Listen to Episode

Read Episode Transcript

Yesterday the game went off the chain. It was it's we started off at 500 and 1000 and then we were like, wow, these $500.00 chips are so annoying. Then we started to play 1000 a thousand. Then it was 1002 thousand. That's 1002 thousand, 4000, then 1248, then 12481612481632 thousand coming around. Oh my God. How much did you lose? What was the big winner in big loser? How much? I'm not gonna say. Just tell us how much out? 800. I put minus 800. Minus 700. Don't say these ******* names, bro. Come on, how did you do chamath? OK, you're all OK. You can tell that's your mouth lost because when you ask him how do you do and it's like just he goes from this super effusive talking about the game to just like one work. Fine. OK, fine. OK. How was your night? Good. He's like, look, I said $42 million for breakfast. It was fine. Here we go, 3/2. Let your winners ride. Man David. We open sources to the fans and they've just gone crazy. Queen. Hey everybody, welcome to another episode of the All In podcast. 50 episodes down and yeah, we'll definitely get three or four more in before the band breaks up with us today, again from an undisclosed location. David Sachs, the Rain Man himself, chamath, Polly, Hypatia, the dictator, and. The Queen of quinoa. David Friedberg, how's everybody doing? How's everybody feeling? How's everybody's week going? Really great yours. Just just great. Awesome. I I I feel really good. I I feel super grateful. Really? Your poker game last night? Yeah. Stock markets up today. It feels grateful. Grateful? Been a good week. It's been a good week. I feel so much equanimity. Mark is up 4%. Free break, how are you doing? My wife went to the hospital three times this week, all three times thinking she was in labor. How, how did I mean, we're we're 2 centimeters dilated. We're still waiting here. I mean, we we are there too, and we're just waiting any day, like literally any hour. Yeah. So we were we get action on this. Could we, could we bet? Who's going to come first or. I think, I think Freeberg is gonna come first because it's his third. It's the only. It's Alison's third. It's not second. Yeah, yeah. So we can lay odds 2 to one. What do we get all the. I'll take the over under on what day is it today? Today is the 15th. We're getting induced on the 26. It's 11 days from now. I'll take the over under on the. I think you're under on. The 21st. That you're setting the line. I'll set the line at the 21st of October. I'm going over. I'll go over for now. This is for net book it. OK, So what do you got sacks over under on the? 21st, 26 is the expected date where we getting off that analysis that some people pay attention when their children are born and when their children are born in action, right? You guys a little too old to be having kids? Yeah. I mean, are you even gonna see them graduate sectomy? I mean, some of us are a whole bar mitzvah younger than you. Exactly. So you snipped. If anybody was snipped, I would guess it would be sax. Are you are you snippy? Snippy? Is this the type of vital information do you think the audience wants to know? They do, actually. I think that's a yes. I think he's been snipped. Chamath is definitely not Steph. Nope. You can you can eat birds, not you wanna you wanna come over here and inspect? The procedure is conduction inspection. I don't think I don't think you can visually understand that. Let's let's we gotta we gotta move this out. Let's keep going. It's not visually understandable. Yeah, Freeberg's definitely not snipped as proven by his wife being pregnant. I don't think you say sniper. I think you just say vasectomy, though. I'm just, you know, I think you say snipsnap. I think Sax has been snipped. That's actually a good bet. We could book it on sax being snipped. OK. Listen, a lot of topics to get to. I think we were trying to get to this topic last week. There's been a supply chain interruption right now. There's some shortages, obviously, of key components like microchips. We all know this. According to car and driver, the top three models impacted by the chip shortage where the Ford F Series pickup trucks, Jeep Cherokee SUV's and the Chevy Equinox SUV's. Basically a lot of the cars that have. Advanced driving systems are now removing them. I was looking at getting an SUV for the winner and I was looking at the Cadillac Escalade and they took self-driving out of the 2022 model or the autopilot, basically because they can't get the chips and we all know why this is happening. Obviously COVID. And then also on top of it, demand, so people are buying second computers, third computers, places like Dell or having an apple are selling a lot of desktops, a lot of laptops. And. There's also a labor shortage. So the labor force, obviously here in the United States is much smaller than it was. We all know that people are raising salaries to try to get people to come back to work. They're turning off the bonus unemployment early in some states. We're here in October. This is all supposed to be turned off by now. So I guess I'll start with you chamath in terms of the markets here. Uh, what do you think is happening and is this an acute risk or just something that will pass? I think the well, this is where I think I kind of generally disagree with the market. I think that most people are under the impression that these are short term. Uhm. Kind of contractions and expansions and that this is just the thing that needs to get work through the system as we readjust to a post COVID world, blah blah blah. I think it's differ. And the reason I think it's different is if you just look at one thing and one thing only, which is that we have a massive. Labor shortage in America? And there is an incredible stat that I saw, which was the average hourly earnings. Of non manager people in hospitality and travel. And the average salary, the mean salary was around 20. Some odd dollars an hour and it's now 33 bucks an hour. And So what that to me says is that we are going through a really sustained period where you cannot get people to do the work that needs to get done. Biden had to call the port of LA and try to get these guys to be open 24 hours a day. The President of the United States is calling a local port. Trying to get it to stay open. But why can't they stay open? Because you have long term and you have all these unionized folks who will expect to get certain levels of compensation, which they deserve in order to do that work 24/7. But then all of that is going to get put through the system. And if you still have millions of jobs that needs to get done in order for the economy to function, the only efficient way that that's going to get resolved is by raising salaries. And those are consistent and persistent. Those things are not just like oh, you know what I gave, yes, I did say 50 bucks an hour, but now I'm taking you back to take that back that's gonna be that's so and then so I tend to so that's one thing and then second so there's people, right. So labor capital, I just think it's getting more and more expensive to get folks to do work and then there is the raw materials that you use to make anything. And everything that I see is that stuff is going bananas. And so I put these two things together and I'm like, I think this stuff is here to stay. I'm really kind of a little bit of a, you know, and I and I had not worried. And you, you can see in every episode before this, I was always consistently like there is no inflation. You can fade the inflation trade. Now I'm kind of positioning myself to hedge myself in this situation. Alright, freeberg, we've seen the pictures of the Long Beach and the Los Angeles ports. There's just ships out there like I think 70 or 80 is where it peaked at in July. I don't know have the latest data here of when it updated. But is there not a silver lining here that if people are making more money then we're going to increase the size of the middle class and we're going to? You know, increase upward mobility and that it is a double edged sword. It's great that we increase the middle class, but then they're going to want to buy stuff. So people are now making 35 bucks an hour and they were making 20. Now they got more disposable. Now they go on Amazon and buy more stuff and it's going to accelerate this problem, is it not? The challenge is the rate of change. This is what the Fed tries to manage. And you know, there's a White House Economic Advisory committee that's involved in trying to figure out what's going to happen here because the current estimate is it's going to take at least a year or probably a year or two. Work through the current logjam and the global supply chains. And during that period of time, as Chamath points out, what's happening is. The cost for goods is climbing because people have to charge more because there's limited inventory and people are bidding up the the value of that inventory. As they do that, the businesses end up needing to get more labor, and so they have to pay more to hire people. If they pay more to hire people, those people end up demanding more and the cycle can actually go the wrong direction where you have an inflationary spike that persists. How do you taper that inflation? It's not necessarily great for economic growth if you can't produce. Stuff and it can actually cause these runaway kind of effects in the dynamic system of supply and demand when you have these things clogging up the system for supply. So, so, so it is a real risk and it is the biggest thing that you know, the White House, this economic task force is kind of trying to figure out right now is where is the balance lie, where you can, you know, basically try and taper this inflationary effect that's being caused by this logjam and the supply chain. Without causing economic disruption by rising it, by raising interest rates. And so it's a really kind of complicated, you know, second and third derivative formula that needs to kind of be resolved and that's why so many of these little elements are so important to get right. By the way, rates, by the way, central bankers around the world have raised rates. The only place that hasn't gone up is Europe, ECB and the United States of Federal Reserve. So, and let's be honest, you know, Europe and the United States, we absorb labor and materials from all around the world, right? We are the net importers, we are the net. Ultimate buyers of last resort of all of these things. And so if you're seeing inflation in those other, you know, supply driven economies, they are going to come onshore, they're gonna hit us in the face. I think prices are going up. The the other, the other free market argument that could be made is that these, these current trends will accelerate a trend towards more automation of low cost labor. Because it now will make sense for businesses to invest in the capital, in the CapEx, in the infrastructure and ultimately for technology companies to build that that that that tooling to support that infrastructure that will automate jobs like working in fast food, like doing local delivery. Like doing factory assembly, like moving things across the country and trucks, so self-driving trucks, you know, factory automation, biomanufacturing additive and 3D manufacturing and 3D printing. These are all industries that could benefit from the fact that labor now for kind of, you know, traditionally low income work has gotten so expensive that it starts to make sense to switch to the technology alternative, which historically may have been too expensive, but now starts to make economic sense to businesses. This is. And so there's a number of these automation industries that may. Significantly benefit and that ends up ultimately being deflationary in the market comes into balance. So that's another way to kind of think about the macro on what may play out here. There's a bigger risk here than just inflation. I mean, there there's also a risk of, of, of stagnation or stagflation because it's not just that prices are going up and workers wages are going up, which could be a good thing, but the goods and services aren't being produced. So I mean, I know like my own experience, I recently ordered a a Tesla. When I got a Tesla a couple of years ago, like I got in two weeks. It was like. Almost instant this time they wanted me to wait two months and it's got an alert that's going to take two more months beyond that. So we have no idea. And if it, if, you know, Tesla doesn't get most of the money, I don't think until I actually take delivery of the car, right. That's when you make final payment. So now they can't