Industry veterans, degenerate gamblers & besties Chamath Palihapitiya, Jason Calacanis, David Sacks & David Friedberg cover all things economic, tech, political, social & poker.
Sat, 11 Apr 2020 01:54
Follow @chamath: https://twitter.com/chamath
Follow @jason: https://twitter.com/Jason
0:01 Jason & Chamath catch us up on their quarantines
1:20 Chamath intros David Sacks
4:40 David explains what their poker group chat has been like since COVID-19 started, and how Jason, Chamath & himself fall on the optimistic/pessimistic spectrum
6:58 How have the past few months defined David's view on the world, and what is his reaction to the US government's response?
12:22 Did the US health apparatus do its job? How could it improve? Why aren't masks already mandated?
19:33 Culture clash between scientific experts & entrepreneurs, thoughts on Chloroquine as a treatment method
27:00 Are US bureaucrats taking the intelligence of US citizens for granted? How liable is Trump?
30:08 David gives his plan to reboot the economy: what now? How does the US avoid a recession/depression?
36:22 Chamath & Jason assess David's plan
43:21 Have the stimulus packages & SMB loans been enough? Will the trickle-down approach work?
49:21 Should the US be allowing companies to declare bankruptcy? How should they decide who gets aid and who does not?
52:02 Chamath explains how corporate debt works through the lens of Ford
56:42 Why is the US not giving a larger % of the stimulus to average Americans? Chances of unrest if quarantine continues?
1:02:17 Trump vs. Biden: who has the edge in 2020 right now?
1:11:24 Was Jack Dorsey's $1B donation the strongest move of 2020 so far?
Alright everybody, welcome to episode two of the All in podcast with Jason and Chamath. Some basic ground rules here. If you're not into speculation, you don't like to debate, you don't like to question authority, and you don't like to get a **** ton of inside information and actually turn the podcast off right now and go download the daily from the New York Times or All Things considered, or some other ********. But we're here to do speculating and talking about inside information and the real deal with me, as always, my co-host Chamath Palihapitiya. If you don't know how to pronounce it, Polly. Papa Tia chamath. How you doing? You holding up OK? I am doing fabulously well. We are in week four of our lockdown, sheltering in place here. You're losing your mind. I'm not because I'm fortunate to be in the suburbs. I think if I was cooped up in a in an apartment in the city, I would feel a lot worse than I do right now. But there's a lot of fresh air. The weather's finally turned. It's not raining as much. So we get to see the sun a little bit. Makes a big difference. Yeah. Can you imagine 1520 years ago, holed up in an apartment with three kids who are home from school? Like these people who are in a city, they must be going insane. I mean, there's so much value to visiting New York, but if you're stuck there in a in a quarantine lockdown, I've. I don't know what I do. All right, well, we got a great guest today. Why don't you introduce our guest jamath? Well, we are really lucky here. This is a person who I've known now for. I don't know, maybe. 1520 years. What I would call him is one of my best show ponies. I have ridden this ************ up and down in everything he's done. He has made me so much money. It's like owning the publishing rights. To the YouTube back catalogue. This is how prolific this guy is. It's like owning The Beatles back catalogue, right? You're like Michael Jackson's backlog. You bought the so David Sacks though? No, all kidding aside, David Sax is one of the most incredible people that we know. One of our closest friends. Big bit of a background on David. He almost became a lawyer, but dropped out of law school. After going to Stanford and worked with Peter Thiel at PayPal and was the Chief Operating officer there, left PayPal. Moved to Los Angeles, unsuccessfully kept his virginity. Found a way to not *** **** as a movie producer in Hollywood, which seems to be impossible, but he David found a way of doing it. Produce the movie, but one of the best known movies of that generation called Thank You for Smoking. Then moved back up here, started Genie, pivoted, started Yammer, sold that for more than a billion dollars to Microsoft and became during that time, frankly one of the most unsung heroes of company founders and was a prolific investor in some of the most well known iconic businesses of this last generation, Airbnb, Uber, slack. The list goes on and on and now is the co-founder of Craft Ventures, which is essentially David's early stage venture business where he. Helps a lot of really great companies get to the next level and frankly, the level that he's been playing at for a while. Despite all of that, again, I just see him as a show pony, some money printing machine. If you if you can get in on that fund, if you can get in on those companies, you're going to do well. Sacks is an operating machine. Welcome to the program, sacks Davidson. Welcome to the pods. Thanks for having me. How are you holding up sacks? Just personally, family, everything companies just generally, uh, psychologically, how is this impacting you? You know, I think. We're we're we're all fortunate to be safe and you know we we started paying attention to to to the virus I guess on in February because of Twitter Tech. You know there are a bunch of people on the tech ecosystem who started tweeting very alarming things and. In February or even going with sore back is like January 30th. And I didn't know for sure if they're right, but some of them were friends of mine and so if you were to get seriously and we started doing work from home I think on March 1st and. We've all been kind of self isolated since then and fortunately everyone has been safe and you know, holding it pretty well. Saxy, Poot, tell tell everybody on the pod. Our group chat and. Basically what it is, what we do on that group chat and what you think about it. Yeah. So I mean basically our our poker group and sort of extended poker group which is about. I don't know. It's funny about 20 players who rotated in and out of our poker game. We have a chat group and we used to just talk about cards and stuff like that. But but very rapidly it became a a place to share information about the virus and their response and what was going to happen. And the remarkable thing is that whatever we talk about ends up becoming like it's like everyone else's figures it out about a week or two later. And I think it has helped to stay about a week or two ahead of the curve on this thing. Has it? Has it generally. Been mentally reassuring or has it amplified your anxiety talking about it all the time in that chat? Umm. Well, the interesting thing is that we have people in that chat who are very optimistic that people are very pessimistic. We have people in between and then we have people who swing around quite a bit. And so I think you get like all the perspectives and I think I guess my view of of the future is that very hard to try and figure out what's going to happen. You have to think about it in terms of scenarios. And so the, you know, the chat group helps, you know, understand like what those scenarios, you know, might look like. So where would you describe each of us? Then on the positive, negative and then swinging you're you're in which camp are you swinging? So so I think there's three basic scenarios are VU, and and L. And Jason, I would describe you as as as as a V. I think Jamath is closer to EU which is the most pessimistic. Sorry, the L is the most pessimistic and then EU is sort of sore in between and. I I sort of swing between the you and the L but but I also understand the case for the VA and and and and those initials really refer to the shape of the recovery to common. How quickly will will come out of this. So, David, before we drill down into your beliefs on the future, let's talk about the past. What do you think this entire? Episode. Has shown us whether it's from a public health perspective or an economic perspective. But how would you summarize your view of the world as it's been revealed to you in the past two months? Umm. Yeah, I mean, I think that. What? What? What it really should. You know, we live most of our lives during, you know, these relatively calm periods, and then our lives get redefined by these, you know, apocal events. And and, you know, we're not really wired for this, this rate of change. I think it was Lennon who said something like there. There's some decades when nothing happens and there's some weeks where decades happen. And and I think that that's basically what what's happening here. And it feels like, I mean a little bit the last thing that was like this was was was 911 where, you know, you woke