Listen to Episode

Read Episode Transcript

Does anybody have any thoughts on this? I mean, I think it's incredible. Zoetis Freedberg stock. Let your winners ride. Hey, man, David. We open sources to the fans and they've just gone crazy. We can. Hey everybody, hey everybody, welcome to another episode of the All In podcast. It's been a week. It's been a minute with us today, of course. The Queen of Quinoa, David Friedberg, and the Rain Man himself calling in from a nondescript mansion in one of 17 cities, the Rain Man himself, David Sacks and cackling like a dictator who got his two Billy back, and he's back in the game. Chamath palihapitiya. For those of he's rebellion, he rebellion sized. Is he gonna get a car with doors that go like this? Doors that go like this? Doors? Doors that go like this? Let's talk a little bit about the vaccine. Biden says everybody who's an adult is qualified by May 1st. He's instructed the states to do that. We are now hitting 2.6 million a day. We had a 3,000,000 shot day. I believe Friedberg and obviously the $1.9 billion COVID slash. Everybody gets a big slice. Bill got passed trillion. Sorry, that's what I said. 1.9 trillion. No, somebody put $1.9 billion. One point 9 trillion. 1.9 billion is what the COVID has sacked. The COVID NT went for the COVID, NFT went for 1.6 has said in the past a trillion here, a trillion there soon enough. It's real money. Yeah. Yeah, well, Biden, Biden speech really kind of begged the question of why we still need this $2 trillion bill if COVID is going to be over in May. But putting that aside, I think Biden's speech was very welcome in that he called for states to drop all of these crazy eligibility requirements are actually preventing. People from getting vaccinated at this point, he says that every adult American should be able to get a dose by May 1st. And he's right. And, you know, there's a sharp contrast with Gavin Newsom in California, who keeps playing political games with the administration of these doses. So in California yesterday, just yesterday, we added 250,000 more doses of unused inventory. So we the amount grew to 4.5 million unused doses sitting on a shelf. Only 215,000 people got vaccinated. So we're actually building inventory faster than we're building the population of people getting vaccinated. And it's because of all these crazy rules requirements, you have to go make an appointment, you know, and that really, actually it's kind of productive because it discriminates against people who are less computer savvy, don't know to navigate the website or, you know, communities who don't want to enter their name in a government database, which is, you know, there's a lot of people in California don't want to, you know, put their names in a government database. And so it works against those communities getting vaccinated. At this point, we should just drop all the requirements, drop the website, let anyone who wants a vaccine just get in line and get vaccinated. It'll go much faster. The problem is that we we throw around this word equity, and that we need to do something with equity. And in fact, I think that people who use that word are stupid. I think what they're trying to say actually is we don't want inequity, and the most inequitable thing is to actually take the most impoverished and fragile of the population and prevent them from actually getting the vaccine. Because they're the ones that actually need to be working and can't afford to actually not work, or can't afford to be sick, or can't afford to, you know, find solutions to childcare. It's this weird word that, like, you know, the extreme left uses now to describe policies that are just frankly poorly thought out and even more poorly executed. It might even be more pernicious than that correct freeberg in that anybody who gets a shot is helping everybody else because they are now a blocker in the system. I know this is incredibly simplistic, but I'm a simplistic guy and it just seems to me that it's a different way of thinking about the benefit of vaccination, and I've said it in the past, but the benefit of vaccination. Is to get enough people vaccinated that the virus generally stops spreading and then the pandemic ends. And that's the objective. It's not about creating equitable protection for individuals. And as Americans it's interesting. We think about it in terms of an individual benefit. It's like, how much do I get, what do I get from this vaccine? I want to get protected, the other guys getting protected before me, who gets to go first, yada yada, and becomes this kind of competitive, you know, frothing for a vaccination. And the reality is if we get enough people vaccinated fast enough, the pandemic. And if we can get 200,000,000 shots in arms, this goes back to I think this tweet I sent in in early January, December. If we get 200,000,000 shots in arms, we can be done with the pandemic based on you know, how many the efficacy of transmission rate reduction combined with the fact that a certain number of people have already developed immunity to this thing. We get to the point that there should be kind of a, you know, think about a network and you start turning nodes off the network suddenly becomes really hard to see transmission happen across the network and and so the prioritization. Of you know who gets the vaccine over, you know how fast we are deploying the vaccine has been a critical error from day one, in my opinion. Now look, all that being said. I feel like we could sit here and criticize and argue about tactics and strategy all day long about this and and, you know, make politicians look like idiots and administrators look like idiots. But the truth is we are now seeing 3,000,000 shots a day. In Biden's speech he said, which if you'll remember is what I said we really should be targeting, is about 1% of the population every day, and that's roughly where we are. Biden said in his speech that we are on a war footing, which is effectively what we said the other day. The federal government is operating 600 mass vac sites. And we are right now getting shots in arms for all of the issues with prioritization and nonsense that's going on, I feel very in the United States. I agree with you. I agree that Biden has the correct posture on this, which is war footing. We are not doing that in California. I mean, I just talked about how we're building inventories faster than getting vaccines administered. Newsom just announced that 40% of the vaccines are now going to be basically separated out and reserved for equity zones and you know, it's. What does that even mean? It means that certain communities, only people in certain communities can get those vaccines, and they're going to be distributed out through this complicated system of local community groups. All that does is put money through some no bid contract to some ****** technical company, a bunch of consultants that then take advantage of the system get paid hundreds of 1,000,000 or billions of dollars to to do nothing. I mean exactly. I tweeted out there's this bot that now scrapes and and by the way, before I tweeted out this thing. About this bot, which is I think yeah I sent it to you it's the it's the California vaccines available but for exactly. And all it does is it it it's it's scrapes that might turn.ca website. But before that in our group chat, there is another friend of ours who wrote his own scraper, if you guys remember. And it was really shocking because all it would show is page after page after page of completely open and available vaccine vaccine slots you know at the Moscone Center and other places and you think all of this stuff is just a bunch of. I'll be blunt. Rich white people sitting in a room with their head up their *** and they come up with these stupid ******* rules, and then they try to implement them with words like equity. And all that happens is that you compound inequality. And it's like, let's go back and let's go back to Freeburg's first point, which is that all these unvaccinated people who can't get vaccinated faster become a giant Petri dish for the virus to continue spreading and experimenting and morphing and morphing. So maybe we actually do get a vaccine resistance. Train the new strains, the variance have been popping up so far are not a vaccine resistant. But the longer the pandemic goes on, the longer there's a chance that one could arise and then we're back to square one on this thing. So it's going to hurt everybody. And and and here's the crazy thing is that, you know, I think we all know a lot of people. I know dozens of people who've been vaccinated in California and they all come to me and tell me they're whispering about it, you know, because they don't want to tell anyone. They're scared of being cancelled. They're scared of being canceled because you know. Newsom and and and the equity people have created this idea that if you get a vaccine you're taking away from somebody else. In reality, you're not. Because anybody who's high risk has already gotten the vaccine by now or has had access to get the vaccine. And all you're doing right now, if you get the vaccine, is taking a