. Sorry about that. Sex that wasn't directed. Do you know your children's names now? Yeah, I I do now. What's it like to spend 3 hours with one of your children? He's got flash cards in front of him right now. They're pictures on the back, the names on the other side. So anyway, I was trying to be sincere. The kids would even occasionally run into my office during COVID, you know? Yeah, they wanna talk to you and hug you and show affection. Crazy. They're like, excuse me, Sir, who are you? Your father? Actually I am. I thought I was just working from my office and all these kids show up and tell me it's their home. So, well, we I just wanted to announce to the all in audience that we have upgraded Friedberg and Saxist chips just last week. Chamath and I pushed the update. For the Joy 1.7 update and how has it been going to the two Davids now that you have 1/3 emotion? We now have emotion of joy. Do not use it for feels good and warm inside body. Do not use it all in the same day. Spread it out over a month. Hey David, did you think that Trump actually resigned 2 days ago? Was that was that was that the equivalent of a like or the concession tweet it was acceptance of you're talking about? They he authorized the GSA to release transition funds to Biden. Yeah I mean that that that that was his concession right there that that's that's basically what you're going to get out of him that's his acceptance of the of the election result. So after anger he is now went into bargaining and then he was depressed and now he's accepting well what what basically happened is you you know you had Rudy and Sidney Powell and you know that legal team going to court to try and challenge all these. The wack pack. Yeah. Try to go to court to challenge all these rulings. I think Rudy was like one in 35, meaning I think he won one ruling and lost 35. So it was going very, very poorly. So, like, you versus Alan Keating. Go ahead. Yeah. But, yeah, that's a whole separate story we'll get into. But the thing that really ended it was when Sidney Powell came out with this elaborate conspiracy theory that actually Trump lost the election because communist. Code writers had effectively, you know, infected this, the software that was running the election. And somehow Hugo Chavez was behind this, even though he's been dead for seven years. Hugo got us again at the end of the Republican governor of Georgia and Secretary of State were in on it anyway. It was so wild and crazy that basically the narrative just cracked. And so then you had like, Steve Schwarzman come out and then sort of the Republican business community. And and Pat Toomey, you know Republican senator from Pennsylvania came out and they all just said, look this is this is ridiculous. And so that that was the moment, I think at which the this narrative that the election was stolen kind of cracked is. And I think she kind of she did everyone a favor by being so like off the reservation that it just brought the whole thing to like a a meltdown. Sidney Powell always whenever I see her I always I I just think that she's one second away from her dentures flying out of her mouth and hitting the camera. I mean, that's your crazy aunt. That's the crazy aunt at Thanksgiving. Yeah, like she she said she was gonna release the Kraken, and I guess she meant the. I think she smoked running out Rudy's. I think it was the hair dye running down Rudy's face. Yes, exactly. That's the crack. Rudy's the crack. I mean, I'm. I'm glad that it was a total meltdown. Was a total **** show. I'm glad the GOP finally, after Trump's defeat, decided with 55 days left to go that they would take a stand against. Well, let me let me tell you what gets dropped now. Let me tell what I think is gonna happen now is I think that this New York Times article we talked about the top of the show, about the fact this operation warp speed, that it was a big success. I think that that the best narrative for Trump, if he wants to maintain this idea that he was robbed, is not that he was sort of legally robbed with fake votes or fake voting software, but rather just that if these pharma companies have put out the news a week earlier, yes, it would have manually changed like and I think. He has an amazing story there, I would agree. This kind of. Yeah. And it's kind of like, you know, when you have like a major sporting event, there's like a bad call by the refs and all the fans basically said, oh, we were robbed. Well, you can't get that, like, result overturned. It is what it is. You lost, but you have a talking point forever that you lost. I mean, if you go to Saint Louis or whatever and you mentioned Asterix, there's an* Yeah. National LeBron Association suspended Draymond in that series there, there are all these sporting events with asterisks by them. I mean, like, you know, if you go to Saint Louis and mention the name Don Denkinger, you know, people know what you're talking about. The, I think the Cardinals lost he, the Saint Louis Cardinals lost the 85 World Series because of a first base umpire's call, or at least that's their view of it. Right. And so I think, you know what? What Trump can do is, is say that, look, we were robbed because we never got credit for the vaccine. Now, if I I do think the economy is going to bounce back really strong next year because of the vaccines, right? I think you gotta say that if these vaccines and COVID in the next 3-4 five months, 2021 is going to be a great year. So if Trump hands Biden these vaccines and the economy does well next year, but something bad happens between now and four years from now, he'll say, I handed this guy everything on a silver platter. He screwed it up, and that'll be his narrative for four years from