up that morning, saw the the Twin towers coming down on TV and you realized that we were now in a different era. And something like that's happening here as well, just in in slow motion. What do you think the government did right and what do you think that the government did wrong? Well, I mean. You know, limiting the flights in from for Wuhan or China was a good initial step. But after that it seemed like the response was very slow and and and sort of disbelieving and kind of incredulous and and and we've seen this basically everywhere. The initial response of just about every country, with a few notable exceptions in in Asia that had previous experience with SARS, but but what we've seen in just about every country is that nobody believes it's going to happen to them. Until it happens to them and then. Even in the United States. You know, it's, it's, it's it's like no one believes it's going to happen in their city until someone in their social network gets gets the virus and then all of a sudden they take it seriously. And so there's always been this, like it's like this slow moving train wreck where you see it coming and people are just a little bit too slow to react. And you know, the problem is it's all about the doubling time. So if the virus double s, you know, every two or three days in the absence of any action at all, maybe even double s every day in a in a very density. New York City just waiting two or three weeks can make 1000 X difference in, you know, somewhere between I guess 10X and 1000 X difference depending on the doubling time, whether if you wait two weeks or three weeks. I saw an article on there's a bunch of articles now talking about why has New York been hit so hard in California? Has been relatively mild and and the articles were saying, you know, California only declared shelter in place one week. Ahead of New York. How can it be doing so much better? And they're looking for all these different causes and explanations. And you know, even one week makes a huge difference if in New York, NY's been hit about 12 times harder than California, but if the doubling time is just two days. One week is a 12X difference. That's how the explanation exponentially works. And so, like being at a a week by, you know, or two weeks or three weeks behind the curve is incredibly costly. How do you breakdown local government versus federal government and the action there? And is America's architecture, which states rights and powers a benefit in this case? Or is it a negative because we did see the blue states take it very seriously, the red states take it less seriously. The red states have a lot more distance between individuals, the blue states than to be coastal cities that are more dense. Maybe you could handicap for us. The the spread of the virus, with the layer on top of it of local governments and the political climate we're in. Yeah I think you know the the the decentralized nature of the American system is both a blessing and a curse in this in this type of situation the the curse is that it's been very hard to create a unified national strategy we're we're doing lockdowns piece meal and and so that the lockdowns get forwarded as people move around between areas that are not locked down and start new outbreaks very hard to control the virus that way you know we're also you know we're we're also not able to act. In in the in the authoritarian way that that we saw China act in Wuhan to control the virus for early on, but the blessing of decentralization is that it's allowed. You know, the governors of states to react and it's allowed private companies to react and it's allowed entrepreneurs to react. And you see a lot of people helping in different ways and and and and and and that can be, that can make up for having kind of a, a more ineffectual centralized response which. Is it likely to to to work completely in a country the size anyway? Do you think that the health apparatus of the United States did its job, and where do you think the areas of opportunity are to improve? Well, the if you're talking about the health system, it seems like the the health system has done a great job in reacting to the virus in terms of. Hospitalizations, you know, hospital adding hospital beds, adding ICU capacity. Even in New York it looks like, I think Cuomo just said today that they've got, you know, ICU capacity, they've got hospital beds. I think the hospital system has done a great job rapidly creating more capacity. We haven't seen a situation like in Italy or even the UK where they're literally rational rationing ventilators and making horrible triage decisions about who's going to get a ventilator and who's not. You know, we haven't seen those types of horrors in in the US but but if my health system we mean the FDA, the CDC, The Who, which is part of the US system. But we do rely on them to some extent. You've just seen I think you know amazing. Really? Malpractice or negligence? If they're a pharma company, I think they'd be sued. You have to, you know, you have on the CDC website things that, I haven't checked it today but as of a few days ago were desperately not true. I mean, saying that you only needed a mask if you were actually taking care of a person with with with COVID-19 that that standing, say, a 3 foot distance was sufficient. For that, that was sort of an acceptable amount of social distancing, even if the other person is coughing or sneezing, and that's not true. They're just saying things that weren't true and then, you know, on on the. You know, the the the CDC and the surgeon general until basically the last few days were telling us that mask didn't work. We're an effective didn't. And then now they've they've they've flipped to recommending them, but they're still not required. And I just wrote a blog today that I published about half an hour ago that I thought the best part of that blog post by the way, it's up on medium and and Saxis tweeted and I retweeted it. David is what you said at the end, which is we're taking the most draconian. Measure quarantining people, which we use this softer term? Shelter in place, but it's a quarantine. Call it what it is. You're not allowed to leave your house except under rare circumstances. But we won't do the basic thing of wearing the mask. It makes no sense and chamath, I think you had a really interesting question early on here which I think we should all circle back on one more time which is what what does this reveal right like in this kind of a crises and I love the statement of sacks where you know some decades nothing happens and then a week you have a decade happen. The thing that I am I think is the big take away for me is handicapping who you can trust and what people's agendas are and how they behave in a crises because. There are a group of people building models and what is the motivation of somebody who builds a model? We think about we all get pitched as investors or when we worked inside a companies we build models and we know the models mean nothing. They're made by humans. And what's the motivation of somebody building a model in today's climate that then people adopt that model and there's life or death. What would you handicap? Would you go conservative? Would you go aggressive? Would you lean into people dying in the case of supporting the economy and so the. Because the model makers, there's the government, local and federal. You have the media who are trying to get clicks. In some cases. You have a capitalists who are trying to, you know, protect their book and their bets. How do we all look at and think about people's agendas and like the CDC having an agenda, the local government and the model makers having agenda, maybe you could take that one. Yeah, I I think that the masks issue is actually the most instructive thing. In this whole debacle, and the reason is that there was pretty obvious data very early on that it was. Something that had. Unknown, but pretty useful upside and absolutely 0 deleterious downside, right. So if you were thinking about risk management and I gave you some options, option one is do nothing. Option two is here's some drugs that you can take prophylactically and I don't really know the either the efficacy or the long term damage to a broad based population of people taking them. An option three was a piece of cloth over your nose and mouth. Yeah, and for $0.10, and apparently at a minimum it prevents other people from smelling your bad breath, but at a maximum it prevents projectiles of of disease gladden spit getting into or death vapor causing you to die and and we couldn't agree that that was a why, why? Why is this was the agenda here because they didn't want people buying up the masks and not going to healthcare workers. Why couldn't we agree on something this simple? Because it was never about the N 95 