dose off the shelf where there's 4.5 million doses sitting there and it's increasing by 1,000,000 every week. And So what we need to do is, well, let me make a PSA actually starting on Monday, you can anyone in California can get. The vaccine with the doctor's note and they're saying that doctors have total discretion to give the note. So let me just make a PSA to everyone out there. If you're in California, just go get a doctor's note starting on Monday and go get the vaccine. Yeah, you know, stop. Stop worrying about Newsome. Stupid rules. There's also just remember, so two points on that. Not everyone has the ability to go, just get a doctor's note. It's really hard for people that that have to go to public clinics and so on to get a doctor's note. What we are seeing is a lot of people just hacking the website, almost like Soviet Union. There are bread lines where they go to the website, they type in something that's not true to get themselves a slot and that's how a lot of people are kind of filling the void. The reality is and I just want to go back to the point I was making at the beginning, I think we're skating out of this thing and I think that the inventory surplus which is absolutely being built up at a staggering rate in the United States right now. If you look at the inventory forecast from J&J, FIZER and Maderna relative to the deployment rate of the vaccines right now, you are correct. We are building up a surplus and inventory surplus and the rate of build up per day is. Increasing right now, so 1,000,000 extra shots a day, 2,000,000 extra shots a day being wrongly I think it's to a million. And so we're building up an inventory and So what happens the thirty million we have, we have already in inventory. So. So what's happening is there are natural market dynamics where what we are all pointing out and saying is starting to play out in terms of people kind of hacking the system. There's so much supply. There are many VAC sites now you can go to any supermarket, any pharmacy in California to get a shot and everyone's just clicking the box and saying yes, I qualify and they're going in and getting shots. So the market demand is starting to meet the supply even though there are government and regulatory forces that are trying to inhibit that from taking place. And so I do feel pretty good when you look at kind of the inventory forecast and you look at how many shots are being given per day that in 45 days or so we're going to get to a point that we're starting to skate out of this thing. And and kind of calling to ask you, can I ask you a question despite the idiocy of the the process that regulators have kind of put in place. Yeah, I just have a quick science question because I I was trying to find the answer to this, but I I would love for you to tell us. What is the real efficacy of the vaccine and what is your transmissibility like your your carrier status once you've gotten, for example, like, you know, let's just say you take the the Pfizer vaccine, right. If you get the Pfizer vaccine, how many days until this is like pretty good and you know like what is really the risk profile between the first shot and the second shot? I'll share this link and then we can post it on the show, on the on the show notes and people. Take a look at it, but it's an excellent paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine showing basically a population of unvaccinated against Pfizer vaccinated with half a million in each population, half a million people. Yeah. And yeah. And they showed basically the accumulated infection rate, severe hospitalization rate and death rate of each of the two populations over time. And that really kind of, I think, highlights the efficacy of the vaccines and at what time period they become efficacious on each of those metrics. And by the way, even after the first dose. Across a population of half a million people, the margin of error on death shows that there may even be complete protection against death after the first dose of the Pfizer vaccine within seven days of getting that shot. Pretty powerful statistic. But just to describe the chart for those people listening, you have two populations and ones in blue, ones in red, and it's the time is, you know, in days on the bottom axis. And when you get to day eight, one line goes sideways and the other one goes keeps going straight up. So it's day eight after the Pfizer that you're basically protected according to this chart and that's on the first shot. And like, I think it adds like one or two cases, but there have been zero deaths. So I think day eight is the day and the 2nd dose seems like to me, you know, it's just this unbelievable extra. Another amazing chart which maybe we can dump in the show notes is what's happening in San Francisco. We hit 10,000 shots a day at the end of February, March 1st. We're doing now 2000 shots a day. So we literally have dropped 70% or so. We're at 3000 shots, I think, from the peak. Yeah. So this crazy wokeness is resulting in, you know, in this, this virtue signaling that, you know, oh, we can't give any shots to anybody unless we get this group first or that group first is now leading to everybody hacking the system. The hack that I've heard is since teachers are getting it, child care people and food service people are getting it, people are now starting to get jobs at DoorDash or saying they're a teacher. And if you check that. Talks according to you know, the back channel that I've heard, you go get the shot and you don't get. They don't ask you for anything other than your driver's license. No one's checking. It's just a drive. It's the pharmacies, the grocery stores, the mass fax sites, the SFDPH, California DPH administered sites, the federal sites. No one's checking. You sign up, you check a box on the website, it says, I attest that this is true. And then you go and show your ID and get your shot. And so a lot of people have kind of initially started skirting around the rules by going to be a door dash driver for a day or what have you and then saying I'm a food nag worker. And then now generally people I think are just clicking on the box and going in and getting a shot. Now the sorry, the just to go back on the previous question, chamath. I I shared it figure 2 Nick in this paper I shared particularly box E shows the deaths due to COVID-19 of a vaccinated population, of non vaccinated population and then it shows documented SARS COVID 2 infection and you'll see that you basically have almost no incremental infections in the vaccinated population starting around 28 days after your first dose. And so you know that's really when you could say you've got, you know really good kind of protection from the vaccine and you're already starting to get the benefits early on. Antibody studies have also shown that there is this big jump up that happens around that period of time. And so call it three weeks after your first shot and then in particular the 4th week, you're really kind of like locked in with a, a protective, you know, capacity. Now your question around Transmissibility is one that's still being studied, which is if I've got a vaccine, am I going to be able to pick up the virus and transmit it to someone else right now? You know, they're saying, well, we don't have evidence one way or the other. But I mean, generally the way that the virus is spread is you develop an infection in your body, your body then makes lots of copies of the virus and then you cough and spit them out in the air. And that's how people get it. So theoretically, you could carry some virus on your mouth or on your nose where those cells don't have immune protectiveness and you know, the vaccine, the virus is still alive, but it's not spreading in your body. You're not creating a lot of superfluous virus to spread in in the world. So, you know, the the basic science of it is you should not be spreading COVID if you've been vaccinated, right. I mean, you may have some on your skin or in your nose or something for a short period of time, but you're not going to develop a systemic infection that you're then going to kind of start exerting everywhere. So I think we should, we should, we should start to transition to this world. Feeling really good and safe and enjoying ourselves. Yeah. We hit 500,000 shots a day sacks in California and now we're down to 150,000. We've literally gone down 2/3 under the management of governor hair gel. It's unbelievable because you know and and what was his in his state of the state speech which went over like a lead balloon hit the the the most notable quote was we're not going back to normal. Normal was never good enough. Normal accepts inequity. So because there might be some inequity in the world around the wrong person in line getting these doses, we're never going back to normal. And he's basically ensuring that result by taking forever with these vaccines. But let me, let me, let me go back to, to, to this point about efficacy. So I think Freeberg gave the stats on, look, the bottom line here is that vaccines work. That is the message we should be getting out to people is that they work. And the