now. Good could happen. I'm just saying what do you, what do you think about? What do you guys think about the pic so far? Janet Yellen for Treasury Secretary is great. Thank God it's not Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders. Yeah, I mean, she's really the party. Well, I think really does. I I do think the biggest challenge we're gonna face is, is this monetary policy issue? I mean, the dollar is, you know, in decline. We printed 30% of the US dollars in circulation in the last six months, and everyone's cheering that the Dow is at 30,000. It's like, well, you know, there's 30% more dollars, so everything's going to inflate. So I think there's a lot of work to do. It's great to have someone sitting in that seat who understands economic policy really clearly and and and the tight monetary policy. Yeah, I think it picks so far have been, have been really, really top notch. Tony Blinken, friend of a couple of ours for Secretary of State. He's a star. Yellen's a dove, which I think is really good for just, you know, did you guys know the chief of staff? Sax, do you know who this guy. He's been like Biden aid for a long time, kind of. Is that the deal he was the founder of revolution with Steve Case? Yeah. Yeah. He comes from a venture background, which is all of Biden's picks have been people who've been long time washing their hands, who he's had personal relationships with for a long time. It really seems to value that personal loyalty. And they've also been kind of, you know, nice and boring, safe experience picks. I think he's delivering on kind of what he promised to be, which is a president we can forget about. You know, just tone it down. Take your president. Yeah. What do we do without Trump to talk about on the podcast? Because it's been about 34%. We're gonna need a new topic to rotate in here. We might need to put in little Netflix as we wrap here. What are you thankful for and what are you most looking forward to next year? Visa V just it's been a rough year. Uh, I mean, listen, it's been nice for people's equity portfolios, of course, but it's really what do you hope for America? For humanity, for yourself, for your family, for your friends. You know, what are you thankful for? And I'll let you freedberg. It looks like you're processing unit has delivered a result, so let's hear it. The Emotion Bank has been cleared. Sure. Yeah. It I look, I don't think that this year was any. Any cup of tea for anyone? Uh, so I think, like everyone, you kind of value your friendships and your family, so it's a. It's been, it's been a year, you know, going into COVID, I was in the office everyday spending more time at home, being closer to my children. I know their names, by the way. Sacks, I'll teach you how to learn them. They're, it's been, it's been actually really special being at home a lot and being with the family a lot and realizing like, how much that stuff matters and how being close to everyone matters. Because when you're in the run of the life before, you kind of get knocked back and just put everything in perspective. You miss those moments, so that's been really special and important to me this year in a really kind of personal way. And just having friendships, right? I mean, it's great for us to all be able to to talk as we do every day and have people you can kind of connect with even if you're not sitting in, in person. I do think that everyone realizes they need that. So anyway, it's been a it's been an insightful year. Money inside it's yeah, I was ******* terrorized. And it started this year about money and the end of the year. Here you go. Finally, there it is. It's all a ******* rollercoaster. Sold the first company and now you got the 2nd 1:00 PM and congratulations, mazel sacks. Has your processing unit overloaded with this question, or are you going to be able to articulate something thankful for and appreciate? I agree with with all the things that Freeberg said. You know, the flip side of working from home. All this time as you do get spent a lot more time with the kids. I personally have I I like this shift to remote work where I can do a meeting from anywhere. You know, you don't have to go to the office. That's been kind of, kind of nice upside, I think. I think we've probably all learned how self-sufficient we can be. I have learned how to give myself a haircut. Apparently you guys don't think I've done a very good job with it, but it's better that you have a long hair. Yeah. So, yeah. But look, I mean I'm thankful for you know, knock on wood, we all have our health and you know and it weirdly the the economy Silicon Valley is doing still doing great. Technology is doing great, still the future and I think the country is even though COVID is kind of at its worst right now, I do think it's going to get rapidly better as soon as these vaccines come to market. So I do think we'll we'll work. I do think 2021 will be a much, much better year, chamath. In this really crazy way, I actually now am pretty thankful. For what I've learned during the pandemic, I mean, I wish we didn't have to go through it, but I think that it was the most psychologically stressful period of my life. Just to be so isolated from everybody. And I learned something about myself recently, which is that. In psychology, it's called repetitive compulsion, which is sort of like, you know, you repeat the sins of your father. Or in this way, you know, I repeat these tired ways of behavior from my teens in my 20s that were just unproductive. And in the day-to-day life of just running around and going to meetings, as David said, like flying around, go to a meeting, go to the office, go here, go there. You can make a lot of excuses for ****** behaviors that