masks. You could have worn a cloth mask it a T cloth could have covered it up and giving you 70% efficacy. This has everything to do with incentives and everything to do with your other question as well, which is like, you know how why do modelers behave the way that they do. All of this is about being taken seriously. And so to be taken seriously, you have to understand the incentives in the game that you're playing. So for a modeler and a forecaster, the incentive is all around being conservative because that's how you're taken seriously. There's nobody that has any upside. In showing a model that shows 10,000 people dying, all of the attention and the the gravity with which you're taken and the attention that you get is when you first put out a model that shows that 2 million people could die, which is what Imperial College did. And that eventually you walk it back and you walk it back and after the actuals. Exceed the forecasts, then the data converges on what actually happens, and you see that these models were woefully inaccurate. It's the same with why the CDC or The Who are just so completely incompetent. Because the incentives in those organizations are essentially to play their game, and that game is not one of public health, but it's one of politics, right? And so you have these people fighting each other over political territory and the right to basically make decisions versus the actual substance and the validity of the decision. David, does that. Does that correlate with your thinking and then superimpose the media on top of that? Yeah, I mean, it's, I think there's a couple of things going on. One is that that there is a huge culture clash going on. Between the people who need conclusive scientific proof before they're willing to recommend any course of action. And then between other people who are willing to take a more experimental approach, to try things to iterate the way that we do in startup land when confronted with kind of, you know, company existential issues. And and the latter approach is smart when you know there's a lot of upside in trying something and not much downside. You know, and and the and and and the the the the other approach of this sort of this scientific, the pseudo scientific sounding approach where you're constantly demanding conclusive evidence. It's actually people pretending to be smart, you know, as people who want to sound smart. But it's actually a pretty dumb approach and so we've seen this like culture clash playing out. Over and over again. You know, and so expert sharita Peter, back to you, David. Experts are afraid to do something experimental with low downside because they have reputations and they want to sound smart. Where's entrepreneurs? Or maybe capitalists or other problem solvers, or perhaps even gamblers are going to say there's no downside here. What's the downside to putting a mask on? Nothing. Let's try it. The same thing with chloroquine and the Z pack. Very early on, people were saying, like Elon and other folks in our circle. Why not just do it? Hold on a second. Hold on a second. Chloroquine. Let's not put that in the same category. OK. The point because it's a drug, Jason. Yes, it's a drug for malaria. OK, but you have on this, you have zero evidence. So no, no, Jason, of taking it if you were sick already. No, we still don't know, right? Let's be clear. OK. So masks is a wholly different thing. This is why I said it that way. If the minute you start to add drugs, you come off as a. Armchair epidemiologist and anybody reasonably smart can poke holes in your theory and you sound like a ******* moron. You cannot sound like a moron by telling people to wear cloth over their nose in their mouth. OK. But the next step, if you were in the hospital and you've been diagnosed and they said, hey, the doctor says, you might want to try this, there were people who were saying don't even try it. And there was a direct correlation. When Trump said he was behind it, it seemed like the media and everybody were like, this is the worst idea ever. But, but but this is your point, which is that the incentives of that game are to politicize things versus think about what's in the best interests in the public health interests of either the United States or the world. But are we in agreement to try it if you were, if you were? In the ICU. And they said, hey, you want to try this? You wouldn't try it. No. But this is the problem. It's like the posture of the American political infrastructure is broken, and moments like this shine a light on how broken it is because, as David said. All of the testing and iteration, all of those things are must haves in peacetime. They are nice to haves in wartime, right? You don't have a time to walk around and test fire a gun and make sure this works and that works. The enemy is in front of you, you shoot and you fire and you aim later. And in that posture we have to have a set of rules that contemplate giving people at the ground floor on the border of you know where their life is at risk, the right to make a decision as well informed as it can be. About what they can try to do to save their life. And doctors need to be equally empowered. And you know, we've effectively done that, but we just did it in fits and starts and in that. There is all of this noise that delays the right decision, which is not that hydroxychloroquine is good or bad, but it's that here's all the published data into the hands of the Doctor Who can actually read and understand it so that he or she and the patient can make a decision together. Yeah. Agreed. SAX, what are your thoughts on chloroquine? And the Z pack and and that whole sort of unraveling of this is the miracle. It's not the miracle. It's worth looking at and how that debate occurred, let's say, on the Twitter. And then also in our stream, when we were talking, well, Trump was not the first to embrace the potential of hydroxychloroquine. In fact, we were talking about our chat group before, you know, it became national news. Of course, once he did embrace it, it became a political football, and a lot of people want to prove him wrong. And so now it's hard to have a conversation about it without it becoming political. But the, you know, the argument for Hydroxychloroquine really started with some research papers that showed that it worked. In vitro basically in test tubes against the virus, and it worked against SARS. Yeah, which is a related sort of category virus, not an exploratory thing. This is just sort of me telling you what I know as a consumer of information. And so it was not crazy to think this is something that should be tried in the context of COVID-19. Now we don't know if it's going to work or not. I saw an interesting presentation by UCSF and they're working theory on it, is that. Is a hydroxychloroquine plus Z PAC might have some impact in the first week of the virus when before peak viral replication takes place, and this might help interfere with the virus replicating. Once you're in respiratory distress. Distress though, it's in your lungs. You have to you're into a different phase of this and and they don't believe that. Type you they they think you need to look at other things so so it sounded like this was potentially valid treatment and we one less effect in week two and you know by week three when you're in severe a RDS you know it's you got to find out the things so. You know, in terms of like what the right policy is, you know this, you know I'd be in favor of the right to try. I mean ultimately we should let patients and doctors make this decision together. And and so you know, I think the FDA did the right thing giving emergency trial authorization to doctors to be able to try this with their their patients. And and what I think is happening is, is that there's you sort of rapid. Decentralized information sharing happening among doctors and hospitals and you know, I think they're, they're getting to the right answer here. OK. Do we, do we feel comfortable moving on to financial implications of this or are there things about the modeling? On on upside, Downside, I agree with Jamaat that I hydroxychloroquine is a little bit more complicated. Mass are sort of the really unambiguous one because it's just so easy. There's so little down just cloth. It's cotton, right? You literally could put a bandana on your underwear. You could use your own underwear and just put it across your face. I mean, this is what's so insane that David's right. I remember having this argument with someone because on the CDC website, as David said, it would only recommend it. Not as a preventative measure for you, but if you are old you should use a mask only if you were treating somebody with COVID-19. And there's such an element of these authorities trying to manage us. You know, I, you know, I I really hate that