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.

E27: The Great Inflation Debate, Amazon gets spicy on Twitter, rethinking supply chains & more

E27: The Great Inflation Debate, Amazon gets spicy on Twitter, rethinking supply chains & more

Sat, 27 Mar 2021 03:42

Sacks' Inflation Deck:

Follow the besties:

Follow the pod:

Intro Music Credit:

Referenced in the show:



Show Notes:

0:00 Besties get ready to rumble & discuss recent Twitter polls

7:25 Debating inflation, Sacks presents his deck

37:20 Amazon social team goes on the offensive, Facebook's regulatory capture play around content moderation

48:42 Suez Canal, rethinking our centralized infrastructure & supply chain risk management, infrastructure bill concerns

1:00:18 Microsoft in talks to buy Discord for $10B, Sacks on SaaS exits from Yammer experience

1:02:49 Poker talk, going to the movies, Disneyland, EU incompetence

Listen to Episode

Copyright © <> - all rights reserved

Read Episode Transcript

Hey everybody. Hey everybody, welcome to the all in podcast with us today again. The Queen of Quinoa, David Frieberg, David Sacks, the Rain Man himself, and of course the dictator. Here, chamath and let's get ready. It's it's time. Chamath and sacks, here it comes, everybody. Sachs is ready in the red corner, representing Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan. And rich people everywhere. David, the rainman Sachs. Somebody's gotta do it. Corner representing. LBJ underserved, the forgotten, the underdogs, the woke left Chamath, Polly Hapa Tia. Let your winners ride. Green Man Davidson. We open sources to the fans and they've just gone crazy. Queen. And and I will also be representing John F Kennedy who said arising, who said a rising tide lifts all boat and maybe even some Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton, Bill Clinton. I was gonna say don't forget the champion for the champion of the left and the right. Yeah. Bill Clinton did a great job. He ended, he ended the welfare state. Alright, so here we go folks in in show housekeeping. We do need to point out that we we've been running some polls this the fans of the show have been running polls and I don't even know why I'm bringing this up because I got barbecued in them. But we have 3 balls we need to share with the audience from Twitter. The first is if you could have just one of the all in pod besties to mentor. When you're startup growth, who would it be and why? Looks like Rain Man. You ran away with that one with 39%. The dictator with 34, Queen of Kiwi coming at a 17 and ubers. Their 4th investor came in with the measly 8%. I will tell you this is This is why 83% of startups fail. They choose the wrong mentor. So I was I was proud to win this one, but the truth is, so tumath was slightly ahead, and then I put my thumb on the scale by retweeting the poll, because obviously my followers are more likely to vote for me. So then I shot ahead, and I kept real quiet because I didn't want chamas retweeting it to his 1.2 million followers. And if he had done that, he probably would have blown me out of the water. But I kept real quiet till the time elapsed, and then I and then I shared it with the group. No, nobody keeps a track of followers, but it's actually closer to 1.5. The only person who knows your follower count better than you chamout is Phil Hellmuth. Actually, every morning Phil Hellmuth subscribe subtracts his number of subscribers from yours to know the net. Alright, second poll came up. Thanks Matt for this by the way. Matt Yarger no friend of mine. Alright per quest, let's do another poll and see the other side of this story. If you could have just one of the all in pod besties moderate your podcast, who would you choose? And it turns out the dictator 31% to my 30.6% a full 1% more than me. I came in second world's best wingman and Rain Man, 21% queen of Kingwa. 16% and then most importantly, which bestie would you want in your on your side in a bar fight? I will say it's chamath, smooth, velvety voice that that ran away for him here. Hmm. Thank you. Yes, I think, I think that, you know, I think the audience is just trying to hurt Jason. I think they're just trying to hurt Jason. That was it. That was it. Like Jason has heard he's inadequate by more than 1% for a long time. So the first time, I mean people usually it's measured in inches, not percentages. Somebody was dunking on me. Twitter and they're like, you are the poorest of all your friends. I was like, that's the strategy. Always have more powerful and richer friends than you. Then you don't have to worry about picking up the check. OK. And then there was another interesting AI breakthrough this week. Wait, did you talk about the bar fight? What was the bomb? Curious. So the bar fight one. Hold on. You're right. I didn't get to that one. The bar fight was. Oh, here we go. For some reason these morons seem to think that your stick legs are going to help them in a fight. Bro, that's a bad and honestly, I I need to correct this. Like that was maybe bad lighting or a bad camera angle. No, no, stop it. No, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. You know, I you were holding up a Pandora's box right now the way I honestly, they're not they're guys. Guys, guys, guys. Guys. Honestly, come on. They are not as skinny as people seem to be railing. And honestly, I'm, I'm happy to you know if if there's a standard way of measuring if there. OK, you know what, Jason? If there's a standard way, if somebody can tell us what is the standard way of measuring leg circumference? I'm happy to submit my, my, my measurements. I don't think they're that skinny. They're really, really anorexic. It's super disturbing you. You got a lot going on up top. I'm very proud of you. But below the belt. It's not true, bro. I work on my legs a lot, you know, it's it's it's my it's legs and abs to keep your back straight. Tell you guys one thing this this podcast will win in a poll is the hosts talk about themselves more than any other podcast on the Internet. If we know podcast, we need to talk about each other in order to make. One of each other. They should be called the Navel Gaze podcast. Alright, here we go. So, bessies that you most wanted to fight Queen of Kiwi coming in Dead last? Yeah, I'm coming in at 17% Rain Man. 32% and chamath. I guess that thirst trap you tweeted got you 39% in that poll. The other the other thing these polls talking is, is is why democracy doesn't work but go on too much. I can I can hold my own in a physical altercation. I think, yeah, I think you want chamath and I cause I think sax is gonna be under the table calling 911 and freeberg's gonna try to talk it out and get just absolutely sucker budge. He's like, guys, we don't really need to fight. Jason. Jason is the one that would smash the beer bottle, create a Shiv and say, let's go. But I, I, I, I would, I would have Jason, I would. I would actually pick Jason's number. And if you were going to be in a bar fight, Jason certainly touts his Taekwondo skills. On more than one occasion, he's claimed to be an expert in Taekwondo. Can we pull up the video? Isn't there a video of you doing now? Where is the video of Jason pushing help you? Make news video if you wanna see Jason and a grown man, another grown 50 year old overweight man fighting, we have video. Yeah, well, I don't that that that one. I don't know if we should show, but Nick, you should definitely insert the image of jakal trying to do the Taekwondo kick, and it looks like he's about to have a herniated groin. Fall over that. Yeah, sure. Yeah, it was from my 20s. Alright, let's start. Jason, what do you got? What do we got this week? I guess the the topic we should get right to is inflation. This is a topic we've been talking about a whole bunch because we're printing a ton of money. Everybody seems to think the hedge against inflation is to buy Bitcoin. Or do you put your money into equities? And are we actually going to see things other than homes and education massively inflate? We've seen some anecdotal evidence of this. Tesla increased the price of their cars. Used cars have gone up in price, which is a function of the lack of production of some cars during the pandemic. So there there might be a multitude of factors there, but just putting it out there, are we going to go, are we going to face inflation that you know, goods and services are going to just go through the roof and cost? Or do we have enough efficiency in the system that the average consumer is not gonna see massive inflation on the products and services they buy? Coming out of the pool, isn't, isn't, isn't the real issue that Jamal says inflation is good and he because it creates a quality and he thinks 1979 was a great year. I think we should go straight to that. Alright, let's let's go. No, let's go. Keep it. General discussion. Uh, let's let's go. I think we should go to chamath to explain his tweet. Storm. OK, then I'll respond. OK, there we go. So I think, David, you got unnecessarily emotional and personal. That was not again. These these were things that I've learned from someone who I will say without betraying him. Is an extremely well respected person at an extremely well known institution that basically has helped. Make a lot of sort of, you know, capital allocators. Very smart about things and has made people a lot of money. So I was relaying what I learned through him. So let me just relay that again and I'll just start with this whenever you have a dollar of income. You can do one of two things with that income. You either consume things, right, so