All-In with Chamath, Jason, Sacks & Friedberg

Industry veterans, degenerate gamblers & besties Chamath Palihapitiya, Jason Calacanis, David Sacks & David Friedberg cover all things economic, tech, political, social & poker.

E23: Radical DAs, breaking down FB/Google vs. Australia, sustained fear post-vaccine & fan questions!

E23: Radical DAs, breaking down FB/Google vs. Australia, sustained fear post-vaccine & fan questions!

Sat, 20 Feb 2021 04:17

Follow the besties:

Follow the pod:

Intro Music Credit:

Intro Video Credit:

Referenced in the show:

WSJ - Lake Tahoe Property Sells for $1.6 Million in Bitcoins

The Changing World Order by Ray Dalio

Chapter 2: The Big Cycle of Money, Credit, Debt, and Economic Activity

Show Notes:

0:00 Reflecting on the controversial Robinhood interview, iterating on the show format, getting back to basics

10:52 Chesa Boudin cancelled on us, radical DAs & local prosecution in SF & LA, why criminal justice reform resonates

34:44 Breaking down the Facebook/Google situation in Australia, understanding fair use, potential saving grace for traditional media?

47:26 Vaccine update, conditioned fear sustaining post-vaccine

58:58 Fan Q&A: what the besties are investing in over the next decade, anti-portfolio, biggest current portfolio risks, what would you teach every 12-year old

