Listen to Episode

Read Episode Transcript

It was very interesting going to sexes kids birthday party. Freeburg and I were there for about two or three hours. SAC showed up for the last half hour. I think I was there for. I think I was there for two hours and didn't see sex and then I saw him on my way out the door, but he had some Youtubers there who were pretty cool. Yeah, Papa Jake and Logan. Thank Papa Jake was great. Yeah, yeah, they have 7,000,000 followers on YouTube. Eat your heart out, Jackal. How many times bigger are is Papa Jake than you business and podcasting on YouTube is a new concept. Long form and long form is not what the algorithms designed for. It's obviously just running for short form and people getting to completion. So getting to completion on a 90. Minute video. Are we talking about lovemaking again? Sorry, what? Jesus. When I say completion, I it's not. There's we need an HR department at all. And I prefer the short form format for that, too. These are called open folks. While your winners ride. Man David. We open sources to the fans and they discover. Queen. Hey everybody, welcome to another episode of the All In podcast. It's episode 56. We've made it past 55. The show. The band is still together, coming to you every Friday night, far too late because the Rain Man obsesses over every edit in the podcast with us again. The all in Scorsese himself, David Rainman Sachs, and the Queen of Kinowa. The Sultan of Science, David Friedberg is here and. With a power sweater that cost no turtleneck turtleneck. Our turtleneck that cost more than your mortgage payment? This month, the dictator himself Chamath Polly Hypatia. I'm jakal. It was a pretty incredible week. I think we have to pander to the cryptocurrency crowd because that's just making ratings go through the roof. Here I am absolutely inspired by what we saw this week with the Constitution Dow forming in about a week and going from one or two million to $46 million raised through a Dow, if you don't know. What these decentralized autonomous organizations are, it's basically analogous to a corporate structure, but that's written in code. So you can get a group of people together, typically in a discord. Then you create a smart contract, they collect in a wallet a bunch of ETH or it's typically ETH right now. And then you get some kind of governance written into the Dow where people get voting power. They. Brought this together to bid on one of 13 copies of the original constitution of the United States and it was a very controversial moment last night. When 80% of the money was raised in the last 48 hours and there was this crazy auction going back and forth. With two representatives of Sotheby's on the phone, it hit $41 million. Everybody thought that the Dow had won, which would have mean would have meant that almost 20,000 people who participated in this would then vote on what to do with this $41 million offer. Coin Desk incorrectly reported that the Dow one and then the Dow announced that they had in fact not some other statistics. Their Twitter has 36,000 followers. The group reported they needed 14 million to participate, 30 million to be competitive, and 40 million to have a great chance of winning. They raised like I think 6 or 7,000,000 while they were on the air, you know, and the auction had started and the only downside to all of this is that there were huge gas fees. People were spending thirty 4050 bucks to donate 200, which was the average. Size of these? Yeah, they should have it on Solana. Alright, so here we go, walking our own book again. Now we got somebody gonna clip this out. There's a lot of posturing done. Here we go tomorrow. What do you do with your copy of the Constitution? You know what's so funny? I would you gonna auction it back to the when are you going to burn it and make it an FT out of it? So it's it's funny I did buy something at these auctions. Yesterday's quite unique. I will I will not comment on what it was, but was it that turtleneck? No. But the Banksy OHL antsy. No, no, I didn't. No, no, no, no, no, no. But I I did so, but I I watched these auctions closely, I guess, is what I'm trying to say. And I was surprised that the US Constitution for sold so little, you know, for a a basically like the Magna Carta of the best startup that's ever been created. But there's 13 of them, right. So on a market cap basis, on a market cap basis, you got multiplied by 13. Yeah. Great. 13 * 40 is still not the originals. Was the printing after the original was signed? We have a 20. We've created a $22 trillion a year startup that keeps compounding by 4 to 5% a year. I would have thought these things would be worth, you know, a couple 100 million each. Well, there's a lot of, there's a lot of US memorabilia. But, yeah, I mean, but what I don't understand it means the US Constitution, David, is not as is not worth as much as it used to be. That's all. You know, you got other, you got, you got the original. So, yeah, there's a lot of documents. You got the Declaration of Independence, you got, you know, the Gettysburg Address. There's dime a dozen, the Tea Party memo. I actually think Citizens United. Technically, guys the Citizens United, if it was written not one time. In one document by the Supreme Court that would be worth much more than 40 million because it's basically invalidated most of the Constitution. Well, here's one of the interesting things that happened here, though David, David, David acknowledged that of what I just said is true. I don't understand what you just said, but I just said if you had printed the Citizens United verdict from the Supreme Court on a piece of paper that would be worth more than $40 million. It was. It was like democracy. 2.0 is what you're saying. I don't understand why people are getting swept up in this thing is kind of my neither. Me neither. That's what you get. What you guys are missing is this is a critical moment in the history of cryptocurrencies because the first three major use cases of cryptocurrency, we're kind of, you had money transfer, which is not as good as PayPal or Venmo or many other solutions. Jason, I think what's sad store of value, hold on, let me finish store of value, which is like, who cares is playing way to store value. And then NFT's got interesting, but these Dows are absolutely game changing. The ability to have $47 million show up and be prepared to be deployed in 48 hours in that game change what he's saying. Religion, and they've been banned and people are being housed down any different. I mean, because Dows have governance does have governance, and it's a programmable governance. It's a programmable corporate entity. It is huge, these things, if these things transfer ownership interest, they will be regulated like securities. Of course they are. That is a very important point. And in this particular model, the idea was it would all be kind of part of a nonprofit and it would not be kind of originations, in fact, but they were donations. And so as soon as these doubts, which they should, and it's an incredibly powerful tool if it does. Actually become a security instrument then it changes everything and and it's going to be that. My, my whole thing is, like, it's one thing to outside the US first, right? And then it'll be crypto X, US crypto investments that are gonna drive this. And that's why the US is gonna be left behind. Here's what you're missing. These Dows are pushing the envelope in the same way Airbnb and Uber did in terms of, you know, bending the rules about ride sharing or renting your extra room. These doubts are kind of breaking securities laws. They were telling people were buying the constitution. People who donated thought they were buying part of it. We're not. We're missing the point. So, OK, but. Here's the thing. If they bend the rules like this, what they showed to the SEC is that there is a huge appetite for people to quickly form groups of capital at low dollar amounts to do something important or interesting in the world. And Americans now have a taste of that. They're going to continue to have a taste of it, and I think it's disagree it's gonna forget the accreditation laws to change. Disagree. I think that what it showed is that this is yet another explanation. Of Fractionalized ownership, that demand existed well before. Dows totally it's it exists today, it'll exist tomorrow. Adal was just yet another on ramp, but much like most fractional ownerships are terrible financial trades for crappy assets. So was this so said differently, if you're going to spend the time to open a Robin Hood or Etrade account? It still matters whether you buy a share of Lycos or a share of Google, right? OK, and so whether you do a Dow or whether you have an LLC. To me, it's irrelevant. The underlying asset didn't make any sense, had zero chance, in my opinion of any meaningful appreciation. And so if you really want to make something work and if you want to prove the Dow, then I would have hoped that they would have actually asked a few smart people, hey, guys, people who buy art, people who know crypto. What are some assets that I should own? Because if this thing does appreciate, you'll do more to prove the questions that you just asked them out on the. So obviously the value is greater than what the Dow thought it was. Jason, you the reason? Like an accredited investor, this is non accredited investors who are doing this. I know and that that Unsophistication was clear. The stupidest thing you can do if you enter an auction OK is to declare how you're going to be an under bidder. So like it's basically saying hey guys, you know here's my top tick and I'm willing to be and I can and so now you force these guys to be the under bidder at a dollar over their Best Buy and that's a mechanical issue Sachs. What do you think? Well I wonder where do you stand on this. I I wonder if the reason why they chose. This particular type of asset is because it's a collectible and therefore it's explicitly excluded from the securities laws. So basically you know that maybe maybe they're limited in terms of what they can go after because they don't want to be a security