that. I mean, I do think that that they thought about will we create a run on mass? Well, you know that that that they don't want to tell us the truth because they're afraid of some of the consequences of telling us the truth. And, you know, I hate that feeling of being lied to by public officials because they're trying to manage. I'm willing to be infantiles by people that are smarter than me. Yeah. So can you give us a list of the four people you think are smarter than you? Go ahead, chamath given, I am not. Who are those four people filed by nameless bureaucracies? And I think that Americans deserve to not be infantile. I mean, for the amount of money that we pay and the amount in taxes and the amount of power that we give folks. The one thing that I'm realizing through this whole thing is like, you know, the IT it. It is true in some respect that the countries that had some level of authoritarian management. Did well, but it's also true that the countries that had robust civil services filled with people who are at the top of their class also did well. Singapore, South Korea, where it is a stature, it's a point of pride to work for the government where it's some of the best jobs. Japan and and so, you know, one of the things that that I realize is like career bureaucrats. Really do infantile Americans in a way that's really unproductive and and and unhealthy. I mean, you know it doesn't it surprise you and kind of like perturb you that the ex head of the FDA is way more prominent and out front with his point of view than the current head of the FDA? I mean, what the hell is going on? I think what we know is going on is, I mean, Trump was elected and he he he dismantled some of this and the system was broken. I heard it, I think, no, I think that that's unfair. And, you know, I'm, I'm, I'm not, I'm not a big Trump supporter, but I think it's unfair to pin it on him. The reality is maybe he defunded or underfunded a bunch of things. But the hollowing out of our institutions have been happening for 40 years, and it started with Reagan. To be clear, because we tilted the scales towards free market trickle down economics where government was viewed. As a stop for really smart people to inject themselves into industry at higher levels. Or it was a place that's, you know, capable people would never go because capitalism, the way that it was structured, was set up in such an aggressive, tilted manner for those that were capable. And unfortunately, it hollowed out the government from people that were really strong of character in a broadly speaking kind of way. And So what happens is that then bureaucracies form, the incentives change. And you get what you've gotten right now, which is again. It is a. It is a point of argument on something as simple and frankly idiotic as a mask. OK, let's move on to talking about the economy and. David, you've been quite a heretic, uh, on Twitter, because you decided to engage in the one conversation you're not allowed to have, which is talking about people's livelihoods as opposed to their lives. You can only keep one thought in your mind. As far as the kind of woke far left is concerned and the Twitter mobs, you could only talk about people in life and death. You can't talk about their livelihoods, but you've been talking and starting a dialogue on. How you would structure teams in a startup for how do we deal with the crisis versus how do we go back to work? So explain how you would do this if this was a startup company, if you were doing it on an entrepreneurial level and what you think the road looks like. Let's start with San Francisco Bay area and then we'll extrapolate to the most acute area in America, New York. Yeah, well, the, the, the, the big question that everyone's going to be asking by the end of April is what, now? Because I do think you're already seeing this in the New York data. That quarantines work. But that shouldn't be a total surprise to us. Historically, quarantines have always worked. I mean, quarantines were the way that people dealt with plagues when they didn't have any technology. It's the problem. It's just they're incredibly costly. And if the quarantine goes on for months is our only way of dealing with the virus then. You know, we could be looking at the depression. So the question really is, you know, once we've. Arrested the exponentially of the virus and I I you know I think we have to do that first but once we've arrested the exponentially the big question is going to be and how do we get out of this and what I worry about is that the the daily update mentality. You know I think it's great that our leaders are giving us these daily updates showing that they you know they're showing a bias for action which I think is good but I worry that we're not going to be ready if that this precious time. That we're buying with quarantine is not going to lead to a better plan in May because no one's really working on that plan. They're just working on sort of the the triage, the immediate response, the making sure that that, you know, hospitals around the country have the ventilators and beds they need, and we put in the order. Why is it, David, that people can't keep these two parallel processes in their mind at once? You've been attacked viciously on Twitter. The media attacks anybody who brings us up as, like, only caring about capitalism. And in fact, you need to do both plans. You need to figure out how people get back to their livelihoods. And we avoided depression, which would kill more people ultimately, right? I mean, I think there's consensus about that, whether it's depression or suicide, etcetera, or people not being able to feed themselves or, you know, have nutritious food and healthcare, so. Why can't people put these two things in their mind at once? And then let's talk about the actual plan. If you were planning and you were the mayor of San Francisco or you were in Trump's cabinet and they said, OK, David, you make the plan for the Bay Area to go back to work, take us through your 123, and then we'll throw it to them. What what I would do is like I would do what I would do in a company for a product release is I'd have, you know, in a company I'd have a product manager for the one dot O release and I've had different product manager for the 2.0 release because it's very hard for, you know, somebody to be all in on two different leases which have two different schedules. So you know, I think the team that we have right now that's basically concerned with the immediate response, the the triage that you keep doing what they're doing, make sure that you know the country is reacting the right way that has all the supplies. Any that, you know, they're berating 3M into giving us more PE or whatever it is. But I think that there should be a separate team, kind of a, A, you know, Azar, for the 2.0 response, which should be focused on how do we create a new system that gets us out of lockdown but doesn't retrigger the exponentially of the virus. And I think that that person, that team should be ready to slide the new system into place in May. I don't know if it's beginning of May and may or whatever, but sometime in May these be ready to slide that new system into place so that this precious time we're buying isn't wasted. Give us your 1231 is masks. Obviously, I would think mass is a total no brainer. So that's number one. Give us your 234 if you want to riff here a little bit. Yeah, I mean the other elements of the plan that people keep talking about, it's it's, you know, rapid, ubiquitous testing. I mean you have and you have to have same day results. This business of it taking two 3-4 days in the lab. The problem is if someone is infected, they could be passing it on during that time. You don't, you don't, you don't isolate them in time. So we have to have massive ubiquitous same day testing along with contact tracing so that when you do find out that somebody's got it, you can not isolate not just them, but all their contacts. That's the system that seems to have worked in South Korea. Umm. And I mean those those seem to be the, the, the, the the pillars and and it's quarantining the high risk. During this first phase of the rollout with testing social distancing and masks, that's that seems to be the no brainer, I would add 4th bullet point, which is if you're obese, diabetic, asthma or some combination of those and over 60 and or over 60, you got to stay home now and you cannot be in touch with anybody who's out and about and part of that first wave to go back to society, right. We we know that certain segments of the population are at much higher risk than than others. And so part of having a more fine-tuned response to the virus other than just shutting everything down would say, well let the people who are at very, very low risk go back out still wearing