you buy, or you can save and you can put it into investments for the future, right? So consumption and investment. The reality is that most people, so the lower 60% of the income distribution essentially spends above their income, right. The lowest actually spends at. So a dollar earned is a dollar spent. And then the middle 2, because they have access to credit, a dollar earned, they spend about, you know, percentage points. More than that, when you get to the richest 20% of the population, they're actually able to save and they save about 13 cents of every dollar and they're able to invest in the future, so consumption. That investment, the reality is inflation comes through a volume of activity, right? So you as a rich person can go and buy one $100,000 necklace at Tiffany's. It doesn't move the needle for inflation, but when, you know, 200,000 people buy $1000 television, that's felt in the economy, it moves. So inflation comes because of gross tonnage of volume. So you need consumption. And by definition what that does is it pushes consumption into those. You know that 60 to 80% of people that are not the top 20%. So what it means is that, you know, you have a volume game of people buying things and when they buy more of those things. Inflation goes up. How do they buy more things? They have more income because their propensity is to consume. So then you have to ask yourself, where is this incremental income coming from? And all he has observed, which I think is very credible, is we have the supernatural event in the pandemic. We've now started to print trillions of dollars of incremental consumption and that's going to start to lead to the most simple ways in which consumption manifests in inflation, which is via commodity prices. What does that mean? Let me state simply, a rich person lives in a well insulated house, drives an electric car and eats fish. A less rich person lives in a poorly insulated house, lives, you know, drives a an SUV and eats beef. Beef first is fish has a simple example. It consumes 2030. Fifty, 100 times more input costs to generate that same pound of protein than a fish does. It's just an example of showing how income distributions and the effects and the consumption patterns of large swaths of people. Drive different consumption behaviors, which Dr inflation. So all he was trying to represent to me was that idea, which is that we have printed trillions of dollars. We are creating artificial levels of consumption. That consumption will actually drive up commodity prices. Commodity prices will actually drive up inflation. Then what he told me was the best analogy. Again, it's not perfect, but it rhymes to the history is what actually happened in the 1970s. Which is that by having this sort of boundary condition, you have to ask yourself what will happen if inflation rips higher and, you know, starting in the late 60s through the 70s, that's kind of what you had, a same kind of boundary. Forget the way in which the money got to people. You know, in this case it was a government check. But in the late 60s and early 70s, we had similar kinds of programs. We had head start. We have, you know, AmeriCorps, we had food stamps Act, we had the Social Security Act. All of these things were transfer payments. And when you put that much money into the hands of a large swath of people's consumption went up, commodity prices went up, inflation went up. It peaked in 1979. But it also happened that when that happened, the gap between the rich and the poor was the lowest it had ever been. And so I thought that that was a really interesting. Think to observe OK sacks. You were triggered. You were triggered by this. Well, it wasn't triggered. I just said it was tremonts worst take ever. And then and then. But David. But, David, it wasn't like it wasn't my take. You were triggered. It wasn't my type with the tape. No, no, that's OK. Well, let me explain. What? Let me explain what's wrong with the take? I created a PowerPoint. So, boy. I pulled it trim off. No, it's not boring. And and Chamath has done it too, so don't don't even go there. I'm gonna do e-mail. You guys come and hit me up in the second-half. No, no. Free bird. We're gonna keep we're gonna keep the freedberg index high. So go ahead, Sachs. Take us through the PowerPoint. What do what do you want? I'll, I'll keep this quick. OK, so I've called the PowerPoint. Jamal's worst take ever. David. David, it says right at the top with disclaimer, here is something I learned today. Why is it my take? Well, you said you responded to me then saying that I didn't like facts. So that was your response. So I'm improving. I'm gonna show you some facts, OK? So first of all, let's ask the question, was 1979 a good year? I don't think you can just cherry pick this one. Number the the Genie index and say that this was some sort of great year 1979, a severe recession begins which ultimately leads to -, .3% GDP growth. In 1980, the word Stagflation, misery index become household terms. We had unemployment of 6% on its way to 7.2%. In 1980 we had a 13.3% in inflation rate. The prime rate for 30 year mortgage was 11.2%. Wow. Wow. Yeah. Try. Good luck trying to buy a house. We had long lines of the gas pump. There was an oil embargo. We have price controls. The gas pump lines. I wasn't born yet, but go on. Yeah, it was crazy. And then, you know, Jimmy Carter declares a national crisis and confidence. This was the so-called Malay speech. He was well on his way to becoming a one term president. So what this shows is, David, that you know. David, hold on. No, no, let me just, let me just do the take away. So the take away is that, you know, the Gini index says 1979 was a great year. And, you know, the the issue is that the reason it wasn't is because it's a lot easier to make everyone equally poor than ever than equally rich. When the economy does poorly, guess what? The gap shrinks. Then. Margaret Thatcher had a great line about this. So long as the gap is smaller, they would rather have the poor be poorer. That's a great video everyone should watch. On her last speech to Parliament, Chamath Chamath posted this chart. Showing this was the the percentage of wealth held by the top .1% trimbath. We'll go to you next. Explain 1/2 and three. But let me just point out, look at when else the Gini index was plummeting. The 1930s. The Great Depression did a great job creating relative equality by making everyone poor. So my point is, yeah, I understand there are these equalities, but you know what creates inequality? Economic booms. That's what creates inequality. What we should care about is not just inequality, but economic growth, real wage growth. Poverty. How many people are below the poverty line and concentrations of power? So that's what we should be looking at, not just this Gini coefficient. Let me stop there. I've got other sizes, but I'll stop there and let you respond. Sacks book. Go back. One slide. The, the, the three points there were just interesting to me. Number one was LBJ and the war on poverty and all those social programs. #2. And you spoke about this, but I don't think you're doing a full accurate assessment. What Carter? What Carter's biggest mistake was was he stopped the transfer. Payments because LBJ started them, Nixon continued them, Carter stopped them. And I think it's important to frame, explain what transfer payments are for people who don't understand. It's basically like, you know, there there are all kinds of ways to get money into the hands of individuals. You know, we, we now talk about Universal basic income. That's a way of transferring money from the government and from systemic holders of capital to individuals. Food stamps was away, the Social Security was away. There's all kinds of different ways. Welfare was away until Clinton disassembled that. So I I think that what what we'll never know is what would have happened. If Carter hadn't actually stopped those balance of payments and the the key point is about what happened then afterwards in three, so you had this basically stopping by Carter, he didn't get to, he didn't get to reap any of the benefits of it. Reagan comes in and says, you know what, we're going to simplify the tax code. We're going to defund all kinds of stuff, including, for example, all the mental health defunding that he had already done in California that spewed people with mental health disease onto the streets of San Francisco and Los Angeles. And that sort of continued. And then the real cataclysmic change on top of all of this, which sealed the fate of that trend line happened in point #3, which is when George George Bush in 2001 had this really seminal decision, which is he had the ability to block China from entering the WTO, and instead he let them in and he traded that for a vote on the Security Council. And when you think about what really happened there, you were unleashed 1 billion people willing to do anything. At a cheaper, faster, and better rate, you ushered in globalization, you ushered in the gutting of the middle class of America, and you transferred all that wealth creation that could have happened in a more inefficient but in a in a balanced way that could have benefited Americans. And you shipped them abroad to China. So I think it's just interesting to note that basically since 1979, we've all been singing from the same playbook and and I think that maybe what we need to do is figure out whether we need to come back to this idea of shifting the balance of payments back into the hands of individual consumers. And all I'm saying is without