拜登政府对马斯克出手，金砖扩容挑战西方，Tiger Global 遭黑稿

David Friedberg (00:00:00): Want to see something? Look at my eyes. Look at look at my eyes. Jason Calacanis (00:00:04): It's a fucking contagion over here. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:00:05): Roski, what happened? You have conjunctivitis? David Friedberg (00:00:08): Yeah. Double I for I got it from my daughter. Jason Calacanis (00:00:09): I think he got something in his eye. David Friedberg (00:00:11): And then I got this, like, fucking allergic reaction to it. It is a it I'm just messed up too for 2 days now. I haven't been able to Chamath Palihapitiya (00:00:16): Okay. Well, let me tell you about this weekend, which was the most motherfucking exhausting weekend of my life. I mean, where do I even start? Okay. Here's, here's where I start. So I fucking fly home from Italy from Italy. Jason Calacanis (00:00:29): Get back in the area. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:00:30): I'm 35000 feet. I I decide to troll the mids. Oh, no. We'll talk about that later. But, anyways, sipping a beautifully chilled white burgundy. David Sacks (00:00:39): By trolling the mids, you mean that you were occupying their airspace You were flying at the level of commercial jets. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:00:46): Is it a flyby? David Sacks (00:00:47): It's at 45,000 feet. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:00:48): I instead of 45,000 feet. I went to downward public airlines fly. And I was like, blah Jason Calacanis (00:00:53): blah blah blah blah, mid, mid, mid, and it came back. Winter's ride. Rainman, David Sachs. Speaker 5 (00:01:06): Open source it to Jason Calacanis (00:01:14): I Chamath Palihapitiya (00:01:15): land in LA, and, I go straight house. I land at, like, you know, I get there at, like, 1:30 or 2:30 or something, 3 o'clock, something around there. Jason Calacanis (00:01:23): In the morning. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:01:23): I take a oh, in the afternoon, take a nice bath, and boom, we start playing at 4 o'clock. Jason Calacanis (00:01:28): Okay. We start playing for this club. It's not a Chamath Palihapitiya (00:01:30): big deal. It's like one day of poker. We play poker. We finish at like 3 or 4 in the morning. We're exhausted. Kevin shows up in a wheelchair because he had pulled his fucking abdomen. Kevin Hart Kevin Hart in a race with Steven Ridley. He had a forty yard dash with Steven. Jason Calacanis (00:01:44): He pulled all his muscles like dog. I think you had a 40 inch dash if it was kept in the car. That's a 40 inch dash. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:01:51): Anyways, Kev Kemp pulls all these belts. Jason Calacanis (00:01:53): It's a small way. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:01:53): The door in the car opens and wheelchair Jason Calacanis (00:01:56): goes hay wheels himself to the people. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:01:59): And I so that was the beginning. I was like, this is like a this is an odd way to start poker. We play till 4 in the morning. Go to bed. Wake up, do our thing, start the game again Thursday at 4. Okay? We play again till fucking 3 or 4 in the morning. Wake up. We go to Burbank at 10, and we fight a porta byarta for bachelor party. It's unbelievable. Okay? Ten bedrooms, huge compound on the beach, the whole nine yards. We start gambling on the plane. I just want you guys to know that we slept 9 hours 4 days. And we just kept playing and playing and playing at one point said, and this is exactly how the interaction was said, Hey, guys. Maybe we should go to the seat reaches for Dit. And then as soon as he's about to say dinner, I was like, shut up, keep playing. The point is that we played from the plane. In the car, we played on an app. Then we played in the house, the food was served buffet style It all decorum just went away. We didn't do anything. We didn't leave that house. We didn't walk on the beach. We didn't fucking nothing. You didn't put your feet in the ocean. I played until I landed in Moffett on Monday afternoon. Can you fucking Jason Calacanis (00:03:13): believe it? And so it's like almost like, you know, 6 Chamath Palihapitiya (00:03:18): days straight of poker. I will say this. It's an incredible house. The food was incredible. I really wish I could have seen more than my bedroom and the poker table. I wish I could tell you that Jason Calacanis (00:03:29): the Pacific Ocean was nice, but I have no fucking idea. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:03:33): You pee in a bucket. You didn't even see the bathrooms Jason Calacanis (00:03:35): in this house? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:03:36): No. I had the doors open so that I could run to my room and pee and come back, Jason Calacanis (00:03:40): I mean, it Yeah. You don't wanna waste time. You don't Chamath Palihapitiya (00:03:42): wanna waste time. It it was the most degenerate weekend I've ever been a part of. And And then all of us, by the way, we're so exhausted. We slept for fucking 10 hours a day for the, like, the last 3 days. Jason Calacanis (00:03:52): Oh, and by the way, Chamath Palihapitiya (00:03:53): so smart. You know, you think it's a bachelor party. It's like there'll be girls. There'll be nothing. Not even the housekeepers were women. Everybody was mad. Jason Calacanis (00:04:01): There were no distractions. It's Chamath Palihapitiya (00:04:04): It's just all dudes, dudes, cleaning out, dudes, cooking, dudes, dudes doing this, dudes, Jason Calacanis (00:04:09): you know, a one attempt Chamath Palihapitiya (00:04:10): to go off-site to go to a dinner was like, nope. Sit down. The best. He's the best. Jason Calacanis (00:04:15): That should pay for some tequila research. He's the best. My lord. I I just wanna I don't wanna make this and sit tequila part 2, but My email is filled with 8000 word tequila missives and overviews from Friedberg and every tequila producer in the world. And My Twitter, my acts, is filled with posts about Chapon's man in the arena comments. They have set off an absolute fury, as, Chamath was alluding to. So the man in the arena tweet, I I don't know the time stamp here. It looks like 10:22 AM. I don't know, what that is Italian time, but Tremont decided to say, I'm in the arena trying stuff. Some will work, some wound, but always learning. You're anonymous and afraid of your own shadow. Enjoy the timelines. And this, of course, was to somebody who is criticizing a, smack or something. And I think this person had 8 followers and, let's just go through the memes here. Here, somebody with the AI revolution has made a Chamath version of Gladiator Chamath Palihapitiya (00:05:12): who is Jason Calacanis (00:05:12): Russell Crow and, shamazi DNA being mixed. Friedberg, I didn't know this was possible in DNA today, but I guess there is a new actor storming Hollywood, and it's Chumoff Crow. It's Russell Palihapitiya. Beautiful. I mean, what a great job that is? What a great job. Looks like you. So great job to, whatever mids did that in whatever mid software. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:05:34): Do you want to actually talk about the men in the arena comment and what the context of it is? Can we talk about that actually? Yeah. Jason Calacanis (00:05:40): Go ahead. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:05:40): I think people got upset because what I said was the truth. And this is no different than when I've said stuff before that's become a huge meme and a huge moment, cultural moment. Telling the truth, especially when it's so clear and so obvious, sometimes can really touch a nerve. And what I said is basically the following, which is that there are all these people, the 4 of us are examples, who are constantly doing things. And then we come into X and we don't confuse X with the arena. Know, we don't do stuff in the in x. We talk on x. But then you go back and you actually do things. You start companies. You invest in businesses. You incubate ideas. You help founders get their businesses off the ground. Those are meaningful things. And success is never guaranteed, but there is a small strain of people who just violently either hate themselves or hate the fact that you're doing things, and then that you talk about them. And I think what this touched was just that in a simple nutshell. It forced people to confront the fact that, hey, hold on second. Am I this anonymous roob on the sideline that just throws shade or I'm actually doing stuff? Here, I just wanted to take an actual direct line of attack on people who are constantly blaming others for everything. And if you aren't trying and iterating, you're a fucking loser go out and try something. And whether it works or not, acts as a great place to then go and talk about it. Jason Calacanis (00:07:12): That's the cycle. Sacks your thoughts on the man in the arena. David Sacks (00:07:16): Well, look, I think speaking of crazy politically motivated at witch hunts, did you see this latest story today that now there's a new government investigation of Elon. They're investigating him for supposedly Tesla was gonna build him a glass house, which he has basically said is ridiculous. It's not true. So the administration, you know, I I guess to turn a phrase, people who live in glass houses shouldn't be investigating glass houses. You have the Biden administration now. The latest revelations is that Biden was using a pseudonym in emails. Jason Calacanis (00:07:51): 1000 emails and then David Sacks (00:07:53): He was emailing Hunter Biden under the name Robert Peters. Why would you do that about Burisma? Jason Calacanis (00:08:00): So this is how they David Sacks (00:08:01): were communicating first. Biden said he said David Friedberg (00:08:04): he knew