but until but but but if that's the case then it does limit I think the applicability of Daws, right. Because what you want is, is to create corporations that are programmable that you can have shareholder votes through the tokens, things like that and you know basically a digital version of what they do analog in the real world. With, you know, share certificates, shareholder meetings and stuff like that, that nobody ever attends. Yeah. That nobody, nobody ever attends the shorter meetings. And you know, I get these notices of votes that are to be held. Nobody ever feels, yeah, no one feels that stuff out and people have super share, super voting. And so you feel like you have no say. But in this case, you do have a say and they're gonna do assets like imagine somebody had 10,000 acres of rainforest or a national potential National Park and all of a sudden you pop up a Dow and if the. C says, you know what? $500.00 or less. You can bet your money however you want. Hold on, let me finish. And they take that $500.00 and you get a million people to put $500 in, which is completely conceivable. Somebody could buy $500 million worth of National Forest and say, I'm going to make this into a public trust to protect the environment. This is on the brink of changing the world. He has had no governance. They had no governance that was missing. It was for the benefit. Hold on, is CEO's were for the benefit of the scumbags who did those grips and ran away with the money. This is an organization with a predetermined governance structure. This is like creating a new country or a new format for an LLC. That's what you're missing. OK. Are you done? Yes. What you're missing, you're painting the optimistic scenario of what these things could do. And you are correct. But what's always happened in the history of humanity? Is these scenarios have resolved to people figuring out ways to scam other people to make money? And while this one looks ultra like that, it's just like, let me finish without interrupting. Thank you. But just like, you know, this looks like a great altruistic action. We're going to go out and buy the US Constitution, US Constitution. The next deal will end up being some ****** art piece that's worth 100 grand of Chamat points out they'll buy it for 10 million, everyone will lose their *** and the next 500 will look the same. And that's why we have securities. Regulators and security laws, because in the past when these sorts of structures that they weren't digitally governed and all this sort of stuff, and people would go around and they would put together pools of money from other people and promise them the world, and then they would turn around and steal their money and walk away. We created securities regulators that could oversee and not have independent governance but have distributed governance across a regulatory system to make sure that this doesn't happen. And that's the slippery slope of where this goes. I'll say one more thing about the structure of this particular Dow, which I know can be resolved, but it creates. A problem in that everyone is betting or investing a fixed dollar amount without knowing how much equity they're getting. And so when you say, hey, I'm going to put in $500.00 and there's currently $10 million, or let's say there's $10,000 in this thing, it's like, hey, OK, I've got 5% ownership in this thing. If the next guy shows up and puts in $10,000, you now have 2 1/2% ownership in this thing, and you've inflated the value of the thing you're buying. And that's effectively what happened in the structure of this particular Dow, where the more money people put in, the more they were paying and the less they were owning. And you couldn't adjust that. The correct structure in the future for people that do care about equity and ownership will be, I wanna buy 1% and I'm willing to pay a Max of $500.00 to buy that 1%. And with that rule engine, which I know can be built into Dows, people can then structure what they're willing to bid and how much you willing to participate in. And the Dow as a whole can resolve what it's willing to pay to go buy an asset and everyone can feel like they know what they're getting as they get into these things. And then the third problem with this particular Dow is we saw, and I know it's kind of the first big one, like this was the obvious point that these guys were showing the world how much they were about to go bid on this. That's it. And if you take $46 million and you divide it by 1.13 or which is, you know, remember there's a 13% buyers premium on this asset. They showed everyone what they're gonna pay. And of course they lost at a dollar over there. They were the under bidder, I'll say something else, the only fractionalized asset that has ever been proven to appreciate reliably our stocks. Every other fractionalized asset where you take something and then you divvy it up generally has been a trash burger. You need to either own the whole thing yourself. Or if you're going to own it with a bunch of other people, the only thing that's reliable are equities. Now, that's just a historical artifact for how money has been made. So I appreciate, Jason, what you're saying, which is I think actually you care about the structure because I think it has huge implications to people pursuing wealth creation for themselves, for people participating in private markets. But I do think that you're overblowing this one example, because I don't think this showed any of that. I think that this showed how unreliable. And and useless. Ethereum is as a transactional layer for these things. You know the fact that these poor people now have money stuck in a Dow that they can't get out of because they would the gas fees would negate their contribution. So that didn't revolve bumps in the road. One second, please. You got to hold on. It didn't prove governance because as David said, we had this inflationary outcome where all of a sudden I didn't know the equity that I owned. The transparency worked against them because you're bidding on an asset where you were clear what the threshold Max price you could pay. So you had no pricing power and you had no opacity in in your bidding strategy. So, so I I think that this was a PR lark and in fact they said it started out as a joke and it took on a head of Steam. And so I think they felt like they had to execute. What I would say is. There are going to be some really amazing examples of Dows this proved none of those things that that the amazing ones will prove, in my opinion. And this will invite regulatory scrutiny faster than it will keep it away, right. You will see, you know more of these scenarios where people get screwed out of money like they did in this particular case. And I know a lot of everyone that participated in this and I know that there's altruistic reasons. Who did they sue? Who did they sue? The people who do they sue, who do they go after now that they lost the $200.00 that they contributed? Yeah, I mean there's there's there's no structure. I think that's part of the regulatory, you know, how do they get the money back? I can respond. Who's the person that who's the person that, like, you know what? Honestly, if that doesn't show, if that Dow had called me, I could have actually bid for them and actually won that ******* thing for half the price, you know what I mean? Like, you got anything? You want to chime in? No, I mean, well I don't. I would like to give a closing argument. Why don't you go for it? You alright number one, you're all speaking like a bunch of rich accredited investors. We need to think about people who do not get to participate and what I see in my day job is people go to an equity crowdfunding site. It's too arduous to allow non accredited investors to invest. It takes months and it's tons of paperwork. So then what happens is the best deal flow, which goes to the people who are on this podcast who are already rich. We get to sweep up. All the best. Because people who are founders and who have opportunities in corporations do not bother doing equity crowdfunding because the SEC in their wisdom to try to protect people and they have good intent. To your point Friedberg has made it so arduous and painful for people that they then don't do it. The founders I'm talking about, this then keeps people down and when we were all poor we got to spend our money gambling or doing whatever we want with it, but we all would have wanted to have when we were non accredited the ability to place a bet. On a startup and y'all are forgetting that and what's going to happen here 9 sort of what you're saying. All of what you're saying, Chuck, in terms of the problems here are absolutely accurate and valid, and those are what you need. You need to identify through projects like this. The gas fees are a problem, so people can move this to Solana. You need to find out that they don't know how to do bidding, and maybe they shouldn't say how much has been raised so that they can come in and bid more intelligently and maybe they do need to pick a better target. But this is $200.00 per person there. You guys are acting like these people are going to lose their. Will you agree with you? I agree with you, I agree with me, I agree 1000%. I'm a free markets guy. I would love for there to be no regulation and everyone will come in. And the problem is society won't let that happen. And that's the point I'm trying to make. It's not there. Societies have other societies do if you're, if you're in the UK, if you're in Australia, you can go gamble and you can go bet on startups. There are different accreditation laws. We have antiquated ones that you need to evolve. the United States regulatory regime will be invoked because people will lose money and individuals will raise their hand. And say I put money into a Dow that I lost my *** on and enough thousands of people do that. And then Elizabeth Warren and AOC will get on their, you know, their senators and they'll say, let's let's fix this problem. Bernie Sanders will say, this is unfair. The billionaires are taking the money from people. And so I agree with you, we should let people take risks. We