thing I've been really surprised by in the reactions that I'm seeing to my own tweets on Twitter about this is. How loud the anti VAX voices are and how loud and sort of. When you say anti VAX you you don't mean not take the vaccine. You mean the vaccine doesn't work and we're never getting rid of COVID the forever COVID people. Yeah, well there's no, it's there's there's actually a lot of people on Twitter who got really angry when I, when I just tweeted, I tweeted something about how Biden's it's over. I tweeted it's over. You know, Biden says we can all get the vaccine in May. If if you decide not to do it, that's on you. The rest of us are moving on and I got a lot of and all I was really saying is, look, once the vaccine is available there's no need for any of these COVID restrictions anymore. But a lot of people interpreted that as me saying something that you should be forced to get the the the vaccine or something like that. Now look, I don't think you should be forced to get it, but I think it's highly effective. It works and but I'm surprised at how loud these sort of anti VAX voices are. It's usually like a conspiracy theory around around the vaccine. And and I think part of the reason why those voices are are so loud is because they're unopposed. Because all the people who believe in the vaccine are getting it, but they're all afraid of like, like you were saying, jakal of being cancelled. And so there's a conspiracy of silence around this. You know what we all need to be saying is, look, go get vaccinated at work. Take the win, America. Take the win. We screwed this thing up for 14 months. Can we just take the *** **** win and move? I'll give you, I'll give you a little thing that that always pops into my mind and all of these things whenever I hear. Some politician or some like navel gazing intellectual use the word inequity, I think like this is a power grab because the word equity is really about ownership, whereas the word equality is about balance, right and and power hungry politicians love the word equity and inequity because it's their opportunity to grab power and to tell us how things should be done or to do things differently in a way where you know, they can enforce their mandate, which is typically ill formed and not very smart. And I would just encourage all of us, whenever you hear the word equity or inequity is huge, huge. Red light should be going off in your head saying whatever this person says next is a crock of ********* and it's probably a power grab. Whereas if you hear people really talking about solving inequality, there's really no mechanism to solve inequality through power. Well, I think that's a great point around the language that gets used. And I have a similar concern about the way that the word privilege gets used. We used to have a term. In this country called success, you know, people were successful or not. And, you know, success had a connotation of being earned, whereas privilege has a connotation of being unearned. Well, I mean, now sometimes privilege is earned success and sometimes it's unearned and, you know, but but when you start using the word privilege to describe all success, it implies that there's something, you know, unjust or unearned about it, and it needs to be reallocated. So, you know, that to me is another one of these political words is we shouldn't be confusing. Success with privilege. Yeah. They're two very different things. I have an example of this. Oprah Winfrey is successful. Prince Henry is has privilege. This privilege, privilege. I survived the Meghan Markle story, finally. I mean, I do want to talk about the Meghan Markle story, actually, at some point before the end of this podcast, but before we do that right now, OK? Joe Lonsdale actually also had a tweet. Pretty unapologetic set of tweets around, you know, the miscasting of this, this. Concept of privilege. And I thought it was really on point. I really agreed with what he was saying. And it's effectively what you're saying, David. It's like people right now, I find, are just so, well, not not people. The people that take the time to wallow in Twitter mostly, at least as I interact with them, are just so bitter. And I think that there is no magnanimous happiness for other people's success anymore. I think, I think, like we live in a culture now where everybody feels it is so 0 sum when it's not in fact 0 sum, and people just begrudge other people's success, especially by the way, when it's earned. And the reason is because there's an entire generation of people of all different ages and you know, but this, this last five or ten years. Who tapped themselves out now, some were legitimately prevented from success, but there's a lot of people that bought into this narrative of, wow, it's a whole conspiracy that's set up against me, so I'm not even going to try. And they are often the loudest and the most embittered. Absolutely. And and the reason is because, you know, everybody wakes up in their 40s and 50s and starts to rationalize their choices in their lives. And what they really feel deep down inside is, Oh my God, I just let an entire decade go by of blaming other people. And I think there's a surprisingly large amount of that. This ideology of victimization doesn't teach people the right things because you start to think that you know, if you're wallowing in your oppression, then you don't have agency over your own life. You're blaming other people for not being successful, not getting ahead when what you should be doing is focusing on working and improving your own life and getting ahead, or also just redefining what happiness means. Happiness doesn't mean what that other person has. And then saying, because I don't have that, I have nothing. Happiness is really like introspectively, figuring out, like, what really makes you complete. And I mean not to get too syrupy. But it's like, that's what we've also lost the script on. So when you, when you put all of these things together, there's just a bunch of people that sit on the sidelines. They either are too scared to enter the arena or they don't want to enter the arena. They don't want the failure that comes from it because they've grown up in a culture where, you know, they have the kindergarten soccer ball handed to them, the Gold Star and everything. They've anticipation trophy. And now what we really need are people in the arena, more than ever, folks trying and failing. And it's OK, and there's just not enough of them. What instead is there's just a lot of people who just want to ***** and complain. And I think this is the backlash to the Meghan Markle interview is, is that this miscasting that this is an extremely privileged person or, you know, Harry and Meghan both are very privileged. And but but I think what they're trying to do by making all these sort of accusations of racism against their own family and they're trying to ground that privilege in victim status and and and this is the thing about privilege is privilege is a social concept. It's got nothing to do with with success, which is either earned or unearned. And so the way that people get. To maintain their privilege is is that again they grounded in some sort of victimization. It's it creates these very perverse incentives. My reaction to the Meghan Markle Prince Harry interview was the following. I had a lot of sympathy for what she was saying. But on the other side, I also thought you must have known what you were getting into on the way in. And there was, it was now, and look, I'll say this as a Canadian and a Sri Lankan, so the Queen and the monarchy is an increase like I can't describe to you guys, because you're not. Part of the Commonwealth, but. It is just a definitional, definitional part of who we are as we grow up. And I don't know what the equivalent American construct is. I guess there isn't one really. And so, you know, the monarchy is an incredibly important thing, but we all know that it's this kind of, like, anachronistic. Things that just kind of I don't look for us. It's not ******** like, I mean like if you said to me, despite all my ******** and raging against the machine and society and blah, blah, blah and stature and whatever, if if I could be invited to meet the queen, I would be there in 8 nanoseconds, OK. I think the equivalent is the Presidency. We we actually feel that way about the Presidency. Like going to visit the president is the President, the President, President. The Presidency is not an endowed kind of circumstance. There's something about there's something about the. My point is, though, we all know that it's important. It's a great symbol of. Of the Commonwealth. I'm very proud of all of that. But we also know it's an acronymic and it doesn't make much sense. And So what what do you what do you think you were marrying into? And I think, you know, my perspective was I felt bad for her. I can't believe, you know, it got to the place where, like, people wouldn't get help for her when she was sick and, you know, and then they were questioning harrys or the the kids Archie's skin color. I mean, this is insanity, like these people are are stuck in