nothing about level. David Sacks (00:08:06): Yeah. Well, 1st Biden said, remember Jason Calacanis (00:08:08): at yahoo.com. David Sacks (00:08:10): 1st Biden said, I don't know anything about my son's business. Then it turns out based on the sworn testimony of Devin Archer who is Hunter Biden's partner that Biden participated in over 20 phone calls where he would call in when they were in the room with clients to, quote, be the brand. And now we find out that Biden was communicating with Hunter about Reshma using a Soonnam account, basically a burner account under the name Robert Peters. Jason Calacanis (00:08:34): Allegedly. Allegedly. David Sacks (00:08:35): Okay. But this is what the Kober investigations turned up. Jason Calacanis (00:08:38): It's certainly not looking at. And as you David Sacks (00:08:40): said, it's already been living glass houses. Shouldn't we investigate glass houses? Jason Calacanis (00:08:44): Here's the thing. Like, If you're gonna evaluate and and listen, obviously I'm biased, but if you're gonna investigate Tesla over this, like, people can buy and trade the stock however they want. Like, there seems to be some binding administration, you know, like jihad against Elon. They're going after them for this and David Sacks (00:09:04): totally wouldn't remember it, a week or 2 ago. Jason Calacanis (00:09:06): They wouldn't invite them to the Indeed Summit. I mean, it's all Well, I David Sacks (00:09:09): think that's where the whole thing started is that they wouldn't TV summit because they're not a union shop. And then Elon spoke out about that. Mayor Biden introduced the CEO of GM giving her credit for launching the whole EV revolution. So Elon criticized administration for that, but I think the main reason why they don't like him is because what he's done with free speech on Twitter. Jason Calacanis (00:09:29): Twitter. Yeah. David Sacks (00:09:30): This glasshouse investigation is the second one. The one that happened last week is they're investigating SpaceX for supposedly screening out foreign nationals in the hiring process. They they are saying Chamath Palihapitiya (00:09:42): Wait a sec. David Sacks (00:09:43): The the DOJ is alleging that SpaceX was hiring too many Americans, and they needed to hire more refugees. Jason Calacanis (00:09:50): My head's spinning. David Sacks (00:09:51): Even though even though there's a national Jason Calacanis (00:09:54): It's not refugees. David Friedberg (00:09:55): No. Not national refugees. Refugees. Wait. Jason Calacanis (00:09:58): A refugee is somebody fleeing a country Chamath Palihapitiya (00:10:01): Nick, because of my Jason Calacanis (00:10:02): political persecution, what what where did the term refugees come from? David Sacks (00:10:06): No. It is the term. Jason Calacanis (00:10:08): A refugee is somebody fleeing a country because of political purse persecution. Why would they use that term? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:10:13): The DOJ sued SpaceX basically for DEI foot faults, they said that there was not enough refugees and asylum seekers that were being adequately considered and being hired by SpaceX the problem with that as it turns out is that the DOJ is not even allowed to hire asylum seekers. I mean, and refugees David Sacks (00:10:35): is governed under the same laws, because it's a rocket company as advanced weapons contractors. And they and the whole industry has been under the belief for many years that they could only hire American citizens and green card holders for these very sensitive jobs. And what happened is earlier in the year, the Biden administration released what they called a clarification here. I'll post this. Nick, can you pull this up? So the US to US DOD Civil Rights Division released this, again, what they called a clarification, how to avoid immigration related discrimination when complying with US export control laws. The export control laws is what governs rocket companies and weapons contractors. It's basically the companies that are involved in these sensitive national security areas until now, the government was pretty clear that you were only supposed to hire US citizens and green card holders. Jason Calacanis (00:11:29): But what's the derivation here, Saks? Explain to me the motivation. David Sacks (00:11:32): Because they have this crazy idea that that these companies, these national security companies should be hiring more refugees and asylum seekers. Jason Calacanis (00:11:41): When we David Sacks (00:11:42): Even though This is the definition of a national security risk. But the really crazy thing so first of all, I think this this update that they issued, this is lawmaking. Okay? They called it a clarification. But this is a Biden administration making you law through Yeah. Jason Calacanis (00:11:55): That's not the process of shrinking agency. David Sacks (00:11:58): I think this is a crazy law. It's really the opposite of what we should want, which is more Americans getting jobs. Jason Calacanis (00:12:03): But, Saks, can I ask you a question? David Sacks (00:12:05): But what they've done with this lawsuit is they're going back. And, remember, the key here is that that was only issued in April of this year. They've gone back and said that from 2008 to 2022, SpaceX is governed by this new understanding. So they're basically making it retroactive. Jason Calacanis (00:12:19): Okay. Put putting aside this, legal lease here for a second. I just wanna talk first principles. If you were a foreign government and you wanted to infiltrate some company like SpaceX or Android or whatever, would it not be easier to send a quote unquote refugee to America. David Sacks (00:12:37): Yeah. Especially for us. Jason Calacanis (00:12:39): Versus flipping an American who already works there. It should be a much easier process especially because all sense David Sacks (00:12:45): Right. Because especially since all you have to do is go to the hole in the wall in Yuma, Arizona, as RfK Junior showed, and you just mentioned the word asylum, like the cartel has taught you to, and all of a sudden, you're a refugee. Jason Calacanis (00:12:58): Yeah. David Sacks (00:12:58): You're in. They give you a piece of paper that tells you you're gonna be in court in 3 years, but you're in. Thousands of people, tens without millions of people have done this. Jason Calacanis (00:13:05): Also, another pragmatic question, Friedberg, how many people who are coming in as asylum seekers have the advanced degrees or background to work at Andrew Spacex. I don't know. Pick a pick an aerospace weapon space company Like, what percentage of refugees do you think coming across the southern border or whatever border they're coming in would actually have those qualifications. So anyway, this seems same. David Sacks (00:13:27): Well and and so, Jacob, you raised an interesting point because I think one of the really unusual things about this DOJ lawsuit against SpaceX is that the remedies they're seeking are unprecedented. What they've said is anybody who was screened out as part of this process was entitled to back pay loss wages since they were screened out. In other words, it assumes that single one of those people would have been hired. Jason Calacanis (00:13:51): Gotten the job when, in fact, they'd probably hire 1 out of a 1000 or 1 out of a 100 applicants gets hired. Right. Speaker 5 (00:13:56): And if David Sacks (00:13:57): they could have gotten the job of SpaceX, as we all know, they're bar for hiring is incredibly high. They probably didn't have damages because they could probably get jobs at some other companies as well. Jason Calacanis (00:14:05): Oh my god. The Biden administration is self inflicted wounds here. This is so dumb. What what a stupid approach. David Friedberg (00:14:12): Is the glass house thing a misallocation of funds claim? Like a securities issue? Is that what Chamath Palihapitiya (00:14:17): it is? It's a securities issue that it was improperly disclosed and that they may not have filed the taxes because it would have been a paid benefit to Elon. Right. Jason Calacanis (00:14:27): Right. David Sacks (00:14:27): But, I mean, don't you feel like this is a stretch? I mean, they are stretching every law they can to go after this guy. It's getting to be a little bit Jason Calacanis (00:14:34): trump like I hate to bring it. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:14:36): Let's be clear. Here's what's happening. I think that when Elon bought Twitter, what effectively happened is the biggest sciop's organization for the Democratic Party was taken away from them. And I think that they are increasingly feeling like if it really does, if Twitter or X becomes a town square, that's really bad for them. And so they can't shape people. They can't amplify the victimization. They can't amplify the government's gonna save you narratives. And so this is the sort of death by a 1000 cuts approach that the blob has of trying to bring him down. And so you see a DOJ lawsuit over here. It's, you know, nominal, but whatever. Then you're gonna see you know, the SEC investigation over $50,000 of glass. I mean, the guy is worth a quarter of a $1,000,000,000,000 and we're sweating the 50,000 glass purchase. But the point is, the goal is to tie him up and to distract him and to basically take resources away his mind share from working. Now we all know him. So he's gonna do the exact David Friedberg (00:15:48): not gonna work. Jason Calacanis (00:15:49): Not gonna work. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:15:49): Palihapitiya is going to have a job for the rest of his life. That's his lawyer from Quinn Emanuel, and Alex is going to beat these things back and Generally, Alex will win most lawsuits. I say most, Jason Calacanis (00:16:02): but not all. But not all. