Industry veterans, degenerate gamblers & besties Chamath Palihapitiya, Jason Calacanis, David Sacks & David Friedberg cover all things economic, tech, political, social & poker.
Sat, 04 Dec 2021 04:42
(0:00) Bestie Intro: Miami talk, gambling stories, Nancy Pelosi's retirement plans
(12:30) Understanding the Omicron variant
(24:49) Tech stocks plummet: why the selloff?
(33:44) Inflation: here to stay? What's the 10-year outlook?
(44:57) Anticipating a "Great Resignation" of successful VCs
(54:45) Tech people ruining Art Basel, comparing Bay Area / South Florida immigrant communities in terms of political activity, success of Indian-Americans in tech
(1:02:08) Mike Bloomberg donates $750M to charter schools
(1:07:52) Jack Dorsey's departure from Twitter, what it means for free speech
Follow the besties:
Follow the pod:
Intro Music Credit:
Intro Video Credit:
Referenced in the show:
Yeah, Timothy goes to those sorts of events and they all pick some endangered animal and then they skin it and they make a sweater out of it for them. That's not illuminati. Illuminati. So this is Kashmir. It's lower piano. The lining is chinchilla. Chinchilla. I knew she knew some poor animal. It is so poor animal, probably nicer than a than a dog. It's so warm, sweet, sweeter than any dog you've ever met. If you actually played with the Chinchilla, it's so warm. Well, I'm just rubbing it. Pita is a pita. Is boycotting the show right now. Who? Nobody cares. Everybody cares. I'm gonna 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 Illuminati Podcast. We took Thanksgiving off, but the Illuminati is back to tell you what's going on in the star chamber. David Frieberg, the. Sultan of Science, Queen of Quinoid by like this Sultan of super thin looking shufelt David Sacks at his fighting weight 168 to 172 pounds in the red corner and with a cashmere chinchilla sweater. Chinchilla the ERCO from Sri Lanka at 142 pounds. Chabaud Poly Hypatia. Of course, Jake, I'm at my, I'm at my not peak weight, but in my 20s and 30s I was like 172 pounds. Well, you're 6 foot, right? So that's six two. So I mean currently 166. What? Wow. And you and you and you are wearing a shirt. Wow. That's incredible. If I was 166, I would. I did my, I did my studies right now. I did my, I did my body scan. I was percentage body fat is what, 14 percent 11.1% what you're going into elite athlete slash. Castaway territory. I've been there, I've been there for now and sacks lean body mass was 152.8 pounds. My basal metabolic rate was 1868 calories. Sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry. Yeah. This was with my genes on. Sorry. And and this was midday, so I had breakfast. So it was 171.9. So 172. So minus the clothes in the morning. I think I'm 167. Less eating. Amazing. Wow. Yeah, buddy. Yeah. 11.1% body fat. My BMI was 22.7. That's incredible. Wow. Congratulations. All right. So we took Thanksgiving off, but we're back. And of course. It's been a bit of a a crazy run. Sacks and I are in Miami for Web 3.0. You would be delighted to know that there is no COVID in Florida. They've solved the COVID problem, but. I miss you guys. I miss you guys. It's time to take a week off. That was a mistake. We should have done it. Thanksgiving episode. Yeah, it's it's lame to take a week off because I miss everybody. Yeah. Great. Did everyone have a good Thanksgiving? I took my kids to Vegas. You did? Really? The older three. Me, me and Nat stat. We took the. We took the older three to Vegas. We took them to like Blue Man Group to show Lion Safari. Although Blue Man is a little loud, actually. To be honest, I don't think it's really appropriate for kids to. They were. I almost had a seizure, so I don't like it. Yeah, but I think like. Is that a play? Craps I like. I like that Beatles, Cirque du Soleil shows love. Yeah, that would have been a better choice in the end. What else did we do? We took them to the Adventure Dome, which is like an indoor amusement park. Would you eat any good food? We ate a chip riani one night and Carbone the next night. I was about to say, man, those are those two places. Carbone with that Vocus, my, I I was talking to jade about the the Carbone Rigatoni with vodka sauce, and she started making a formation. Delicious. Yeah. It's unbelievable. It's so funny you, you mentioned it, but both me, both me and bobsy got it and we were both like, this is freaking awesome. Spicy Rigatoni, it's so delicious. I mean, you can make it at home and it's it's pretty amazing. A sax. What we shared that you came to Miami for Thanksgiving, I take it. Oh, wait, wait. So the best part is on and I won 100 times, you know, played craps for a little bit. Up for half the trips. Where'd you where'd you play? You play it encore. I stayed at the encore. I spiked the win for 100 times since about 2 hours. Right at the bottom of the towers at that little VIP area down there. And but here's the best thing. I mean, you know, look, when you go to a casino, the best thing is you put the dice in the hands of the person that's never rolled. I, I said to Sergio, I said, Popsy, just go there. You're going to start rolling. I'm not going to talk to you. I'm not ignoring you, so please don't misinterpret this, but I'm just going to let you be in your little zone. He hit everything. Why everything? Wow, 30 minutes. And you got up, you got you left a winner. It's always about just left and said it's all about when you get up speaking about when you get up. I have been with Sax. You wanna talk about Rain Man? Literally. When David. My God, Sacks, Sacks went off one night. Do you remember that night he went off? That was about to break up. But here's something with sex. No, no, no. Our ballpark that's not correct. How much does? No, beef it up now. What is what was the number anyway? Let me just tell you, when Sax and I go to Vegas and he plays blackjack, it's literally like the two of us coming down the escalator like Tom Cruise and Rain Man, we're wearing the same suit going Tom Cruise. I'm Tom Cruise, and he's the Rain Man. Literally. He's got his head tilt. He's like blackjack. Yeah, we're gonna play three hands of concurrent blackjack with Jay cow, of course. Of course, we're counting cards at the Aria at the High Roller. And so we start high rolling, and I swear to God, this guy goes down, you know, a model X. Was up a plat but he never gives up. He never gives up and we're supposed to go to LA. And I have a benefit dinner I bought a table for. And he's like, I I'm sorry, jakal, I, I I can't leave. So I show up for the benefit dinner 3 hours late. They're closing the place down there, like, oh, thanks for showing up, Jacob. And it was all because he had to come back up. But I've seen him come back from some gnarly defeats. What is the secret saw? I saw Phil, your friend, Phil Hellmuth and Brandon Cantu the other night here in Miami and they reminded me of that, like, Legendary Run where basically I think I bought in for like 100. You know, and I was down to like and I was playing two hands and I was down to my last like 5. And you know, I've been like on a horrible losing streak and the hand came along where the dealer had like a 5 showing and I basically I, I doubled down for my last, you know, last bets and then the dealer like Miss Deal, she like did the cards out of order and Phil made her rewind the cards and have him go back to where they were supposed to go instead of declaring the animosity deal because I had like double down with the five showing. So and anyway the the Pitboss came over, they ended up listening to Phil and I won those two hands and then. From there I went on like. And and so and so can't you can't you actually remembers the stats. He's like, he's like, you won 30, you won 85% of the hands in like the next two, you know, shoes. Shoes. Yeah, you won like 35 hands in a row. He's like, it was unbelievable. And yeah, it was Phil at the end of the night. He was there playing with me. It was him, me. And then Cantu was there as like kind of the real bird. And it was these pro poker players. They are kind of savants for these kinds of things. They remember every hammer they could go back years. Every year, every flop, turn, river, it's really incredible. Tivos, they're gambling, tivos they just, it's a DVR. And Brandon wasn't even playing. It was basically, Phil was there, and then I was playing two hands and then Brandon was just hanging with us and he remembers like, all the stats of like, what happened for that, whatever, half hour. It's bonkers. Yeah. OK, well since we took a week off, we apologize for taking the week off. We regret it. Couple of things have happened. I don't know if you guys look at the stats, but we I I couldn't believe it, but we were the 41st most popular episode 2 episodes ago in the world. So the pod has reached some sort of tipping point if you're having this experience in Miami, David, but is everybody stopping you to say they love all in and did you see all the Spotify love of people who watched like 3000 minutes of all in their year all feature that Spotify came up with was a way to basically it generates a list of what your top shows. Were for the year based on listening minutes. So they it's like actually mathematical and then you can basically retweet that. So yeah I've seen a lot of tweets people saying that we were number one or top five. I had one guy stopped me at Art Basel. I don't get stopped that much but there is a little bit more of that. Yeah I'm getting stop constantly and it was just a flood. So thank you to everybody who shared that and for tuning in and we're we're apologize for taking weeks off. We're going to have it no weeks off rule going forward. That's that's our thing absolutely necessary. Last week we had a new variant come out. We've been talking about it a whole bunch about Miami. How how was Miami? You've been having a good time. Oh, I got I got to tell the story about Miami. So all right. So I mean I think this place is paradise. You know, first of all the the weather is just perfect this time of year. San Francisco is miserable. It was like rainy and cold. We come here and it's like mid 70s all week and of course you're not stepping over hypodermic needles or feces or you know you're not worried about being randomly assaulted by a homeless. Drug addict having a psychotic break, just for starters, right? So you know, we've been like talking all week, we've been talking all week, just in your house, right? That's just in the mausoleum before he could get going to Starbucks. Yeah, that's going to