you carry with you. And So what I'm really thankful for is in this lockdown, I've been forced to really find the things that that I don't really like about myself and try to fix them. So, you know, I'm really thankful for that because I think hopefully everybody has something positive to look at at the end of this. And that's definitely one thing for me. It's very touching and actually quite appropriate as we wrap here because sacks and free broke and I had some things we don't like about you chamath that we wanted to bring up. You kind of knocked one off the list already, so you got four more to go. It's it's good you're doing this work. It's good. We were we were planning an intervention for this end of the pod, but you gotta open the door. So here we go. I'll wrap up with just saying, you know, family and friends are the obvious, you know, things that you appreciate at this time. I am thankful also for the hope that we've seen from, you know, what we can do collectively as a society. When we put our minds to something, warp speed comes to mind. These frontline workers, I mean we we really maybe have seen what a global challenging problem being solved can do and hopefully that can. Translate into something like nuclear disarmament, a sustainable energy, global warming, etcetera. And and so I think on a on a macro level, the most macro level is the species. Us humans as a species have now had an enlightening moment just like world wars and you know, Hiroshima and Nagasaki kind of changed people's perspective of the entire world. Jay and I were talking about that the other day of how people looked at the world differently after those horrific bombs went off. I I think after this bomb goes off, we going to look at the world and say, hey, we could solve problems, right? And maybe we can be proactive. About that and then finally, I think for the people suffering from mental illness who maybe I was callous and made fun of or maybe just didn't relate to. I can relate to now because I've felt depressed, I have felt anxious, I have felt exhausted from this right? And it's the first time in the 49 years I've been on the planet that I ever would say I felt depressed. I didn't understand what that meaning was. When Sachs would tell me how depressed I was, I just never. And never hit me. I'm joking. He never said that. But, uh, he's a good joke. I am joking, but I, I, you know, I think for people suffering from mental illness get help and and, you know, talk to people and and I think this really opened my eyes to that. And of course this podcast and an office podcast was the best thing that in one of the best things in my life that came out of this whole period, I think for me too. And you know, I've heard that from a lot of the people who listen to it and I'm sure if Sax and Friedberg had a fourth emotion, they would, they would agree with. I think this podcast has been doing nothing but costing me money. You know, because I painted you as a Trump support. God knows how many you are not a Trump supporter. Yeah, not God knows how many deals I've lost because Jason keeps trolling as a Trump supporter. And then on top of it, I get cut out of the only good bestie deal. If you would **** I thought at least I would get this best seed deal and you guys cut me out of it. OK? Listen, I just want to be clear. Sax is a conservative and a Republican. He is not a Trump supporter. He did not vote for Trump this time. He did not vote for Trump last time. He does not support Trump's behavior. You can't out what he's voting, dude. Sorry, but he told me he didn't vote for him. Well, he did. Which one? Which one of us? Which one of us is gonna try to hire Jared Kushner as a general partner? Uh, no, definitely not. If you are saying most likely cause now you're reinforcing the theme, that's actually if you had to pick actually if you had to pick a venture fund that is most like the higher jurisdiction as a GP. Anything. Are they still around founders fund? No, I don't think Peter wants to share the spotlight. OK, I go and Jason, they'll do anything to get a press release. I don't think that guy needs a fund to go work at. True, he he'll just go buy another. He did get 3 Middle East peace deals done so but you know who's David actually? By the by the way, by the way, I mean talk talking about inheriting incredible dividends, but is it the most incredible thing that you can come in and get Middle East peace done? But if you really unpack Middle East peace, do you think that Middle East peace would have happened if the cost of solar was not cheaper than the cost of oil? Honestly be like if if if you if you didn't see an end insight to oil. Do you think that the Middle East peace you got done saying? I don't think so. Well I I know what you're saying which is that if the Middle East wasn't becoming less strategically relevant to us you know that that creates degrees of freedom, I think. But yeah, that's had profound benefits for Silicon Valley too, right? Like, I mean, all of a sudden the money that went into the vision fund and the the money from Qatar and the money from like all the sovereign wealth funds in the Middle East has funded a lot of venture funds, has gone into direct late stage rounds in a lot of companies, and it's really been a great boom for Silicon Valley. People can make fun of the companies getting overfunded and the nonsense that's gone on all they want. But like money, right? Better than coming for Aris. It filters out into more Angel investing. It filters out into more venture. Keys and it ultimately gives a big fish in this ecosystem. So I I I think that the damage to oil has been great for Silicon Valley. The most incredible dividend of climate change is peace. It's