the 1800s. Then you realize they are actually stuck in the 1800s because they're not allowed to have a normal life. They're not allowed to actually interact. So, you know, are they at fault or are they? Or is the system that creates these sort of like, voyeuristic, you know, exotic animals in a zoo that we call the King, the queen, these Princess? Is the system at fault? I don't know. I I was kind of like 5050 on the interview, but my perspective was the monarchies in a really tough spot over the next 30 or 40 years because, again, so now let me tell you where my belief is. I'm kind of a little bugged by the whole thing, the monarchy. Doesn't mean what it what it what it used to be for me. David what's what was more enthralling to you this week? Tucker versus Taylor or the Queen versus Oprah and Prince Henry and I didn't I didn't spend a I didn't spend a tremendous amount of time on on either one. I mean look I if I were if I were Harry I would probably do the same thing which is to basically leave. Look the first thing I did my career was leak was quit the the the firm. Right. I you know who wants to work for a firm, you know it's very tracked. So I don't blame him leaving, going to California, you know, that's what we that's what we all did, right. I mean, he was being, that's a very, that's a very entrepreneurial American thing to do. What what I what I had a problem with was the way that they're attacking their own family because they're being paid $7 million to do this interview. No, no, no, hold on. They were not there was the first question to Oprah asked and and they were very clear. They were not getting paid. Now they did sign 100 million. Who made the seven million then? Oprah did. Harpo did. Oh, she's a genius. No, no, let's just be clear again. Oprah. Oprah is our Queen, Queen of America, right? Oprah is the queen. Oprah figured out a way to get paid. It's even worse. It's even worse if they did the interview for free and didn't even get a piece of the back end. So all they did was attack and besmirch their family for for none of that. And look, I I I guess my my point is so. So why would they do it if it's not even about the money? I mean, it's about this idea of defining their privilege, grounding and victim status. And I think there's something very fake and phony. About that and I think that's why people had this reaction to it where frankly they were. I I don't think they're on the side of the royal family because it's it is outdated. But I think there there was a lot of skepticism towards what Harry had a little bit of a problem with the like live from our $15 million Montecito mansion, our victimhood. Wait for that house. That was their friends. They have a $15 million. I know, but they also have a $15 million house next to Oprah. Well, it's amazing that they put the million down. No, it's public. They put 5,000,000 down and they took out a mortgage. It's someone listed this whole thing. No, it's an honest question. Does the do the taxpayers of the UK Fund the Princess? That's the whole point. They went and did a deal with Netflix and they start and Spotify and now they have a salary and they're making money like everybody else. So, I mean, I'm not, I'm not. I don't have an issue with any of that. I don't have an issue with that. I thought the taxpayers were. Funded the lifestyle. They do fund the lifestyle of the other Princess, right? Sure, yeah. So I mean, that's the thing. We talk about something important. OK, so a beeple NFT. So for $69 million, I mean, this week, this was crazy with all the dumbest **** happened this week. Taylor Lorenz getting to this week. **** ****. Slaughtered. Well, yeah, that's making **** ****. So I missed. I missed Tucker versus Taylor, but actually the the real the the person who took on Taylor that did a brilliant job was Glenn Greenwald? Yeah, I don't know. I don't know if you guys read his post, but I was really brilliant. Savage brilliant. And basically what he said is that, look, you've got these classes of reporters. Out there who their job is to go out and they they're like little hall monitors, you know, trying to bust people for whatever they might say in a clubhouse room. Not just public figures, but private people too. They're in the business of destroying lives and reputations, you know that. That's their basically their business model. But then the second anyone has any criticism for them, they claim it's harassment, which is just absolute nonsense. And they want money. They want. The only person that was inoculated against social justice wokeness to write that article is Glenn Greenwald. Because he is, you know, he's gay, he's got brown kids. He lives in Brazil, you know, with I mean it's it's it's like you can't irresistible force moving the immovable meeting the immovable object. He he he's not completely immune because he was he was attacked, you know and and people said pretty nasty things about him. But yeah, he definitely has some. I think Greenwald is an unbelievable writer who calls it like he sees it. I don't agree with everything he says. All the time. But you know, he's right to call this stuff out. There was another bunch of social justice nonsense this week as well. This, this poor guy had to, like, give out this crazy apology tweet because he said he liked exercise. What happened? Wait, what is that story? OK, this is the greatest. OK, there's a kid. I've been telling you, Jason, I want you to exercise because I love you. 20 pounds. Look at me. I'm looking for sexy Boo. I want it. Yeah, I want both of you guys exercise. Tell me about it. By the way, public service announcement. COVID vaccine, CA is the bot. So at COVID vaccine, COVID vaccine. It just tweets. Every five minutes, 100 different places you can go. Pretend to be a door dash driver and get a shot. Sorry. I mean, if you were a door shop? Vaccinated? Check a box. Check box. Vaccinated. Let's roll people. Don't let Newsome take away your health. Don't let Newsom put. Don't focus on equity. While he's at like, Jason, tell us about this. Tell us about this tweet thing. What happened? There's a kid named Dom. He's an entrepreneur. He's building a company. It's a good company. It's funded by Stripe. You know, it's raised hundreds of millions of dollars. Like, good for this guy. Yeah. But he likes to like, you know, he's kind of like trying to engage on Twitter. And he basically said, I feel so much better and I'm performing at such a higher level since I got my diet and my exercise, right. I mean, people who are not getting their physical right are really underperforming at work. It's such an opportunity or whatever. And then, you know, the the large and in charge, you know, fat is beautiful. You know, contingent basically tried to cancel him. Sorry, wait, but but did he say that you have to be skinny? No. He just said you will perform if you're fat, you're underperforming. Basically, he didn't use the word fat, but he said if you're not in shape, you're underperforming at work. Which I said, is there science behind this? And, yeah, sure. People showed me 100 studies that show if you lose weight, you have better concentration and focus. I mean, it's pretty obvious, but he he did the Cardinal. Sin as here. I'll read you the tweet. An important lesson I learned well into my career. If you are not physically fit and healthy, then you are underperforming at work. Pretty basic, but probably not a very controversial. But he did what David Sacks always advises and the the the advice he gave to Trump, which is never apologize and he apologized. Dom apologized and took the tweet down, which then the mob really went after him and he said I screwed up and I'm. Extremely sorry. I have recently spent a lot of energy focused on my fitness, eating and sleep. In my enthusiasm for my new fitness regime, I posted a tweet that was meant to celebrate my new healthy lifestyle. But that's not how it came across and I see now how I don't understand sensitive, my original all this with all the problems that we have that need fixing. I mean, this is what people were focused on this. But here's here's the kicker of the apology. This is something I really need to improve on, and I will. Well, no, I'm not making fun of him. I just think it's sad that he can't do that. What the hell is going on? No, but, I mean, don't apologize. If you believe being healthier is, you know, good, then you should say it and, you know, let the chips fall with. People can debate it. But, I mean, can't we have a debate about that? Because this is in the middle of a COVID crisis when the top two vectors are aged and. Obesity. If you're fat, you die from COVID. That's that's how it works, and you got both of those problems. You're old and fat. You guys didn't say stupid. Alright, I'm doing good today. Alright? Today in all in nonsense. Apparently there's so much money in the system that an NFT just sold for $69 million after we talked about the previous one. Bill Lee bought for $6 million. I don't know that he bought it for $6 million, but somebody bought one last week. NFT seemed like a real thing. It's reasonable to trade stuff, but $69 million for me? I think it's incredible. I mean, like, like. The then I saw the breakdown of like, the number of bidders here, let me actually just get this data up because I think you guys will find it really incredible. My thesis on this, or my theory rather, is that there are a bunch of people who have stakes in these crypto assets and then they all premeditate decide to buy up these NFT's to get the market started. And then once it started, like, Jason, that's other people do with art, right? That's, you know, you know, you know this, but I've been buying art for a decade. Us and this is exactly how it works in the art market. You know, we go in there, certain people will go and buy. And then what the Galleria says is, oh, did you know that jamath just bought this piece or such and such a person bought this other piece. And then all of a sudden, the price spins up and then they feed into it. I mean, this is where, you know, an enormous amount of money has been made by gallerists over the last 20 or 30 years. Now. It just happens in a different medium. So the, the bidding breakdown, by the way, of this NFT's incredible 33 active bidders, 91% of the bidders were new to Christies. 