Listen to Episode

Copyright © <> - all rights reserved

Read Episode Transcript

Jake, are you going to your Trump impression? We're going to do your your. Yeah, everybody. I'm getting my Twitter management syndrome right before we start the pod. Want to warm him up, Ted Cruz? This doesn't warm him up. I get some deranged. Get your show notes up, *******. Let your winners. Rain Man, David Saxon. We open sources to the fans and they've just gone crazy. Queen. Hey, everybody. Hey, everybody. Welcome to another all in podcast with me today. Of course, the dictator, Chamath Palihapitiya, the queen of kin. Whoa. David Friedberg and of course, yeah, definitely. The Rain Man is here. David Sachs, who's an excellent driver in the driveway. Yeah. OK, boys. Uh, I guess we made it to episode 22. Your intro becomes one second longer for every episode we do. It's just so people love it and people so laborious. I love it. You know? They don't. They think it's so stupid. I am. You have to understand persuasion. What I'm doing is I do the same intro and it warms. OK, see, we're still, we're still talking about the info. OK, let's just see. Everybody's obsessed about it. You proved my point. All right, guys. Are we going to address elephant in the room, the elephant in the room? Or do we just move on to topics? I will say elephant in the room after the last show. I fought very hard with the three of you to not post that episode. You wanted to can't you want to spike the episode? I wanted to spike the episode, and I'll tell you why I thought it was not good content. I don't think Vlad said anything new or remarkable or interesting. I don't think we had good analysis, and I think the whole thing kind of felt flat and felt like a PR stunt. And I felt that truly and honestly and I. You know, I made the case to you guys that we should cancel. Obviously, I lost. And I think going forward, we should have a veto, right? But, you know, we can talk about that offline. Did you quit the show or did you threaten to quit the show? I threatened to quit the show. I'm going to after this, I'm going to propose to you my rules, my ground rules for for going forward. One of which I think should be no more PR ******** from Jason's portfolio. But, you know, besides that, I think I might be. I think I hear a bestie. Bestie is that at the door? And I don't think that we're journalists. And by the way, I don't, I don't think that the journalism thing works for us. I think we're like analysts and commentators and, you know, we have opinions. And so to bring someone on and try and interview them with a four on one format, it just feels weird. It doesn't seem to work. It doesn't create an opportunity for discourse. And frankly, you know, when you try and do journalism in this context, you either appear like you're soft balling or you appear like you're doing gotcha journalism. And I think both are bad. And so I think it works really well when the four of us just kind of chat and analyze and and shoot the **** and have opinions and talk and debate. And so my vote is to kind of avoid doing bestie gestes unless, you know, it's something pretty amazing and critical and we can all kind of build a dialogue with that person around a topic. But yeah, so that's kind of where where I'm sitting and and how I feel about it. But we've had a lot of things, obviously since since the last episode about it. Can I can I build on what you're saying? You know, this is like. Kind of like that really famous Teddy Roosevelt quote about sort of like the man in the arena with the dust on his face, right? I feel like all four of us are in the grind doing things. And I think what makes the podcast good is it's almost like there's, like, you know, in a basketball game of four quarters, there's a timeout and you come off the floor and you can actually just take a second to observe what you're seeing. And then the ref blows the whistle and you go back into the game. And I think for me, what makes this thing so fun? Is. I feel like every Friday for these two hours, you know, it's basically the rough calls, a timeout or the coach calls a timeout, and we can just kind of take a breath and just observe, alright, what's happened before we get back in the arena. And so, you know, just to your point, I don't think we're journalists and I don't think we should try to be because I don't think that's the point of what this is. It should be for friends, talking about things that are important. And then to the extent that it's important and interesting for other people, they'll listen or not listen. And I think these last few weeks we got caught up a little too much and, you know. Ratings, where is it ranking? How can we go higher? And it's that the gamification of people's reactions that I think caused us, you know, to do that. Whereas the episode before I actually kind of liked because Draymond is legitimately one of our really good friends. You know, we we see him, we see him many, many times, obviously less during basketball season, but a ton when he's outside. We play poker together. We all hang out together. So it's that to me, I think is sort of inbounds last week and then also, you know, last week I think we were all supposed to be on point. I'll just tell you personally for me. I had an extremely crushing 2 weeks of work. I was extremely tired. I ended up literally unplugging and not doing anything for three days straight and sleeping. And so I didn't even do my best even just to be either supportive or, you know, argumentative with Vlad. So I don't think I got anything out of it myself. OK. Coming around the horn, sax, do you, how do you feel that episode stands on its own? Obviously. It's very polarizing. We got barbecued in the comments, we got barbecued on Reddit, we got barbecued on social media. But then. There were a large number of people who said they really liked it. My mom. A Joplin, David PR. Your manager, right? I mean, there are people who liked it. Sequoia thought it was excellent, right? There's 12 people in their lunch. Mature, candid assessment, because you weren't as hard as these other two on it. Yeah, I wasn't as hard as these other two. And I do feel like that if they felt they that we were soft on Vlad, then they should have brought it harder and they should have gone after Vlad and challenged him more. That being said, I completely understand and agree with what freeberg is saying that, look, we're not journalists, we're not playing a game of gotcha. It's not our job to go after Vlad. I think a lot of the, you know, the comments on Twitter. That's what they wanted us to do, but that's not who we are. You know? It's difficult for business too, sacks. I mean, if you're attacking Vlad and then the next day we have to go into supporting founder mode, it's kind of a bad look, isn't it? Yeah. I mean, it's not what we do, right? I mean, we we we are like your mouth was saying, we are in the arena, we're doing things. We're not critics sitting on the sidelines pointing out, you know, what the doers of deeds did wrong, you know? And so it's not our job to, you know, run an inquisition on on Vlad, you know. And so we're not really equipped to do that, I think. I think Freeberg is right that it doesn't really make sense to have guests on the show if the job is to, you know, to get to the bottom of something. As investigators, you know, we're not, we're not investigators. It was, you know, a big story, just to sort of put a cap in it from my perspective. You know, I'm always supportive of my guys. I try to be supportive of whoever I invest in and I try to give them the benefit of the doubt. And this is a situation where, you know, people are upset. They were mistakes that were made. And so I think anything other than demolishing Vlad is considered by some constituency as a failure. Right. And and So what are we supposed to do here? I can't be trashing my own company that I'm an investor in, a supporter of and and founders who I believe in. It just would be something. There was a moment, there was a moment in the pod, Jason, where I think. Actually, so on the whole, I thought Vlad did it, did a good job in accomplishing his objective on our pod, which was the same objective he had in front of Congress, which was basically to run out the clock without saying very much, you know, and, you know, he, he actually, whoever prepped him for for Congress did a pretty good job because he testified for five hours and said nothing quotable, you know, which, which is pretty much kind of the goal, right situation. That's kind of the goal for keep your head down. Yeah, exactly. So but there was a moment. In the pod last week where I think Black got himself in a little bit of trouble, Freeberg did ask, actually, a pretty tough question about the guy in the street who who had lost all of his life savings. How would Vlad respond to that? He made this claim. Well, I saved that person money because I shut down trading at the high and and then we pointed out, no, I mean, it was a high because you shut down trading. You have the causation backwards. And then you you ran and said, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. You know, well, my guy was on the floor. I got to pick him up. What are you talking about? I called the timeout I got in there, but let's. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. All right, let's move on. Let's do we talk about the insanely high profile guest that was planned for March 5th that just cancelled on. No, we should we should we put it on the? Because you know, the other thing about protocol, just say freeberg is if we have a guest on, you cannot just spike the guest. If they took the time to be on, that was my unless you tell them before they come on. Doesn't code if we don't like it. Yeah, I think they get that right. None of us do this for profession. None of us are getting paid. Do they pass? We don't have any advertisers. Like, I completely agree. We're not here to see our machine for people. I mean, Floyd had his freaking PR woman sitting on the zoom call while we were doing it last week. You know, like, I just don't think that's a little inside baseball that got interesting, I think. Explain what happened when. Well, no, we don't need to go there, Jason. I just think, I just think what Freeberg says is right, like, we we do this, we don't make any money from it. We do it because we like to talk. We. I think we all learn from it, I think. Other folks enjoy it, they learn from it. But I do think that freeberg's right. We're not going to be used as a shill. I think we're learning as this goes. I think we're learning what the ground rules should be, just like any other business. Flats made mistakes, he's going to change. We've made some mistakes and we're iterating. And I think 1 positive iteration that freeberg is proposed is if any one of us don't like an episode because we think it's basically moving away from our values, we should be able to spike it. And I I support that. I support it generally, but I don't like the idea of inviting a guest on and then it doesn't go well and then telling, you know, from our perspective, it makes us look bad. And then we tell the guests, well, you came out good and we came out down, therefore we're killing you. No, I don't think that's the point. I think what Freeberg says is like, look, this is not for to be a marketing thing. And so we're going to ask things that are exposed that are about having a real conversation where there's real honesty and if you're going to just be there and bat around, as sack said, to run the clock out. Then we're just going to spike it. Fair enough. Fair enough. I think if that's communicated ahead, I'm OK. By the way, come with your a game. And this is a great segue to talk about what actually we were a person that was going to come on and realize that they probably were going to get so pilloried that they basically spiked themselves is they opted out. Chessa boudin. The the District Attorney of San Francisco. Tell tell the guys what happened. Sex. Well, no. We we invited him to come on the podcast. No, no, we didn't invite him to come. He an intermediary. Said that she could get him on the pod. Would we like to have him on the pod we said we discussed we said sure have Chester Bunan and then go from there sex we didn't like seek him out he was well OK that counts so he he great so he but he agreed to be on the show and then you are scheduler got an e-mail out of the blue like a day or