Listen to Episode

Read Episode Transcript

Pick up your phone, *******. Hello, sax? Yeah, I'll be ready in like 2 minutes. OK. I'm sorry. Let's go splash some water on your face. Take a couple of whatever you need. And let's go. We're waiting. I'll be there in 2 minutes. OK, hurry up. Is your chance to get Max air time. You listen freeberg's out. That means you're gonna get, by default, 33.3% of airtime. It's gonna be your biggest week ever. Let your winners ride. Man David. We open sources to the fans and they've just gone crazy. Queen. Hey everybody. Hey everybody, welcome to another episode of the All In podcast with us today. The dictator himself, Jamal, Polly Hoppity, and the Rain Man, David Sachs. I'm Jay Cal and the Queen of Kiwa. Quit the show. Where's that? Here? He quit the show, I think. I think he quit. So we're looking for a science person. If you know anybody, e-mail all science guy at the all in podcast.com if you want to apply for the science position here. No, he couldn't make it. He was moving. He's moving. He's moving. I guess we can say that without invading his privacy, but he's not going to be. We don't. We do a show anyway. He's so much going on, and I think we should start with this. Do we want to start with the COVID stuff again for the third episode in a row, or do you want to? China and then back into COVID. Ohh **** COVID. I think we should just do COVID quickly because I think, you know, as much as the audience complained about it, we got a lot of comments saying why you talk about COVID so much. We were ahead of the curve on predicting this whole new delta wave. You know, we told people what was coming. I think it was a useful service, so people might not want to hear it, but it was. I think I would say we're probably 2 weeks ahead of the national media. I think that we've gotten a couple things, actually, right the a couple weeks ahead of other people. Yeah, so. Yeah, I mean, it was pretty obvious that this was going to race through the places that had low vaccination. And having the breakthrough cases is. I don't think anybody anticipated that. And the thing we didn't over the last week on Twitter, I'm seeing this big debate on whether vaccinated people can spread the delta variant. And I'm like, guys, didn't you see the show 2 weeks ago? We covered this, I got it, I was vaccinated. I got it from someone who was vaccinated. This is no, you know, built a variant has slipped the vaccine. It's still prevents the most serious cases. Generally speaking, we need to see it as a spectrum of protection rather than completely binary. But. Yeah, absolutely. You can get it and pass it on if you're vaccinated. Like we know that. And we said we told the audience that three weeks ago. The other thing we predicted was, you know, that this is going to be incredibly disruptive and it's going to create another debate of lock and potential lockdowns and mask mandates. And most of all, we discussed and you know, we had a, I think, a pretty vibrant debate between all of us about under what circumstances does your decision to not get vaccinated impact everybody else. Visa V, the Petri dish of the next variant that's coming. Hopefully that'll be less. Deadly, less contagious, which is tends to be how these things go. But we also predicted some people are just going to start requiring vaccines, vaccine cards. And we we mentioned what's happening in France. And I don't know what examples you've seen this week. Yeah. I thought last week when you made vaccine passports, the main issue, I thought, well, let's put it this way, I think that was actually turned out to be great moderation because what has been the big issue all over the world since the last episode? Vaccine passports. You saw it with Naftali Bennett. In Israel, they are not taking any of this vaccine hesitancy. There's 9 million people in that country, 8,000,000 are vaccinated. They're telling the last million you gotta go get vaccinated. He has laid down the law saying enough is enough, a billion people have gotten vaccinated, it works. And for the last million of you who haven't gotten vaccinated, if you want to attend any function with more than 100 people, if you want to go to synagogue, if you want to go to a sports game, if you want to go to the mall, you have to be vaccinated or you're going to get tested. That day, at your own expense, everywhere you go it's gonna be so they're gonna make it a real pain in the *** until you get vaccinated. You then separately had Roger Goodell basically doing the same thing in the NFL saying to players you well first of all, all the coaches have to get vaccinated. There was an anti VAX coach who got fired and then they don't have as much power at the players because the players have a union. But Goodell said to them, listen, if you don't get vaccinated, you're going to get tested every day that you go to work and if. The team. If there's an outbreak on the team and you guys miss a game, you're going to lose all of your salary. We're not going to put up with. Apparently there's a game last year during the during COVID where it was a Ravens. The Steelers game, and half of the one of those teams there was the Ravens. Half of the first string was out with COVID or they were in isolation protocol because they're around players. You know, obviously if you're in a locker room, one player gets, everyone's going to be exposed, right? So it turned out to be like one of the the worst games that the NFL put on last year and get all saying, we're not going to put out a product like that anymore. If you are the reason why the team misses a game, guess what? You and all of your teammates are going to lose your salary and since there's only 17. Games in an NFL season, you're talking about real, real money. So you had Goodell doing that, and now you have Facebook and Google basically coming out saying in order to go back to the office, you have to be vaccinated. Now it's a little bit of the soft. It's sort of more of the the iron fist beneath the Velvet Glove because they are offering testing. So if you don't get vaccinated, you can get a test every time you go to the office. But unlike Israel, which is making you pay for it, you know, you know, Facebook and Google are so rich they're going to pay for it. So basically what you're seeing here is that. Government is not in the US is not required to mandate federal workers. Otherwise you have to get tested weekly. This is beyond now debatable. I think The funny thing is the Republicans, I think somewhere along the way realized, Oh my God, we're going to lose the midterm elections. They have found a way to find a single modality and behavior to steal defeat from the jaws of victory. You know, I think that the Republicans were probably trending to basically win back the House. And now I don't think that's the case. And you have a bunch of these RedState governors who are literally flipping their **** right now trying to figure out how to get their folks vaccinated. Many of these people may not even be able to vote come midterms because they're either going to be dead or still sick. I mean, it's it's a we've learned a lot and at this point you're being left with folks there again, there are people who do it for religious reasons. I get it. They're people that, you know, are going to sort of like live. Off the grid and live by themselves. I get them too. But the folks that want to be attacks on the system or use public resources, I don't understand. And they're basically going to get singled out and discriminated against. And the carrot and the stick method here, I think is going to work because we saw a bunch of people sign up to get vaccinated in France once they said, listen, you can't go to a cafe or a bar. And I think that a lot of the people who are not vaccinated are probably enjoying going out and having a life. Danny Meyer, the restaurant tour in New York from Union Square Cafe and Gramercy Tavern, one of the most famous restaurant tours of all time. Announced on CNBC this morning that he'll be requiring vaccines for all staff and customers. What do we think of that restaurant saying you've got to show a VAX car right away? And if I love it, listen to me. If I'm going to go in and I'm going to spend 2 or $3000 on wine and then a couple 1000 bucks on a tip, I don't want some ******* who's going to get me sick there. It's bad enough that I still may get sick. And and by the way, Danny Myers restaurants are not like, you know, *******. You know, a Red Robin. These are extremely high places. And so the idea that you can get a communicable respiratory disease and spend $5000 is ********. Untenable nonstarter sacks. I mean, listen, you, you've you is very interesting. Last episode I felt like you were. Really trying to balance your belief in freedom and people being able to make decisions themselves with, you know, the reality that we can't be close forever? How is the last week changed your thinking and what do you think of Danny Meyer? I I I like what Danny Meyer did in this sense. He wants to create a certain experience for his clientele and he knows that his clientele are more likely to go dine in his restaurants if there is a vaccine policy at his restaurants. He's not saying that policy for the whole country. He's sending it for his establishment. He has every right to be able to do that, and he believes that will help his bottom line and he's probably right about that. Similarly, Roger Goodell, same thing. I mean, he took a tough line because he knows that if he wants the NFL to put out a great product. Every week they can't be cancelling games because of COVID outbreaks. You know they can't have the first string players out with COVID. So he made a smart business decision. I think people should have the freedom, the right to do that now. I still have. Let's call it a reservation about government requiring it, not because I don't see the benefit. I definitely see the health benefit, but just because I don't like giving government the power to, you know, stick a stick, a needle in your arm if you're a government employee. I do think the