Starbucks. Exactly. Yeah. So, hey, man, we're having this conversation about should we just move here full time? And, you know, it's like it's, you know, it's a heart wrenching or gut wrenching decision because the kids have schools and friends. We've been in California a long time and so here we are wringing our hands about whether to make this move. And all of a sudden I read online that Nancy Pelosi just spent 25 million buying her retirement house for when she loses the house and. Train, train 2. Presumably she'll retire as speaker. You know, in January 23, when she's not speaking anymore, she's gonna move. We're gonna move to Santa Barbara. So she's moving to Florida. She bought a place in in Jupiter. It wasn't true. It was. It was. Yeah, I know. I know. It turned out to be fake news. Well, I questioned that. I think it was true. And then she didn't like the bad press, so they bailed out of that deal. Well, we won't really know what's true until January of 2023 where we see where she retires to, but any event. So I'm reading this article and it says she's buying a house. It's where Tiger Woods. Lives and actually it's half an hour. It's half an hour from where Donald Trump is. So here she is. Buying this house probably with ill gotten insider trading profits and she's going to live. She's the best trader in the Senate. Unbelievable trader in the world, in the world, all of our government officials. She's got the best inside information. She's planning to retire to a community of people. She's demonized. I mean starting with like Trump and then Tiger Woods. And so she's going to be living in this community of people who she's been moralizing against, a demonizing against as the speaker of the house. And meanwhile the rest of us are wringing our hands whether we should stay in San Francisco. That the city, the dystopian city, that she's the political boss of, that her political machine is running to the ground. And I'm looking at this, going like, Oh no you don't. You're not leaving me holding the bag for this. If you're if you're going to definitely you can turn the lights out sacks. They holding the bag. I'm like the last one in San Francisco, me turning out the lights. So did that tip the scale for you is like, I'm, I'm definitely out of here. I'm like, if the boss is San Francisco is out of here, I'm definitely out of here. But I have to do some people, some other people to convince in fairness to Nancy Pelosi, she's sitting on a ton of equities and she doesn't wanna pay cap gains in California, but you gotta be fair to her. It's not like she wants to pay for the ridiculous spending in California when she does, you know, cash out all those chips. I guess, freeberg, let's go to you to talk about the new variant. Maybe you could tell us how to pronounce it, because there seems to be some debate about the pronunciation of this. And what's your take on it? Were you in a frat in college? You have to memorize the Greek alphabet. Went to school at night, so I didn't get the college experience. Yeah, I think it's Omicron, but that's the. I'm Akron. I'm Akron. And they try it again, Jacob. Last time, one last time. Because transforming acrod. There's no N Omicron, let's unitize the Greek alphabet. Megatron, it's not a transformer jakal. Mr Saxon, wait. How many miles away from you get a Cuban sandwich after this? Yeah, come over here. Why don't you guys together right now? I don't get it. I thought you guys be in the same room. Let's go to the Cuban deli and play, I don't know, Cuban sandwich chicken? Yes. Who? Who could eat less bites that we lose our weight? I have the place. I got the sandwich place over in Little Havana. That's unbelievable. But anyway, continue. Tell us if it's the end of the world or no worry. No, I mean, it's at this point there's three things that scientists are looking out for data on. One is. Kind of the innate transmissibility of this variant. The second is, which is like, you know, the R not in an unvaccinated population. The second is immune evasion, meaning it can get around antibody to get around people that are vaccinated or had the the virus. And then third is kind of the severity, right, which is like how many people translate into hospitalized cases. So every day there's, you know, varying data and information coming out. There's an incredible spike in South Africa and surveillance data and testing data. Right now, as of today, I think 25% of people getting tested in South Africa are testing positive. OK, wow, that's stunning. And yeah, and and and only about 1/4 of the population is vaccinated there. So this will be pretty telling pretty quickly on if hospitalizations start to climb and if the the disease severity and unvaccinated population kind of matches or mimics what we've seen with other variants. This variant is quite different. So there's like 30 mutations on the the the spike protein here. Normally you'll see an evolution where one mutation leads to another variant leads to another variant. You know, they call it a new variant when there's enough kind of differential behavior of the virus. So there's always mutations happening, but once a mutation causes a change in behavior. They know that. So normally you see kind of an evolutionary track, but there's like 1 mutation and another, then another, and so on. In this case, this mutation set is so far away from anything else that exists. There's like 30 new mutations that popped up on this protein, on this, this, the sequence that that that sequences for this protein, that it's like such a different virus. This is a major upgrade. Yeah. When when did they it's so different. It's almost like it's like a new virus altogether. It's almost like it's not a naturally occurring virus that behaves like other viruses. OK, so cutting the conspiracy, when did China upgrade the virus? Let me cut the conspiracy theory for a second and just say what, what, what the, the, the, the kind of current consensus thinking is of what that what may have caused this incredible change. One is that someone or or some people that have a severe immune compromised systems had a virus in them that did not kill them, but just kept circulating in their bodies for months and months and months and mutated so much that it got to the point. And this is what's really interesting. It got to the point that it mutated. Such that it can now transmit amongst a vaccinated population. So think about the virus finally found a way out of the floodgates and the floodgates are blocked in by vaccinated people. And so that's kind of 1 reasonable explanation. The other one is that South Africa is just a monitoring station, right? There's a whole big chunk of Africa where we have no surveillance going on. There's no genetic sequencing going on. And there could have been anywhere in southern Africa or even in central Africa that these viruses could have been circulating amongst populations for the last year and a half with no surveillance or testing or sequencing. And all of a sudden, one person travels to South Africa and boom, this thing pops up on the radar and everyone's like, oh, wow, look at what we just stumbled into. So look, one thing that seems pretty certain, this variant is going to be everywhere fast. Like, it is so transmissible by some estimates. And you can read Trevor Bedford or there's a bunch of great folks on Twitter. You can kind of follow their writings on this. But Trevor's done a great job. They are not on this could be as high as 40, which is, you know, measles, by comparison, is 12. 13 Now it's more likely that they are not is somewhere between 7:00 and 20. But regardless, it seems to be that high. In the presence of an immune immunized population, meaning it's got incredibly good evasiveness or around people that have the the vaccine or have had the virus. So it's going to spread like crazy. I think this whole thing is a complete ******* nothing burger. Yeah. And so that's the other side. It's like maybe it's just not a big deal and it ends up being like delta and it's sort of spreads around, a lot of people don't know they have it and then all of a sudden it's even more impotent than delta. So that is that is definitely something that people are saying because there's not a lot of new hospitalizations. Hiking in South Africa, we're not seeing severe cases of all these people. You know, 25% of people are testing positive. They're showing mild to no symptoms, and that's anecdotal right now. So we'll know in the next two weeks of whether this actually changes hospitalization. To me, this is more of an example of, yet again, how unreliable our institutions are than anything else. We knew nothing about this. We had a couple of cases and the mainstream media literally in a moment where there was frankly not a lot of news, here is the day after Thanksgiving for people. This is when it broke. Friday after Thanksgiving, exactly. Essentially manufactured this histrionic reaction to something where we didn't know anything about it, we didn't know how important it was, we didn't know how bad it was. We didn't know anything. And then what happened was then the financial media took that and then ran with it, basically trying to whip up even more historyonics, but within the financial markets, which then feed the mainstream news cycle. And we had this whole loop going down the toilet bowl. And lo and behold, I think what we're actually learning is what we should have just waited a few days to realize beforehand, which is it's not that severe, but to the extent that it is, we've sequenced it, we have vaccines, and we can deploy these quickly, oh, by the way, at the same time. The New England Journal of Medicine put out the study, which basically showed how important an efficacious these vaccines are. So the fact that we're even talking about this to me is just absolutely emotional and not practical or useful. The big question chamath is. It's not about whether it is functionally nothing burger or not. But what's really important now is how policymakers are going to respond to this, right, because there is a a press cycle, there is a bit of a hysteria. Everyone's asking me about it, everyone's freaked out about it, everyone's worrying about it. And so the policymakers are going to respond to that sentiment. And the question is, are we about to face more lockdowns and things are going to be adverse to the economy and you know, how are markets going to react, not necessarily to the true severity of the risk of this, this variant, but more importantly. The policy decisions that