All-In with Chamath, Jason, Sacks & Friedberg

Industry veterans, degenerate gamblers & besties Chamath Palihapitiya, Jason Calacanis, David Sacks & David Friedberg cover all things economic, tech, political, social & poker.

E52: Trump's SPAC, peak venture liquidity, tech as an economic ladder, Dems overplaying their hand

E52: Trump's SPAC, peak venture liquidity, tech as an economic ladder, Dems overplaying their hand

Sat, 23 Oct 2021 03:10

Show Notes:

0:00 Bestie weight loss strategies, poker recap

13:19 Trump SPAC, how he can leverage the capital intelligently, building vs. acquiring, and more

33:43 Peak venture returns, tech landscape

44:56 Tech's global role: are we still in the early days, as opposed to a bubble? Wealth shaming, upward mobility

58:58 Democrats overplaying their hand, Netflix discourse, and more

1:17:41 Pig kidney biological innovation

Follow the besties:

Follow the pod:

Intro Music Credit:

Intro Video Credit:

Referenced in the show:

Listen to Episode

Copyright © <> - all rights reserved

Read Episode Transcript

Only sacks can lose 20 pounds and look worse. Sacks. You know, with, with all with all these gains and all your funds. I would really love for you to cash them out and buy a belt. Ask your wife or your house manager to help you find slim fit shirts at the the local Macy's. You literally look like you're wearing a parachute. I've never, I've never worn some for this for a second. Stand up. I can't. I'm not. I'm not wearing pants. Oh my goodness. You. Could somebody call HR? Are you really not wearing pants? I got. No, I got. I got shorts on. No, that's not true. Are you really wearing shorts? Yeah, I am. No, he's not. He's lying. No, I'm not. Put your leg up. Show us that pasty leg. No ******* way. Oh my God. Oh my God. How big are those shorts? That's incredible. He's like dog delouise. And he lost 100. He didn't change his wardrobe. You're rich, dude. Change your wardrobe. Oh my God. Those are like 2 toothpicks sticking out of a tent. It's like somebody set up a circus tent and didn't tie down the ends. He's wearing a parachute and a circus tent. Oh my God. Let your winners ride. Man David. We open sources to the fans and they've just gone crazy. Queen. Hey everybody, hey everybody, welcome to another episode of the All In podcast with us today. Again the podcast with us again today, the dictator Chamath Polly Hypatia and the Queen of Quinoa, David Friedberg. In front of some bad art and from the mausoleum a shelt. Fighting weight. Minus 20 pounds, the Rain Man himself, David said. You guys gave me the motivation. I mean, this podcast, you fat shaming me, you needled me for months and I'm like, OK, I'm going to lose the weight, so I've lost it. What was your peak weight in the last 12 months? I think I was at in the High One 90s and I'm down to about 172 now, so it's about £25. Wow. Since since about April or May. That's really great, bro. That's fantastic. I mean, honestly, your family thanks you. I thank you as a friend too. No, but seriously, keep around longer. Really ******* great. I'm really, I'm really proud of exercising too. Thank you for you. Just cut your diet. It's it's, I'm doing the same exercise regimen I was doing before, which is just running occasionally, but it's it's all diet. It's all diet. It's it's frankly severe calorie restriction. And your your munique product has been very helpful, but is it really severe calorie restriction? Thanks for the plug I think so yeah, we were talking about munique for the syndicate on the call in app the other day. Blocks are dropping from the sky. Hold on. I'm allowed to plug. I'm a lot to plug another plug. So you could put a call in plug you have. You're violating our rules of the road that we wrote down. It's not a violation of the rules because I'm not a shareholder in unique. I don't own any interest in that. But are you negotiating a deal? No. But now you talk about funding Munich. No, I haven't. But free book can I invest? That's a good point. We should actually throw that one in the syndicate if you guys weren't. Yeah, Munich's great. I I did it. I lost some weight on it. Saxy poo. What's your what's your basal calorie burn? Did you calculate that? What does that mean? Like, you're steady state calorie burn on a normal day, like if you're not exercising or whatever. Like, yeah, based on your height, your BMI, your weight, all that stuff. Yeah, I did. I did look it up and I think it's around 2000 calories a day. But but the thing that's super interesting. Yeah, there's a calculator online where you can enter your, your. Yep, height, weight, and age. And it'll tell you how many calories that you burn every day. So if you want to lose weight, you need to consume fewer calories than that. It's that simple. Everything else that people do around weight loss that is not. That is basically some sort of game. You just have to consume fewer calories than you're burning. But the thing that's really interesting about that calculator is that the number of calories you can burn every year actually changes as you get older. It goes down. So the reason why people gain weight as they get older is because you're in a habit of consuming a certain number of calories every day. But you know, as you get older, like every year you can consume say 50 fewer calories a day, something like that. And that basically becomes fat if you if you consume at the same level. So you have to cut your consumption down as you get older or you will gain weight. And in addition to your metabolic fitness, meaning like, you know, having your exercise level stay up to increase your metabolism overall, you can also add muscle mass. A lot of people lose muscle mass over time. Muscle burns more calories per day just to kind of keep functioning. So the more muscle mass. Have the higher your basal. And you lose like half a pound to a pound a year after 40. Is that correct directionally? Uh, I don't know. But that sounds about right. Yeah. Yeah, that's what I read. That is about right. And I think it's because of this dynamic where people are just consuming the same amount, but they don't realize that they can't burn it and so it becomes fat. You know, so, so in my case, first of all, you gotta get your caloric intake down to 2000 just to get to steady state. And that can be a challenge. But if you really want to lose weight you need to burn, you need to basically consume a few 100 calories less than that. And if you can consume 500 calories less than that per day, that's considered rapid weight loss. And then you can actually see the results, which is very motivating. So I like the idea of just going for the like significant, the 500 calories you, you're at 1500 calories a day. Yeah. I mean, I think. So I mean I haven't like precisely measured it out, but I've been trying to go for and is that you skip a meal? Is that how you get to the minus 500 calories? Yeah, I will either skip breakfast or I'll do a very light breakfast and then for lunch I'll do like something entirely plant based, like like suit, like a vegetable soup of some kind. And then when it comes to dinner it'll be a more normal dinner but no carbs. No2 dinners, 1 bottle of wine. You have a good system intact system works for me, yeah. System is vegetables first, yes, then fish, then poultry, then red meat. So, so it's it's not you're not like entirely all one thing or another. You're not like all vegan, which would be hard. You're it's not like you're all you there's no red meat or something like that. You could do a little of everything, but you have to have a waiting and the waiting is based on what foods have are the most calorie dense. So that the mistake that I think people make and I think it's one of these trick diets, is like with these. Protein like the South Beach type diet or the Paleo diet right where they're trying to trick their body into ketosis and all they do is eat a lot of red meat. But those steaks have a lot of calories in them so it only works if you do it perfectly where you totally trick your body and keeping your body in ketosis forever, it's just not sustainable in my view. It's hard. So I think you're a lot better off just eating less calorie dense food and steak is very calorie dense. So you know again, you're trying Speaking of first then then fish. Maybe, but I get to eat it today and I'm having steak night. Grey's coming over for dinner and in the season he whenever I text him and I say, hey, what do you want for dinner? Draymond's always like fish, fish, fish, fish, fish. And I said, bro, I I get to eat steak so ******* rarely. And today we're having steak. I can't wait. My mouth is watering too. When you get to, it's because you're on some diet, basically. No, no, I do. I I just observe that I don't eat meat. Any more than once a week, maximum. And right now I'm probably averaging once every two weeks, maybe even once every three weeks. And to your point, it's much better I I do these scans. You know, you can do these kind of body scans to know what your total water weight, your total muscle weight, your total weight, your total body fat, all of that stuff and your basic metabolic rate. And I just kind of track it like once a quarter just to see where it is. And I I agree with you. Like, I've really found that I can't eat red meat anymore. Like, it's like it just really. ***** me up. But it's so good. It's so good. Yeah. Oh my God, it's so good. The other one other trick is that you should never consume calories, like in liquid form, right. You should only be drinking water, tea, coffee, things like that, that don't have any calories. People go to Starbucks in the morning and they they drink like 400 plus calories. Then they have a, you know, cinnamon roll or whatever or banana nut bread 1200 at the start of. Yeah. I mean, that's it. I mean, you're going to be gaining weight on just from going to Starbucks in the morning. There's no now. If you do an Americano with a splash of almond milk or something that's like 510 calories, that's fine. But you you have to stop drinking calories. And then the one exception is like, last night we did poker. We were drinking wine, so that's fine, you know, because I thought the wine was ****. The whole game was horrible. Let me just tell you all the things that were wrong, OK? Number one, I ******* came all the way up to San Francisco last night. Chamath normally hosts sacks over the top. #1 moth is over the top in air quotes. Number one, nobody arrived on time because nobody respects you enough to show up on. And I played heads up for an hour. Hour? Anyone else showed up. We were there from 7 to 8, just like heads up. It was fun. It was fun. I took all the free bird's money. I own 3% of unique. You as the host didn't show up till 9:30 and you spent all of the time on the phone outside in the room trading Japanese bonds are doing whatever you were doing talking to Peter till showed up at 10:30. You know, the game was basically randomly in the muck half the night. Nobody was observing any good decorum. Run it once, run it twice. There was just nothing going on. You had scale fish, you had stale fish, OK? Just sitting there rotting, stinking up the whole ******* room. You know, you had 2013 golden, which is not even a good year. Just FYI, 2012, OK, 2015, I mean. So anyways, I thought it was a disaster. I stormed and up and I left. He did rage quit and it was raining. Moment. Because we're playing PLO. Finally sacked, loses all this money may response, but I did have three bowls of ice cream, which I regretted this morning. Alright, sex. In your defense, why were you? Why did you leave your guests for three hours while you talk about your own