government has added power. We talked about this last week. They can make it a job requirement. And you know what's interesting in California? California said if you're a state employee, you got to get vaccinated. But. The one group they singled out where the teachers because, you know, Gavin Newsom has no guts to stand up to the teachers union whatsoever. And I find it so ironic that early in the pandemic we had this big debate about whether the teachers would go back to school in the fall. And the teachers union said we won't go back unless we're first in line for the vaccine. Well, guess what? They got that. Now they're saying they're not going to go back if you make us get back to. I mean you can't win with and they're moving the goal posts. I mean, people over the whole post, they want to work from home. They. It's kind of ridiculous. That's one group that needs to do it most, and they should be the one. It's kind of like the army and teachers and healthcare workers. They should be given a mandate. If you want this job, you must be vaccinated. You cannot be in the army and the military and not be vaccinated because we need you in close quarters on a helicopter to go whack Osama bin Laden. We can't have a COVID outbreak in the Navy seals when we got to go. I'm OK with that, I think. I think every employer has the right to require it if they believe it's going to impact. Performance. Now I wanna go back to the point that Jamath made about the midterm elections. I, I, because I there's a part I agree with and a part I disagree with. So the part I agree with is that the Republicans were cruising to, you know, a midterm shellacking and now the the whole vaccine hesitancy issue. I think there was a prospect of that causing damage to the Republicans. Not because most Republicans are vaccine hesitant, but rather because Republican politicians. We're not out front enough on getting vaccines. But look, there's a difference between reality and perception here. Here's the reality. Every single Republican governor, every single one, has been vaccinated and has supported the vaccine. Mitch McConnell is vaccinated. Sports vaccine. Kevin McCarthy put out a statement. You even had the House Minority whip, Scalise, get vaccinated on on live TV. Why had he not been vaccinated? He already had COVID and he didn't actually think he needed, but he got the vaccine anyway. To basically double down. You had Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Come out and say that she was getting the Trump. She called it the Trump vaccine. Yes, please. If they put the Trump logo on it. Right. I mean, she understands, right? Like this is probably, you know, operation Lightspeed or warp speed or whatever was probably the biggest operation, operation **** ** the midterms. That's what the Republicans should call this. Yeah, well, so, so, so, look, I mean, they're Republican politicians in the main support vaccines. The problem is that they were being a little bit too quiet about it. As a result of that, you had the fringe people, the Marjorie. Taylor Greens and so forth. They were occupying too much airspace around this issue. And you know, frankly, you know, right now I think that I think the Democrats are going to keep those. I wouldn't. I wouldn't actually go that far, but because I I think that I think the Republican problem was not that their vaccine hesitant, but rather that they were just being a little too quiet about it. Yeah. But now I think that's changed. I mean there is not a single major Republican politician who isn't strongly in favor of vaccine if the Republicans can get their actual act together and actually get these, you know, and Jason does joke about it, but I do think he's right in a certain way, basically like this, this group of Republicans largely. Who refused to get vaccinated? Then they may be able to pull something out, but I think that it's going to have to require a little bit of backtracking and showing up, as you said, by the mainstream Republican. Political groups, and they just have not done a good job. There's a really simple offer in for them. New information, new strain, new approach. Listen, we didn't anticipate delta would happen. This is 10 times more. Allows people to say face. Basically, they can save face. You got a perfect offer. I'm. Listen, there's new information here. This thing is even the CDC hasn't officially changed their policy yet. I mean, it's coming, right? We know it's coming. They've always been behind the curve. We predicted the policy change on this show anywhere from 2 weeks to two months before they actually do it. But look, on the vaccine, I don't discern a difference in position on the vaccine itself between Republican governors and Democratic governors. They both are advocating it. They're both allowing private organizations to require it. But none of them, to my knowledge, have either had the the guts or the temerity, however you want to see it, to actually require it. Well, I love that word. Temerity. Temerity. Not, not really used. Not used enough. And just putting a cap on this before we move on to what's going on in China. We talked about implementing this and how do you implement it? Well, we don't need to have a national registry. People have vaccine cards. You bring your vaccine card, you show it. And then of course people go to well, what happens if you create a fact? Can anybody create a fake vaccine card? Yes, of course you can. But the FBI has put out a statement now because of Lollapalooza, the music festival. They are saying do not buy a fake vaccine card because if you wanna have no mask at Lollapalooza, you have to show your vaccine card. And they said the FBI is tweeting about this. It's illegal. It endangers yourself and those around you. And it's a federal crime that could lead to hefty fines and prison time. Oh my God. Yeah. So show us your papers. Just get the vaccine and just get the vaccine, folks. Why are we still dealing with that? Oh my God. Went to quickly becoming a Darwin award. This is quickly moving into Darwin award territory. We are. I talked to my doctor and I was like, I want to get the Moderna, or J&J, which one should I get? And they're like, you got the fizer already. I'm like, I want to take a second and like, I don't think that's going to make a difference. I was like, I think it's going to make a difference. When we got off the pod last week. And they're like, yeah, I was like, well, just give me the third shot of Pfizer, then they're like, well, that's not necessary either. I'm like, I don't care if it's not necessary. I want it. Give me the third shot of fives and then I open up Drudge Report yesterday and it's like third shot of vaccine Pfizer in Israel or whatever. They're just going to start giving people a third shot. Yeah, I just want to get ahead of the curve. And you're exactly right. But by the way, there's one other piece of news that came out that I think is very positive on, on COVID, which is the availability of these oral antivirals, the pills that you can take when you get an early case of it. Right. So it's like what they have for Tamiflu with the flu, like no one should ever die of the flu because Tamiflu is like completely effective at stopping it, provided you take Tamiflu early in the case. So I think that, you know, with the reduced effectiveness of vaccine, what we're going to have to do is supplement the vaccines and the boosters with home testing and then you know these oral antivirals so that you get you, you take a test, you discover you got COVID and you immediately get prescribed, you know, one of these, these pills in the pharma companies. Are coming out. There's like 3 different pharma companies coming out with these oral antivirals and a freeberg. We're here. He could tell us all about it. Yeah, Freeberg explained the science behind this. You know what? The science can go **** itself. Hey, Danny Meyer, chill a great bottle of white burgundy. Because I'm coming, baby. Let's go, baby. Vax and ready to go. Board, alright. The the China situation has been perplexing to me. You know my position was always be careful working in China or investing in China. We're investing in Chinese companies because they could change the rules at any time and change the rules they have in the past a year. We talked about obviously and financial and Jack Ma going, Mia Byte, Dance CEO and founder stepping down as CEO amid Chinese regulations and all the scrutiny. And then. We have DD last week. Being pulled from the App Store in an unprecedented penalty where you're not allowed to download DD and the existing users can use it. And then on top of that, all the educational companies this week were told that they cannot operate As for profit companies, and these companies have gone public in Hong Kong and in the West, and this has caused such an acute effect, SoftBank is clearing a bunch of its Uber position to cover their losses. Deedee uh and then there is the story of Larry Chan, who is a Chinese education entrepreneur. He was worth 15 billion in January. Now he's lost 99% of his net worth, according to Bloomberg. He founded Gautreau Tejido, or Tech Chido, which is a Chinese online touring firm. As we know, education is huge in China. That company's Gau peaked at $140 a share in January and has fallen to $3.00 a share. Big sorted story there, 10 Cent lost 100 billion in market cap in three days earlier this week as China's crackdown on what they called the monopoly and music right. So while we debate what happens with the monopolies here in the United States, China just literally told them. And here's the quote from the BBC article. The company and its affiliated businesses have been told that they can no longer engage in exclusive deals over music rights and must dissolve any existing agreements within 30 days. I mean, this would be like Biden just saying the App Store is now open, you have to let other app stores. Apple or, you know, just coming down and saying to Amazon you can't sell Amazon basics anymore. In 30 days, no more Amazon basics at the site. What are we? What do you think the