two ago saying sorry he's not coming on the show no explanation right. And that what happened. Yeah that's basically it. I mean so look here's what I would say is chasa Mr District Attorney. You'll have to come on the show, but I will challenge you to a debate anytime, anyplace, any format on your policies in San Francisco. So if you have, if you have the wavos to engage in a debate, I am ready. And I thought Chaser was a guy who had a little bit of courage. I mean, there was that night when people were discussing the situation in San Francisco and on clubhouse, and he jumped into the room. So I thought this was a guy who had some coho. Race O Chase points if you have, if you have the hotspot, if you have the choice, if you have the wavos. Let's debate. Let's talk about your policies. And by the way, he's an expert. This is what he does. You know, for a living expert, if any a defense attorney says they're gonna have a he was a public defender, he should he should mop the floor with me. I'm just some shallow tech bro. Yeah, tech bro. Tech bro doesn't know anything who he can easily demonize. So I would say, come on, let's go, let's do a debate. I'll agree to whatever format you want, but we need to talk about what's happening in San Francisco because crime is out of control and it's his fault. Trigger the young Spielberg Rain Man song. Write about driving boom. With me cackling good side should we like man, let's talk about it. We should talk about what's happening in San Francisco. OK so since since the last pod there there has been another victim Sheria must Musyoka, who was a young young man from from originally from Kenya who he came to the United States for college. Just like Hannah Abe who was killed on New Year's Eve. He went to Dartmouth. All of his. Adviser said he was brilliant. He had a young wife and a 3 year old baby. He was in San Francisco for 10 days, goes out running and gets hit. Gets gets killed by another drugged out hit and run driver who had been named. Let's see. I think it was Jerry, Jerry Oley Adams or something like that. I don't have the, the, the guy's name, but he was arrested four or five times in the last year and he was released every single time by Budden's office. It's it's just like the New Year's Eve story where you had this repeat offender Troy McAllister hit. You know, he was, he had stolen a car he was fleeing another crime he had committed. He was on drugs, and he killed Hannah Abe and Elizabeth Platt. And this was this was another case where he was caught five times over the past year and every single time he was not charged by boot and he was just let go. And so we have this case, we have a District Attorney who doesn't want to prosecute people. His agenda is decarceration. It's like a Fire Chief who doesn't believe in using water. And he is part of the burn it all down party. Let me challenge you with the argument he might make, which I think I've heard him make a few times, which is really. A position on the criminal justice system, not necessarily on local prosecution, but really what he says is once you know, once someone ends up in the criminal justice system in the United States, it causes the cycle of recurrence and the cycle of repeat that is very difficult to get at it. It basically minimizes the opportunity for reform for an individual, for a criminal to to reform themselves and to have a shot at being a successful member of society again. In the future. And the objective is find other ways to to to kind of accelerate reform and not use incarceration as the only tool in the toolbox. What is, you know, what is the, the argument back to him when he makes that point? Because I've heard him make that point a number of times. And how do you kind of move past that, that point with them? Yeah. So, so the I'm not saying that incarceration is the only answer, but Buddha's only answer is decarceration. He doesn't want to prosecute anyone. He doesn't want to lock anybody. Up. And we see the results immediately in this community. You have these repeat offenders now killing people. They should have been locked up. It's, you know, Buddha's always putting forth these elaborate theories. This is, you know, the the Chronicle, an article about it, about why these crimes occur. And he never wants to put the fault on the people who are actually perpetrating the crimes. It's always economic desperation. He just put it forward to a theory that a decline in tourism is causing people to commit more. Home invasions. You know, he he never watched. Yes. This is in the San Francisco Chronicle article here. I'll pull it up on. I mean, it's crazy. I mean, the other thing you left out, David, I'll say is, and this was really, you know, hits home to anybody with kids is a food driver for door dash. Not that it matters which service, but was in San Francisco's Pacific Heights neighborhood, which is the safest and most elite neighborhood in it's, you know, the Beverly Hills or Bel Air of San Francisco. And his car was carjacked. With his four year old daughter and two year old boy inside. Now of course you should not be leaving two kids in the car. Putting that aside, that mistake which I'm sure this father is suffering over, but he needed to make deliveries. Obviously he made a mistake leaving the kids in the car, but the we all got an Amber Alert last week on our phones. And I mean this is the low level of lawlessness. It's turned into escape from New York. Level Gotham City level chaos. And the criminals know they will not be prosecuted and this is the key. Criminal justice problem here. If you say you are not going to prosecute crime, and you demonstrate to the hardest core faction of criminals that you don't prosecute, they're going to take advantage of that weakness. And and that's what's happening. Let me take the counterpoint just for a second, just so we can construct what the other side of the argument looks like at the other side of the argument says, OK, these folks are largely engaged in an enormous amount of petty crime to support their drug habit, right. I think that's probably the and that, you know, underneath that is just an explosion of opioids and fentanyl and whatnot. Underneath that is sort of economic uncertainty that's been compounding and just basically crusting. Over. And so folks would say, OK, these guys are a victim of a much broader economic malaise that needs to get fixed. I'm just, I'm just, you know, you're shaking your head, Jason, but I'm just saying I think that that's where the trail of bread crumbs grows in the counter, in the counterfeit, in the, in the counter argument. So, well, the, the these are these are the types of arguments that chasa makes in order to obfuscate and disguise that his real agenda is basically radical decarceration. You know, he's got this, this childhood. Background where his parents went to jail when he was just a baby and he grew up. He says his earliest memories were visiting his parents in jail, and it profoundly affected his political views. And now we have to suffer through this. We're suffering through his childhood trauma, his childhood trauma and so smooth. You're right about deeper causes, but it doesn't excuse the need to lock people up when they are dangerous to the community. And it's not just petty crime. I mean, let's let's go through that. The actions he's taking his. ETA OK, so first week on the job, just about. He abolished the whole cash bail system. OK, which voters in November just voted in with Prop 25 to affirm. So voters of California want the cash bail system because it keeps criminals locked up. What Chase has said is that he would replace cash bail with an algorithm. Well, what exactly is that algorithm? He won't explain. Well, he won't submit to third party audit. There is no algorithm. They're just letting people go. OK then. The next thing he did was fire 7 veteran prosecutors in the DA's office who weren't on board with his agenda. These are people who have spent their whole lives prosecuting murders, rapes, I mean ******** crime. And it takes years of experience to learn how to be a prosecutor like that. So for him to just purge this office of these veteran prosecutors is a disaster for the city. I've been talking to people who used to work in the DA's office and they tell me that the problem goes much deeper than that. That in addition to these 7 veterans, he purged over 30 prosecutors, which is about 1/4 of the whole office have left under his reign because they don't like working for him. So he, you know, and he complains about being short staffed. He says a lot that he can't, you know, prosecute. Everyone needs to prosecute. So short staffed. The reason he's short staff is no one wants to work for him. You know, by the way, I think it's worth highlighting this guy was elected, right? So the the the city, the voters in the city runoff, I understand, right. He he won by something like 2000 votes. It was a tiny, tiny number of votes. People voted him in on a platform that he very clearly articulated and is now realizing in office. So there was something about that platform that I think is worth noting was and is appealing and and probably is to a large number of people, large difference, right. And the part of it that's appealing, OK is that is that is that we, we do believe that there are too many people in prison and that a better and a better way to deal with a drug addict who commits a petty theft is to send them. To treatment, OK. As opposed to putting them in prison, right. So I think we can all agree on that, but but his agenda is so much more radical than that. He just doesn't want to lock people up. Take take Troy McAllister, OK. This is a dangerous person. Who he was. He was facing trial for his third strike, OK. He committed armed robbery. He robbed a store with a gun, OK. He was facing a third strike for that for that robbery and one of the first things chase that did when he came in. Was basically releasing for time served. He basically pleaded that down. That was someone who's facing a life sentence. That is the reason why Hannah Abe and Elizabeth Platt are dead is because he didn't want to prosecute. That's a violent offender. I'm not disagreeing, by the way. I think, like what is interesting to me is that so many people have an eye on and agree with the notion that criminal justice system needs reform. The problem is realizing that reform with a radical District Attorney. It doesn't really resolve to a solution. It resolves to more problems on a local level and and even Chase has said this publicly, which is like, you can't just solve this problem from the DA's office. It is a much bigger and broader problem, and the radical action he's taking isn't solving any problems. It's creating far more. And I think it is worth noting though, that there is, should, and likely will be, especially with the Kamala Harris as Vice President, some attempts at reforming on a federal level. You know how, how, how criminals are treated, how the system realizes opportunities for them to reform and and come back into society as productive members. But to your point, you lose all sense of safety and security if you try and do it solely on the local level. Well, let me let me ask a question. Like, look, now we have basically political activism and judicial activism on not just the right, right people used to pillory Trump for putting in all these, you know, extremely conservative judges who felt they were going to just sort of like legislate their own point of view. Uh, you know, Supreme Court nominees who were going to try to overturn Roe V Wade, but it turns out it's happening on the left as well, I guess just more at the local level. How pervasive is this, like, meaning the issues of San Francisco are these, are these the same issues of other cities and towns in America? Well, I mean, you've got gasconne in LA who's running the exact same agenda as Chase Aberdeen. He's not prosecuting third strikes. He was just sued by an organization of Deputy DA. The judge is now requiring him to uphold the law, which is 3 strikes. He will not bring third strike charges on his own. He's also this is both Gascon and Buddha now have prohibited prosecutors from attending the parole hearings of dangerous convicts, murderers, rapists, whatever. And victims groups are up in arms because they need a prosecutor to go there and explain to the parole board why this person does not deserve to be released. And so you now have recall movements