book that revenue and those earnings. And Tesla isn't even in the car company that's most affected by this. You know, the big, you know, traditional American auto companies like Ford are even more affected. So if companies cannot deliver their products. You that could cause an economic recession. And I think, like, these are major storm clouds looming on the horizon. Now what, what is the cause of this? I mean, I think it's it's it's multifactorial a lot of things that Thomas said. I just want to really highlight this port issue. There was a great tweet storm by Zach Kantor earlier in the week where he said the supply chain crisis is a clever rebrand. It makes it seem like they're grand exogenous forces at work rather than the unions holding ports for ransom while dozens of ships pile up working just two shifts. Of the two hour break in between the country at their mercy and he goes on to elaborate on that and that is why I mean tomorrow they're allowed to do that. But but to to Moss Point, This is why Biden felt the need to to get involved. So that the problem is if you read the fine print on this story of Biden announcing that the ports of LA and Long Beach will open 24 hours, which they clearly need to to get the goods to market. If you read the like the bottom part of the story, everyone's announcing their intention. To go 24/7, but there is no date certain for when that's going to be. It's a negotiation with the Union. So tomorrow, to your point, they are going to have to negotiate with the unions. You know, initially it looked like the story was that Biden was going to use his sway, his, his clout with the unions to basically push them to take a deal. But I don't think he's really done that. Everyone's just announcing their intention to negotiate well. You know, if the ports are holding the whole country hostage like this, that could cause a recession. I think that's going to rebound. Very valuable. Wait, hold on one second. I think they're running 24/7 now, aren't they? Sex? Long Beach and LA are both running 24/7. Well, I just posted this article that came out, I mean like yesterday and it says it was published 2 days ago and it said there was not a date certain for when this, oh, it's updated October 14th, which is yesterday. And if you read the bottom of the article, it says they have not determined a date for when 24/7 operations will start. They've just merely announced their intention to go 24. So the Biden administration says it's not really a they, they announced it as if it was a done done. Unless Biden is willing to listen. I mean, chamath, you're right that they're intelligent. Negotiate. But here's the thing. I mean, they're holding the whole country hostage now. They're holding the economy hostage. So at a certain point, if their demands are unreasonable, it's it's, I think, proper for the President of United States to step in and say, guys, this is ridiculous. You have to go back to work. We're going to make, you know, we're going to help negotiate a deal here. That's what Reagan did with the air traffic controllers. The air Traffic Controllers union shut down the whole commercial aviation system. Reagan got involved, said you cannot. Shut down your computer. This way you must go back to work. Yes, exactly. So I think Biden is probably going to have these longshoremen are or the ports. I guess they're not striking. They're just not doing an extra shift. But he could do an executive order doing 2 shifts. If they're doing 2 shifts, 2 hours a day, that's like withholding. That's that's like a partial strike. Wait. They're doing 2/2 hour shifts or two hours, 8 hour shifts. They can't be doing 2 hour shifts. That makes sense. Why would anybody go to work for two hours? Read what Zach Hanner posted. He said that they're working just two shifts. With a 2 hour break in between. OK, but those might be 2/8 hour shifts with a 2 hour break in between is how I read that. No, no, it says read the the the tweet here, he says before any changes this coming week, the longshore routine at the ports involved 2 shifts 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM to 3:00 AM an overnight shift to five hours is available, but is up to 50% more expensive and rarely used. So basically you're talking about. Yeah, it's an 8:00 to 4:00 PM shift with a 2 hour break or 6:00 PM to 3:00 AM. So basically, yes. So it is. For that six hour, that's 2/6 hour shifts. They should be running it like, you know, Elon runs the test. The factors when they're building, which is 24 hours a day, overlapping shifts, just getting to be a sense of urgency here. They're gonna have to pay them some reasonable overtime, but they can't the the unions can't hold the whole country hostage. And look, if Biden, unless Biden steps in to solve this, we will have a recession. So it will. So we do think that this could be a recession. I think it's bigger than just the ports. I don't think reopening the ports is is the entirety of it. I think there's a lot of other things going on. I mean. Jake, Alto point you've made, we had 4 million people drop out of the labor force last month. I mean, that was unbelievable. So, yeah, the unemployment rate looks great, but the number of people actually going to work is significantly lower. I mean, that was a huge shock to all the economists seeing that many people drop out. There's still too many people who essentially are being paid not to work in one form or another, and that is hurting the economy. You also have this issue in in China, which is very interesting. This was, I think, covered in the New York Times about how dependent. Chinese factories are on coal. And, uh, which you know is a bad thing. Obviously that's not a clean energy source, but because of restrictions on coal. It's actually started to impact manufacturing over there. We can debate where that's a good thing or bad thing. But it's contributing to the effect, I suspect that China has woken up to this and they will. They're not going to shut down their economy because of concerns about clean energy. So I assume this is a very temporary decision. And then, of course, you have the whole issue of COVID restrictions. I mean, there are a lot of international COVID restrictions, which wasn't just the US that were they were shutting down factories or creating, you know, a lot of rules that got in the way of keeping factories open. They were doing this internationally, and there was a lot of regulations around seafaring as well because of COVID restrictions. So you have this pile up I would say of of regulations. Ultimately I'd say with COVID is the origin that have now caused this supply chain crisis and unless it gets fixed it could absolutely cause a 1970 style stagflation type recession next year Shibata, you buy that. Do you think we could have this combination of people refusing to go to work or just opting out and saying like yeah, even if you pay me 35 or 40, I'm just not interested. I have enough. No, I don't have TV's and I don't want to go back to work. I I actually think that's exactly what it is. There was this really interesting tweet that I saw on Twitter. Hopefully, maybe you can find it, but it was. Some kid that basically said, you know, I'm growing up in Atlanta and there's a bunch of kids that are used to run with. You know who would otherwise be in the streets, right? Causing all kinds of trouble. And these kids are now at home like Specking NFT's and like, you know, posting on Tik T.O.K or whatever. It's just a completely different reimagination of, like, labor and time spent and. And that's just the spiry small example. And so that maybe touches retail or maybe touches, you know, quick service restaurants, but there's all these different things where now that at the end of this pandemic, people are making very different decisions about their time. And how to spend their money. And again, I'll tell you again, there is a lot of people. You got to remember how many people in the United States have died or are dealing now with some reasonably important health issues at the back end of coronavirus half a million people, a million people. I want you to keep in mind what I told you guys before. There is 77 zero trillion dollars that has to get transferred down from all these baby boomers down to these people in their 20s, thirties and 40s. And don't think for a second that they're not making different optimization decisions around perceived wealth. So I just think inflation is here, I think the labor. Shortage is going to get worse, not better. I think we're going to have to pay people more to get out of it. I think prices are going up, input costs are going up, energy costs are going up. Uhm. So. This is it. And you know, I think, I think that probably the Fed and the ECB are really raising this time next year. They're probably in a really. Really tighter posture. What do you think? Free bird we we should also remember that there are going to be some responses from Freeburg Lessing tech stocks in the ******* toilet. Why no point of multiples? No bueno for no cash flow growth. Stocks. Yeah, yeah. And rising. Everyone's gonna start buying yield when yucky poops. Nobody wants it. Yucky poops. Wait. Let's explain this to the audience. Why? Freeberg? Why? Why are you agreeing with you? I mean, once interest rates go up, you'll see that dividend yields will go up, which means stock prices go down because people will expect a higher return. Because if I can buy treasury bonds and make a few points of return on my money, and I'm going to have to buy a stock, I'm going to want to. I'm going to demand a few more points of dividend yield on that stock. And so, so, so the price. Technically, you know the the price for stocks will typically go down to match the yield that you're going to get from these. More risk free investments, to be more precise. A stock is either. Mature material note about cash today or effectively a promissory note about cash in the future. Thing with tech stocks is we tell everybody the same thing. Your money is gonna come 30 years from now because we're gonna be a monopoly by then. And every dollar that I have today, I'm going to reinvest into R&D and engineering. And in a in an environment where interest rates are zero, you're happy to do it because you're like, well, great, these guys are investing at way better rates than zero, which is what I get from, you know, my bank. And so I want Facebook and Google and Amazon and all these startups to be putting all this money in the ground on my behalf. But when interest rates start going up, they say no, hold on a second. I need more money up front, less money in the future because the future becomes more uncertain. And that's the big trade off for tech companies where they get really pummeled. OK. Well, is there a number in terms of interest? There's there's a class of tech companies, right, like Amazon, sorry, like Microsoft, Oracle, Google where you are actually seeing an apple, you're getting dividends and you're getting share buybacks where the cash is coming out of the business. And those are the mature businesses that also still happen to have growth attached to them. And I don't see how portfolios are going to shed those assets. You're going to shed the more speculative. Hey, you know, we're not yet. At a point of maturity, we're still 20-30 years out, whatever. Yeah, the the guys that are investing and there's no kind of line of sight to true cash flow coming back to the shareholders. But look at the end of the day, one of the point I was trying to make earlier was that. There, there is going to be a response, right. So we've seen remember when the pandemic kind of set in and everyone started ordering from home, Amazon rushed out and hired 100,000 local delivery drivers. They bought all these trucks and they built their own supply chain infrastructure for last mile delivery to get products to people's homes. And we're now seeing on the other side Walmart, Home Depot, target and other big retailers integrating their supply chain to get product into stores. And so they're starting to buy trucks, hire people, pay them significant, you know, wages to be drivers on staff for them. Rather than contracting to these third parties that are saying, ohh, we don't have any inventory, we don't have any trucks, we don't have any drivers, we can't do anything for you now. And so the response is think about it, your product company, your Tesla, Tesla just went out and did this massive deal in Caledonia to source, you know, some mineral that they need to make batteries or to make their, their, their cars. I can't remember exactly what it