should let people lose money. We should drop all the regulatory burden. My point is really that I think structurally what's going to happen is there are going to be more of these things are going to show up that will rip people off and that will heighten regulatory interest and people will come along and they'll start to clamp down on this. And that's that's my point. OK. I also think this example has nothing to do with what you're talking about. I think what you're talking about Jacal is laudable and we should all want that because I think that the broader number of people that get to participate in the wealth creation in tech, the better. But there are different ways of doing that. I don't think we have to run full force and embrace the Dow as the only way that that happens. And I think that's structurally the the the democratic norms inside of a Dow in many ways make it much harder to govern inside a regulatory framework. And it does set up a very binary decision by the SEC and US regulators, which unfortunately they're not going to go and be supportive of because the binary decision to support them would. Effectively negate their oversight, that's right. Yeah, they got jobs to keep too. They have jobs to keep and mortgages to pay. I think it's a cynical and accurate prediction that they will fight it. But what you may not be aware of is that there is in the Startup Act from years ago, they did allow equity crowdfunding. They put a lot of throttling on it, and now they're going to let you get accredited through taking a course or like kind of having a driver's license or a gun permit. So it is conceivable that the next time a Dow happens and they're trying to buy. But can you stop conflating these things together? You can. We've had iterations in the crowdfunding rules. You're just trying to tag this with the Dow can. Can you just separate it? Wait, hold on a second. Can I just ask you question? Can you please just describe and acknowledge that the crowdfunding rules have iteratively evolved in the absence of jobs? OK, so just separate the two. They're not the same thing. They are two sides of the same coin because the Dows allow a global participation in this and the capital can be formed instantly. This was done in days. That's what's so powerful about it. It costs 10s of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars to do an equity crowdfunding. This costs nothing because it was for a an ethereal, superficial asset with a name that people recognized. Let me hold on a second. Now let me replace the US Constitution with. I don't know, Jason, you just sent a deal a day ago. What was the name of it? Let's just call it acme.com. Sure. Now what are people supposed to do? It's not a known asset. They are not known founders. There may be turbulent issues inside the company that are still being hammered out. What are these people supposed to do? How are they intelligent? Small bet? Place a small map, do some research, vote on it, do collective research. And it discord. You're looking you have a bunch of researchers working for you. You defended the GE. You have a team, your team does research, and they're smart people and they get paid very well. You were praising the coverage that Wall Street bets did on GME on this podcast 40 episodes ago. You were saying how it was stable. Their research was because they were analyzing public companies who are governed by securities law. They can't do that. Hold on their company, yes, because there are no rules that govern disclosure. GameStop had very strict disclosure rules because they were public. That was what allowed Wall Street bets to understand what was going on under the hood of GameStop. It was the disclosure of the funds that the SEC's force you to make that allowed people to understand the long and the short book that was building against it. If if that was in the private markets, that data is not obligated to be provided in the in the Wild, Wall Street bets would have had no idea. So I think you're actually proving the opposite of what you intend. Which is it's the regulatory framework that allowed the retail GME position to happen. Go ahead, David. And then, yeah, can I translate what Jake Paul saying? I think what Jake Paul is saying is that we need to create some space here for innovation so that entrepreneurs can work out the kinks of these dolls, so that one day Jakal can run a syndicate on a blockchain and fundraise that way. Is that what you're saying? Jackal or anybody? I mean, here's what I'll say, you know, when we do a syndicate amongst accredited investors, your book here in a weird way. No, no, but I don't know. I didn't mention the syndicate. I didn't mention the syndicate.com once except for the CEO's competitors to to your syndicates, but now you're all on the Dow train. IC O's I I thought were too big. So I think you could solve this problem by looking at the bet size that people are allowed to make. So you can just say, hey, the upper limit is 5K. So now you've basically taken the individual cratering well because if you wanted to create a regulatory environment, well, because it would not get rid of the risk, you created minimis exception. So that's the 1st 100%. Net worth, and 1% of anothers. OK, so make it a percent of net worth. No. The first principle of portfolio construction is you need to be concentrated in the things you know and you need to stay away from the things you don't. If you cap the upside on the amount you can invest, what are people supposed to do? Peanut butter around 50 bets. And you know what will happen, Jason? Most of those will be losers because the mortality rate in startups is super high and they'll end up with basically nothing. How do they do in Vegas? How do they do betting sports about how to invest? I mean, I think what we're saying is that there's that. I mean, this is where I actually agree. Is that. The regulators should carve out enough room so that innovation could continue around this concept of Dallas because who knows what they could become one day and we shouldn't. We shouldn't kill this thing. Hold on. We we we we're we haven't killed anything because nothing exists and there are no rules about Dows the the regulators haven't said anything. I think we all agree that crowdfunding rules should get much more expansive. That makes sense. And with that, private companies should disclose more. That makes sense, right? We all agree with that so that you can have more disclosure and public. Available data. So Jason, to your point, communities can get into a discord like today if you said, hey guys, let's go and analyze a late stage investment and stripe, what do you do? Blather on about it and just talk at each other. Disclosures answer this question. So now, yeah. So now are you supposed to, are you supposed to enter Carta or some other third party platform and buy it at 120 billion? How do you underwrite that? Very simple, very simple. In the startup Dow Concept we're talking about here, you would do exactly what Angel investors do, which is say, hey, OK, we had let's say this Constitution now was to invest in startups. OK, 20,000 people put 200 in each. We have a $40 million pool. OK, we're all going to submit ideas and then we're going to ask an invite those founders to come pitch. Now on a zoom and we'll all vote on which ones we like best. And instead of, you know, a venture capital firm getting access to this, now those 20,000 people could say, you know what, we're going to make 20, half, $1,000,000 bets and then we're going to pour the 30 million into the winners of that. And that is just what I do for a living or any other Angel investor, early stage investor, does you invite founders, come and pitch you and you place an intelligent bet just like people bet on the Knicks or sadly on The Jets and lose their money all the time. And I like David's idea of saying, hey, maybe for the next two years. We'll have a Dow exception where you can raise from 1000 up to 5000 people up to $10 million, and you just have to file that. You're not a felon. And we have some basic framework to experiment with this because you could buy, you know, a building that was going to be torn down like some movie theater for a community. You could do nonprofit stuff. There's all kinds of beautiful things you could do with this instant capital formation and government structure that is programmable. OK, well, it does relate to capital formation in the startup. System, here's what I'll say. You made a great point about Uber and Lyft pushing the boundaries and forcing the regulators to react. Yes, you know why that happened? It's because Uber and Lyft worked and it was successful and this was not successful. And so maybe if it is, there's an on ramp, but I would say that the energy is better served. In not focusing on a PR lark. And probably just focusing on trying to improve the crowdfunding laws writ large, which are already on the books and can be iterated upon, versus an entire new body of regulation where nobody even has any idea what a starting point should. I think we I think we're very hard to get get those crowdfunding laws expanded with the under the current regime and sort of a minor miracle that they even got what they got several years ago right. Wasn't that but well like it happened under Obama when after the 2008 yes the JOBS Act was in 2008 when the market crashed. We said nobody starting companies. We're screwed here. We need to get the. Economy going again, so we're just going to allow more capital formation and so the 99 rule for LLC's went to 2:50 and they just kind of loosened things a little bit and now they're the mandate is the SEC has to have a certification test for people to do private market investing and also people who work at VC firms, right. We have people who work for us who are not accredited, they don't get to participate, but they get an exception if they work at a venture firm, etcetera. So it's just going to, it's probably simultaneously true that this thing was massively. Overhyped, while also being the case that it's a worthwhile experiment that may lead to, you know, useful innovation in the future. What would