55% came from the Americas, 27% of bidders were from Europe and 18% were in Asia. The age breakdown is the most interesting. 6% were Gen Z, so 97 to 2000 and 1258% of bidders were millennials, 19 born between 81 and 9633% Gen Xers and 3% baby boomers. So this is really like a transitional change in, you know, basically deciding what's valuable. And I don't think this, I don't think this was any different than, you know, when you had this transition. From, you know, sort of impressionist in the art world, like if you moved from the body of work where, you know, these Impressionist paintings were just going for high 10s, low hundreds of millions of dollars. And I think it peaked around Van Gogh. And then, you know, basically it went from there off of a Cliff where you can basically give away Impressionist paintings and everything went to contemporary and you know, sort of like this postmodern stuff. And that was a decisional change by boomers. What is, what is giveaway mean to you to moth? Hey, you know, 10s of 1,000,000. So I so I think on on the NFT stuff and and and people who he's people as the artist, there's there's two things going on, right. So one is on a technology level, NFT is non fungible tokens there they are. It's a legitimate technology for creating provenance on a blockchain. You know, if a piece of art basically gets put on a blockchain, you have perfect provenance. But that doesn't mean that all NFT's are valuable. In fact most of them won't be. Is this a technology? Then you have the other things happening on art. Level what these sort of, these sort of prestige galleries and so on, they're saying that people is now a major artist and there's and and the reason someone becomes a major artist is because they usher in like an or become representative of some new wave of art like shamatha, saying you've got impressionism, you've got modernism. I mean the reason why Jackson Pollock sells for, whatever, $100 million. 100 to 6 three, OK. It's because he represents an important wave in art, and some of those waves fizzle out and they turn into Ponzi schemes and some of them become real. And people are speculating that this digital art will be a major wave. And they're saying that people is the most important artist and they're kind of betting on that now. Do I think it's going to last? I don't know. I mean, hard, hard to say. You said no. You said the key thing, though, the key feature of NFT, which I think is amazing, is that you can actually have ownership and provenance written into a blockchain. Now you take that abstraction, you can apply it to all kinds of surface areas, and it makes a ton of sense. Any kind of other asset would make sense if you own a car, if you own clothes, if you own watches, if you own wine. What happens if you own a house now, all of a sudden? If you can prove ownership over this stuff, not only can you trade it, but you can also borrow against it. And I think that that is a really interesting idea, where once you financialized all of these physical assets that we own, you do eliminate an enormous amount of inequality in the system because you can actually get real transparent pricing like, now could you block blockchains? Blockchains are a Ledger, right? They're a perfect Ledger system. And so, like everything, every type of possession that relies on title should eventually be blockchain. So art arts, a good example, you know, I helped found. A company back in 2017 called Harbor, which was a block chaining real estate and then getting a acquired. So now acquired or acquired, acquired we're going. Don't worry, tamatha, we're gonna make money, we're gonna make money isn't happy. I just wanted clarification. Yeah no, we're not going to make like spack type money, but we'll make a little bit of money on that deal. So, so don't worry. But but yeah look, I think, I think we're in the early, early stages of this type of technology. You're going to see eventually block chaining of every of every type of asset where title is important. David, I think that this is such an amazing idea because like if you think of all of the opaque lending markets where people can't get access to reasonable cost of capital. And they own assets. You know, you end up in these crazy worlds where, like, if you look at the the housing crisis or the great financial crisis, you know, there was like so much crazy lending, but behind that lending was like double, triple mortgages. It's happening right now in the car market. All of that stuff doesn't necessarily need to exist because if you have clear provenance and the ability to price risk. You just get, you know, people can borrow a reasonable amount of money at a reasonable rate and pay it back and you know you can trade assets, you could sell assets. It's a really big deal I think. I think if you take a zoom out on the you know the notion of what an NFT represents it's it doesn't feel too dissimilar from other. What I would argue is like non productive assets like if you think about. Where once capital goes, where an individual puts their capital. The first thing is kind of essentials, right? Things you need like food and medicine and housing and clothing and whatnot. And then you kind of enter into these kind of, you know, not extend, you know, kind of discretionary spending for a consumer, you know, nice stuff, nice clothes, luxury goods, things that are basically going to diminish. Then as you think about allocating the leftover capital, you're either going to allocate your leftover capital into investable assets that are either productive or non productive. A productive asset is something you buy that you expect to return it. It produces some value for you as you own it. Such as owning a home where you get the value of living in it or owning a car where you get the utility of driving around in it or owning a bond which issues a you know a A, you know a coupon or or a stock that's going to, you know, generate cash flows at some point in the future. Theoretically the non productive assets are these assets that are just not designed to do that, but they're a store of value that you expect at some point to realize some return. You know, because someone else will pay a higher price to you for that non productive asset. This is like a piece of art or you know, some piece of gold or something, you know, something that you kind of hold or, you know, more increasingly you know, digital assets. And it seems like the explosion in digital assets is, you know, as Jason pointed out at the beginning, like as we've kind of moved to a highly kind of overvalued segment of productive assets, it's things that market is very frothy. It's very difficult to kind of find productive assets that are worth putting capital into. There's continually more interest in non productive assets across the board because there's excess capital in the system. And it turns out that when that happens there's enough of a market dynamic that emerges in non productive assets. It gives people a reason to put their capital in and expect to have a return on them in the future. As soon as the market starts shrinking, as soon as you know you start having effects that are deflationary, you know, money will pour out of that market. In general. That's always what happens with the art market and has for hundreds of years and it's a, it's a, it's, it's the digital means of, of kind of. Realizing that same market transition that Mark talked to. My question is do you get the rights, I guess this is a dependent on the terms that are set in the smart contract. But in the case of the beeple, if I were to buy it for 69 million, do I have the rights to it so that I can print T-shirts and sell $100 T-shirts or can I create 10,000 that's more of these, can I monetize it is what I'm asking. That's a great, great, great question. I I don't know, but that's a fabulous question by the way, because the alternative like as you pointed out the artist. And and other folks have rights to