are going to come out of the perceived risk of this variant, and that seems pretty scary right now, well, you saw Biden. I mean, one thing I'll give him is this, I mean, he's, I think he's done a bad job and a lot of other things. But on this, his political instincts were sound, which is he said very clearly we're not going to go back to lockdowns. And I think he was really speaking to Democratic governors when he said that to people like Avid Newsom and our poker friend JB Pritzker and Whitmer and Michigan. Listen guys, we're not going back to lockdown. No matter what happens with this amakan thing, we're not gonna do school closures. We seen how unpopular the school closures were in this off year election. It was one of the big issues that helped Glenn Youngkin win Virginia, which had previously voted for Biden by 10. So I think you saw the message come down from on high. We're not going to go back to lockdowns now. I think though that what that does is admit, and I think what Amerikan will show is that lockdowns didn't work at all, at most lockdowns and all these measures. Whether it's mass mandates or whatever, all it did was delay the timing of the virus. What you're going to see is amakan will be everywhere very soon. There's nothing that policymakers can do to stop it. The only thing that seems to work is vaccines and and booster shots. There's some good data around the third data, the third booster, preventing serious cases other than vaccines. And I guess the one thing policymakers could do would be to get red tape out of the way so that they can more quickly come up with a booster to this new variant. That would be the one thing they could really help with. But otherwise nothing policymakers have done is helpful and and I think this is gonna be an admission that ultimately lockdowns were a disaster for the economy. They nobody could argue locked on, especially for the economy. But in the early days if we go back to, you know, when the, the, the, the, the, this pandemic started, we really didn't know how to handle this. We did not have any treatments and we were ventilating people and essentially killing them by blowing oxygen into their lungs to, you know, aggressively from what I understand. So in a way wasn't it. OK. Well, I mean I think it's a debate because we're not ventilating people now as much as we were, right, we're flipping them over, etcetera. But the the lockdowns did, correct me if I'm wrong, freedberg at least allow us to not have the hospitals overrun like they were in New York and Italy and that was, I don't know if that's true. I honestly don't know if the hospital, I don't know if, I don't know if the lockdowns actually changed the we don't know. Look, I'm going to sound like some and now we're going to, you know, kind of enter into this controversial territory, but sure, let's do it. It seems like a lot of people still got together. In private settings. And the virus continues to spread. And so there's a question around how effective lockdowns were and how much they really did change the trajectory of the spread of the virus. And yes, they probably did have a muting effect, but you know it. It's unclear what the trade off was and whether it was really worthwhile. And at the end of the day, a few days and a few weeks after they started, people were over them and they started meeting on their. We didn't know how deadly it was, though, that at that time we did not admit, admittedly, we didn't know a lot at the beginning of the pandemic. And so you have to, you have to. I think give people a break for the mistakes that were made, say in in March or April. I think by May it was pretty clear the lockdowns weren't going to work. If they had worked, states like California wouldn't have had 10 pages of exceptions based on how politically connected you were. So for example, the local bartender had her bar run out of business by lockdowns, but Hollywood Studios would get a break on their productions. But so, so we know that lockdowns didn't work otherwise. We would have been these exceptions that we have data from Sweden. Remember all the hysteria about Sweden basically was doing nothing. They weren't doing lockdowns, they weren't doing mandates. They were going for herd immunity. They were going for herd immunity and ever and and they were, they were killing, they were killing their people. Well, guess what? Sweden's data was no worse than anybody else as they the hospitals weren't overrun. And I think, I think what Amakan will finally show is that, you know, our whole policy since the beginning of COVID, whether it was two weeks to stop the spread or these like vaccine mandates or even this idea of herd immunity, it's all been to try and put the genie back in the bottle. In other words, it's been to try and defeat COVID. It's to put this virus back in the lab, I guess you could say. And the reality is we're never gonna defeat it. I mean it really is something that we're gonna have to learn to live with and to manage. And so, you know, vaccines will be a variant every it'll it'll be, it'll be a seasonal disease and it'll it'll it'll be something like the flu in terms of how it cycles each year. And it seems unlikely that it's going to be eradicated through vaccination. Let me pull your mouth back in. There may be a variant that matters. But this is not it, and instead what we really need to do is have a process of not overreacting because there's going to be N number of these into the future and the only thing that really decays. The vaccines potency or sorry the the covitz potency is having it go through vaccinated people and thank God we had so many people vaccinated because this is what we're so again this whole thing is a nothing burger. Let's just move on. It's stupid. Well, so, so the the market, the markets are obviously reacting. Maybe we should talk about reacting to that. I think that they are like people wanted to trim positions and this is a great excuse. Yeah, look at, look, look the week before when I started to trim it. I was like, oh, how dare you, blah, blah, blah. You know, and I'm like, well, I don't know if the smartest people are selling. Maybe it makes makes sense to sell. So I started to trim and I'm so glad that I did because it was, you know, 10 days ahead or a week ahead of all of this craziness. Now look at what's happening in the markets today. People are going massively risk off. You know, there are almost 500 stocks that are off 30 or 40% in the last 30 days, but the stock market is still basically at all time highs. So think of that for a second. So everybody that thinks that the stock market is doing poorly. Is wrong. It is doing exceptionally well. It's just that the 400 stocks that people in Silicon Valley really care about have been getting kicked in the teeth. Yeah. And the paper company and the, you know, the specialty chemicals company have actually done reasonably well, which are not the arts, which is nothing that any of us have exposure to or you know, some of us don't have exposure to. So go ahead, Jason, your mouth. Can we, can we, can we, can we? Then look at this as, hey, the era of we're going to give a lot of credit to companies for, you know, what's going to happen in the next 10 years. 10 year outcomes, yeah, the 10 year outcome that we saw Rivian came up you know and then many other stocks and obviously crypto falls into this. This idea of giving people a decade of forward-looking credit maybe is going to come back to think it's too early waves and look at earnings or maybe too not credit. No, I'm not going to say that because I think it's too early. For us to sort of go and jump to these conclusions right now, we are in a moment. There have been 71 or two of these moments since 2009. Where you have either a sector drawdown. Or a market drawdown. In this case, we're in the middle of a massive growth sector drawdown, OK. The the multiples of these companies are shrinking. Companies like Snowflake and. Peloton is your cloud flare zoom. We're trading at 70 to 100 times revenue and people are reevaluating whether those multiples are worth it irrespective of the quality of the company because those are very high quality companies. So we're just rerating the risk right now, OK? And it's not broad based. The real problem is all these companies that I think raised a lot of money in private markets. Are now going to get stuck because if the public markets have compressed multiples by 30 to 50%. They are the ultimate buyer. The idea that you can wait and then go public later may not stand to reason, especially if inflation really keeps these multiples in, you know, in check and so all these private businesses and then all of the ones that sort of were planning IPO's in the next 12 to 18 months. Are probably in a little bit more of a challenging spot than they were before. We're seeing a lot of, I mean tomorrow is it not true that we're seeing a bunch of these SPAC deals and new issuances come out to market with converts attached to them. So rather than getting a straight valuation and common equity rolled, these deals are coming out where investors are saying, look, all value this thing, but I want to get paid a preferred return and I want to have some seniority over the common and so I can protect my investment to some degree. At least that's what I'm hearing from bankers is kind of. The the rumbling and the SPAC and pipe market right now is these kind of protective new types of equities that are coming out in order that the the investors can kind of keep their mark on their private valuation rounds but get the company out to public. But the public market is getting a better deal than just straight common equity. Look, it's like bringing Pepto-bismol to Mexico. If you're worried about an upset stomach, don't go to Mexico. OK. And we just lost 7% of the audience, but you but you're saying you wouldn't invest in these, in these converts for these kind of companies that need that you're you're you're focusing too much on the symptomology and not the root cause. The minute that you're trying to wrap all these features around something, you know the the nature of those kinds of features is that it's trying to subsidize what is otherwise not a clear simple viable story at that price. So either change the price or change the company. Yeah, I will say one important point about what's going on. A lot of people have said this is a crash and that term has been used a lot. But it, you know, because people that have only traded in markets and and have a brief