I always look at when I see new technologies doing something is I just imagine if a 10X and what that would look like and if it worked and then I just 10X it one more time. So what we're going to say, I predict, is this $40 million Dow will turn into a 400 million one in the next two years and then a four billion one in the next 10. And people are going to do something extraordinary. They're going to do something so otherworldly. Changing what if a million people or 10 million people around the globe decided they were going to put money in to do a solar farm or something that would help society? You can already do that Jackal. I mean, that's like like a manager can friction one got someone's got to manage it. Jake's fantasizing about how big is syndicates going to be. Yeah. Shoot, my syndicate is too large right now. I can't accommodate everybody. And it's also, because of the law, could get bigger. You could, right? Well, no. The problem is you can only have 250 people in it. That's the problem. We've been this down to death. Yeah, come on. Yeah, we beat it to death. OK. Anyway, I'm obsessed with it. Fentanyl deaths in the US are reaching a crisis point up 10:30 deaths. Is that really what we're talking about? I mean, we talked about it in the chat, and this is trying to, like, avoid the biggest news today of the the biggest trial. That was just, I get it, we're gonna that's just a weird transition going straight down through the docket. But if you wanna jump the fence, OK, well, Rittenhouse was found not guilty of all charges. Like it happened within half an hour of us beginning to record this podcast. I don't know, I'm trying to keep the Friedberg ratio up. We had a nice, strong emotional moment from Friedberg. He obviously is gonna have some to say about fentanyl and science, but OK, he's gonna walk off the show now to talk. When you start talking about, you know, I'm not gonna walk off the show. Last week he walked off. You walked off, and when you got a beverage you left for like 5 minutes ago, I had to go pee. Alright, fine. I mean, you have to be during politics. Kyle Rittenhouse was found. Not usually when I take my break. Yeah, exactly. And my third of the audience, Kyle Rittenhouse, found not guilty of all charges. A twelve person jury in the call Rittenhouse trial reached the decision after over 26 hours of deliberation. He shot three people, he killed two of them and he was found not guilty. He was 17 at the time of the shooting. He was charged with killing the two men and 1/3 during the protest in Kenosha, WI in August of 2020. This was during the protests over the police shooting of Jacob Blake. He claims he traveled from Illinois with an AR15 style rifle to help protect businesses and provide first aid. He he didn't. He didn't. He did not cross state lines with the rifle. That's one of the many. Inaccuracies have been reported by the media over and over again because his dad lived there. I guess he was in his dad lived in Kenosha. I think he went to school in Kenosha. He worked in Kenosha. You gotta understand like this is there a few minutes apart where from his mother's house and they got and he never he never carried the gun across state lines. The gun was bought from by a friend who was 18, who could possess it, and it was kept at his house, which is in Kenosha. Got it. He was apparently in Kenosha earlier that day. You know, cleaning up graffiti at the school and checking out the downtown and then, you know, obviously when he went out that night then he got the gun, but he didn't transport it across state lines. Start with that's, I think, one of the multiple what do you think is your what is your most important insight into this case and what it represents for American Society and the justice system? Sex. Well I think the the case is become a little bit of a Rorschach test of how you see America. I mean there's clearly a a group of people in the I'd say the dominated the mainstream media announced percolated down to celebrities and figures from LeBron James to. To. I'm I'm spacing, but there's a lot of like, celebrities who've come out. Putting forward this view that America, that this trial somehow is that that that Calgary Rittenhouse and white supremacist and that this not guilty verdict is an example of white supremacy in America, somehow that became the narrative. And so that I think it's become, I think there's like a couple of levels to it. One is the trial itself and what you think about the legal case, I don't think that is that complicated or interesting you have here that the state was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse. Did not act reasonably in self-defense when three violent attackers came charging towards him. That was I think, a pretty tough case to make. Give one of the gun poll two. I mean this was. And so all of them had long criminal histories. The first one who attacked him was daring him to said that he was going to kill Rittenhouse. The second one was bashing him over the head with a skateboard. The third one was rushing towards him when Rittenhouse was on the ground, had a gun trained on him, looked like he was going to bring it to his head. Kind of execution style. I mean all these I think. Cases if you saw the video from I mean from the first time it seemed pretty clear that he had a strong claim of self-defense. So I don't think the case itself was that legally interesting. The question is why it got blown up into being this like huge thing. And it's really because the media wanted this so badly to be to feed into this narrative of somehow that this is you know a white supremacist violent attacker who was a vigilante who crossed state lines with this AR15 to. Go seek out trouble to confront people at the protest and you know that case, that that narrative just completely fell apart at the trial. You know it. It's he didn't cross state lines for, you know, in that way he didn't, you know, with the gun. When he went to this protest, he went there. It's interesting. I mean, he was a cadet, an EMT cadet. He was kind of in this, like, junior firefighter program. I'm not saying that he showed good judgment. I think it was poor judgment for him to try to insert himself into that situation. But I don't think he went there to kill anyone or to get into a confrontation. He brought a first aid kit for, you know, for better or worse, he thought he was going to help people. And so any event that the the story really is about the media constructing this narrative that fell apart so quickly as soon as all the facts came out. Freeberg tremont. Yeah. I think the I read that there was an analysis of the media. And how they tried to portray this and that, I think I'll build on what David said, which is? Was really concerning. Like the there was they really wanted this to be a white kid who killed black people during a BLM protest, which was. As it turned out, the furthest from the truth. I'll just tell you my experience when I first saw it. That's what I thought I had read. And I'll be really honest with you, initially I was incredibly biased and my I had a violent reaction inside me of anger towards this kid. Because my thought was, my God, this white kid showed up at a Black Lives Matter rally and killed. You know, three of them of, of my brothers, you know, like literally that's how I'm feeling. I was so angry because. They didn't really give the facts. There was an example where in Germany it got so out of hand that the articles were written that Kyle Rittenhouse had actually killed 3 black men or two black men and. And I think that that's very dangerous because we need to have the truth and the facts so we can really figure out what's going on so that we can address what's broken. We can hold people accountable and then we can move forward together and heal it. But this like is the opposite of healing. It just froths people U to make a lot of. Judgments with misinformation. And I think that that's very unfair. I didn't. To be honest with you, after I saw the facts, I stopped paying attention to this case because I literally exhaled. I would have been much more hurt and I would have probably paid more attention. If this wasn't white on white violence, quite honestly. Right, right. And then I think people, I think we've heard from a lot of people over when rittenhouse's testimony kind of went viral and started getting reported on. There were a lot of people out there who were surprised to learn that all the victims were white, that this was an example of white on white violence because it had been portrayed by the media as some sort of racial episode and and it wasn't. And it it shows how the media is fueling this polarization and rage in our society by concocting these narratives which aren't. It's really that that I think is the dangerous thing. I don't. I didn't follow the case to know whether this kid was right or wrong. But I do think if the media uses these opportunities to not just tell the facts and then race based people on both of the left and the right and gets them frothed up, they're doing a real disservice to America. Because I think it takes good people and it puts them in a state like me for a while at the beginning where I was really angry and I didn't know how I felt. And that's and I'm a lucid person, you know 99.999% of the time and so it just. Just to show you how dangerous this stuff is when they can take a narrative and run with it and then there's no accountability for it and we really have to stop and check ourselves. It just speaks to this ongoing fact pattern where the media is at a point where they are at a very much a low point in their trustworthiness. Their ability to Fact Check, their ability to stick to the truth, I think it's been undone. Just this past week, you know, I think Elon even tweeted out like, you know, he in exasperation, he said. Where can I find? Like thoughtful news, right? It was asking Twitter, like, what websites and and the the the question wasn't that bad, but if you read the answers, it was really sad. Nobody had a good answer. You know, one person was like, oh, there's a browser extension that will show you how you know how