end game is here? Is this A cause? China seems like they are very deliberate and they plan in centuries. What is happening here? There's the short term and the long term. I think what's happening in the short term is that the same thing that we are talking about in the United States that Sachs is, you know, very eloquently basically I think led most everybody in just really framing for a lot of people is this idea that, you know, we have privatized free speech and we have put the distribution of information into the hands of three or four founder, CEO oligarchs. That's also true in China. And when you look under the hood of the major Internet companies, there's four or five guys that are in charge. And so I think that in the United States. Politicians feel increasingly uneasy with those folks having power because it's applied indiscriminately. Trump gets banned. Trump may not get banned. This person gets distribution. This article is considered misinformation. That article is considered disinformation. This article is suppressed. It's a dangerous place to be. And in China they were just like, enough is enough. So I think the short term as it relates to the Internet companies was basically a realization that we are not going to allow any more devolution of power from the Chinese Communist Party to and into the hands of these Internet entrepreneurs. So that was that was sort of like the move out of fear. They're scared they're going to lose their powerbase, not scared. I think they're just smart. And they were like, we're not going to allow this to happen so they don't have to deal with section 2:30 or any law like that. I think it was just a realization that. We want them to understand who was boss, right? And so there was a wave of resignations. There was now all of this market cap upheaval, and this is now where we get to sort of like the appetizer. And I think in the appetizer, what they're basically saying is we will control how money is made and who makes money. And I think that that sets up the really difficult thing that I think happens, which is about the long term. So in this, in this thing, what's happening right now is China very firmly telling everybody we are firmly in control. There is no private market and there is no capital market without our approval. And that's a really big statement. And in fact, it was such a big statement that I think the Chinese security authorities and had like a conference call at Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, all these folks were invited and you know the vice chairman. Basically his quote was something to the effect of we promised that any more changes will at least let you know. Not aid. There's nothing, nothing to see here or there's nothing more to come. It's just more that as we decide new rules, we'll make sure that we give you guys enough warning. So it's very much firmly saying we know exactly how money is made. We will decide who makes money in what way, and we're going to make sure that, you know, all of this wealth creation happens under terms that we define. And I think that the setup for the long term, the long term in China is complicated. It is an enormous demographic time bomb. We've talked about this. 4 by the end of 2100, China's population will shrink from 1.11 point 2 billion people down to about 700 million people. Right. So they had very. Progressive quote UN quote under their framework laws of one child policy to basically make it economically viable in the 60s and 70s. There was such a number of people, those people were able to get great jobs and the, you know, 80s and 90s and 2000s and now they've realized, oh wow, we made a huge miscalculation because now there is just not enough people. And so China is going to shrink. And I think that honestly, I think Xi Jinping probably thinks the simplest way to solve this is to basically nationalize a lot of the economy over time. And so I if I was a betting man, which I am general, but I'm not in China because I just don't understand. Market. It's super considerate. Casino. It's a stupid place to bet. I'm not gonna say that. I just think that I don't know the market. I mean, they change the rules of the game. Hold on, let me just finish what I'm saying. I think that what we're what we're starting to see is the beginning of nationalizations. And I think it's going to start in technology universe because those are the critical assets that the Chinese need to own for the future. So that's in my opinion what's happening. I think it's really important what's going on there. And yeah, sacks, when you look at this, we've been talking about. You know this, these two great competitors, America and China. And who's going to win? How does China win? If this would seem not having a vibrant. Entrepreneurial, you know, socialist, Communist, hybrid, is this the end of that experiment? And now it's just going to go all national and then that. Doesn't that make it easier for the West to win if China is just going to say we're going to, we're going to operate everything, and they don't have a competition of ideas if they go that far. I think it's really interesting actually to compare what's happening in China with what's happening on the US in the US because on the surface, both countries are having this debate about whether big tech needs to be reined in, broken up. Controlled. We're having that debate in the US and and obviously they're having some version of it in China, but it's a little bit like the the civil rights debate, right, where, you know, we have our civil rights issue in the US and, you know, they have shinzen, you know, they have the Uighurs. You know, it's like a whole order of magnitude different in terms of the way they react. And I think there's, I, I would say there's three main differences here between the Chinese approach and the US approach. Number one, data privacy. We have a concept of separation between private companies and the data they control and the data that the US government can get its hands on. And the US government typically has to get a warrant and go through a corporate scene to get that data. What China is doing, they've now passed a law basically saying all these companies, your data belongs to us. If we want it, we get it. They're taking operational control over the data and you know they're going to use it. OK? That's a big difference, #2 I think that China seems to be really worried about. These big tech companies, not just in terms of whether they might engage in anti competitive practices or consumer harm, sort of those conventional antitrust concepts in the United States, but they're concerned about these big tech moguls becoming power centers in China. And you saw this with Jack Ma, right? I mean clearly the CCP had a problem with the way that Jack Ma had become a figure that people rallied around him, they looked to him, they cared about what he had to say and all of a sudden. That's the Ant IPO was put on hold, but it was more than that, right? You know, this was not just like, you know, what the SEC would have done. All of a sudden, Jack Ma disappears, he goes into some sort of house arrest. He comes out three months later looking kind of emaciated. You know, they are putting the, the fear of God in, you know, these big tech moguls in a way that we would never do in the US. I mean, look, I don't want Tim Cook to engage in anticompetitive practices, but I don't want anything bad happening to Tim Cook. I don't think the guy should be under house arrest if he wants to donate his money to political causes. Speak out as a private citizen. He has every right to do that. And I'll defend his right to do that. No matter. You know how much I want, you know, Apple to be reigned in that they don't have that, that again, that separate concept in China. And I think the last thing that's going on here that's different is you saw China put the kibosh on there are 34 IPO's of Major China, Chinese tech companies that were scheduled to IPO in U.S. markets. And they have sort of shut that pipeline down. And what it appears to be to, they appear to be saying is that, you know, we've talked about reshoring strategic industries back to the US like pharmaceutical manufacturing. They seem to be saying we are going to restore the IPO business. We do not want you. Big Chinese tech companies IPO ING on American markets, on American exchanges. We are bringing that business back to China and that is why I think you're seeing you know giant ripple effects now because I mean some touch Moss Point about decoupling. We now it looks like we are going to be decoupling our financial markets and you know that's why you're seeing you know gigantic hits to the valuation. Would you, would you agree with me that the decoupling of these financial markets might be in the best interest? Of humanity and ultimately the decoupling of these two economies. If we don't see eye to eye about human rights and how to treat people, maybe it's good that we have a little more distance between the two markets. I mean, it's hard to know if engagement is the better process, but it doesn't seem like the Chinese Communist Party wants to have anything to do with democracy, anything to do with free markets. They want to control all the markets. Yeah. I mean, you could see, but in a, in a way, the product that the US was exporting. China was was our financial markets and not and it and I think a good way, right. So that I think the bad version of this is when China is able to buy up ownership in critical strategic centers in the US and that affects people speech rights over here. But this is not China buying up ownership in the US this was China acting as a consumer of U.S. financial markets and and I think I think it's different right when we're selling products over there that helps correct our trade. Balance. Right. This is why I don't have a problem with Elon selling cars over in China. He's helping our trade balance. OK. But so, but they're kind of cancelling that. They're kind of saying we're going to restore this industry. We want to have a domestic, you know, it's not the