forming. And by the way, they've also done stuff like take death penalty. A table. They've taken gang enhancements off the table. They're like voluntarily. They're unilaterally disarming. They're they're they're prosecution teams. They're taking away weapons at their disposal to lock people up. And This is why you're already seeing recalls forming around guests gone in LA. There's now a recall of Buddha and forming in the David, David, David, go back to what Freeburg just said. They're probably not doing a bait and switch on their platform. So let's just like what do you think it is about what they are saying? That resonates on the way in with a plurality of people here. Here's the thing that resonates and and it's not that again, it goes back to this idea that incarceration is definitely not the only answer. This is where I agree. The problem is budhan is on the other side of it, where decarceration is his only answer, right? We need to use multiple weapons or tools in our toolkit here. So, so hold on. So, for example, OK, let's take the let's take the drug addict who commits a petty theft. We all agree that person should go to treatment, not to jail or prison. Right? A nonviolent of course offender. OK, but how are you? How are you going to get that person to go to treatment? Because right now there is no leverage whatsoever to get that person to go to treatment because Putin's just not bringing charges. He's not prosecuting. The choice should be given to that person. Listen, you can either go to jail or you can go to treatment. What's it going to be? That's right. Right now we have all these social services. Guess what? Nobody uses them because the ******** addict is not going to avail. Themselves of those services, I would make the argument that we have a broader, bigger problem with the criminal justice system as it operates. And it is deep and it is complex and it is frigging awful. There's a book from a few years ago that this guy named Shane Bauer wrote, I'm just trying to remember the name. I think it's called American prison. And the guy goes undercover and he goes and works in a in a in a in a penitentiary in Louisiana. And he reports on what the conditions are like. And these are these, these prisons that are run by private companies that are contracted by the state. Locally and what it's like to be an employee at one of these companies and what these employees do and how the prisoners are treated. There is no system for reform once you end up behind bars in most prisons in the United States and that is, you know, he makes the argument others have made the argument that is a has a long history that dates all the way back to slavery in the United States and in some cases it's just about ineptitude. And in some cases it's about unions, especially in California where we have a huge cost for for corrections and for the the healthcare and the pensions. The corrections officers. And so there's a lot of complex competing interests in history that relates to why this criminal justice system doesn't largely work on a moral and ethical basis, as we might all kind of, you know, wear our hearts and look at, like, at how things are working. And so the problem is everyone sees this or a lot of people will see this. Voters will see this system treating people poorly, being inept, being corrupt, and they want being racist and they want to fix it. And the way they fix it is they see a guy who shows up and he's like. Have a sledgehammer and I'm going to fix it. I'm going to take care of all these people. And the reality is when you try and take a shotgun and shoot it inside of a room, it's going to cause more problems than good. And I think that's really what he is. He is a manifestation of the anger of voters and the anger of people that look at how complex and racist the system is and how difficult it is to resolve these problems. And we're all looking for a simple big hammer answer. And he's got the biggest mouth around the biggest hammer and that, and that's why people vote for him, right chamath. And then we'll wrap it in absent. A few words, specifically racist. If you took that out, you could use that entire statement you said and describe Trump as well, meaning the left and the right are moving to these polls where it's all about authoritarian sort of strong men at the federal, state, local level folks. To your point, David, they just want to go and take a sledgehammer to things. And depending on your political beliefs or depending on the biases or depending on your life lived, you're going to gravitate to these two poles. And what's crazy is over the next 20 or 30 years, these polarizing figures will become crisper, sharper, smarter. You know, they'll find a way to forment all of all of the support, without any of the long tail shittiness that Trump figured out like Trump was. You know he's like a beta test of an idea, right? He was like, version 0.1. Wait till we see version 1.0 of the American strongman or strong woman. It's really going to be ******* scary. Well, yeah, and this is this is a guy who. What was a fan of of Hugo Chavez long after he revealed himself to be a strong man intent on ruling for life? And so, yeah, he is very much in that mold. He is a sledgehammer to this system. But but look, I think and and the problems are big and complicated. But look, we all have a role to play. The reformers have a role to play, public defenders and defense attorneys have a role to play, and the district attorneys and prosecutors have a role to play. And the problem we have right now, and the role of the District Attorney is to prosecute. I think that this by the way, sacks is a very difficult problem to solve. I think there are just so many misaligned incentives. It's very clear that we don't try to reform people when they go to prison and that there is a weird incentive when it's a for profit prison and the customers and the revenue is based on how many people you have in the prison. So if we just get rid of that, there's no private prisons where people have an incentive to keep people in there. And then if we made treatment free for everybody and had. Over capacity of treatment centers and then we look at the drug schedule and say these are the drugs that are not, these are the drugs that are not harmful and these are the drugs that are really, really, really harmful. We're looking at a fentanyl issue like it's a cannabis issue and that that's drugs. You know, cannabis versus fentanyl is like a nuclear bomb versus. Like a slingshot. It. Sure there's no comparison between these two things, right? But here's the thing. No one's going to treatment when they're not forced, of course, right? But there's no treatment to go to. Maybe the wait for treatment is 6 or 8 weeks 12. That's true. You know that's not true. We we we have a lot of social services that aren't being used. There are, there is a lot of treatment available. People don't want to do it unless they really have to. Let me bring it back to where we were before. Maybe the right thing is to actually have a bunch of these sledgehammer folks. Go off for the next 10 or 20 years. You know, the Trump's and the Chessie boudins. Maybe they're all the same. And maybe what we're all just saying is enough is enough. This system doesn't work, so let's just tear it down. Every single brick of it, brick by brick at the local, state and federal levels. All I'm saying is just, I just want to get your reaction to that statement, guys. Maybe, maybe that's what we're saying. That that is what button is doing, is he is deconstructing the district Attorney's office from the inside. He is destroying it. He is not bringing charges against people. He's driving away all the veteran prosecutor, but he's he's bringing, he's bringing in all his, he's bringing his own people who all were public defenders and have that mindset and people are dying. Look we can see the results right now in the streets. Innocent people are dying. Hannah, Abe, Elizabeth Platt, Cherian, emergency. But Achromats point is there any validity sacks or Friedberg to the burn it all down cause chaos and then people come in and say, you know what? That's not going. This needs to be fixed. Let's have a nuanced discussion. We want to be added to this discussion, sacks, or we need to improve things incrementally. OK. You're not gonna make things better by dismantling the whole district attorney's office. I mean, come on, we need to improve things incrementally. Yeah. I mean, look, everything looks exponential until it cycles back. So, you know, you're only going to have so much evolution to Gotham in San Francisco until enough people put their hands in the air and say, OK, you know, time for a change, let's go back and let's start fixing this. They are, they are saying that that's why we're having. That's, I mean there's a recall chesa boudin movement flexing a muscle and making it stronger. I think, you know we're learning a lot about what approaches to criminal justice reform work and what approaches do not work. And it is clear that a local only non prosecution position is not going to work with respect to both criminal justice reform and the satisfaction of the society at large. And we're realizing that and I think we we are inevitably, I mean there's so many people that are up in arms, we are inevitably going to cycle back the other way at some point very soon here. Yeah, and honestly, I think you guys are over intellectualizing this a little bit. You know, when when Cheria died because he got hit by by that repeat offender, they asked his wife who's responsible for this. She said very clearly the DA, that is who is responsible and she's right. Let's stop over intellectualizing this. I know the problems are big and complicated, frankly. People like chase up prey on that because they can kind of obscure what they're doing with, you know? Nice sounding obfuscations, nice sounding words, but the reality is he's not prosecuting the way he needs to. We gotta stop this. Yeah, and and it is possible to have nuance and to hold multiple ideas in your head at the same time, David, you could. There's a practical reality to people cannot murder people. People cannot drive in cars and run red lights on fentanyl while saying the criminal justice system is incredibly biased and racist. And people who are of color in Texas, you know, wind up in jail for five or ten years. Selling a bag of weed and then we're investing in companies that are making weed gummies or people are buying stock and weed companies at the same time. You can't have one person who's a black teenager in Texas going to jail for decades for doing what somebody in California or Seattle or Canada is getting an IPO for. I mean this is a fundamental injustice in the world. And you're right, that's something like chess appraise on. But there must be nuance here where we look at each individual situation and say what are the ways to solve the problem? Surgically, not with a shotgun to David Frieberg's point, but with maybe a scalpel and A and a sniper rifle. Do we want to move on to questions from our audience because they submitted hundreds of questions, or do we want to move on to the Australian News and Facebook backing out of publishing news? If that's a gang or a bad thing, let's end with the Q&A. I think socks what the **** is going on with Facebook and Australia and climate change and this is insanity. Yeah. So I think what's going on in Australia is is contemplating a law that would require Facebook. And Google and I think just those two companies to essentially pay royalties for hyperlinks to, to, to, to news publications. And I think this is mostly at the behest of some powerful newspaper magnates down there, I think, like Rupert Murdoch and I love the way you say magnates. I mean you know and so it but but but this issue is going to be very closely watched by Europe and maybe even the US. It's basically a like a, a wealth transfer from Google and and Facebook to the traditional media and to traditional publishers. This is an issue where I actually side with with Zuckerberg and Facebook on this. I mean I kind of throw up a little bit in my mouth saying that but. But no. But look, Tim Berners Lee has come out and said that it could really interfere with the open Internet and the World Wide Web if you start to tax hyperlinks. I mean, historically hyperlinks and the titles on hyperlinks were, were, were, were, were fair use. You could you could use those things