home? So it wasn't it wasn't 3 hours you guys were being well attended to. I made sure that you were well attended to and then it to duck out. Well attended to? What are we, preschool? What? Do that? What are you talking about? Well, actually a couple of trades. So what were the calls? Well, you know, crypto is like a 24/7 market these days. Crypto never sleeps, so David Sacks excuse himself. Yeah, I got wired 800K Hong Kong gold. Had to. That's true. Yeah. Yeah. So OK. So first of all, the food was amazing. We had like this incredible. We had this incredible. You didn't need it. You had Brussels sprouts. You had the Brussels sprouts. You ate none of this. I'm on a diet. I did eat the sushi there is like this incredible sushi spread. We had so much sushi, mostly didn't get eaten. Then we had pizzas, got the best late night pizzas from two different pizza places got delivered. There is more than one pizza per person in terms of selection. It was Tony's homemade caramel sauce. Poured over to my bathroom. No, don't you? Don't you? That was great. Yeah. Props to the chapter. Put Dulce de leche on the vanilla. Yeah. And the Colgan in 2013 estate Nine is a fantastic bottle of wine that I, I had another bowl of earlier this week. We just lost 42% of the audience. They are now on the YouTube comment saying, why are these people? Why do we listen to this pod every week? And here's here's the reality of truth is you were very quiet and sort of sullen the whole night from really the time you got there. You didn't really. Just in the conversation and sky hypothesized that the reason why you were so withdrawn is because you were upset that the game had moved from your place to my place and you thought somehow I was trying to hijack your game, which is not true. We do a game on my place. Maybe. I told I told Sky text already. I said hey guys, we normally run the game Thursdays at my house. I'm happy to come up but it's harder for me because that's almost due, right. So you were upset from the get go that you were. No I wasn't. I told I told him that pretty candidly. There's another underlying 2 weeks here. Friedberg and Sachs have not come to the last three games that you months House. Is there something going on here? Is it just the commute? I think the commute is hard. I mean in fairness to you guys, it's hard. I only missed the last game I went. I went to Sax hasn't been coming and I know he's in, he's in town. Is there something on sax where you can't? No, it's anymore. You haven't. I mean, it's it's either the commute or sometimes I'm out of town, you know? So you were in town the last couple times. I don't know. I think it's kind of you and chamath maybe need to go for a walk. I'll come. I'll come the next. What's next game? Whenever the next game is, she should come. But, I mean, you're. What are you doing? Staying home. Playing chess with Peter Thiel on your iPad? I mean, come on. Both me and freeberg are about to have kids. We cannot. Oh, the game is over. No, no, no. For another couple weeks. Yeah, we're gonna revert back to that terrible COVID app. iPad app. Playing poker where, like, everyone gets into each other. All the Chinese app. That was fixed with a bunch of people colluding. Everyone was so angry. Yeah, well, we'll get it back in the next let's start our show. Let's start, let's start the show. First up in Spaceland, Donald Trump has done a SPAC, and it's for his Trump media and technology group. And he's launching an app called Truth Social, which you can preload. I guess in the App Store you're allowed to pre-order stuff. Now that that's kind of an interesting feature. The company will merge with the spec called Digital World Acquisition Corporation, ticker symbol. Currently WAC it's led by somebody named Patrick Orlando who is a Florida based investment manager. I'm not making that up. I don't know if Orlando is actually his name. He founded a sugar trading business and built two energy distribution businesses allegedly or supposedly. Freeburg said maybe he's a real estate guy. Who knows? The stock peaked at $157 a share this morning, Friday morning. So the specs started at 10 bucks. It started at 10, so that's 16X before dropping back down to 100. It's become a bit of a meme stock on Wall Street bets. Trading was halted. It puts this at something in the range of a, you know, well over a $10 billion market cap. And there is literally no technology, no team. And a bunch of technologists looked at the source code just by doing view source, I think on the on the web pages. And there's an open source project I think called Master Don or Masterton. I don't know, I think it's master Don that they seem to have just copied the code from. It's like a distributed version of Twitter. And it seems they just cut and pasted the code and didn't even change the license. You know, the GPL. Since we're supposed to give credit to who wrote the code, so no business, no team, no IP, no users, no money, no office, no nothing. It's basically, it's an NFT. This is an NFT. Basically, it's an exchange traded NFT. It's a change of Donald Trump. The value of free bird, the value of this thing is like closer to Donald Trump is closer to 20 billion because there's a $1.7 billion value if they hit certain stock prices, according to the press release they put out. But there's not a good SEC filing on it. So at 1.7, that means he got 100. 20 million shares which are now worth, let's say $157 a share. Donald Trump has effectively 20 plus billion dollars. So he's finally a billionaire and he's finally a billionaire of equity value in his stake in this actually a billionaire, and I think this, and this is the absolute, like penultimate NFT, it is traded against the caricature that is a one-of-a-kind, completely rare. This is going to all of his quote UN quote media IP is going to be licensed into this. Back and so if you want to own a piece of it, this is the way to own it. And people are trading it like an index on the Donald Trump character. It's a, it's an index on that. I think it's a, it's an index on the right. I think it's an index on an alternative to Fox News, the traditional media, the traditional media, it's a huge focus, actually. The mainstream media. I think this is going to Twitter, Oh my God, it's going to tilt the hell out of like the folks that write at the at the New York Times. Shaq Dorsey's tweet, by the way, no, I gotta. I'll put it in the chat. But he kind of. He made a comment on it after there was a screenshot and honest, it's a grift. I mean, this is just, this is the ultimate peak grift in the peak bubble of our lifetime. I think it's a vote. Like Peter Thiel said yesterday, you know, like Bitcoin is a vote against the establishment, this is a vote against the establishment. Alright. What are the chances that an actual app launches sacks like, and when would that actually happen? When can this crew of ******** actually write a line of code and actually release a product? You know how hard it is to release product? Yeah, that's a good question. I mean, what they're saying is that they're going to launch a new social network. I guess Twitter style called truth social and the primary interface will consist of a feed of short posts from users you follow. Sounds familiar. However, these posts will be called truths instead of tweets and re shares will be known as retrace. So, so that's what's coming and the the the slide deck that's available on the company's website list, Twitter Facebook, Netflix, Disney plus, CNN, iHeartMedia, Google Cloud, Amazon Web Services as some of TMG's current and future competitors, so. Basically, you know, Trump is proposing an alternative to all the traditional media and social networks that have basically banned him. But I do think that the trading here does represent there is, I think, a groundswell for. For social media platforms that are not controlled by big tech and, you know, there's Trump has 70 million tech voters, sorry, 70 million voters. Of those, probably 30 to 40 million you would say are would be fans of his. On social media. He's been banned from Twitter and Facebook and this is his response. He's in create his own platform. I don't know whether ultimately be successful, but I think what you're seeing here is the demand for alternatives to, you know, censorious platforms that are controlled by big tech. So if he has 30 million real fans. Math. What number of them would download the app and participate in the first year he had 90 million. He had 90 million followers on Twitter Jakol, which doesn't count, but that's half of the Twitter registered account. We have 70 million people vote for him. So what are the real fans, not just Republicans who don't want Hillary? I don't think that's the way to think about this. I would I would view this as differently than this. What's in what's insane is you have this entity here which is essentially a cash shell that's now basically, you know, 300 odd $1,000,000 of cash. Plus what looks like 18 or $19 billion of brand value like of intangible goodwill and the sum total of that is, is what the total market cap of this thing is. So if if it is 18 billion then that's what it is. What this allows them to do and this is where it kind of gets interesting, is these guys, what it shows me is they could come back and actually raise an enormous amount of money. They could issue, you know, a secondary stock sale. They could do a convert, they could raise billions of dollars because the demand is there and then with those billions of dollars. They could actually do something really meaningful. They could go and acquire an existing app JSON call. They could acquire engineers and a product that already exists. They could be doing acquire, yeah, they could acquire a traditional broadcast outlet and give Trump, you know, a way to short circuit his launch of a Fox competitor. So I actually think. This is a huge vote. I think David's right. It's a vote against censorship. It's a vote for Trump. It's a vote for the right. It's a vote for alternative. Voices. And as a result, I think a lot of folks in the mainstream who have Trump Derangement syndrome are now going to be, you know, re awoken and in complete full tilt for a while. Yeah, it's pretty tilty T MTG plus will be, you know, it's terrible branding. But the TMT G+ is going to your already tilted. I'm super now. I'm not tilted. I mean it's it's I think the whole thing is just a super graft. I don't think I'll ever get a product out the door. If they do, I think they get to maybe 5. 