market. This is creating a mono economy, right? It's like it's going to blur the lines between public and private ownership. And it's going to basically make it 1 huge pot from which the Chinese government. Can can take it and put it back into as it deems fit for the broader success of China as a whole, right? So if you're a CEO and they don't like you, you're going to resign, right? If you're a company and they're worried about your propensity to be a little too frisky on your own, they'll rein you in. I'll have the lot to use cybersecurity law or something else, but the point is that I think that we shouldn't take this as free market regulators having their way. This isn't Lena Khan implementing, you know, some laws. This is a top down decision to nationalize. Large parts of the economy, starting with technology, and I know that for some people that may seem. Unfathomable. But if I'm a betting man, which I am, that's what I would bet on, that this is the beginning of the beginning of an attempt to pull these companies in. I mean at the at what David said is true. The Chinese government owns the data of Chinese companies. So at the end of the day, the Chinese government also owns the users and it also owns the revenues. It just hasn't told you yet. Yeah, in a way it's like the Chinese government in our our government is trying to officiate the game fairly and create a really competitive. Vibrant game and I think with the Chinese government just said is the game's over, like there is no game. Yeah, there's a game. It just has. It just has a game. It has an Uber CEO. It made a bunch of CEO's, general managers and a large corporation that report through a reporting chain to one person, Jinping. But there's no more game in terms of building companies and investing in China. Like, how is the West ever going to trust? How is Goldman Sachs or Sequoia, you know, launching a venture firm there or retail investors or hedge fund investors? How are they ever going to want to participate in that market? Because this will look, for example, when you invest in China, right? Or if you set up a fund, you know there are two pools of capital, right? There's the local remember denominated investment vehicles and then there's the US dollar denominated investment vehicles and they do that desegregate where the capital comes from. So it's not too difficult for the Chinese Government to basically say, you know what I'm going to actually make. A constraint on dollar inflows so that, you know, the renminbi denominated investment funds that are from Chinese investors into Chinese companies needs to be above a certain percentage, call it 2/3, right? Or call it 80%, they can make all these decisions because these are all just rules that are completely under the control. So I think that people who don't think this is going to happen are probably not looking at the setup. The setup seems to be directing itself towards that outcome. And by the way, it makes sense for what Jinping wants to do. You know that. But that's not my question. My question is why would Masayoshi Son or another entity ever invest in China? Because you look through the risks and you got completely enamored by the population of the Tam. But what I'm saying now is why would they do it again? Or are they not going to do it? No. But there are. There are boundary conditions that would say that even before this you would have had to reconsider. The population is shrinking. There's a different demand, side pull that's happening, right? Older people need different kinds of services than younger people. There's not enough younger people. There's too many men, there's not enough women, so there's not enough couples. There's not that all of these demographic issues ultimately will get reflected in the economic reality, which is that smart investors would put money in China differently over time anyways. But I think that this is a bigger thing, as David said, which is if that's coming to pass, you want to control the pipes because you want to control how that information is presented to people, your citizens, so that they don't get ****** ***. And then you might as well just own the economy. They own the business anyway. See this as being amazing for American tech companies. Because I I don't see who would ever want to be an entrepreneur. Whoever has a great idea and wants to pursue it in China. I just would you do it? No, I disagree with you. And and and the reason I disagree with you don't have access to their markets anyway. What company has access to their market? The difference is young, smart Chinese people for decades have been staying in China in part because it was more they could more relate culturally to Jack Ma than they could to Jack Dorsey. OK. That's just, I mean that just makes sense. Sure. And I understand that. And then the second is we like a lot of like, sorry, like the opposite of some other Western countries like Canada closed our doors. Why would the next Jack Ma start a company if they saw Jack Ma disappear? That's my baby. Because you know what? If you're coming from China and you can, you can only make a billion versus 45 billion, I think you still take the shot. OK, I think Jackal is is right in in the sense I don't think it's gonna be like a binary decision where all of a sudden everyone stops doing business in China, but they're gonna be hedging their bets. I mean if you were a Chinese billionaire looking at this landscape your, your, your priority has got to be to get some well thought side of the country beyond the control of the CCP. You're going to be buying Bitcoin, you're trying to get your money overseas. You have got to be very nervous about what's happening homes in Palo Alto. I mean, look, I think what Presidency is doing is fundamentally redefining the bargain between Chinese entrepreneurs and the government. And here, here was the original bargain, right? The Great Chinese leader and economic reformer Deng Xiaoping basically set the bargain, you know, 40 years ago and what? And basically the bargain was this, we're going to open up the economy and let you, the entrepreneur, get rich. We're going to keep all the political power. So as long as you don't mess with us politically, you can get as rich as you want. That was the original. Bargain. Now President Xi is saying there's a new bargain, there's a a new boss in town, and here is the deal that economic interest in China will be subordinate to national interests. Those national interests are defined by the CCP, and I run the CCP for LIFE. Exactly. And that is what is happening. And that is a big change. They just got layered. There's a new CEO that they report to. This actually makes me very hopeful, actually. I think this is going to be like a spiraling down of their. Tony, I don't think it's gonna smile up. I don't. I don't think so. I mean, who's gonna be come on. Who's going to invest in their economy? Everybody. Guess what? Because if you want a shred of ******* lithium, if you want a battery, if you want nickel, if you want anything to happen, you need to work with China. They are incredibly smart and thoughtful. They have been strategic while we've been running around, you know? Complaining, crying, talking about the kindergarten soccer game. They were doing the hard work, they were doing it for decades and until we find solutions that can work around them. We need to work with them. I think they just throttled innovation and they just shot themselves in both feet. I I think they're gonna regret this decision. I would come out in the middle and say they've just attached a discount rate that now every investor has to consider political risk when they invest in China because the future is very uncertain. The bargain is getting changed and if you're an investor, you now have to take, you're taking some huge posterus. I agree with David. I think that's a better way. I would refine what I'm saying by saying it's a distribution of risk where it's. Closer to Russia now than it is to the United States. Yeah. And then I think there's a there's literally an act called the against. Ginsky act, beginski act. What is the act that Bill Browder's lawyer Baginski? Oh yes, because basically in Russia they were just killing people and taking their businesses. I mean, this feels like the equivalent in China, the Magnitsky. Magnitsky, yeah. I mean, they literally. That was Bill Browder's lawyer who was tortured to death. And I I just don't see anybody wanting to invest there anymore. And it just does make the Bitcoin in hindsight. It does look like they shut down Bitcoin a couple of months before making these actions. So your point David, they probably anticipated that people would start shipping their money out using Bitcoin and so they banned Bitcoin. And now they're banning CEO's from having too much power. That was probably a sequential event. That would be very smart on their part, you know? Can't be very smart. What does this do to like the Sequoia capital China, the Masayoshi Son investing heavily there, Tencent investing here, all the Chinese been very active in the United States, investing in companies. All the Chinese LP's are are fine, all the Chinese GP's are fine, all the Chinese companies are fine. I think David's right. It's just a discount factor. I do think it affects global dollar flows and I think it's hard for. The Western capital pool to allocate money into China without doing a little bit more work and applying a higher discount rate? Yeah, I I have to believe that the conversations happening in these firms that have made gobs of money in China over the last couple of decades, it has to be are we living on borrowed time? How much more time do we have before China says that Chinese profits, Chinese return on investment, are going to go to Chinese individuals and companies under our control? Because that's that's the direction it all seems to be headed. Yeah. And how quickly can I get get out of these positions? I mean, how do you even get out of these positions if this other thing I don't understand, if they're going to reverse some IPO's, how does that