making a judgment is when you look at what Biden has done and just in the 1st 60 days. $1.9 trillion of stimulus and a proposed $3 trillion stimulus package. We're just, you know, we're not even infrastructure package. We're not even three months into his presidency and you forecast that forward, it feels like we're entering an era of spend, spend, spend. And that was an opinion of mine, which I believe is actually fairly accurate. I do think it will drive inflation. I do think it'll Dr commodity prices. And I think on balance, I do think it will suppress the wealth. Creation of the rich and I do think it will give folks that don't necessarily have investments the ability to make more in real income, which they will spend well, OK, just just quickly. So I'm going to begin by agreeing with the the part of Chamas response that I agree with, which is what happened around 2000, 2001, which killed wage growth for the average worker. Jamath is right about that. But it was it wasn't just George W Bush, it was a bipartisan disaster in 2000. Bill Clinton pushes Congress to approve the US China. Greatest agreement and gave them full access to the WTO. This was basically temporary. MFN and look at what he said. He said economically this agreement is the equivalent of a one way St it requires China to open its markets to us in new ways and it turned out to be a one way St the other way. And then he also said that for the first time our companies be able to sell industry products in China made by workers here in America without being forced to relocate manufacturing to China. We'll be able to export products without exporting jobs. Well, Gee, the exact opposite. And so, and then and then what happens in 2001 is Bush makes this situation permanent. He grants permanent what's called permanent normal trade relations, which basically MFN status in perpetuity to China, granting them full access to our markets. And Chamath is right that that devastated the average worker because all of a sudden they're being forced to compete with, you know, foreign labor that's potentially making $2.00 a day and is not subject to the same labor laws and environmental laws as workers in the US are so. I agree with Chamath about what happened then, but but I gotta go back and clean up this view of what happened between 1980 and 2000, because that's where I think we have this this disagreement. Let's talk about the China thing for a second. I yeah, we made a mistake there. We got hoodwinked. We don't have access to their market. I think it's it would be good to pause for a second and say, OK, we tried this experiment for 20 years. There was some good that came out of it. Our companies were able to grow and become the dominant players in the world. Like Apple, but an Amazon, right? We did capture a lot of this value. And a lot of people came out of poverty in China, I guess on the margins that's a good thing, we can all agree. But it's a communist country and we basically enable the communist country to become essentially you know our our counterparty in in running the planet and and and in our leadership positions on the planet. What do we do now in terms of unwinding this? Is there a way to roll this back or do we just mute it from this point forward? And how does it become a two way street or is that just not even possible as we've seen with the NBA and some other companies, Twitter, Google. Just not being allowed to even operate in China. Who's we? America, the United States, the United States, I mean U.S. citizens, U.S. companies, global companies, I mean. Yeah, you know, I think that the the challenge is your, your framework, right? Because I think, I think there's one big thing you're you're forgetting in 2001, which is I think that Bush actually traded away access to the WTO so that they could guarantee China's vote when he wanted to go to war with Iraq, which happened in 2003. OK, well, 22 dumb decisions that got worse by being put together. All I'm saying is it was a trade. It was a trade. He traded. He traded access. Two, he traded access to the WTO in return for their support for a UN resolution to go to war with Iraq. Look, I, you know, you chamath you said that I was defending the Republican point of view. I'm not. I'll be the first to say that George W Bush was his presidency was a disaster. I think it will go down as one of the worst. He got us into all these stupid foreign wars in the Middle East. He began them. I think the decisions with China were a mistake, so I certainly don't want to defend that. And by the same token, I think the Clinton years were were generally great years in America. So this is not a partisan free basis on my part. What do you think about the China concept? And and how we would go forward and what's what's the path forward with China? I mean, again, like, I think it comes down to your objective and who are you solving for? And who should we saw for democracy? The human species. Well I mean I I feel like I meant the the point of view that, you know, one government is innately better than another is being tested and proven right and wrong every day right now. And and I'm not sure that it's fair to say that just because the form of government that the you know that the Chinese have kind of adopted and used to govern their, their, their their country and their people is innately wrong. There's certainly things that are neatly wrong in many democracies and that are neatly wrong in many non democratic republics. And so I'm not sure it's fair to just say that, you know, that that's really the objective is let's get rid of that communism, I mean that was an easy kind of simple you know, check that you could use a few decades ago as a way to kind of rally everyone emotionally towards some cause. But I, I think this there's a lot of businesses today that operate effectively in their own kind of geopolitical cloud and it's a little bit. Of of a kind of misstatement to think that an American company is an American company. It's not that American quote UN quote American companies solely build their stuff and sell their stuff in the United States. Many America quote UN quote American companies build stuff overseas and sell stuff overseas and global is globalization. As much as we might want to kind of poo poo the effects it had on the average quote UN quote American worker, it really has transformed the way businesses operate with respect to. Politics and countries there is a. Oh God, what's the book? I can't remember the book, but there's a book that speaks to how a lot of large multinational corporations today effectively have to operate as if they were countries into and unto themselves. And so they have competing interests with respect to what the average American or the American Government or the American people might have, even though they might be quote UN quote, American companies and there might be some intricate tie. And so I'm not sure it's as simple as we have to quote, UN quote, defeat China. We are so intricately tied to the. To the economy of China, to the workers of China and vice versa. And I think that it's a much more complicated thing than you know. Here's our three-point checklist for how do we quote UN quote beat China? And that's that's why it's hard. And that's why I think a lot of smart people have, you know, kind of taken on and been challenged by and failed at trying to resolve a path forward where there's this quote UN quote looming enemy that is going to become the global economic power which strips the American people of of their influence around the world. And you know, that may be kind of the inevitability of the 21st century. I don't think there's a dark inevitability if, but I don't know if there's a simple ET answer and I don't know if from a from a business point of view, let's say I'm a company. I'm not sure I necessarily feel the effects of 1, quote, UN quote, country affecting, you know, having more influence globally with other countries than others. It turns out a lot of businesses have greater influence than a lot of governments. And so, you know, one way to kind of think about the evolution of globalization and maybe even with respect to kind of the the notion of what we've been talking about decentralization, is that maybe. Governments themselves become less important in the 21st century, and it's the kind of decentralized online movements and and businesses and and, you know, other kind of entities that perhaps are not as regulated and controlled and owned by governments. And, you know, maybe the big failure of the 21st century will be governments. We'll see. Chamath, you have that on. Sorry, that was a bit esoteric, but no, no, I I think it's, yeah, it is an example. The thing, the thing that you're not willing to acknowledge is that even when GDP shrinks, it's like a it's a, it's it's shrinking from a base where there's substantive growth year over year. Like you know are the GDP in 1969 where LBJ was President was less than a trillion dollars in the GDP now is like 23 1/2 trillion dollars. And so it's been nothing essentially but a straight line up and so, you know this idea that we the inflation causes. You know, the the only way that we close the wealth gap is by making everybody poorer is not true. Where some people may be getting less rich at the same rate, so they feel poorer, but the idea that you actually become poorer is just not true. It's a feeling that you have, but it's not rooted in fact. So when when you look at the wealth gap, are you concerned about the gap or are you concerned with, you know, the status of the folks