like it's it, it it it is made radical Islam a failed startup, you know, a hyped Series A that couldn't raise its series B. It's made, you know, sworn enemies over thousands of years cooperate together. All for what reason? Because you got to pull the oil out of the ground now and monetize it. Because otherwise the cost of wind and you have to have solar and you have to diversify because otherwise the cost of wind and the cost of solar is going to make pulling the oil out of the ground economically infeasible within three or four years. Yeah. I mean you already can't do it off. Shortly they they took Saudi Aramco public, they started selling off the shares and they invested that capital in tech and other stuff around the world. And that's it's been helpful, but there is, there is a another factor at work, which is the fear of Iran is now greater than on the part of Saudi Arabia and Israel that their fear of Iran is is now greater than whatever mutual hostility that used to have. And so it's it's kind of bringing people together that way, but you got to give. Much credit for still getting those deals done, you know, no one thought he could do it. I remember everyone was mocking him. I agree. Everyone was like, he's not, he's not a moron and he's not an he's not. He's the opposite of an abrasive guy and he's very thoughtful and apparently very, I don't know if you guys know personally, but he supposed to be very smart. And I'm sure that wherever he ends up next, he's going to do very well and he's going to get invited to be in a lot of places. Yeah. No, it's clear. He did a very good job on the Middle East stuff. Yeah. By the way, how crazy is it that Trump delivers on hottest? Economy, ever peace in the Middle East and three vaccines for coronavirus and he's still lost. Who would have? Well, just go to tell you what, what people think of character. Yeah, character tweets. But he tweeted himself out of office. If he acted normal sacks, he could actually take those victories. If he stopped the personal attacks, if he stopped the grifting, he would have won. He could. He could have been he. Actually, it would have been more than one. If he could have been Raymond, if he could, he could. Exactly what I was thinking. If he came in in 2016, calm, cool, and collected with the team where there was a dial down the insecurity and dial up. Sort of the intensity of actually calling people out for not passing progressive change. He would have been elected in a landslide. People would have said well on the way in. We were afraid. But after four years, the guy could have been magnanimous, is what you're saying? Yeah. And it's a real missed opportunity for him. I still think much of Trump is he's a WWE superstar and that's what people voted for. It's why Jesse Ventura got elected Governor of Minnesota. It's why Arnold Schwarzenegger got elected Governor of California. The average, you know, person. That's looking at that guy versus, you know, the old dude that doesn't talk and, you know, saying some weird stuff about policy. It's like, oh man, that guy looks awesome. Let's put him in office. Like this is gonna be ******* fun. And if he turned, turned it down when he got in office, he'd be much less appealing, I think, to a lot of people. I think, well, it's it's my caricature of himself that makes him so, so appealing. Then I'd like to go. I'd like to go on the record with my 15 year projection then, or which is that the rock is going to run for President and win. I I think you know the Iran situation, just to put that in perspective, David, if you look at the age distribution on the chart I just put on the chat, it is just extraordinary how young that country is. The median age is I think 28 or 29 years old and they they're barely holding on to power there and it is going to flip into a much more progressive society than it is now. They are barely holding on when you look at how many 25 year olds and 30 year olds there are in that country who are drinking. And watching TV watching. And they have the Internet and they're watching **** and they're. Gambling, I'm sure, and buying Bitcoin and doing all this crazy stuff, that country's barely holding on. It's gonna be a crazy civil war and let's just hope they don't have nuclear bombs when that civil war. Hah, guys, guys, guys like being being like extremist. It's just like it's just a bad product market fit now. You know, it's just like not worth it. There's there's no money to fund it. Nobody cares that much anymore. Everybody's moved. Low NPS score. Yeah. Would you recommend extremism to a friend or family member too? All right, this has been another all in podcast for bestie. See the Rain Man, David Sachs, and the Queen of Kiwi on his coming out party today, IPO coming up for Metromile, congratulations to Friedberg, congratulations to chamath on the pipe. Sacks and I, we're going to have to figure out a way to lick our wounds and wet our beaks. Let's put our thinking caps on and over the break, find a deal we can exclude these two from. Because we gotta, we gotta get in early, get 30% of a company, and then we gotta have chamath SPAC it in Freeburg do the late stage deal with all this metromile money. Yeah, and we'll see you all next time on the all in podcast. That was ******* great. Best one yet? Yeah. You guys want to see something funny? You guys see that video my wife just sent me? That's my dog taking a **** on your driveway sacks, man. Ohh man. Where is it? I wanna see that douche. I just put it. It's a code 13 and 13. Oh my God, there's only one person who hasn't code 13 to Zach Mob. Can you take a **** on his model X? Oh my God, that's something. We'd all have code 13. Oh no, everybody, we rolled over the credits.