history, call it back to the 2000s, the last three major drawdowns have been the.com crash, then the financial crisis and then the COVID crash. And all of them had true systemic risk that caused kind of. There's all these ripple effects and secondary effects and tumath. I mean, you know it and and for all you guys, it seems to me that. This time what's going on is a devaluation that doesn't have systemic risk attached to it if these, well, we have that. That this happened in 2018 because in 2018 it looked like there was going to be inflation. Powell, you know, basically killed the market. He raised rates and then it turned out he was completely wrong, and China was OK and everything was fine. And then the market just completely violently snapped back again. This is what I'm saying, which is it's too early to tell whether this is just a short term opportunity for people who have made a lot of money to derisk. And again, Satya Nadella just sold 300 million in stock. You want to test position? It was half his position. Yeah, I mean, that's that to me was a significant Elon Musk sell, you know, 10 billion. I've sold almost a, I think 6 or $700 million worth of stuff this year. Like this is what I think smart market participants do. You don't just wait and just try to mark to market the last tick socks. You you think there is systemic risk in here? Yeah, I mean, so, well, look, first of all, what's going on here? I mean, chamath is right that over the last four weeks we've seen a 30 to 50% decline in these tech growth stocks. What is the reason for that? Interest rate expectations driven by inflation for the first six months of the year, all you heard out of Washington in the administration was this inflation was transitory. That story is basically that collapsed because now people can see that as persistent. They're now pricing in the risk of interest rate increases. Sacks, you're breaking up. He's done. He's toast. Done. He's toast. I think the the Fed just cut off. He got. He's probably still talking. He's probably still talking. He's on a monologue right now. He's cutting it right now. Yeah. Henry Belcaster can tick tock him. Well, whoever wrote this, this part of the speech that he has prepared for? Like that was my best speech writing, whatever that guy's name is, I'm sure it's, I'm sure it's annotated so he can go back to that point in his diet resolutely. Yes. I mean I think actually this is an AI version. This is like a deep fake of sacks that we just played at this point for this reboot, the Sax, we reboot the sacks simulation, the sack simulation. Well I mean if you if you look at private markets, it's obvious that, you know, they were getting ahead of themselves. And I think to your point, chamath when we were talking before about what it what a private market companies do in this situation. Well, you know, I was advising them if you can get a high valuation and you can get clean terms, you take some money. Sure, if it's from quality investors. But just make sure that you have enough runway to fill into this valuation if there is valuation compression, which is what there is now. So the idea that a private company with 20 million or 30 million in SAS revenue was worth 506070 times that, that's not the case right now in the public markets and maybe it goes back down to 20 or 30, but you just have to have that runway to land the plane, correct? Yeah, one way to think about that is it's less about people often use that high multiple to refer to this year's numbers, but what the market is doing typically in those situations? Is they're saying the multiple in the future will be X. And so they're saying we project 510 years out this revenue and I'm paying one to five times revenue, you know, for seven to 10 years out or whatever the right kind of way that they're framing that up. But then the commentators on the market pricing come in and they say, hey, you guys are crazy, you're paying 100 times revenue and the market isn't thinking about this year's revenue. They're thinking about revenue in year seven through 10. Yes. That giving credit, right. They're giving credit, right? Yeah. And and they can't do that now because interest rates, let's say interest rates. 23 1/2%. I can go make 3 1/2% by putting my money in for a 10 year bond and now I can't kind of and so I have to discount that future back from 10 years out and now I'm only going to be able to value it in five years out. So now my revenue for five years out is like a little bit lower than the multiple I'm give a little lower. So the valuation today gets a little bit lower and that's how these things kind of translate as a function of interest rates. It's a little bit harder to to to make a bet on a 10 year, you know horizon because interest rates are no longer 0% and so you have to kind of. Like a bet on A5 year horizon or a three-year horizon and different interest rates are really high. You're betting on this year's numbers, right? Chamath I I think we should talk a little bit about this inflation concept they did a little tweets from the you know about. This sort of transitory versus, you know, perpetual and I do think we've talked about it here. We've crossed that Rubicon of. Everybody is raising prices because everybody else is raising prices, not necessarily even because they are experiencing, you know, higher costs in their business. But they're just like, you know, my haircuts costing more, my stakes costing more. I've got to charge more for whatever my services is. Is there any way to unwind this inflation? It seems to me like the reason we've had no inflation for so many decades of our entire lives. Like, I mean, genes in the 1980s cost the same as genes now was because of globalization. And efficiency, well, that took, what, 3 decades or 4 decades of just constant innovation and constant globalization when we've already got globalization maxed out, perhaps too much globalization, right, that we learned that we actually have risk associated with this, you know, supply chain. And how much more efficiency is there in making a pair of jeans? I don't know if we're going to be making them in a slurry. So. Is there a path to unwind it? You know, rich people not having their equities be worth as much, then maybe it trickles down. I I don't. It's unprecedented, right? I think what happens in the stock market is absolutely irrelevant, huh? It doesn't matter. I mean, you know, we focus on it a lot. But, you know, when we talk about the core structural economy, the stock market is a lagging indicator of a whole bunch of things. Sometimes it's cash flow, a lot of the times it's emotion. Money supply, money supply. I think that there's a much more important thing which we've talked about, which is that, you know, we have said and I have said. That coming out of the pandemic, we are moving the world back into a more decentralized place, right? The centralization was this just in time, you know, single supply chain, single point of failure, existence. And if you look inside of China, the thing that they want more than anything else is to become even more centralized, right. I don't know if you saw today, but there was an article in the Wall Street Journal about how China is going to create basically an overall holding company. To own all the rare earths that are made inside of China and then to apportion them out as they see fit. So the government will now control a critical element in supply chain into climate change, OK. Basically creating their own OPEC in a way like their own version of it's it's a very good way of saying it exactly. So so China is pushing more and more for centralization. We so for example, you know myself and fortress, we did this deal a few a year ago to bring this company public called MP materials and the whole idea was to start. Build diversity in the supply chain to build a decentralized supply of all kinds of things. In that case, it was around these rare earths, because we saw this thing happening in China, OK? The problem is those kinds of investments are very much few and far between. So the the, the solution to fixing the core structural inflation we have is going to take a decade. It's going to take trillions of dollars of investment. And more than that I think it's going to take an enormous amount of coordination between private and public participants. And I think that that's where this whole thing fails, which is why, you know, I'm a little bit. More concerned about it, like, and I think I've explained this to you, but look, we have massively under invested in the level of infrastructure we need to support ourselves. Yeah, we outsource it. Like, as in a simple example, like starting in 2016, we absolutely decapitated the ability for the United States to invest in our own true energy independence. OK you know, the level of fracking, the level of Nat gas, oil. All of this stuff basically fell off of a Cliff and you would say, well, that was the right capital allocation decision because of climate change. Well, it turns out today, not really, because we have absolutely no investments on the climate change side. We don't have rare earth, we don't have lithium, we don't have nickel, we don't have cobalt, we don't have graphite. So we actually can't make the batteries. Which means that now oil is at $100 a barrel and gas costs 10 bucks at the pump. So that was a coordination problem. Really. The right thing to have done would have been to continue to invest in our domestic supply chain for energy while we also created incentives to decarbonize. So this is what I mean by these issues have been building up for years, Jason, decades. Inflation is now here. I think it's here to last. I've been pretty consistent about this. And this is the real reason why we're going to have a few years of pain and so money losing unprofitable businesses, selling future cash flows in 10 to 12 years. I mean, some people will buy them, but I won't be. I just sent you a A link to freight rates for cargo ships coming from China to LA. And you'll see in the last. You know, call it month and 1/2 or so, you know, starting with the peak. Yeah, yeah. So starting in April, it was like whatever, $2000 and it climbed up to nearly twenty, nearly went 10X over that period of time. And then in September it started to decline. It's dropped by 50% and it's continuing to drop week after week right now. And we're seeing the same in lumber prices right now. I'll send you another link to to how lumber prices have kind of declined precipitously also from an early part of the year