was, but you're, you're you're increasingly going to see the businesses that have a balance sheet step up and actually start to integrate their supply chains rather than full stack. More, more resilience, kind of this disparate set of service providers, each of which is only kind of is all typically operating at Max capacity and then they can't kind of respond to these sorts of jolts to the system. And so we're going to see a lot of investment, I think by businesses that make product or deliver product to the consumer as they try and integrate the supply chain problem themselves. And that may take some of the strain off the system and some of the inflationary risk out of the equation we'll see over the next couple of quarters. But certainly in this last earnings report, I saw some statistic, a very large percentage of earnings reports spoke. Directly about supply chain disruption affecting the forecast for the business and the ability for the for the business to meet their forecast goals. And that's just hurting everyone, OK? So they're gonna have to do something about it if they're resource to do it right. All right. So, sacks, though, there are some Silver Linings here. Companies become more resilient, they become more automated. They build full stack, they build their own factories. We're seeing, you know, the Taiwanese semiconductor company is doing a $7 billion project to build a new factory in Japan funded by the Japanese. Government. So we're seeing a lot of redundancy, redundancy and we're also seeing the middle class grow. If people are making 35 bucks an hour, 40 bucks an hour and they're getting healthcare and they're starting to have overtime and and other concessions being made that builds the middle class. It sounds like we're solving some problems as well as you know, dealing with this. I guess what you call individually inflate looks an inflation is a good thing. I know people think it's a, it's a like a really bad, terrible thing. There are certain kinds of inflation. That are really productive. We we have had to find a way to fight. The bad parts of technology, technology is great. Nine, you know, nine out of 10 things. It's amazing efficiency, you know, all these great characteristics that it gives you. But one crappy externality of technology is that it's deflationary. You can do more with less and that's fundamentally not great for earnings, it's not great for labor participation, it's not great for all these things that people, you know, are really upset about today. So it's great for the individual company getting those games. I actually think it's kind of like it actually balances out the natural pace of. Of technology, which is like you have the natural ability to just actually have cheaper, faster, better, this inherent efficiency that's building up on one side of the Ledger. But then what's great is on the other side of the Ledger, you actually have, you know, labor being able to balance it out. And I think that that's a really good thing because they can demand more to do the rest of the work that's not covered by tech. And I think that's important. What are your thoughts about this expanding middle class? Isn't it a great thing that, you know, people are saying I'll stay home instead of making 12 bucks an hour? It's an unfair wage. It's not a livable wage. And then all of these companies are saying, you know what? OK, well, they forcing so quick, the big companies, they went to 18 to $35 an hour instantly. We always had the money to pay more. They just didn't need to. Increasing wages in real terms is a good thing. I think you have to ask why the wages are going up. Is it going up because of increased productivity, which is a good thing, or is it going up because of inflation? If it's going up in it's going up because of inflation, then the wage gains are somewhat illusory because all the products that consumers want to buy are also going up in price. All we've done is sort of is devalue the dollar. So we have to. We don't know yet whether these, but we do know that inflation is actually very high. We don't know exactly. If these wage gains are are permanent or just a function of that, but let's go back to this inflation point for a second. I think this is actually really important. We're at something like a 5.1% inflation rate. It's just about the highest since the late 70s, early 80s. Now we have this threat of a supply chain crisis. This is, you know, this is potentially we have a supply chain crisis. Yeah. I mean, people can't sell cars, right? This is a recipe for stagflation. 2.0 Now, the now. I think there's an assumption. That if inflation persists, the Fed will simply just fight it. They'll increase interest rates somewhat and they'll control it. But I actually think that the degrees of of action that the Fed can take here might be more constrained than people think. I just want to flag. So one of the primary sources I use for the the national debt is this website, fred.saintlouisfed.org. It's a good website that has a lot of charts by a branch of the of the Fed. So they have this chart. We've seen that. Federal debt as a percentage of GDP is that sort of all time peacetime highs. You know, we're now we we were at 100% for a few years and now because of COVID we just rocketed up over 120%. We're close to 140% now. The argument by mostly liberal economists that the debt didn't matter was because the debt service remained very low on this debt. So we had a huge increase in debt because interest rates were so low that the, the, the, the the debt service was still very, very small and I think, you know. They have a good piece on this website about this as well that I'll just post here in the notes, but. I think, I don't know if you guys remember back to a pod we did in May where we talked about Stanley Druckenmiller came out swinging against the Fed and he warned about this very situation I just wanted to like. I want to just read this this article that we covered back, I think in May. It feels like an eternity ago. But remember when we just talked about this, what Druckenmiller warned is that if yields on the 10 year treasury rise to the projected level of 4.9%, which is simply the historical average, the government spending would be close to 30% of GDP each year simply paying back interest expense compared to 2% last year unless it monetizes the debt, which experts think is unlikely in Druckenmiller release, would have horrible implications for U.S. dollar. So in other words. We now have this enormous debt. The only reason why debt service payments aren't crowding out the entire federal budget is because we've had interest rates at historically abnormal lows. Zeros, basically. Yeah. So how exactly is the Fed going to fight inflation? If they Jack up interest rates to where they should be, say, 4.9%, then the entire federal budget will be going to working against themselves, right? It's it's like you're the bank and taking the loan at the same time. This is like somebody who gets a variable interest mortgage and they get 5-10 years. To their mortgage. And then all of a sudden they go from interest only and some low interest rate, and then they have to pay market rate and they realize they can't afford the home. We might not be able to afford the budget we're putting out there. Is what you're saying six? Well, I'm saying the Fed may not have the tools, all the tools. They want to fight inflation if it comes back or, I mean, it's gonna be politically very unpopular. I mean, Can you imagine the pressure the Fed will be under not to raise rates if it means that all of these discretionary programs basically have to be cut? That we have an austerity mode in the federal budget? How are we going to pay for all this debt service? Yeah. And then the first thing to think about is, hey, maybe we should cut military spending since it's the largest at the time when China is doing sorties in and around Taiwan and the South China Sea. And we've got, you know, six, you know, navies doing coordinated sailing there, which I think is a adjacent issue here. Historically, historically great powers that want to remain great don't owe over 100% of their economy, especially, you know, and a lot of it's held by foreign powers. I mean that is a situation that makes us fragile, not anti fragile, right. Because if we hit a crisis, if there is you know some unforeseen military conflict what what Glasbury breakdown in case of emergency. We've already spent, we already at we're in peacetime and we have wartime levels of debt and now inflation is making a return and the Fed is going to make some really tough choices about whether to control inflation and essentially impose austerity on the on government spending or. Whether they monetize the debt, which will lead to a runaway depreciation of the dollar, neither one of those things is a good situation. How would we have reduced our austerity? Well, they can't. But, but again, if debt service rises to 30% of the federal budget, where's that money going to come from? You have to raise taxes and cut spending. You have to do. Which is why. And I think this is Joe Manchin's point. You know, if you've been listening to Joe Manchin talk about the current reconciliation bill, and he says, look, 3.5 trillion doesn't make sense. We don't know what, what situation we're going to confront in the future. We don't know what crises are coming. We're going to reduce our ability to tackle all those future problems by overspending right now, that's been Joe Manchin's argument. And looking at this risk of stagflation in the forms of the supply chain shortage and this 5.1% interest rate number, you'd have to say. That if we want to preserve any flexibility next year to raise interest rates, you better be really careful about how much debt you incur now. Jamal agree. Yeah. Look, when, when, when Druck said that the 10 year break even was sort of you know, at A5 year high at the time. We're back there now. Umm. Look, I'm just gonna. I said this on CNBC. I'll just say it again. I think it's coming. I don't think it's a short term blip. And I think that we are in a period that will resemble the late 70s. And I think that you know you kind of want to be risk off and not own risk assets. And by the way it is hard, OK, because like we are all. All of us, all four of us, both risk, all we're both risk on and all we own our risk assets that are, you know it's one thing to say let's take risks, but you could take risk in like lower of all things. This is this is like taking risk in the most risky thing. That's what we all do. And at a time when people have run up the valuations of private market companies to a level that just nobody can understand, I mean look I think you got a year to 18 months to kind of clean this stuff up meaning like as market participants we can. You know, we can Shuck and jive and get everything into a decent place, but it's coming and I hope I'm wrong, but I think we'll look back on this and we'll say we said it probably 8 to 12 months before it really reared its ugly head, but it's coming. Freeburg, any thoughts on what's happening in Taiwan and what, you know, even a modest conflict there would do to markets, given how to saxis point? This is the opposite of antifragile. We are in like, full fragility here. I mean, this is like, you know, a tray full of champagne glasses on a boat in rough seas. At any point we could trip and everything comes crashing down. Does it feel like that to you, freeberg, or do you feel like we're going to be able to navigate this? I mean, I don't know about Taiwan, but I think we're just going to keep inflating our way out of this mess. Like, remember like that. That's what we did last year. And it's what we'll do again this year. The, the, The, the biggest losers in that equation are the the middle class. Uh, because, uh, you know, the middle class actually owns assets that are now going to be worth less. Folks who are not in the middle class that are below the middle class don't own assets, so it doesn't really affect them. They just make higher wages. But stuff costs more, so they'll be fine. And then, you know, wealthy individuals will end up getting taxed away to fund some of this. And I think that's the inevitable kind of way that the equation balances, right? I mean, think about how much tax rates are about to go up right now in this reconciliation bill. We haven't even gotten to, like, any of these crises, by the way. We don't know for sure if they're gonna happen. I think we could describe these things as storm clouds right now that are very much on the horizon, multiple storm clouds sort