on the bottom and how much their lot in life has gotten better? Yeah, I mean, I'm concerned with both, actually. There, I have a slide on this, too. I would buy this argument, and I've heard this argument from before, from people not as smart as David. I would buy this argument if GDP did something other than go up in an absolute straight ******* line. No, it doesn't. It doesn't. Well, hold on. Let me. I'm gonna show. Let me show you in a second. The first thing I want to discover is that part of the problem with the Gini index is it doesn't fully account for government transfers. This is something I didn't fully know until I researched it. After your tweet storm to mouth, but basically only 2% of the population. So the publicly reported stats are that 13.5% of the US population lives in poverty. Once you actually take into account all these programs and transfer payments, it's more like 2%. You can see this on this chart on the left here that the green represents the transfer payments. By the way, I'm not against transfer payments. I think we need a social safety net. I want the social safety net to be as effective as possible. I don't want it to trap people. And government dependency, I want it to work. I want it to get people out of poverty and into the opportunity economy. But I absolutely believe we need a social safety net and we need these transfer payments. And you can see that the green bars there make a huge difference in reducing poverty. The Gini index doesn't really take that into account. Well, how do you fund this? These types of transfer payments, the more of a of a stronger economy that you have, the more that you have a government, the more that you have an economic boom, the more that you see real wage growth and the ability to fund these programs. Let's go back to let's let's just look at GDP for a second. So if you go back to let's go back to this. 82 to 2000, I call this the Reagan Clinton boom. I see, this is a bipartisan, a relatively bipartisan. Where under Reagan and Clinton you had GDP growth of almost 4% compared to the usual two 2 1/2%. By the way, This is why Reagan and Clinton left office with huge approval numbers despite scandals. Remember, Reagan had Iran Contra Clinton had Lewinsky. None of that mattered really in the eyes of the American people. Because the economy was so strong and you can see that here. And by the way, it hasn't been this strong in the 2000s. We've never really gotten back to this type of economy, you know, since since, you know, 2009. Is that because of the economic boom of the PC and Internet eras? What would we attribute it to? The technology boom has a huge impact. But let me just describe what started, OK, what's what happened in 1981? Reagan's inauguration as president in January of 1981. He cuts the top marginal income tax rate from 70 to 50%. And I would say equally important you have Paul Volcker at the Fed. He breaks inflation, he jacks up interest rates, causes a very severe recession in 1982, but it broke the back of hyperinflation and we it ushered in decades of declining interest rates. You can see that on this chart here. Interest rates have more or less been in the decline since Paul Volcker was at the Fed. What does this do? It made the the IT reduce the the the the risk free rate of return. Which leads to more investment in in everything, in in everything at least to more investment. It called. It caused a rally in the bond market and the stock market. And by the way, no one remembers in a modern area. I'm sorry, sex, but like most interest rates for buying a home mortgage, rates were over 6 1/2% for most of the year. It was 15 for the last couple of decades. Yeah, yeah. Good luck. Good luck buying a home in the 1970s, right. Like, David? David, can you like, can you actually be intellectually honest and overlay aggregate? Actual GDP on this chart, because what you'll see is it goes up and to the right, independent of all of this ********. No, there that's not true. You can see it's absolutely true and I'll just, can I share my screen GDP growth rate versus no, this is, this is the growth rate, forget growth rate, what is the actual number, right. We're talking about the real number, not the percentage because I was actually about to ask a real number because this is great. I know this is talking about the change in GDP. I know I'm talking about grade 2 mathematics here, guys. The absolute number, the absolute number keeps going up and to the right because you know it doesn't the these, these, these dots that are below 0. Recession, right. But in which? Those are changes from the year before. So when you're compounding naturally. No, no, no, no. The green and red bars at the very bottom are changes from the year before. But these are absolute percentage changes in GDP. I know. So the recession, a recession is defined as two quarters of negative growth. So GDP can go down. David, can I just show you the aggregate GDP growth from 1960 to 2000 and you can just look at this and tell me what's what, what is wrong with the trading economics? Website that that everybody else would use. Yeah, go for it up. I mean I, I think one of the things that I have is a question for everybody is, is there a is there a major difference between. Two percent, 2 1/2 percent, 3% growth in terms of how. We all experience our lives. And what are we optimizing there for? Are we optimizing for consistency or are we opt in? You know, no recessions? Well, this is what's interesting. So do you see this chart right here? It's perfectly consistent with the exception of the aggregate GDP. OK, it started off at less than a trillion in 1950, something it was about, you know, a trillion dollars at 1968 and it's about $23 trillion now. This is the aggregate of what has happened in the American economy over the last 70 years. Compounding interest is an amazing thing now, exactly right now. This has happened in Democratic presidencies, Republican presidencies, when rates were at 16%, when rates were at 0%. So all I'm saying is we have a natural tendency and inertia to move forward. The rate of change we can debate and obviously it has ebbed and flowed over years, but the fact that it's towards moving forward and downhill with increasing momentum is undeniable. And so again, I would ask when we think about the fact that the natural tendency is that the next 5 or 10 year. In aggregate will become bigger and better, there'll be more of the pie to share. Why is inflation a bad thing? Because all it does is depress financial assets. It drives up earnings and income, which drives up consumption of the lower 3 or 4 quartiles of the OR lower 3 quartiles of the earnings population. I just don't see why it's such a bad thing. I think I think mild, mild inflation, you know in the two to 4% range is is fine and it's probably better, it's certainly better I would say than two to 4% deflation. But when you start to get runaway inflation like we did in the 1970s, it massively increases interest rates and that makes it harder for people to buy houses and borrow money and invest money because now the risk for your return is higher and and that not only applies I know, but that only applies to the top quartile of the population, the bottom. 3 quartiles don't give a **** about what you just said because they don't do it. I I don't think people wanna have to spend $600.00 on a loaf of bread, you know, that's it. Look, you look at Venezuela, you look at Weimar Germany, you do not want inflation to get out of control and there it can spiral out of control. Because once people start to expect is that realistic though that it will spiral out of control given technological advances efficiency, I mean, what you backdrop that you are you are bringing up the, I think the the really brilliant point, which is could it really even happen today? Because if you think about where we allocate. Time and attention and consumption, half of it by definition, are things that are just so naturally deflationary. We're all, you know, we're, we're, we're on YouTube, you know, Facebook, Tik, T.O.K all the time. Those are naturally deflationary sinks of time and energy and effort and money, right. So to date to, to Jason's point, like, I think that that's actually true. I don't think that it's even possible to actually have hyperinflation anymore. Where do we have hyperinflation, NFT's, Bitcoin equities and financial assets? Financial and homes, right, I mean and that's a highly regulated and and I guess healthcare and. Educate higher education those, but pretty much anything that the governments involved in basically, well the government is involved in NFT is in Bitcoin. Those are the anti government portfolio. But, but by the way, healthcare inflation really started in Obama because of Obamacare. Yeah, anything that the government's involved in inflates. Yeah, because the government is paying the bill. Why won't you raise prices? Well, where, where, where there's there's no competitive market, there's one customer charge, whatever you want, etcetera. So, so, so, so, so much. To be clear, I inflation is not my number one concern right now. I'm just saying that it would not be a good thing to let it get out of control, that's all. But it's not, it's not the biggest concern in my list. Your main concern is dunking on chamath for that tweet storm. No, no, I'm not dunking on him. I'm he. He dunked on me saying that, you know, he turned into a bunch of 15 year old. Girls who said something and got misinterpreted on social media and now we have to work. No, no, no, I'll tell you. I'll tell