peak. And we're seeing this across a lot of these kind of. Supply markets where we were talking about inflation being the driver and some of the other you know a lot of the economists have been fed and other policymakers we're talking about these being kind of transitory pricing effects and so there's a bit of a mixed bag emerging, right. We are seeing in some of these markets that prices have declined by 5075% in just the last few weeks. But by the way the supply chain distortions have sort of right sized and the demand and the supply started to balance out a bit more and that's creating I think you know. A better kind of certainty around pricing, better reliability on these supply chains and a lot of folks estimate that this will take all the way through 2022 for that supply chain kind of glut and mismatch to work its way all the way through to the consumer, yeah, to the consumer. And and so there there are a number of points of view that say, look, these pricing issues that we've been seeing in the in the recent term may in fact still be transitory and we may see them work their way out at the end of 2022. And we're starting to see the early signs of that actually playing out. And so the, I would say the jury is still out. Generally, we've obviously doubled the amount of U.S. dollars that are in supply or increased by 50% a year. We've got, you know, interest rates at zero. We've got, you know, people aren't going to reduce their wages, right? Wages are only going to go up and there's a lot of things that you make the point of like spending is only going to go up. The government is never going to spend less. By the way, just on that point the the the the government changed their formula for what is considered a conforming mortgage. I think it kicks in in January and essentially it basically allows US homeowners to have $1,000,000. Mortgage and have it essentially be conforming. Now that's like a, you know, pretty large increase. I think it's almost 20% from what it used to be. Why is that important? Think of the amount of money that's stuck in US real estate by US homeowners who now all of a sudden can have conforming loans that are, you know, which used to be jumbos or super jumbos. So worse terms become better terms, you have more equity, you can pull up more money. I think that people will spend that money. And so even on the consumer side, I think that you have an impetus to spend. I was the one thing I wanted to say. I wanted to clarify something I said earlier. You know, it's very difficult to buy these, you know, long dated businesses promising huge cash flows in the future. There is one kind of version of that company though that you can buy in my opinion and and what I am still buying, which is deep physical science in R&D. Because those businesses in some ways are still on a risk adjusted basis in my opinion. Great bets to make, but otherwise you know you want to be allocated to spending a lot of money on research and are going to have future products. It doesn't necessarily have to be a lot of money, but that the outcome in success is so asymmetric. Those are really interesting to me, businesses in moments like this where, you know, if I'm, if I'm delivering My Portfolio, that's how I'm thinking about it, which is I want to make those kind of bets in the future. But one thing I think that could help unwind this and I think it's to your point freedberg about. Some of the indigestion is starting to work its way through the system and there could be two things occurring at the same time. We could be have more money supply prices could be going up, homes could be going up, lumber could be coming down. But that doesn't mean that the person constructing a home is just going to magically say, oh wow, I spent less on lumber. I can take $1,000,000 off the price of this new home, or 100,000 even, whatever it is. But competition does seem to drive prices lower and so if we do see more people participating as employees or employment, well then there would be some competition. Or less competition for labor, and we might see more competition in other places in the economy if there were more cars available. Obviously people will try to win customers. Right now you don't have to win a customer if you're selling a car, even a used one. They're going for 10:20 K. Used cars are going, people have who bought used cars two years ago are selling them for the same price. So they got two years for free in their car even though they put 10,000 miles on it. By the way, speaking about employment for a second, you know the the I I heard I saw the stat was pretty insane, but. About 2.1 million people under immigrated to the United States at the beginning of Trump's tenure as president. What that means is that what that what that means is that we lost about 2.1 million immigrants than we would have normally, based on the run rate of how immigration should have worked. So whether that was people being rejected at the border, or whether that was just people deciding not to come to the United States because of their feelings for Trump, we lost 2.1 million eligible workers over those four years of his presidency. We also had a bunch of people who had degrees in certain jobs who basically gave up on their profession. And we talked about this before, which is, you know, the teacher who decides it's better off to just go work at Amazon, right, than to actually be a teacher because you actually get paid more now. And then the third thing is that there's a ton of people that are making an enormous amount of money through inheritance and through their parents who are boomers who are now in their sixties, 70s and 80s. And all of that is exacerbating this employment problem, which you can only solve by raising wages, right? There's a ton of more people in the country. Well, all of it just means that there are just fewer people to do the work, which means you're going to have to pay more to get the work done. Yeah, we're gonna or we could let more people in the country based on their specific skills. If you put these two things together, structural inflation is here. We've underinvested, underinvested at the macro level and we've completely distorted people's incentives to work at the micro level. Prices go up. One thing I'm seeing in the market and I think David's back with us, David Sacks, is that Keith Raboy had this tweet and I think we talked about a four or five episodes ago, a bunch of capital allocators are saying, you know. Was a great run, but I think I'm going to opt out. I'm going to move on to my next adventure I don't want to deal with. What we're dealing with here on this podcast, which is. What are you even make of this confluence of the pandemic crypto? You know, printing more money supply and interest and unknowable valuations in the face of massive technological change from AI biology, etcetera. So I thought it'd be interesting to talk about all of our decisions to stay in the capital allocation game and what we think about this retiring group of capital allocators who are, let's face it, retiring at 50 or, well, I was. I had coffee with Keith this morning and then he tweeted that on the heels of our conversation. Well, I think I can provide a little more insight into what he was thinking there. I think part of the backdrop here is the concern that we're going into a very different environment than the one we've had over the last 10 years. I mean, over the last 10 years, we've basically had record good times because of this low interest rate environment, right? And low interest rate environments are fantastic for growth stocks. Now it looks like we're moving into an environment in which inflation is certainly not transitory. We don't know how long it's going to last for. And that creates an expectation of its rates are going to rise. And so the next decade may not be as good for growth stocks. And you've also had, over the last year or two, price levels have been much higher. So you got to figure there's a whole cohort of VC's who've had a great decade, who've made a lot of money. And now they're asking, does it really make sense for me to sign up for another decade that may not look as good. And, you know, the truth is if that if you're not the principle of your firm, if you're one of twenty partners, it doesn't, you know, it doesn't make as much sense for you to stay in the game when you've just had a fantastic decade, you probably made more money than you thought you're going to make. And now you're not so sure about the next one. Pretty very thoughts. I mean, you you still wanna build companies? Yeah. Yeah. I'm like, I'm, I don't know. I like building stuff and. Knowing new stuff, that's kind of. Going to have a, you know, an impact and it's technically difficult. So that that's kind of where I get drawn to spend my time, but I can understand people whose job it is to kind of manage other people's money and invest it for them. You know, and they participate in the profits they generate. Realizing after some period of time, like, hey, I've bought a bunch of lottery tickets, I mean, if you buy lottery tickets at that, the local 711 every day, and one day you hit the $12 million jackpot, you're not going back to 711 the next day to keep buying lottery tickets. And so, you know, in in the context of being a money manager to generate returns and that being kind of your principal interest and you kind of hit a return outcome that statistically, you know, will not happen again, I don't see the point of the hassle of going back to work. I could see the psychology of saying that that's enough. I do think, however, most VC's are truly, you know, we we can kind of generalize all we want. But as we all know, we have lots of friends who are VC's. And I'd say generally the majority of them are very intellectually curious and driven. And what I am seeing is a shift of people who have had successful investing track records and have had massive outcomes shifting their attention. Now they take some time off and I'd say almost 100% of them come back. And they always ask for a meeting, and I'm like, sure. And then they're like, I wanna work on climate change solutions. And So what I'm seeing is this kind of second act happening now. And we've seen it with guys like Chris Sacca and, you know, folks who had these massive, massive outcomes in their first run, they know they're not going to, you know, the statistical likelihood of doing that again is very low. But then, you know, after spending a couple of years on the ranch or, you