much lying is happening inside the article. And I thought to myself, my God, like there are browser extensions like a lie ometer, you know, like this is insanity. That that in 2021, that's what we are. Faced with which is very smart people, all of us. Everybody listening, normal people, just, you know, out on the street we can all come to the right conclusion with given the facts and we're not given the facts anymore. Jake, how do you think we're missing something here? Because? You you. I know you. You thought that this whole Rittenhouse thing was crazy, right? Which it was. But we missing some interview? I think. First off. Violent protests and violence is immoral. And all of these protests, whether it's BLM, on the left, on the right, they should all be nonviolent. There's a reason why Martin Luther King and Gandhi, you know, said that's the rules. If you want to come to the protest, you have to be nonviolent. And then I think the rhetoric that was created during the Trump era and that he exacerbated and that he caused from a lot of his policies and the way he spoke as the leader of the free world and our country then polarized things. I blame him for a lot of that. And if you put a bunch of. People who are on the far extremes into a situation like this and then you insert guns and you insert young people who have not developed their frontal lobes, who do not have long term thinking, which is 17 year old does not your long term in Freeburg will back me up on this. In terms of science, long term thinking is something that develops in humans into their early 20s. And so young people with guns in a violent situation with Trump on TV during this time, both good people on both sides, whatever, you know the borders, all that stuff that he was stirring the pot. One, all of that eventually resolves to somebody's going to get killed, whether it's on January 6 or it's a BLM protest. And that is why he had such a failure of leadership while he was so disgusting and horrible and lonesome. Because he was taking all of this heat and rhetoric up, up, up. And the person who winds up suffering in this are these stupid kids and they're really dumb parents and mother who allow them to go to a protest. And she could have stopped them with a gun. Somebody needs to stop these kids from going to a protest with a gun. And I think there's a very difficult question here that can be asked, and it probably is true. I think that it was an open and shut case, David, that, I mean, I saw the video as well. Chamath, the guy puts a gun on him. What are you gonna do? You've got a gun. This guy's pointing a gun at you. Whoever fires first survives. It is self-defense. And that's kind of undeniable, I think. But if you had would hope that the number of people that really focus on this case, look at the innumerable number of cases of black and brown people that have been killed. The Ahmad Arbury trial is going on right now. Yes, I'm sorry, but I've seen one article in Ahmad Arbury for every 50 about Kyle Rittenhouse. Yeah. I just really hope Amaud Arbery gets his fair trial and going straight up. I'm sorry. And let me say again, Brianna Taylor, not a single thing has still been done. OK, so. I'm not that sympathetic to all of this talk right now because there are a lot of black and brown men and women who have been killed in this country. Were none of you guys care as much. Oh, I care. And that was exactly where I was about to get to. The question I was about to ask you, Jamal, is if Kyle Rittenhouse had been a black man and he had shot those three people, what would the outcome of this trial have been? Would it have been the same justice system? And I I don't think that anybody can answer that question and say it would have been fair justice. I don't think it would have been. I think the chance would be very low. It makes me make this situation would have been the just you saying it makes me wanna cry. OK it would not have. I didn't say for that reason, but I it is the truth. And I think that's what you know we in this country race is something that is our biggest weak point and we need to get well I mean leadership to work on this hypothetical injustice. We don't know because that's a hypothetical that we can't know the answer to right now. And you're ignoring the justice, the injustice that's right in front of your face, which is that this was a political prosecution from the beginning, fueled by a media. Narrative that was completely bogus. This is why I think David is right and we have to go to this root cause issue that we can all fix. Yeah. You know, we can't. We we shouldn't debate these hypotheticals because they're hurtful. Like, even now, like, you see me, I'm emotional. I can't think straight. So let's get the hypothetical off the table because, David, you're right. It's a hypothetical. I mean, in this case, probably should never. This case should never have been brought. I mean, as soon as you see the video, if you look up the definition of self-defense, OK, you you just have to have a reasonable belief that your life is in danger and then you're allowed to use force. And, you know, Rittenhouse was running away, these guys were attacking him, they were chasing after him. They had a gun trained on him. They were bashing on the head of the skateboard. I don't know how any prosecutor looks at this and says we need to prosecute this so the case should never brought. And then the media fuels this thing, but this is what I'm saying. That's the thing that we can all change, which is our reaction to that media portrayal. The media can be held accountable for how they lied about how well people are. You don't trust them and they're tuning them out and they're going and finding their own. But I mean, this has been my point. Like I think we all get tuned up to what the media, quote UN quote is and isn't saying. I think that's like yesterday's news. I mean, those those guys have lost credibility. You can see it in all the peer research and all the Gallup research that what used to be called. And it's still, by a lot of people, called the mainstream media. It's no longer mainstream and it's become kind of outskirt. And where people are finding their, their sources of information is direct from the source, from people that they know to be reliable, trustworthy, speakers of the truth and speakers of facts. And they're getting them direct through social media platforms. Other systems of self publication and that the idea of having centralized media systems that get to have their own editorial and narrative over whatever facts quote they may be kind of gathering and presenting to us. That's an old school way of doing things and I don't think we have to worry about it too much anymore. Whether or not individuals will resolve to truth seeking or motion seeking is the big question for the 21st century because as we've seen in the media that the things that we do click on are the things that we already believe and that confirm our bias and that create an emotional incentive. Versus the things that maybe not what we believe and not what we want to hear, but may actually be factual. And that's the big kind of challenging question here. I think it's less about these evil media people and it's more about where are individuals going to make choices. Yeah. I mean, I'd say alternative media voices have never been more important. And you know, you can get a lot of them on sub stack. People like Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, Antonio Garcia, Martinez call in the call in app here we are calling other people through Sullivan, Barry Weiss. I mean they all have. Podcast, Hour Podcast all had very good coverage of this, by the way, I couldn't help notice that the same week that this Rittenhouse narrative collapsed, the whole steel dossier narrative collapsed. You had, and I don't want to get too political and drag it back to the Trump thing, but you had, you know, John Durham is a special prosecutor unraveling this whole phony fake steel dossier with multiple indictments, and you now have retractions by the Washington Post and other major publications and that whole narrative that fueled like an entire year. Of media coverage is completely collapsing. And it's just another example of, you know, the media running with these narratives that turned out to be completely hit to use word fake. But I mean it is, I mean it's things in the dossier were fake, but Paul Manafort's conviction, I would encourage everyone to stop using the term the media or even the term mainstream media and just recognize that there are specific outlets that are on their way back companying. Yeah, these are content, content companies that need ratings. They used to be the monopoly and they're no longer and, you know, they're like yesterday's. It's and it's just you know, it's like complaining about you know whatever pick any industry that's been disrupted but they are and will be further disrupted by kind of direct to source fact gathering. The big ultimate question is what are consumers going to choose and that's the thing that scares me the most to be honest. I think the interesting thing go either way. You can either find better truth seeking or you can find better emotion, more emotion seeking and that that's going to cause more polarization and more ugly ****. Well look it's it's happening right now you're right that the let's call it the corporate media, the. Big media corporations, they're prestige and esteem and the eyes of American people have no and their credibility has never been lower as God. New York Times and CNN, absolutely. And just gone and and people should be questioning them and stop listening to them. And you have to diversify your information diet and you gotta be subscribed to some alternative journalists on places like sub stack. But here's the thing that concerns me. You know, you've got the media narrative being dictated by MSNBC and then it trickles down to LeBron James and Chelsea Handler. Sorry, that was the name that I forgot. Earlier, who were they were perpetuating this white supremacist narrative around Kyle Rittenhouse, by the way. There was they looked at his