you today. And you, the audience, are the beneficiaries. No, I I I'll tell you. I'll tell you my my main concern is this idea that economic booms are not a good thing because, you know, God forbid, the people at the top might get richer. That's the problem. To that, then. Yeah, I don't know if you guys have been following what's happening with the head of operations at or I guess he's the head of warehouses. That Amazon. Amazon is standing up to Elizabeth Warren on Twitter. They're mixing it up. Did you guys see these tweets? Let's pull up. No. What? It's cool. What? You haven't seen these? No. Chamat didn't you donate, like some ridiculous amount of money to Elizabeth Warren's campaign NO25K just a little tasty poo. It was a little teaser bet, and I and I didn't like what I saw, so I had to shut it down. I shut it down on the turn. The flop was on the flop. Flop. You limped in. You limped in with 74. I limped in with 74 offsuit I put a little teaser bed out there, I didn't like what I saw, and so I folded. Basically, Amazon is finally saying, hey, we're just gonna we're gonna stand up when Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders kind of attack us and attack Bezos. And they just said, listen, you guys set the minimum wage, do your job. We moved the minimum wage at Amazon to $15.00 an hour. We made our decision get back to work and set the federal minimum wage of $15.00 an hour. And stop telling us we don't pay our taxes because you make the tax law. So essentially, this dovetails with the hearing. I don't know if you guys watched any of the hearing with Zuckerberg and everybody, but basically they were all. Seems like big tech is just putting the foot down and saying just tell us what you want us to do, because we're doing it. We're giving people question about sucker Burg. What? What Zuckerberg and Dorsey basically said is that if you don't like that kind of speech, then why don't you prohibit it instead of telling us to do it? You can't and you won't because you know, it's it's it's a violation of the 1st Amendment. So that. Yeah. They were kind of pushing back on them saying, listen, if if you have such a problem with it, pass a law. Yeah. And this guy, Dave Clark. You guys know Dave Clark at Amazon. Nope. So this is the guy who's been mixing it up. And if the audience is listening, you can see a bunch of this on the YouTube channel because we will put in these. He's like the number two guy there. He, he runs all, he runs the entire retail business, I guess. Yeah. So now Amazon is on a full court press to engage with, let's call it the socialist. Left. I guess they call themselves democratic socialists because they don't want to be called socialists. And they're saying, like, listen, we give people healthcare. We give them 15 bucks an hour. And if you want to tour the facilities, Tour Philly, but nobody is peeing in bottles. And then, of course, the press and a couple of people showed bottles with pee in them that drivers can't stop to even go to the bathroom, which I think is a tragedy and horrible people should not have to pee in bottles. I mean, they asked me about it on CNBC today. I was like, this is a serious question. Like, of course, nobody should be peeing in bottles. But if you look at this exchange, I think we're kind of hitting the end of this debate, which is everybody kind of agrees we should have health care for everybody in the country. We should have a $15 minimum wage. Why are we dunking and fighting with each other when we've got this adversary, which is or two adversaries with Russia and China, we have these two crazy adversaries who want to build authoritarian countries and control the economy and eventually control the planet. Why is why are Americans fighting with each other over these issues? I mean, this is this is just incredible. I I just wanna read it, Bernie Sanders. Because I look forward to meeting with Amazon workers in Alabama on Friday, all I want to know is why the richest man in the world, Jeff Bezos, is spending millions trying to prevent workers from organizing union so they can negotiate for better wages, benefits and working conditions. To which he replies. All we want to know is why the Senator is one of the most powerful pals and politicians in Vermont for 30 plus years and their minimum wage is still only 1175. Amazon's minimum wage is $15 plus great healthcare from day one. The senator should save his finger wagging lecture until after he actually delivers in his own backyard. To your point it it is getting to a point now where folks are like alright guys. So step up and change the laws and change the incentives and I think that that's going to be really important. Saxy you had something that you you were really miffed by what Zuck said or something at the thing about. Well well what what Zuck was trying to do in that hearing the the Sir Kechery guy, what's his name? Ben Thompson, Thompson, strategically, I think it's strategically stratechery. Oh no, no, no, no. It's stratechery no strategy. He literally said it. He came to the poker game that we do at the D Conference or the RECO Conference, whatever it's called. Conference. And he said it's structurally right. It's strategy plus tax, right? It's the worst name that was ever created, stratechery strategy anyway. So 100 bucks a year, he's got like 10,000 people paying for it. It's crazy. That is what what makes million the way he. OK great. So the way thank you for that thank you for that clarification what what Ben Thompson wrote the way he described Zuck statement is that Zuck was pulling up the ladder on all the other social networking sites that might come afterwards. And it was look it was one of those tactical maneuvers that's in Facebook sort of narrow self-interest but it's so obviously in their self-interest that you know people slam them for that. It's just too Machiavellian and basically what Zuckerberg said is listen. We now have over 30,000 people doing content moderation. You guys should check you. You the, the lawmakers should change section 2:30 to say that, you know, you the social media sites only get section 230 protection, the liability shield, if you engage in this kind of content moderation. But if you're a site that does and then you don't get protection, well, what's what's Zuckerberg trying to do? You know, small startups can't hire 30,000 people to do content moderation. So this is like classic regulatory capture, but. Done. Brazenly in the open at a congressional hearing. I think you're right. I think it kind of makes a lot of sense from him at the the game theory is pretty obvious, which is like, OK, make it now impossible for anybody to compete with us and you basically lock us in forever. It's it's pretty, pretty brilliant. The the question is, what do you think the odds are that politicians fall for this? I think they're they're forcing their hand down, so they don't have much choice. Yeah, well, I mean, the Democrats on that committee have basically been saying that disinformation is a huge problem and you, the social media sites. Need to correct it. You need to control it. And so Zuckerberg comes along and says, OK, great, no problem. We've hired 30,000 content moderators. We're gonna do what you said. In fact, we're gonna hire more. And by the way, if you really want to get tough about this, why don't you modify section 2:30 to require it? Well, how many other startups can ever hire that number of content moderators? This is creating a Moat that will basically protect Zuck and Facebook forever, right? Capture. And the other crazy thing in this was the this stupid format. Come up with what they give each person who's, you know, a senator or congressman who's or Congress person who's doing the questioning. They give them 5 minutes. So they're like, I only want a yes no answer. And you're like, I'm going to ask you the most challenging problem in the world. I need you to answer yes or no, binary one or zero. And it's like, well, that's not kind of how a nuanced issue works. Like section 2:30. This is going to take some time. Can I get one minute to answer the question, 2 minutes to answer the question. And so Jack and Zuckerberg and every just kind of threw their hands up. They're like, I can't answer this in a yes no, can you? That's me. Give me 30 seconds to answer these questions. It was pretty ridiculous. And then they were trying to get them all to say. That their platforms were used for the January 6th insurgency. And I don't agree with Zuck on much, but he was like, no, I think the people who were involved in January 6th were responsible for it. So whether that's the President or the people who broke into the capital, they're the ones who are actually responsible for this. You guys didn't want. Yes. So no, I well, I, I I I read, I read some summaries of it and I think Dorsey actually did a did a great job and I I like I liked his performance and let me read you a quote. Mike Solana tweeted this. So but he said, Jack said, I don't think these decisions should be made by private companies or the government, which is why we're suggesting a protocol approach to help the people make the decisions themselves. That was Jack Dorsey now. That almost sounds like me if he just changed the word protocol. The First Amendment case law. So I don't want these companies or the Senate Judiciary Committee, you know, censoring people. I want to use a revered external standard, which is the 1st Amendment case law that's been developed over the last two centuries. So Jack wants to use a protocol. OK, but fine. But he's on the right track