know, surfing, you kind of wake up and like, I want to do something meaningful with my life. Like, I got kids. I look him in the eye and I'm like, what should we do to get, what do I want to do for the future for my children? And they all kind of come back. And so one of the things I'm seeing is this kind of second act phenomenon where VC's are moving away from being pureplay technologists and making money to saying I want to do stuff that's a little bit more meaningful and altruistic coming into climate change. And as a result, we're seeing insane funding happening in climate change tech companies or climate tech or whatever the heck the the label is this week, stuff that, in my opinion, doesn't make any sense. Businesses that aren't real, businesses, technologies that don't actually make sense, it will never work out. But. Hey, that's always been the case adventure, right? One out of 1000 works and you know it changes the world. But we are seeing that and that. That's kind of a personal observation. As I'm seeing a lot of these second acts going after climate change, shamatha, this last year's like or 18 months, pretty exhausting as a capital allocator to try to make sense of the world and get your bearings. It's like going through multiple storms. Does that make you more engaged? I get the sense knowing you for a long time. That you and I might be similar. Yeah. The chess boards are getting mixed up, the pieces and the values are getting changed. Whatever. It's making me more excited to participate and try to figure it out. Yeah, it's like a hand of poker to me. I'm more intellectually stimulated now. Me too. I'm. I'm the most engaged I've ever been. Yeah, I I mean, look, I, I I left the money management business. Five years ago, I guess and. Honestly, it was a very hard path, but it's been the most rewarding. Because I was able to focus on on the things that I wanted. Look, if you do this job well, this job is voting for change with your money. And making change using money. And that's great because money is not that useful beyond a very small amount. And then you have to question, like, what are your real priorities? So yeah, like grinding away at something that matters to me, I've always find fulfilling. And I feel like I am an athlete. Whose muscle? Doesn't decay by my mid 30s, but probably decays in my 70s or 80s, which is my brain. And so, you know, I'm only, you know, I'm only, I'm a rookie, so I'm excited I'm branded the fact that things are compressing or maybe they'll be less startups or less capital allocators involved. What I've seen in my career at post.com era Web 2.0 amazing time to be alive. Amazing time because there were less anybody who started a company afterthe.com bust or after the 2008 financial crisis was a legitimate. Warrior who wanted to change the world and was incredibly focused. And then the sense of entitlement I'm seeing on all sides of the table right now, from founders to board members to investors, it just seems like everybody's in some sort of mad dash to secure some bag by any means necessary. And there's no focus on the customers and the product and the team. Everybody's, you know, living in some just manic, you know, grab money, grab. You know, when you're in the middle of a paintball war, you know, you're trying to, you're trying to shoot the paintball gun and you're trying to hit people. And it's a little bit. Easy on the field, but you know, as everyone kind of gets back to the locker room and they take their win. You know, all humans ultimately are going to be driven by a desire that to leave something in the world to make an impact of some sort. And at some point, all all the folks who have made a ton of money in this cycle and there were a lot of folks who made a ton of money in the last cycle are kind of asking themselves, you know, how do I leave an impact, how do I make an impact in the world? And I still have a skill set and I still have a capability to do so. And so then there's this search for meaning and and that's where you see kind of the climate change and the healthcare and all these other kind of paths start to form for people. I do think Web three also offers another path of opportunity for folks where they can kind of rewrite the Internet and think about how to reinvent the social model for humanity, the economic model for humanity, the governance model for humanity, the communications model for humanity. And web three kind of, yeah, and Web 3 creates that, that kind of. You know that that that visionary kind of platform opportunity and folks are all kind of excited about what's next. So you know once the the dust settles a little bit and you put some money in your pocket and you realize you know it's not going to change your life more than you know did last week and you know you want to make an impact and then folks kind of come back and they start pursuing you know what we're impact will why let's go to you. So what, what was Raboy? What was Raboy talking about? What were you guys talking about? In this breakfast? Keith and I just talked about how we're about to enter a very different kind of macro environment for growth stocks. And we don't know how long it's going to take, but there's no question that multiples and valuations are going to come down. And there's a lot of younger founders and investors who never lived through a bear market or a a down cycle and they're about to get a rude awakening. So look, I think it's a little different for us because. They're all principles at our firms. And so therefore, if we're not happy about something, we could simply effectuate a change in strategy. But if you're one of twenty partners at a giant firm, even if you're the most successful one, it's hard for you to move that ship. And you know, your returns get divided by, you know, it's 1 / n, where N is the number of like full partner shares. And you know, if you just made a ton of money over the last 10 years and you're thinking about whether you want to sign up for going through a bunch of choppy. Waters, there's a lot of good reasons right now for people to reevaluate now. Look, Keith and I were both discussed this in the context of, hey, this would be great for us because we're not going anywhere. But but Keith did think that because the macro picture is changing, that is one more reason for people who are on the fence and thinking about retiring to move forward with that. All right. So I think we, we've, we've talked about capital allocation and we got the variant and we got the markets. Can I just point out how like sex. It seems like you and Jay Cal and everyone are kind of in Miami at Art Basel, and this thing's been going on for years and it's a art fair, yeah. But it's like tech has taken it over like the basically the street. Yeah, like the tech community seems has this kind of consistent trend of going to these like esoteric kind of call it originally artistically. Created events and spaces. It was like Sundance and then it was Burning Man. And now it's like Miami, Art Basel and kind of running it, ruining it, taking it for themselves. Like, you know, hey now, tech week in Miami. But it was like it's been going on for forever. It's NFT basil they're calling FT basil. Yeah. Literally that for all the real creatives. Yeah. Yeah. We're we're the ugly Americans who come in and ruin the artisanal, you know, feel of the place and and and flood the place with cash. But look, no, I mean the one difference between Florida or Miami in particular and California and San Francisco in particular is nobody hates money or success over here. They are happy for, you know, all these rich people to come in and spend their money. They really believe in capitalism. Over here. You've got this huge Cuban immigrant population. You had direct experience with socialism and Argentinians and people from South America, and I mean they teach their kids in schools the evils of socialism. So yeah, nobody here is looking to purge the rich. That's nice. It's it's funny sex because the Bay Area, right? The Bay Area has a huge South Asian population, right? And a huge immigrant population. Why, why is that not the case in California? Right? Why? Why is this huge immigrant population whether they come from South America, Latin America? Or they come from South Asia, India, China. Do we not have the same sort of response here for, you know, pushback against socialist tendencies and and the push for the big entrepreneurism? The big difference in South Florida is that those immigrant communities were politically active and got really ingrained in the political process. And so they were a loud voice. You know, systemically, what happens in South Asian families is we just don't do that. It's just not a thing. And in fact, if you look inside of our countries. The politicians are just just the absolute sketchiest, most brutal folks. And so, you know, when you have people that got, you know, EE degrees from MIT, the last thing that they're thinking is like, I want to run for mayor of Santa Clara, that doesn't happen. So it's just that big cultural distinction between the Chinese and South Asian populations versus the South American population have to say San Francisco is become truly dystopian. I went to San Francisco to see a comedy show, Hassan Minaj, who is a big fan of this pod. He is an incredible show by the way, and he's amazing. And he did a show about MBS and him getting into it with the Kingdom and Patriot Act to show it was one of the most powerful, like one man shows I've seen. It's it kind of transcends comedy, but I took sunny. Our friend Sunny and we had a great time, but we walked through Union Square because we wanted to get like a drink. We walk through Union Square and it was cordoned off with cop cars at every intersection. And there's no cars in the street. And I was like, what's going on? Is there some police activity or. And I was like, they're like, no, the Louis Vuitton store got knocked off. I kid you not every single store has had every single window boarded up like it's a hurricane season, but they all did them in pitch black. So it must have been like 1 vendor came and did this for every vendor. But. Like Zara, the gap, Nike. Every single storefront has been boarded up. And then there are security guards outside and you have to make it appointment to go Christmas shopping. And literally they there have Rd blockades of multiple cars at every intersection because these smash and grabs have become so brazen and dangerous. There were 30 or 40 people involved in that one at the