phone, his text messages, everything. There is no connection. There's no proof whatsoever of a connection between him and white supremacy was completely made-up by the media. And yet these major figures in our culture who have this outsized impact were tweeting about this. And so the problem is, you know, like people like us diversify our information diet, but there are large parts of the country that are just receiving this information and it gets basically passed down. From the media to Hollywood to the culture. Yeah, and it's I'm talking from Tucker Carlson to Scott Baio to the pillow guys fuel truck. It is fueling tremendous divisiveness and polarization in our culture. And I would say that, you know, JC brought up Trump and he was a polarizing figure, but I don't think he's the root cause of this polarization. I think he is a reaction to it. I think he is a manifestation of. He's a manifestation of it. And ultimately the root cause is the complete deterioration and collapse of journalistic standards in the media. In the major mainstream corporate media, I'll disagree with you. I think Trump's responsible for his own behavior. And I've made this point in the past, which is sex. I I don't know if it you you make it sound and other people make it sound like in a directed editorial initiative to take things in a direction. And I think that the reaction process is really about what do consumers want to consume. What they choose to consume is what they sell more of and what they produce more of. And that's the cycle that's driving this. And you know, that doesn't mean that these folks are not complicit or not making good. Kind of ethical decisions that could actually be argued either way. But at the end of the day, their businesses that are selling content and if consumers want content of one form, they're going to choose that form. OK, look, I I think you have a point that once a publication goes in a certain direction, starts getting subscribers, there's some positive reinforcement there that has them keep pushing that direction. That being said, I don't think this is commercial in nature primarily. I think what's going on is fundamentally ideological. You saw, for example, the New York Times, they ran out very wise. I've run out multiple. No, you're wrong on this page. Is this because they wanted subscriptions? No, no, you're wrong. Sex. When the New York Times did this, they realized Fox picked the side MSNBC picks side and they they benefited from that by picking a side in the Trump era. So the New York Times picked aside, they went MSNBC side and they got rid of the right because the right people drove away the anti Trump subscription. So I think Freebirds right on this one. I will say another thing to build on what you were saying before sacks, about the media's responsibility here. We also have to think about the the. Cable News Media's responsibility when they put these protests on wall to wall and they send people there, that then inspires people to go there. And you know, when you do this wall to wall coverage across 5 networks and you obsess over something, people are going to obsess over it. And they see people out there riding and people model other people's behavior. And I think they need to think like, how much coverage do we exactly have to give? You know this now, even now, they're bringing out the National Guard in anticipation of possibly riots and protests. In which they could induce it well in reaction. No, I don't know if it's gonna do it. But but but in in reaction to this verdict in the Rittenhouse trial, they're bringing out the troops to basically quell any, you know, riot before it gets started. But why would that riot even happen? Because the people have been fed this narrative that is completely bogus. And in that sense, the media's been incredibly irresponsible and they're playing with fire. They really are. I I'll say it again, and we've fallen into the same trap. Look how much time we've just spent talking about called Rittenhouse. I mentioned the mod. February, and we've just glossed over it, is his trial being it's happening, right? No, no. But is it on video? Because that is another major issue here is when the trials are on video, relishes they should never do TV again on these trials. There's never again. I mean it really does in the courtroom, but do not put it on TV like Theranos is not allowing video in the courtroom and it's not getting coverage to this extent. And I think the video in the courtroom does drive this makes it a circus. Breaking News Citadel CEO Ken Griffin. Outbid a group of crypto investors for a copy of the US Constitution, according to the Wall Street Journal, saying, Oh my God, we knew somebody was trolling this before this, but now? Exactly. I mean, he was the central villain basically in that whole Robin Hood fiasco for payment for order flow. And now he outbid the crypto crowd. He is gonna be enemy number one. Basically. There is no more sophisticated market participant than Ken Griffin. And on a silver platter, this group of people unfortunately showed, showed them their strategy and showed them exactly how to become the understanding he did. The price is right. He put $1.00 on top of their bill with Ken Griffin knows. Ken Griffin knows that now this is an object of interest, that people are basically willing to pay anything. Or bingo. He's gonna buy it now, and in one year he'll sell it for twice as much. It's a valuable asset. But by the way, I want to make a point on this. I disagree, by the way. He's a he's a buyer. He is not a seller. He's gonna hold. OK, but look, markets don't work with this much transparency. Markets only work when people have different information than other people that are participating in the market. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. If everyone same data everyone else was gonna do, same data. But it's what everyone else is, different opinions. But if everyone you everyone else's opinion on what something is worth, the market doesn't work. And that's the problem in here. Yeah. So here's what I value an asset at. And now if you know that you know how to play against me in the market and I don't point what I said. Yeah, exactly. And one thing, one thing I'll take note of that, that I that I kind of realized yesterday when I was thinking about this, which is this like transparency in markets leads to this inflationary problem. Why do you think everything that the government buys inflates? Because everyone already knows what the government is going to spend on that thing. When the government enters into a market like healthcare or education or defense, the amount that they're going to spend is published in a bill and then Congress says here's your authorized budget, here's how much you're going to spend. So there is no natural market force that says a bid and an ask, what are you willing to pay and is there a walk away price? There is no walk away price when the government is is told to go spend some amount of money. And as a result the price of everything inflates to that walk away to that price, to that budget. Can I build on that? It's and it's by the way that that's that's in my opinion based on everything I've looked at. The primary reason for the increase in education costs because the government funds all the Student Loans, the increase in healthcare, the increase in defense, all of it is because the government is the customer and they tell the person that servicing them up front they tell the market what they're willing to pay. And so the market just inflates to that amount and it's it's it's really the reason why the way that we budget things and the government as opposed to. Saying, look, this is the ROI metric or this is the IR metric you key to be shooting for with this government spending. It's all based on a fixed dollar amount of a budget that says, here's how much you should go spend. So look, it's, it's as I said, it's it's actually worse than that because then the procurement process is, is not is the furthest thing from a free market where you essentially have these licensed people that are allowed to provide services. And so if you actually have the key critical input to making something possible, you have to get bundled in through contractors and subcontractors and general contractors. Who each take their five and 10% and then that that's what you that's when you have like you know and and they're hourly costs all balloon just a little bit. Just a little bit, just a little bit. And suddenly the balloon cost of everything matches exactly the budget. So the perfect example of this is the space program. There was a, there was a, there was a rant by Bernie Sanders yesterday basically saying how could we have allowed Jeff Bezos, Mr Bezos and Mr Musk to basically take over our national space program. We need to tell space program. We need to take it back. And then somebody hold on and then somebody, and then somebody thought, I'll just went out, give me the transfer. Somebody thoughtfully went back and actually looked because again, as David said, everything is transparently published. They went back and they actually counted how much money NASA spent in, like the last seven or eight years, and the number was 360 odd billion dollars. And then they counted how much money SpaceX had spent. And it was, you know, if you counted revenue between 7:00 and 11:00 billion totally. And so you have this incredible disparity, which speaks to this, this guy, senile space shuttle. After the space Shuttle was retired, NASA didn't have a way to get to space until SpaceX had the Rockets. I mean and think about how many people died on the space. What Bernie is saying, which is what's I think scary to me is if you take the difference between 360 billion and seven, so 300 and you know $53 billion and divided by the number of people in the United States, you're basically talking about 1000 per $1000 a person. Would you and I sit around a table and give Bernie Sanders $1000 out of our own pocket to go and basically implement a a 1/2 ***** base? Program? No, I'd rather believable. I'd rather give Elon Musk $0.10 which or one cent which