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:16:06): But anyways, the point is that the point is that, David Sacks (00:16:09): Well, Chamath, I think you're exactly right about motivating this and what's going on. But I'll I'll tell you when it all began is that Biden had a press conference where he said that Elon needed to be looked at. Remember this? Right. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:16:22): Yeah. Yeah. David Sacks (00:16:23): Yeah. Specifically, Biden said, well, I I don't know that you all said anything wrong, but I think we need to look at his relationships with other countries. So this was the signal to all of the ambitious apparatchicks in our law enforcement agencies. This is the reason for advancement that he's the target. Go after him. Find something. Now in fact, they couldn't find anything. So they look at his relation with other countries. And what you would expect is that maybe he hired some foreign nationals he shouldn't have, but it was the exact opposite. They didn't hire foreign nationals. So then they may cut the crime Jason Calacanis (00:17:00): get you on that. David Sacks (00:17:01): It reminds me of the whole Alvin Bragg thing where Alvin Bragg made that case that Trump was required by campaign finance laws to pay Stormy Daniels using donor money. But you know you know that if they had found that Trump paid Stormy Daniels with donations, they would have charged him with that. It's like investigating the guy, finding he did nothing wrong, and then charging him with the opposite of what he Jason Calacanis (00:17:26): knows about. Between these and and trump's behavior, but sure. David Sacks (00:17:30): It's the weaponization that just system. And show me the man, and I'll show you the crime. Jason Calacanis (00:17:34): Now incorrect with the last 2. I mean, he he he committed a lot of crimes, but we'll leave that off the docket for now. We're gonna agree to disagree on that one. Okay. Just very interesting media related story and find You're David Sacks (00:17:46): giving Robert Meters too much credit. I mean, Joe Biden. Jason Calacanis (00:17:50): I'm Listen. Biden's gotta go. Trump's gotta go. We need a new platform. I have announced that I am supporting Nikki Haley and, Chris Christie slash Vivek Vivek. That that would be my ideal ticket right now. I want some the only person Friedberg who brought up spending in either party, Nikki Ham. Alright. David Sacks (00:18:11): Let's just agree with this. We're gonna take out and move Jason Calacanis (00:18:13): on. Let's David Sacks (00:18:14): not get distracted. Jason Calacanis (00:18:14): But I just wanna also say we we were wondering who won the, debate last week biggest increase, Nicky Hallie. So to to the current situation that's making it look like? I think she went from 2 to 9 7 to 9 in different, in different, polls. So it's it's somewhere in between. She tripped Oh, it David Sacks (00:18:31): was not a huge bounce. I think you went I think you're right. She went from 2 to 7. Jason Calacanis (00:18:36): There was 12 to 7, 12 to 9. But anyway, putting it aside The Trump the Trump people David Sacks (00:18:39): are actually promoting it because they want Trump to be up against a bunch they want to be up against, you know, not, I guess, 1. Yeah. Jason Calacanis (00:18:47): Yeah. But, yeah, three people at 10 to 15% is better than 1 at 30. I I that's probably correct. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:18:52): Could I just ask? Cause I didn't, I haven't followed it this week. What was the set, what, like, after it settled, after the bounces and the spikes, Saksipu, what Where where are we at now in the Republican race after this past week and having people having a chance to really figure out what happened in the debate. Yeah. Exactly. David Sacks (00:19:10): Yeah. I think the consensus view just about is that the biggest beneficiary of the debate was Vivek Ramaswami. Jason Calacanis (00:19:16): By far. David Sacks (00:19:16): Yes. Mickey Haley did get a little bit of a bounce, but Vivek got a much bigger one. He's much better known to the base now. And I think that it's Vivek and DeSantis are now more or less neck and neck for number 2. Haley might be number 3 at this point, but I think it helped him evict the most. Now It's also true that he got a lot of criticism, but I think that's kinda where he wants to be. I mean, you wanna be the center of attention. And the people who are attacking him now are all these neo cons. It's basically the whole military industrial complex. It's all the bond paid for politicians and think tanks who, you know, won America to be in these forever wars. So I think he's being attacked by the right people, and that's gonna help Chamath Palihapitiya (00:20:01): Yeah. So, Saks, you, you see him, like, basically, it's gonna be trump versus Vivek if this continues. David Sacks (00:20:10): Well, it's hard to say. I mean, I think DeSantis is still is still in the mix. I think it's noteworthy that the top 3 candidates all have expressed significant either misgivings or opposition to our involvement in Ukraine. Trump, Vivek, and DeSantis with varying degrees of strength have basically all opposed by his policy. They are the leading candidates in their public and primary. I think that's telling you something very important. Hailey, Christie, Pence, Jason Calacanis (00:20:41): Tim, Scott. David Sacks (00:20:42): They all would like to do even more in Ukraine, and that is not where the party is. So Chamath Palihapitiya (00:20:47): Somewhere the country is. Nobody's there. David Sacks (00:20:49): One other piece of, debate fallout that I thought was really interesting was that they interviewed Oliver Anthony. You remember the the guy who sings that song? The rich man north of Richmond because Fox News made the first question about his song. And he clarified what the song was about. What he said is the Richmond he's talking about, north of Richmond are the people in DC. It's the blob. And so the people on the debate stage. Yeah. Well, it but what he said specifically was it was the it was the people who got us into all these endless wars when I was growing up. It was the Republicans who did, specifically. He was talking about Bush Cheney Republicans, Neocons. He made that explicit and clear. I'm singing more about, like, a lot of the older super are politicians that brought us into endless war through my entire childhood. Those are Bushara Neocon. Jason Calacanis (00:21:42): He said the people on that stage is who I'm talking about. Don't use my song. The song is not a left or a right song. It's about the people. It was a song about his contemporaries is what he said. Not a and he's talking about both parties, and he said specifically if the people on that stage I'm talking about don't use my song again. Okay. Let's go on to the next story. There was a leaked document, and we had this come up last week. The leaked document, was sent to Chamath. And it was about Tiger Global's struggles. It had a line at the top that said this was a spike or a of a New Yorker story. I think a draft is the way they said it. And we had a little conversation about here. We decided not to publish it. We had a a little discussion because we did not think in our private discussion that this was a real story, high star grammatical errors in it, Sach said we really can't publish something like this because it it's slanderous, and we don't know the provenance of it. And on Friday, tiger sent a letter to its LPs in response to the document. They wrote that they are being targeted, quote, targeted with a series of misinformation attacks, honestly using encrypted messaging platforms like Sigma, we strongly believe these were written by a disgruntled form employee with whom we parted ways, unlike the anonymous cowards spreading this false narrative on the internet, you know who we are, and we are here and ready to answer your questions, Russ short, our team remains highly focused on our core business, which has been forming this year. So Shamoff, just your Broad thoughts on the Tiger Global non story, a fake false story by a former employer. Chase Chamath Palihapitiya (00:23:17): is incredible person. I've said this before. He helped me get into the business of investing. He ceded my first angel fund. I was pretty helpful, I think, in getting them on the cap table at Facebook. Many, many years ago, which helped them get going as well. So I Jason Calacanis (00:23:36): think that he's a wonderful human being, and I've had nothing but positive things Chamath Palihapitiya (00:23:40): to say about him. Scott's life where I don't know as well, but he seems like clearly a hard charging person that's achieved quite a lot. And so I'm glad that we didn't publish it or talk about it. And if there is something to be said, The story will be validated and people will get to the bottom of it. What is crazy is I don't understand what this document actually serves except exactly, as you said, to a disgruntled person who has absolutely no economics. Meaning, If you're an LP, you don't want this document to be out. If you're a partner that has Carrie, you don't want this, out into the odd in the wild either. If you're a portfolio company, you don't want this document out in the wild. Jason Calacanis (00:24:27): I hurt you. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:24:28): I tend to believe that this is just a a disgruntled person. Again, look, I've had this experience as well. So which is that There are all kinds of employees who work with you. We try our best as leaders of organizations to compensate them well But invariably what I find are people overestimate their contributions, and people try to take way more credit. They try to take credit for deals that they've done, that they didn't actually do. They try to take credit for all of the internal workings, And then invariably when the leadership decides that those folks aren't a good fit anymore, mostly for cultural reasons, and are exited, they have a bone to pick in an axe to grind. And they try to sort of distribute misinformation to other LPs, to other GPs, to portfolio company CEOs. It's happened to me. It's happened to Chase. It's happened to Sequoia. It's it's happened to any of us that have been successful. So to Jason Calacanis (00:25:30): grind people. Yeah. It's just like Chamath Palihapitiya (00:25:32): again, it's just another example of, like, there are the people that are in the arena doing, and then there are the people that kinda get kicked out and get really upset. And lose track of what's important. These people instead of writing these missives should be working. Yeah. I mean, back to how Jason Calacanis (00:25:51): how just crumple sacks does a former employee need to be to put in this kind of effort to write a ten page faux, New Yorker style expose. And, you were the voice of reason, I think, in our group chat and just saying, like, I I don't even think we should talk about it in a way. We weren't gonna cover the details of it, but even a meta discussion of it, you put the kibash on, which we would have been first, like, kinda highlighting this craziness, but you took a pretty hard stance, and your thoughts on it? David Sacks (00:26:18): Well, it was written like it was some sort of journalistic article, but a journalistic article as a byline, you know, who wrote it, you know, who publishes it, it has provenance, you know, therefore, who is liable if it's slanderous. Yeah. This piece that was going around had none of those things. And therefore, my view was that we shouldn't discuss it. And my view is we shouldn't even mention it because all you're then doing is drawing attention to something that, again, you don't know the provenance of, and you don't know whether it's true or not, and you don't know who's standing by it. Now what's happened in the last week is that Tiger has issued a statement about it, and that statement was covered by the press. So I guess we can talk about the fact that they've had to respond to this, I'm still not comfortable talking about any of the contents of it because, again, nobody's put their name by it. So why even put them in the position of needing to respond to it? Yeah. Until somebody is willing to basically raise their hand, say, I this is what I think. The piece that was circulated was a mix of both business criticism or business issues Hence slander. Personal slander. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:27:22): Yeah. David Sacks (00:27:22): So, I mean, are there business issues in there that we could discuss? Yeah. I mean, then they would be interesting, but until we know that there's some authenticity it. I don't feel comfortable giving any attention whatsoever to this thing. Personally, I think you've been talking about it now. It's still kind of a waste of time. Jason Calacanis (00:27:39): Friedberg, any thoughts on it just as we wrap here? David Friedberg (00:27:41): No. It's clearly a disgruntled person trying to cast a negative light Just get a Jason Calacanis (00:27:50): job, bro. Alright. The dollarization corner. Bricks added 6 new members climbing to 11 total. And, Bricks Of course, everybody knows Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. These 4 countries make up 40% of the population 25 percent of global GDP joining the BRICS block are Saudi Arabia, Iran, Ethiopia, Egypt, Egypt, Argentina, and the UAE. New bricks. And it's kind of being set up as like an alternative to T7 G8, I guess. New bricks makes up Almost 50% of the global population with the 3rd of GDP. This is the 1st expansion in 13 years in South Africa joined Saks. You've, got some thoughts on the bricks and a little presentation here, inform the audience. David Sacks (00:28:35): Alright. So Jake, like you said, they added 6 new members. Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and UAE, that's on top of the original 5 members. Now You've described this group of countries as mid. I don't know what metric you're using to make that determination. If you look at share of global GDP in purchasing power parity terms, and we can debate whether that's the right method or not, but a lot of economists believe that PPP is the right way to look at it. The original bricks were 32% of global GDP. The new bricks bring it to 37% And there's a couple dozen more countries that have expressed an interest in joining bricks, which would bring it to 45. The g 7 is only 30%. And that number has been declining over time. Back in 1995, it was all the way at 45%, whereas the bricks were only about 17% you can see that decline or shift here in this chart going all the way back to the 19 eighties. This is why I think a lot of Americans have this casually dismissive attitude towards the bricks is they're thinking that these countries are still living in the era of the 19 nineties of unipolarity when the G Seven was, you know, more than half of global GDP, but now the bricks are bigger than the G Seven. Again, in terms of PPP. The rest have risen and has become a very substantial part of the world economy. If you look at global oil production, the new bricks now have 54 percent of global oil production. It's almost double with the g 7 producers despite the US still being the number one producer of oil. We're not the biggest exporter because we use Jason Calacanis (00:30:16): it all. Just to to add to that point, oil is, of course, a declining commodity with Renewables and nuclear, and people are gonna rely on it less. So sure. David Sacks (00:30:27): I don't think renewables are anywhere close to be able to replace Fossil Fuels. If it breaks Jason Calacanis (00:30:32): as if it breaks as if it is if it breaks No. Hold on. Let me just answer to It's cheaper now, and Shamaf can speak to this to install solar wind than it is to do a lot of the, carbon based, fuels. So it actually has tipped economically, where it's, I think, cheaper in 80% of cases, 85% of cases. To install renewables. Is that correct, Tremont, Chamath Palihapitiya (00:30:54): broadly speaking? The cost of solar is effectively now the the cheapest form of energy, you know, on a kilowatt per hour basis. Great. Okay. Continue, sir. David Sacks (00:31:03): Well, this isn't preventing Germany from sliding into a massive recession because they're not able to get cheap energy anymore. Jason Calacanis (00:31:09): Yeah. They turned off earlier. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:31:11): That also supposes that you have the actual supply and to David's point why Germany has such a difficult issues because they turned off nat gas. They turned off the reactors, and they there's just not enough solar installed right now. So you know, it's also a commodity country. Yeah. What I just meant was more the levelized cost of energy, which is if you had an installation here and an installation there of 2 different modes of energy generation. Solar is cheaper, but Dave David is right. Like, you know, it's still gonna take some time for the proliferation of solar. Agree or something. Jason Calacanis (00:31:40): Yeah. We all agree. David Sacks (00:31:41): The US is already roughly energy independent. We produce about 20,000,000 barrels of oil a day. We consume about 20,000,000. So We are roughly neutral with respect to the world. We're neither a net importer or net exporter as of now. So I oil is still gonna be a huge it's the number one global commodity. If BRICS, Venezuela, Algeria, and Kazakhstan as they may do as soon as next year, they'll control 90% of all oil and gas traded globally. You you're gonna have an OPEC plus brick sort of symbiosis because Russia and Saudi Arabia basically run OPEC plus. New bricks is also really strong in food production. 5 of the world's 6 biggest food producers are now part of bricks trying to Brazil in the Argentina, Russia. The only other one is the US. They have 46% of global population, 36% of global landmass. So my point is bricks isn't just strong in global GDP. They're strong in the production of what are currently the 2 most important commodities in the world, which is oil and food. They also have influence over strategic trade routes. So if you look at where these countries are located, and I'm sure this went into the thinking of who they just admitted to bricks because they had a lot of choices. That's something like 46 countries applied, and these are the first 6 they've added. So they now control the Arctic Sea route, which is basically as the polar ice cap starts to melt in the arctic, you're seeing a new ability to create maritime roots. North of Russia, basically, from Europe to Asia. It's a much faster route than going around the horn of Africa or through the Suez canal. You have this International North South Transportation Corridor, which is basically a combination of Overland routes and some maritime that connect Russia Iran and India. You've got Belt And Road, these east west corridors. You've got the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea, and the Suez Canal. They're all now part of bricks. And the point of that, I think, strategically, is to bypass choke points like the Strait of Singapore, the Strait of Malacca, the Bosphorus, and the Strait of Hormuz. David Sacks (00:33:49): So the point here is that the US Navy has very strategically over decades, but in circling China with military bases on, you know, island chains around China, this is gonna basically neutralize that whole strategy because China will have ways of of securing its trade routes over land or, again, oversee going through the Arctic. So this has huge geostrategic implications. The other big thing that I think Bricks is doing is this five to ten year goal of allowing bricks members to sell trades in local currencies. I think that you guys may be seeing it the wrong way. The goal here is not to create a new reserve currency, it's simply to create a way to bypass the dollar complex. They're trying to break the petro dollar monopoly. This is not an offensive organization They're not necessarily trying to create a single alternative to the US dollar. They are trying to create a way to not have to go through the dollar complex in order to do their trade when they're trading with each other. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:34:51): And They Jason Calacanis (00:34:52): would like to. David Sacks (00:34:54): Brazil are doing is a test case for this where they are setting up a Yuan clearing arrangement with Brazil. Jason Calacanis (00:35:01): And the goal to be clear, Saks here is to have a voice versus the G Seven, which they feel they've a lot of these countries feel they've been left out of and to maybe not have as much dependency on the west and, form this block that has a bigger voice in the world. Right? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:35:20): I go David Sacks (00:35:21): a little further and say, this isn't just about them having a voice. It's about them having economic sovereignty. They do not want to be completely dependent on the United States to secure their economies. And the big driver of this has been the weaponization of the US dollar. Jason Calacanis (00:35:37): And swift. Yeah. But when we went to Russia and swift. Yes. David Sacks (00:35:40): So in conjunction with the Ukraine war, the USC's Russia's foreign reserves, which were in dollars. They've widely imposed sanctions. We're now sanction dozens dozens of countries, and we are tactically limiting who can use swift as part of this. So if you are any of the BRICS countries, you're asking yourself, wait a second. When I am doing business with another member of bricks, why should the US be any part of that transaction? Jason Calacanis (00:36:08): Yeah. They do not want David Sacks (00:36:09): that transaction. Action to be mediated by the US at all? Jason Calacanis (00:36:12): In a way, it's like people buying crypto so that they don't have to deal with the US government. They have a, you know, they have Bitcoin over here and and they're not subject to the rules of the US dollar. Right? It it's like a way of Right. I mean, look. It's it's having some independence. Yeah. I I totally get it. David Sacks (00:36:26): They're willing to play by the US's rules when they're trading with the US, but they do not wanna have to play by the US's rules when they're not trading with the US or the G Seven. And this is about creating that independent Jason Calacanis (00:36:36): think it's great that they have, Chamath, that there is a competitor to the US dollar because it makes us be more thoughtful about our spending, ultimately, and our balance sheet. What are your thoughts on Chamath Palihapitiya (00:36:45): I have a couple. So if you go back to when the bricks was created, this is, like, 20 plus years ago. It was first just brick. Jason Calacanis (00:36:54): And with the 2001. Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:36:56): And, and then it became bricks with a big ass when we admitted South Africa. I think the the fact pattern in that organization is pretty poor. You know, when they first got organized, they tried to create a competitor to the IMF. I think it's called the IDB, the International Development Bank. That bank has not dispersed a single dollar. In 23 years. They tried to create a joint program to lay undersea fiber. Amongst these countries hasn't even started. So I think it's good that this organization is growing. I think the problem is that the actual amount of legislative Jason Calacanis (00:37:33): coordination that these countries has been Chamath Palihapitiya (00:37:34): able to exhibit has been literally 0. And the problem now is that their regional rivalries are only growing. So China and India, which are the 2 anchor partners of bricks, are literally in a in a land war. There's a border that they fight over with with guns. You have a growing anti Chinese resentment inside of both India and Brazil, Nick, you can just throw up this little chart. In India, they've blocked a lot of apps. They're about to block a bunch of imports, but India sees China as as ex as an existential threat. The Brazilian population, this is just a a poll that that the economists put in. There's just a lot of anti Chinese sentiment So it's very hard to see folks that are such polar enemies actually working together, even if they're part of an organization, So I think that the the odds of legislative coordination in the future are probably less than what they were even 10 years ago. So I expect even less, and it's hard to expect even less when nothing has been done. And then the second is I just look at the data. And if you look at Swift in July, you know, the swift volumes on US dollars was the largest ever. And so it's kind of one of these weird things where I think that it's good that that organization exists. Don't get me wrong because I do think that if they could oh, the other thing that I'll say about the bricks, which is kind of odd is that unlike the G7 and unlike NATO, where you have democratic ideals that underpin the organizational framework, Here it doesn't because you have China, Russia, Iran, which are total polar opposites to Brazil and India in terms of democratic governance And I don't know enough about Ethiopia or or Egypt, to say anything. So Jason Calacanis (00:39:27): If they can challenge states at a minimum Chamath Palihapitiya (00:39:29): Well, no. Jason Calacanis (00:39:30): No. No. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:39:30): I'm just saying they're not democratic. The way, like, NATO and the G Seven are all Democratically elected countries. Jason Calacanis (00:39:36): It's a very good point. They don't share the same operating system. The authoritarians and Democratic nations put together. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:39:41): So then the last thing is could you see a currency framework to compete against the US dollar. And I think the practical complexity is if you take all of these other issues, land wars and import controls and growing Chinese resentment and now try to boil that into an exchange rate mechanism where the renminbi And the rupee and the reais can be interchangeable. I think it's very difficult to see because if you look at the last time that that happened, the Frank, the lira, the pound, sterling, the Deutschmark, That was possible because all of those other factors were not on the table. They were not fighting with each other. There wasn't this anti resentment in one country to another country. They roughly held the same democratic ideals. So I think my comment is I think it's good that BRICS is growing. I think that if they can get some legislative or policy coordination wins, it'll be great. The track record is literally 0, and the setup doesn't, to me, Jason Calacanis (00:40:37): mean much yet, but Chamath Palihapitiya (00:40:43): hopefully that something happens. Who knows? Jason Calacanis (00:40:45): Friedberg or thoughts? I think David Friedberg (00:40:47): the arguments about the pragmatism of non dollar denominated trade and the progress that's been realized or can be projected to be realized from current policy can be debated. What I think is most important is the signal that's being given, which is that there is a desire by a larger percentage of global GDP than is represented by the G7. To de dollarize. And so while these intentions may be difficult to translate into policy in the near term, that signal says a lot about the influence Jason Calacanis (00:41:26): and perhaps the David Friedberg (00:41:32): policy of the US in addressing and dealing with a lot of these countries and global economic actors. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:41:38): But I don't think they want to dedollarize. That's not part of their want to increase trade Jason Calacanis (00:41:42): is the stated mission, and they want to collaborate on trade. That that is the stated mission. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:41:49): Do you think the state admission is dedollarization, or do you think the implicit outcome is dedollarization? David Friedberg (00:41:55): No. The local currency support initiatives are implicit de dollarization. I don't hear anyone saying we gotta destroy the dollar because they're all very important trade partners. Most of those countries are important trade partners with the US and very dependent on on trade with the US. It seems less that it's about, hey. We've gotta hurt the US. And it's more about we have to be independent from the US. We have to be independent. Implicit in that is independent from the US. So and I think that that tone, that signal says a lot about US economic policy and US foreign policy that there's something off with the unipolarity, as as Saks has pointed out, that it's not de facto anymore, that there is intention here Chamath Palihapitiya (00:42:38): for there to be something different. Yeah. That's very healthy. That's very, very healthy. David Friedberg (00:42:42): And I think that that opens up avenues and pads that we're not thinking about today. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:42:45): I I got all David Friedberg (00:42:46): of a sudden we'll wake up and we'll be like, whoops. And we need to be thoughtful about that. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:42:50): I think that's the most powerful part of Sachs's commentary is that It's a very firm establishment, even if of of the la of the non unipolarity of the world. But the the thing that the bricks have to do is I, I would just encourage them book a quick win. There has to be some policy coordination that they could do to prove that there's something there that's more than just a get together once a year. And that's been missing for 22 years so far. And That would have a really important, I think effect. Yeah. I agree with you, David. I think that's the litmus test. That hasn't happened yet. David Sacks (00:43:29): Let me partially agree with that. And then partially respond to what you're saying before Chamath. So it's true that bricks does not have an impressive record of accomplishment to date. That's simply true. However, recent events, I think, have provided the motivation for this group of countries to now try and get something done. In the past, it was just so phenomenally convenient to be based on the the US dollar complex because everything's priced in dollars, easy to transact in dollars, And when you run a trade surplus, the US has an open and capital account, and you can just park the money in US treasuries. So there was never a reason for any of these countries to wanna leave the US dollar complex until more recently when again, US foreign policy has militarized and weaponized the dollar and to try and make it a course of instrument to get these countries to do what the US wants. And all those countries now are bristling at that, and they wanna pain their sovereignty. And so now they have tremendous motivation to get this done. Now the thing they've already agreed to and done as part of bricks is that when you join bricks, you agree not to sanction any other member of bricks. That is a meaningful commitment. And, obviously, it has a lot to do with this Ukraine war and the fact that US has been demanding it that the whole world sanctioned Russia, and most of the world has not been sanctioning Russia. And that's why the sanctions have not been effective is US has not been able to get that done. The US will not be able to get it done in the future with respect to at least the countries who are members of Bricks with regard to their trade with each other. And as we saw in the percentage of world GDP, bricks very rapidly, once they add a few more members, they're gonna be at about 50%. David Sacks (00:45:12): Or World GDP. So the US is only gonna be able to influence, call it roughly that half a global GDP where the US or the G Seven is a major trading partner. Now what bricks will be lacking is the way on a technical level to bring about the sovereignty they want. So they need to have a way to settle on clear transactions, and they each have a place to park the surplus that's created for net exporters. And they haven't quite figured that out yet. So for example, there's a recent news item where Russia, which is selling a huge amount of oil to India right now, it was saying that they don't wanna accumulate more rupees. So they've gotta figure out what do we do with all these extra rupees. So there's a lot of pieces to figure out here And that is why they're saying this is a goal they have over the next 5 to 10 years. It's not 1 to 2 year time frame. It's 5 to 10 years. But Yeah. Jason Calacanis (00:46:04): Let them make they should make their own euro if they feel so strongly that there are great voting block make a euro, and then they could all put into it. And you can see what happens when a bunch of dictators and a a long tail of failed states now share a common, a common currency. It's not gonna work. These countries, they'll state each other. He's went to a very troubled states, by the way. Yeah. I'm not sure if David Sacks (00:46:27): GDP has been going up like a rocket, Jake. Jason Calacanis (00:46:30): Now furthermore, their goal, we have to be mock here. Human Rights. Yeah. David Sacks (00:46:34): Their goal is not to create a common currency like euro. And I mean, I'm just saying Jason Calacanis (00:46:39): that they And and, David Sacks (00:46:40): yeah, and we're saying that's not gonna replace you on and rupees with some sort of new euro like currency. Moreover, they're not trying to create a reserve currency. That's gonna be a currency for the man on the street. This is about settlement of global trade flows. And getting out from under the US dollar complex. Jason Calacanis (00:46:57): My point, just to be clear, Friedberg, is if if you were to think of it as a thought experiment, these, to Chima's point, these are culturally and strategically very different countries. And I think what they have in common is that they haven't been included in the G Seven. And and really America's reaction to this should be to get India out of this and get them into the G7 and make that strategic decision that India is the most important country for us to have strong relationships with. It's kind of hard to put Saudi Arabia and to put UAE in this because they don't share the democratic principles of the rest of the G7, but we should be trying to any democracy that's in the Bricks, we should be trying to include in the G7. That that's the strategic chessboard that would make the most sense. And then you would just leave Bricks as all authoritarian dictators, and they do not work well together. They always wind up. David Sacks (00:47:44): Well, you're displaying that Jason Calacanis (00:47:45): for sale David Sacks (00:47:46): is still nominally a democracy. Jason Calacanis (00:47:48): No, that's what I'm saying. Like, getting Brazil, I just said, getting anybody who's a democracy and moving them towards democracy and getting them into the G7 should be our stated goal. That's what the West should do. David Sacks (00:47:58): Lula, who's Brazil's president, is one of the most ardent advocates for dedollarization. Here's his quote. Every night I ask myself, why all countries have to base their trade on the dollar. Jason Calacanis (00:48:10): Yeah. They don't. They can they David Sacks (00:48:11): can do the right job. Change him. Jake Hallman and the CIA will get rid of them, Jason Calacanis (00:48:14): but that's stupid. That that's a stupid statement. Nobody's saying that. I just said the exact opposite. David Sacks (00:48:19): There are people saying that, but Jason Calacanis (00:48:21): Oh, not me. To be clear, Chamath Palihapitiya (00:48:22): you put Jason Calacanis (00:48:22): words in my mouth out of the exact opposite of what I just said. I I just said include that. David Sacks (00:48:26): My point is my point is this is not a simplistic dichotomy between dictators and democracies. David Friedberg (00:48:32): Another way to think David Sacks (00:48:33): about it persists. So by the way, South Africa is Jason Calacanis (00:48:36): a democracy. Just on a a population basis, if you took India out and you got the image of the G7, it would be majority, overall majority percentage of citizens in the bricks living under authoritarian rule. David Sacks (00:48:48): But India, may may may may may may respond to that and then also Chmothamani Chamath Palihapitiya (00:48:51): is the largest country Jason Calacanis (00:48:52): in the world now. I mean, this is the that's the strategic important PCR in my mind. David Sacks (00:48:56): I think India and the US will pull tighter together in terms of security because of a mutual desire to balance the power of China. So I think Chamath is right about that. However, India also has a very strong anti colonial impetists to their politics and especially their foreign policy. They do not like being told what to do by the West and and the United States. And in particular, they do not believe him. Many of their politicians said this, we don't see why we should have to sacrifice for you. We're gonna do what's in the best interest of our own people. And that is why India has rejected enormous pressure from the US not to trade with Russia. India and Russia as as bad as the relationship is between India and China, is the relationship between India and Russia is very strong. It historically always has been. And Russia right now is supplying half of India's oil. And India has adamantly refused to play along with the US's sanctions. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:49:55): Rightfully so and rightfully so. Jason Calacanis (00:49:57): Right. Yeah. Well, they should make their own best decisions. Yeah. David Sacks (00:50:00): Right. So I think a lot of people are thinking that Chamath Palihapitiya (00:50:03): India's not here to be a bootliker to the United States. Exactly. David Sacks (00:50:07): Exactly. So, look, I think India will pursue its interest. I think when it comes to security, they will align with the US to balance the power of China. But I think when it comes to economic policy, India will pursue its own interests, which I think has to do with maintaining their economic sovereignty. Jason Calacanis (00:50:22): 100%. They need cheap oil. They need cheap oil. Yeah. They're developing country. Right? They need they need oil. And that's the lowest price oil. David Friedberg (00:50:30): Another way to think about the framing is that the priorities for many of these countries for the last 2 decades have shifted going from a state of economic insecurity, civil insecurity, government insecurity. And as you obviously establish systems and certainty, in certain elements, The dollar complex of saxed frames it was very useful in helping them with that transition. But as they start to move from emerging market to developing market to developed market, the priorities start to shift. And then the priorities become much more about sovereignty, independence, institutional destiny, etcetera, that kind of start to make this more realistic that maybe they don't have their their ducks in a row at this point, but there's certainly a conversation or set of conversations that emerges when you're not worried about civil war or you're not worried about economic strife, and you can now start to think on a global stage And that's evidenced by the PPP data that that Sakshare where, you know, you've seen them become a much larger percentage of of global GDP share over the past 10 or 20 years. That's a good metric or that general opportunity to say, hey. I'm gonna shift my priorities now. And that's why maybe now is the time to start to pay attention to what's happening. And think about US policy to participate in in some reconstruction that's necessary here. Jason Calacanis (00:51:54): I tell you what the most important thing here is all this com all these conversations seem to come back to energy Chamath Cheap oil, Russian oil, Saturdays, UAE, all participating in bricks. And then if you look at nuclear, we just had a bunch of I think it was senators signing a bill. I think you might have tweeted it. Shame off of support of nuclear. 