without violating somebody else's copyright or need to pay them a royalty. And so I think that it's it's bizarre to me that that Facebook can. And Google wouldn't now be able to use hyperlinks and I'm kind of worried about where that goes and you know so well Facebook, Facebook said that they're not going to publish links now for Australian news and then but then they followed that up with, they were also going to start dismantling any anti climate change content. I don't know if that's just in Australia there's labeling. So there's another thing going on which is they've decided not to label any posts involving climate change, which is part of the whole censorship debate. And and so yeah, I mean, well, it's separate but related in the sense that the traditional media is cheering on censorship. But then when Facebook essentially censors these links because they want to pay royalties to the traditional media, then the traditional media is up in arms. And so they're very selective in how they, how they view these issues. But my principle is very consistent, which is I want an open Internet. I'm against censorship in all of its forms. And I and I you know, and I'm I'm worried that this. New Australian law could really lead to some lead to an overall reduction or shutdown. Here's what's really I think going on is that with fair use, the doctrine of Fair use is a four part test. You're a lawyer, obviously you know all this acts, but to sort of educate people in the audience who don't, there's no specific number of characters, no specific percentage of the original work that you can use you to clear yourself of Fair use. Fair use is a test when it goes before a judge. The judge looks at this four part test. The percentage of the work you used. Is the public confused? Is there some educational or criticism version of it? So if you were to use 10% of this podcast and you were to wrap it with, you know, put us in a picture window and you were 50% of it and there was no confusion that you were commenting on this that would be fair use or if you were to use it in educational system and if you were monetizing it now, if you were to just clip our podcast like this one website, clip the podcast and made 60 clips of it. Took our file and I sent them a cease and desist action and said, hey, don't do this. We're doing it ourselves. They fought us. They said we're fans and I said I don't care if your fans are not, you're not linking back, you're not giving us credit and you're doing 60 clips. If you want to do one or two clips and you want to comment on it, that's fine, but you can't take all 60 clips and make a 60 clip version of this. And so fairness is in the word fair use. The problem with Zuckerberg and with how Google has used journalists content is they are clipping out specific sections of it. And putting it in something called one box on Google, so many of you might have said how many people you know, how many pounds are in, you know, whatever or what time is this TV show on? And then the content that was made by the ringer or the New York Times gets clipped. And they put just that section, David, with an algorithm, and they give you the answer. So you don't need to go visit that website. This is tipping over into what I would call unfair use because you're eliminating the person linking. Now let me finish. Yeah. If it was just the URL and you didn't pull the headline, you didn't pull the abstract, and you didn't pull the photo, that would be fine. There is a very easy solution to this, which is if you want to pull the link and the headline, you pay $0.00, but if you want to pull anything else. 100 characters, etcetera. You need to get a license from that person unless you are doing actual criticism. So there's nothing to stop anybody in Australia right now from taking a screenshot of a New York Times story or an Australian, you know, newspaper story and writing some commentary on it. You just can't wholesale take everything. And So what we're seeing here is a real time negotiation between private parties into what is fair. And I think Google has a really rich history of sharing revenue. The App Store, they give 70% to app. Developers YouTube. They give 55% to creators and with Adsense they let you put Adsense on your website and they give you $0.68 on the dollar or something in that range. They never actually disclose the exact percentage, but that's what I'm told it is. Facebook has given $0.00 to Instagram users, $0.00 to WhatsApp users, $0.00 to Facebook folks. They're too greedy and what Facebook needs to do is either not use the content or come up with some reasonable payment and come to an agreement with these folks who are now banding together. And they're realizing the traffic we get from Facebook and Google is not worth what they're taking away from with us, which is all that revenue that, you know, they earned in the free market. And so this is a free market debate. And I think the government should stay out of it to a certain extent and let the free market work, which is all publishers should get together in the United States and confront Facebook and say pay us unless you use anything more than the headline. But, Jason, I think these things are interconnected, though, right? On the one hand, if you're, if you have an economic stake. In distribution of content. But then you're also then going to decide under an opaque definition, what is truth or not truth. You all of a sudden just become, I mean, the purest form definition of a publisher. Right. And I think it just becomes a very treacherous place for both Facebook and Google to end UINO. It's almost paying the bill, by the way. Yeah. No, you're right. Google's paying for it. Facebook decide not to. But Facebook, they said something like only 4% of their their their posts involve this kind of content. So it's just not a big deal for them the way it is for for Google. Well I think it is a big deal for Facebook. They're just trying to make a point here because Zuckerberg's. Yeah yeah. And they're, they're being they're being they're being overly heavy-handed. And their response yeah there's no question about it. They're throwing their weight around. It doesn't look good. But I'm not defending Facebook. I'm defending the principle. I mean look if this Australian. Principle we're used you wouldn't have the Drudge Report. You wouldn't be able to create a site of of news. No, you could. If it was commentary, you could put the link and write commentary. It's when you just rip the links. People are objecting, understood, to ripping the links without any commentary. Judge report rewrites the headline, puts his own spin on it, and then links. He would never get caught into this and there is no publication that would ever object. What they're objecting to is taking the photo, taking the first paragraph and the the this, the synapsis is 30 or 40% of the value. And so Facebook is a better and Twitter with their algorithms are better front pages than the New York Times Front page. Well, why isn't this applying to Twitter then? I I think it will. Ultimately, they'll they'll go there as well. I think this will become the test case, which is if you want to take more than just the headline. And like, you know, basically that's it, or the URL if you want to have that little snippet, pay us, pay us something. It doesn't have to be a lot, but this could actually solve if these networks that are making 10s to hundreds of millions of billions of dollars, if they just said, you know what, 1% to the news organizations to keep them viable just like anybody else would pay a licensing fee for terrestrial radio. Otherwise, why is the Australian government setting the price and why are they only applying? Just Google and Facebook. Well, I think they're gonna go right down the line. I think it's just a starting point. But to my point I said earlier is I don't think the government needs to do this right. I think the news organizations on mass should get together and put their foot down and say no. And if they did, they would get paid. It sounds like what the government should do is clarify what fair use entails. Just the land. Various. It's maybe it's a link plus a title. I mean, look, it's it's never just a link, right? It's a hyperlink plus the snippet, plus the work. Yeah, exactly. Yes, the snippet is the issue, right. Fine. So the government should clarify what fair use is. And then if Google and Facebook, whoever want more, they got to go and negotiate for it. Exactly. But but Australia is doing more than that. They're setting the price and they're limiting their overreaching policy just to Google and Facebook because they know that if they applied it to everybody, by the way, we do that. We we already do this in the United States. With local carriage of news organizations on terrestrial TV. So we already have, we already mix it up with the FTC doing this with licenses and the public good. So it's the extent. I think the other thing that you know is going to happen with all of this is like on the other, on the other side of this, the actual media organizations themselves that theoretically could benefit from this are frankly just going out of business anyways. I there's a, you know, there's a Wall Street Journal alert for the owner of the LA Times who's about to sell the times. Like, it's very likely that the times in four or five years doesn't even exist. So I don't really know where all of this goes except that, you know, everybody's just going to be an individual person blogging and tweeting whatever opinion they want, right? So there would be no money to pay anybody because it won't really matter. But what will be left is then these rules on arbitration of fact and fiction. And I think that that's where we're going to end up. That's going to be a crazy place. Because then those folks, those folks then really are the puppet masters. Yeah, I, I, I, I, I, I agree that these traditional publications have like a fundamental business model problem and it's not going to be solved. Like, I think there's a like a misplaced blame on Facebook and and Google. I mean the phone at all problem with all these publications are you go search for a news article on something and there's like 10 versions of the same thing or more 100 versions. And you know when newspapers, we saw thousands of newspapers all across the country and they had a a local geographic monopoly. But once it all got digitized and moved online, you realize how much? Redundancy. There was, you have thousands of reporters craned the exact same thing and there needs to be consolidation. It doesn't make sense to have 100 articles. Not only that, but a point we made last time, which is, you know, facts have largely commoditized or most facts like, you know, remember we used to open the newspaper and look at what the stock market prices were. We we opened the newspaper and looked at the sports scores. We looked at what happened in this place, in this place, facts about events, facts about the prices of things, facts about sports scores. That's all completely. A lot of times I mean that's like 90% of the content of what people used to read the newspaper for has gone online. And so as we talked about last time newspapers and publications of the like have largely moved into you know different sorts of narrative and you know it's created a marketplace that has a lot more competition because anyone can write that as we are we're seeing with sub stack and medium and as we're seeing with our own podcast we're seeing with our own podcast and I think that's this feels to me like you know I went to a media conference back in 2000 and. 8 and there was this huge battle between Google and Viacom. And I I was at the conference and I think Larry Page was on stage or someone, or Eric Schmidt was on stage and the Viacom CEO got up. And he's like, when are you going to start paying us for our content? And I think that that, and he really screamed at him in a room with like 800 people. And I feel like that same kind of point of view has persisted until there's finally some legislation that they feel kind of gets them justice. Meanwhile, the world has passed them by. And, uh, you know, I think this this will be kind of some transitory legislation that ultimately the content is going to democratize anyway and the content creation is going to democratize. Last topic for me, because I really want freedberg's answer to this because I also just saw an alert how the federal