is the the equivalent alternative or append. This raises a really serious issue, which is who is the better capital allocator of, you know, resource society, private markets or the government. And let me give you an example. So today the house is voting out that reconciliation bill. They've got it. They're spending 2.1 trillion. This is one example. Does one example that caught my eye is they've got $2.5 billion going to tree equity, whatever that is. I'm sorry, three quality tree equity. Tree equity. This is tree equity. I I think it might mean that like some communities have tree trees on. I think it means that some, some communities have more trees than others and they got to rectify that. I don't know. I mean this is like the jump the shark moment for the word equity because I think now everything is equity. But but you know what, what struck me about this $2.5 billion number, OK, is that like craft ventures which I've been doing for the last four years, we've raised and will be deploying a total of about 2 billion. Or call it five years into hundreds of startups that you know will pave the way for the next generation of the economy. So 2 billion versus 2 1/2 billion as one line item. That's just a footnote. That's an* in this bill. I mean what is the better capital allocation decision? And what people have to understand is, you know, all this money that gets spent gets sucked out of the private economy somehow. It either, you know, comes from taxes or gets added to the the national debt, but either way. It comes out of the private economy and resources that could be allocated to the next generation of of innovative companies squandering the money like that on all these programs that no one even knows what they do. When we're almost 30 trillion in debt. It's just unbelievable, OK? The 1% are going to be going to space and taking away the moon from the other 99%. Here, roll the clip. Unbelievably, this bill would provide an authorize some $10 billion in taxpayer money to Jeff Bezos, the second wealthiest person in America. For his space race with Elon Musk, the wealthiest person. In America, this is beyond laughable, and I will be introducing an amendment to strike this provision. Frankly, it is not acceptable. It's not an issue that we have discussed terribly much, but it is not acceptable that the two wealthiest people in this country, Mr Musk and Mr Bezos, take control of our space, efforts to return to the moon, and maybe even the extraordinary accomplishment of getting to the moon. This is not something for two billionaires. To be directing this is something for the American people. To be determining yeah all the people have to be able to go to the moon before two people can go to the moon set the idea yeah if there was a go to the moon Dow it would get more functioning good callback look at you with you're learning how to entertain the audience and people would just plow money into a go to the moon down and give it all to Elon Musk would be so more people would do that than would vote to support the Senate bill. Additionally I would like to report that stall link does not work at my Lake House and Amazon Prime takes three to four days at my beach house on the Cape and that these two. Companies are oppressing the 3% of the top 3%, which I am not part of the 1% and some people don't have enough trees and we need trees. In my community there's only small trees and we want the redwoods from San Francisco. Why do they or the hippies, get the redwoods that are much taller? Do you guys remember one of our very earliest pods? I made a statement which is equity. Is this danger word that the progressive Left uses to steal power? That we should feel unsafe. We should always want equality, but not equity, because equity is 0 sum, right? You know what, cap table once you give somebody else equity, it's dilutive to everybody else. But equality is infinite. You can have unbounded equality. And when I hear these guys talk about this stuff, it's so scary. The second thing is I'm a little confused by what Bernie's saying because on the one hand, he wants to cancel the American governments effective, you know, support of these programs. On the other hand, he wants. Us to take back the responsibility for it, but I think he must realize that it would cost 50 times more. We're 100 times more. He's he's not, he's not, he's not spending sensitive, in case you haven't noticed. I also think this is like virtue signaling. Like he was attacking Bezos about like minimum wage and then Bezos came over the top and like doubled it and then gave people college education. That was Bernie Sanders platform for president was like, give people free college and give people like a better $15 minimum wage. Bezos has done more for Bernie's platform than anybody he should be thanking. He should be telling people. All companies should be asking like Amazon. No. But also, actually, to your point, can I build on that? Yeah, Amazon is now doing more. To actually unwind duopolies and monopolies in markets than the government and the FTC is, you know, you see this thing that Amazon is now doing in the UK with visa where they've basically shut visa off and people are speculating now that it's a step in this direction of Amazon, you know, in Amazon domestically in the United States, they just did this big deal with a firm. And so they are looking at and they there's a rumor that they may switch the Amazon credit card off of visa rails and put them on MasterCard rails. But this is another example, Jason, to your point of like you know Bernie and the left progressive Left would probably rail against the duopoly practices of of Visa and MasterCard. They can't get anything done. Jeff Bezos has actually done more than a button, presses a button and has done more now to actually another one to build on yours. Who's doing? I mean, Bernie Sanders cares about global warming. It's one of his key issues. Who's donated more to to global warming than than Jeff Bezos? Nobody. Nobody. Who's doing 100,000 electric vehicles for his delivery fleet? Jeff Bezos. Jeff Bezos took Bernie Sanders platform that he failed to get into office on and he made it Amazon's platform. Here's a third example. Nick, you tweeted this out, Nick. Or you can find this thing that I tweeted out, but it was a little meme. And it was, it was, it was basically, uh, Toby McGuire and Kristen Dunst, right. There's a meme of like, upside down, quick and they're looking at each other. And basically the joke is like, you know, every time you protest it at, you know, to shut down a nuclear plant. The resulting effect 40 years later was another 100 megatons of CO2 was put into the air and it just goes through yet again, another example of we virtue signal nuclear reactors and nuclear power. We go and we get them all shut down. It turned out that we ingested. Or we we put out, as a result, an enormous amount of more CO2 than had to be put. And then? And now who's helping to step in and solve it? Another private citizen. Bill Gates. Look everywhere for these private companies. We couldn't even get astronauts to space anymore. Impossible. I mean, like, the government has actually lost the capacity to do that. Impossible. It would. It would have been impossible. And who are we up against? For space, I mean. China, Russia, China, just China and Russia, Tony. It's such a dichotomy between and this is like a recurring theme of the show between what the private sector and specifically and and and not like the Fortune 500. Not those old stodgy companies are in the process of being disrupted, but what this sort of entrepreneurial economy is able to accomplish versus like how stultified and calcified and incompetent the governments become. I mean, to your point, freeberg, I think Sam Altman led this, the fusion energy startup healing in like $500 million round. I mean, by the time these nitwits, you know, in these political office, figure these things out, we're going to have fusion reactors, aren't we? Is that real science? Is that coming close? What do you think, Robert? I mean, Bill Gates just did this. What is it called Terrapower's announcement this week? He's got a company that he's been funding for years and they're building a 500 MW. Fusion plant in. Wyoming, I think, yeah, in Wyoming, yes, in Wyoming. And he got 2 billion from the government and 2 billion that was funded by the company and its shareholders, which I think is majority owned by Bill Gates. But it certainly feels and seems to me. I mean, look, this one, like we've said a lot of these infrastructure deals, these big infrastructure deals for things like power and NexGen manufacturing and whatnot. You know could use the could benefit from the boost of, you know government subsidies or you know government shared costs to get these things off the ground. Over time as you get scale and reproducibility of them, the cost per unit comes way, way, way, way down. And so, you know, it seems to be the case that there are enough of these programs. I think I know of at least half a dozen nuclear power companies that are, you know, in advanced stages of doing. You know, first installation design right now. And so it seems like this is going to be a reality. I think it would be an incredible boom to to clean energy in the United States and globally if we can get more of these built. I mean what was the state, China's building 150 nuclear power plants, so they commissioned 150 nuclear power plants. I mean it's a no brainer that that's what we need in the 21st century. It's the best renewable source, very small footprint, very reliable. It can run 24/7, doesn't depend on some, you know, sun or wind or what have you. So you can plug it into a grid and. So the government literally does not need to get involved in this aside from writing a check and is chopping it up. 5050 split the pot with Bill Gates is an important role that the government can and should play here, which is, you know, if we wanna talk about what infrastructure this country needs. I've said it on the last couple of shows, we don't need yesterday's infrastructure. We don't need last centuries infrastructure, new bridges