mechanically happen? Or are they going to just say it's a buyout, it's a second, second transaction and they'll just do like a. About so if Masayoshi Assan owns some amount of DD, they say, here's some here's the price per share that we pay you. Here's your cash, give us a shares chow. That's incredible. A forced sale at whatever price they determine. Uh, no, I mean, like, I think these things will operate more efficiently than that because you have a distributed shareholder base. So you know, China can't force a shareholder of DD to sell the shares because it's listed in an American Stock Exchange. But they. But if DD does go private, the way that you know, the news reports are saying somebody's going to have to backstop that capital. I suspect it'll be a Chinese organization. So they will take DD private again and then buy out all of the shareholders who bought. And by the way, if that does come to pass, I think that is the, that is an obvious signal that we're moving into sort of a more a nationalization of critical resources and China has determined that Internet resources are critical and I think that that's right. If I was in their shoes that's exactly what I would do as well. Does this mean that we should be kicking out Chinese companies from operating in the US I, Tiktok, etcetera, you know? But I do think that Tik T.O.K needs to get carved out of bite dance that it needs to have a completely. American cap table. But that shouldn't be a government edict. That should be something that the bite dance investors and board are scrambling to do right now, because otherwise that equity value may go to 0 byte dance should be 1/2 a trillion dollar company. It probably is a couple $100 billion company now, which means that it probably lost half of its market value. That's crazy. Crazy, yeah, I think, I think there's a few things for us to worry about there. I mean, I I like the idea of outcompeting China by. Having freer and more open capital markets and allowing anyone in the world to invest in our companies. I think the issues with Tick Tock are more around data. You know, we know now that any data that by dance has belongs to the Chinese government. This isn't just a tick tock issue. It's any company, any U.S. company that's doing business in China. Look, it applies to zoom. OK, look, zoom. We're on zoom right now. Zoom is not a Chinese company, but it has a giant engineering team in. China, what are the data implications for that? Yeah, they stopped routing their servers to remember they had some servers routing through China, but I do think they're gonna have to shut down and sell off whatever their assets are in China. That's going to be unable to have a communication platform. You know, it's kind of like Huawei, right? We don't allow Huawei to operate and we're going to have to do that with software, right? There's been a big CRISPR breakthrough. 65 year old man named Patrick Doherty was suffering with a disease in which his protein was misshaped. We shape and building up in his body, destroying important tissues such as nerves, his hands and feet. He watched the same disease kill his dad, and here's the quote, had watched others get crippled and die difficult deaths from this disease. And it's a terrible prognosis. He entered a trial utilizing CRISPR, the gene editing tool, and researchers reported the data indicating that the experiment treatment worked well. The study Doherty volunteered for is the 1st, in which doctors are simply infusing the gene editor directly into patients and letting you find its own way to the right gene in the right cells, in this case the cells in the liver, making the destructive protein. The advance is being held, not just as. Not just for amyloidosis patients, but also as a proof of concept that CRISPR could be used to treat many other much more common diseases. It's a new way of using the innovative technology to my thoughts. I think this is a really important breakthrough and what it allows us to do now is see a world where look if you if you think about. The two different paths of the following idea you're going to make a solution to a problem. If the problem was an Internet company or you wanted to make a product, what you would do is you would go to Amazon Web Services. You'd be able to consume a whole set of abstractions, and then you would build a light amount of programming, which is essentially like the application logic of your app. I think a lot of people listening understand that idea because that's what they do. Here, what we're getting to a place is now. Soon we're going to be able to view biological problems in the same way. So we're building all these small little building. I don't want to call them small, but building these very important building blocks that is very much akin to the building blocks we needed to put together the first set of computers to put together MS-DOS. All of that allowed us to create windows. Windows allowed us to actually access the Internet. And there was this in Seriatim development of things that happened. And I think that we're on the verge of that. And that's what these kinds of breakthroughs really show us, which is that you can view. So for example, you know, in a different company they they've created these mRNA gate arrays, logic gate arrays. So if you're, you know, a chip designer, you would understand how to basically create electrical function in part using, you know, gate arrays. But if you reduce a biological function to the same idea, now that same person has a translational ability to solve a different problem that they didn't. Have before. So I think what we're saying is that we're seeing this platform lization this AW suffication. Of a biological tool chain with things like CRISPR and all of the other modalities that need to stack on top of it so that the next person can view it as a programming problem. And I think that that's the really exciting path that accelerates a lot of this development. But this is an enormously important breakthrough because it validated a lot of what CRISPR was beyond a lot of theoretical innovation that. That, up until now, was basically what it was known for and a lot of investment had gone into companies that were trying to do things, but this was the first really important one. The The funny thing about Intel is that it's been public for like 7-8 years and it's just been toiling, toiling, toiling, toiling and then, you know, the last little while obviously it's gone absolutely crazy because of this breakthrough. Yeah, and related news. In related news, CRISPR creates its first genetically modified marsupials. After years of using the gene editing technique CRISPR to genetically modify everything from vegetables to lab rodents, researchers have used it to edit one of the hardest targets marsupials, the MIT technology reports. I guess it turns out they're very hard to edit, and we're now adding more studios and changing things like their hair color. So brave new World Freeberg was here, the freeberg ratio would be off the charts alright, wrapping up. Pretty incredible. Just just one thing to add to that. I mean, I think what it, what it shows is that these COVID vaccines are just the first product, the first breakthrough product of this M RNA technology. There's going to be a lot more. And what I wonder about is, you know, this, this category of vaccine hesitant people and they're kind of like, you know, in the, in the technology world, you have kind of a spectrum of early adopters, late adopters, Luddites. You know, people are actively against technology. Yeah. Well, I mean, Luddites are even laggards. Yeah, yeah. Lots are even more violently opposed. I think the original Luddites, they think the original Luddites were in England. They lost their jobs at some factory and so they broke into the factory with sledge hammers to destroy all the machines that replace their jobs. So there's clearly a spectrum. And what I wonder about is that if you're on sort of the Luddite end of the spectrum with respect to biotechnology, I mean, are you going to have a materially worse life because you're not getting the benefits of all these vaccines and all these treatments? And I mean COVID could just be the first. Example of this. Well, I mean, if you build on it, it's sort of like we're going to create a two class society, one that is not only dealing with all the maladies and cancers and and living longer, but we haven't even started to think about, well, taking somebody who's already in great health and what can you do for them. So, oh, you know what, you can be 2 inches taller, you could add 10 IQ points, you could run faster, you could have higher blood oxygen, whatever. I mean, we could, we could genetically modify people to stay underwater for 10 minutes. And be, you know, better processors of oxygen, like other mammals are, you could have superhumans. I mean that that's basically where this is going. And there that unlocks a whole nother level of ethical and moral considerations. But you're right, there could be a group of people who are like, I don't want to touch any of this and they die at sixty, 7080 years old. And then we got another class of people who embrace us and they have 20 more IQ points and they live to 120. No, I mean it's it sounds funny, but and like science fiction, but that is in the realm of possibility in our life. There's a lot of great science fiction written about this whole sort of transhumanist idea. A book series I really like is Nexus by Ramez Naam, who actually was a developer at Microsoft and, you know, then became a writer. And he writes with, I'd say, a high degree of sort of accuracy, accuracy and specificity about these technologies and how they might evolve. People should be sure to check out that book. If you could actually increase anything in your body through this gene editing, what would it be? Just throw anything out there. But the first thing that comes out there, anything would increase my muscle mass 100%, increase my muscle mass. By the way, there is a percentage of fat would go down, not in reality in absolute terms, but