21 nuclear power plants are being trucked at this moment in China. 8 in India. United States only has 1, which is kind of an extension. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:52:20): In Gujarat, actually, nuclear. In Gujarat, India, just India just turned on its first home built 1. So just literally today. So big, big news in India. Jason Calacanis (00:52:28): If we really want to have a great relationship with India, an incredible path, and with some of these other countries, would be for us to really invest in these Well, Chamath Palihapitiya (00:52:37): what I don't understand is Jason Calacanis (00:52:38): and help people build them and help them get energy independence from Russia's oil. We should be building 50 reactors in India. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:52:44): I don't know enough. I don't know enough to know whether that's true or not. And part of it is that, like, whether we should be building those reactors in quotes because I don't know what those means. Gen 2, gen 3, gen 4 reactors, small molecule reactors. My big comment in my thread is just more I think that the regulatory support in the United States for nuclear is so constipated that it's impossible to get it done. So you could have the greatest technology in the world I just don't see how the laws change fast enough and the zoning changes fast enough and the nimbyism goes away to make these things viable. And so that's actually the the real question. I don't know if, you know, free bird has any. Jason Calacanis (00:53:27): What I'm what I'm advocating for here, Saxes, Hey, what if the United States policy was? We're gonna help India and some other countries. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:53:34): They don't need a really they didn't grow. Jason Calacanis (00:53:36): They don't need our help. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:53:37): They don't need they don't need our help. They just turned on their own homegrown nuclear reactor. We haven't done one in 20 years. Jason Calacanis (00:53:42): But our new, I guess, we call them Gen 2 Friedberg These these new reactors, would that not be a possible path if we're spitballing here to help them get more energy independence from Russia? Wouldn't that be a great long play? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:53:55): They don't need our help. I don't think you're understanding. Like, it's like you're thinking, like, you're we're like Michael Jordan, and we're about to teach some kid how to throw free throws. This is not what's happening. Jason Calacanis (00:54:04): Any help would be helpful. I mean, if people are trying to build a large number Chamath Palihapitiya (00:54:08): of directors You don't, you don't need a numb nuts to come and help you build a product, do you? Don't hire some 2 bit product manager to help you when something is is scaling and working. India GDP is going to be 7% a year. They're off to the races. They're on a rocket ship. They're doing everything right. What, what, what can we do? We can help them rewrite their laws to make them Byzantine so nothing gets done. So that's owning is impossible. Jason Calacanis (00:54:29): Okay. As a strategy, if we had the ability to build nuclear reactors in other parts of the world, which is exactly China's, That's the Belkite strategy. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:54:38): I think I think you in a nutshell right now is summarizing why there's this dismissiveness, which is like we can help them, but what makes you think you're better? Jason Calacanis (00:54:46): China is taking the same approach. I'm saying copy China strategy, which has been to go to other countries. Listen, India might need less help. Other countries might need more. But we have this capacity. So what if we Chamath Palihapitiya (00:54:57): What capacity do we have? We don't have any demonstrated capacity in nuclear. Jason Calacanis (00:55:01): We have plenty companies building these new nuclear reactors. Friedberg. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:55:04): None of them work. None of them work. What do you mean none of them work? None of them work. Okay. None of them work. David Sacks (00:55:12): When you talk to politicians from a lot of these countries, what you describe as markets coming in and helping, they describe as exploitation. They call it Jason Calacanis (00:55:22): exactly a China strategy or neo imperialism David Sacks (00:55:25): I call it neoplasm or neoplonium. I'm looking Jason Calacanis (00:55:28): at it as collaborating on energy independence, broadly speaking. So you're being dismissive. Jake, I'm just giving you think of Chamath Palihapitiya (00:55:35): Do you want the Zimbabwe? Do you want the Zimbabweans to fly in and mutually collaborate with you to build something in America? Jason Calacanis (00:55:41): Trying to make jokes about me. I'm proposing a strategy here. I'm I'm just saying I'm making a true joke. I have a very viable strategy here, which is to look at what China is doing. What China is doing in the Belt And Road strategy, which we've talked about here on this program, is trying to help other countries get more energy. How could we do that? We do have. David Sacks (00:55:58): Listen to what Larry Summers said, remember, he said that when China goes abroad, they give money for infrastructure bridges and hospitals. Yes. When the US goes abroad, we give a lecture. Jason Calacanis (00:56:11): Which is exactly known. If you wanna accomplish what you're David Sacks (00:56:13): talking about. Yes. Stop this explosion of sanctions. We're now sanctioning dozens of countries. Stop weaponizing the dollar. Stop militarizing the dollar. Stop seizing other countries reserves without any due process of law. Jason Calacanis (00:56:27): About Russian? David Sacks (00:56:28): They're entitled to due process of law, just like you're in the other country. Jason Calacanis (00:56:31): The country that invade their neighbor? David Sacks (00:56:33): So you can just get to steal their reserves. Jason Calacanis (00:56:36): Oh, I think it's a a pretty great idea. David Sacks (00:56:38): A rules based order. Jason Calacanis (00:56:40): Oh, I I think economic sanctions are much better than, yeah, starting a war. Yeah. I think I can have sanctions. But you We're David Sacks (00:56:48): talking about we're talking seizing of another country's foreign reserves, which is what the US did. Jason Calacanis (00:56:54): Yeah, I would say that's an extreme thing to do. Except in the case where people are invading other free countries. And then it's Okay. David Sacks (00:57:00): So what you're doing right now is making up the rules. That's what the rules based order means to these countries is that Americans will make up the rules. 2 years ago, foreign reserves were something that was not part of American foreign policy. They were your reserves. Then this Ukraine war happened, Spice says, nah, You know, those are ill gotten gains, seize them. Those are the new rules. In other words, the rules based international order is whatever Americans say it is. And then you run around saying No. Jason Calacanis (00:57:34): No. No. No. I think the entire West made this decision together to sanction Russia. It wasn't just the US. You're mischaracterizing that. And you know what? If Hitler was invading other countries or Putin or any dictator, I do think it's fair game to seize their resources. David Sacks (00:57:47): The rest of the world is not biased in this narrative. 