here, which is he's saying, look, we don't want to be in the business of having this power to decide who's going to have access to, you know, to the town square. And that's a step in the right direction. But he's also got a project. There to turn social networks into open standards. So in other words, the way we can all anybody can make an e-mail client because e-mail is an open standard. Anybody can build a web page or a browser because HTML is an open standard. He wants to do that and he's working on that inside of Twitter, where anybody is going to be able to take their tweets and they're going to be decentralized. There's going to be no central server and you're going to be able to bring your own algorithm. So if you feel the algorithm is causing you to see. Stream views. You could say I want mine to only lean towards. I want this one that leads towards positivity and kindness, right? And somebody can make a third party. There's an algorithm that gets rid of jerks you guys probably saw this week, but a deal was announced and investment was announced. Andreesen, Sequoia, myself, and a few others, we did this thing called bit clout. I heard about this. Yeah. So what is it? Just to give you a sense of it, it's like, you know, basic about it separately from a bunch of people. Yeah. So I mean, like the in in a nutshell, you know, what these guys did was they said, OK, well, you know, we're just gonna take, you know, this entire blockchain concept and we're going to fork it and we're going to create this thing where folks can essentially have one blockchain. They can, you know, have content around it and then identify sort of people and nodes and all of a sudden, like we all have. This currency that sits on top of this bit cloud currency and why that's interesting is their first app that they built on top of. This was basically a kind of a clone of Twitter, just kind of as a proof of concept app. And I think Jason, it's moving to a place where now people with reputation and people with trust can actually signal that they have it and then not. That's a probably a better way over time for for for folks like us to figure out. What is valuable and not valuable? What is trustworthy and not irrespective of whichever end of the spectrum is coming in off of? And then if there is disinformation, you know that person's quote UN quote bit cloud stock, right? That their token will fall in value. They'll probably be a lot of interesting apps that are built on top of this. I was really drawn to the general idea of the project and I think that's what Andresen and Sequoia probably felt as well. So, you know, there are these interesting solutions. There's bit cloud, there's Jason. You said this open source project at Twitter. It's all, it's all going to be really interesting. But I think if we can get to a way where we can quantify reputation and trust, that's the another way of around working around the pulling up the ladder effect of of what Facebook and Twitter effectively told Congress this week. I want to talk to you guys about what the hell, what the hell is going on in the Suez Canal and what does this mean? I mean, freeberg, what the **** is this? This is unbelievable, you know? It's so random and unfortunate, but this this ship that weighs 200,000 metric tons. That's taller. It's longer than the Empire State Building is tall. Going through the Suez Canal, which I think, you know, there's about 100 ships a day go through the Suez Canal and it's, you know, the Suez Canal really is, you know, kind of an amazing engineering accomplishment. That connects the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea. It basically allows ships from Asia to not have to go all the way around Africa to get to Europe. And the ship goes into the Suez Canal and it had a blackout, it's power went out and so it just kept cruising without being able to control the steering, cause this like friggin power steering on these massive ships, you know, like they don't have like a wire connected to the rudder and so you know the thing up, no backup battery supply, I guess it was, no one knows. But like the power went out and the total blackout on the ship, they couldn't get the power back on and the thing just keeps cruising and cruising, cruising and it cruises right into the side, which is this big sand barrier on either side of the Suez Canal. And it gets lodged in the sand barrier on the side. Now when you have 200,000 metric tons moving at a few miles an hour, that's an incredible amount of momentum of energy. And so it when it lodges in the side, that's, you know, it's lodged in there and now it's time to acceleration. Yeah, it's actually math times velocity, but yeah, you're you're close. And so the thing just basically got lodged in there and they can't get it out. And now they think it's going to take another week or two before they'll be able to kind of dig all around the sand and tugboat the thing out of there. But I think what's interesting, so 10% of global trade moved through the Suez Canal, and about 100 of these massive ships a day, you know, move through this canal. But it really highlights the fragility of our global supply chain, similar to kind of the experience I think we had during the COVID pandemic when all of a sudden things like toilet paper were less available to us. But, you know, a a small power outage on a boat, on a ship, you know, in the middle of of the Suez Canal can suddenly block up so much of global trade and cause, you know, massive fluctuations in commodity prices and availability of supplies and products for businesses around the world. It's going to be rippling economic effects for a period of time. It's unclear how significant they're gonna be, but you know, I really do think that taking note of the fragility of our of our supply chain in this particular context is worth taking a step back. And you know, I spent a lot of my personal and my work time obviously off the podcast thinking about kind of our systems of industry. And, you know, the, the global industrial revolutions were really predicated on this notion of centralization. You know, we took a lot of our production systems and we centralized them and and created automated, repeatable tasks and that reduced the cost and allowed us per unit of production to basically make things much more affordably. But the problem with centralization, generally speaking, in supply chains is exactly this, which is you, you have a supply chain that is much more delicate and it is much more, I mean, think about the difference in power, right, if the power goes out. The power plant, all the homes that are connected to it lose power versus if every home had their own power generator or solar cells, they could continue to support themselves and in a similar context. So much. And this goes back to our conversation earlier about globalization. So much of our global supply chain for industry has become centralized by finding the lowest cost possible, but it loses all of its durability. And so the 21st century and especially leading into this infrastructure bill that we're going to be talking about or or that's gonna be talked about for for a long time now for months to come presents an opportunity for us to think about durability in industry and durability and supply chains that I think is really profound and allows us to shift the balance of of power, but also shift the, the, the, the sources of production of all the things we consume as a species in a in a much more distributed way and that. Can be done using green technology, using, you know, 3D printers, using biomanufacturing, you know, using solar. There's a lot of vertical farming. Vertical, yeah, whatever. I I'll disagree with you on that one and we'll talk about that separately. But I, I would argue, like so much of of industry has been centralized because remember when the industrial revolutions took hold, the only skill set we had as a species was mechanical engineering. And in the years that followed we developed skills in chemical engineering and ultimately in software and hardware. Nearing and now more recently in biochemical engineering where we can use biological systems to make stuff and the advent of those technology capabilities I think really gives us the opportunity today to reinvent these supply chains. And so the Suez Canal I hope is a little bit of a wake up call and I hope leads into some of the thinking around the infrastructure build proposals where we're about building durability in the supply chain and in that process by the way creating manufacturing jobs, you know, in a more distributed way. Let me build on what you're saying. So for all of the people. Listening that really, really care about electrification and electric cars. And there's a bunch of Tesla bulls here. You know, Tesla uses a specific kind of battery called NCA and there's, you know, other forms of batteries. But for the most part, and Tesla in China uses this LFP chemistry. But the point is there's a lot of very, very valuable nickel that goes into making lithium ion batteries. And so if you believe in electrification and you believe in, you know, is 0 emissions and you believe in. Using these batteries, you need to believe in nickel, which is a tough business, OK? You're grabbing, you know, rock out of the ground and you're leaching this, this extremely important metal out of it. So just a little while ago there is a huge nickel manufacturer called Norilsk Nickel, right, and they have these two Russian nickel mines and just very recently they flooded and the plug which had been erected for