government is opening up a vaccination site in Miami-Dade County actually saw Francis Suarez retweeted. What the Hell's going on with vaccinations? Are we going to get vaccinated soon? I said it in December and I tweeted about it and I've repeated it multiple times since that the US has enough supply to vaccinate pretty much anyone that wants to get vaccinated because we are producing and delivering 3 to 4,000,000 doses per day in the US right now. And there is a just a fundamental issue, especially like, I mean, look at California, you know, they haven't opened up quote UN quote vaccination to people outside of tier or what they're called Tier 1A. And so this is much more of a kind of policy issue than an administrative issue then a supply and demand issue. There's enough people that want the vaccine and there's enough vaccine, so just let people get ******* vaccinated. And so I feel like the market forces are now kind of converging with policy a little bit more than they were a month ago. And the policy makers are no longer fighting and complaining about supply and complaining about constraints. You know, we've got mass VAC sites now in California, the amount of money that's being wasted. By the way, in this process makes me want to vomit every time I read about it. That's a whole another separate issue. But it feels to me like we're probably may, June, when enough people are vaccinated that we can have, you know, a circumstance where people are going to fly without masks and be comfortable doing so. But I'm sure there will be these over, you know, constraining rules around what people can and can't do in public for a very long time. Like I mentioned what happened, I do want to say one thing that I've noticed. We we were, we were all, we played some poker. The other night we were with a a friend. Who got vaccinated? And I was like he said, this is my first time playing poker with people. And it's like, well, you got vaccinated. Like, why are you. He's like, well, I don't know if other strains are going to get me or, you know, if this thing's evolving and other people going to get sick. And if you think about what's happened over the last year, people have been conditioned to be afraid. And so even though we're getting vaccinated, even though this thing is moving and working, I'm concerned that we're not going to end up in a more civil state. Schools aren't opening, people aren't flying, people aren't doing stuff, even after vaccinations. The science and data shows that these things are OK, Texas and Florida, maybe, there's, maybe there's some cases of it. But what I'm saying is, like, you know, the human subconscious gets trained first, and then our conscious mind rationalizes what we feel. We've all now been trained over the past year to be very afraid. And then we all come up with these rational excuses about why I can't do XY&Z. And it's like, but you've been ******* vaccinated. You're fine. Like all the data, all the science says, go do whatever you want to do. Go into a nightclub. Sweaty next to people robbing beats and music. About the throbbing nightclubs like never seen you so animated. It's like that scene from goodwill hunting. Remember what we talked to the psychologist? Like tell us about your rave stories again. Activate 94th emotion. And rave give all music. Ollie, just kick in Friedberg. Did you drop him? Molly, at the start of the pod. But my point is, like people are really afraid and I think I just got the best idea for an episode. The biggest concern I have is frankly less about are we gonna get vaccinated. I feel like the convergence between market forces and government nonsense is now going to allow us to all get vaccinated. But the issue is really going to be like how do you break through these rules and the fear that that basically because I want, but I don't understand where where are the Max vaccination sites in California and who's eligible? Like why aren't we just making this thing like a drive? True we should this is where we can absolutely right now we just it's ridiculous you think we we all have absolute violent agreement that California is so messed up with respect to how we're vaccinating. We have so much supply, we're sitting on half our frigging supply right now in California, 30 million vaccines sitting on shelves. We are now at 75% deployed, 80%. It's got like 4 or 5,000,000 vaccines sitting in storage. It should be a drive through and you just get in line and you go in some places we're doing is you know but what we're doing now is you got to schedule scheduling. Because you first you gotta qualify, then you gotta schedule an appointment and then the the the clinic or whatever is only open from 9 to 5. And so like how many doses they really administering when you got to make an appointment? Probably 1 every half hour. So maybe they get through 16 people a day or something. Like qualifications. Yeah, I think I find $1,000,000 and lose their medical license if they inject the wrong person. So I mean you're talking about 16 people per day at a site when they could be doing a couple of 100. I mean, it's crazy. Well, Johnson and Johnson is coming and that's. Refrigerator stable, right, Freeburg, so you don't even need we now have bought 1.2 billion vaccine. But let me go back to Freeburg's point about when will life get back to normal? I'm not as pessimistic as you are, Dave, about the this idea that life won't go back to normal. And part of the reason why is I'm seeing so much outrage about school closures right now. California is one of the only states in the country that's still completely closed. All the schools and people are absolutely up in arms. I'd say it's as big an issue as this exploding crime issue. Crime is a big issue in the cities and school closures is the big issue in the suburbs. And if these two things don't turn around, I think Gavin Newsom is going to get recalled. I mean, people are just on fire about this, yeah. But I mean, my point was like our our wealthy conservative. You know, a friend that lives in Florida was afraid to go do stuff even after he's been vaccinated. And I think that's what's permeated everywhere. It's just like there's freeberg. It's like a shark attack. You know, if this is a shark attack, you know, at Half Moon Bay or whatever, people don't swim there for a couple of weeks and then somebody swims and they're like, oh, the water is great, people will jump back in. I think it's April, David, to your point of when this goes back to normal because if you look now, people have been saying, freber, correct me if I'm wrong. Would you put a 5X multiplier on the confirmed COVID cases? A 4X multiplier at this point, 5X I think is the right medium, medium. So if you have 30 million people who've had the vaccine, had COVID, you're looking at five times, that is 150 now you have 60 million people who have been vaccinated. We're at 2:10. There were 330 million Americans, 70 million are under our kids. So, you know, we're, we're basically getting to herd immunity. And if you look at the slopes right now, what is causing the drop in cases this massively, David, is it herd immunity? Vaccine. Or are people suddenly wearing masks? What is it there? There's complexity because everyone assumes that there's one thing that affects the whole population. But remember, the way viruses work is they're hyper local. And so the local population dynamics looked at on a scale, is where you see the statistical results of the scale. And so, you know, we saw this in North Dakota. A bunch of people got really sick. They got to herd immunity and communities, and then all of a sudden it dropped off the curve. When you zoom out and that's happening, combined with behavioral changes combined with vaccines, then you start to see these. Physical things happen at scale. So it's not a simple answer, but the answer generally can be we are coming down the slope. We are getting to a point of, you know, general like low case counts, low death counts, low fatality. And we should be living a normal life, allowing our economy to kind of progress again. And we're still caught up in this kind of fear, fear, fear. Just to this end, on this pick a date when you think all four besties are vaccinated. I'm going to say April 1st, June. June, OK, what do you got? Freeberg I say April 1st, we're all going to be vaccinated. Literally a choice. I mean, any one of us could go get vaccinated in the next month. I mean, how? What, none of us are over 30 BMI. I mean, sacks was for a minute, California's opening 1B. A lot of the other states are opening broadly. If any of you wanted to get on a plane and go get vaccinated somewhere else, you could. I mean, there's enough places now that have open vacs or will in the next 30 days you can go get vaccinated. So you say 30 days, which would be March 15th or so. Yeah, I think that's a choice for the four of us. If you guys want to hop on a plane, we can go get vaccinated. Does anybody have access to it? But sorry, but doesn't that you're, you're you're saying in an open vac state, anybody can show up without proof of residency drivers license? I've looked into this. There have been different ways that this is played out. But generally speaking, there are market forces at play where you know where there's a will, there's a way. Not saying that you're cutting line and screwing people over, but there are vaccinations that are happening all over the country now with people that want to get vaccinated. And by the way, in California next week, tier 1B opens up. So anyone what does that mean? What does Tier 1B? It's a total BS definition. It is absolutely ridiculous. I absolutely think this is the biggest waste of time and money ever. But tier 1B definition in California is healthcare. Sorry, childcare workers. So anyone that's a teacher or works with children, if your nanny or your daycare people you know wanted to, they could go in and get vaccinated. Oh wait, our nanny can get vaccinated starting next Wednesday in California. And so all you need to do is go get to a VAC site with vaccines. And and by the way, they all, a lot of them have vaccination supply now or they will this weekend. There's apparently big shipment going out and also all Food and Agriculture workers, loosely defined. So people that work in grocery stores, restaurants. Farm workers, you're saying anyone, chef, that anyone if you have a chef they can get back to. No, no. I think two people out of four on here might have chefs. I think two of us definitely don't. So so if you take care of your own kids and cook your own food, you can't get vaccinated. But if you do that for somebody else, you can. Wait. You're saying if you have a chef and you have nannies, you get vaccinated? No, you don't. You don't. Saying is, is you? Yeah. If you're a chef at or a nanny for someone else, you can go get vaccinated next week. Right. But but, David, what do you want for dinner? I'm coming over right now to make. Do you want I'll watch your kids this weekend? David, give me a shot. It's so insane. We have all these ridiculous job categories and distinctions. It's just like with the lockdown policy they had 10 pages of exceptions for essential workers. Listen, if you've got a policy with 10 pages exceptions, the policy doesn't make any sense. Like all the like and this caused all the controversy in like anyone that works in the movie business is an essential worker, but people that work, that, people that work in restaurants and bars are not. See this for what it is. It is pay off to do some political supporters. The, the the politicians are using. They use essential worker exceptions, and now they're using vaccines as political capital. They dole them out to their supporters so that, you know, in exchange for, you know, votes down the road. Also the remember the exception, David, if you serve more than seven courses in your prefix, you can get a vaccine. So that is the French laundry. If you add an amused moose and an intermezzo, you qualify for the vaccine. There are people going to states renting houses. And getting drivers licenses and getting vaccines. I know about. It's called vaccine tourism, by the way, think about it this way. In six weeks, I think a lot of those restrictions are going to fall by the wayside because the supply is going to completely outstrip the nonsensical, you know, restrictions and prioritization methods we put in place. And hopefully, God willing, these idiots who have the ability to