就职典礼、拆解 1.9 万亿美元刺激案与罢免纽森的理由

David Friedberg (00:00:00): Hey, everybody. It's me. Jason Calacanis. Welcome. Welcome. Speaker 2 (00:00:04): Hey, everybody. It's me, Jason. Thank God Trump's out. This is -- I hate Trump, and I love myself. Jason Calacanis (00:00:13): We like your winter ride. Rainman David Sanders. Speaker 4 (00:00:20): And it said -- We open source it to Jason Calacanis (00:00:29): Hey, everybody. Happy days are here again. Champagne kind of bottles popping, again. Happy days are here again. Hey, Saxx. It's so happy. Trump's out of pocket. he Chamath Palihapitiya (00:00:46): gave an amazing Jason Calacanis (00:00:48): speech about how great Biden's inauguration was. Welcome to the All in podcast. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:00:57): Oh my gosh. Jason Calacanis (00:00:58): With me today in our post inauguration after Glow is the dictator, chihuahua Haapatia, the queen of Kenwa David Friedberg, and riding the blue wave diving in. No more red pills. The blue wave Is David Rainman Sachs is with us? David, how did it feel to watch Biden's inauguration speech, which you said hit all the notes, and I see you wearing blue today. Let me have a sip of my whipped Clicko and tell us You've got the blue jacket, the blue shirt, and the blue headset on. You've ridden the blue wave. Tell us how you feel with Biden in office. I'm gonna drink my vov. David Sacks (00:01:43): Jay Jason, I I'm just happy to see that that you're happy. And it's it's does it does this mean does this mean that I that your Trump arrangement is over? Your you've gone cold turkey. You're on the wagon. And, yeah, I'm just happy I'm just happy to have my friend back and not have you part of this this Trump derangement zombie horde that that you've been in for the last few years. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:02:11): I I'll tell you two quick stories. The first one turned out not to be true, but there was a New York Times alert that that came out this weekend saying that they were gonna lift the travel plan. And for a for a moment, I was like, I I I was a I was a little in shock and, you know, My my I'm Canadian. My Chamath is in Canada. I haven't seen them in a year. My mom is eighty years old. I haven't seen her in a year. And then the second was on the day of the inauguration, Biden signed an e o I guess that that, you know, starts to basically create a path to citizenship. And there are, you know, 2 women in my life who I who I think are just lovely, lovely people who I've never been able to hire. And and now this gives us a path to hire them and compensate them and the way that we want it to and So in in these moments, I started crying. And I I've probably had 3 or 4 moments, and I realized, like, holy shit. I have had so much pent up emotion. waiting for, honestly, just like a normal average day. And, like, simple humane good things. And I'm not I'm not trying to sort of jump on the Biden bandwagon. I think that he's got a lot of work to do. But but I I do think that just at a level simple basic level of humanity, it was a different it was a big sea change. Jason Calacanis (00:03:43): How did you take it, Friedberg? I'm curious. Did you cry as well? David Friedberg (00:03:48): I observed the inauguration. It was interesting. -- Jason Calacanis (00:03:51): upgrade your firmware. Sorry. We were supposed to push the 2 David firmwares for the ability to cry. But did you feel any emotion? Of the 3 emotions we've given you and your programming, Did any of them move at all? David Friedberg (00:04:05): I don't remember I mean, I don't remember the origin of my nonemotional characterization, Jason, but Yeah. I think it it was -- -- Jason Calacanis (00:04:14): based on every interaction we've ever had with you but continue. David Friedberg (00:04:17): Right. I guess that makes sense. So I feel like the Biden the Biden moment on on inauguration day It really did feel like a sigh of relief because so much of Trump love him or hate him has been driven by a degree of attention. Right? I mean, he came in to office on the premise that he was gonna drain the swamp. I mean, that's kind of a very kind of active, you know, position. He's gonna go away. He's gonna change things. And and I think, you know, the Biden code is, like, let's take it down a notch. Let's all take a deep breath. And I I feel like that that that generated a collective sigh of relief. I'll also say that I watched that with the eyes of someone who voted for Trump. Yeah. I didn't vote for Trump, but I don't think I voted this year. I can't remember. It's in the middle of pandemic. But I basically feel like there is a lot of folks. It's easy to say let's unite the country when you're on the winning side and when you're not and you're sitting there and your guy got kicked out of office and your guy claimed that he got kicked out because of fraudulent activity, and you're one of the 46% of Americans that are already proving of Biden's performance in his 1st 2 days of office. You don't look at that as a moment of relief. You don't look at that as a moment of of respite. And I feel like there's a little bit of a missed point of view in terms of how we're all covering it and talking about it. It certainly feels good to take the tension down and take a deep breath and have leadership not be putting attention out there. But there's a lot of anger and disappointment still festering out there, and I I think we need to be very cognizant of why and what we can do And it would have been nice to see Biden not just say let's unite, but actually step over the line and declare some of the policies and points of view of the other side as being valid and and engaging more directly on those points versus saying we'll all work together in the future. And we're already seeing and we're already seeing this rift with McConnell and others in terms of how to deal with the filibuster in a unified senate. And I I just don't think that we're there. David Friedberg (00:06:27): So yeah. Yeah. Jason Calacanis (00:06:28): Saks, what are your what are your thoughts? And then we're gonna here each month. David Sacks (00:06:31): Yeah. I mean, look. I'm I'm not gonna swoon over an octogenarian reading cliches off a teleprompter. I'm sorry. I just can't do it. Now that that being said, you know, the the the inauguration speech struck all the right notes of, you know, reconciliation, lowering the temperature coming together These are the things you're supposed to say at an inauguration. These are the presidential layups, if you will. It's kind of a weird thing that Trump could never quite get these layups in. Biden did what he was supposed to do. And and I agree that there is a sense of relief in the temperature being lowered and and and this and the the situation in Washington feeling a bit depressurized. And so I think he deserves credit for that. That's all for the good. I think the problem Biden's gonna have is not just sort of the Trump right opposing him, but the uncivil warriors in his own party. Uncivil warriors, I think, was the the most memorable line in his speech. There are people I think, you know, on the left who aren't really on board with the reconciliation agenda. I mean, shortly after the election, you had AOC proposing a truth and reconciliation commission David Friedberg (00:07:37): -- Right. -- David Sacks (00:07:38): to go after everyone from the the Trump era. I don't think that's exactly the kind of reconciliation Biden's talking about. You have, I think, the the repressive hand of big tech playing into this revenge agenda by acting as a speech cartel. And now we have the rest of the tech stack jumping on board with the the speech cartel you had in an announcement from a whole bunch of finance companies, PayPal Stripe, Square, that said they would cancel the accounts and by implication livelihoods of anyone connected to January 6. Well, What exactly does that mean? I mean, there were many thousands of people at this rally on the mall. Only a few percent of them breach the capital and even smaller percentage engaged in violence. But everybody who is at the mall and really, everyone in the MAGA movement is, quote, unquote, connected to to that protest. So how many degrees of Kevin Bacon are we gonna play in acting out these reprisals? And I think the worst part of all is that now we have in Congress a bill put forward by Adam Schiff that basically would create a domestic patriot act to to create giant new surveillance powers for the state to go after people they they deem to be traders and seditionists and domestic terrorists. And, you know, I actually tweeted a letter by Rashida Tlaib of the squad opposing this. It's the first time I've with the squad. I was proud to because the last thing the state needs right now is is more surveillance powers. And this idea that we're fighting a war against fellow Americans based on basically political descent That's not gonna create reconciliation. That's gonna lead to the next step in this horrible tit for tat game. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:09:22): Just to build on this for a second. There is a RAS mutant poll that came out today. Today is Friday, January 22nd. So 2 days after the inauguration and Biden's disapproval rating is David Friedberg (00:09:32): 45%. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:09:34): And, you know, all of a sudden, you can think again, as you said, 3 days ago, you know, a lot of people were on the losing side, and are now on the winning side. And today, a lot of people that were on the winning side car, quote unquote, on the losing side, and you see how reflexive the reaction is. It's like an auto hate. Right? It's like auto disapproval. And so if that's the case, it just it just begs the question, how much room And how much tolerance will we have as a society if we start to go after folks that is you know, that effectively have an enormous amount of political dissent? Are there fringes of both parties that need to get basically found out exposed and put in jail, whether they're antifa on the left or you know, the far right extremists on the right? Absolutely. But hopefully, the FBI already has enough power to do that, and that's already their remit, and what we're not gonna have to do is pass an enormous number of laws. I mean, I've said this before. Like, the Patriot Act was so crazy because it was a foreign actor and a foreign event on domestic soil that created it. But, you know, between the pandemic and now what happened in the capital, a biological patriot act, a domestic patriot act, these are all in the offing, and I think what we're gonna have to do is again, it sounds cheesy, but find the common ground so that we can expose who are at the fringes of both parties who are the real crazy people. Round those folks up and deal with them with the laws that we have today, because otherwise the unintended consequences for the overwhelming majority of the Americans who are just normal folks is gonna be a little scary. Jason Calacanis (00:11:16): I thought a really interesting reconciliation moment happened with the woman who stole Nancy Pelosi's laptop. I don't know if you guys were have read that story. But this woman who stole the laptop and was considering selling it to the Russians or something, She's twenty two years old. She's obviously was misguided in doing this. And the judge basically explained to her that she was releasing her to her mother's, you know, care and that her mother would go to jail if you know, she did anything further. But she said, listen. You know, you're a beneficiary of the constitution. You are getting a speedy trial. you are getting representation. And she used it almost as a civics lesson, and I think we had a discussion maybe 2 episodes when the when the pod got a little hot. which was great for ratings, by the way. And for our relationships, and it resulted in a reconciliation dinner that we had. A little a little wives dinner. Our wives brought us together for dinner to just make sure everything was on the David Friedberg (00:12:17): -- David Sacks (00:12:17): Well, Shamath Chamath brought us together for dinner. Jason Calacanis (00:12:20): And brought wives. David Sacks (00:12:21): We would -- And brought wives. Yeah. Yeah. And no. I mean, it was it was a good thing because, frankly, Jason, I was starting to hate you. Just just a Speaker 2 (00:12:28): little bit. Just a little bit. But David Sacks (00:12:31): but but I could feel the hate. You know? And Shamoff being empathetic as he is recognized situation. And so we've decided to do, you know, at least a quarterly besties dinner David Friedberg (00:12:42): -- Jason Calacanis (00:12:42): Yeah. David Friedberg (00:12:42): -- David Sacks (00:12:42): to make sure that, yeah, that the contentiousness does not get out of hand and and interfere with our friendships, which are more important than our politics. Jason Calacanis (00:12:51): Ultimately, that's what we all hope is comes out of this podcast, which is a deeper understanding and reconciliation of of issues that we disagree on. And breaking bread having a meal or having a civil conversation, even if it gets a little heated, keeping it civil is important. I thought that this is the way to handle it. A lot of these we're we're gonna be able to use some amount of judgment on the people who storm the capital and say, okay, this person's misguided. They took a selfie. This person broke windows and then this person, you know, threw a fire extinguisher at a cop, and we have to make sure that the justice system is deployed in in a fair way and more surveillance and and more investigations. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:13:34): I don't think that's a solution. I I think more surveillance no. More investigations, absolutely, because I think the FBI has the power today to do that, and I think they should. They like I said, They should find every single person involved, find the appropriate crime, make sure that they're punished. But the idea of passing broad sweeping surveillance powers over a crazy American citizen is fucking nuts. Jason Calacanis (00:13:56): It's bonkers. David Sacks (00:13:57): And by the Chamath Palihapitiya (00:13:57): way, all that's all that's gonna do is create these honeypots for foreign governments to want to attack anyways because if that capability exists, it exists in code on servers somewhere And folks in China and other places will wanna find out where that is, and they will be attacking it all day long. And so the last thing we need is we're already leaking enough information. about ourselves online willingly and unwittingly. I don't want there to be a a honeypot. That that's the first thing. The second thing I I just wanna say is I thought it was incredible What Mitch McConnell did just back to your comment, Jason, about making sure folks get the right adjudication I think Mitch McConnell set the stage to have Donald Trump impeached. And the reason I think that is this was the first time he was completely unequivocal which is that Donald Trump provoked all these folks. And I think what it allows the Republican Party to do is to get together under closed doors you know, in beyond closed doors, circle the wagons and say it's either him or us. We choose right now, and I think what's gonna happen if I had to guess is that that allows a lot of people to break ranks and support the impeachment in the senate that's gonna start on Monday. And I think there's a real chance now that that this impeachment goes through and he gets convicted. David Friedberg (00:15:11): I think it's worth just thinking about the implications of that. if you did that, there are there are Trump loyalists. There aren't really GOP loyalists. And I I guess there are GOP loyalists, but there are a lot of Trump loyalists. that are not loyal to the GOP at this point. And, Saks, you know, correct me if I'm wrong, but if Trump does actually create a fringe party does create a a patriot party as he suggested he might. You could see up to 20,000,000 Americans joining that party. And, you know, that would reduce the ranks of the Republican party significantly. And then kind of my understanding is in political theory, what would result is you always have a balance in the parties. And so the parties kind of adjust left or right to create that balance. Ultimately, it's just kind of the organic way this this works. in order for the Republican Party to gain, you would probably see a lot of membership move over to the Republican Party, which means that the Democratic Party is gonna move further left. And, you know, think about the implications of that. If Trump does act if they do actually kick Trump out of the party and he does set up a French party, you will likely see the Democrats move further left creating a much more kind of conflicting story for some of the centrist than what they're telling today of what's gonna happen in the future. And that's a very different America in the next 2 to 3 years that could be created if they took that risk. And I think they they have to associate that calculus when they're making this decision. You know, you can talk about justice and wanting to kick him out of the party, but the implications of him leaving the party are rather profound. David Sacks (00:16:45): Oh, it would fracture the Republican party. It would be, I guess, the the best historical analog would be when Teddy Roosevelt left the the party. to form the Bull Moose party. He actually fractured the Republican party and that allowed, I think, Woodrow Wilson to win the presidency beating Taft. Yeah. I mean, the Republicans would basically lose every election from now until Trump is no longer, you know, a force in American politics if he created I guess the David Friedberg (00:17:12): -- Or they'd have to move they'd have to move left. Right? I mean, in order for them to gain, you know, more people, they'd have to get the centrist Democrats. They'd have to move left, and that'll give the Democrats the ability to move left. David Sacks (00:17:22): Yeah. I mean, it it it's it's a it would be a dream scenario for for the Democrat Party. I'm I I I'd be surprised at the end of the day if if if enough Republicans went along with with this to to fracture the party. But look. I I understand that on some basis, you know, Trump Trump caused what what happened with the capital. He convened everybody. He rabble rouse. But I think that frankly, if you have a trial, I think the question we have to ask is, like, what agenda does this serve? Does this serve a reconciliation agenda? or does the server revenge agenda? I mean, the guy is already out of office. I thought we canceled the Trump reality show, and this is like bringing it back for another season. because this trial is gonna be a shit show. Just like all things Trump, you have a trial in the senate, and it's gonna turn into a total farce Okay? And, you know, look, I think, cosmically, Trump was reckless. He was responsible. But when you actually look at the legal definition of incitement, it's actually very hard to prove incitement. So now Trump's gonna get his lawyers up there, and they're gonna be pushing back on this. And it's gonna consume the country for months. And I just think we should be moving forward right now. The contractor is Jason Calacanis (00:18:35): out of the office. David Friedberg (00:18:35): -- 3 Jason Calacanis (00:18:35): days and done. I why would it take months? I'm curious. You're just saying Amber hang from it David Friedberg (00:18:40): with a -- They're talking about they're gonna start at mid February. Right? It it's not gonna be 3 days. This goes on until the trial's over. I mean, it's it'll be at least a week of of discussion. Right, Saks? Jason Calacanis (00:18:51): So I Saks, is it do you think the GOP preventing Trump from being able to run again is worth the year the week of animosity, let's call it. David Sacks (00:19:03): I I I don't I think we should just move on as a country. And I, you know, at the end of the day, I think that's what's good for Biden's agenda. I mean, this will become very consuming. Jason Calacanis (00:19:13): What's good for the GOP though? If you're if you as a person who would align themselves with Republicans mainly, I would say, What do you think is best for your party, the party you're part of? David Sacks (00:19:24): Just moving on. Just moving forward. Jason Calacanis (00:19:26): What if Trump comes back and gets the nomination in David Friedberg (00:19:28): 2024? David Sacks (00:19:29): I mean, I think that is definitely a risk you you take. But I think Jason Calacanis (00:19:33): that -- -- at risk? David Sacks (00:19:35): I you know, I'll leave it to the voters to decide what what makes sense. Jason Calacanis (00:19:40): Interesting. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:19:41): I I I think that the only salvation for the Republicans is to repudiate Trump. And and I and I actually agree with with Friedberg. I think that this creates the opportunity for this. I think Trump wants to call it the Patriot Party to be sort of center right I think Democrats probably add over time, you know, center left. And then the Republicans actually are this interesting broker because they can actually tack to the middle and be centrist, you know, about a social safety net combined with, you know, small government. If you could somehow tip toe and and and and balance on that line, I think that is the winning strategy that people want. David Friedberg (00:20:19): But I think that's that's my point is the Republican Party is gonna have to move left in order to create balance between the two parties again because they are gonna lose 20,000,000 voters to the Patriot Party. and that's the profound shift that's gonna happen. And when the Republican party moves left, the Democrats are gonna move further left. And so -- Speaker 2 (00:20:39): Maybe. Jason Calacanis (00:20:39): I don't think that moving that far left is a really winning strategy for that David Friedberg (00:20:42): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (00:20:42): No. But I think I think Friedberg is right. So as an example, I I think I can say this, but, like, I I had a call this week with the mayor of Miami, Francis Suarez. What an unbelievably impressive guy. holy fucking shit this guy is amazing. What he's done in Miami is incredible. I mean, the GDP growth, it's like Chinese GDP growth, 10%, 8%, 6 a half percent. He's running fiscal surpluses. You know? Crime is down, down, down, he's done an incredible job. This guy's a fundamental centrist. You know? And when you talk about what his beliefs are, I was like, what is this guy? Is he a Democrat? Is he a Republican? I was He's like honestly, I'm a centrist. You know? And and so my point is if whoever tags to the middle will find the ability to attract incredible leaders that I think are are are our next generation set of leadership. Jason Calacanis (00:21:39): So in that way, Trump, as a change agent, Sachs was a success in that he broke the system, and this was Peter Thiel's kind of concept when he put him in I know you don't speak for Peter, but Peter's idea was, hey. This person is a change agent. He's gonna be this, you know, drain the swamp person. Maybe that didn't happen. But He has basically made everybody reconsider what party they wanna be part of and what they actually want on the political agenda. And now we're so we've never been more focused on politics and how our country runs in our lifetime, have we? David Sacks (00:22:12): Well, Trump you're right that Trump was a classic disrupt You know, Keith Raboy has this line about founders that disruption is created by disruptive people. And Trump was, you know, one of those very disruptive people. I mean, it just to take two examples, I mean, he created a total realignment on our views around China. I think it's now a bipartisan consensus that -- Yep. David Friedberg (00:22:34): -- David Sacks (00:22:35): you know, we should not keep feeding China and making you know, keep feeding that the the Chinese Tiger and turning into a a dragon. Everyone seems to think now that that some reappraisal is warranted. And the other the other big issue was the Forever Wars of the Middle East You know? I think Trump first created a realignment within the Republican Party when he said no more bushes. He meant no more of these stupid foreign wars. And I think that was an important realignment. So, yeah, I mean, he's been a very disruptive figure. I think that everyone's breathing a relief because we've moved on. I think that he unnecessarily was incendiary and sort of pressurized the situation. But I think the best thing at this point is to move forward and not keep rehashing the Trump era. Jason Calacanis (00:23:20): Speaking of rehashing, I don't know if you guys know about what is happening with Facebook, but they have an oversight board they created last year in the spring. And The oversight board is not to do the day to day policing of Facebook and Instagram and WhatsApp activity, but it is to be a place where people who have been have had content removed or have had their account suspended to appeal. They have taken the Trump Case as it were and given it to their Supreme Court, which is the Oversight Board, and the Oversight Board is gonna make a judgment based on should Trump get his social media accounts back? They have complete autonomy from Facebook. They are funded by Facebook with a 120 or a $130,000,000 over the next 6 years. So they're getting, like, $20,000,000 a year to run this They've got a really amazing bench of intellectuals, public intellectuals, and and and they're sort of above Facebook in this regard. What do we think should happen to Trump's social media accounts, should he have a path to reclaiming them? And with this, board that exists as this of Budsman, as I talked about in the last episode, what do we think of this process? And and do we think maybe Twitter And YouTube should join this oversight board. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:24:42): Let's separate these 2 things. And -- Yeah. -- actually, Jason, you just framed it perfectly. Let's separate the 2 issues. One is Is any of us comfortable with a random set of people that some people will like and other people not like making these decisions on our behalf that are not necessarily trained to make these decisions? I mean, these aren't elected trained judges or lawyers that sit for a bar exam. These are just, you know, private citizens, ultimately, at the end of the day. I think that if you allow this to happen at scale, there's gonna be a bunch of decisions that you'll be okay with in support. I think a lot of people probably are cheering when Trump got blocked. But if you can abstract it away and think about all the people that you actually care about, what if the administration was on the other side and now all of a sudden you know, these people to curry favor with the administration went in a different direction and people that you cared about got blocked, it is an untenable situation and I think this is the slippery slope that the framers never intended. I don't think it should be people like this making any decision like this. And in many ways, it's a It's a fig leaf for these companies to pretend they're doing the right thing while they're really shirking the real responsibility. Friedberg, you agree. David Friedberg (00:25:50): It's hard to say on the specific. So I think we should just take a broader point of view on this, which is how do tech Companies create independence in the platforms that they're building so that they don't get scrutinized as monopolists. And so there are several examples of this being done both successfully and not successfully across the tech ecosystem. Google made Android open sourced And by making the Android operating system open source, they were able to have their own forked versions that they were able to install on phones with partners like HTC and Samsung and others that they could then have their search engine be the primary search engine. So the entire Android operating system is available for anyone to work on, for anyone to fork, for anyone to use, And then Google's iteration of that open source platform and Google's contributions, which they were making regularly allowed them to kind of have a great commercial come without being the owner of the operating system, having learned from the mistakes of Microsoft in the past. Facebook tried to take a similar approach with Libra, and it was a total shit show in a disaster. I don't know where it is today. But they tried to create this also independent board to provide oversight and to, you know, to kind of do the the you know, all the open source work on the libra currency and Facebook was gonna then use that on their platform as their kind of, you know, token cryptocurrency solution. And, obviously, there was so much scrutiny because no one believed the independence I think we're hearing the same thing now about the Facebook Oversight Board. Jack Dorsey is now taking the same approach with Blue Sky, which is meant to be this open sourced you know, independently managed social media protocol system. And so Twitter would effectively become an application layer on top of this open source approach to how do you decide what goes on social media you decide what's inappropriate and appropriate and what technology protocols are available for everyone to use and what business and and arbitration protocols are available for everyone to use in an open source way. And we'll see where Jack goes with Blue Sky. He seems to be doing a better job messaging and organizing teams of people to work on this. And I don't see the pushback that Facebook is getting with their oversight board. So it it unfortunately, a lot of these the the the big tech platforms in order to avoid the monopolistic allegations and the allegations of control and influence, they're creating independence independent systems and the titter miss. David Friedberg (00:28:18): And I don't think we yet know. I think in the next year or 2, we'll see how Blue Sky, Libra, the Facebook Oversight Board and some of these other platform Jason Calacanis (00:28:25): What would you do, Davis? David Friedberg (00:28:26): Deepwater form a purchase. Jason Calacanis (00:28:27): What would you do? Let me just put it to you. If you were in charge, you were the CEO of Facebook or Twitter. Would you have a path to reinstating Trump? Yes or no? Can you David Sacks (00:28:36): talk to something David Friedberg (00:28:36): on that? Jason Calacanis (00:28:37): Yeah. Let me just get Friedberg. Would you yes or no Reinstate Trump. David Friedberg (00:28:41): Oh, yeah. A 100%, we should have a path to it. I I think the like I've said in the past, having some objective. I think that, number 1, I don't think it was appropriate for them to kick him off the platform from a legal perspective. I don't Sachs and I might disagree, but we can probably argue for an hour. But I think from a freedom of speech of either private companies with private accounts, and they did what they wanted to do. Was it the right thing to do? I don't think that was the right thing Jason Calacanis (00:29:02): to do. -- give path to getting his account back for -- And David Friedberg (00:29:04): so I think you need to create an objective system, and you need to give everyone whether it's Trump or whomever else. Everyone has to have the the same set of standards that they're held to And then -- Right. -- a universal approach that anyone can appeal and and -- Okay. Jason Calacanis (00:29:15): Well, that's the approach. But knowing what Trump did on January 6th, would you let him back on your platform if you were CEO? the question I'm trying to get out of here for you, Barry. But, okay, David, you go. David Sacks (00:29:25): Yeah. I mean so so here's the fundamental problem is that the town square is now owned by Facebook and Twitter. The town square got privatized, and our speech rights are now in the hands of Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey. as a practical matter. I mean, you do not have speech rights in the modern world if you get deep platform by Big Tech. And until now, there's been no way to appeal their decisions. We have had no disparancy into their decision. So I think Facebook creating this appeals board is a step in the right direction. But, you know, they're calling it their supreme court, but I'll tell you my supreme court is the Supreme Court. You know? At the end of the day, we all know that the most important part of a trial is jury selection. And Zuckerberg is still picking these twenty people And, you know, Jason Calacanis (00:30:08): they're holding David Friedberg (00:30:08): -- Jason Calacanis (00:30:09): Just in case in point, he picked the top he picked the David Friedberg (00:30:11): 4, Jason Calacanis (00:30:11): and the 4 picked the next 16, and then they don't have an ongoing ability to pick the next ones, and they have some David Friedberg (00:30:19): -- Jason Calacanis (00:30:19): Right. -- amount of terms. So just to to give you David Friedberg (00:30:21): the -- Okay. David Sacks (00:30:21): Well, fair enough. And and like I said, look, I don't wanna criticize this move on its own because it is a step in the right direction. We need an appeals process when people get canceled. Okay? Sure. That part is good. But but what I would like to see, like I said, my stream cord is a stream cord, and they've spoken to this issue. And I would like to see these social networking monopolies apply a first amendment standard. A a speech policy broadly consistent with the first amendment. And sometimes that will mean allowing speech we don't like, but it will result in a greater level of speech protection for all of us. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:30:54): Well, it wouldn't let speech speech back Jason Calacanis (00:30:56): on the platform. But hold on a sec. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:30:57): If you're gonna go by that standard. The problem is with this oversight board concept is that it completely violates exactly what supreme court is meant to be, which is a country by country set of governance and standards and laws. Like, I'm just looking at the oversight board people right now. These people look incredibly well credentialed. Emmy Palmor of Israel, Catalina Boteiro Moreno of Columbia, Nigat Dad from Pakistan. helet Thorne Schmidt from Denmark, Catherine Chen from Taiwan, Jamal Green from the United States, Alan Ruspbridger from UK, Andreas Sajou from Hungary, and it goes on and on. How are we supposed to adjudicate a set of standards at a national level? Like, when when we have the are all these people from all these different countries supposed to opine on US constitutional right of free speech and have David Friedberg (00:31:44): an idea? -- Jason Calacanis (00:31:45): would be they would use some global standard, but then also take into consideration local standards. That that's what they've their stated purposes and why they're so diverse. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:31:53): The setup for that, though, Jason, is that then, you know, when when there's a you know, the Hindu nationalist BJP Party has a specific point of view. And so when Modi wants to get elected, there's gonna be specific kinds of free speech laws there. You know, Poland's gonna have a different point of view and they're not going to respect what's happening in the oversight board. Case in point. Australia passed a potential law or is considering passing a law, which is basically around if, you know, treating Facebook and Google as quasi publishers and that, you know, they're I think that they have to pay some kind of royalty now for articles that are shared or published or whatever. And Google said, I'm out. and then Facebook said, I'm out too. And so what does that mean for, you know, 200,000,000 people? you're out. What what does that mean? You're out. You can make money when the getting's good and all of a sudden you build this public infrastructure when the country's rules change. I I actually respect that more than trying to create some of this broad holistic governance committee because I think it's a shit show. You can't cherry pick which laws you wanna observe and respect and and then which laws you don't. David Sacks (00:32:58): Yep. I I I think Chamath makes an excellent point about how This is gonna be the implement. Let me propose an alternative that actually comes from a former law professor of mine at the University of Chicago, Richard Epstein. He made the point that he he won't supply common carrier regulation, at least in the US, to these monopolies. And the example he gives is that the railroad monopolies could not deny you service based on your political views. And, you know, this is this is a this is a real issue. Imagine, you know, going back in time, know, we had the Lincoln Douglas debates, for example. The way that Lincoln and Douglas went around the country was by train. Imagine if some railroad magnate some oligarch said, Mister Lincoln, I don't like your views. I'm not gonna give you passage on my railroad monopoly. the common carrier rules would have prevented them from doing that. And what Epstein suggests we do is if you're a essentially a a monopoly, a speech monopoly in the in the US, one of these platforms that has, you know, the gigantic network effects. you have to apply the common carrier rules. Jason Calacanis (00:34:05): It's an interesting concept, I think. Let's move on to the economy And it'd be very interesting. We'll we'll monitor, obviously, what the this oversight board does, and we're gonna monitor what's gonna happen with this January 6th Chamath Palihapitiya (00:34:18): inspection. -- then? Jason, the last thing on this is you you could you could tell if you've if you graphed and I'm sure somebody listening to all in can graph and tweet this. But If you graphed the price to earnings ratio of Big Tech As all of these issues have come out, like, you know, if you looked at a time series of their PE -- Mhmm. David Friedberg (00:34:43): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (00:34:43): and you put on their, you know, things like George Floyd, things like the capital riots, you know, the all of these things that have created these David Friedberg (00:34:51): -- Jason Calacanis (00:34:52): Flash points. David Friedberg (00:34:52): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (00:34:52): issues around freeze points, flash points, the the massacre in New Zealand and Christchurch that was livestreamed on Facebook, all of this stuff. What you'll see is at least capitalism is voting that these companies will not be allowed to be companies much longer. Jason Calacanis (00:35:08): So the smart money is betting that they're gonna be regulated and something's gonna change. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:35:11): It's gonna be a quasi governmental organization exactly that the level of regulation at a government by government level is gonna be so onerous as to make these companies quasi nonprofits that work on behalf of countries. David Friedberg (00:35:22): Yeah. They're they're gonna become utilities. Right? They're getting they're gonna get regulated like utilities at some point. Jason Calacanis (00:35:27): Or they're gonna have to adopt Some governance like we've talked about or other options will emerge and I think what Jack is doing with the is it blue sky is what they're calling it? David Friedberg (00:35:39): Blue sky. Yeah. Jason Calacanis (00:35:40): Yeah. What what they're really doing with blue sky is saying your profile and your data is gonna be stored on some de factoized system. Yeah. Or or some decentralized system like Bitcoin or like any other peer to peer service, which means it's not on their server. Twitter just pulls all that data together. So we would all have our own domain names in Calacanis or saks.com slash profile dot whatever the HTML equivalent is, let's just call it dot social. You know, your saxdot social URL would be your profile on Facebook, Twitter, and everywhere else. And when you post it to it, it would post to Facebook and Twitter. Therefore, they could say, we don't actually host this stuff. we're just pulling it together, which then destroys their business model perch amounts point. What do we think as a little aside is gonna happen with the TikTok case Now that Trump is out of office and Biden is in office. We we sort of alluded to China, Saks, being a super important thing that we all have consensus on now? What should happen with TikTok? And do you think Biden will go after TikTok and say, hey. We gotta get this out of here because it's you know, essentially Spyware and Jocma was just resurfaced. And let let's just talk about China for a second. David Sacks (00:36:54): Yeah. I think the sad reality is that the whole TikTok thing is getting swept under the rug. I think there'll be no restrictions on TikTok. I think what we need the issue with, like, with banning TikTok though is that it's just one place where China can collect data on all of us. I mean, the the reality is there's thousands of places. And so, you know, I do think that taking some action on TikTok is warranted, but it would it it it is a little bit of selective enforcement. But what I would like to see is some guarantee, some assurance that that TikTok is not it is collecting data in the way they're saying they're collecting it and and that there's not sort of Spyware within the app. And I don't think we know for sure whether they're Spyware or not. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:37:39): I'll say it I'll say it slightly differently. I've maintained this for a while, but it is inconceivable. that inside of Big Tech at every single company that you define Big Tech is not at least one spy from Russia, China, India, Israel, Pakistan. Saudi Jason Calacanis (00:38:00): Arabia. Speaker 2 (00:38:02): Did I tell you guys I David Friedberg (00:38:03): had a spy working for me at climate? Jason Calacanis (00:38:05): No. You got a rest. Speaker 2 (00:38:06): Did I tell you guys about this? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:38:07): No. Tell us a story. David Friedberg (00:38:08): It's public, so I'll share it. We had a data scientist named Hightower, great guy, worked on our remote sensing team and worked on our nitrogen model, which predicted nitrogen content in soil and was very deep in the in the in the code base and everything. And shortly after I had left, I found out just so climate just for the audience, my my company I started in Rand was acquired by Monsanto in 2013, which is a big seed company. A lot of people know it for other things. And and so I left and I found out that the guy quit went to the airport And the FBI intercepted him at the airport, and they found tucked into his bag a thumb drive, and he had downloaded all of our code base for our nitrogen models. and he was taking them to give them to the Chinese government. And so he's in jail right now. He's in prison in the US right now, but this was, like, the most nondescript super nice, scientist, data scientist guy, you've ever met, like, you would have had zero suspicion. And it turns out he Chamath Palihapitiya (00:39:09): gives us a bar. How many of those exist in Facebook David Friedberg (00:39:11): and Google? And by the way, it was so easy for him to get access to our code base, and he pulled all this stuff down. he had the whole model. And, you know, there's a there's a lot of articles about what happened in our case. But you're right. It's happening all over the place. And and I I don't think that we fully appreciate, like, how much of America's IP is stored in software and data. and how accessible that is to employees inside of these organizations and that the security is not adequate to protect that data and and that IP. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:39:40): And then the crazy thing is, like, you know, when just to connect the two dots here on this Jack Muffing, like, when you saw that video where, like, you know, basically, he was forced to you know, show fealty to David Friedberg (00:39:51): -- Jason Calacanis (00:39:51): I'm okay. David Friedberg (00:39:52): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (00:39:52): I'm okay. And, you know, this is all about the Chinese party. -- held captive. My gosh. Like, I mean, these are all quasi governmental companies. Alibaba exists because of the large s of the Communist Party in Xi Jinping. If that wasn't clear after last week, I mean and so to your point, like, you know, if any company gets a hold of of US user data or otherwise, it's effectively the Chinese government getting a hold of that data. Jason Calacanis (00:40:18): Yeah. We don't need proof, David, when Jack Ma disappears and then comes back and looks He looked nervous on that video. I'm no expert, but he did not look like he was the Jack Ma, who was giving speeches and inspiring people. And I don't know what this does to entrepreneurship in China, but, I mean, who in China is gonna start a company now and want to be the next Jack Ma or Jeff Bezos. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:40:42): No. I think I think Jason, it's even simpler. What happens? It makes it makes entrepreneurship even simpler. Meaning, For those entrepreneurs that thought that there was a balance between financial imperative and moral imperative, there's no balance. You can flush the moral imperative down the fucking toilet. They China will allow you to get super rich and super successful as long as you super tow the line. Mhmm. And that's the message. David Sacks (00:41:06): Right. It's like what Putin did with Kortikovsky in Russia. It's like he basically told all the oligarchs you work for us now. And and it worked. That's basically the it worked. That's basically the message from the CCP to Jack and to every other entrepreneur in China is you work for us now. And by the way, civil military fusion was part was was a a policy especially announced by President Xi. You know, one other data point on this, I think, is really interesting, is that Biden just announced that he was keeping on Christopher Ray as the head of the FBI. Christopher Ray gave a speech back in July at the Hudson Institute about the counter espionage efforts that the FBI is engaged in. And he was saying that the FBI has more cases now related to to Chinese counterintelligence. He said that the FBI is opening a new China related counterintelligence case every 10 hours Wow. 2 a day. And 2 a day. And of the of the nearly 5000 active FBI counterintelligence cases currently underway across the country, Almost half are related to China. So this is directly from a speech he gave in July. So I think it's really interesting. Now at the time that he gave the speech, you know, a lot of people are saying, well, this is just Trump's more of Trump's China baiting. But I think that by Biden keeping on, Chris, Christopher Ray, there's a continuity of policy there. And I think, you know, focusing on TikTok is probably the the wrong thing. We need a more comprehensive policy to deal with counterintelligence? Jason Calacanis (00:42:39): Well, it's a good start though to say if you hit scale, we're not gonna let you operate here and we want reciprocity. Adding to this, outgoing secretary of Pompeo and is the day before the inauguration tweeted. I have determined that the People's Republic of China is committing genocide And crimes against humanity in China targeting the Uighurs' Muslims and members of other ethnic and religious minority groups. That's quite a bomb to leave the day before. And I think the signals we are gonna keep resetting this relationship And what an incredible opportunity for us to bring factories back here, bring, as we've talked about here, manufacturing back. Correct, Friedberg? David Friedberg (00:43:19): That's what I think. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:43:20): No. It's kicking it. David Friedberg (00:43:21): Let's kick it off. We got we got 33,000,000 factories in China. I think we've got less than a 100,000 in America. Jason Calacanis (00:43:28): Let's go. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:43:28): And it will be so glorious. It will be so fucking glorious. I mean, think about this. Right? Look. Think about the amount of money. Like, At the end of the day, what is a government's purpose? Is it to run or profit? No. You know, that's our job. Right? Is it to run, add breakeven? I would actually say no. I think it's to basically promote the prosperity of current and future generations of its citizens. And so you should be investing. So if this is the investment. So if we're gonna be printing, you know, 1,000,000,000,000 of dollars and, you know, we should talk about the stimulus bill because Biden's gonna rip in another David Friedberg (00:44:00): 2,000,000,000,000. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:44:01): which I think Jason Calacanis (00:44:02): is -- -- the perfect David Friedberg (00:44:02): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (00:44:02): Perfect side, Willis. And then, by the way, and then after that, there's gonna be this it's amazing infrastructure bill. Put the money to work Let's reclaim a bunch of this capability on shore and let's rebuild America. Jason Calacanis (00:44:15): Okay. Friedberg, you looked at the David Friedberg (00:44:18): $1,200,000,000,000 Jason Calacanis (00:44:19): stimulus package that Biden is proposing how much of that goes towards rebuilding factories in America. David Friedberg (00:44:26): Well, none. So so remember, there there's a -- Woah. Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:44:30): But -- And it's 1,900,000,000,000. Yeah. It's David Friedberg (00:44:32): 1,900,000,000,000. 1,900,000,000,000. Yeah. Oh, I'm sorry. And so just to put that in context, you know, Wall Street has talked about there were gonna be 4 for massive stimulus bills. You know, since last April, May, I think they've talked about this, and we're seeing this come to to fruition now. And Jamav correct me if you've heard differently. But There's always been the expectation we would have the big first stimulus, which we had last March. Then a second stimulus, people have been waiting for the state stimulus or the local government stimulus, which this one now it captures. And then the 4th program was always gonna be infrastructure. And we haven't seen details of the proposed Biden Infrastructure plan yet, But I'm pretty sure it's gonna have a lot of green energy stuff tied up in it. But let let's just let's just hit the numbers. Right? So In 2009, post financial crisis to keep the global economy from collapsing, Congress passed an $800,000,000,000 aid package. 800,000,000,000 was extraordinary at the time, and we'd never seen anything like it, TARP. And last March, if you'll recall, we passed this emergency $2,000,000,000,000 package, you know, more than 2 eggs what we had during the financial crisis. And now just in December, right, before the year wrapped up, Congress passed another $900,000,000,000 package And now we're talking about this $1,900,000,000,000 package getting passed. So we've eclipsed anything you could have ever con considered possible in terms of fiscal stimulus. At this point, the m 1 money supply, which I sent the link out ahead of this for Nick Shatter. has gone up by 75% in just the past year. And now if we break down the $1,900,000,000,000 stimulus bill, you know, a a huge chunk of it, and this is what Wall Street been waiting for is $350,000,000,000 is going to state and local governments. So think about San Francisco or the state of California, the the city of Chicago, City of New York. All of these folks have seen their revenue decline, and they've had to run massive emergency programs. Where's that money coming from? They haven't been able to raise is they've had to put a hold on on receipts. David Friedberg (00:46:34): And so this is meant to bridge the gap at the local level, and this is really important. because so much of capital markets still very much fund local and state governments through municipal bonds. And those bonds if they start to default are gonna have a dangerous rippling effect in the economy. So bridging the state and local government budgets with this $350,000,000,000 package turned out to be, you know, an absolute need and be Republicans prior to the the election. We're pushing hard against this and saying, let those stay fail. They're mostly blue states. Let those cities fail. They're mostly blue cities. They're mismanaged. They're they're they're being stupid about how they're operating. So this is a big deal. There's a 160,000,000,000 for COVID fighting, some of which, you know, I throw up on $20,000,000,000 for vaccination, which equates to about a $150 per person they expect to vaccinate, which is an extraordinarily high cost if you actually think about it on a first principles basis. It's ridiculous how inefficient they're gonna be at this. $50,000,000,000 for testing, $40,000,000,000 for protective gear and supplies. And what this indicates to me is so much of what goes on in government and government spending is skating to where the puck used to be, not skating to where the puck is going. And it's almost like by the time this money gets deployed, I'm not sure we're gonna need as much protective gear and supplies. I'm not sure we're gonna need as much testing if we can actually get the vaccinations done in the next 90 to a 100 days. and much of the country starts to recover from this. You know, you've now got a $150,000,000,000 program sitting out there that doesn't need to be out there, and it's a waste of money. What we should be doing is taking that money and investing in biomanufacturing infrastructure so we can more quickly develop and deploy vaccines in the future. Jason Calacanis (00:48:12): what would it cost to build a factory just back of the envelope that was capable of making the next, you know, let's