localizing. Flooding was washed away, not for the first time, not for the second time, but for the third time. And people now think that getting all this water out of the mine may take at least a year. OK, So what? Why should we care? Well, right now, if you think about all the batteries that were forecasted to make in order to sort of eliminate climate change and, you know, do all these good things and for, you know, Tesla to to make their, you know, beautiful cars or whomever that that look, you know, they need nickel. And right now we have, we have a deficit of nickel that's going to emerge now in less than a year. And we have, we have about a 37 to 40% shortage of what we need. So it's like you have all these grandiose visions of how the world should work. And an electric failure in a barge shuts down the global supply chain for weeks. A lot in the nickel flood in a nickel mine is gonna cost the price of a Tesla to basically double. And shouldn't people at some point ask ourselves, is this really what efficiency is supposed to feel like on the ground? And it may not be right. And so maybe again, going back to the first conversation, a little bit more inefficiency, a little bit more inflation, a little bit more redundancy will allow us to be resilient and maybe that's what we really want. We don't. I mean, you could ask the people in Texas what they want after they lost their power and they have, they have one light snowstorm and the whole city is destroyed. And I mean, there really is. There is something to having the redundancy in your home and the supply chain and obviously drugs which we witnessed during the pandemic. Right. I mean we we infrastructure we were. So we were so concerned about short term profit maximization that we offshored our entire pharmaceutical production and PPE manufacturing to China which then said that they might ration it to us based on you know geopolitical concerns. No thanks. So yeah that that that is that is that is penny wise and pound foolish. The absolute definition is there is the infrastructure bill's gonna fix it. Freeburg you have a rundown of the infrastructure? Well, you know, there isn't a good, there isn't good clarity on this. My concern is that there's gonna be lots of push for things like roads and you know, stuff that doesn't create ongoing jobs that so much money is going to go into basically a, A disguised stimulus package versus, you know, the ideal kind of infrastructure program set is to enable industry. So if you go back and you think about like the Manhattan Project and the Apollo Mission, you know, those were very expensive government programs that have a very specific. Candidate, but because there were big investments and difficult problems, they unlocked a lot of industry that followed that initial development cycle. And I think that that is kind of a good guideline for us to think about with respect to what we might hope for an infrastructure bill to do, which is to create unlock for industry as opposed to plowing money into short term service contracts with a bunch of guys who are going to make a ton of money building roads. And it doesn't really change the industry very much. And so I'm concerned it's going to be a giveaway of money that's going to create a short term stimulus. But doesn't really create long term effects in the industry. But we'll we'll see what kind of comes out as they get more clarity on this. There's certainly a big push for quote UN quote green but I'm not sure the people that are quote UN quote green advisors in this in this context are going to be thinking about this you know this next century of opportunity, you know. Yeah. So so so we'll see America is going to have to have a real come to Jesus if they actually really give a **** about climate change. Yeah, I'll give you, I'll give you a different example. Like again to to really electrify you have to pull metals out of the ground. That is a dirty business, OK? And there are impacts to the environment, even if you're the best at it. And right now in in the Western Hemisphere, it takes 20 years to green light a mine 20 years. Our shortages start in the next year. In China they have, you know, no issues whatsoever, right? Let's just say. So maybe it takes them 7 to 10 years to get A to get a project greenlit. Now, I'm not advocating that we become China, but I think that it's really important for us to realize that, like, you know, if we're going to really take this seriously, you can't have progress being hijacked by things that may not matter as much in the grand scheme of things like there is the opportunity, for example, to build a massive set of copper and nickel mines in the Western Hemisphere. But the minute that they get greenlit, they get, there's an injunction that's filed by an NGO that'll say, oh, you know, we have to think about the land grouse and it's like, well, the like, what the **** is the land grouse? And at some point, you have to figure out whether you actually want your kids to have asthma or not and whether they can suck up, you know, PM 2.5 and PM 10 for the rest of their lives or you care more about the land grass. And this is going to come come to a head and hopefully the infrastructure bill paves the way for these decisions because I think. As a country, we're going to have to decide, because many other countries, in order to have clean air and drinkable water, are going to basically prioritize humans over the Langres. Yeah, I mean it reminds me of the nuclear discussion we had earlier in this podcast of like, we can't even put a new nuclear power plant in this country without it taking decades and. Any any any interesting updates on the business side? I saw? Is Microsoft really about to buy discord for $10 billion? Yeah. If you look at that compared to you know the Slack acquisition is slack up what for 28 billion with was it 800 million in revenue yearly revenue at the time and discord has 150 million and they're going for 10 unbelievable it's it's an even higher multiple 30 times. For 1.2 billion at this point, I mean holy well, it was, it was in hindsight it was probably cheap. It made the mark, you know? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, I mean back in 2012, we, we really thought back in 2012 that one to two billion was like the best case scenario of, yeah, the upper bound of what a sass exit would look like. We just never realized how big the market could get. And now obviously you have slack at close to 30 billion, you have DocuSign IPO ING of 40 billion, you have zoom at over 100 billion and so the markets. This ended up so much bigger than we ever thought. And we were the optimists, we were the ones building companies in SAS back then. And so the cloud has just been. So I mean, and you see this now with, you know, the numbers that Azure and Google Cloud and AWS keep reporting where they're at like 10s of billions of revenue and they're still growing like 4050% a year. So the cloud is is so much bigger than what we all thought and what came before. So that's what I mean. So I've just decided to stop trying to find. New ideas and this, I mean new, like a new thesis and just keep investing in this. That's why I'm kind of all in on on SAS right now. Do you think Microsoft is doing this to compete with Slack or they're doing it to just really take over gaming? Do you have any insights, sacks? I think probably it's probably an element of both where they do like one of their few consumer business lines that's done really well is Xbox and gaming and they bought Minecraft and so I think they can get some value out of it there. But I I have to believe that this is competitively driven. They gotta be worried about slack. I mean, the crown jewel at Microsoft is the office suite. The reason they bought Yammer is to accelerate the transition of office into cloud, social and mobile and and it it did help do that and they got to be worried about Salesforce now buying slack. I mean, that is, Benioff has been wanting to go after office for a long time and this is his way to do it. Yeah. All right. There you have it, folks. Another all in podcast is in the can. Let me just ask a question. Are people making summer plans and fall plans based on the I'm making, I'm making, I'm making tonight plans. I can't wait to get you victims into the poker room socks. I want you to fly in. What we need, we need we need a full bestie victim. Well, sex. What's your plan tonight? Like, are you going to some fancy? Pasta restaurant with your wife. You doing popping bottles with? Yeah, yeah. Who are you hanging out with tonight? So what are you doing? Yeah, what are you doing? These come on. Hanging with the kids. It was Friday night. I'm just. Do you know their names? Yeah, exact. Put them to bed. So you have put them to bed. Fly up north. Come to the poker game. Tell us your kids middle names. Actually, that's a good one. That's a good one. Yeah, whatever job. Yeah, who knows? I went to the movies last night. I was. I I took my 11 year old out. She went. She was. She wanted to get Shake Shack, so I took her to Shake Shack. And the movie theater was there, and it was open. And I was like, oh, let's go check it out of what's going on at the movie theater. And Terminator two was playing 15 minutes later. Great film, Incredible film holds up an amazing to see on the big screen. We walk in, I kid you not, you know, hundred seat theater with these beautiful big chairs. Nobody there. And they were so wait, sorry, Jake. Did you rent the whole thing? No, it just happens to be that they're open for business. They space people out and you know? It was $5 a ticket to see. I'm taking my, I'm taking my daughter to the movies this afternoon. First time they've ever been to the movies, they're, you know, 3 1/2 and and two. I am so excited to take them to a movie theater. So we rented the whole theater for $99. It's the best deal in town. What what movie are you seeing? Trolls? You can choose a movie. That's the cool thing. There's a list of like 50 films and you could pick a film. So I got like a little kids film for them and they get to go see a movie theater and have popcorn, have the experience and be awesome. And you can have other friends there. Yeah, you can have up to 20 people. So you rent the whole theater for 99 bucks. And you you can kind of, if you wanna come see trolls chemaf just cruise up. I'll send you a ticket. Oh my God, that's the coolest ******* thing. That's all versus Kong is happening and I'm renting a theater for it. So if everybody wants to bring their kids, it's a great kids would never sleep after seeing that. It's no no, it's not for three to five year olds, but you know 10 year olds. Yes, it's 100 bucks. This is an AMC theater. 