of like they're converging, right. And if they do materialize in the way that we're talking about, what? Weapons will we have left in order to fight them? What weapons of fiscal policy. What weapons of monetary policy? We're already gonna have tax on all time high. Yeah, we're gonna have taxes money. No, we're gonna print money and we're gonna pay ourselves. We're gonna go to the central bank. It's what you said. We're going to monetize our debt. And that doesn't go up, that is. Remember, the top marginal tax rate was what, 7080% in the 60s and 70s? I mean, you know, that's likely where we're gonna go back to. Well, I think we're already going to be back there as a result of the reconciliation, overspending we've already done. Yeah, but, like, we've already we've already broken the glass. In case of emergency, we already done. You're gonna, you're gonna see some of these wealth taxes get chased down. You're going to see the top marginal tax rate go up 7080%. You know, I mean, I think that's the way the equation balances. It's not like the world's gonna end. We're gonna solve it by taking assets away from some and we're going to inflate all the all assets like that sounds pretty bad, yeah. Yeah, I mean 78 if you, by the way, talking to a 70, it's not going to work. It will affect most people. It will affect most people even though they don't think it will because it's gonna affect the quality of our economy. I'm just trying to predict what's gonna happen, sacks. I'm not saying this is the solution to our problem. I mean I think the solution to our problem is technology. But you know, the question is, does that come to market fast enough, say, say more about that? I feel like we need a deflationary set of technologies that can like mitigate all of these effects, right? So software automation, self driving trucks, things that take the labor force because people don't wanna work low income jobs. Factually, and you know now that there's America, now that there's in America, now that there's a world where people don't have, where people have other options because other jobs have been created, because we put so much money into these other industries, we're seeing people migrate away from low income jobs like driving a truck for $10.00 an hour or working at McDonald's for $8.00 an hour. And so to fill that gap and avoid the economic collapse that will occur in those sectors of the economy, you need to automate and you need to find solutions that can replace the labor with some alternative technology. Solution that actually allows the product to be fulfilled to the consumers that demand it or you're going to see rates go up like you're going to be paying $12.00 for a hamburger, you have to pay everyone $25 for McDonald's would would an easy or chamath or sex. Either. You can take it. I'm sure you're both going to have opinions here, but we've been battling over immigration and and nobody's even seems to understand how many people are coming into the country or under what system. Should we not tie the number of jobs available, you know, over the trailing X number of months, years, quarters to how many people were bringing to the country? And couldn't we solve this by allowing 5 million people, a million people, whatever it is? Every year a half million people in to take those low income jobs and utilize that a group of people to you know, get businesses back on track. I think it's too convenient to say that these are all low income jobs. I don't think that's necessarily true and I think that it it then starts to introduce a whole bunch of other constraints to the system. These are folks that then need healthcare, these are folks that need childcare, these are folks that need you know that they are also attacks on resources as well, right? We are all tax on the natural resources. And the infrastructure of our country. And so you know, I don't think that that's the solution necessarily to that specific problem, but what if the jobs that were the people who are coming in, we have enough people here to do the work, but they we don't. What we don't have is the market clearing price for that work to get done. And So what I'm just trying to say is I think that the simpler and more obvious solution. Is to raise salaries until you get people to fill these jobs. And I think that that's happening. And so I do think that over the next year or two or three you're going to see, you know, labor rates basically go back up and employment rates go back down and salaries go back up and inflation go back up. All of these things are going to happen together. That's the solution. I think immigration is a is a is a solution to a completely different problem. Which is which is that we're not competitive like I've. So you're talking about bringing an elite, highly educated, technical people. I I I really think that running a country should really be like running a sports team. You know, and recruit the best talent. And you should really be recruiting the best talent. You should be looking at game film. You should be coming up with plays. You should be running and testing those plays. You know, you should have different places that you run in the first quarter versus the fourth quarter, different plays when you're on the goal line, you know, and and I think that like when you look at professional sports, one thing is that they don't see color, gender, sexual orientation. They see ability to be performant, statistics add attacks and statistical excellence. Yeah. And then they go seek. Statistical excellence and and and if you translate that to a country. My simple rubric on immigration is every year there's a draft. And America is the free place, every free agent. Where? The Yankees. Yeah, with the warriors. Yeah. I **** the Yankees. We're like the warriors, OK? Yankees are trash. Jesus Christ. I'm just going. Who historically has won the most? Are the New England Patriots, OK, cheater or the Chicago Bulls were the, you know, we we are the team that everybody would want to play for. It's up to us to have a good GM and a good president of the team and a good front office that just picks off all these smart geniuses. This should be. I think you're great. Point here, truth is you're saying, let's take the emotion out of this immigration and let's make it a point based system. Which by the way, the point based system is what Australia, New Zealand and the UK, Canada all do. And Americans don't even know what the point based system is. Sacks, what are your views as somebody who I've heard? Leans a little bit to the right on opening up immigration or maybe sweeping all this amazing talent globally who have the highest statistics go, I like sports team analogy. We want to get the biggest stars from all over the world to come to the US I mean, I think that makes sense. I think, you know, this, this so-called immigration issue gets so confused with so many different things. I mean, first of all, there's immigration and then there's border security, right? And immigration or just having a border. And so many people think that. If you're pro immigration, you basically can't have a border. I mean, that makes no sense. You know, we need to have a border and we need to have actual, like have an actual immigration policy shouldn't just be like, OK, you get across. I I I like what you're saying or if you're a guy Ron DeSantis becomes president, what should his what will you tell Ron since you're like what you're saying? I like what you're saying with the point system having it be skills based. I mean that makes sense right with the Republicans do that they've been so emotionally tied to this issue because of Trump. Can they actually, you know tie themselves to something performance based and be not emotional about it? Can they change their position? I think Trump actually did endorse like a more skills based immigration system. I think that I, I don't know. The Republicans are the ones being emotional about it. I mean the people who are here sides are clearly super emotional about it. The side that I think is like insane are the people who don't think we need a border. I mean you clearly have to have a border. Yes. And even Obama came out recently, made a statement that you have to have a border because the the the progressive left had gone so far. It's almost like they wanted to be whatever Trump was doing. They wanted to do the opposite of, you know, it's like pull the 180. And so it's almost like the Biden administration policy became to stop doing whatever it was that Trump was doing. Including finishing the wall. I don't, I don't really understand why that was, like such a problem. Yeah. Building a wall also seemed like ridiculous. We could just, it's just one piece. It's just one piece of the solution. But to stop it in mid construction, let me ask you a question. Yeah, it broke this week that you're hosting a fundraiser for Ron DeSantis. You got a little bit of blowback from that, from the woke, you know, in the San Francisco crowd. But in terms of your influence with somebody like that, do you think you can actually influence them to get Ron DeSantis to listen to this? This out and maybe talk about the point based system and change the framing of that. Do you think you have enough influence to do that? I don't know. I mean, I don't know exactly what his position on immigration is. That's not that. That's not like the set of issues. That's that I respect him for. I mean, the reason why I wanted to support DeSantis is that he was the first governor to end these insane lockdowns. And I mean, this is back in. It should have been obvious to everybody by May of 2020 that the lockdowns didn't work and he was the first one to to roll them back and and Florida did very well, especially considering that they have so many old people in Florida, so. You know, on the whole, not what I have done everything exactly the way he did it. Now you know, but nobody did it. Perfect. No, he is. But is he, is he a Trump supporter and and a Trump acolyte or is he distancing himself from Trump? I think I honestly, I think that like point of view is coming from the point of view of somebody who's not in the Republican Party, doesn't have to deal with the dynamics of winning support in the Republican Party. That's what I'm saying. Yeah. So you, you have to basically toe the line with Trump to get the nomination. I don't, I don't see it as toeing the line. I just think, look, I think he's his own person. He's the governor of Florida, he's setting policy over there. He can be supported or not based on what he's doing in Florida. I think like Trump is the issue that everybody on the other side. Want to talk about, but I don't think it's relevant to what he's doing, isn't it's relevant to what his side of the Republican Party over this and should we support Trump? But I wouldn't say I want all this stuff. I wouldn't say it's a civil war, but there definitely is some, some conflict and yeah, I mean what Trump saw. I hope it resolves in. Look, I think elections are always about the future. I don't think people want to relitigate the past and I think that and I think that the Republican Party would be wise I think to find a candidate of the future and not try to rehash or relitigate the past. Another good reason for me to support the DeSantis, I think he is a future looking future oriented candidate. I do think that look, I'll say it the the stuff I hear Trump doing now in these speeches where he's relitigating what happened. Last year and and and attacking other Republicans like McConnell because he doesn't, because they failed his personal loyalty test. It's a little bit like what he did, frankly in Georgia with the runoffs where he sowed so much chaos that the Republicans lost a seat, the produce seat that they had won on election night and they had that runoff. And you have to say that a huge part of the reason for that was the was Trump attacking Raffles Burger and and all the the Georgia. Cop because he thought they were insufficiently loyal to him. And then, you know, you got the whole the tape come out of, can you just find 11,000 votes? I mean, I think voters in Georgia punished the Republican Party for that by by giving that seat to the Democrats. That is the that that margin created the Democratic majority, which will now give us probably an incremental 4 to 6 trillion of spending and tax increases that we wouldn't otherwise have had. So I I do think these elections are very important, and it would behoove the Republicans look. I'm not. I'm not. Like one of these never Trumper people who I'm just obsessed with Trump. I just think the