10 million users. They're gonna raise Jake out. They've got they've got a $20 billion market cap. They could do whatever the hell they want. All people just manipulating the stock like they could like Chamat said, they could turn that into into cash. They could sell. I mean they could turn billion, but I don't think they can get to 20 billion. Trump today in one day is worth more than two times the New York Times. Can you imagine what's going on in the New York Times right now? And that's just brand. Well, let's see. I mean, not all these facts stay at $150.00 a share, you know? So so, Jacob, I I think you're right that. People outside the tech industry really underestimate how hard it is to build technology products that are any good. You know, that have a good UI. They're delightful to users. It does require real talent, and if you're not sort of from the industry, you don't even know what kind of talent you need to hire. However, I think Jamath has a really good point that with this kind of market cap, they could acquire their way to a portfolio of assets. Like, for example, OK, Rumble right now has become the alternative to YouTube among not just. Conservatives, but anyone who's who's been deep platformed, there's a lot of leftists now. There's little that you invested in. Yes, exactly. I invested in locals, which is Dave Rubens thing. So, but but just to take rumble for a second is kind of the YouTube competitor, you know, they've got something like 30 million users plus. It's a very, it's a, it's a pretty big and growing audience, but there is locals, there are other assets and you could and I think the last valuation of rumble, I think it was announced when Peter Thiel actually invested, I think it was around a $500 million valuation. Even if you paid a gigantic premium to that, I mean, if you're market caps, 20 billion, you could spend 2 billion on that. You could spend 5 billion on that, you know. And so by the way, sorry, just to dispel this idea, you don't need good UI if you have the right feature set. And Reddit is the perfect example where they've always been on the side of free speech and they've always been on the side of allowing people to vocalize and pursue their own passions, even if some of those things were really, you know, for the mainstream. Beyond the pale. Their UI is terrible, but they have thrived because that single feature dominates any desire for elegant UI. And so I think what you're going to find over this next iteration of these apps is how valuable free speech is. And there are enough examples, whether it's rumble or Reddit or others, that show you that the ability to not be censored dominates. 4 Chan discord. They're all it's gonna it's gonna tweet. It's gonna tweak. Oh my God, the here's folks on the left are on super Mega. Figure out how to do. Uh, data analysis and marketing during his, you know, 2016 campaign. And they did get that guy Pascal or whatever, and they figured out Cambridge Analytica. So they did figure out how to get some tech people right sacks to, you know. But can I just say one thing? The other super Tilty thing is people will want to fade this trade. And, you know, they're going to be sized up, they're going, they're going to be silently wishing for this thing to crater. And I think there's going to be a lot of profit taking on this because I think it's very speculative, but I think we will all be shocked. At the actual closing enterprise value when this thing D spacks because it will dpac and we're all going to kind of scratch our heads thinking how did we not see this. I mean, I didn't see this. I would have never and there's gonna be at least a billion dollars of cash available when they do their at least at least. I mean they can do whatever they want. They're going to have more, more cash available to them to invest in your account. He is he is firmly back in the game. And by the way, one of the comments Scaramucci made it this morning, it's a very astute one, which is I'm rooting for the spec. Because if this actually does dpac at this valuation, Donald Trump is not running for president again because he's now got a $20 billion media business or $20 million of equity value in this new media business that he's going to keep running. Sex. What do you think? That could be a win win for the Republican Party. But, you know, you're buying the stock, you joining the board, tax is leading the B yeah. I mean, I think Kamatha raises a good point that sites like Reddit have shown that, you know, like a beautiful UI is not necessarily the feature that users want. In every case, I do think you still have to have some tech talent involved in order to produce a good product, just to give you an example. So this product wasn't supposed to have its soft launch until next month, but somehow some users found a way to access the site and they were setting up accounts within hours of the announcement. So one vandal claimed the at Donald J Trump handle and posted a picture of a pig with extremely large testicles. Yeah. Now, I would just submit that you at least need to have enough tech talent to prevent something like that from happening. Yes. I mean, maybe it wasn't a vandal. I mean, maybe Trump posted that photo himself. I don't. It's not. It's not impossible. It's not. But yeah. But but anyway, my point is they still have to assemble the tactile to build this or I like the idea better of just acquiring the, the collection of assets that they need. And I think you're right. I think it's multifaceted. I think it's a social network. But all on Twitter, I think it's. Probably some sort of video. Number of people. In Wall Street, who are on the right and who will help these guys make very good decisions even if they do it sort of, you know, quote, UN quote, clandestinely, meaning they'll never be on the cover of helping them do a big M&A or whatever. But there are, there are a lot of those folks that will help make sure that this despachos cleanly, that they have access to capital, that they know how to go and raise and tap the markets and what's beautiful about the public markets and you can say. This is, you know, an issue, but it's not in this case is that you know, you can go and basically support this guy in a way that's relatively anonymous because it's not like you have to disclose that you own this stuff if you're if you're a private investor. So I think that he's back in the game in a big way and I think this is going to really shake up the media landscape if they can execute well. They just need to think about this as an M and a vehicle, not as an engineering and product creation. Yes, 100% agree, 100% agree. That's what you sell call in for a billion dollars. Equity value at $100 a share to these guys today, yes, I can answer on his behalf. Yes, yes, I'm in a 50. That what you were doing on the 20X lift? I'll take 20X in eight months. Jake, how you wanna be my agent? I think you have a quicker line to Trump. No, no, no, no. I think actually this might be like to Peter Till's point, like maybe don't take the product literally but take the market cap seriously because this is a lot of if they can keep even a $5 billion market up, I do agree that does make them dangerous in terms of buying assets and I do think they can get the 1st 5, all of these right wing services get 5 to. He gets 5 to 10 million people to sign up for him. Even his like signal he was at like 1,000,000. That, you know, very quickly he's got like a signal or telegram group, I think, and he got to me, he could buy, maybe he could buy Ben Shapiro's Daily Caller. That's a big media brand on the right that people listen to. Yeah, the number one and keep, keep Ben Shapiro there to run it because Trump needs operators and the more disruptive thing isn't to buy stuff on the right, it's to buy stuff in the center or even stuff on the left. Again, it's it's very hard if you're a public company. It's impossible actually, if if Trump Media Group now has a currency and tries to acquire. Assets, the directors have a fiduciary responsibility to actually vote in favor of that deal because they're not allowed to look at who the buyer is and say no, we don't want to do that. So if he puts out a reasonable fair market offer price, you know of the closing price plus 3035%. There is not a single public market director in the world. I don't care how Democrat tick they are or how much of a donor they are, they'll always vote the deal because otherwise they will get personally sued and that's the liability in public markets, so. I would be very careful about this thing. This thing is going to get really serious really quickly. I wonder if there's a tentpole. Media personality that he could acquire in the same way Spotify got Joe Rogan and Netflix got Dave Chappelle back to. There's somebody they could offer $100 million. They shouldn't do that. They should do what sacks just said, which is that, you know that that list of like the dumpster fire on Facebook every day, which is like Dan Benigno and Ben Shapiro and blah, blah, blah. He should just go and get all those guys. Yeah, that's what I just said. Round them up. But I wonder if there is like a comedian, you know, like, you know, Bill Maher is obviously hates him, but then is there somebody in the middle who is like a notable comedian on the right sacks? I'm not fully vetted on your all right buddies but who's who's in that Alt right cohort that. Well I think there's there's comics who are willing to be politically incorrect and non woke. So I think that what's his name like Bill Burr or something like that is isn't he like Burns Net team Netflix but yeah I wonder if a Bill Burr. He hates Trump though I think. But I mean who is the guy who got cancelled for exposing himself? OK Leah? Louis CK Louis CK I mean I'm not saying he's conservative, right but you know. It's available, those guys. He's highly available. So I mean, actually one thing to think about is, you know, Trump got all these people to do like the monthly $25 reoccurring subscription and we got a little bit of trouble for that because people didn't know were signing up for it. But I wonder if you could get a million people or 5 million people to pay 10 bucks a month for the sax. Yeah, absolutely. If there's something there behind the the curtain, I mean, if it's nothing but like, I don't know, a newsletter of his, like extemporaneous tweets, I don't think so, but if there's real content. There from people they care about. Why wouldn't they wait a second? What if he just did every Friday night at a rally on a video service where he just did one of his two or three hour stand up routines and had different people come up and talk like his pillow guy and all of his other weirdos. And I think this could be like that. I think this could be like the Oprah Winfrey network where she may like anchor the temple show or something. But there's a lot of other craters on the network. I think that's the opportunity to ask the question. The question quite frankly, though, is whether he's operational enough to actually drive to these outcomes. I think it's very easy for us to imagine. What you could do with $20 billion and his media brand and the question is just does this get executed that way now? Does it's not going to be a real estate sugar guy from Florida that's going to manage this thing to an outcome. Does Twitter then let him back on the platform if he has this competing platform, just Facebook, how does that? No, I think I think at that point they have the perfect excuse not to let him back on, which is like, hey, we're not censoring him because he's there's an alternative. They don't want to let him back on, in a way. I guess you have to ask yourself, if Twitter had let him come back on and gave him his platform back after like a six month or a year timeout, would he even be doing this? No, he says. And he has a press announcement where he says that. I mean, he says here that Trump media and technology group submission is to create a rival to the Liberal Media Consortium and fight back against the big tech companies Silicon Valley, which have user unilateral power to silence opposing voices in America. This is what's giving him the opportunity, is there? Censorship their censorship just created a $20 billion war chest. I mean the the most tilting thing of this whole conversation is it's worth twice as much as the New York time is so tilted. Been saying on this show for over a year that censorship backfires in ways you can't expect. They never think through the 2nd and 3rd order consequences. There's censorship. It's like when Angela Merkel came out and said, hey, like wait, did did Twitter just deep platform ahead of state. Why are we depending on them? I mean, there's all these second and third order consequences they never think through and now they're coming back to