and you know, toll bridges or whatever nonsense is, you know, going to get inflated as a result of this recent infrastructure. But what we need is next Gen infrastructure and not charging stations because the free market is already there doing that. And you know, not Internet because the free markets already there giving everyone Internet. We see 1000 examples of that. What we need is the stuff that the free market cannot afford to fund and stand up like next Gen nuclear power stations like biomanufacturing, like large scale on demand 3D printing systems. These are the sorts of infrastructure programs that the United States and our workforce could benefit from. Government subsidies to help private force the the private markets get stood up and as these things get stood up and the flywheel gets going and cash starts getting generated, they can self fund and they can grow and they can install more of these and the costs come down for the next one. The things where the government is the only customer, the only person buying the cost will only go up on overtime. Whereas the things that the private market is building, the cost will go down overtime. And in some of these cases where there's a big kind of hurdle to get over the first build or the first build cycle, you know the the government has an important role to play I think. And so, you know, look, I mean, it's clearly not going to happen with this current infrastructure build. There's a few Nuggets in there that might be useful and helpful. But generally speaking, you're right. I mean, over time we want the cost of things to come down, not go up. And so we need the private market to play a critical role in being the majority driver. You know of these kind of systems? All right, seems like a good place to end. Pete Davidson is now dating Kim Kardashian. How jealous are you, Tamara? I'm not jealous. I am I am shocked that Pete Davidson has dated some of the most incredible really famous. Popular women. So you are jealous. OK, well, I'm a little curious. I gotta say, I'm a little curious. I mean, if you put a picture of Pete, I mean, there's got to be something happening there. Let's just put it out there. He's got the caborca. I'm gonna send you a link to an article. I don't know what article is. I'm Googling that from Seinfeld where Kramer was like, you know, doing all these beautiful women. And it's because he explained he had the Korka. He's got a better finishing move. Yeah. This is an article that went viral this week. Emily Ratajkowski. How do you pronounce her name? Yeah. Breaks down, breaks down. Why women find Pete Davidson so attractive? And so this was like, you know, I saw it all over Twitter this week, but it was all about, you know, the and what is the answer? Just give me the headlines. I don't know. It's some he's got. Super charming. He's vulnerable, he's lovely. His fingernail Polish is awesome. He looks good. He has a good relationship with his mom. I mean, I just think he comes across as a good guy, might be the appeal, but also they want to take care of him, I think because he's got like his dad. Guys are missing a more subtle, non obvious, I don't know what you're talking about. Explain. Maybe you could expand. I'm just guessing. Family show tomorrow. It's a family show. My God. No. It's gonna take care of him. That's what I heard from for David. Woman said they wanna like Marchand Davidson. Yeah. I mean, also Kim Kardashian. I I think, you know, she just got the Gen ZI. Think she was probably going the way of Paris Hilton. Like maybe aging out of her, you know, celebrity. And now she went Kanye. Kind of Gen X, right? And now she's going down to Gen Z. She's got a whole new. I hate to be cynical about it, but I and I also, you know, I'm gonna take so much of me. I'm gonna take so much Flack for saying this. But. I was a little short donda, but I've listened to DONDA now a couple of times and my God is it gets pretty ******* good. I mean Kanye West is one of legitimately one of the most incredible artists of of all time. I mean the way his mind growth, the music, the beats, it's outrageous. I think if you give Don that like two or three shots. It's actually registration, college dropout and 808 and heart breaks. I amazing. My dark twisted fantasy was probably one of the best albums ever created. Well, see, that's The thing is, I think ridiculous with his later work. Like, I didn't get into my beautiful dark twisted fantasy until I had listened to it 10 times. And then I was like, OK, I get amazing. Yeah. And I feel like I'm so accessible. Like, so access registration, but don't. Pretty incredible. I mean, it's right now. Dave's like, what are you guys talking about? I haven't listened to any of this. David, do you know? He's like, is that like Paul Anka? And it's like, yeah, wow, sax, do you listen to music? Actually this is what's your favorite artist? What's your favorite delicate. Like if we found, like if we listen like your like your workout tracks. So like on your, like on, on on Barry Manilow. Like I apple. Like, what are you listening to? Like Spotify? Like what are you, Tucker Carlson? Music wise, I don't listen to music when I workout. When I listen, the only time I really listen to music is when I'm, like, in a car, on a plane, or whatever. But do you have music, for example, like, downloaded on your phone? Like if he said pull out your phone, huh? Yeah, I do. Can. You should give a couple of names here. Yeah. Top three. Yeah. Honestly, it's gonna be recent hits because I just downloaded my kids. Tell me to download. I understand. Just give me a couple albums that you've downloaded. OK? So. Recently added. OK, so it looks to me like I recently added Khalid. Yes, OK. Well, good. Was a Gaga song kid Leroy and Miley Cyrus. OK, Leroy, Kid Leroy and Justin Bieber. Great doja cat my kids love. She's great. She's great. Tick tock queen. See my kids keep me current. You know, you think I'm like, she's great. Here's what I'm doing for my kids. This is my new parenting strategy. I was let they love listening to the 80s playlist on Spotify, but now I was like, what are who are like great seminal artists. So I have them doing Tom Petty, David Bowie, talking heads and Bob Marley and. They get the whole greatest hits album and I explained to them every song and they're like, totally getting into it. It's basically actually know a great music is you're being self indulgent, you're focused on yourself and you're trying to make them a loser. No, I'm trying to get them to understand what actual music you want your kids to walk into school and when somebody else like, hey, do you like doja cat? They're like, no, but have you listened to Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers? I've been, I've been doing that. I've been playing my kids, my favorite artist, and they and he's become their favorite artist, Aphex Twin. You guys don't know who he is. Yeah, yeah. About Orbcomm called the brother James album Richard D James album is is probably one of the best albums of all time and I play it. My kids go friggin nuts for it now and they ask for it nonstop and I'm like, Oh my God, I love you, you're my kids. It's the best. I'm trying to get my kids into the my favorite movies and that's just too hard because movies were they were too slow. Just watch movies. It's hard. They want to watch. Yeah, they can't watch movies. They're too slow. They can't watch movies, only watch a Marvel movie. They can't even watch the original Star Wars or Raiders of the Lost Ark. Totally thing where the scene doesn't cut every 1 1/2 seconds they can't watch. It's like rage is the last talk. You're gonna love this. So, like, this is so boring. I'm like Raiders of the Lost Ark. Temple of Doom are boring. They're like, this is terrible. But I remember watching his character development. They they want to cut the first act. Have you guys dropped? You didn't watch Jaws would be like unwatchable today. She loved it. Did you guys ever watch like AMC? And you watched the old school movies of the 30s and 40s. They were impossible to watch like they are. So. So it's like watching a play and that was, you know, it's like gotten more and more kind of short form as we've kind of aged. But you know, that's like, Oh no. What happened? OK, Sadich hockey. Feeling a biscuit and Aki just came and took him from hockey. Not the good hockey, you don't take it a biscuit. Hockey you eat a dog food. You don't need a biscuit. Baddock and you know, those biscuits are cashmere. They're really expensive. Alright, I'm gonna. I'm gonna go get my guys later. Alright, everybody, this is Ben. Another exciting, amazing episode of the All in podcast for when you get through your cookies for the dictator. And then. Sultan of Science David Frieberg. We'll see you all next time. You have a wonderful time with Suarez. He came by last night. I'm hosting Miami Mayor Francis Suarez tonight. We're doing a cocktail reception fundraiser for him, and we got huge turnout. I mean, I tweeted this thing and we're going to have, I think, at least 60 people at the reception, at least 20 people for dinner. You're letting randos in your house from Twitter security, they have to pay 5 Dimes. Yeah, yeah, you have to pay. But also like, we we kind of check everybody out. One of your enemies, one of your enemies will pay five times just to get in your house. So I think basically like BuzzFeed pay to get in there. I'd be careful. We don't have to. We have to know who they are. We've got the background check. There's a lot of people. I mean, look, if we want to let everybody in, there are at least 100 people who replied to my tweet saying I can't DM you, but I want to go and open your DMS for a day. Oh, you can do that. Yeah. Francis came by yesterday with his team. He was in top form. He looks great. He's excited about the next term. Alright, we'll see you all next time. Bye. Bye. Let your winners ride, Rain Man, David sat. 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 **** because they're all this useless. It's like this, like sexual tension that you just need to release them out there. B. See what we need to get merchants? I'm going.