Republicans need to run a future looking candidate, not a backwards looking candidate in 2024. And I think DeSantis could be that guy. It's very, very early to say. I mean the first thing he has to do is run for governor for reelection in which I think is next year's 2022. So I will support him for that. Alright, you guys anybody read the the Ted Sarandos memo? Yeah, this is great. They should definitely jump into this. We talked about the Chappelle. Performance sacks and freeberg. You hadn't seen it. Did you watch? Did you watch it? Ohh God, what nerds you haven't watched yet? Oh my God, you guys are culturally bankrupt. Can you guys doing this week like ******* beakers and like, you know sacks, you were just like you like in like some laboratory doing like sat? There be things they were doing their. I haven't watched it yet, but I don't need to watch it to know I support it. He's just, yeah. He doesn't have to click on the link. Alright, so there's almost nothing Chappelle could say to make me want to cancel him. I mean, and by the way, I've seen a lot of ship Chappelle and I I love Chappelle, so I think I understand that just what he was doing, but I I do need to see it still. But look, he should not be canceled. As ridiculous. I don't think he is. He's going to survive. But here's goes beyond this. Let me read you from it. So everybody knows that the name of the special he did was the closer. It was released on October 5th. A lot of outcry from glad and advocacy groups and actually people inside of Netflix. There's been some resignations. There have been some people who contribute content to Netflix who are now saying they'll not work with the company and. It's really interesting. Ted Sarantos sent a memo to the entire company on Monday and he's, this is the second one he sent and he says, we know that a number of you have been left angry, disappointed and hurt by our decision to put Dave Chappelle's latest special on Netflix. Very interesting opening. He's he's addressing their feelings, just this is a master class in a memo because in that first part he just addresses. I understand you feel that way with the closer. We understand that the concern is not about offensive to some content, but titles which could increase real world. Farm. So now he's framing their argument as it's not because it's offensive, it's because of real world harm. You've brought this up before sex, the real-world harm concept with Apple and Antonio. While some employees disagree, we have a strong belief that content on screen does not directly translate into real world harm. It's not exactly true. We'll get into that. The strongest evidence to support this is that violence on screens has grown hugely over the last 30 years, especially with first party shooter games, and yet violent crime has fallen significantly in many countries. And so he goes above and beyond just talking about offensive material. Adults can watch violence, assault and abuse, or enjoy shocking stand up comedy without it causing them to harm. Other stand up comedians often expose issues that are uncomfortable because the art by nature is highly provocative. As a leadership team, we do not believe that the closer is intended to incite hatred or violence against anyone for our sensitive content guidelines. So basically, he says. You know, if you don't like it, change the channel. If you're a customer, you can cancel your subscription. Or if you work here and you don't like it, you don't need to work here. But is this the end of cancel culture? This combined with Brian Armstrong's positioning sacks, this is your. I don't. I don't think it's the end of it for the simple reason, let's assume that this comic had not signed $60 million deal with with Netflix. Let's say he had signed a $60,000 deal. OK, or 6 million. Yeah, or 6 million, or whatever. And and and he didn't have the legions of fans that that Dave Chappelle had. Do you think that Sarandos would make making the same decision? I mean, I think that special by, you know, by a a A a Netflix comedy by Dave Smith would be swept under the rug right now and that would never see the light of day. I think the same thing was true with Joe Rogan and Spotify, right? I mean. If I made a $60 million deal with Rogan, the OHA, 100 million, the employees all protested and Spotify stood tall for Rogan, but they had every economic incentive to do so. I don't completely trust these companies that if it wasn't massively in their bottom line interest that they would have stood up for free speech. I suspect that if it was, you know, it would not have, they would not have. I think we all kind of emailed, he said in the emails. Sticks and stones is one of the most watched. You know, piece of content we have and this the closer was like top four or five in America over like the last few weeks. So there's a huge economic incentive and and and Reed Hastings said the same thing when he posted the other Co CEO's into a group forum which said, listen, our job is to please our customers and all this data says is that we've pleased our customer. Right. And I think in the case that was that is pretty right. And and and and I think to me that's him putting his foot down and saying we're gonna make the content we wanna make. I don't. I don't. I don't think it's possible. I don't think it's a super look, I I don't wanna, I don't wanna look past it because I think that it's so rare to get a memo like Sarandos wrote where he's defending artistic freedom or freedom of speech or what have you. I mean, it's so rare to ever see that that I don't want to gainsay it too much, but I also do believe that. This sort of special treatment is really reserved for the for the artists that creators like Chappelle like a Rogan they're basically too big to cancel. I mean these companies have spent too much money on their programs to just summarily cancel them. They also again like I said have legions of fans who would rise up in protest if they were cancelled. But I don't think, but I don't think these companies are make the same decision for the the the middle the middle level creator and in a sense Rogen and Chappelle their post economic right. I mean they've made so much money. That they're free to do what they want and they've got a big enough audience to protect themselves from these companies. But it's the little creator who's still on their way up who can never take the kinds of creative risks that Chappelle is taking or that rogue. Well, they can take it, they just can't do it on Netflix. But I I I the, the tone of this to me sound sounded like a manifesto and a the end of the discussion from Dad. Like, we're doing this. If you don't like it, get off the ship. But this is the way the ship is going. That's the way I read it. And I think Spotify did a similar thing with. Joe Rogan, to your point, which was, hey, listen, there are some content out there from like Alex Jones or some people who are just conspiracy theorists. They took down those episodes and Joe Rogan was like, I don't care, I got paid. But yeah, it does feel to me like this is a tipping point. When you put Brian Armstrong, Joe Rogan and Chappelle together that corporations are going to say, you know what? The mob is fine, you can have your opinion, but your opinion stops where we have to run a business freeberg. What are your thoughts? I I think, I think Netflix has a appreciation for artistry. Certainly evident by the money they've spent and the product they've put out, and I think good artists and good artistry is. Uh, you know, can be provocative. It's designed to make you change your opinion, look at things differently, think about things differently and be challenged in the norms of, you know, your everyday life. And I think that's that's important in art in all forms. And that means seeing and being exposed to and being engaged by things that you don't normally get exposed to and engaged by. And I think that's what Chappelle's is fantastic at. And I think that's what other great art is great at. And and I think that as long as Netflix maintains that ethos, that artistry does that. And the good thing is people appreciate it and they appreciate that, that form and they appreciate being challenged in that way. And I think as a result the market will as. Reed Hastings identified continue to demand it and as much as some people might be offended it's the fact that it is offensive that I think makes it good. So let me ask and I think that they hold on let me let me call I hope you're right about what this means. I mean to be let me be really clear. I mean I hope it goes down exactly the way that you're saying because that that is what I wanna believe is happening. I'm a little bit skeptical that this is a little bit more of a bottom line mode because they got so much money at stake they can't afford to cancel Chappelle. But I hope you're right that I hope you're right that it's a statement of principle. And they will apply that principle to lesser known artists who can't protect themselves as much. And, you know, hopefully this is kind of like, you know, it reminds me of is the John Stewart lab the, the, the the Wuhan lab leak moment where you had John Stewart go on Colbert show and he all of a sudden he made it OK to talk about the lab leak theory. It was like you couldn't talk about it before he cracked the Overton window. Yes, exactly. And so hopefully Chappelle will do that for this, like woke. Isolation mob is to finally get everybody to realize, oh, like we can stand up to this chamath is the Overton window on a go forward basis. Do you see it closing more, staying where it is, or perhaps even opening? There's a really great philosopher. This is my, maybe my one and only. Grand tribute to Peter Thiel, but he he is. It's a huge supporter of a philosopher named Renee Girard. And I agree with a lot of a lot of that. A lot of Renee Gerrard's philosophies, and basically it's called memetic theory, and the idea is you're born without preferences. And then you kind of just copy what's around you. And So what the other person wants is what you want, and that's what ultimately leads to a lot of conflict. And the only way to resolve conflict is with a huge grand sacrifice of some kind, OK? And if you think about it here, if you're going to really put. You know, cancel culture if you're gonna kill it. There needs to be some just massive escalation and conflict around this idea. That allows us to resolve it in one way or the other, in One Direction or the other. And I don't think this is it. I think it's not big enough, quite honestly. I think it's a little bit sort of like, you know, there's folks like us that love comedy and we're willing to keep it in a very strict box, which is let people say what they're going to say, be shocked with it. And don't take it onto yourself and don't, you know, and go and reflect it into the world. It's entertainment and you can, you know, it's like, I choose not to watch violent stuff because I don't like it. I find it. I find it very offensive. Or, you know, I don't play first person shooters. I find it really unsettling, you know, Grand Theft Auto, I found it really outrageous. And other people will feel like that about Chappelle. My whole thing is, we should all be allowed to make those judgments, because I think we're all still pretty rational people at the end of the day, and do the right thing in the normal world. But this isn't the thing that's going to get this issue to be resolved, so I don't know how it comes. There needs to be some huge escalation around this thing, I suspect what happens. Is it actually just dissipates and goes away? And the reason is because everybody who's much younger than us has such a huge digital footprint that they've created through their whole lives. There is so much **** that's out there, God, yes, that they just have no choice but to let everybody else off the hook. We we are in a very different situation because we were doing some ******* shady stuff always on the down low. We're always hidden. Whoa, easy there. But that's how it was. If you're not our child and you're largely anonymous you would you would roll deep and you would just you would pretend you would not. You know and now the culture is very different and I think with that comes a lot of acceptance every, you know every kid at some point may or may not be on Tinder, Bumble, Ria, you know Grinder, whatever. So. There's going to be a body of that content that's out. Every kid will have said something crazy, you know, on Tik T.O.K. And all of this stuff will be there. And so you'll have a choice, which is if you're going to hold me