bite them in the ***. Yeah. I mean, forcing people to get vaccines is now leading to. Whatever percentage of people just retiring or just, you know, we're not coming back to work. And that's causing a bit of bedlam in the economy. As we talked about, all these authoritarian tendencies create a backlash of some kind. And if our ruling elites would just have a lighter hand, there'd be a lot less tension in the country. We had an interesting discussion last night at during, but I think it was on the other side of the table. So maybe you two didn't hear it, but we were talking about is Biden going to run again in 2024? And what would that look like? And I just said, I I can't imagine. Hidden in a debate three years from now, like he, he doesn't seem. I don't want to be derogatory here, but he doesn't seem very crisp the last time, four years later. So what do we think? Chances of Biden running in 2024, chances of Trump running in 2024 with all this information? And what would that look like? 0 and 0400 freeberg you even care? Nope, I don't think so. Well, look, I mean, I think Trump's going to run this $20 billion media empire and going to be happy doing that. And. I think if it's not Biden, it's going to be a proxy. So it's not going to be too far off in terms of what the you're deep in this sacks you're hosting as people were talking about on Twitter, and you tilted all of San Francisco or 90% of it. You're hosting DeSantis for a fundraiser, first fundraiser for his reelection as governor. He hasn't said anything about his plans in 2024. It's way too early for that. Do I think Biden or Trump could be on the ballot? I think it's 5050 for both of them. All right, but I would like to see. But. Look, instead of having 280 year olds running against each other, I would like to see, say, 240 something. Or you just younger leaders, you know, giving America a real choice. Alright, where do we want to jump off to now? Venture capital? Venture capital, because clearly Sax is is having extraordinary liquidity events at 11:00 o'clock at night on a Thursday night that freeberg money is not made. It's simply transferred from 1 perception to another one perception to another Wall Street speech. Sax was like in his monologues from Wall Street last night, was leaving. He was leaving the poker table to go to into his soundproof chamber. That overseas his estate next to the poker room and from there he was on his phone screaming, pacing back and forth, doing deals gecko style. He had his £300 trader next to him. He was placing orders and something's going on in the market. I mean Zack you know do you tell but clearly the the venture liquidity. Uh, waterfall that's going on right now. It's playing into well, it's it is bonkers. Wait, we gotta show that chart. This highlight the statistics J cause it is truly extraordinary how much liquidity venture firms are having this year. Alright, well just to look at the value of US venture backed companies that went public or were acquired 290 billion, 280 billion in 19 and 20 and then this year 2021 so far we're at 590 billion is literally doubled. But if you look back it was but 110 billion in 2018. So we are now 5-6 X where we were five years ago. And this is again the value of US, French, US venture backed companies that went public were required. So the liquidity is bonkers and we're seeing that in real estate. You know, jets being bought, whatever. The VC industry has experienced 3 years of record-breaking exits. This is a Twitter user who tweeted it at 2021 is obviously smashing all those levels. Yeah, I mean for for the last until the last three years, for the previous 1520 years, the exits per year were in this 50 to 100 billion range. Then they've jumped up to 600 billion in the last year and in the previous two years it was 300 billion each. So yeah, I mean it's just more money has has been made. Or distributed out in the venture capital industry in the last three years, I think the previous 20 years combined at least the last three years. Yeah. And that doesn't, that doesn't even factor in what's happening in crypto. And crypto is just like there's something here, coin base is in here as you know like like like in My Portfolio as an example, like, you know, like venture returns which have which have been excellent across the board. So forget mine, just everybody's venture value kind of like slowly ticks up over time, right, because like. While you're doing this work and then that work gets valued and then somebody else comes in and raises new round and you know you you hopefully can defend your pro rata yadda yadda. So it it it does create a lot of compounding value but it's you know and and it's relatively fast but compared to crypto it's unbelievably slow. Whereas in crypto you know quarter over quarter you have these swings that I've I've personally never ever seen like I was telling you this story yesterday we own something which I'm not going to tell you what it is, but it's a crypto thing. And our NAV, I had to mark my book up a billion naira acid value on that asset. I had to mark it up because you know, we have to submit to our auditors and just keep it an accurate sense of what our book value is, a billion dollars in 1/4. I've never seen that in my entire investing career and here's how what it does to me and my whole team. I have a budget for next year of how much I want to spend. Instantly that number goes up, and what it really means is I'm probably just going to be getting the same ownership, but I'm just going to be paying more for it. And if I'm going through that, I think everybody's going to go through it. What it's going to do is like all of this. All of these returns are great. All of these increases are great, but I'm not sure that there's going to be that much more progress. There's not necessarily going to be that many more startups because it's just harder and harder to find good things in the same. Have the same number of GPS in a place. And costs are going bananas. Salaries are off the charts. I don't know if you guys saw about Stripe. For example, there was a tweet about how stripes starting to pay, like starting engineers 280K. I don't know if that's true or not, but there was a tweet in Twitter and I thought to myself, my gosh like 20 years ago a starting engineering salary was 5060K in the Bay Area. And so you've seen this incredible price inflation. So it's actually quite good. Again, it's sort of what we talked about yesterday. All of these gains eventually come back around and get recaptured. And so I think that you're starting to see the beginning of this really incredible cycle of wealth transfer essentially. So the funds may make it, but it's going to come back to the question about the crypto stuff. Is there any worry there that these valuations match reality? Because my you might have a very small float on these, a lot of excitement and they're not. Actually, products being used by customers in the real world. Here's the thing I because it's. An internal permanent pool of capital. I have no legal requirement to actually mark OK. But the reason we do it is because we want to track NAV, NAV and book value, OK? And you know, I compensate my team based on how well we compound book value. But you're right, it's a huge. Problem because I don't know how to get liquid on these things. And so you see this thing sitting on your balance sheet and you're like, what do we do with this? How do you move it around? You can't. You cannot. And so I would rather there's a there's a great guy. He was an early pioneer, private equity and. He had this phrase which he said, like, you know, the best way to mark up a deal is right at the end. So if you put in, you know, $10 million into a Series A, if you could be allowed, the best thing to do would be carry that at a $10 million value right until the minute you get liquid. Because then you don't go through the psychological roller coaster ride of having to go through these marks because then when these marks come back down, Jason, to your point, they'll be, they'll be 1/4 where we give back that billion dollars of debt. Maybe, you know, I mean, what what do we all do? It's a huge mind. Folk. Let me ask a question about valuation sacks when you're doing yours, because this came up when I was doing mine. And marking my funds. If a secondary transaction occurs and somebody buys com or you know, slack or whatever it's then it's a private company at $10 a share. But the last time you purchased it or there was a funding 2 years ago, it was at $2.00 a share. Where do you put the valuation at, what the secondary market is trading it at or what you last paid for it or somewhere in between those and who makes that decision? Sacks, what is the best practice on this? Because secondary market transactions, people are actually making a transaction, but is that as good as a venture firm, you know, plopping down and joining the board? Obviously it's not. So first of all, you don't want to be making these decisions ad hoc, you want to have a policy. So we have a written policy and there's a process for amending it if it ever needs to be amended and what our policy. Does is it just uses the most, the most recent preferred round to give us the value of the shares. And then there can be adjustments based on market conditions like we know that it's usually on the downward right. Like the company we know has had a huge problem. They're not going to fundraise again, so there's not going to be a new marketing time soon. It's zombie company, perhaps company we can, we can mark it down, but basically speaking, we use preferred financing valuations to set marks. Only now we do sometimes buy secondary shares and there's a methodology for bringing value on them. Usually, it's basically what we buy them at. And if we somehow otherwise own common, we'll use the 409 a. So, yeah, yeah, it's I think that's severely really clean policy. You want to be conservative in these because nothing you worse. Yeah. I think you have to be accurate. Accurate. Yeah. Well, I mean, you could be. Yeah. I guess the question is like you could see somebody playing some games where you know you buy, you know some shares at the you, you own shares in the company, you buy some shares in secondary better you've got 2 marks. The embedded risk in venture capital has always been the following, which is that you have money that goes in into the A and there is an incentive today especially because so much money is trying to come in where you want to drive as much growth as possible because then the B is at such a large step up that the IRS look amazing and then the C looks greater than the. Eat so that everybody's quote UN quote making paper money, which allows you to create more incentives to raise more capital. The problem with all of that is that if these valuations ever turn out to not be real, or there's a valuation reset, or there's inflation, or the public markets don't value growth stocks. It takes a long time for it to work its way through the venture ecosystem, and all of this liquidity will probably make it even more violent when it does happen, because it'll eventually will happen. We'll go through a rerating like the year 2000. Who knows when it is and what the catalyst is? But that's the real downside of not of all of this is that it'll eventually have a a valuation reset. That's going to be. And to make this super real for people, US venture capital funds have raised a combined 69.1 billion in 2020, edging past to 2018. And a couple of these were because of Andreessen Horowitz doing a pair of mega funds with 4.5 billion in commitments. Recently and so. It's been just a tremendous amount