Louis Vuitton store. Can you imagine you're shopping for Christmas? And. Larger windows. This is the logical result of everything I've been warning about since the beginning of the year. You have prosecutors like Chaser Boudin who have essentially decriminalized staff by refusing to prosecute it. After the Louis Vuitton looting, he comes out and says, well, don't bring this noise from out of town. That's what he calls crime as noise, and he's trying to pretend like it's it didn't arise in San Francisco, like somehow it's come from out of town. No, you created it by refusing to prosecute these types of crimes and then after talking tough. The first thing he did he already released they the police actually caught some of these looters at the of the LVMH he has already released them on zero bail. Exactly. The prison the jail is a revolving door. They have zero bail. And so the people who did this already out on bail chase, it talks tough when he crossed when he charges them but the charges are never actually brought they're down thrown out and it is dystopian and we we couldn't find a place to have a drink every single bar was we wanted to have like a post you know comedy show. Frank and and by the way, Jason's a huge fan of the pod we have. We talked for an hour of the show. He brought us backstage, was really, really class act and we should have on the pod at some point. Do we want to talk about Jack leaving Twitter? Well, there's a segue here. I mean, Chamath mentioned that, you know, you have these immigrant minorities from South Asia. I'd say Indian Americans, Chinese Americans. They've been spectacularly successful in the United States. Maybe they haven't been as politically active as, say, the Cuban Americans or Argentinian Americans in Florida, but they've been incredibly successful. You had another example of that this week with Jack leaving Twitter. His replacement is Prague Agarwal. He's an Indian American. So you now have, you know, Indian immigrants, I guess, first or second generation, running Google with Sundar, Satya Nadella and Microsoft, the CEO of Adobe. Shantanu Narayan, the CEO's of MasterCard, Nokia, NAP and IBM. All Indian Americans. So there's no question that people of color can be spectacularly successful in the United States. And I think those communities are too messed with. The Browns hold on. Those, those communities, those communities are so busy availing themselves of the opportunity of the abundant opportunities for success in this country that they haven't been basically involved in politics because I haven't been complaining about anything. They've just been succeeding. Too busy winning. Too busy winning? Yeah, I think there was a there's a viral joke. You live, you're if you're a CEO in Silicon Valley, you live long enough to see yourself replaced by an Indian CEO. That that trended. Hallelujah. Hallelujah. Look. Satya. Satya sundar. There's like four or five other examples, but it's it's now just absolutely a great triumph. That's it's amazing for our society that a lot of people who are immigrants or sons of immigrants come here and run the largest, most dynamic, important companies in the world. This is an incredible win, and we have to reboot immigration in this country. I believe in this very strongly that we need to get more intelligent people here. And if you come here for your degree, we need to staple a green card to your degree when you come up and pick it up on stage at Stanford or Harvard or whatever Community College. You should stay here and build companies here. We have to really open that up. That was one of the huge failings of the Trump presidency. And now going into Biden, who doesn't seem to care about immigration either. Both of these people, it's huge fouls. Both parties do not want to bring intelligent people here. I want to talk about Mike Bloomberg, $750 million donations. Explain to people what happened is given 750 to charter schools. Am I correct? First of all, Mike's a boss. I've known him for 15 years. He is the best. He is an absolute stone cold. Boss Keller, before I tell this story of what he did, you know Mike was the largest donator donor to Johns Hopkins and for years he would donate. Without any fanfare, and this is something that I've actually copied from him. I've given up money to my alma mater. Not anywhere near the same amount as he has, but. You know, after he passed a billion dollars of donations, he made it public and he was able to make Johns Hopkins permanently need blind. And so it's kind of like Johns Hopkins became this bastion to attract the smartest kids. Bar none, right? And everybody gets and everybody gets their their way paid, basically. So he announced the program $750 million over the next four or five years, I think, to get 150,000 kids. Jason, tell me if I got this wrong, into charter schools all around the country. And he basically just talked about how, you know, the pandemic has really let our kids down in every single way possible. And he had these quotes from the leader of the California Teachers Union, and it was so odious, the things that she said. And the biggest quote was basically like, you could recall Gavin Newsom and you could recall that the mayor of a city, but you can't recall me. So I'm just going to do what I want. And it was, it was unbelievable. It was disgusting, actually. Man, I wish she had one for president. #1 issue, why Glenn Youngkin won in Virginia was that was schools. It was the fact that you had these school lockdowns and closures and then also the parents weren't happy with what's being taught in the schools and the unions and the politicians are beholden to them, are completely arrogant. About this and explicitly say to the parents, you don't get to decide what your kids wait, Eric. And it's right where, David, if you read these quotes in the Wall Street Journal article, it's disgusting. It's disgusting the way this woman talks about our kids, it's really disgusting. And, well, it takes a rare Democrat like Bloomberg to basically stand up to them. I mean, Biden certainly doesn't because they are the number one special Democratic Party in terms of the manpower and boots on the ground and donations. You will never hear a politician like Gavin Newsom ever stand up to them. Because he wants to be president. He doesn't wanna. Basically. He doesn't want to cross any major interest in the Democratic Party. It takes an outsider like Bloomberg to understand how they were able to sell so effectively. Anti choice for parents and schools. Like everybody in the world, 100% of people in America know that choice and competition equals better outcomes, better products. That's not up for debate. And somehow they were able to flip people's thinking that no, no, competition in schools was more equitable and that created more equity in the world. How did they do that? Or how did they pull this off? They just did everybody off. They didn't do that. They never gave parents a choice because parents didn't know a choice was possible. We took a system and we had it. And we actually delude people into thinking, I'll tell you, yeah, no, they didn't have to dilute people. They just had to basically use their money to pay off a small cohort of individuals to basically back their own view. That's it here. Here's some of her quotes if you want to read them. #1, there's no such thing as learning loss because MM was basically saying that, you know, these kids have stopped learning and there's a huge learning, she said. There's no such thing as learning loss. She said in an interview with LA Magazine. Our kids didn't lose anything. It's OK that. Hold on. It's OK that our babies may not have learned their times tables. They learned resilience. That's honestly, that's a crock. That's a crock of. Who is this person and how do we get her out of office and what is she like? But but the money, the money quote was this one. You can recall the governor, you can recall the school board, but how are you going to recall me? That's really. Come on, let's go. Purple pack, this is this is Cecily, Cecily Myart Cruz, the head of the Los Angeles teachers. Somebody start recall cecily.org. Where? Recall all of them. I think this recalling trend is brilliant. Like, if people are absolutely not doing their job, yes, recall them. She should be allowed, obviously, to be a great representative for LA school teachers and fight on their behalf. That's what unions and union leaders are supposed to do. But something tells me between that goal and how she expressed herself here, something has happened and that's corrupted. Or go to market if you will. That I think it's really scary. It's a towel. She she has an arrogance there in those quotes that's just obvious. Look, the thing about these polls, these progressive policies, is they hurt the communities that they that they pretend to be speaking for the most. And so who is hurt by learning loss the most? It's disadvantaged kids who can't afford the tutors and the private tutors. The exact same thing is true of defund the police and this decarceration and deep prosecution, the communities that get hit the hardest. Are the ones that are exposed to the most crime. They're basically the most impoverished areas. The rich people can hire private security, have high walls, live in gated communities. And so we're seeing over and over again, This is why Eric Adams, who basically is a pro police guy in New York City, got huge percentages of the votes of minority communities in places like the Bronx. And Glenn Youngkin did extremely well in Virginia with minority communities. So you know these and they tend to be primarily white progressives. Light chaser boudin, like Georgia Gascon, like Gavin, like children. They're the craziest ones. They're the craziest ranged. They are, they are. So these are these are luxury beliefs that they that they learn in virtue signalling is so just luxury, luxury beliefs. Speaking of crazy work progresses, we just go back to the the Twitter thing for a second because I think there's a little bit more to say there about Jack Dorsey stepping down because I think there is a real fear on the part of a lot of people that Twitter now is going to slide. Into even greater censorship like YouTube has because now you have a CEO who, you know, prorogue, who said last year, in 2020, there's an article where he basically said that Twitter does not need to follow the principles of the 1st amendment as content moderation policy. So here you have a company. I mean, you just look at the bookends of