accountable, I'm gonna hold you accountable. And so it's mutually assured destruction. And I think that's what causes cancer culture to go away in time. It's the last vestige of very guilty people of our generation. Fascinating. What do you think Freeberg is the Overton Window opening, closing, or about something over the next year, which is saying is right? I I think I've referred to this book called the light of other days before when we talked. I think so, right. Yeah. The book is like all about this notion of all information that's available to everyone, everywhere. And societal norms completely change. People no longer find things offensive and they no longer. And everyone basically shifts to a mode of much more kind of open dialogue because, you know, keeping things behind closed doors and then positioning. One person against the other completely changes when you can see everyone's cards all the time. And so I think, yeah, generally we're headed that way. I don't think we're going to. Information wants to be free, more information is being generated about each of us all the time. I don't think that we're headed in the opposite direction, kind of back to a Victorian era. I think we're going in the other way. So there's going to be blips and starts that that'll kind of, you know, be setbacks on that general trajectory. So yeah, I do think it's it's it's a moment, you know, it's a moment in time right now. Where this is happening, I mean, sacks, if you look at the two examples we've discussed. Brian Armstrong and Coinbase, that was about essentially black lives matters and talking about social justice at work and this one is about trans and trans rights and essentially, I don't want to say poking fun at or you know, discussing, I mean basically says in it that he's team turf. If you were to take two organizations that standing up against would be the most challenging and difficult, I think those are the top two, no? I guess so. I mean, that's why I think this is the most, this is the most telling is that you have two different organizations saying, hey, we're gonna put our foot down. Just for background, Netflix had a very strange, I didn't see the actual film, so I won't make judgment on it, but it was a very strange. Trailer for a film called Cuties which was really over sexualizing young girls like 8-9 ten year old girls and they didn't take it down in the United States. Netflix, but they did say that was in France, it was in France, it was a French movie and they have a different view of kids and sexuality. And yeah, I think people found it a little dark here in the United States but they they survived that one as well or they weathered that one as well. So I think what people are finding is if you put your foot down at a certain point. Think what taxes says is right, then they've these guys have realized that if we have this very specific message. Around artistic freedom. And we never violate it because that's one of those things where if you take that hill, you have to be there forever, right? You can't have asterisks around that idea, but by doing that, they basically dominate the content production game in Hollywood, which then allows them to feel the most content at the cheapest average price, which then makes churn less and customer acquisition higher. And they're already the largest media company in the world, and they're only going to get bigger. You know, they're a Netflix says, what, 200,000,000 subscribers. They're gonna get to a billion subscribers. It's just inevitable. And so for them, I do think it's a very rational business position to take, which is that I have to appeal to a billion people over the next, you know, seven or you don't have to watch everything on Netflix, you do not have to listen to every album and like, Netflix is a ******* mess. I mean, they should spend 10 minutes and improve the UI, actually find something. My God. It's so bad. And you know, he he basically surrounded us, made the point that you know along with Chappelle show they're funding a ton of content by people of color, probably more than anybody and trans people. It's a big focus of what they're doing at Netflix and it's you know, it's essentially to saxis point more speech is better than less. All right. Do we want to go tether FDA chaos tether question. Why don't you take why don't you do your reverse victory lap because after all your **** for me but no, bro, it was the exact opposite. It is not. Sure. It's a ******* fraud. Come on. Can you please stop saying that? Apparently the CFTC went in, did the work, and is actually now refuting what you thought was the case, Jason. So why don't you just saw, how about I read you the quote from at least June 1st, 2016 to February 25th, 2019, Tether misrepresented to customers and the market that tether maintain sufficient U.S. dollar reserves to back every USDT in circulation with the equivalent equivalent amount of corresponding Fiat currency held by tether and safely deposited into their bank accounts. In other words, they told everybody they were one for one, they were not. They lied to the public and that's why they're getting a $41 million fine. That's why they're banned from New York and that's why they're banned from trading in Canada, I think, and they're supposedly a Department of Justice. These guys are shady. As F AF. Shady a. Given economic interest in tether. Now, in crypto he does. No, no, no, I, I. Anyone have any economic interest in tether? All it is is the one for one tokenized dollar. Well, no or not. That's what they claim it is. No, I know you're you're right that it should be, and we need an audit to establish that it is. And they won't audit. They'll do an attestation. When they did their attestation, all they have to do is show a document that says there's money in an account. They don't have to show how long that's been in the account. Certainly. This certainly feels like a security to me and I would think the SEC should get involved in regulating this. You stable coins are the number one thing. On Gensler and the SEC's mind, right. Yeah. I mean they they they make a claim of a secured interest in something unlike this is like another result crypto. This is the easiest part of crypto regulation. Why is it easy? Because because such a bank account, you audit it, you're done. It's it's a tokenized dollar. That's it. It. It is not. Actually, I'm not even sure it's security. It basically is a digital representation of a dollar distribute sitting in a bank account somewhere. A money market. Yeah, it's a money market fund, money market securities and they're regulated at security. OK, fine. But my point is, you know, there are complicated securities and then there's securities that aren't complicated. This is definitely the least complicated. Complicated that this company only has to their own attestations like 6%, three to 6% in cash in a bank account and the rest is in highly volatile corporate papers. Here's the point that I was trying to make to you in the group chat when a company who's got billions and billions and billions of dollars of some stable coin. Whatever something that you think is zero, OK, it's a multi, multi billion dollar market. 10s of billions. Ohh Sorry, 10s of millions. 70 billion in tether out there. And and and and. Could you imagine if they like, let's just say there were 70 billion of tether and like, you know, 1 billion of securities. That would be a fraud of gargantuan proportions, right? We would be talking if they siphoned the money out for their own use. That would be beyond talking about fines. But what I found comical, Jason, is your claims make it seem like Bernie Madoff. Enron level corruption, craziness. Hold on. And the fine was 42. Million, which is like, ooh ******* cares, 42 million. And it was between them and another firm. So either the CFTC completely got the fine wrong and they missed a zero or two zeros, or this was not nearly as big as you thought it was. I'm shocked, shocked that Jacob got overly excited about some perceived hopes. There you go. Another hoax. Conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theory. You know, yeah, Jason didn't fully understand something and got very emotional about it. That's it. I'm off there. That's it. I got it. Here's the here's the best case scenario for making sense of Jake how's points, which is it's possible that tether, the company behind Tether, has all the money. They've just not chosen to keep it in dollar reserves. And so they put it in corporate bonds and a whole mishmash of different things to get the float, to get the food, to make more money. So they're celebration. So my guess is that tether is solvent. I don't think it's it lacks solvency, but but I personally would feel better about any stable coin if it was 100% dollar back. I think it should be, which is what Jeremy Allaire is doing at USC and circle. I had him on the pod this week. I hope they bought the Git lab IPO. Well, I mean the the, the issue here is they also commingled funds which is what got full tilt and troubled the users accounts with their money in it was mixed with. The operating capital. So they were using the deposits to operate the business, which is the biggest. No, no, they were Co mingling the funds that people thought were backed and Bitfinex and tether were the same company. That's why they both got the fines. At the same time, they've also been banned from doing any having any customers in New York and they've been banned in Canada and there's apparently a DOJ wire for it. So I think this is the beginning. Of the end, not the end of the beginning, OK, that's my personal belief. I I was just wanting to get your reaction to what seemed like a really pathetic fine for what could be a $70 billion fraud. I mean Facebook got a series of speeding tickets too. I mean I think that that's I mean that's a big issue for our government. Is that the scalability companies? What's that? They paid like $5 billion or something, right? Yeah. And there are trillion dollar company. I mean, it's nothing, it's 5 billions of big number. That's a big not in relation to their market cap and how much cash they throw off every 42 million. I mean that's a tax payment, the quarterly tax payment for for you, not for us. Or or maybe for sax, he's doing pretty well too. Yum Yum. Alright. Do we want we promise we do some questions? Should we do a couple of questions? Sure. I mean we could also talk about the FDA and Oh my God, the FDA. My gosh, creeper, do you wanna leave this freeberg you want to tell us about the chaos at the FDA? Well, I don't think it's chaotic like you guys think it is. I'll make that just counter why don't you why don't you make your chaos point 1st and then I'll make. I don't. That's not my point. It's just kind of the what people, you know people are perceiving this. So like you know there's been a couple of these changes in recommendations. Now all of these recommendations that and you know the these statements and approvals that have come out of the FDA are predicated on these. Independent advisory panels that are put together to look at research data, assess the research data and make a recommendation on what they think is appropriate. So we saw this happen with the Pfizer booster shot a few weeks ago where initially the the advisory panel, which again is made-up of independent doctors and scientists who generally don't have any sort of economic interest in the outcome here. They voted 16 to two against everyone getting a booster shot and then they voted 18 to 0 in favor of everyone 65 and over in those at risk of getting a booster shot. And then recently there was, you know. Similar sort of consternation around the modern and they ended up looking at data that indicated that maybe 1/2 dose which is 50 micrograms instead of 100 micrograms would have a reasonable amount of efficacy relative to the side effect risk for people over 65. And therefore they made a recommendation to approve that as a booster, which the FDA is now approving. And so again the way this process is run and I think it's a good process is independent advisors of doctors and scientists come together and the one that recently came together was around this generalized use of. Aspirin as a heart attack deterrent because it thins the blood and and limits the risk of of people getting heart attacks. But it turns out that such a a large percentage of the population or large enough percentage of the population were having bleeding issues where your stomach bleeds. If you guys have this, but you know, you take ibuprofen or NSAID's, your stomach can bleed, that that was