just in percentages. So this CRISPR thing was a public company called Intellia Therapeutics. But I want to throw a shout out to another startup that seemingly I think may have had a breakthrough this week called Forum Energy. And the reason why these guys are interesting is that they've built this incredibly massive long duration. Battery out of iron. Now why is that important? We have really simple ways of harvesting iron from the Earth. It is literally everywhere. Everywhere you look, iron exists. It's not so true for nickel. It's not true for cobalt. It's not true for manganese. It's not true for lithium. It's not true for all of these other specialty chemicals that we need in order to build batteries. But these guys have solved a very complicated technical challenge. That will allow you to store energy cheaply, which has huge implications for electricity and grids. And so big shout out to these guys that form because if, if, if it looks like what they said they did is true. It's a really important breakthrough that will have some important ramifications. It's amazing by the way, to see. Progress. Now you wake up and you read these things and you're just like, God, this is incredible that there are people working away on **** that really matters. It's almost as if there's like one group of we talked about cynicism in a previous episode recently. There's one group of people, whether you're in the founder circles or capital allocator, or a journalist covering the space who understands it. There, there is a technical. You know, explosion going on here and innovation that is going to solve a lot of problems. And we have another group of people who think that all these problems are intractable. I'm kind of looking at this, you know, what happened with COVID? And I was talking to my wife about global warming, and I was like, feels to me like we could solve global warming, like, feels like it's very much in our control. And there's another group of people who feel like it's over and don't have kids because the whole planet is going to go online. I mean, I think Elon tweeted this out, and I think we've talked about this. Now with respect to China, but you know we have an enormous problem in the world in general, which is that unless our birth rate is positive and accretive. It has huge implications to progress, right? If you just like, if you eliminate or you decrease the denominator of the global population, the odds that there's another Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos that are created are just lower. And so net of anything else, a declining population rate, particularly in Western countries, has huge detrimental effects to the world. And so all the folks that think that they're going to solve the ecology of the world by not having kids, it's a little misguided. The thing to do is to actually have a positive. Birth rate. Find technological solutions to this problem and allow what we've been able to do, which is a rising populace, to basically be motivated to work and solve problems. And I think that we have to be very careful about that because if if people don't get this right, they're going to take the wrong solution. It's not going to be a solution at all, and it's going to make the problems even worse. Could you imagine if the population of the earth shrank in half, what it would mean in terms of productivity services, the healthcare requirements that are needed, the cost of providing those things, the economic viability of countries will go away. It would be a disaster. Yet there is a group of people who feel we should do exactly that. And and and not not a small group of people. Yeah, well, they think that. I think. I think the mistake is in thinking that human consumption is the problem. And specifically with respect to to to climate change or global warming, no, you, you you can't see it that way because look, humans in order to exist, need to consume and we're going to emit carbon as part of that process. The important thing to focus on is energy production. Are you shifting to clean production? Not because you're never going to shrink your consumption. And enough to, to basically eliminate carbon emissions, it has to be done on the production side. And one of the interesting. Things that's happening now, I think we should talk about is in Europe, they're creating this new carbon trading plan. I think China is even trying to set up one of these markets. And so they're creating these new, you know, marketplaces to trade carbon permits. And I think the most exciting part about this is that it gives an incentive for, for innovators to create new technologies that actually take carbon out of the atmosphere. They're called negative emissions technologies. Because what happens is if you have a technology to take carbon out of the atmosphere, you can now sell a permit on the exchange that gives somebody else the right to admit that carbon. And now those technologies, those those those Nets, the negative emission technologies, it's unclear whether they really exist yet, but no one's going to create them if there's not a customer for them. And that's what's really cool about these new tradable permit schemes is they create a buyer for, for, for those Nets and I think. That's ultimately how we're going to solve this problem of climate change. We're not gonna do it through reducing human consumption like we're going to go back to the Stone Age. If you don't want to emit carbon, it's about moving to clean production of energy and creating negative emission technologies. Yeah, let me just build on that for a second. There's, look, there's a bunch of cap and trade systems. China basically has a a carbon tax system in place. The big thing that none of these folks have gotten to yet, but I think if you look at the laws in Europe, they're going there is the idea of a carbon tariff. And I think these carbon taxes, if they actually exist properly, will look like a tariff. What does that mean? Let's just say you're Britain and you want to import. A Volkswagen from Germany if Britain has a carbon tariff that says basically you need to account for all of the emissions that went into making this car. And I'm going to assess an import duty that basically maps to that. I think that that's where the world is going and that's probably David to to your point, it's going to be a really big value unlock because the amount of money that will get both made but also destroyed in that process will be incredible. And that's where we have a chance to really reimagine consumption in a different way. Like there are just so many categories. I saw this interesting that if you look at CPG companies, right, companies like Procter and Gamble, Chlorox, and you compare them to the places where they sell their goods like Walmart and Target, every single major big box retailer has basically declared a net zero emission strategy in the next 5 to 10 years. Not a single company on the CPG side has actually any plans to do anything meaningful, anywhere near 203020452050. And when you look under the hood, those companies like P&G and Clorox are enormous emitters, enormous. So even though you walk into a target and Amazon and you try to make yourself feel good thinking, thinking to yourself, I'm buying something. That's zero emissions. It's not true. It's basically that Amazon will bear the cost of getting to net zero, but the products that you actually consume are horrible for the environment. And the amount of, you know, fossil fuels that went into it and the amount of plastic that will then get put into the ocean, it's tremendous. And so moving slightly more aggressively beyond these cap and trade systems into something that looks more like a tariff, I think could be really important for the world. And we're going to need to do it. There is, and there are multiple ways to do it. I don't know if you guys saw Elon. Fact this the. X Prize carbon sequestration, sequestration. Project, which is $100 million prize. And you can do this in multiple ways. You can do it at the factory. And there's the one trillion trees.org. I know if you saw that, where they're trying to plant a trillion trees because that's the original way to sequester this carbon. So there's going to be like three or four different ways to do this. And if there's an incentive to do it, yeah, that is going to help for sure. Part of why there's such political disagreement over this is because you look at approaches like the Green New Deal. I mean, I think they understand. The, the, the problem. But what they're proposing is always on the consumption side. It's basically politicians picking and choosing how people are going to consume carbon, whether it's, you know, cracking down on private planes to, you know, factories. I mean, again, taking us back to the Stone Age. Nobody wants to know. No one saying. I think wants to support that kind of. Totalitarian principle that the politicians get to tell us how to consume, but this is This is why I think these these these market based solutions where you say look carbon emissions are obviously an externality. If you want to admit you need to basically pay the correct price for carbon emissions and we use the the money that you pay as as as some sort of. Whether it's a tax or whether it's buying a permit, we use that money then offset into negative carbon emissions. It's a market based system where the government controls the externality, but they don't dictate how people get to consume carbon. And I think that's the right balance. And we don't really have that type of balanced conversation in the US yet because you've kind of got one side that says they want to save the planet, but they want to control everything. And then you got the other side saying, well, look, I want to save the economy because your plan, the green New Deal is going to destroy it. We need is is again a market based solution to this. And I guess the. Criticism of a market based solution is you're basically giving people away to. The most cynical interpretation would be you could pay to pollute. You can just, you can pollute