Jack Dorsey's reign as CEO. And it's really a sharp contrast you had when **** Costolo was CEO 10 years ago. He said, we are the free speech wing. Of the Free Speech party. And now to Paraag as CEO Dorsey's handpicked successor 1011 years later, basically saying that the 1st Amendment does not matter. They don't have to follow it when it comes to their content moderation. So I think it's been a real sea change over there and how they view their mission. They used to be in favor of free speech, they used to think that what they're doing was democratizing. Now they basically are pushing this agenda of censorship. You've seen it censorship of, of really any opinion that violates the elite consensus. Like on COVID, like on. You know, many of these issues, it could be simpler, David. It could just be that it's just really hard to run these things at scale. And so they're all just saying, you know what? It's so hard. I don't want to run it anymore. I don't think it's that hard. I mean, so. So here's the thing. So Mike Solana had a column where he's basically arguing that that Jack Dorsey was really a secret defender of the 1st amendment and and the censorship would be even worse or will be once he's gone. I think there's some. Yeah, I agree with that. I agree that it was. Well, let me, let me tell you the part I disagree with. I agree, I agree. Things are only going to get worse once he's gone. Well, no, I know Jack. He is for freedom of speech. He just didn't like to have to deal with the government and all these issues. Like I I think it just became untenable because of the scale. But he is a free speech guy. But the ones that, same with Larry Pitt, same with Larry Page. Yes, we this is on a personal basis. We know this. Edmund Burke had a great quote saying that all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. Jack Dorsey may be a good man, but he did nothing or very little to stop this agenda of censorship. When they came to him and said they're going to deep platform, a sitting president, United States, all he had to say was no. No, he had the veto power and he didn't use it. Listen, he left. I mean, hate to get into politics here because people hate this part of the show, but he left. He specifically believed that Trump should stay on the platform. He was president, and he stood up to people for four years who told them. Get president off like everybody was screaming Trump shouldn't be on here and he said no, he's the president, he should be on that. That was his position, David. It was really because of January 6th that he took him off. All these guys, Larry, Larry and Sergey's Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey, they are all fundamentally free speech people. They they they believe in the power of the open Internet. I remember in the early days at Google, the intention and the motivation behind the mission of Google was the democratization of access to information. 100 by creating access to information and making all information, all points of view, all data available, they believed that democracy would flourish around the world and that would enable these things that would allow these societies that were limited in information access information to flourish and transform themselves. And I think the challenge arises when the political motivation where someone's voice that's being spoken is viewed and deemed to be harmful or viewed and deemed to be inflammatory or viewed and deemed to be too violent, violence inducing. And that's where the push comes to shove and these these kind of governance decisions that these folks end up having to make. It's not an easy position. Fundamentally, philosophically, I think that everyone that's involved in the Internet, all technologists, they all have the same intention and motivation and point of view. But it is so friggin hard to navigate what ends up happening. Look at, look at, look and and and by the way, look at what happened to 4 Chan. 4 Chan was supposed to be this open. No one's going to touch it. And then there were pictures of like people being murdered and raped and all this other sort of terrible stuff that emerged on 4 Chan. And then they had to. The same at Reddit, right? Remember the whole controversy around Reddit needing to cramp clamp down and you know Ellen and others got a lot of heat for clamping down on the free speech, quote UN quote, of what was going on. And yeah, there's like there's **** because there's a line and and and it's very hard to your point of view on what the line should be and someone else's point of view on what the line should be is a difference of opinion. And at the end of the day, opinions are going to draw us. David is based on your guy getting banned. Let's be clear here. If your guy had been banned, that's that's the tip of your spear. No, I think. Frankly I think the fact the fact these off Twitter I think it's frankly great for for my team if you want to call it that because actually here comes Eric. No I mean look download the calling app but App Store right now call it app is available on Google Play another call it. No let me let me respond let me respond to eating rice right now. I had I had an incredible barley salad. OK and then a little little we'll give you our sponsor. I wanna respond to what Freeberg said. OK. So Freeberg is exactly closing argument. Of this freeberg is exactly right about where the Internet stood 10 years ago. You're right that Zach and Paige and Dorsey all believed in the open Internet. They believed in the democratizing power of the Internet. When the green revolution happened in 2009, everybody was cheering. So what changed? I'll tell you what changed in 2016. They got a candidate elected who they didn't like, and their principles were so skin deep, basically so superficial that they completely flipped because they got one election where there's a result they didn't like. And so they turned against democracy. Look, Twitter and democracy worked. In 2016, the establishment lost because they had supported 2 decades of futile wars in the Middle East, trade policy with China that hollowed out jobs, border policy. It didn't make sense. The American people sent the establishment a message in 2016. The establishment should have taken the note. OK, but they didn't. Instead, what they did is blame social media for disinformation, Russian collusion, hate speech, white supremacy, what have you. And since then, they've been on a mission to ban those things from their social networks. It is a total myth. OK. The reason why Trump won the election in 2016 is because of the issues he ran on. The establishment should have taken the note. Instead, they've been on this wild goose chase attacking disinformation. Hey, nick. Nick, can you just edit out that last part of David's? I don't want anybody to hear it. Thank you. We we get to vote. Yeah, let's vote David's Trump rant, by the way. Take that off, take that out and just bleep it out. No, he never said any of that. Don't you think the biggest winner, the biggest winner here is gonna be Tik T.O.K? Because if Twitter does go forward with the standing, yeah, if they say, look, you can't put user generated content on our platform if it has video and images of personal, of people without their consent and approval, it's going to eliminate all of this democratization of access to video feeds, of riots and crime and all. Kinds of things, of course, in a real a real big boon. So like at tick tock's not going to do that. Tick tock's gonna end up soaking up this whole market right for user generated content, just so everybody knows what we're talking about. The the day after Jack left, they said there's going to be a new safety and security again. If you feel unsafe, that's when you get that little your your antenna should go up. So if you feel unsafe because somebody posted a picture of you, even if you were in a public space which is completely valid, you can take a picture of anybody in a public space that if you didn't consent and you feel unsafe. And you can have it taken down. And this has led to people thinking, like, you can't take a picture at a Warriors game of people in the background without getting the 20 people in the row to consent. It's kind of like a backstop, I think, but it is definitely a very bizarre position to take that people in public can't have their picture taken because that is a just canonical example of freedom of speech, and you don't have a right to privacy if you're out in public. So it it kind of falls into your category, David. The policy doesn't make the policy doesn't even make any sense. Nobody even understands. It was very poorly rolled. It's a large goes right. Look you could have said a policy of listen, if you have a non public person being harassed, you can always take down basically unauthorized footage of that person. They could have been harassment policy instead they just banned all public video footage and you know it's going to be applied selectively. Here's my problem with this disinformation argument, OK is where are the warning labels or the banning of tweets? Is he describing Kyle Rittenhouse as a white supremacist? Cross straight lines with an AR15? That is not true. OK, but that message went viral on Twitter, the Steele dossier went viral on Twitter, and yet there are no warning. Hold on a second. There are no warning labels to this day, despite the fact that that has been completely debunked. I'm not trying to defend any specific politician in particular. Jason, I know you think this all about Trump. It's not. It's about the double standard. OK? These censorship principles only exist so the employees of the company can censor. Outside of the debate they don't agree with, you've got to admit that there is a ton of bias and one sidedness in the way these principles are enforced. I agree there's bias, I agree that these companies are 7080% Democrat, and I agree they all have significant issues around Trump Derangement syndrome. They go chamath is had to leave the building. He had to go on to his next meeting for the dictator. The Queen of Chinois, Sultan of Science and the Rayman. David Sacks, who I'm going to go get a Cuban sandwich with right now that we're both going to look at and poke around and take two bites off so we can say she felt my guy, the Rayman. David Sacks, 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? That is my dog taking out your driveway. Ohh man. We should all just get a room and just have one big huge **** 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 murky.