causing more of a problem for people than they were seeing in the data in terms of a reduction in heart attack effects for people that were not highly at risk. And so they revised the recommendation and said, hey, let's give people that are only at risk and over a certain age. Spread not just like could give it to everyone over 40 or 50. And so it it it took in account new data. And I think this is an important point. Science is messy, right? By definition, science is about gathering data, forming a hypothesis, testing again, iterating, restating your hypothesis. And it's it's a it's designed to be circular. It's designed to be a learning system, not designed to be a system that defines absolute truth and absolute fact. And it's good to see the FDA doing this work, and it's good to see scientists reviewing new data and changing their recommendations. And you know, we've seen this in in health, we've seen this in. In the food system and the USDA changing their diet guidelines and people used to be told don't eat dietary cholesterol. It turns out saturated fat is what causes cholesterol in your blood. So there are a lot of changes that that kind of emerged as new data was gathered. And, you know, I see carbs. Remember the all carb diets. Yeah. And then they learned and they made a change in their days. Yeah. Wait, wait. Can we bring that back? I'm starving. I used to eat pasta every day. First it was rice in my 10s and 20s. I've seen you eat rice. Ohh, the shoveling of rice. My Lord, Sir, Freeberg, I mean, if we're going to be just intellectually eating pizza, if gonna be intellectually honest about this, the fact that, you know, official health officials can be wrong about positions they've maintained with, I guess, seemingly total certainty for decades and now they can revise those positions. I mean, doesn't that lend some credence to some of these like anti VAX arguments? When they say, well, Gee, I'm, I'm skeptical about injecting our M RNA into myself, I think it's a totally you just have the episode. And on YouTube we just got a warning. I'm glad, I'm glad I got the vaccine. I got the Pfizer vaccine and I think look, it could have saved my life. I mean I had a very mild case of delta. Yeah one of the first breakthroughs because it's so but but it was very mild and I think that was because I got Pfizer. I think the risk return was completely worth it and but but I can also see why people with like 5 year old like kindergarten age kids, you know don't want, might not want to get it for their kids when the upside is. Absolutely. You know, tiny, given that it doesn't really affect 5 year olds very much and the downside is not my there's no proven outside, but it's unknown how is that any different than the aspirin thing? Wait, no, they don't. They don't. Wishes you had gotten really sick with Delta. Yes, you are. No, but there's a bunch of people on the left. I don't, I don't, I don't disagree with the framing that that here's what typically happens. The scientists or the FDA panel will say, based on the data that we have, this is our recommendation on what should happen and then the framing. That that people then assume is ohh, this is what they believe to be absolute truth and with absolute certainty, this is what we have to do. And I think the translation layer to the general population is such that this is the 10 commandments. I came down from Mount Sinai, and this is what I'm saying. It has to happen when the reality is it is based on data, and that data changes over time. And I think that your point is right. There is no absolute certainty that the Pfizer vaccine is going to be absolutely perfect for everyone, and it's going to absolutely reduce the risk more than it increases the risk for people five years old. And younger and it's a, it's a very fairpoint that like. But the problem as we've seen on all sides is that the framing is that these things are binary and they're not right. There is a probability distribution of of which is defined as the risk and the things that might go wrong and the probability distribution of the benefits and then people assume that it's just binary yes or no. I think making an excellent point there. I just want to under score, let me kind of translate what you're saying is that the the the people at the FDA are in these positions who actually understand the science make a cost benefit. Analysis And what they're saying and approving it is that the costs outweigh the risks. Sorry? The benefits outweigh the risks in the broad population. In the broad population. OK. By the way, that's why I got the vaccine. I don't know for sure that there's no downsides in 10 years. All I know is there's an upside immediately, and I benefited from that. So I was very happy to take it. But in any event, instead of this complicated cost benefit analysis, the media translates that into good bad. It's almost like a moral case. And then the politicians translate that into laws. And rules. And if you question the rules, you're now a bad person because you you've opposed the quote UN quote good side of the argument. I mean, for example, Gavin Newsom just signed a bill in California saying that if you are a public school child, elementary school, kindergarten, you have to get vaccinated in order to go to a public school even though the vaccine doesn't even exist for them yet. I mean you could be pro VAX, which I guess I would consider myself to be clearly pro VAX. I mean, I got it. A 13 year old got it. I support it. I think it's a smart decision to make. But to require a 5 year old to get it in order to go to public schools and he could also wait until we get the FDA data. Here's a question for you, freedberg, you know, having this. One of the complaints has been the FDA restricts progress. I mean I think actually Peter Thiel have this position for a while that we should, uh, you know, so just get rid of it and disband it. What do we think about having the FDA being framed as these are recommendations and then each state gets to make a decision with their local FDA. So then if Colorado or Texas or Florida had a difference of opinion about psychedelics, about vaccines, they could run their own studies and it's a really important matter of ethics. Yes, what are your ethics that you believe you know should be the guiding principles for how the government plays a role in individuals making choice about their health and their body? And so if you believe that the government and this is, there's no right or wrong here. It's it's simply a framing of what you believe. If you believe that it's appropriate for the government to make the decision about what's safe and not safe for you as an individual to do, then the FDA should stay in place and they should have their criteria of when they're ready to make a recommendation. There's enough data to define the benefit and the cost of a particular thing that you might put in your body and then telling you, yes, you should or shouldn't do this if you and if not, they're going to take their time and and and. Figure that out. Now if you don't believe that, then yes, the FDA should be disbanded and drug companies will go around and they will tell people take this drug, it will save your life and people will take it and there will be, there will be people that will suffer from that. There will be people that will have or maybe something in between. There will be people that federal and and remember like the criteria for the FDA is do no harm. So you know that that is the criteria for a doctor. In general, it is a very difficult criteria to meet when there are costs to a drug or costs to a therapy or treatment when people get chemotherapy for cancer. There are awful deleterious side effects to their body, but the benefit of saving their life and getting rid of the cancer, having at least a shot at doing that is great enough. And the FDA has made a judgment call that that cost and that benefit kind of create an equation that says this is an approved drug now and that's really their goal. And if they don't have enough data and they haven't taken enough time to figure that out, they don't feel comfortable approving a drug and making that recommendation. But then if you let them get out of the way and you let individuals make choice, you could see this being a disgusting free for all where drug companies will hawk snake oil on people and a lot of harm will be caused. And that's that's the. The counter argument, and I'm not saying one is right or one is what I was thinking there might be something that really comes down to state what is the role that you want. I mean it's really that is the role that you want any government, whether it's states or the federal government to play in deciding what you can and can't do with your body and what you can and can't put in your body and ultimately what companies that are making products for you can and can't say to you about the benefit and the cost of that product. And there's no simple solution, right? I mean, like, if you want to say, like, I look at Kyrie Irving, I mean, he's he basically is and not from a $200 million extension and he believes in Jones. Not every individual is equipped to look at the data and make a judgment call on their own. And so the question then is what authority will they look to? And if the alternative authority that they will look to is not as good as, as a research team of 18 scientists, then they're probably going to end up getting bad advice. What do you think the Ultra Kyrie retires, I think it's 60% right now? I think he's giving up to $100 million, so he won't get back $200 million extension. He gets paid like 30 or $40 million a year. He refuses to get the vaccine. He said the reason he's not getting the vaccine is because of all the people who don't have a choice, the pilots who are being forced to get it or not go to work. So he is a privilege, he says, and he wants to make this decision for everybody else. He also believes that the Earth is flat. Stop, that was a joke, he said. I don't think it was a joke. Where are you getting that from? Jackal typing. Kyrie Irving, Flat Earth. He talked about how do we know the Earth is actually around? And he basically was distortion to yeah. Two days later he came out and he was like, you guys misinterpret anyway so that that's nothing over there. He's oh, he's what? He's unique and wacky. It sounds so. I would. I wouldn't make that decision. Why you so pejorative? Like I know, I know because it's infuriating that just because someone disagrees with you, you say that they're because Katie wanted to come to the Knicks, these are tagged. You wanted to come to the Knicks, and Kyrie convinced him to go to Brooklyn. That's the reason Jakal, you're still a member of the media. You have like a vestigial tail here is that you just bought in to the framework that Freeberg laid out, which is the media takes complicated issues, cost benefit analysis, and turns them into right personal. He didn't come. Next he didn't come to know he's bad. He now he's bad for not coming to the Knicks. He sounds to me like a man of conscience. No man of conscience who's willing to stand up on principle. Turned down to $100 million. I got the vaccine for free. I sure as hell wouldn't turn away $200 million not to get it. So I mean 200,000,000 to not take it. Would you have taken? Would you have? I think so. I think I'm not taking it for 200,000,000 there. There was a I I heard a great story yesterday at the poker table. One of the guys was telling me. Uh, it's his backgammon teacher and he says his backgammon teacher. Or is it, you know, good backgammon teacher and a magician blah blah blah, 20 years ago? He was asked. To get female breast implants for a year for $100,000. He did it and he kept them for 20 years. That's quite a free roll. So, you know, the bar for people to do, the bar for people to do things is really not that high is really what I took away from that story. And what I take away from this story is, so let's go around the board. But Kyrie is willing to draw the line on something that he believes in and it's going to cost him $200 million. There's a lot of things that come with all of that noise. He should be allowed to make that decision, in my opinion. And, and I don't, I don't like the way that he's characterized because I think this is a good human being. He's a phenomenal basketball player. There's no chance. Could you imagine how strongly he feels about this, if he's willing to walk away from the game that he loves and that's, you know, been an enormous part of his life. Why is this so important to foist on Kyrie Irving the need