art, even though the original painting is what's sold. You know, the original master of a Bruce Springsteen song could be sold to a collector, but the rights, the rights on that track for reproducing it, making money off it, are owned by a publishing house. And it's called magnetic tape but not own the rights to exploit. Overtime those rights fall away. So if you think about what that NFT represents, it represents that particular chain of electrons. And, you know, this is, this is. These by these bits that represent this image and it's not necessarily make 100 more. And then he could change. He could change one pixel theoretically or two pixels and he could go print a bunch of stuff and go not really because those images were ones that he had. He had this rhythm of creating like one a day, I think for a very long period. He contributed them all into this master, right? Exactly. So there there's a, this is a, it's a one of one. Another interesting one of one that just happened was these performance artists. So I guess like underground digital artists. Bought a Banksy for 125 million or $125,000. I get thousands and millions confused. Just that's a Jerry body. Well, that's a that's a douche you wanna use for this episode is hashtag cancel chamath. Go ahead. Keep. Yeah. Good luck. Good luck. Anyways, these four guys bought bought this bank seat for $125,000. They brought it to a warehouse in Brooklyn. They took a high res image of it. OK, so they took a picture of it and they created a one of one NFT, right. OK, then they created a YouTube video of them burning the original Banksy. Oh, so now all you had was the digital manifestation of this physical thing. Wait for it. And then they sold it for 300 and like $50,000. So they 3X their money. It's the most incredible story. I can find the link and I'll. I'll put it in the show notes as well, but it just shows you what's happening. And then I also think last thing on FT's I saw that I think it was like Kings Of Leon just put out an album and it was like, it's like 50 bucks for a song or something like that. And it comes with like a bunch of interesting content. So it's the beginning of something guys. I just think that you need sort of like popular content to get this movement going. But it seems to me like this is what people want to do. They want to own digital assets, they want to have provenance, they want to have custodial relationships with that they want to. Basically, but it's like, it's like art, art and posters, right? Anyone can put the poster up in their room, anyone can buy a copy for 5 bucks. But who owns the original? And owning the original may be visually identical, may be graphically identical, but it is truly about that notion of that, that theoretical human mind construct of ownership, that that that creates that distinction. And you just effectively have to count on other human minds believing the same thing in the future for you to be able to reclaim that value, that that monetary value. Or you're gonna take a loss on it. I mean, time off. Have you ever sold art that you've bought? You know, I've, I've sold very little. I tend to buy and accumulate with this idea of eventually endowing something with just because it's like, you know, I think there are two ways to buy art. One is speculatively and the other one is to tell a story. I took the second path. And so, you know, it's stuff that means a lot to me. So it's hard for me to part with it even though it sits in a Freeport in Delaware. So it's not exactly, you know, out and about. With this idea that at some point people will get to really enjoy it once, by the way, I mean, one of the things that happens in the art world, and correct me if I'm wrong on this, but you buy this art and you don't ever, a lot of art doesn't get resold to everyone kind of hides it under the notion that it's going to be worth more in the future and they can sell it for more. But very few people actually do end up selling it often. No, that's it. So here's here's a question in the trading market, right. But like, I mean, generally, like a lot of collectors end up endowing art or or gifting it. And when you gift it, you get an appraisal done and you get a deduction on the appraised value. Right. And so you can definitely do it that way. So one interesting story is that one of the large auction houses has a financial arm and the most incredible thing is like over like the last 50 years, there cumulative default rate was 30 basis points on their book. Like cumulatively, not like a year or a month, but ever. Nobody defaults, but because they borrow money for the purposes of maybe buying other things or whatever. And then they will vary, you know, trade out of things and trade up to things and trade across things. But it's a very vibrant market of buying and selling. It just happens to be very informal. And a little bit closed and very much for insiders. And, you know, another reason that I think that NFTS will will change because it will change this is that it just makes it available to everybody because you put all art on a very level playing field and really, at the end of the day, what is art? It's a commentary on society. And I think that having that level of transparency on that kind of stuff is, I think is going to be really valuable because you don't want one or two people who you fundamentally disagree with as being a tastemaker for a kind of art that you think is fundamentally flawed. Right. You'd rather it's just, it's no different than being able to go to 95 different media sites to read the content you want or, you know, being able to listen to 1000 different kinds of music. All of it in its totality is a commentary on society. And I think what society says is we want transparency and we want choice and. This is where I think like. That's why I think this is a good a good dovetail into. What's happening with the stimulus bill and where we started, which was is this even necessary? Uh, we have, uh, stimulus checks going out in the amount of $2000 per individual in households with under 150K, I believe is the income level. Which means people who were not impacted by financially in any way by what's happened under COVID are going to get in a family of five $10,000 checks even if nobody was laid off or that's only that's only like 9% of the bill. Based on, yeah, I mean so it's it was 450 million out of 1.9 trillion. So what do we think the impact sort of have to have a working theory. Oh, sorry, go ahead, Jason. What are your general thoughts on this? Is it necessary? And then two, what's the what what are the 2nd order effects that we each predict will happen over the next 18 months when all of this capital gets injected. So the the latter is what I've been focused on trying to figure out and I saw some really interesting data, which basically I'll ask you guys a question because maybe you guys know the answer, but. If you measure wealth inequality, when do you guys think was the most recent period where there was the least? Wealth inequality the least. Well, sorry. How do you define that? You can measure it like the Gini index, or you can measure it as like, you know the the gap between the top decile and the bottom decile in terms of wealth and accumulated assets. Well, would it be before the robber barons? No, it was the between the robber barons. And now the period of the least inequality in recent history was in the late 70s, which is an incredible stat to say where the the gap between the top decile and the bottom decile was like, you know, kind of like on an index like 6065, whereas today it's sort of like 100. Now, what happened then and it's, this is really interesting, wasn't that an inflationary period? There you go. So what happened? And as it turns out, inflation is a phenomenal way to decrease level of the playing field. Absolutely. It decreases people's richness, so it makes rich people poorer. That's really the most effective tool that you have to recalibrate. It's very, very hard to redistribute money and I think every attempt at doing that has largely failed. But the 1 consistent way and if you go back periods before that, you know, into the beginning of the. But in an inflationary environment, borrowing costs go up. So, you know, businesses and people that rely on borrowing to grow their net worth or investing assets to grow their net worth kind of suffer more than people that would have a home, have a, you know, wait, wages go up. In an inflationary environment, right, wages go up, which actually if you think about like what you said before, like, you know, as people get wealthier, they they move their money into, you know, essentially financial assets. Away from sort of like working assets and when you know interest rates go up and the the risk free rate goes up, then the attractiveness of those assets go down. Yeah. And So what happens is shares in technology companies go down. But what what actually also happens is that you your cost of capital for a traditional business, because it's higher, they have to then charge more, which means that they're paying their employees more and those folks on a marginal basis tend to