masks and having the right protocols and hygiene and all that, all that stuff but. But but you keep the high risk population isolated rather than showing down the entire economy. Alright, chamath, if you're on the board of Directors and David was the star of the May plan to go back, Umm, how would you? What questions would you have for him and how critical can you be of his plan? Let's make this as if we were actually in charge. Tumath savage. David's plan. Well, I I I I probably would push David to consider. A more aggressive approach here, and this is something that I've talked about before. Jason, you and I have talked about this on the podcast before, but we need a Biological Patriot Act. Know that it's unpalatable for people on the left for certain reasons and people on the right for other reasons, but it just doesn't matter what they think. It was reported today, by the way, that the CDC and the task force at the White House is considering immunity cards, but a much more beefed up version of them. They these these need to be cards that have you know. Some kind of chip inside them that are non hackable and issued by the government. But you know my what I would push David to think about if he was the czar of getting back to work is the following. Which is I agree with the broad based testing. I think that you need to have some kind of you know wristband that allows you to be inside of certain green zones inside in in every single city or town in the country that allow you to. You know, some way be back to normal, but there also needs to be red zones where you cannot. We need to have a very, very quick way of restarting a quarantine if there are hotspots that develop, but all of it needs to be supported by broad based testing and a Biological Patriot Act. We do need to have immunity cards and. The simple, basic reason is that it is the only way that one can prioritize the economic salvation of the US economy. Because I think once we have paid the cost. From the public health perspective, which we are doing at the end of this quarantine in flattening the curve or crushing the curve? Our immediate focus has to be in resuscitating the GDP of this country, because otherwise the number of deaths and the number and the amount of pain that it that is caused by economic destruction will far outnumber the number of people that die from this, which is tragic already. And the only way that I can see for us to do that in a scalable way is with an immunity card. Biological Patriot Act. So I would be pushing David to think about that and rip the Band-Aid off and get that done. And David, I would also push you on thinking about. Quarantining, not just at home, but maybe by region and hot zone. So if we know the New York corridor or the Northeast Corridor is severely infected, nobody in or out of that corridor without a visa without. And I know this is a very touchy issue, well, in terms of civil liberties, but until we're through this, I don't see why people from New York need to go to Florida without maybe a rare exception or, you know, something to that effect. Right. So if we know we got California out of it, or if so, Cal is still in the thick of it. Nor Cal isn't. Maybe we have some level of testing required to get on a flight to come to San Francisco or to go to leave New York. So those are two, two punch ups. How would you look at those, David, as the new star of getting back to work? I think it's all on the table. I mean I like the Green Zone, red zone idea. I like, I like using immunity information. We've been talking in our chat group for I think a month about these blood serology tests. I tweeted I took one of those tests weeks ago, I think like three weeks ago before the FDA had even approved it and I I tweeted about it. So yeah, I think all that, I think the the immunity cards, I think we should use all that information. I mean it would all be on the table for sure and I but. But I think most of all these ideas need to be tied together into a coherent system. And I'm worried that our approach to date has been so ad hoc that we're not going to have a coherent system ready to go as a replacement to shutdowns in May when we need it. It's part of this. You talked before about how you didn't like to be managed. I think we all agree we're being managed and massaged because they really do not want to even talk to us. About going back to work in May or what happens because they're afraid that we're going to jump the gun and we're all going to just go to Crissy Field or, you know, whatever, park or Central Park and just throw a giant party. But people are not stupid. There's a there is a certain self preservation here that should be inherent in all these discussions, which is, you know? Any reasonable person watching the death toll in New York does not want to leave their house. And so why can't? Well, how much of the lack of discussion about this issue do you think, David, is because people are afraid to treat people like adults because they think they're gonna just go out to Crissy Field or, you know, Dolores Park? No, I mean, I I think you're right that there was this long period of time where the authorities were just trying to get everyone to buy into the idea that the virus was dangerous. They needed to shelter in place, and and they didn't want to to hear any. Use that. That that appeared to be contradicted. I don't think they were contradicting it. You know, I remember when the Imperial College study came, model came out and they said that 2.2 million people would die in the US and I tweeted that. I thought that number was insane. It was fear mongering and I think, you know, that's turned out to be the case. But you know, people responded well, well, good. I mean, even if it is fear mongering, we need to make people afraid because otherwise they won't do the right things. I guess that's true in a situation. In which we're relying on everyone's voluntary compliance to engage in a quarantine or to wear masks. And I guess part of the response here is to figure out what what, what action items should not be voluntary that we just need to do in order to get past this. I think that getting back to work is going to be much, much more difficult than people think. I think that. In the absence of a vaccine, which? Looks like at best, 18 to 24 months from now we will never get to 100% of where we were before or at least the potential to be at 100%. And so I've just think that over the next two years we're in for a tremendous amount of difficulty and this is sort of where, you know, I'd like to shift the conversation. I think that, you know, we've now poured between the United States government and the Fed. Almost $10 trillion. We smeared it into the economy and only three cents of every dollar has gone into people's pockets. And I think we're hoping that the other $0.97 somehow trickles down into their pockets in some way shape or form now when you look at that $0.97. Half of it was, you know, things like propping up the commercial paper market, propping up the repo market. But it's also been things like propping up investment grade debt, propping up high yield debt. And I have a real issue with this because I think that if we're going to take two years to get back to normal, and I really do think it's two years because Jason. A lot of the fears that you expressed people will have as lingering doubts and will prevent them from being at 100%, which means businesses will not be at 100% until you can get an injection. And know that you're protected. We're doing an enormous amount of damage because we're taking trillions of dollars in flooding it into the economy in a way that's just not going to be effective. And I don't think that we're taking enough time to really think through these things. So, you know, on the one hand, while I appreciate the. Velocity or not the velocity of the intention, you know, like I think Jerome Powell's commentary I applaud, which is like, you know, he's saying all the right things, which is we will do everything possible. But the lending program to companies has been haphazard and difficult. But it did get started in three weeks and some people have gotten money in week four of this. I mean it's pretty incredible now, you know, the the, the numbers that I've read is that, you know, on average these loans are turning out to be sort of like, you know, in the 10s of thousands. And on top of that, you know, David and I talked about this in the group chat, but the math makes it so that you're better off furloughing or letting people go than you are taking PPP, which means that a lot of this money may never get taken. And so, you know, but again, all of that is still a small rounding error. We're talking about less than $0.10 on the dollar. Ninety cents of the dollar have gone into areas that will not really touch an