vaccinate people, open up their sites 24/7 and drop all the ******** questionnaires and registration requirements. Let people drive in, get a shot. Wait 15 minutes and leave and have just some basic principle people on site that can take care of people if they have a adverse allergic reaction and get shots in arms. We have the shots, we have the supply. We're going to be over supplied by May. We are going to have far more shots than there will be demand. And so, you know, we just need to get this, this kind of nonsense thrown out the window. Straight to Q&A. This is from videsh, he says. Where are you investing your money over the next 10 years? So Friedberg, you want to start and then we'll go to Sachs and then Mr Paul Hatia pretty largely you know on the podcast, I mean two areas that are super interesting to me that I'm spending a lot of time on is obviously biomanufacturing. So the idea that we can kind of move away from traditional animal based agriculture and systems of production to systems where we use genetically engineered microbial organisms to produce molecules and materials and food. And that that that system of production can have a radical impact on. On the environment, on the opportunity for jobs, on the cost of goods and and things that humans want and consume and that's that's a primary area of interest for me and I think it's a multi decade. I think by 2050 you know we should see. Most of our goods that are manufactured rather than being made in the traditional sense, which is basically old technology scaled up, which is what the industrial revolution did, but really shift to a new model of manufacturing where we use a smarter machine, which is a biological Organism to make stuff. So that that's my interest, sacks. Yeah. So I'm, I'm focused on the area of bottom up SAS, which is basically business software that can go viral very much in the mold of Yammer, which was the company I founded and sold back a dozen years ago. It was the precursor to slack. Let's be honest, it could have been 27 billion, but you did not ride your winner. You took the quick, Billy. And that was not a mistake because it lets you invest in the other 20 unicorns. Correct it. Kinda. I mean, so, so, so, oh, you do have a chip on your shoulder about selling too early. Go let it out. It's it's it's not a chip. I I would say that around the time that PayPal hit a $200 billion market cap and Slack had a $27 billion outcome, I started realizing, you know, if I just stuck with my ideas longer, you know, I probably would would do better. And I'm like, you know, I don't really need to come up with a new thesis or a new idea. I already came up with the idea. 12 years ago, which is to make business software viral. I'm just going to keep investing in that thesis. So it's not that original or new for me, but but but it is, you know, bottom up has become the, I would say almost the the dominant mode. Now of explain that to somebody who doesn't understand what you mean. Bottom up, yeah. So, so bottom up means that the entry point for the software is any employee in the company. They can just start using it. They go to your website, they start using it, they spread to their coworkers as opposed to top down. Top down is like the Oracle. Sales guy who carries a bag, it goes to meet with the CIO and you know, sells them a big expensive implementation. That's the. And that's traditionally what business software used to be is a is a big top down IT sale. Bottom up is, is this going in through the rank and file employees? All right. Chamath Polly Hypatia for the next 10 years. Where are you putting your money? Two areas. Inequality, well it's not even ten I would say for the next for the rest of my life. So it's I think these arcs are multi decade but inequality and climate change and so you know the inequality side. What does that mean? It's anybody. The second you said inequality and climate change, sacks left like he went to throw up. He's like what he has red. He went to throw up. He's like, oh God, here we go. There. He's back. Now he's back. Zach, did you throw up when Jamal said out of your bag? He said his woke nonsense. Did you just go throw up? No, I I. And threw up, hit the Polish his Glock. He just called the security. He went and he kissed his gold bricks that he keeps in his house. No, inequality basically means anything that evens the starting line so that if that's healthcare software that solves a chronic condition or if that's financial software that drives inclusion and then climate change is pretty obvious, but the the panoply of things that we need to do to basically, you know, slow the warming of the earth. Those are the two areas huge opportunities you have for vidash, if you even care. I take a remora like approach. If you don't know what a remora is, you ever see like a big shark? And then there's like a bunch of things stuck to it. And it's like following the shark and it just eats whatever. So basically what I do is I'm getting behind these three guys and I just draft on these three sharks and just try to weasel my way onto their cap tables. It's a, it's a living, you know, basically it's sort of the poker game and try to no, in all sincerity, I am state, I am vertical agnostic because I think the great companies make the verticals, they create the categories and the categories don't exist at your stage particularly. What's that at your stage? Yeah. And So what I do in the early stage is I am focused on the process. And the process I'm trying to master here is what I do with the, which is fine, great companies and share it with now 7000 accredited investors and let them decide, you know, how much they want to invest in each deal. And just to give people an idea, we are on a $60 million run rate this year of deploy capital via the syndicate. In other words, it'll be 4 * 5 times what my fund will do. The fund has access to 100% of deals, but the syndicate has access to 60% roughly. So now that we've broken our no. Advertising role? No, I mean we're all talking our book here. Let's take another question. And Angel is available from Harper Collins business. What? Oh, here's a good one. I want to save money on car insurance. Sorry, go ahead. Absolutely fantastic. Also the ticker symbol. What's the biggest investment venture, miss? You had early starting out. That would have been a ridiculous return. What is our anti portfolio looking like? Friedberg? We'll start with you then go chamath thingo Sachs freezer. I was with Jack Dorsey in. And at this conference, and he went around and did a pass the hat on who wanted to invest in his new startup called Square. That's my story. What? What is that a 50? Is that a $50 million myth? Yeah, I'm not going to say it it it would have been bad. I mean 50K in at 10 million, but I mean the problem here is by the way an interesting thing going back to the the point sacks made earlier and that we've said in the past. You know, when square went public there was a lot of questions and trepidation around its valuation. Big fund managers were poo pooping the company and what's the market cap of square today? Sacks, you might know hundred 100 and 120 hundred 20 billion. I mean 125 billion today. That's incredible, right? Because like when they went public, people were kind of poo pooing it saying this thing is a, this is a sub billion dollar company. You know, it shouldn't be worth anything more than a billion dollars. And look at it just a few years later. Anyway. I missed it. I missed that one on the. Ground and and I've just watched with with all what by the way the continue to innovate to the process as a public company. It troughed at a $4 billion valuation. It did, it did like five years ago. And so within five years it's gone from 4 billion to 124 billion. I was in a venture capital fund that invested in it. They distributed the shares. I sold half and I was like, I'll just keep half. I like Jack. I sold half at 72 and now it's at 276. And so ride your winners folks sacks anti portfolio. Which one is the most painful? Honestly, I haven't missed that much. Just be OK, Frank. Unbelievable. What a douche. What a what a ******* douche. Well, actually, I I analyzed my chess game with Peter Thiel and Andy my check my castle, Queenside Castle was actually a brilliant move if he hadn't pinned my no, I mean, look, I I tend. I look, I don't overthink these things too much. I mean, it's why I'm in like 27 unicorns. If the company looks good, I I invest. Phil, help you feeling unbelievable. You help me help you while you're traveling. Teeth ring. But I won 29 of the last 30 sessions. No. What would you say? Your total like multiple is on all, your Angel investor. Like you have a question, sacks, answer the question. Come on. The audience asked what you missed. Can you just be humble enough to say you missed something? I'll tell you. I'll tell you. So this was a sort of a semi miss, is that? Oh my God. It's not even a miss. They made-up for it. I only put in half my normal amount. Let me tell you what happened. I did miss it. So back in 2007, I thought Twitter was going to take off. I had a like a former employee who wanted to sell secondary and so, you know, I had a deal worked out to buy, I think a couple $100,000 of shares at, I don't know, $40 million valuation or something like that. And we submitted it to the company and then they referred it for because I think Chris Sock for Chris Sacca, basically. I don't know if you remember socket set up like. Secondary thing, yeah. So yeah, the fact that, you know, I wasn't able to complete that transaction probably cost me, you know, a couple 100,000,000 bucks. Chamath anti portfolio, which sticks out. I have a I have a huge Airbnb folio, huge Robin Hood, you know, Airbnb at ability. And obviously I actually did invest. I agreed to invest. But then I got into a huge public snafu with with Chesky because he was taking a bunch of money off the table and then we ended up not even finalizing the investment. And your letter with your letter was published, your e-mail was leaked. My e-mail was leaked. Yeah, it was leaked. So I was really ****** when they did that. But anyways, that was a decade ago. Not much has changed, I guess. There is one thing that above all others which is sadly also in My Portfolio. So My Portfolio, my anti portfolio is the same thing. You can guess what it is but that's Bitcoin at one point you know we controlled low single digits, mid single digits of the entire float and had I held on to that that's talking about you know a mid deca billion dollar position. So my anti portfolio in in the unrealized losses. Unrealized gains or losses, if you will, on Bitcoin is in the many 10s of billions of dollars. Yeah, mine is clearly Bitcoin as well because I was reporting on it when it was $0.10 and I was one of the first journalists to write about it and talk about it on my podcast. And I had like maybe ten of these bitcoins in a wallet of that was a Mount Gox and it got hacked and it all went away. And then my wife bought it at under 200. And so now we have a joke in the House that my wife is going to because of her incredible trade. Because she she saw it as well. Return more on her. It's it's conceivable she'll return more than my entire investing career, so shout out to jade for getting that one. Yeah, I made that mistake too. That truth made of of not hodling enough, long enough. So that that is that. Did you guys see, did you see this article? I I fished this article out, but in 2014 I was buying a land at Martis Camp in Lake Tahoe and I told the sales guy there, Jeff Hall, I said, hey, listen, I'll buy this lot if you let me buy it in Bitcoin because I wanted to promote Bitcoin, Bitcoin as a transactional infrastructure. So we went to a company called BitPay. They wired it up and I bought it. $1.6 million in Bitcoin. That was 2800 coins, which right now is worth 140 or $150 million. What are you going to build on that lot? Are you gonna put your. I don't. I don't even own that a lot. You should make it a grave. You should make it a grave plot. You should just tell my my ex-wife owns a lot. I hope. I hope you know she enjoys it. But I'm saying you literally could have bought the Knicks, Lakers and the Warriors and been the majority owner in each. Alright, let's take another question. What's the number one macro uncertainty or risk you guys are most worried about for your investment portfolios where there is only one and I think it's inflation, but I