to get vaccinated? I mean, it's because in New York City in indoors, you have to. There's a vaccine requirement, and he can't play at home games he could play in Texas or Houston. So they've talked about trading him to Houston, but then when he went to New York. And you also can't practice with the team in New York, New Jersey. I guess Massachusetts is a bunch of states where you can't go indoors without a vaccine. They're in close proximity to each other. You get the idea. I just think we're, we're turning a good thing into, which is the vaccine. I generally think it's a, it's a great thing that I got done so quickly. It's a miracle of science. And I think it's helped a lot of people, I mean all of us. I mean, it's the thing that's going to end the pandemic largely already has, but we're turning into a bad thing. But why would we demanding that these holdouts like every last person? Must get vaccinated, but what about what about a flight attendant? Should a flight attendant before us if they're on a tiny two years old in the sky? Or should they be work somewhere at you get so much protection by being vaccinated yourself that I don't think you don't believe in mandates now. Well, I think private companies have the right to to to and is a private company. I know, I get it. So, but I'm just, I'm just starting to really question here whether it's truly necessary to get every single one of these last holdouts. I just there's something unamerican about imposing on free people this decision. They can't just make up their own mind you in a previous episode said you were in favor of it if people were dying at a higher rate, if it was more acute. No, you keep. Well hold on. You did say that. You said if it was killing kids and a lot of people were dying. If it was some sort of like Ebola, like, yeah, of course it'd be a whole different cost benefit analysis exactly. But look, what I said, and I think this is still my position, is that government shouldn't require, shouldn't stick a needle in your arm. I think private businesses can do it or you don't use that service. So how much would it take for you to get B cups implanted for a year for $1 billion? Would you do it? Maybe I'm not saying, like, a strong D or something. Just like a modest B. No, I mean, is that a real story, Tomas? Yeah. Send you the link. It's but there's a huge article about it. It's in the Wikipedia. Yeah, that's an old story, Jason. You've already got beat cups. Oops. Someone paying for that. I've lost £16.00. I'm good. I'm good. I'm. I'm just like a perky a right now. He comes to be gone. This show is going off the rails. We promised the audience would take two questions. The first one is for Friedberg, and the first question comes from Daniel Neelis. He says Alpha phone made great progress in predictive protein folding. Is there anything similar for chemical synthesis? Could a similar system finally predict a less energy intensive pathway to ammonia than the Haber Bosch process? For example? I don't think this is a great question. When molecules interact, a molecule is a bunch of atoms stuck together. And there are electrons and protons that make up that molecule, and therefore there is this kind of variable electric potential, energy potential that surrounds that molecule. And it's very difficult today to deterministically model how 2 molecules might interact with one another in physics. And it turns out that that resolves using quantum physics. And so today we can't really kind of put two molecules together and say, here's what happens when you put these together and have a computer program very quickly and easily solve that quantum physics. Involved, and we don't have a good way to simulate quantum physics and binary computers. So one of the theories, and there's been some work on this and on the research basis creating the framework for it, is that we can use quantum computers to simulate the quantum states of molecules and use that to figure out how molecules might interact with one another. And as a result, you could kind of see us creating simulations that resolve certain enzymes or proteins that might break apart molecules or stick molecules together or other molecule combinations. That might cause something to happen. The Haber Bosch process, which is being referred to, was discovered through trial and error in the early 20th century by a German physicist and engineer. And they realize that if they compressed atmospheric air to 200 times atmospheric pressure and ran it over an iron catalyst with electricity, it zapped it, broke apart the nitrogen bonds and the in the atmosphere and the in the air. That was compressed and trickled out ammonia, which is nitrogen and hydrogen. And so this was like this. Amazing invention, and it saved the world and fed the world. It's a great book called The Alchemy of Air if anyone's interested in hearing about this, but it was through trial and error and we got so friggin lucky as a species that we figured this out using quantum computing. In the next 30 years, hopefully we'll be able to deterministically model these these behaviors on a on a on a molecular or atomic level, and as a result kind of build new systems to make things. And that'll be an incredible kind of toolkit for humans that will advance a lot of science and a lot of engineering. Forward, I'm still really strongly of the belief and this goes back to your point. I'm sorry, I'm going on a bit of a ramp like great. In 100 to 120 years from now, I do think we'll all have a a replicator in our room. And that replicator will make all the things we want to make nearly instantaneously with very low energy and very low cost. And there's a new brand Oregon, some food, the next car you want to make. I mean, we could see. And by the way, this is a crazy concept. It's not just about, oh, you know, quantum stuff or whatever was described in Star Trek as in but the general principle. That you can locally make things and locally make things cheaply with very little energy and very little input, changes the whole supply chain model. We're seeing this increasingly with new technologies with 3D printing and biomanufacturing. You start to put these all together and you take a nonlinear track out in the next couple of decades and you get to a point that all this nonsense we're talking about, where we're mining stuff in one place and making it another and shipping and combining it all another exact, you're going to be able to print a conscience and it's going to be incredible. You're going to be able to print the emotion audience questions. So glad you're alright. Here's a question for sacks, Maddie or I guess me and also chamath and I guess all four of us. Manny Chavez asks between being a VC founder, Angel, corporate employee, which has been the most fun, rewarding and why? What advice would you give someone early in their career hoping to be be like you, multi channel investor, thought leader when they grow up? Sacks. Well, I didn't. I didn't become a VC until after I had already done a few tours of duty as a founder and operator. So I mean, my recommendation would be to get involved in startups first, generally get some operating experience and that would serve you well, startups or even bigger companies. I I just think getting, getting some reps inside of an organization is critical. I tell everyone that that's coming out of college or early in their career. It's important you go get that perspective and work at a bigger business. I mean, I spent a few years at Google. You know, it was 1000 people when I joined grew to 10,000 by the time I left. But like, I learned so much just in that role and seeing successful product, successful models for operating a business, it was really impactful for me long term. And then you go and make all the mistakes as a founder building a startup, you know, and a lot of people end up with bad confirmation bias if they work at a startup that didn't work out and they think and all they can draw from is a failed model for operating if things didn't, which was your favorite, which, you know, role has been your favorite to date. Freeburg. You know, when I was an executive at Monsanto was really nice to have that private jet that would come out and take me places. They had a whole security requirement. I already have that anyway. Yeah. Wow, the 1%. Yeah, I had the suppression of the point 1%. And Henry? That's making a video. I'm sending the tape. That's not edited out. That's so you said it. It's in your heart now. Your words statement Sachs. What was your favorite sex? My favorite stint. Yeah. Well that's I mean obviously what we did a PayPal has gone on to. Become a legend and then you know PayPal loves the founder CEO. He led that to Unicorn exit. So you gotta say those would be the two best professional experience. Being a fan. I would say I was joking about the private jet thing. I honestly like to me and I I sax. I'm sure you know and and the rest of you guys can feel the same. But like making a great product and selling that product and you know working with a customer with that product is is honestly like the most rewarding thing you can do. It's like, you know getting your hands dirty and actually delivering something of value in the world. There's nothing more rewarding than that. I mean all the financial engineering and making money and all the nonsense. Goes on is really kind of a zoom out of that, but that's really where reward comes in. Yeah, I show that way too. I was joking about the private jet too. Which one? Which jet? Which one actually, I think and Nick. Nick caught me misspeaking. So yeah, it was the the first experience with PayPal. The second experience was Yammer, You may have to do some audio. Is your favorite private jet that you have? Yeah. Which the global. I just want to to defend myself on stealing toiletries on Chamotte plane. Don't don't defend yourself. Don't do it. It was a mini bottle of scope. I drank half of it. What are you? How many did you take? Put it back in the drawer. How many? How many? Did you take your plane or on sat? I come on on your plane. I took a truth. True story. I did take the half bottle of Pappy van. You took my pappy van winkle. It was like 1/2 left. A $5000 bottle 2500. Actually, I'll tell you a funny story about posted 1/2 bottle of Pappy. So blame me. Yeah. OK. So here I gotta tell you this funny story. So I was going. I was going on. You didn't take it. I was going on a business I was going on a business trip with. A couple of you know friends coworkers who they're actually founders now of a company I backed anyway, we were going to like an event in I think it was Atlantis was like a four hour flight. So they they opened the liquor drawer, whatever and saw the paperwork and they asked like they could have sure take whatever you want. And then I went in the back and and went to sleep. So but by the time we land like 4 hours later the entire happy Van winkle like stash has been, they've gone through it and it's like. He has all these different types of Pappy. You've got the pappy 23, you've got some of these. You've got some of these antique, antique ones. So they asked me, you know, they they never flown on a private plane before. They asked me, you know, say sax, how much did this flight cost? And I said it costs about $6000 in jet fuel and about $8000 in Pappy Van Winkle. The packet to the jet. Oh my God. It costs more empathy than in the I'm from around the way. I'm leaving with something. I'm leaving with something. You know, like, if I'm gonna be on PJ, I'm leaving something. I think we found a way to end this podcast in the moment. Insufferable way possible. I love your besties and Nick edited all out. Edit, no edit, nothing highlighted. Make it the opening. All right. For the Queen of Quinoa, David Friedberg, for Rain Man, David Sacks and the decor, and also saxy saxy. We're playing, we're playing next week at Saxy Blues Place. We're playing at beef at the mausoleum. No, we're playing at the mausoleum. Nobody knows in the mausoleum is nobody knows where the mausoleum is, but it was dark so many times. We better get security. Turn off this coming, I'll bring his. Alright, we'll see you all next time. Bye. Bye. Later. Let your winners ride Rain Man, David said. We open sources to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it. Besties? That is my dog taking out your driveway. Ohh man. We should all just get a room and just have one big huge order because they're always useless. It's like this, like sexual tension that they just need to release them out there. Beat, beat. See what we need to get merchants? I'm going.