all you want and just pay a fine, essentially. But that's not the right way to look at it. You're actually offsetting somebody else is capturing what you put out there. And it, depending on the rules of the road, if you had to capture 50% more than you put in, you could create a formula there, right. I mean, there could be some formula that over time there's been a lot of fraud in this market. Like, you know, people sell these carbon credits from, you know. Certain forests and there's this joke, which is like there's been a tree that's been sold like 80 billion times because it's like. You can't really verify, you can only really estimate the amount of carbon sequestration that you know. For example, a tree actually does in the 1st place. And so there there's been just a lot of unfortunately, you know, fly by night, unreliable, non trustworthy ways that this market has evolved. People have been waiting for decades for this carbon trading market to really step into high gear, which is why some folks think the more aggressive plan will just be introduced tariffs and let the market, David to your point, sorted out. What do you what do you think the prospects are for these negative emission technologies? I I can't believe that a solution as low tech as planting trees is going to solve the problem and alpha carbon, yeah. So the question is what do you what do you think the assuming we create the market, the demand for negative emission technologies, the permits to emit. What do you think the prospects are technologically that innovators going to come up with these solutions? I do think that we are a couple of breakthroughs away from these things. Being non issues. So I'll give you a couple of examples. If you look at like I'll just use batteries as an example because where I'm spending a lot of time when you look back and like you ask yourself like how did we decide to make the batteries the way we make them? You know, was it some like, you know, broad survey of every single chemical composition and all these different structures? And we realized that, you know, a composition of nickel and manganese and cobalt was the right thing to do. Or lithium and iron and phosphate was it turned out that it was mostly like a handful of people decided, and we all just been iterating around the edges ever since. So one of the solutions to a lot of these problems is to actually go back to first principles. The problem is that as these industries get built up and you know this, you have so much. P&E like so much equipment, so much investment in physical CapEx, that's happened. The idea of switching platforms is almost impossible because it's not economically viable. So we are in this situation today where a bunch of solutions have been proposed, David, to solve that problem, right. The problem with carbon capture and other other things and negative emission technologies is that they're extremely expensive, they're very inefficient, they require an enormous amount of energy themselves and it's not clear that they work. So what's happening? One is that there's been some pretty novel innovations in moving people past some of these basic problems by looking at the periodic table to try to find different ways of solving things like energy storage, which has huge implications to climate. But the second is that we are pushing the boundaries of physics in different ways as well, and that's where there's going to be the potential for an enormous breakthrough, specifically around superconductors. So what is a superconductor? It's something that allows an enormous amount of energy. To basically trans through it. Now we have this issue, which is that you can actually create superconductors in highly controlled environments that are extremely, extremely cold, but they have incredible performance characteristics that would revolutionize power and energy transmission and storage. People have been innovating in bringing that up to room temperature. In that breakthrough, which I think you will see in the next 20 to 30 years. It's just a complete sea change of how we think about this whole problem. So I think the short term we're innovating in the periodic table. In the long term, we're figuring out how to bend the laws of physics. And I think that those are, those are probably the two most practical solutions to a lot of these things that remove the constraints that we've created. And again the constraints have been completely human defined which is the sad thing. They were not necessary from the start. We could have made very different decisions had we known these problems were going to be as big as they were. You know the way that we make plastic didn't have to be this way, right? The amount of petroleum that we use it, it didn't have to be in this specific way. But this is where we are and there are direct air capture technologies DAC which. Is basically an energy issue. You can literally suck the carbon dioxide out of the air. And again another another issue of material science because the the the substrates that you use tend to be relatively inefficient and sort of really activate them. You're pumping a tremendous amount of energy through there. That's the issue is can you give the energy and I think when we talked about the small reactors, the small modular nuclear reactors, if energy is free or it's solar based, you could you could kind of get a virtuous cycle going here. That's essentially. Superconductors allows you to see as a world where you basically have limitless free energy. It sounds like the thing that we all agree on is that this problem is ultimately going to be solved by innovation. And this is the problem I have with so many of the political proposals is, you know, our ability to innovate is a function of the size and scope of our economy and the incentives and rewards for innovation and the freedom for entrepreneurs to do their thing. And if you crush that, you know, with government mandates, you won't get the innovation we need to get out of this problem. We can easily innovate our way out of it and it requires some individual to say, I want to dedicate my life to it and then what is the motivation to do that? And who are the capital allocators? Who are going to give them the billion dollars to create this company? I spent a bunch of time, so I'm the capital allocator. That'll give billions. In fact, I did a survey of the superconductor spaces in example, and here's what I found of the of the four folks that I found who are all each individually doing things in superconductors that I think are incredible, they're all immigrants. Every single one. We're not bored of the United States. You could you. They are so ******* happy to be here. They feel so lucky and they don't understand why everybody complains all the ******* time. Complaining is there is a disease of constantly complaining about stuff. And if you count the number of times you complain every day and it's more than two or three times a day, you need to get your head examined, you're probably just talking yourself into anxiety problems. Stop complaining. Start building. I mean, this problems are solvable. There is an immigrant in in the United States right now that will figure out how to conduct electricity without resistance. It will transform the world, and we are so ******* lucky. That that guy came here to talk to this country and we have the chance to give the guy a billion dollars. One of my favorite movies is wag the dog with Chris and Robert De Niro, right? Yeah. And Dustin Hoffman plays this producer character. And every time there's a setback, he's like, oh, this is nothing. I remember we made this movie in three out of the four lead actors died and we recast the movie. It's like, this is not a thing. Yeah. And, you know, that's sort of his catch phrase is he's got this can do attitude where no matter what setback happens, he just makes it. Like, oh, this is nothing. We got it. And, you know, and and that's kind of the attitude you need if you want to be an entrepreneur is there's gonna be so many setbacks you gotta be like, oh, this is nothing and you figure out a way around it. Yeah, there's one of the guys that are working on superconductors. Showed me his data for the last 10 years. And what's interesting, David, to your point is he had a four year. Where he took a huge step back where basically like, you know, he had this superconductor. He's like, it works at, you know, I'm just going to use simple numbers here, but like, you know, minus 300 Celsius. He got it all the way up to minus, you know, 100 and then it went back to minus 200. For four years. Could you imagine the mental devastation? And I said, how did you deal with it? He goes, ah, you know, basically he's like, oh, it's nothing. Yeah. And thank God for that guy. It's interesting. I just listened to Quentin. Tarantino's on a podcasting tour because he's got a new book. He he he wrote a novel out of the Once Upon a time in Hollywood characters. And I just started listening to it. It's fantastic. Listen on audible. And. Uh. Brian Koppelman from the moment interviewed Quentin. I listened to it yesterday on my bike ride, and he was just talking about how he just never gave up. And he had written true romance. And then he wrote, what was the other one he wrote at that time? Natural born killers. Killers. Yeah. And he was just talking about how the first movie nobody would do. Then he wrote to two screenplays and nobody would do. And then he got to reservoir dogs and, you know, they tried to scrape together $800,000 and. He kept asking, like, why didn't you quit? Why don't you quit? Like, well, you know, I just, I figured it out. Like, I figured out I had a voice and then nobody would buy my scripts because I was trying to do something innovative. And they were reading the scripts and they didn't understand what I was doing in terms of innovating on how a movie would be with, you know, how he does with Pulp Fiction. He changes the time and does the storytelling in a non-linear fashion. He said nobody understood it, but every time I read it, I realized I had a voice. It