average American citizen. And I think that's just fundamentally wrong because. The trickle down theory of all of this, you know, was started 40 years ago and we can see now that it doesn't work. David, any thoughts on the stimulus? Well, I think, I think what's happened is that we have a 30% hole in our economy right now. You've got, you know, like a 15% unemployment rate going to going to 25 or 30, maybe as high as that. We don't know yet. You've got a, you know, we think that GDP is going to contract and in the next quarter by 1/4 to 1/3. And so you've got this giant hole in the economy and what the the the Fed and Treasury are trying to do is plug that hole. For a period of time until they we can get through this, this, this health crisis and. And if the crisis only lasts a few months, maybe they can hold it all together. But I I do worry that if it lasts longer, it's going to slip out of their hands and and the result is going to be a cascade of of defaults and bankruptcies and and effectively a great unraveling of our economy. Yeah, I think that I think that though in fairness like this is where I think bankruptcy, it's almost viewed as a four letter word, but it's not. And in many ways the bankruptcy process could actually be the saving grace of American business in this moment. And the reason I say that is that it allows in a bankruptcy these companies to discharge a lot of the debt. And we could set up a mechanism where these bankruptcies could be done in a way where again, similar to taking PPP, you don't let people go. You know, a percentage of the of the CAP table must go to the pensions if they have them. A certain percentage of the CAP table must go to employees and then the remaining percentage goes to the secured bondholders. And so the existing equity holders and the unsecured bondholders would effectively, you know, not be made whole. But in that all the employees would be. And if you combine that with a Ubi program where you put look there in in the United States economy only $8 trillion. His wages? So, you know, we could do so much. If we had given every United States citizen their absolute salary of 2019 right now, we'd still have two trillion left to bail out companies. And everybody could take a year and get paid like literally have a year sabbatical and be well. I think what it really does is it guarantees the chances or it maximizes sorry the chances of a consumer LED recovery like the United States has never been an economic system that's been vibrant because of government spending or other things. We've always been vibrant because we've been consumer LED, it's consumer consumption and it's customers of companies buying products that they need or want that drive the economy forward. And if you think about our largest customer base, they are the US population and by guaranteeing their revenue so to speak. You actually allow them to then spend once they get out of quarantine, and you'll see them spend even in fits and starts in this way, you know, you could spend $500 billion buying a bunch of junk debt. I really don't see as a reasonably, you know, savvy participant in the markets how it actually helps anything. I think all it does is it saddles you and me and all of our listeners. With a bunch of toxic junk debt that eventually has to get sold by the Fed as David said in the grand unravelling and it would be more into the market. Would wouldn't it be more healthy, David, to allow a certain percentage of these companies, the weaker ones, to fail so that the stronger ones could then pick up those employees and there will be some stability? And I'm curious if you think that we're going to be living in a world where when people have speculated about this maybe some the individual consumer changes their perspective? And maybe people come out of this crises with a different worldview. I don't necessarily subscribe to this, but chamath you do. We've had this conversation. And so I'm curious, David, if you think the American consumer will forever change and maybe they upgrade their phone half as much, they, you know, spend less and and they basically live a more modest rural lifestyle. And people maybe stay out in Tahoe or Colorado wherever they went during this crisis where you thought, well, you're really talking about depression era values. And the the the problem is if we acquire those values via depression that that would be a pretty bad outcome here. So but yes that could happen. You know, I think where I agree with jamath is that I think that even though the the federal government, the Fed, the Treasury have a tremendous amount of firepower in a situation like this, it may not be inexhaustible. And we have to kind of pick and choose and prioritize who's going to get aid and and who's going to get bailouts. And right now it feels a little bit Willy nilly. You know and it feels like it it it under those circumstances the bailouts default to the people who are politically connected and powerful as opposed to the workers, the pension funds. You know the Main Street small business owner who's worked their whole life on a business and now all of a sudden is is underwater. And I think, you know it's it's it's going to be very hard to get the the the aid to the right people. Look. In the last four weeks, in the last four weeks, oh, sorry, in the last week, this is an incredible set. I apologize. In the last week, the amount of distressed debt in the US has quadrupled in one week to a trillion dollars. So as an example to David's point, that's much more visible to Jay Powell or to Steve Minuchin in the Fed and that the Treasury. Then, then it is that, you know. Thousands and thousands of nameless, anonymous small businesses. Who owns this is what can you give an example of what that debt would be for the listeners when you're stressed out? I mean, I mean, so, you know, I mean a, a fallen Angel today is Ford. So we we're not, we're not going to pick on Ford, but we're just going to point to it as a well known company. So this is a car manufacturer. They employ hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people in very important political states, you know? To Michigan. Uh, Ohio, I think. Tennessee, probably. But Ohio and Michigan, obviously critical States and they, you know, issue debt into the market to fund, you know, building factories or buying equipment. Who buys that debt? Pension funds by the debt, family offices by the debt. Hedge funds by the debt. Now those guys were giving out a coupon and they were paying let's just say four or five or 6% a year on this interest. But now because of all this economic uncertainty, people think that their ability to pay that back has gone way down. And so now they have to issue debt at much higher interest rates and the existing debt has a much lower credit quality. It's effectively like you having a credit card and you know, American Express calling you and saying, Jason, I think the odds of you. Paying your credit card balances have gone way down, so I'm increasing your interest rate to 24% from 17%. Yeah, and then I get another credit card to pay it off. And and so essentially what's happened is the Federal Reserve has decided to become that next credit card issuer. What could go wrong out of doing it for you? They're doing it for companies, but not for you. And the question is, is that OK? Well, at some level, companies like Ford should be saved because I think these are iconic businesses that employ hundreds of thousands of people, and they're critical linchpins in the economy, right, because they have a massive supply chain network. And, you know, they're really important for many other things beyond just the economics that they themselves represent. But there are better ways to help Ford. You could lend Ford as much money as they needed to meet their short term obligations, similarly to the way that the Federal Reserve would allow a bank to borrow from the from their window. And I think that that's a very reasonable approach. The question is really when the Fed then basically acts as a buyer of last resort and obfuscates the price of these bonds, and essentially is saying the American taxpayer will own these bonds. For the foreseeable future, if you think that at some point those bonds that you bought for, you know, $0.90 on the dollar. Are worth $0.90 on the dollar, then everything is OK. But if there's a chance that $0.90 goes to $0.70. The people that really eat that cost are us in the short term and our children in the medium. And I have a silly question. It's obviously not my wheelhouse. Corporate debt like this? Why wouldn't? There be a clause that if they didn't pay back that $0.90 on the dollar that the American government bought for it converts into equity in the company. It's a great question because the Federal Reserve has chosen. To go and