then, you know, take those dollars and spend those dollars, so. Inflation is this very productive mechanism of actually redistributing wealth. And actually homeowners benefit, homeowners benefit as well. But like, you know, it shrinks, it shrinks the the wealth. Mild, mild inflation. Mild inflation is probably good. It's better than probably deflation. But if it tips over into hyperinflation, then it destroys everyone's savings, right? And rich people have the ability to protect their assets against inflation a lot better than middle class people do. So, you know, you look at like Venezuela, we mar Germany's hyperinflation. Yeah, people, just hyperinflation destroyed the value of of, of. Where are we seeing? Where do we anticipate we'll see inflation? I saw today Tesla's Tesla raised the price on all their cars except for two well, they have to because the inputs of, you know, if you think about, like, if you break down a Tesla and you look at where the money goes, the money really is in the batteries. And if you break down the batteries, it goes into three critical inputs, lithium, nickel and cobalt. And the prices are highly suspect and they're they're very poorly predicted. And so the cost of tests are going to go up by 20 or 30%. And there's nothing that there's nothing that Tesla could do. And by the way, you'll see this across all commodity products if inflation takes hold in a in a meaningful way, including a, you know, food product, AG products, you know all, all commodities, you know, metals, but the businesses that will benefit the most. And this is really interesting from a technology perspective and I think it played in part, my understanding is speaking to a number of PM's about this portfolio managers at funds. Is that, you know, technology companies don't have a lot of hard assets and so they have less kind of, you know, value accretion and they don't play in, in a commodity supply chain. So it's much more difficult for a technology company to say raise rates by 30% whereas a food company can raise rates by 30%. One of the ways to look at this is to look at the, you know, the book value or the CapEx, you know, property, plant and equipment of a business. And businesses that have a lot of PP and E are generally going to do better in an inflationary environment. They're going to have more throughput on that P either going to have higher dollars per unit of PG&E and so you'll see, you know, This is why there was a shift of dollars into what are traditionally called kind of value stocks or you know, kind of bigger industrial companies away from, you know, software kind of tech companies which don't really, really benefit from this inflationary trend. And so there's going to be, you know, some sort of play out in, in, in those sorts of products, probably more Jackal than I think David, do we see it in SAS? Because I've noticed that SAS prices are going up. And that people are just keep adding to the price of these products. I was pricing out all the virtual conference, you know, stuff like hop in and all that air meat and whatever. And I was just shocked at how much they wanted to charge, you know 1550 a $100,000 a year. And I was like, but can I use like zoom in this for that, you know and a chat room, slack room. And are we going to see it happen in SAS where people going to start raising the prices and just increase their profit margin because their employees are going to demand more money because they're part of the cycle? I I think that's a function of pricing power going up for SAS companies and they become more established and entrenched. Those companies are very profitable. I don't think they're experiencing wage pressure in any way. I think they're just becoming more successful. Their pricing power is going up as they become not necessarily monopolist, but as they have more market share and they dominate their categories, they can increase prices. But I want to go back to this idea of of the 1970s because I want to, I want to challenge the idea that the US economy was doing well in the 1970s. So chamath. Mentioned that the Gini index there was a a different kind of metric called the Misery Index that was was was a much more popular index that was used around that time. And the misery index, it was defined by a Brookings economist and it was basically the sum of the unemployment rate and the inflation rate. And in 1980 the Misery Index was 19.7%. This is why Ronald Reagan got elected is because you had a CPI which the inflation rate of 12.5%. And then you had unemployment of another 7.2% on top of that. And you know, the the 1970s were especially the late 70s were an economic disaster for the country. So maybe things were more nominally equal, but everyone was equally more equally poor. And what you saw in the 1980s is that they got, you know, inflation under control. Paul Volcker at the Fed broke inflation that lowered interest rates enormously. That allowed people to buy homes. The stock market went up and you know, it was an economic boom. So I don't know that this idea that we, we want to introduce a lot of inflation into the system is a good idea. Like I said, I think mild inflation of say 2% is better than 2% deflation the other way. But but I think we should be very careful. Hear about about inflation and and making sure it doesn't get out of control. And the other index to look at is the quality of life index, which is typically you know, health care and then the property price to your income ratio, commuting, pollution, safety and those kind of things. And you know, the United States is 15th on that list with obviously the Nordics and Australia, Germany, New Zealand just being at the top of those rankings in America. We never really thought about that, right. We don't really even discuss happiness, you know, and that. And that quotient we don't index for that happiness and low stress. I think we're talking a lot about quality of life in San Francisco now, because that's a community that's very rich, and yet it's a miserable city to live in because crime is out of control. You know, Jason, you and I have been. To focusing on this DHS abutin who's had an enormous impact on people's quality of life because he's simply not prosecuting theft in the city. There's actually is, is a crazy tweet where a City Council member was inside City Hall calling for a hearing on the rampant rise and theft in the city, and meanwhile his car was broken into right outside City Hall. I mean, you can't make this stuff up. And then the other thing that came out were a whole series of statistics about crime in San Francisco showing or sorry. Trials and convictions. Basically. Chasa has not been, has not been conducting any trials. He hasn't been convicting anyone. It turns out that the number of trials and convictions that he's gotten in the 14 months he's been DA is 110th of what Gascon got when he was DA. And by the way, gascon's not the model DA or anything. I mean, Gascon is facing a recall in LA for dereliction of duty and he's still 10 times more productive than Chase abutin. Just a quick update. Many of you, uh, when I mentioned the GO fund me for to put a journalist on chessa, if you just type in GO fund me chessa CHSAA into the Google, we added $8000 since last week, so we have $58,000 that's going to a journalist and a data journalist to cover this exact issue. So thanks to the folks who donated. I'm not taking any money from it. I'm donating, obviously. In a small other than a small finder's fee, no $0.00, I'm donating to it, but basically said I'll be 1% of it, whatever the final number is. I think the Marina Times has done a great job with this. Yeah, and there's been a couple other sources as well, but but how dishonest was it? I mean, this has been a recurring theme on the pod, so I just want to touch on it. Chase has sent his little mouthpieces, little minion, the high school friend, to go out and challenge us, writing that blog post saying that it was a lie, that Chaser wasn't prosecuting anybody. And lo and behold, the numbers have come out. He tried to claim that Chelsea had the same rate of charging. That goes gasconne did, and that was true. But the problem is he's been pleading down all these charges. He's not taking anyone to trial, he's not convicting anyone. He's certainly not walking anybody up. So I mean, what what a lie that was. Well, and criminals are just so savvy that they actually understand what the chances are of them actually getting convicted, and they shape their grift and their crime to whatever the environment. Or in is just like people who deal drugs just like people who take these ******** fentanyl drugs, they just pick the market where they're going to be most welcome. So they're not going to do it down in Palo Alto or San Mateo or a Mill Valley. They're going to do it on Turk St yeah. So, so I think that's how it starts. But I gotta tell you, you know, I'm in LA right now and there was a an episode like last week at ilpa style like, Oh yes, and it's it's on Cannon Street in downtown Beverly Hills a lot. #1. Italian place where all the celebrities go. It's a great Italian place. There's a lot of