think it's important to understand where inflation is coming from. The single biggest risk to all of us is what's going to happen in the following order of operations. So I think all of this sort of at the coming out of the pandemic, basically what you're going to have is like four or five major trading blocks in the world, right? You have China as a standalone. You have Europe as a standalone, you have America, North America under Biden. I think it could be more North America as a as a standalone and then you have these sort of what I would call random you know friends with benefits, Africa, South America, Japan, Korea, OK. But those are all bit players to these three huge trading blocks. Everybody was going to go and they're going to go and get vertically integrated. So it's sort of builds a little bit on what David said like you're not going to have you know one central place. Where you get this thing basically, IE China that you ship on a boat to get over here for a whole host of reasons, national security, carbon, etc. So you can have all these vertically, you know, vertically integrated supply chains and resilient economies. You know what that does when you have to try to build that stuff? Prices go screaming higher. Because instead of having one factory in China making 9 billion iPhone cases, you have now 50 factories all around the world, each with their own infrastructures and costs and whatever. And so I think you're going to reflate the world. I don't know when it happens, but that's sort of the biggest risk to all of what. Do is that all of a sudden you know real rates go to like 6 or 7% and then all of a sudden you're not going to look at a company trading at 50 times earnings and say, Umm, you know, you're gonna you're gonna question that so that I think that's the biggest risk that I think. Friedberg. What's your risk? Facts. What's your risk? Sax, you go ahead. Yeah. So actually mine is pretty similar to Tamas, which is I think we're accruing these unpayable deficits and debts and obligations and you know all this money has to be paid back at some point. That the that the US government's incurring, I mean there's a California version of this where we've accrued a trillion dollars of pension obligations that we have no ability to pay. So, yeah, I mean I think that eventually it translates into inflation, but I think it translates into something even worse, which is at some point people become skeptical about loaning money to the US government and the because they don't want the US will just print dollars to pay back these, these loans. And the US dollar since becoming the world's reserve currency. I think the reason why we're seeing Bitcoin go to the moon right now is people are starting to speculate on the idea that that this might be the future world reserve currency because it's not subject to manipulation by by, you know, by central banks. And and and and and you know and and let's think like that that world looks if you think about like a world in which the the US dollar is not the world's reserve currency anymore and which the government is basically. You broke, I mean, that is it's it's pretty scary to think about. There's a ray dalio who's a a famous and, you know, prominent hedge fund founder of Bridgewater Associates wrote an essay, if anyone's interested, called the big cycle of money, credit, debt and economic activity. You can find it online. He published it last year. Highly recommended reading. He has a few chapters that that precede and follow that. Talks about the grand macroeconomic cycle of of governments and societies and it's really worth the read. I think one really basic principled economic point. Is that governments operate in such a way that they're they're people ask for goods and ask for services. The government spends on those services by borrowing more than they're making an income in that year. And and that is I think the, you know, the premise for a lot of how governments operate around the world. The only way that that works over time. Is if your future shows that that borrowing allows you to grow your revenue more and therefore you can underwrite taking on debt to pay in the future. So you you force growth. And you know I've said this a couple of times before, but it is the most basic principle, but it is also the most scary and shocking principle, which is the only way you can afford debt is if you have growth. And that forces you to find growth. And when you're forced to find growth, you get all of these unnatural perturbations in terms of economic activity and. Market forces, it is not necessarily the case that things should and would always grow and we force things to always grow because of the mechanism by which we fund our services at a government level. And that is what's basically going to ultimately lead to a lot of different types of crises, both kind of financial crises but but also societal crises in terms of, you know, revolution and and and social pushes for socialism and and all the other things that that are typically associated with things like inflation. And so it is, it is the big crisis of the the 21st century will be. You know, we underwrote growth in the 20th century and there's a lot of forces that that make kind of, you know, bring that all to, to kind of bear this tension. I see one that's maybe a little less acute and a little bit more big picture, which is the number of people living in democracies in the world as a percentage of population which has been going down, which if you asked anybody they would be pretty shocked to hear, but just looking at the percentage of humans on the planet. Not the percentage of countries because the percentage of countries that are democracies or you know, flawed democracies is right now at, you know, 45% and we have 55% of regimes are authoritarian or hybrid and the population of people living in those is growing. So we we have countries that are authoritarian that are growing, countries that are democracies like in Europe or or in the West, in the US, Canada are declining or not keeping up pace in terms of population. With and that is a I think gonna be the the major issue which is does China win capitalism plus authoritarianism or does democracy plus capitalism work? The next question I think is super fascinating which is what would each of you wish you could teach every 12 year old right now? What a great question. Chamath you want to go first? Do you have something that comes to mind or you need a minute to think about it? Well it's such a fabulous question. There's there's there's something personal for all of us. Any answers there? Well, let's let's workshop it. Anybody just have thought that comes to mind is very this is very tactical, OK? So I'm sure there's like grander things, but just the two things we're not really teaching are coding and financial literacy. Those are like the two big, I think, omissions in the curriculum right now and would be very helpful for for people to learn. I mean, on that theme I would also then add. Like better eating habits, UM and uh, mental health exercises, freeberg you got any that come to mind? Things you want your 12 year old or everybody's 12 year old to learn, I think the principles of biology and how we I mean again, like, I feel like we underestimate and we don't talk enough about the opportunity and the reality that is about to hit us like a tidal wave of bioengineering. You know, everything in medicine is moving towards this notion of using biological machines to fix our bodies, like not just a molecule, which is the historical way of doing medicine, where you find a molecule does something in the body, you stick it in, you turn into a drug. But we are actually out on the precipice of creating machines, biologically engineered or designed cells and proteins that can go into your body and do specific things and enhance your your life and improve your health and solve, you know, disease. Similarly like I talked about earlier, biomanufacturing to make all the materials and food. In a more sustainable way and a lower cost way. And so I think teaching the principles of DNA, how DNA causes protein, how protein causes function and how cells operate and and and how that is basically being software sized and you can basically think about biology now as being software. I think that is the the trend of of of science and engineering. I think computing created a great foundation, but I think that's really if I were to tell my 12 year old daughter in eight years. She should consider doing or spending her time studying its bioengineering and and what the opportunities are that are going to arise from that. All great answers. I think for me I'll again move it up a level since you guys took some of my answers. Financial literacy was definitely going to be in there for me, but I would say radical self-reliance and entrepreneurialism and resiliency. I think a lot of young people right now don't believe that they have agency in their lives. In the world that they can create stuff, that they cannot be stopped if they go and do something. And they there's a victim mentality and culture that the system is rigged against you and that you cannot rise above, which I understand why people feel that way, but I actually think it's less true than ever. And so we have to basically really remind people that if you are radically self-reliant, you can live the American dream. You can create anything you want. There is absolutely nobody who can stop you and you know all the knowledge you want to learn. Is out there and so so the in radical self-reliance for me is this concept of the ability to learn and the ability to learn how to learn and having faith that you can learn any skill you know even 6070% you know very quickly is what I see results in. You know, people being successful in life. This ability to take on any new topic with a zeal and an understanding that you can master it or or even 60 or 70% mastery means something going around the horn we're going to plan. A bestie trip, and we might even allow besties to come for the first live bestie show. What is your vote? I want everybody to type it into the chat room. I everybody's going to type in where they most want to have a bestie show. Alright, I like it. OK, so chamath and I both want to go to New York. Sachs wants to go to Miami to see Keith Raboy and Peter Thiel, his besties. Those are his alternate universe. Besties, by the way. They won't do a podcast together. No. Oh my God. How great would that podcast be? I think that would be. I think you call that the righties. The righties. You've got the besties, you've got the leasees, and you get the right. I'm starting the leasees. It's going to be me. Howard lindzon. Sarah Cohen and prodigy. Prodigy. Why wouldn't you call it the worst cities? The worst to be the worst. Yeah. I'm gonna do the worsteds just as a thing. I had an idea. Here's an idea. If we want to be the number one podcast freedberg, do you have any of that? Molly from your 1999 two thousand era? I've never done Molly. I've never done Molly. You just made your own synthesis of it and took it. OK, great. Here's how we become the number one podcast. We all take Molly at the start of the podcast and we start the podcast 30 minutes in and then we see if David Sacks because say I love you. Can I just say we've done more self referential navel gazing ******** on this pod then any other pod and I don't know, this is like even worse than you don't even listen to people. We may need to spice and Nick will need to edit the **** out of this and spike it. Spike it. Alright boys. Here. We love you, boys. I love you, besties. Love you, David. Love you, other David. Love you your mouth. Apatia. We upgraded the Davids by the way, with their outrage and cantankerous. Firmware which we saw from Friedberg when he threatened to quit the podcast over the publishing of the Robin Hood. No, that's why we added the thirst trap feature set. That's why he went to throbbing and pulsating, throbbing and pulsing. We'll see. We got time on the all in pod. To let your winners ride Rain Man. David Sasha. We open sources to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it. I'm going. Besties? My dog taking your driveway. Man. We should all just get a room and just have one big huge order because they're all useless. It's like this, like sexual tension that they just need to release stuff out there. Beat, beat. See what we need to get merchants? I'm going.