of funds being made and then to give you an example, clubhouse went from 100 million to a billion to 4 billion in under 18 months evaluation led I think each time by injuries and Horowitz. So what you're saying in an example like this or in your hypothetical example and I'll just make it a real world one if they take those and by these are 20212020 sets, I don't know the 2021 seats are. So those are old stats. It's probably more I think actually I have the updated stats. Funds have raised 96 billion for 2021. That's the most updated. In fairness to all of the venture capitalists, I think that they're doing exactly what they should be doing. And in fairness to all the crossover funds, right now is the time. To be putting maximum money to work as fast as possible, not necessarily intelligently, not necessarily in a concentrated way, but the real game, if you want to play it at the institutional level, is to just put all the chips on the table. And then go back to the store and get some more chips as quickly as possible. Put them all on the table. Come back and get more so that when it all you know is said and done, you have as many dollars working. And the worst case is you will return the average return of the market. And if that happens to be good, you look good. If it happens to be crappy, you'll be no worse, better or worse off than anybody else. But meanwhile you will have collected enormous fees. And so that's the point in the cycle we're at. And I think that anybody who's doing it. Makes a ton of sense. I think it's it's a really logical thing to be doing. The ones that have had big liquidity events are also retiring. I mean we're seeing across the board GP's of these ultra successful funds that have returned 5X plus taking their, yeah they got their carried interest and they share their 2025% share in that and they walk away. But if you look at the value of all global public equities. It's about, it's about $100 trillion. And so if you're seeing, let's say, that we're raising $100 billion a year of venture capital in these funds, and then you're making a 2 1/2 X average market return, which is not normal, right? Let's assume that's the normal cycle we're in right now. That's $250 billion of liquidity realized in a year out of $100 trillion of global public equities. That's only a quarter of a percent of the disruption of public equities. And think about it. Technology is set up to disrupt. All of these old school businesses that are public and mature and scaled and that's what the $100 trillion represents. So it's actually, you know, kind of looking at it statistically, it's not that unfounded that we're only seeing 1/4 percent market cap disruption of public equities each year because those public companies aren't disrupting each other generally, maybe to some extent they are. They're getting disrupted by new companies that are merging new startups. And so I don't think that this is like necessarily the, you know, the peak, it may kind of be the beginning of a continuing disruption cycle that we're going to see kind of persist. For the next decade or two, especially as more of the old school industrial businesses which make up a bulk of that market cap start to get disrupted not just by software but also by automation, by EFG angle investing by life sciences and all these other kind of technologies that and these interests, these market interests are going to disrupt those old industries. I think we could even see an acceleration from here. So you know I don't, I don't think that this is necessarily peak frenzied bubble, low interest rate fueled outcomes. I think this may be kind of part of a longer term trend that is statistically. Probably not that big a deal, sacks. Are you concerned about this peak bubbly market or do you think you know? Like Tramont said, push all your chips in and raise this bigger fund as you can and you know if the game is going to be played at these high stakes, you want to be at the table. Well, I I I like what Freeberg said. I think it's a super interesting point that this could just be the beginning. Look, we we we live in an age of accelerating technological progress. So why wouldn't the returns from that accelerating technological progress also be accelerating? You know, we we had this thesis 20 years ago when the Internet first started that you the new economy replaced the old economy. It took a few years longer than people thought, but we are fully there and the number of new companies being created now is just exploding. There is a lot of this the, this liquidity that's being generated is being now pumped into the next set of funds, which will go to founders. They'll be able to create more companies, they'll be able to keep more of those companies because they'll be less dilution. And then a lot of this wealth is trickling, a lot of the VC money is trickling down into the competition for salaries. So anybody really anywhere in the world who can learn how to write code can now, you know, make a 6 figure plus salary because of remote work. So all the salaries all over the world. Work liberating. So I mean this is an incredible pathway to prosperity for I mean certainly the United States but really the whole world for humanity, for humanity, it's really positive assuming it keeps going, assuming it's not just totally liquidity driven and you know, I don't know exactly, you know, how all those macro forces will play out, but but I mean this seems very positive overall. The other, the other thing it will lead to just quickly is a change in who has political power because you know. Really? You know, money is the mother's milk of politics. And and the people who are making all these returns will eventually fund politicians and. And, you know, yeah. Well, yeah, I want of them, yeah. But look, I think there's two kinds of, like, I'd say prototypes, politically speaking, for people in the technology world. You've kind of got the, the sort of standard woke progressives who are funding a lot of this crazy stuff like decarceration cities, whatever. We talked about that before. But I also think there's another prototype that's less. Loud. And they feel that they're, they kind of keep their views more to themselves, which is I call them liberal tyrians who are sort of liberal on social values, but libertarian on economic policy. They don't like government regulations. Certainly if they're in the crypto world, they don't like government regulations. They could see how they create, you know, friction to progress and they believe in markets and and they, I think they're going to want to fund politicians who support that, those types of things. So, you know, I could be very positive. Politically in that respect, what's interesting, I just want to build on what you built on. What Freeberg said, which is I think the best point you made was look on on a global basis of the opportunity for an individual, somebody who is, you know, graduating high school, college, they're 181920 years old because of remote work. Anybody can work from anywhere. Technology companies have unlimited resources and they need an an never ending supply of developers or even a SAS salesperson, a marketer, you know, back office, etcetera. And they can work from anywhere on the globe. And make a 6 figure salary, you know, whatever, 50607080 K for one of these entry level jobs and sales. And all the information on how to get those jobs is available for free from startups that have put open courseware online or very free courses. Yet we're looking at this massive technological change and the New York Times is position is that technology is destroying humanity and polarization of wealth is destroying humanity. What we're actually uncovering here is all of this money being invested in these companies is giving an opportunity for people around the world. Get high paying jobs. Totally. And actually can I, can I, can I, let me mention a really interesting item and that was just in Politico today, which is about Al Sharpton was lobbying in Congress against changing the carried interest treatment. So remember, you know, all of us in VC make our compensation in the form of carried interest. Explain what it is. Well, it's basically, you know, if a fund is in profits that you know the VC will get the VC's. Firm will get say, 25% of the upside after they pay back all their LP's. That's called the carried interest. Because of the way that these partnerships are set up. That is treated as a capital gains as opposed to ordinary income, assuming it meets the holding periods of the underlying assets. So there's a big debate about whether, you know, VC and private equity people should be paying ordinary income or or long term cap gains on those returns. Al Sharpton was lobbying against changing it because in this political Politico article. He was saying that it would impede the efforts of black entrepreneurs to build lasting wealth if you jacked up the tax rates because there's a lot of fund managers and you know who, who are black, who are making a lot of money now and they don't want to be subject to this change in treatment. So that was super interesting. You know, this tech boom is not, it's not exclusive. I mean, the the tech industry gets this rap is if it's this highly exclusionary place. It's not. I mean, three of the people on this pod right now are immigrants. So, you know, the wealth that's being created is not going to traditional centers. Traditional is not going to the errors of, you know, Northeastern, you know, families or something who've been saying their kids to Harvard and Princeton for generations. It's going to entirely new people who haven't had this kind of wealth before. And unless there's another positive externality of this wealth, all these massive gains that folks who have invested in venture capital have gotten. Has caused one really interesting positive change. So Amherst, which is a really exclusive liberal arts College in the Northeast, made so much money, their endowment is so flush with cash, they basically eliminated legacy admittances. Which means if your parents got in. You were 70% likely to get into Amherst. An equivalent kid whose parents didn't go to Amherst had a less than 6% admit rate, right. So a huge disparity, basically said if you are a legacy kid that exists, you know, we all know this. It exists at Harvard. It gets it at all these Ivy League schools, but Amherst is now so has made so much money through VC investments. As an example, they're like, we've cancelled admittances. So there's, there are, there are some really positive things that are happening with all this money that's being made, Al Sharpton's rationale aside. Anyone's going to get wealthier, they're paying less taxes. So I think, you know, you're broadly, yeah, you're you're going to see a bit of a focus on that point, obviously, which is why Freeberg California was massively in the bonus in terms of budget surplus and cash because of this issue and they were spending money like drunken sailors. Yeah. I mean, I just think you're going to hear a lot of positioning. For, you know, the case and and and by the way, I think that, you know, building individual wealth creates. This is obviously a philosophical point, but you know, it creates a greater path to prosperity for more people through the spending that they'll undergo and growing the economy then. You know, they're not. So I don't know. I mean I feel like the Al Sharpton point is a good one to kind of make, but it's it's a broader one than that. Well, I think so to in my view the broader point about the the Sharpton thing is that it shows that we talk about this group of rich people, the the