outdoor seating. There was basically a mugging of someone just sitting at a table. Apparently they were wearing a really nice watch and some and and they were, they were robbed at gunpoint in the middle, you know, in the middle of the of the rest lunchtime. And then there was a struggle over the gun. I don't know why the guy just didn't hand over the watch, but anyway, he struggled over the gun. Four shots went off. One of them bounced off the concrete and hit a woman in the leg. Oh my God. So this is like. It's getting, I mean, it's getting out of here. Sounds like San Paulo, where they chop people's arms off for the watch. I mean, they literally will drive by apparently and just cut your arm off if they can't, if you don't give him the watch. Well, I just, you know, the the criminals are starting to feel emboldened because Gascon and Boudin are not. They're not having trials, they're not prosecuting, they're not locking people up. And so they're graduating to more and more serious offenses. I'm sure they probably didn't want to shoot anybody or maybe that wasn't their intention. They just want to steal the watch. But it resulted in a shooting just like the deaths of. Hannah Abe and Elizabeth Platt. When you had, you know, Troy McAllister, you know, hit them with the car. So I mean the the fact that we're not locking people up is resulting in in, in, in people dying and a lot of risky, very risky behavior. All right. As we wrap here, lot of Spacks going out. We obviously saw another. I guess Roblox was a direct listing. Just curious only, only underpriced by 50%. Same, same problem as the IPO, just so basically you're saying is Bill Gurley's on his headset walking around El Camino Real? Journalists, what I'm saying is irrespective of what the the goals of the direct listing were, the result is the same as the traditional idea. There you go. And I give a shout out to mark to a company that David Sacks. Sure. Oh, pipe, yes. Which is an incredible company that basically like helps you capitalize your contracts with your customers. And it's just, it's just basically this incredible thing that I'm seeing and it's and there's a couple of others that do it as well. Clear Bank is another one, but you can fund your company non delusively and at some point I think we should actually talk about the state of the Union inventure maybe we can do that in a couple of next episodes. I have a lot of thoughts on where I think venture capital is going and when I see things like pipe, I'm just like completely so happy because I just think it. It's a it's it's it's gonna change the the the way in which venture investing is done. It's it's a very brilliant idea. You can go to pipe.com/twist to get 12 months free. Pipe.com is A2 sided marketplace. If you have reoccurring SAS revenue or any kind of reoccurring revenue somebody did it with the sub stack. So I think pomp liano the guy who. Pumps Bitcoin. He has a newsletter that makes whatever quarter $1,000,000 a year. He sold for $0.95 on the dollar. His forward-looking subscriptions for the year and bought Bitcoin with it when it was at 35. So he's like doubling down. But if you're a SaaS company and we have many of them in our portfolios, you could take all of your monthly contracts, sell them on the marketplace to somebody else. Not pipe. Pipe doesn't buy it. It's some other financial person who says, I'll give you $0.94 on the dollar, give you $0.92 on the dollar, give you $0.85 on the dollar. And so if you were, if you have a $10 million book of business paying monthly, you can get that 10 million now and deploy it. I think this is a good, this is a good maybe way to end, but I think let's agree that the next pod, let's talk, let's start with the future venture capital 100%. I mean it's changing dramatically, it's changing dramatically and I I think these non dilutive ways of growing a company will completely impact pricing you know pre money, post money, the amount of equity that employees can and should own in these businesses. You know, what is the value of brands? Like, you know it. It like people will know who David Sacks is and who Harry Hurst is. People that sincerely don't even care anymore. Like, you know, hey, if I'm calling from Sequoia, what does that mean anymore? They're gonna say who from Sequoia is called. So these are all really interesting topics that I think we're talking about. Another path is just the public markets you know right. I mean public markets are becoming the new late stage private market and it's really you know both the spec and early stage IPO and direct listing models are are are changing dramatically and it's and there's more speculative risk seeking in the public markets in a way that I don't think we've ever seen and it's it's creating an opportunity for companies that are still you know what? The traditional kind of sense might be called you know early stage or still businesses, a lot of risk being able to go public and and you know kind of take their companies out and let the public markets wager on, on how well they're going to execute and and how well they're going to be able to develop their product or their market. And it's by the way something we've seen historically with biotech where there's kind of very binary kind of bets that happen and binary outcomes because the markets are known and you don't need to kind of productize or build a business around it. But now we're actually taking both business risk, market risk, technology risk product. Risk and also market at all stages and I think you're going to see these, these scenarios where people will build public portfolios, public public company portfolios that will perform a lot like venture portfolios, right. You'll have one or two businesses that will have a 10 bagger and you know a a chunk that will go to zero and a chunk that will have some modest return on them. And it's going to be, yeah it's going to be this tremendous learning experience because a lot of people will put all their money into one stock that they think is already been made, it's already, it's already done thing. It's Netflix, it's. Like, it's, you know, their promise of the future is 100% certain and the reality is their promise of the future is 5% certain. And so depending on the price you're entering and how many of these things you buy, you could build a portfolio that could have a good return. But it's it's going to be a lot of speculative betting and a lot of losses. And if you don't diversify, you're going to lose a lot of money. And you know. So the question is also how does it evolve regulatory wise, chamath, how are you communicating that to the market? Because you'll have some sparks that go out. I would think Virgin Galactic is in that more like there are deep. Back researching phase and then you have other ones that are already you know churning the ringing the register, right. So how do you communicate that to retail investors or the audience or that's up to them to do the research. How do you think about that? I mean there's as well as the bad inventory that's getting added. No look I do a tweet storm, I do A1 pager, I have a multi hour detailed investor presentation that's taped and then we have a typically a 100 to 300 page. Four, so you can ingress into finding out the true story of a business at whatever point you want. It really just does come down to doing your work. I mean a lot of the folks on Twitter, you know, when you see the markets straight down and they complain, my reaction is stop crying and do your own work. And there's like, we have complete transparency in this process. So it is up to people to do their job. And the thing that I think is happening right now is people think that they don't have to do a job and that money is free and it's not. It's hard to make it. It's hard to make good investments. It's hard to build a company. Everything is hard. Nothing is really easy because if it was easy, everybody would be doing it all the time. And so that's that's what I would love to leave people with. I really got to go, guys, I love you guys. Let let's start with venture capital next week. Love you, boys. Free. David's love you. Love you, Davids. That gave you that you, David. Oh my God. OK. Love you, guys. I love you. I love you, chamath. I love you. I do love you. I mean, we love each other and we can say it. And then the guys on this side love you. They're working on like guys look at, look at take out dragging it out. Stop dragging everything out. We're dragging it out because we love you, David. We'll see you next time. Bye. Bye, red. Bread pills got me lit. Red pills got me lit. Red pills got me lit. Red pills got me lit. Red pills got lit red pills. Girls got on your lip. I've been on a Bender on these red pills, but. I've been on a Bender. I've been on a Bender on these red pills. I'm ready to go more. I need more red pills. What a joke. Get me those red pills from Miami. David gave me just a huge bag of red pills from off this week. Back, back, back back up the truck. I see chips. I stack them up. Seen enough? Trump. Miami. Stanford. Ready to go? I'm ready to go, all right? Anybody give a **** about NFT's?