70% of the world does not buy into this narrative. They understand. Jason Calacanis (00:57:52): And those are majority dictator countries. David Sacks (00:57:57): 70% of the world's population does not believe this narrative about the Ukraine war. They understand that the US is at least equally responsible for this war. Jason Calacanis (00:58:06): Laughable to say the US is equal. David Sacks (00:58:08): Believe that, but that's what the rest of all is. Jason Calacanis (00:58:10): That is you are a spokesperson for Putin if you believe that. That the US is 50% responsible. Okay. You know what? You can quote any polling you want. The US is not 50. The US is not 50% responsible for Putin invading Ukraine. That is laughable and disgusting. David Sacks (00:58:27): Every country. Every country that Jason Calacanis (00:58:30): wants to believe the US is 50% responsible for Putin invading Ukraine. Unbelievable. It's David Sacks (00:58:35): not about what I believe. It's about what the Jason Calacanis (00:58:37): to me what you believed. You said it. So do you believe 50%, where was 50% responsible for Putin and painting Ukraine? That's confusing. David Sacks (00:58:43): I don't know what percentages I would describe, but I believe Jason Calacanis (00:58:46): this works easily. You had no problem saying 50%. David Sacks (00:58:49): Can I finish my point? Jason Calacanis (00:58:51): Go ahead. David Sacks (00:58:54): The way you're acting right now is exactly why all these countries wanna create bricks. Jason Calacanis (00:59:00): If they don't, it would David Sacks (00:59:00): be subjected to this virtue signaling foreign policy by the United States. We've discussed the ways many times the US could have avoided this war. It didn't. Jason Calacanis (00:59:10): Yeah. Respectfully disagree. Putin's responsible for the war. David Sacks (00:59:14): This is why India does not wanna be subject to the whims of people like you? Jason Calacanis (00:59:20): No. No. You don't see people like me. I think the West made the decision that we needed to take action against David Sacks (00:59:26): the US made decision. And, listen, the question is Jason Calacanis (00:59:29): We we don't get to make decisions from the UK and France and Germany. We don't get to make their decisions. Respectfully, they make their own decisions. David Sacks (00:59:35): That's not really true. Jason Calacanis (00:59:37): Okay. David Sacks (00:59:37): The US runs hold on Jason Calacanis (00:59:39): a second. Think there's some point, please. David Sacks (00:59:40): The US runs NATO because we pay for it. All these countries go along with the US because they like the defense and security that we provide. The US calls the shots. And within the US, the administration calls the shots. So basically a handful of people in the Biden administration, Biden, Newland, Lincoln, Sullivan. That's who makes the policy. Jason Calacanis (01:00:02): I do not think Biden gets to David Sacks (01:00:03): choose. Subject to their wins. Jason Calacanis (01:00:05): I I respectfully, I don't think Biden gets to choose with Germany and France and the UK do. David Sacks (01:00:10): Oh, I think a lot of Schultz are eventually gonna be voted out, and my protestants are gonna be voted out because their people are waking up. But absolutely, they are the lap dogs in the United States. Jason Calacanis (01:00:21): We would like to go on to any of the topics. David Friedberg (01:00:22): I wanna talk about the summit next week. I'm really excited. Sure. Jason Calacanis (01:00:26): Right. We'll come in in hot to the summit. David Friedberg (01:00:27): Kicks off next Sunday. Really excited for everyone that's gonna join us. Obviously, we'll be putting out videos of the content as quickly as we can. Jay Cal has, I don't know, Sachs and Chamath if you guys are aware, but he is in charge of the parties. And he has gone well beyond budget on these parties. They're gonna be outlandish. They're gonna be out Chamath Palihapitiya (01:00:47): of control. Jason Calacanis (01:00:48): Show the 3 posters. Let me show you the posters. The posters explain everything. Night one is our 7 party or our bestie Royale, if you will, and here is bestie Royale presenting on Sunday night bestie Royale. Where where are your best spy outfit. You could be Austin Powers. You could be Daniel Craig. You could be Sean Connery. You could be Charlie's angels, any spot you can be, and here is bestie Royale coming at you on Sunday night. A little poker. Here is the closing night party we're going out of order, bestie runner, cyberpunk rave with the besties. Announcing Grimes will be DJ So we will have Grimes, doing a set at the bestie runner parties. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:01:30): Awesome. It's gonna Jason Calacanis (01:01:31): be fun. And so where are your best cyberpunk? It could be 5th element. You could go with any Chamath Palihapitiya (01:01:37): cyberpunk pump. Can I just say I gave up right now because Claire's gonna win? Jason Calacanis (01:01:41): Jeff, of course, she is. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:01:42): Yeah. She's whatever. Okay. She's it's, like, it's not even worth trying. David Friedberg (01:01:44): Well, I Chamath Palihapitiya (01:01:45): mean, she's gonna be taking a fucking t shirt. Jason Calacanis (01:01:46): Every day. Played runner every day. But we'll have some neon, stuff for you to put on. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:01:50): Is it gonna be cold outside? Jason Calacanis (01:01:52): No. This is inside, and this is occurring at a film studio. So we have three warehouses at a film studio where we could be created part of the set of Blade run of some incredible Asian street food will be done. That's awesome. It's gonna be great. And then Monday night is gonna be absolutely below the doors at it. Fast times at Barbie High. And, here we are. Where are your best spokoli outfit, your best surfer outfit of any kind? Or Chamath Palihapitiya (01:02:17): sorry. Will this be outside? Jason Calacanis (01:02:19): This is gonna be outside. We have a tent. For the VIP part, which will Chamath Palihapitiya (01:02:23): be where it works is. Jason Calacanis (01:02:24): You you should you should well, we'll see what the weather is. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:02:27): It's gonna be warm. Jason Calacanis (01:02:27): It's gonna be warm. So, you can wear your bathing suit if you want. Just wear a trench coat over it, Shamoff, if you're gonna do a thirst trap live and in person. And Mick will be DJ ing again. So the dance floor will be lit. David Friedberg (01:02:40): Just because we went well over the budget, we brought in some sponsors to help us cover the costs. I wanna thank those sponsors, I connections, which is actually running the app, that we're using, to coordinate the summit, our law firm that does the legal work for us, Cooley, as agreed to sponsor. And there's a group of entrepreneurs from South Africa started a company called House of Academia. They make Macadamia nut snacks Jason Calacanis (01:03:03): delicious. David Friedberg (01:03:04): They're they're sponsoring it. And they, you know, why they they reached out? Because Chamath and I eat salt and vinegar pistachio. So they made a salt and vinegar Macademia back in our own way. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:03:13): I love it. Jason Calacanis (01:03:13): Oh, right. Just in vinegar like the seppesen. David Friedberg (01:03:16): And then we've got a group called Paves, which makes mineral based sunscreen. And, obviously, they heard us talking about sunscreen, so they reached out and Brewbird, which makes a a coffee brewing device came in and wanted to be a sponsor. So a lot of the sponsors came to us having heard about us talking about something on the show, and it was very helpful in helping us cover event. So I wanna say thank you to all of them. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:03:37): Thank you, guys. Thank thank you to all of your sponsors. Thank you Jason Calacanis (01:03:40): very much. That was very kind of them. Yeah. And then we're doing a high and low thing at we have incredible food trucks where we've elevated the food to like a higher level. And so we wanna pair these food trucks with some nice ones. And so they sent you a list of all the different foods. And then a Bo is doing the steak at the first night. Roku sushi, really great sushi place in LA is doing Sushi the first night. So we got some really great vendors and all the Asian street food in the blade runner party is gonna be great. So Asian the last night, steak and sushi the first night, and then these elevated food trucks. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:04:11): The So what is what is my year to do this? Jason Calacanis (01:04:14): You're 20, 25. I'm your 3 year 4. Yeah. I'm 24 year 25. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:04:20): I'm just gonna tell you in advance that I'm taking full complete control. You all you will have to do is show up. I don't want any intervention. Jason Calacanis (01:04:30): I don't need to be moved, please, after this year. I'm not sure. Please leave me out of it. Great. I'm taking the Saks approach. I'm showing up. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:04:37): Where are you gonna do it, Jason? Jason Calacanis (01:04:38): Have 3 ideas. David Sacks (01:04:39): The biggest gift? Brooklyn? Jason Calacanis (01:04:41): Exactly. Tokyo? Well, I'll I'll I'll take you through it. Brooklyn, my hometown is 1. So that that's in my mind. My favorite city is Tokyo. You know, I love going to Japan, so that's in my short list. And then on the Grif side, UAE might be great. I have some partners there. And so that could be amazing to do it in Dubai as a, you Chamath Palihapitiya (01:04:59): know Oh, Jason Calacanis (01:04:59): Dubai would be nuts. Dubai would be kinda crazy. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:05:02): My friend Andrew Sassoon is in charge of opening I think it's the Winds Casino there, or is he in charge of all the entertainment and nightlife? That would be incredible. SASun can light it up in Dubai. Jason Calacanis (01:05:13): Well, see, I, I also took Europe off the table because I had the sense that Shamoff might pick. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:05:18): I'm no, no, no, I may go to Oman. I make, but I'm gonna go to do a destination thing, which is gonna be Everybody will stay in the same place. It'll be a much smaller number of people, and it'll be end to end curated. And 750, 500 people. They'll be clothes. They'll be everything. Jason Calacanis (01:05:37): Okay. 4. The sultan of science with his sunglasses on. The dictator. And the architect. We'll see you all next time on, all in podcast. Bye bye. Speaker 5 (01:05:52): To let your winter's ride. Jason Calacanis (01:05:54): Rainman, David Sanders. Speaker 5 (01:05:59): And I said, we open sources to the fans, and they've just gone crazy. What airliners ride. David Friedberg (01:06:16): Driveway checks. Jason Calacanis (01:06:22): We should all just get a room and just have a think you, Dorothy, because they're all exclusive. It's, like, it's, like, sexual tension, but they just need to release her mouth. We need to get mercy's