wealthy, the millionaires and billionaires as if it's a static class of people. At least this is the progressive attack. It's not. I mean what Sharpton points to is that this group is constantly changing. There's new people getting rich. So when we talk about the rich, if it's new people getting rich, we're really talking about is success and if you really want to. Ban people getting rich and you're talking about banning success. Our country can't be successful that way. We're not gonna be able to outcompete China if we're preventing success. And by the way, we can't fund all these progressive programs if we are, you know, hamstringing success. So, you know, I think this what we've created here with this highly entrepreneurial free enterprise system that's funded by venture capital. This is the golden goose of the American economy. And the most important thing is that we don't break it, sacks. It might just be, we may have. Underestimated its power is. What we're sort of realizing collectively here today is that we've always thought that this thing is hitting all time highs. This might be the beginning. Right. Like, it feels like this is getting bigger and you know, and going out of velocity. That is different than even when we came into the industry, if you know the amount of exits, the amount, the scale of these companies, the coin bases, the robinhoods, the Ubers. Slacks. I mean, these are giant companies making huge international impacts. I think it's either that or this whole thing is a liquidity driven bubble. So it's one of the two. I also think the the Sharpton thing is very interesting point that we can go back to maybe episode 25 or 20 when we started this podcast which was. Trump got massive support from the Black and Hispanic community because of this entrepreneurial freedom. Upward mobility pitched. The Republicans were making. That's the perfect pitch for the Republicans. Not this divisive. Divisive, you know, shut the border down, but more, hey, we want everybody to support it. And I thought, wow, how crazy is. This is Michael Che, did you want to just add on this and I'll give to you, Michael Che was on The Breakfast Club when our friend was hosting SNL and he said, I don't know, I think white people just don't like their billionaires for some reason. It's weird because we love our billionaires if Oprah or Tyler Perry. This coming, we'd be excited about it. And I met Michael Che there, and Michael Che was really excited. He he's a fan of Evans and, like, it was a really great conversation they had. So true. It's so true. Like, why are we hating people who are changing the world and helping, right? Because it's it's not we, it's it's frankly, it's white woke progressives. They're crazy. They're the crazy ones. We have to get purple. I think conservatives and what you call woke progressives are the same. I don't think it's about a political affinity. I think it is about people feeling like they don't have the opportunity that others clearly were able to realize. And it is amplified and magnified by a social media that that basically shines a light on the success that people have had in a way that we've never had in history before. And it creates a great deal of feeling like I'm missing out and I'm being left out. And that's what's driving a lot of the discontent on both the left and 100% not. It's not a political point of view. I think it's a social point of view and the great progress we've had and the great success. We've had as a society over the past couple of decades is now being realized through this media in a way that's kind of driving emotional conditions for people that haven't had the same level of success. Maybe if they stop tweeting and complaining and just learn some skills, like if you're still complaining on Twitter only has the only colored person on this pod. What I'll tell you is I've I it's very rare that I meet a colored person that hates a successful other colored person. Just doesn't exist. Guys, tell us more. It's just one of these things where, you know, we were, we are all grinding. We all know how hard it is to be on the outside looking in if any one of us makes it. There's a lot of support. I mean, we see that it's just, that's just what we tell you. That's what I felt I South African Jews don't feel that way. No, I mean, we see that in the incoming emails and tweets to you, Jamal, if you, you are inspiring people in India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka. We see it constantly. They come up to you at events and they're like, hey, if Chamath can figure this out, I can do. I'm about to do this thing in Africa and I'm going there in December. I can't wait. And you know, we're thinking of just doing a couple of like. Lectures and talks and lectures and talks and these, these, these places are going to get rammed with people. And it's like, it's beautiful to see, like, yeah, I just think that the minorities, like, don't hate on other people that are successful. It's just not. You're going to Africa in December. Yeah. Why don't we do all in Africa? What are we doing? Like, where you going? Have any cooking? I got some stuff cooking. I'm getting e-mail constantly by people who are starting startups in Africa. I wanna go. I've never been. I really want. You can come with me in early December if you want. I'm in. I'm 100%. Here's the thing that I wanted to talk about before. What is crazy, and this is Jason to build on your Trump comment. We may be facing a situation, I'd love to get your guys's reaction, where Donald Trump, in his first two years of his presidency, may actually have gotten more done than Biden will get done in his first two years. And I just want your guys's reaction and thoughts on. How that's possibly could be because we have a Democratic president, we have a Democratic Congress. And we may not get anything done. I can speak to that. With the wind up, I I can't believe that the way the progressives have done this reconciliation bill, it's been crazy. OK, look, from the beginning they've been saying Biden and the administration and the Democrats have been saying we want to do the biggest package of tax expense since the Great Society. OK, but here, here's the thing. If you want to do LBJ type things, you got to have LBJ type majorities. They've got a 5050 Senate and A3 seat margin in the House. LBJ, when he passed the Great Society, he had like 69 senators. He had a filibuster. Super Majority filibuster proof supermajority in the Senate. He had something like 150 more see margin in the house. That is the kind of margins you need to pass great site programs. So instead of having, I'd say ambitions that were reasonable, the administration caucuses with the progressives, they come together with this for over 4 1/2 billion of spending, 3 1/2 in the social welfare 1.2 trillion of infrastructure. And they wanted even more, OK? And then they've been trying to jam this thing and they never went to the center of the party. To cinema, to mansion and said, hey, what are you guys willing to do? And so somehow I think they thought they could just jam this thing through over the objections of these votes that they absolutely need. And I think there's really this mentality on the part of the progressive Left that I think they're so used to jamming people with speech codes and cancellation and censorship and COVID mandates that are not passed by legislatures but have been imposed by edict. I think they're just used to jamming people, and they think they're going to shame people on Twitter like these senators like Manchin. Next cinema into voting their way. Guess what? It doesn't work that way. Twitter is not the real world. Eric Adams showed that in New York and won that election. Exactly. Dave Chappelle is. Dave Chappelle is a 95% approval rating. OK? The critics hate him. The work progresses hate him. Guess what? You know, many people were actually at Dave Chappelle protest like three dozen, OK? The progressives don't have the votes. What they should have done and by the way they're their conduct through the whole thing has been insane. AOC has basically been saying if you don't give us everything we want we're not voting for your one vote. These guys have like Ace **** *** and they're they're putting up their head saying, hey unless you give us 3 1/2 billion, we're not going to vote for 1 billion. Really? You're going to do that? How does that make sense? We know call their bluff. We know progressives will vote for every penny they can. What the what Biden should have done if we had a more hands on President who actually want to get things done. He and he knows this from his time in the Senate. He should have gone to those swing senators as a group and said, hey, what can we get done here not to AOC and Pelosi. They can't deliver they. I mean the promise of Biden, I'll say, you know, as somebody who voted for Biden, I'm a little disappointed was he was supposed to be moderate and he was supposed to bring people to the center and it doesn't feel like he's actually to your point from you asked us what we think I have. I'm not regretting because Trump had to go. It was too much chaos. There was just too much risk having him in there. So I am glad I voted for. I am unhappy that he cannot build consensus down the middle and get the far left to just, you know, pump the brakes. I understand they have passion for certain projects, but just get something done moderately and in a phased approach. Why does this have to be so huge and confusing? Taxes are things. Three times Sachs is exposing what we may not know, which is that progressives are very loud, but they may not actually represent a plurality of people. So, for example. In the Netflix protest I saw a video and there was about two dozen people, you know, and one person actually had tweeted, hey, I never even showed up to the office yet, but now showing up to walk out of the office. But then what happened was there were some other people that showed up and in the middle of the protest they had a sign that said, you know, jokes are funny. I like jokes. And then everybody started chanting that. Then a black woman got up and she started to say Black Lives Matter. And then everybody got confused and started to chant Black Lives Matter. And then they were all looking around each other trying to find direction in this protest. And it became somewhat directionless. And I think this is what, you know, we're, we're now realizing is that, you know, remember what like. As managers and corporations, we've all heard this term. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. But it may actually be the case that the squeaky wheel shouldn't get the grease because it's a head fake and we're going to get lost in misdirection. Another example of this, there's a guy Dorian Abbott, and I wanted to talk about this as well. This is a guy who's an acclaimed climate professor. OK, let me just give you the whole story. I'm just going to read to you, because I think it's interesting. The first couple of paragraphs of this story from the New York Times MIT invites geophysicist Dorian Abbott to give a prestigious public lecture this autumn. He seemed a natural choice. He's a scientific star who studies climate change and whether planets in distant solar systems might harbor atmospheres conducive to life. Then a swell of angry resistance arose. Some faculty members and grad students argued that Doctor Abbott, who's a prophet University of Chicago, had created harm by speaking out against aspects of affirmative action and diversity because in videos and opinion pieces he wants people and members of groups rather than as individuals. He basically favors a diverse pool of applicants selected on merit. So, but he said his planned lecture at MIT was about climate science and to help people understand climate change. And would make no mention of his views on affirmative action. But his opponents argued that he was infuriating, inappropriate and oppressive, and so they cancelled the lecture. Now here's the question I have here. That's another example of all of this stuff. Are we better off with? Let's just say there's 100 grad students, 100 brilliant minds at MIT. Being pushed to think even more specifically about climate change by an expert who can do that. Or are we better off finding some more middle of the road person who maybe not be as intellectually ambitious around climate change, but has a whole bunch of other views not related to climate change that are more palatable? And what does that do for all of us, including probably all these people who probably want a solution to climate change, but who have now held back the ability to teach these kids? What do we do? What do we think about that kind of stuff? And this is where, again, the squeaky wheel in this case did get the grease. But are we actually better off in this? Example freedberg diversity of thought drives successful outcomes. Alright, thanks for coming in for the all in podcast. We're telling you **** you already know. I mean like what are we talking for yourself? People listen to a bunch of opinions and if somebody says something you don't like or challenges you know that's an opportunity for you to learn or grow or for you to make a blog post or do your own stand up special, give your own talk that challenges their debate like we do here every week, right? But you get the same thing happened with that. What's that ultra conservative young guy Sax who went to Berkeley a few years ago and they blocked him from joining the campus? No, no, no. The Greek name, Greek name, you know, anopolis, Milo Yiannopoulos. He's the right wing guy, the gay provocateur. Here we're talking about an expert in climate change giving a lecture about climate change. To grad students who could then go and solve climate change for the call of the world. I mean, this is MIT and you, you Chicago, which are probably two of the smartest institutions of people in the world, right? He's not saying anything politically offensive. It's just that his unrelated views they view, they think are anathema and therefore they're going to protest and block him. And of course, you know, they're they always use the language of safety ISM, which is, Oh well, if you allow this person on campus, it threatens my safety. Really, this person is a physical threat to you. No, he threatens my. Self conception, really. He said something that, you know, he's gonna talk about, something that offends. You know, it's just that, you know, he said things that that that threatened my view of the world. So my safety is jeopardized. I mean, this is, this is literally the language that's being used now. I mean, freeberg's reaction to it is, yeah, this is so obvious that we don't even to discuss it, but it's not so obvious that it's not taking place. It's actually it's happening. It's happening. You know, what I find the most disappointing about the whole Netflix situation is I thought Dave Chappelle. You know, even though maybe the special wasn't as funny as other ones, I thought it made you think in such a just incredible way. And I was actually read that. I looked up the transcript and I read the transcript so I could think more about it and try to form an opinion about this turf issue and trans people and you know, people punching up, punching down and comedy. It made me think. And then the entire discussion about this is just people walking out and. No discussion about what he actually said. And that to me is just a little bit of a tell. Like, if you are so upset about what he said, well, where is the transcript of what he said? Break it down sentence by sentence and tell us exactly what he got wrong and why, so that we can continue the discussion. The Netflix walkout and how this thing has unfolded. The reason it's so unproductive is because they're not moving the discussion forward. They're not actually listening to to what Chappelle said. And spoiler alert, if you haven't seen it yet, I'm going to talk a little bit about the. What was in it? He talked about his friendship with a trans person who was a comedian and how he and she had these incredible discussions and learned a lot from each other and how she was dragged on Twitter and a lot of tragic outcomes, and I'll leave it at that. But there's no discussion about his relationship with that woman who had a tragic fate and the substance of what he said. Did you notice that chamath that there's no discussion about the actual words and points that Dave Chappelle made that shows you that this is a disingenuous? Or a broken discussion. Yeah. I just. I just think that the problems that we have as a society are really big. Freeberg talked about it. We have inequality problems, we have climate change problems. You know, we have problems of sort of like systemic health issues. These are all fixable. And I think that this other stuff is getting in the way of people getting organized to solve those issues 100%. And I think that that frustrates me. I would have really, I'm not sure I agree with this guy's views on affirmative action. Let me just be clear, I'm kind of, I think on the margins of formative action, it's actually, it levels the playing field and so I support it. But I also sort the fact that if this guy is a brilliant geophysicist, then he's already proven that I would want my kids to be taught climate science from him. Sure. I don't. I don't think he's out there to try to, like, peddle his affirmative action views, you know, to a bunch of other physicists. I don't think that's what he's doing. No, that's not what he's celebrating his life's work. And so I don't care. I would want all of those really brilliant kids at MIT to have to be one step closer to proposing a solution to climate change. I think that's a pervasive global issue, and we don't have the ability to prioritize these things and and and. That's what's just so sad. We're not gonna have an honest conversation about climate change because we can't have that expert give us talk. And I don't think we're. To Jason's point, I don't think we're having an honest conversation about the Chappelle special. I don't think any of us believe that Chappelle hates LGBTQ people or I don't think anyone in the audience thinks that. And I think you have to deliberately misinterpret what Chappelle is thinking or saying in order to believe that his message is hey, I don't think it is not what I think the Chappelle special represents a threat to. Is perhaps this idea of intersectionality that all of these oppressed groups have to be on the same team? What he seems to be saying is there's a group of what he's kind of making fun of is that there's this group of sort of pampered, rich, white, LGBTQ people who have made enormous progress. I mean, doesn't he say at one point in the special that, you know, I wish, I wish my community, you know, black people could have made as much progress in 40 years in terms of acceptance as this group has? And yet this group now wants us to immediately adopt all of their language and sensibilities and and punches down, talks down to us if we don't. I mean, that's kind of the point he's making is he's kind of revealing a little bit of a rift between these, between these two groups that are supposed to be the way. If you saw that, if you saw the clip of the protest, that Rift was actually in display because everybody got confused about what they were supposed to support because you had. One set of chance and then you had jokes are funny chants, and then you had BLM chants from completely different cohorts of people, and it just became a chaos. Well, I mean, everybody's opinion must be put through the lens of how many oppressed groups they're from, you know, obesity. I'm black, I'm gay, I'm trans, I'm short, whatever. I mean, like, how do we have, how do you even navigate a discussion intelligently? If I have to say, OK, you're Sri Lankan, but you're rich to moth and Freebirds got Aspergers? That he's really smart about what? I mean, it's like, just make your point and let's have an honest discussion about it. And why are we so upset about this special when in China, you know, we've got a million people Uyghurs being sterilized and tortured. And then I don't know if you saw this week, Xi Jinping is saying, like, he wants to get rid of the Sissy people. A Sissy man in is the term he's using in China. Right. They literally, they ask media rules against effeminate men. Yeah. I mean, well, why are we not protesting that well? We saw this in the Middle East as well. The real threat to LGBTQ people is or these authoritarian governments that really want to oppress, you know, people and murder gay people. They want to jail them. Yeah, I mean Chappelle is not the the the threat. I I think, I think Chappelle had to be silenced because what he's saying is actually very heretical to the word progressive left, which is that not all of these groups on the same page and they again, they believe in this idea of intersectionality that all of these groups have to basically. Be on the same page. And actually the more a press groups that you're part of, the more elevated you are. And so this idea that there could be a schism actually is something they want to silence. Yeah, I mean, Chappelle's quote, I don't disagree with the trans movement. I disagree with the way they're going about. It was his kind of point and he's and I think, again, let me speak as a, as a, as a colored person who grew up in a minority family. You know, I would love to tell you that my parents were super, super open minded, but that would be a lie. And, you know, I love them to death, and I think they tried their best, but, you know, they came with a ton of ******* baggage and a ton of stereotypes. And, you know, I don't think that my parents would have been the most supportive of. Other minorities. Whether it's color or sexual orientation or ever. And it was a, it was a lot of, like very complicated conversations to explain to them how to see the world differently. And, you know, that's what happened when you pluck them out of a third world country and drop them into Canada. And, you know, I think that my parents came far a very long way. I remember, you know, when when I first started, you know, dating my ex-wife, it's like it wasn't very complicated thing for them to see me dating an Asian woman, very complicated. They didn't understand. And then it was like, well, do you want me to marry or date? Sri Lankan. And they were like, yes. But as long as she's not Muslim and it's like, what the hell are you like, what are you saying this is? And and so I'm just trying to tell you that this idea of intersectionality, it does play out in a lot of our lives because we all come from families, especially our aging parents. My grandparents there were some, I mean, I love my, I'll be honest with you there. You know, they try their best. But, man, the thing that's got me particularly saddened or tilted or just, you know, the thing that just sort of hits me is we've made so much progress in, in so many ways as a society, yet we don't celebrate that. And we seem incredibly focused on marginal issues. To your point, jamath that are not global warming, that are not education, that are that are not. Uh, you know, international relations and geopolitics, you know, like there's economic empowerment. There's so many things that