essentially the equivalent of open and E*Trade account. And step into the markets by themselves and just buy. So they're buying bonds and they're buying individual bonds and they're buying indices that control or that, that have exposure to certain bonds. What they are not doing is going directly to these companies and negotiating essentially saying, I will give you 4 or $5 billion and what I want you to do is retire that old debt. And replace it with this new instrument. And here are the terms of this new instrument. the United States taxpayer gets, you know, 3% or 4% warrant coverage of the company. Yum, Yum. You know, you must make sure that the pension holders are made. Trainer, why wouldn't we have those closets? It's a basic blocking and tackling that, you know, seed funds have. David Sacks, what do you why is this not like, a no brainer? Well, I mean, I think we've got to get a good deal for taxpayers. I mean, Jamath has said, and I've heard Mark Cuban say it pretty eloquently, I even heard Trump say that we have to get a good deal for taxpayers. I just think that they're in such an emergency. They're not really taking the time to do that. They're, you know, they're, they're they're trying to do things they can do immediately. Yeah, the the forgiveness of these, of this money to me is the thing. I don't understand. Why is any of it forgivable? Why isn't any? All of it. Just, you know, a 10 year law or 20 year long loan that converts into equity over some tranches. But Jason, This is why if you're if you're going to haphazardly fire trillions of dollars out of a bazooka, why not give more than three cents on the dollar to average Americans? Why not put it into the pockets of every single bank account? You know? You know, who knows how much everybody made? The IRS does. And you know the IRS has a mailing address for everybody and the IRS either gets a check or mails a check to every single. Uh, taxpayer in the United States, which and they also have direct deposit for half of the people. And so you know, there's nothing stopping us from saying, well you know what? Why don't we do 10%, ten cents of every dollar. Why don't we do 15 cents of every dollar to Americans. I really think this is the way that you limit the amount of waste that's going to happen. So the the intention isn't wrong and we shouldn't castigate people for wanting to put money in the system as David said, to plug the hole. But. We can't be so haphazard as to not think about the moral hazards we're creating and try to fix them in real time. And so this 10 trillion has already gone out the door. But if the next trillion or two don't touch Americans, I think it's going to create an enormous amount of damage. We've only given people a few weeks of of a lifeline. And they need more. And you you can't tell companies that they can have effectively a limitless lifeline. But not the individuals because I do think at some point companies will find a way to get out of these loans and or break the covenants with not much repercussion. OK. I want to wrap with two sort of not doomsday scenarios, but I want to touch on politics and I also want to know in the chance that this quarantine goes on for May and June. In other words, San Francisco says, you know what, we're going to keep going and we're going to in New York says we're keeping going and we're talking about. That's just April being in quarantine, but may end or June and we're looking at June 1st or July 1st. What are the chances David that? People say, you know what? I am a free person. I wanna take my make, take my life into my own hands. I wanna make my own decision. I'm going out. I'm gonna go surfing. I'm gonna do this. And we have this social unrest. And how do politicians? Handicap that in this new world. I I think that could happen. I mean particularly among young populations who are not at risk as much you know for the the relatively younger healthier people who don't have comorbidity factors could say, look I've got a one in 1000 chance or you know or less of of dying if if even if I do get this and I'm just going to take that chance. But it's all the more reason why I think we need a strategy to get out of lockdown that already includes. The idea of letting out these these people who are at much lower risk and and isolates the people who are at higher risk and against the. You have anything to add to that chamath that kind of doomsday scenario or that eventuality? Well, I think that you're very right, Jason, that I don't think we're going to get out of lockdown until June 1st at the earliest. And I think that's in California. I think nuisance posture is basically that if April looks like the curves are decaying. It's gonna be mid-May to late May before he lifts this thing. I don't know if I can handle this. And but but it's it's also important that that we understand like you know we just talked about companies the only entity that's in even worse shape than companies and people are States and cities and counties. Yeah their debt is incredible. They have no revenue and massive revenue, massive costs and their nonprofits and think of the the, you know, the garbage collector, the fireman, the police officer, the teacher. These are like, these are the backbones and the pillars of our. Of its community. It's such a good thing that we were so resilient and we thought ahead and built up massive surpluses in our tax bases. Ohhh, wait, we didn't do that. Well there, there were, there were some provisions to do that these rainy day funds, but those are gonna get exhausted and you know, we're going to have to build those guys out as well. So this is what I'm saying, which is that when you're pumping in trillions of dollars haphazardly into the capital markets before you think about people or you think about the States and cities and communities in America. I just think it's a recipe for disaster. Let me ask this even more simply, David, under what circumstance would you be? Willing to go back to our poker game on a Monday night and have 6-7 of us around a table sharing a meal and playing cards for six hours. Well, if there was, if there was a a treatment for for the virus so that you knew that if you got it you weren't gonna die, that would be a big deal. OK, that's that's obviously after that. After that there's a Russian LED aspect to the virus right now or even if your odds are low. You know, you, you, you you still don't want to take the chance. I think the next thing that would probably help would would be that if we had this rapid, ubiquitous testing so I could know that the people who are in the room with me. We're all tested, we're all tested and we're all negative. And you know, they could repeat the tests on a frequent enough basis that we could all trust in the result that that would make a big difference, I think. All right, let's wrap with politics. All of this is occurring in an election year. Bernie is out of the race. Biden is doing a daily webcast. Trump's ratings are through the roof as he is more than willing to let us all know in his abhorrent. Narcissistic way that his ratings are just tremendous right now in the middle of. Thousands of Americans dying a day, uh, but we have to touch on this because elections are how we govern and make these decisions is by who we put into these positions. So. What do we think? And let's just make odds here. Odds that Trump wins again. Odds that Biden wins. If you had to lay the odds, if you had to give it a percentage or you want to set a line. What, what, what do you what are your thoughts, David? Umm. I I always think that these things are basically a coin flip. I mean this far out. I mean right now it seems like, you know, Trump's ratings have never been higher. He's polling relatively well and and Biden just seems completely irrelevant. But if we're still dealing with the virus by November, if we've cycled in and out of lockdown, if we have kind of an unresolved situation, if the economy is in a very, very deep recession or depression, I think, you know, it's it's up for grabs. Chamath I think that if if there is a V shaped recovery of any kind. Trump will win in a landslide. Right now we are in a V shaped recovery. The market has come back. Oh, we're not. No, we're not. Well, if you use the market as market. Now the market is, the market is completely decoupled from Main Street and So what Wall Street does is irrelevant right now. What I mean by recovery is what happens on Main Street, OK? Because if you have 1617, 2020, 2% unemployment. You could feel the prancing dog and he'll beat Trump. Yeah, so I think that. The President needs a massive victory here. So what does the game theory say? The game theory probably says that. He'll try to force people to go back to work as quickly as possible. And if there's even a modicum, a shred of evidence on some kind