was my voice. It was getting better and better. And then people, you know, I sold those movies. And then he kept building them and it was very inspiring to think about that take of like he just didn't give up and he just totally looked at the work and he found his he found his own value in his own work improving. Even without the external, you know, it's a, it's a fantastic story. It's like one of those classic, you know, Hollywood or entrepreneur stories. He's working at a video store for years and, you know, he would start, he was making his own movie and he would film on the weekends. And then, you know, he made a few $100 every week, basically this. And then he would rent the equipment on a Friday because then they would only charge him for one day because it was the weekend. So you could basically record the entire weekend and so he'd go off and record and. And then you have to go back to work. And he started making this movie, you know, one week at a time for like two or three years. And then he finally put the he didn't even have the money to get the film developed. So finally, after three years, he gets the film developed and he's like, unfortunately, it sucked. It wasn't what he was expecting. But during that time he wrote Terrance, which then got bought. He sold that screenplay that gave him a little bit of money. Then he wrote reservoir dogs. And then he met Lawrence Bender. And, you know, Bender went out, read the script and was like, holy **** this is amazing. They raised the, you know, million or so bucks. Make the movie. And then that kind of launched everything. And yeah, it's it's one of these, you know, amazing rags to riches stories. You know, they're kind of rare and they're more rare in Hollywood. They occur all the time in the tech industry. We see them all. Such an interesting point, he said. They're like, you would never let you make that movie now. And, you know, in another conversation, I think I listened to three podcasts with them, Joe Rogan, Breddy Senales and then Brian Koppelman and all three of them are tremendous, but I think in the pretty scenery. And in the Joe Rogan one, he's like, oh, they would never let you make that movie was like, ********. You can just make it. I just made it. I did you not see the last two films and how politically incorrect they were. And you know, I don't care what Bruce Lee's, you know, fans think of how I portray Bruce Lee. He was a he was a bad actor. He was a terrible, you know, human being to these folks. And he his basic thing was everybody keeps waiting to ask for permission and he's like, I'm just going to make my movies and let the chips fall where they may. I'm not going to be censored. I'm not going to censor myself and I'll make my 10 movies and that's it. Them over. I'm going to tell her to reach a story. I want to tell this poker story. Yeah, you tell your story, Tarantino success with reservoir dogs. I think it came out in 1991 that really inspired me to want to make movies because I saw that somebody could make a movie outside the system for so little money. And that's why I made think for smoking. And we have another, we have another independent movie coming out next year about Salvador Dali, which, you know, finally got made after about 15 years. So yeah, I mean, he's inspired a lot of people and he shows what can be done. Which is a story that involves Jake help. So I get invited, I get invited to the Harvard Business School to give a speech first and last time I was invited because I was disinvited. Jason, after that. What happened? But, well, the the back to Rose walked out in the first five minutes. Wow. This was incredible. It was incredible. Like, we. I get invited to do this thing. Obviously, it's in Boston. It's in winter time. Right, Jacob? You know, it was winter and it was Boston. It's, like, not a great trip. So, you know, I was like, OK, Jacob, what are we going to do to spice the strip up? And we invite Big Al. Oh, OK and we get on the plane and Big Al says, oh, you want to play a little poker? I said absolutely. And I turned to Jake Allen and said, Jason, do you want to play? He's like I said, you know, you guys can play against each other. And I said, Jason, why don't you deal? He's like. I'm not interested in dealing. And I said jakal. I'll give you 10% of whatever I win. I was like, shuffle up, shuffle up and deal. He deals the game for ******* six hours from LA where we were Chinese poker to Boston. I smash Big Al, I smash Big Al smash, I smashed him. And then we go into the thing, we have like a nice dinner, blah, blah, blah. We go out, we have the thing at at the at Harvard where I said something like, you know, I think an MBA is basically worthless. It's just not a good use of your time. I think you should be out building things. The back two rows walked out. They were completely offended and I did the speech. It doesn't matter. And get back on the plane and we're flying back. And at some point I realized I said, Jason, what's the tally? And Jason says I'm up 40,000 and I said, excuse me, you're up for. And it turned out that I was ******* smashing him. Smashing, smashing. Anyways, Long story short of it was that we circled for a few times and then we finally landed and Jay call one $55,000. Working so you could win more. Here's what you don't know through the pack of cards at Jason and said I never want to see you ever again and I never wanna have you ******* play poker. Because I went to the pilots and I told them I'll give you 5 grand if you can make this flight last another hour and they're like, yeah, we got a circle they got and we just kept circling. For an hour I was like, I gotta get another hour in. He lost $550,000 on a ******* stupid trip. He never even wanted to come. He just came. He didn't want to go to the best Michelin star restaurant in Boston. In Boston. It's so ******* stuffy, by the way. It's so stuffy and so stuffy taking so seriously. And they're trying to, you know, bring, you know, 18 courses to us and. You know, big ALS of big guys. It's called Big Al for a reason. I mean, this is a linebacker, and they say the big he's like, I'll take this. I want to stay. What do you think he's like? There's a steak included in the prefix. You should do the tasting, man. You're like, oh, tasting money. **** it, let's go. I'll put more truffles on it. Like, it's not truffle season. Sorry. He's like, OK, well, make it truffle season anyway. He start bringing the food. And he he wants to eat a steak. And they bring him, I give you those funny season, a movie where, like, they pulled the the tin and it's like a like a small piece of meat that's like giant, giant Schafer comes flying off a piece of parsley and that's it. The steak was the size of a pack of Wrigley's gum. I am not kidding. They took like a beautiful steak and they just made a little rectangle out of it. He takes his fork, he puts it on and he holds it up to the woman. He goes, where's my steak? And he puts the whole steak. She was sorry. That was your steak. He's like, I wanna steak, I start screaming, I want a steak. Want a steak? The whole restaurant. Terra, he's like, I ordered a steak. This is if you, if you ask him about the strip, he's like, I lost so much money. He's like, I didn't eat. It was cold in Boston. There's a horrible trip over and he is like, the woman's like, well, how can we make you happy? He's like, bring me a steak like, well, Sir, we had, we gave you a steak. The steak came. How many steaks, how many steaks are you going to afford now that Robin Hood just went public? Yeah, you know, it's right now it's my third biggest win, Uber com and then this one and you know time and market. I I think Robin Hood going out of 30 billion, there's a chance this could go 102030 X from here. I think it could be a trillion dollar company someday, 22 million members. Even through all the craziness that we talked about on this podcast, you know, they're learning, they're fixing things and 22 million people using the product and they're going to launch so many other products as part of it and all these young people getting financially illiterate. You know, it's a double edged sword, but I kind of feel like this generation balance, it's it's it's better balance, it's important. I mean Can you imagine if we were in our 20s trading derivatives and options and and just trading stocks all day? I wanted to do that, but it was too hard. You had to get a broker. It was $35 a trade when I started trading and you had to call Charles Schwab and put it in order. Of all the things, of all the things I could have done online in my 20s and 30s, trading stocks, what didn't end up being high on the list, but you didn't play a lot of cards. I mean, a lot of cards, right? But that's what these kids are doing. Like for them this is, you know, in the same zone, a lot of them as sports betting, wagering, playing poker for money. They're they're learning. I don't know how you feel about David. Well, I mean, if you make a lot of mistakes early in your career when you're making $100 bets or buying a 10th of a soccer, you know it's small steaks and you're going to learn a hell of a lot. So I think the education part is you can only learn by doing right sacks. I mean, you can't learn in a. And I think, OK, listen, it's been an amazing episode even without freeberg we miss you freeberg come back next week, let the conspiracy theories. Abound. But Freeberg just was busy. He couldn't make it, and we all wanted to. We missed each other, so we wanted to see our besties. We love you, freeberg. And we love you, Freeburg. We love you. Free bird. Free bird. Back at you. Well, next time on the island podcast. Bye bye. Let your winners ride Rain Man. David said that. We open sources to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it. Besties are. That is my dog taking notice in your driveway. Ohh man. We should all just get a room and just have one big huge order because they're all just useless. It's like this, like sexual tension that they just need to release stuff out there. Beat, beat. See what we need to get merchants? I'm going.