99 bucks. That's awesome for MC yeah, but the the Sinopoli think charges 200 and that's the. Like really high end theater where you can press a button and the waiter comes and the waiter was like, thanks for coming. We really appreciate it. Like, you're one of the first guests. No way. There is no way. Movie theater is kind of like an emotional moment for me to take my daughter again because that's what we would do every Friday. Yeah. You know, school. There's no way movie theaters go out of business. I mean, they're just, it's such like, like a traditional experience. It's so American. It's just what AMC's trading at. Hmm. Yeah. Wonder AMC would be an interesting. I, I, Texas City, this conversation out. He's like, I got my movie theater. Upstairs the the the usher is on standby, ready to let me in. How many seats are you just like, oh, you can only rent A20 seat theater? I have a 40 seat theater. The fact how many theaters are do you have built in your various homes? Do you only have one theater for home sex? Is it 1 theater per home? No, he's got a Multiplex. In each case, people wanna watch different movies they meet at the popcorn stand. I'm. I'm excited to go back to the movies. I me too. I'm gonna do that soon. Movies. I love how you. How excited are you guys to go to Disneyland? I I wanna take my kids to Disney. I mean, yeah, I can't wait, I can't fax. And I COVID COVID is over. I'm so sick. But by the way, how? Right. How right were we? I think it was like two or three pods ago. We were saying that COVID would be over. A Memorial Day, Memorial Day and even in California, Gavin Newsom basically is finally capitulated to logic and everybody can get a shot now as of April 15th. Yeah. Which means we berated, which means by May 15th everybody who wants to get vaccinated took was a recall 2.2 million and took the recall and and shame and shaming him and berating him on Twitter constantly. I mean, Peter Pham was tweeting out like every day the the growing inventories of vaccine and all the open appointments we all were. And it's like. Ridiculous. We kept at mentioning him 5,000,000 shots on shelves in in a pandemic. I mean, you don't need to be freeberg to understand how vaccines work. Each person's a blocker, right? Yeah. And and the other thing, the other thing that got Newsome to move was that Biden gave that press conference in which he moved up the date. And so then that prompted Newsom to move up his date. And the same thing happened like a month ago when when Biden gave that, that speech where he said. He gave that May 1st date as a date everyone should get vaccinated. So frankly, it'd be nice if we had a governor who would just do the right thing without the constant threat of recall and tweet shaming and you know, and and and and the president dragging him, you know, into the future. But but I guess we do with. Oh, I'm curious what you guys think of what we should do with all this extra supply. I had an interesting idea for the economy. If you come to America and you've tested that, you don't have COVID right. You take a test on the before you get there if you come to America. We will give you the vaccine at the airport. Jason. I think here's what we're gonna do from now on. How great would that you're gonna have? You're gonna have 3 little chips a week and you get to put a chip in a jar and then you can suggest one of your ideas. But then once you hit through you, we're done. OK? The economy, vaccine tourism, like formalized vaccine tours if you come to America for vacation, complementary vaccines on the way in. Mm-hmm. I mean, we're already at the point we had everyone everyone's look. I mean look effectively affected. No, I think effectively we're gonna have that. It won't be at the airport. But I mean the all the restrictions are coming off in every state by mid-april now. And people can't afford an international plane ticket. You know, they're not like gonna come to the US to to get a shot. I. I would like to advocate that we take these extra vaccines and we ship them to the developing world. Yeah. They should go South of the border for sure. For sure. Yeah. And by the way, we're doing a much better job vaccinating people than Europe. I mean, it's unbelievable that COVID is spiking in Europe right now because they've been so incompetent at getting people vaccinated. Well, they're issue was they didn't want to put water in shockingly incompetent shock. Canadians and the Europeans said we want you to prove to us that vaccine works before we put our order in. I don't think it's that, Jason. I think. I think, Jason, like I think that. Like sometimes I think over the last 40 years there's been two polar opposites of governing people. One is what I would call the autocrat and the other is what I would call kindergarten soccer, where when the ball, no matter where the ball is on the on the soccer field, every player on every team is surrounding it. Yes. And so as a result, no progress is here. Progress is bursty and unpredictable and sometimes not great. But it can happen. And this is where like, you know, so like. I mean, we are. I'm I'm still shocked at the lack of scientific rigor and understanding by these people. And so how could you have an entire Western set of countries who are theoretically not stupid be in this situation in April of 2021, knowing what we know? Yeah. Well, how's, how's, how's Brexit, how's Brexit looking now? Because Britain, because Britain is like, is almost fully vaccinated. There are COVID numbers are coming way down. And then the British variant, the British variant, it started in the UK, is spreading like wildfire across Europe because they're too bureaucratic. To get everyone vaccinated. So, I mean, Britain is looking really good by comparison right now. And I mean did out of kindergarten soccer. Yeah. And and by the way, this is just to tie back to the infrastructure for a second. I don't have a problem with infrastructure if the investment's gonna be spent wisely. But how much of us trust the government to spend the money wisely as opposed to on pork barrel spending and wasteful projects and taking too long? We have the Bay Bridge in San Francisco. The original Bay Bridge took two years to build and then the. The repair of it took 17 years where they did like the the upgraded version and that's the problem we have is that nobody really trusts our government anymore to allocate this money wisely. Just to give people an idea, doses administered per 100 people, 39. Well now 40 for the US and Israel's 114. Obviously, there's two dough shots. And Spain, 14. Italy 14, Canada 12. Mexico for my mom, who's almost 80, just got her first shot, which I think is inexcusable. Justin Trudeau, if you're listening, disaster. That's just. I just think that's unacceptable. Unacceptable. She's 79 years old. It's unacceptable. God, I mean, literally these politicians, these politicians and bureaucrats designed this complicated system to prove that they're helping people. It's just like new sentence or equity points. It's this, it's this where all they do is get away equity. That's the world equity. The red the red light should go off and you should run far away from whatever comes after. We're going to solve an equity problem we see. Infra efficiency. Let's let's go. Yeah. Alright everybody, we'll see you all next time on the all in podcast. Love you guys. Love you, bestie. See you tonight. See you tonight. See you tonight. Love you. Chip in a chip. Chip with someone that bring us someone at sax. Crafty poo money. Come on. Yeah. Buy in. Come on. What? We we won't play PLO. We'll keep it to hold them. Yeah, we we we know if you fly up, if you fly up for the evening, you're gonna be just fully committed. You know you're gonna be playing, right? Hold a moment. Yeah, you're you're right. I'll, I'll come in tilted because I'll be negative jet fuel. Yes. Let's go for a coin toss. How about if we cover it? We'll just do a flip and we'll cover it for you. We'll cover your jet fuel. Boy, that's not a no. I didn't hear that. Somebody's someone send text and tell her to kick him out of the house tonight. Let your winners ride Rain Man David Sack. We open source it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it. Thank you. Besties are gone. My dog taking out your driveway? Ohh 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, but they just need to release them out. Beat, beat. See what? Where did you get mercies? I'm going.