of, you know, therapeutic, they'll, you know, drum it up like it's like it's a cure and try to confuse people that there's a vaccine. But I think he needs that because in the absence of that again, I just go back to how difficult will it be to start real life? I think it's going to be difficult, and I think in that. People won't have a lot of patience for the fact that, you know, the debt will have ballooned, deficits will have ballooned, trillions of dollars will have gone out the door, and people will be meaningfully struggling going into Election Day. I don't think that that helps Trump at all. And, you know, by the way, and we'll talk about this in our next podcast because we should probably get an economist to talk about it. But, you know, what is putting $10 trillion or whatever the final number is, it'll probably be 20 trillion. You know, one one times. US GDP. What does that do to the economy? What does that do to long term inflation? Like if you've seen what's happening, didn't know what Japan did and they went through a lost decade or two. No, I I think the best better example is what happened in China, which is a combination of fiscal and monetary stimulus in 2009 and 10 and the results are basically a lot of fake growth and massive inflation. And so, you know, it's it's probably useful to debate that in the next, in the next pod. What, what are the chances? I think it creates a lot of risk for Trump. What are the chances of a dark horse candidate you are in in on the 00. So it's Biden for sure. Yeah, it's my chance versus Trump, barring a Biden health emergency. I mean, yeah, I mean, he is, yeah, he's, you know. Not a spring chicken. So. So either person either person gets coronavirus, it could be. Yeah. Well, no, I look if anything happened to him. Yeah. Yeah. Look, we shouldn't even talk about these possibilities. So I don't want to sound like, you know, it's not like no one wants this to happen. But I. Look, I think Jamath is right. They're not gonna replace the head of the ticket absent, you know, some something health wise happening. What is your game theory, then, on how Trump will play this? Because. In Chamath mind getting back to work earlier. Makes it seem like we're getting back to normal. And he did that. But a politician might also say, you know what? I think there's a chance that the 2nd wave so I want to keep it closed until June or July 1st and then time it and I know this sounds incredibly cynical that are a elected official would make health and economic policy decisions on their reelection but that is the reality we live in is it not sure. Of course I think the next big political debate is is going to be around this what now you know we yes the quarantines have arrested the exponentially the the the virus but now how do we get out of them and. And you know, Trump's gonna have to make a decision about when and and how we get out and he's going to be eager to to get out of lockdown to to restart the economy. But on the other hand if he mistimes it and we cycle you know the virus then takes off again and we cycle package on the other lockdown that's that's very dangerous for him politically, too. So he he's got a needle to thread there. I agree. I agree with Jamath that if if this ends up being V. Date. Trump is a shoe in. But if it ends up being a recession, deep recession or depression if we end up, then I think the question is gonna be, does he appear to be more in the is he or is he a Hoover or is he more in the holder of an FDR? You know, and explain that for people listening. Well, I mean so. So Hoover took, took the blame for the Great Depression. FDR gets elected in 1932. We're still in the Great Depression in 1936 when he gets reelected, you know, and. Because he's seen as as a as a mayor of action he does these fireside chats and he's he's doing things and and I I do think that you know Trump kind of pivoted from initially being. Denier, denier. A little bit flat footed on the virus now doing these daily briefings and I think the American public is giving him credit for action right now. And so the so so obviously if those actions work I think he gets reelected and if they don't work the question is you know, does he get blamed for that? Is it is he a Hoover or is he an FDR? All right. On that note, I encourage everybody to wear masks, social distancing. And for those people in the audience who are startups and investors, keep keep the faith, keep investing, keep starting companies. Never a bad time to start a great company in my mind and chamath, any final thoughts? Here we are. It's a what is today's date? Is it? I know it's April. I think it's somewhere around the 10th. Am I even close? It's Friday, right? April 10th, let's, uh, let's just make a decision to be all in on masks. All the masks all in on masks. And take it into our own arms. We don't need to be told that these things make sense. They make sense. You're an idiot if you think otherwise. David. Closing any other thoughts? Totally agree with that. That was my blog today. We shouldn't have to make it the law, but I I think we we should because there's still people who aren't adopting it, but it's the lowest cost thing we can do. And if you look at the Asian countries have controlled the virus, every single person wears a mask when they go out in public. Every single person. It's a simple no brainer. Give people $1000. Fine. If you're not wearing a mask, give them a warning 1st and hand them a mask. Like literally the cops should have masks and they should hand them to say put this mask on and if I see you again, you get $1000. Fine. The, the, the, the. Post office should put one or a number of these and everyone's mailbox. This is the first step to having a more fine-tuned policy than just quarantine. And if we can't even get this right, then you know I I fear for what's coming next. If you there's a great execution idea. The mail carriers, every mail carrier leaves them and then you could also get the private sector. Do you tell every UPS FedEx driver the government gives them those masks? Amazon, Amazon, they just all have it. If Jeff bite, somebody clipped this and send it to Jeff. Jeff, if you want to do a mitzvah, uh, give all these masks to the drivers and just leave masks on everybody's doorstep and forget about Trump and whatever government officials going to drag their heels on it. Go ahead, you do it, Jeff Bezos. And hey, how great was Jack giving away a billion dollars? I mean, we saw him get barbecued on social media, but what a strong move, huh? And he's going strong. He put it in a Google sheet. It's like, here's the thing and made the sheet open. I mean, it's the strongest move ever. It's like, you know, everybody. You know, I've, I've always been very skeptical of philanthropy because I feel like it's, you know, a a dalliance of the established rich in North America because they like to have their names on things. And here's a guy who just basically poned all of that. I don't need a hospital with my name on it. I don't need a building with my name on it. Here's a billion dollars and here's a Google spreadsheet to track it, which means I'm going to have zero in, you know, overhead and running it. I mean, it's. It's so strong. It's literally like he the only thing that could be stronger is if he connected it to a stripe account. And like, as he as he swiped his credit card, it's just, it's just so strong. He should put a Zapier that tweets it. I mean, he has a Google doc which is set so that everybody could read it at all times. I mean, for a billion dollars, it's just amazing. You should start a slack instance with like each of those nonprofits having their own completely. By the way, he completely phoned the giving pledge in one fell swoop. Yes, the giving pledge, which nobody has any, it's pretty opaque. Now it's just curious. It's basically pretend you're gonna give your money away. We don't need to know how much. You don't really need to do it. There's no accountability, but we have this fun party once a year. We can all hang out. And, you know, how is the parties against each other? I haven't signed it. That's like the giving pledge. Yeah. So stupid. It's like the sign of insecurity. Saxy poo. Thanks for coming on the Pod, Rain Man. We appreciate it. Love you, sexy poo. We love you, sexy poo. Love you, jakal. Love you too, chamah bestie. See, we love you and everybody stay safe. Seriously. And I just wanted to close. Wear a mask. Wear a mask. And to those people on the front lines, the janitors, the Google, the Amazon drivers, Instacart people in the food supplies, you are the best. It's amazing what you're doing. Sacrifice. Get the money to them. Yeah, and I seriously give the Amazon. Let us tip those drivers in our get the money to them. For sure. Double the pay. OK. We'll see you all next time. Bye. Bye.