we could be focused on that would actually make change that arguing about. And it would unite happen, Hart, on the opposite, but it would unite people. That's what I think is. So that's what I think is such a great opportunity. If we all collectively came together and focused on a bigger enemy, right, climate change, climate change, governments, I think you'd find people to be much more accepting of each other because we would have a common shared goal and then we would find commonality in achieving it. Yeah. So Jakal Bill Maher invented a word to describe what you're what you're saying, which is progressive phobia, which is it's the reluctance to admit any progress because of the fear that if you do admit progress, then that means that you don't. You will lack a justification for all these, you know, progressive programs that people want. And so they have to make the situations always seem as dire as possible in order to scare people into a certain agenda. But yeah, there there is a, you know, unwillingness to admit how much progress we've made in so many areas. The time they tried to cancel me was because I said on Twitter. Isn't it amazing that every single skill you wanna learn right now and including the high paying jobs is now available for free on MIT courseware and anybody can learn this stuff for free. And you used to have to pay $50,000 a year and get accepted into these, you know, Ivy League programs. But now all that information is free and all we need to do is expose people to it and give them the motivation, the time to do it. And they were like, how could you say that? You know, people are not able to do it. And I was like and then a bunch of people replied who were people of color or people who were poor and said, I actually learned to code on the MIT. Website. I learned artificial intelligence. I learned I got my degree in, you know, social media, marketing and whatever at this website. You to me, that website, other Treehouse and all these people saying, yeah, I learned all the skills and I went from making working at Walmart to making 60K year, 70K a year. And then there was this big fight like are you going to cancel me for saying there's more opportunity now than ever? I I hold that position. There is more opportunity now for you to learn a skill and get a high paying job than in the history of humanity. The system is more fair now than ever. Yeah, I was going to say argue with that. In the in the world of in the world of progress, there are some amazing innovations every day this week. And I put this in the chat and Nick, you can post the article. There was a gentleman in at the NYC NYU Langone Center of Medicine. Who transplanted a pig kidney? Into a human and had that human kidney or basically had that pig kidney not get rejected. Now this was a person that was brain dead. And I guess, you know, the family, you know, God bless them, donated this person's body to science. Effectively they were kept alive, but then they were able to transplant a kidney in and they were able to see the urine production and creatinine production. And all of a sudden now there is a chance that we could actually use pigs, genetically engineered pigs. As a basis for us to basically get kidneys, hearts, lungs. That is incredible, Freebirds. So, so to your point, sacks, that is happening still every day and we don't talk up enough about it because we're up in arms about Dave Chappelle, freeberg tell us, you know, if that in 10 years, what that looks like. And the impact it has on society, if we take that pig transplant and we just 10 exit from now, put a couple of billion dollars behind it, what does it look like in a decade? Well, I think there's other techniques that are being developed that you could actually generate actual human organs using, you know, basis of induced these induced pluripotent stem cells. And regardless of the path, I do think like availability of organ transplants. It's gonna go up like crazy. The big infrastructure and technical challenge we still face is we've got to build these, these GMP facilities to make all of these cell based therapies, not just kind of organs, but also other cell based therapies that are becoming kind of the mainstay of the future of medicine, personalized medicine for humans. And so there's also this kind of tremendous infrastructure opportunity we've talked a lot about, we've talked a lot about. Infrastructure in bio manufacturing broadly and other life sciences opportunities, but there's a tremendous infrastructure opportunity to build out facilities that can produce these. You know these these therapies and the therapy can be an organ or or a cell based therapy that can target cancer in your body or or what have you. And so you can kind of think about, look we've resolved the science now we've also resolved the engineering. The next step is to build it right. And so this is like, you know, the build decade or the build decades globally for where the intersection of software and biology has enabled these incredible breakthroughs in human health and manufacturing and food. And now the infrastructure needs are there. I've said this before, I do think this is where we are have the biggest gap in terms of infrastructure needs and the biggest opportunity to kind of fill those needs. And if we, if I were to kind of be in Congress or be President, I would say this is the number one priority for an infrastructure bill. Because once you get this going, it's going to change lives and it's going to change the economy. So high speed rail costing us 50 billion, 100 billion versus this. Yeah, yeah, we could build a bunch of entities or a bunch of biomanufacturing facilities, a lot of stuff that we could build that would, you know, pay back within years and have a huge outcome. Private markets, maybe we'll meet this demand, but I think you got a you got to kick start this stuff. The economics are going to be unfeasible for a while. If you want to get a car T therapy, which is a type of therapy that's. That's you know personalized Carty therapies today your cost is about $450,000. You know, a local university here. I was speaking with one of their their lead doctors the other day. They've built their own GMP facility at a cost of $50 million and they can now get the therapies down to $40,000 per patient, but they can only serve 250 patients a year. Using that that kind of 90% cost reduction. So you can kind of see like as you build these systems and this is built locally by a university, right, it's not built for industrial scale. These guys aren't commercial operators on these facilities. So if you start to build these facilities from a commercial point of view and you can bootstrap some of these things and this infrastructure cost very quickly the cost becomes so low that you see these technologies proliferate. And I think we should see that both you know these this organ transplant one is a is a great case study cell based therapies. Bio manufacturing all sorts of opportunity you keep saying GMP facility, sorry, good manufacturing for yeah it's it's you know if you're gonna make cells that are going to go in your body and it's incredibly stringent requirements on the safety and the cleanliness and the practices that go on in that facility. So these quote UN quote GMP facilities have a very specific criteria of how you, how you build and how you operate them. They're just highly, they're high quality facilities is what you're. Yeah. Think about like a clean room to make semiconductors except in this case you're making cells that you're putting in your body so you gotta be really careful. All right, everybody, it's been 70 minutes, 75 minutes, 80 minutes. Anybody have any last minute plugs for products that they want to disguise as a compliment to another best day? I still think we should launch best ecoin the all in coin and monetize the all in podcast. We were talking about this at poker. Ohh monetization. No more NFT, NFT ourselves. No best bestie. Coin would be incredible. I think I wanna tell you about this guy Lee Jackie, who's known as the Lipstick King in China. He did a 12 hour live stream on Wednesday on Taobao, 250 million people tuned in. He sold $1.7 billion of product. So basically the equivalent of the entire adult. Population in America. Watch. This. Isn't that incredible? That's that is amazing. That is just incredible. So that's QVC. And as if in 2 1/2 times the people who watch the Super Bowl, it's 2 1/2 Super Bowls. Jackie. The lipstick king. The lipstick king. Guys, we haven't had monkey on the show in a while. Let me bring him up. Ohh, Monty, get him to the mic. Monty? Yeah. You wanna say some Monty fan service? For those of you asking about the all in summit, we are looking at locations in Miami and we will have news. Shortly, if you want to sign up for the e-mail, when are we doing this thing? We're going to look at March, April, May, but we're going to do, we're going to do an LA show in January. We're going to do a live all in podcast at the upfront summit. Mark Susters event in LA, but that's like a closed event. And then the all in summit you can go sign up for We're not looking for volunteers, we're not looking for event planners. We have all the spaces in Miami we could possibly know. Every single person's emailed us. Thanks to the fans for giving us every piece of information. Right now it's just about dates, dates, dates. We've got to find a two day date and then whatever place we use like Faena, the new World, the Jackie Gleason Theater. There's so many great facilities there that have reached out to us. Once we pick the facility, we'll know what the facility capacity is. Some of them can fit 2000 people, some can fit 250. When we figure that out then we'll figure out ticketing and and we get people there this time next week. Both Friedberg and I may have kids. It's muscle. So are we. Are we skipping next week? No, no, I'm actually not giving birth. I don't know about you, but. No, we gotta get pictures. And yeah, it's going to be incredible. Well, congratulations, guys. And if this Africa trip is coming? I was Africa. Trip is happening. I can't wait. Do you? Do you? What countries are you thinking about? Tagging along? Of course I listen. I this is one of my life. I have my own. What's the point of having my own? Schedule an appointment? I have friends who are traveling the world, doing interesting ****. I'm. I'm the ultimate wingman. Your motto is private jet will travel. I'm the wingman. Professional wingman as a service. Kenya, Nigeria, Ghana. And there may be a couple of other. Wingman as a service? That's if you need to. Somebody fun with you for a couple of you know, touchdowns take offs? Wingman as a service. He's living with something. I'll bring sunny as my body double. Yeah, security. Send him. Send Sunny in another Escalade. They all just paparazzi. Follow him. And then we go in a little Honda Accord and you go to the actual events. I can't wait. Actually, I'm super excited. I would. That's going to be fun, man. Get your passport. Let's get cut. Deck of cards. Alright. Actually, you know, they'll be great. You can we can do a couple of fireside chats. Big fireside chats with 100%. We'll take it on the road. Yeah, for sure. Alright, everybody. Bye, boys. I love you. Free bird. Good luck, bro. Good luck. You're lucky. Lucky man. And for the Queen of Quinoa, Rain Man, David Sacks. Bye, bye, bye. Let your winners ride Rain Man David Sack. We open sources to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it. Besties? My dog's 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 stuff out there. Beat, beat. See what we need to get merchants? I'm going.