call it, David Friedberg (00:48:19): 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 3, 1 to 2. It's it's not a lot. So so here's the let me I'll I'll give you guys the unit economic build, and you can do the math at home. 4 grams per liter is the expected yield of a of a biomanufacturing facility. And a leader is like, you know, how many liters of water do you have in a tank? You can build half 1,000,000 liter facilities for a couple $100,000,000. And that's 4 grams per liter every 7 days. And as vaccine or the the the antibody therapies that we've seen, the antibody therapies are about 2 grams, and that'll save someone's life. The the vaccines are a fraction of a gram. And so you can start to kinda do the math on how just a few $1,000,000,000 invested in building some of these biomanufacturing facilities that are modular and can be very quickly reprogrammed to make a new molecule can be used to support the future vaccine supply chain and the future anti antibody therapeutic supply by chain, which is critically needed in this country. And if I were to take a $160,000,000,000 for COVID fighting, give me 10% of that, and we'll be ready for any virus in the future we'll be able to print out vaccines for the whole country within 30 days. And so a little bit again of this is not really forward thinking. It's scientists and doctors saying what they need what they're talking about is last year's need. They're not thinking in terms of what the industrial supply chain needs are gonna be in the future on an ongoing basis for this country. At this point, I'm not seeing it. And so I feel a little bit let down by that. And I hope that the infrastructure programs that are gonna be proposed in the next in the next bill will start to encompass some of that work. Jason Calacanis (00:49:53): Paradoxically, it's gonna cost a David Friedberg (00:49:55): $1,000,000,000,000 Jason Calacanis (00:49:56): to upgrade our nuclear weapons. So we're literally gonna spend a $1,000,000,000,000 over the next decade open upgrading our nuclear David Friedberg (00:50:03): -- That's a nutty nutty suggestion. Is that is that true? That's nutty. Jason Calacanis (00:50:06): That's alright. I'm reading a headline right here. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:50:10): Here's my here's my little wish list for this infrastructure build. I think when you look at some of the most compelling work that's happened in the developing world, like, if you're gonna go and, you know, build a massive water facility or an energy installation, A lot of people are worried, hey listen, I have to deal with, you know, local currency risk. I have to deal with, you know, corruption. I could have the government you know, take away this facility from me without notice. The rule of law may not be strong. And the World Bank has this mechanism where you can basically go and ensure for I think it's like 1 or 2 percent of your project cost, the whole project. And it really makes things work. I would love to see the US government effectively create a program that is similar but different in the following way. There are some enormous things America needs to do. where the IP exists with our allies and there is an enormous fear what would happen if that IP leaked specifically to China? One example is if you believe and you care about climate change, And the making of batteries, there's an enormous amount of IP that sits with the Japanese that, you know, if we could license and work with as a country, we could build factories all over the country. And we would be the leader in in climate. But that'll take the US government to basically work bilaterally with the Japanese government to basically say, listen. If it takes the NSA to fucking protect this shit, we will do it. But you can say -- -- run them. Speaker 2 (00:51:46): They they Jason Calacanis (00:51:47): we could just give them their sovereignty in those facts. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:51:49): You know, these are these are these are for profit companies are, you know, relatively risk averse. They're not gonna rip in 10,000,000 bucks to $10,000,000,000 to build, you know, a cathode plant in the US. I would, other people would, But that that's my hope in the infrastructure bill is that we take some of these things that have worked in the developing world, and we use it to grease the skids in how we rebuild America. It would be fucking glorious. Jason Calacanis (00:52:11): Well, and also just think about how much a nuclear power plant costs. It's like 6 to $9,000,000,000. to build a nuclear power plant, and we haven't built many new ones, and and we're we're on the way there. But if part of this $1,000,000,000,000, we could build 10 more of those. energy independence would continue in global warming would go down. Anything to add there, David? Looks like you wanna comment. David Sacks (00:52:30): Well, I did did did this one final word, you know, the the the the great senate leader, Everett Dickson famously said that a 1,000,000,000 here or a 1,000,000,000 there pretty soon you're talking about real money. And now we're talking about a trillion here and a trillion there. And these are really big numbers. And I think we should be very concerned about debt and deficits. No one's really talking about this yet, but all of this money has to be paid back at some point. Jason Calacanis (00:52:58): Well, what's the worst that can happen, David? Let's actually do that. I'm I mean, I'm asking the question in a non joking way. What is the worst that can happen? David Sacks (00:53:06): Oh, I mean, -- Inflation. -- inflation. Inflate well, not not just so inflation because the government will eventually have to monetize the debt by printing more money. the dollar stops becoming the world's reserve currency. Maybe Bitcoin becomes the world's reserve currency. Maybe it's something else does. It could be lead to, you know, various severe to basically a debt crisis in the future. Jason Calacanis (00:53:26): What would that look like for companies and citizens of America? David Sacks (00:53:30): Well, if you're a middle if you're a middle class, your savings get wiped out. know, if you so so if you're super rich, the reality is there's already been tremendous asset inflation. So there's already been a lot of inflation, but frankly, if you are very rich and own assets in the stock market, you're you're sort of you're protected. You know? But if you're a middle class person with most of your savings, in your bank account. That money is now worth a lot less. Or your home? You're destroyed or your home. Yeah. You get destroyed by that. Jason Calacanis (00:53:58): It's David Sacks (00:53:58): really very sad. Jason Calacanis (00:53:59): So if you are equities and the market is on a rip, you know, paying an extra couple of $1,000,000 for your second home, is not a big deal because your equities have gone up more than that or equal to that. And if you're David Friedberg (00:54:10): -- David Sacks (00:54:10): Right. David Friedberg (00:54:10): -- Jason Calacanis (00:54:10): somebody who makes income, we have a separate issue. Let's -- Well, David Friedberg (00:54:14): look. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:54:14): This is this is a this is a big issue, Speaker 2 (00:54:16): but I but Chamath Palihapitiya (00:54:17): and I think we should talk about this at some point because this is what the grand fallacy of technology was supposed to be. Like, you know, if you if you break down capitalism into its 2 most natural states, you have labor and you have capital. Right? You have workers and you have owners. And the biggest problem that technology did was it drove a wedge and it created an extremely small owner class on an extremely massive labor class. And so the reality is that a very few very a handful of people can can get extremely wealthy by being owners of these next generation assets. And then everybody else is essentially, you know, rendered as labor. And so this wealth inequality just grows and grows and compounds. And so we have to David Friedberg (00:54:59): figure out a way -- Yeah. How's that different than the past? because, like -- I Chamath Palihapitiya (00:55:02): think it's got I think I think technology accelerated that dynamic. David Sacks (00:55:05): Well, I think is jumping on this. I mean, I I I think that technology creates bigger winner take all outcomes, and that's fed into inequality. But the good thing about tech or the tech ecosystem is that, frankly, we have option pools. Right? We have broad based ownership of these companies. If you go work for a Google or Facebook or whatever, Jason Calacanis (00:55:24): you get you get David Sacks (00:55:25): some grants. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:55:25): Yeah. But that's that's 10,000 people. That's 10,000 people. David Friedberg (00:55:29): No one. Right? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:55:30): And they're and they're replacing 2 million jobs with ten thousand people. Jason Calacanis (00:55:33): I mean, this is why this is why we need to have a 100 percent participation in the markets by everybody in the country. Joe Greenblatt, who I had on my podcast recently is a proponent of this. So are you tweeting about it? When you're born in the United States, we should put $5000 in a 401 k that you can't touch until you're sixty five years old. That is in whatever index funds. And every person born gets that $5000 and cannot touch it, and then we see where it winds up. David Friedberg (00:55:59): I'm not sure I solved it. But it doesn't it doesn't solve the problem that a of people have to climb up a hill first. Right? They take on a lot of debt to get education to put themselves in a position to ultimately be able to generate the income to do And I think, you know, sure, give them $5000 in the beginning, but it's not gonna get them where they need to be. Jason Calacanis (00:56:16): But it does solve one portion of the problem, which is they don't have participation, and we could take out the wondering what your retirement's gonna be like. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:56:23): I think both of you are right. I think, like, there needs to be something that allows people have a line of sight to savings. Like, a lot a lot of about being invested in in anything where you own it, whether it's real estate or whether it's a piece of artwork or whether it's stocks and bonds, so many people don't even know how to begin and don't understand the concept of ownership and so they are stuck in being in the ghetto of labor. And I think, like, one of the biggest things we can do is you can give them the taste of ownership so that they understand that difference so that they wanna be an owner Jason Calacanis (00:56:56): Yes. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:56:56): Okay? Number 1. Yes. And then to to David's point, number 2 is we still have a responsibility to educate people so that they can actually have skills that they can monetize, and we have a responsibility to do that. And right now, we make it so fucking hard, and we trick people because, like, we We send them down the path of getting a $200,000 art history degree, and then they end up working at a Starbucks and then Jason Calacanis (00:57:18): they're Which is impossible to monetize. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:57:21): I mean, it's ridiculous. You can't monetize them. You can't -- By David Friedberg (00:57:24): the way, by the way, what you're saying, Timov, is the reason I think retirement accounts were set up in the US. was to shift away from pension fund models where people were getting a fixed income at retirement and shifting them to a model of equity and ownership in the markets where they could participate actively on a tax free basis. But, obviously, it hasn't done enough. You know, the the I think the big difference between the industrial revolution the 1st and second industrial revolution and where we are with software in in the last 2 to 3 decades is the capital required. Right? It's very little capital to build a highly valuable software business. It required a lot of capital to build oil infrastructure and railroad infrastructure and factories. And so to your point, you get extraordinarily different outsized returns today than you did a 100 years ago as an owner versus labor. The and the bridge to try and give people ownership through retirement accounts certainly hasn't been enough. And -- Chamath Palihapitiya (00:58:15): So so to your David Friedberg (00:58:16): point to Chamath Palihapitiya (00:58:17): your point, David, I saw this study. It was fucking crazy. I'm gonna get the exact numbers wrong, but you the the trend is accurate. When when when people used to actively manage their 401 k, there was a very small participation rate but the mean return was off the charts. And the amount of dollars as a function of their paycheck was off the charts. Call it, you know, 50, 60¢ of every theoretical dollar you could put into it. The minute that we went to passive and that, you know, you could sort of trickle money in, the number of people that participated literally more than doubled, but then the amount of that max dollar went off of a cliff And so the the the problem that we've had is we haven't taught people. You know, we've misdirected some of them to say, have a 401k. It replaces your pension as if it's the solution, that's still not the solution. And and we need to have ways of teaching people how to actually manage it. It's not that hard and the basics can be taught very simply. But right now, we are massively exacerbating this wealth gap the way that we behave. And then all of this money that's gonna go in, this 1,900,000,000,000, whatever, how many trillion comes afterwards is, frankly, for the few that are smart enough take advantage of it will be amazing, but it'll still push the overwhelming majority of Americans who are stuck in labor deeper and deeper into that ghetto and they'll never get up? It is Jason Calacanis (00:59:40): definitely every little bit helps. Right? Like, if you have the 401 k, that helps. And then educate people. And I think if we gave everybody an Issa at birth or an, you know, an income sharing agreement for these 20 professions that the government provided Chamath Palihapitiya (00:59:53): us, Jason? Why is it that, you know, for example, if to invest in a start up, you either have to have more than David Friedberg (01:00:00): $5,000,000 Chamath Palihapitiya (01:00:01): or more than, you know, a million bucks. David Friedberg (01:00:02): -- Jason Calacanis (01:00:02): a year. It's more than generic, and it's population. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:00:05): And so if you're if you're a product manager that's, like, really, really talented or if you're, like, you know, somebody else who's just got a, you know, a PhD in nuclear biology and, frankly, is, you know, is decided to teach for David Friedberg (01:00:16): 60,000, Chamath Palihapitiya (01:00:17): and you can't participate even though you have the intellect to judge Like, we're just, like, kind of, like, compound -- It's Jason Calacanis (01:00:23): even worse than that. The person who's changing the accreditation was at the SEC and working on this said, I cannot I'm writing the accreditation laws and because I make a 150 k a year, whatever it is under 200 k, I can't participate and I'm the one responsible for the law. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:00:39): That person must be one of the most sophisticated people in the world. Speaker 2 (01:00:42): It it Jason Calacanis (01:00:42): literally is the most sophisticated person in the world when it comes to accreditation. This is what's so tough. David Friedberg (01:00:46): -- Jason Calacanis (01:00:46): move to sophisticated investor, not accredited. and just some test. And if you did that, every single Uber driver, Lyft driver, Postmates driver, Airbnb host, or a person who use the Cash App or PayPal would have said I can as one of the first users, I have access to buy shares. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:01:03): I I'm just gonna say this. I'll David Friedberg (01:01:04): buy them. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:01:05): this problem has to get fixed because I think in the next 10 years, the United States is gonna fucking reemerge like a phoenix. And the reason and the reason is gonna be because of innovation around climate change and agriculture and biotechnology and technology. these four areas are gonna recast GDP. But what that also means is that if we're gonna create, you know, 20 or $30,000,000,000,000 a year for the next 10 20 years, David Friedberg (01:01:33): 300, 500,000,000,000. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:01:36): How the fuck do we make sure that more than 18 people participate? Jason Calacanis (01:01:40): Absolutely. Good. David Sacks (01:01:41): Actually, I have one David Friedberg (01:01:42): -- David Sacks (01:01:43): Well, so I agree with a lot of what you guys were saying, but I can tell you every single one of the companies that I've are looking to hire people right now. They cannot hire people soon enough. It's their biggest challenge. And it's not just coders. It's salespeople. It's marketing people. It's HR people. It's Every every role in their company, they have trouble trying to hire the right person. And and and they give options to all those people. So it's not just a small number of founders getting equity. This is basically a new category of, call it, entrepreneurial labor. It's labor who gets ownership in the company that's never existed before. And really, what this comes down to is we need more people participating in the new economy. If you participate in the new economy, then you get ownership. And if you're in the old economy, then you really are stuck in labor. And so what we need to do is spread the opportunity that that technology represents to more people across the globe. David Friedberg (01:02:36): -- Jason Calacanis (01:02:36): the minimum wage, maybe we should have a minimum equity participation. So we have the minimum wage over here, but If you're working for an entrepreneurial enterprise, why not get a minimum, you know, participation in equity? David Sacks (01:02:46): Because the free market takes care of I mean, if you have the Jason Calacanis (01:02:49): right skills -- -- hasn't taken care of it, David. That's what it has. David Friedberg (01:02:51): No. No. No. The free Chamath Palihapitiya (01:02:52): market has. I agree with David. The free market has. Jason Calacanis (01:02:54): The problem is does a person working at Walmart ever participated in the Walmart appreciation of the -- That's David Friedberg (01:02:59): the point they they will they will leave and go to a company that gives them equity? And that's why you'll see this this Jason Calacanis (01:03:04): this -- Oh, that's convenient to say, but if Walmart's the only job within an hour of their house, it's not. David Sacks (01:03:09): They gotta have the right skills, Jason. And so this all comes back to education. You know? We gotta -- Yeah. Jason Calacanis (01:03:14): But why not let people who are in rank and file jobs, the 30 million truck drivers, cashiers, etcetera, have equity participation as a right. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:03:22): I think I think you're saying something different. Should they? Absolutely. Should the company that does that be created Absolutely. Will they be rewarded with all the people that wanna work there? Absolutely. So now somebody should go and start that fucking company. Speaker 2 (01:03:37): Okay. I I just get some Jason Calacanis (01:03:39): interesting concept to fly. Speaker 2 (01:03:40): I mean, we do have a Jason Calacanis (01:03:41): minimum wage. Why not have a minimum? Jason, you should have participation. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:03:44): You know, the the same woman that ran Elon out of California Lorena Gonzales. Jason Calacanis (01:03:49): She's doing another thing now. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:03:51): Just propose a new bill. Like, do you want her to basically pick the the equity thresholds? because that's what you're saying? Jason Calacanis (01:03:59): Well, no. David Sacks (01:03:59): Let's let's pivot let's pivot to California. Okay. Jason Calacanis (01:04:01): Let's pivot to another disaster at California. So the recall is well on its way. They need to get 1,500,000 signatures. We're at 1.1or1.2, but we actually really 2 because there's some verification process that goes on. So in all likelihood, we will see Gavin Newsom recalled We agree on that? David Friedberg (01:04:20): Yeah. I'll tell you the the stats I heard, there's about a 1,000,000,001 signatures. They've seen about an 85% verification rate today Sachs, correct me if I'm wrong on this. They're getting they're getting about 200,000 signatures a week. They're you know, the cost for marketing and attracting people to get these signatures is coming in at, like, 3 to 6 bucks a signature. So it's really not a lot of money is needing to be spent to get this done. And, you know, even if the verification rate drops to 75 or 65%, you're still on track at this rate to hit the recall target by March 17th, which is the deadline. And so it appears highly likely they're gonna get there. Saks, am am I right on all that? David Sacks (01:05:01): Yeah. I think they're at David Friedberg (01:05:02): 1,200,000 David Sacks (01:05:03): signatures. That's what I heard. Yep. And they're trying to get they're trying to get to 2,000,000 to have a a buffer so that, you know, they that, you know, they don't get pushed under the but 1.5 is the is the number they need. Yeah. They need 1,500,000 certified signatures. David Friedberg (01:05:17): 70% Jason Calacanis (01:05:17): of the way there according to the website, recall gavin2020.com, which I think is David Friedberg (01:05:21): -- David Sacks (01:05:21): I think I think they will get there. I think they'll get there. And then there and then the recall election would take place about 4 to 5 months after after that. There's a a couple of months where it moves through the finance committee, the recall election has to be budgeted. And then Newsom would have the opportunity to set a date within, I think, 60 to 80 days roughly. So I think we're looking at July for a a recall election. David Friedberg (01:05:49): And, Zach, how how do you get How does a candidate get on the ballot? because Chamath is asking for a friend. Right. Speaker 2 (01:05:56): It's -- Wait Chamath Palihapitiya (01:05:58): a second. Jason Calacanis (01:05:59): I wanna be on 2 that can't Should we have all four besties be on? David Friedberg (01:06:02): Yeah. We should all we should all run. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:06:04): Has it all four? Can we run a testie? Jason Calacanis (01:06:06): Can we run a David Friedberg (01:06:07): -- David Sacks (01:06:07): We're gonna David Friedberg (01:06:07): -- Let the voters decide. A squat? David Sacks (01:06:09): We're gonna -- Yeah. David Friedberg (01:06:10): -- David Sacks (01:06:10): we're prop we're probably gonna have 4 Kardashians on there, so we mark, like, 4 besties on there. David Friedberg (01:06:15): And what ex Kardashian? David Sacks (01:06:17): Yeah. So the it it's it's it's stunningly easy to be a replacement candidate. We should expect there'll probably be about a 150 replacement candidates on the ballot every Every third tier Celeste celebrity is gonna you know, like, you know, back to Gary Coleman did it, like, you know, 20 years ago. there all of you see, let's leverage -- What you talk about, Saks? David Friedberg (01:06:36): -- David Sacks (01:06:37): to try, yeah, to try and boost her Q rating. I'm sure we'll see Kathy Griffin on there. I mean, what she'd been doing. And so it's gonna be a farce. Jason Calacanis (01:06:45): It's got a handy dick. A heavy dick is gonna replace the dick. David Friedberg (01:06:51): Can we can we just can Speaker 7 (01:06:52): we just can we David Friedberg (01:06:53): by the way, can we talk about why he's getting recalled? Because I do get this question a lot from people in tech and out of tech And I just wanna highlight some of the reasons I've heard, and I'd love to hear why you guys think he's, you know, why there's this push against him. But from people within the tech community, I've heard that the ad hoc lockdown rules have really pissed a lot of people off in terms of when businesses are allowed and not allowed to be open and kind of the responsiveness and the guiding around this during COVID. Obviously, the the, you know, the inability to fight against the tax rate, but no one wants to be publicly saying that. the failed vaccine rollout, the failed testing. You know, Saxx, Jamath, Jason, what what do what do you guys think is the reason he's getting recalled. What are the top 5 -- Jason Calacanis (01:07:36): Hypocracy is number 1. I think it's the hot pockets of going to those restaurants and then making people not go to the beach. which is crazy. And then I think number 2 is the virus. We've only deployed David Friedberg (01:07:46): 37% Jason Calacanis (01:07:48): of our doses in California. And that makes us, you know, of the major states that are putting out a lot of these vaccines, one of the worst performers. 2nd David Friedberg (01:07:58): -- Jason Calacanis (01:07:59): Yeah. Both places, Texas and Florida and New York are the other large states, and they're at 56, 49, and 50%. We're still stuck at 37%. California, the cradle of innovation and technology, and this bum, he's a bum, 37% deployed. We should be leading each in 70%. he's a bum. Can I can I David Sacks (01:08:18): get your -- Newsom wait. Wait. It's it's Newsom derangement syndrome. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:08:22): Oh my god. No. He doesn't Jason Calacanis (01:08:23): get a viral clip. David Friedberg (01:08:24): trying to get about You got Jason Calacanis (01:08:26): you got those other besties. David Friedberg (01:08:27): Jason just has a problem with anyone in authority. You know? Jason Calacanis (01:08:29): I know it's the hair. David Friedberg (01:08:30): It's a it's a problem. Jason Calacanis (01:08:31): He's a great fucking hair. It's too the hair's too good, French laundry, the hypocrisy, and then get to work through David Friedberg (01:08:38): 7%. So Palihapitiya personality for you is the biggest driver. Is that right? Jason? Jason Calacanis (01:08:43): No. It's it's literally the performance of the Washington DC, West Virginia, North Dakota, South Dakota, all 66 to 73% of their vaccines at Moi. They're double us. Now it's smaller states, but still, we're goddamn California. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:08:57): Here's what I would say as a list. Number 1, we're the most heavily taxed. Number 2, we are we have some of the worst infrastructure in the country. We have some of the lowest and poorest performing schools in the country. We have the highest homeless rates for veterans in the country. We have the worst preparedness for climate in the country. And so it's basically just a complete bundling at every level. And so and then the 4th or the then the last, which is the biggest one, is we have now created an inhospitable culture for innovation. And the biggest problem with that is if these climate jobs and these technology jobs and these biotechnology jobs pivot to more accepting and progressive local and state managements like Austin, Texas, and Miami, Florida We lose these things forever. This is a multigenerational decay that we're starting. And so if we care about the state, I love California. I love San Francisco. I love how eclectic and unique and different it is. I was always happy to pay David Friedberg (01:10:08): 10, 11, 12, 13, 14%, Chamath Palihapitiya (01:10:10): because it was worth it. Now I don't know what we get for it. And so I think we I think I think he should get recalled. I just think he's he's trash. David Sacks (01:10:19): Alright. Is it true? And and just to just to underscore the point on lockdowns, we now have certainly more cases. We have more deaths, and we have more deaths per capita than Florida despite the fact that Florida has no lockdowns and a much older population. And so I was just in Florida a few weeks ago, like, you know, like Chamath was saying, you know, Suarez, the the mayor there has created a really a land of free. I mean, it's really unbelievable. You can go to bars. You can go to restaurants. There's no lockdown whatsoever. They don't have as big a problem as California does right now. Jason Calacanis (01:10:54): Why do you think that is? David Sacks (01:10:56): Because well, because I think that the lockdowns David Friedberg (01:10:58): -- -- Jason Calacanis (01:10:59): a scientific basis. Yeah. David Sacks (01:11:00): I think the lockdowns only forestalled the problem Eventually, the virus finds a way around them. And I also think the thing that's happening in Florida is that okay. So my aunt lives there. She's in her seventies. She's not going to bars and restaurants because she knows she's highly at risk. And so just because the government doesn't lock down, doesn't mean that people don't take sensible precautions on their own. And so and so I think that what's happened is that people are going out to bars and restaurants are low risk, and they're keeping the economy going over And instead, in California, we have this very draconian lockdown policy and has put all these small businesses out of out of work. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:11:35): No. No. It's worse. It's not a draconian lockdown policy. It's a whipsaw. at oh, it's open. Okay. Great. Now go and invest in a bunch of CapEx to make sure there's outdoor dining. Oh, hold on. You're closed. What is that? Jason Calacanis (01:11:45): That's a this is so dumb. David Friedberg (01:11:47): -- tons of tons of tons of restaurant bar owners in San Francisco spent on average $30,000 building outdoor seating for their facility only to have it all shut down three and a half weeks later. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:11:57): In confident. David Friedberg (01:11:57): Fuck. Can you imagine being an owner of that business? What the Chamath Palihapitiya (01:12:00): experience -- That's unfair. Jason Calacanis (01:12:01): No. I mean, you would literally, they're going to kill themselves. Speaker 2 (01:12:03): Like, this Jason Calacanis (01:12:04): is the tragedy of it. people will lose everything, and there'll be suicides, depression, domestic violence, Chamath Palihapitiya (01:12:08): drug use. And then this guy's having dinner at French laundry during the whole I mean, it's such a backdrop. I just got a note -- What? David Friedberg (01:12:15): -- Jason Calacanis (01:12:15): that he will he's he's actually been banished from being at the French laundry. Apparently, it's been renamed the Sri Lankan Laundry, and some notable Sri Lankan billionaires has bought the French Laundry. David Friedberg (01:12:27): French Laundry, by the way, got a they Jason Calacanis (01:12:29): they got David Friedberg (01:12:29): a big -- Laundry. They got a $2,600,000 PPP loan that got forgiven. So, you know, there's a there's a lot of heat on the French laundry as a whole. Jason Calacanis (01:12:37): What does it cost go to French laundry, $800 a person? Anybody who Chamath Palihapitiya (01:12:40): want who's listening to this, who wants to go to the French laundry, stay at home, pour a bunch of salt on whatever you're gonna eat, Okay. David Friedberg (01:12:48): Melt a stick of butter in the microwave. -- a stick of butter in Chamath Palihapitiya (01:12:50): the microwave. Drink it, and then basically take it $1500. Blite it on fire. You bit to the Frenchliner. Jason Calacanis (01:12:57): You're welcome. Here's what you do. Take a really great steak, trash, Chamath Palihapitiya (01:13:00): and that place is fucking a cube, Jason Calacanis (01:13:02): and throw out 80% of it. That place is in trash. cube in the middle of a big, large plate. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:13:07): That it that that's not even nouveau Reese. It's just nouveau stupid. True. Jason Calacanis (01:13:11): Oh, I got trash. Meanwhile, people are down in, like, Texas getting, like, a a brisket burrito for David Friedberg (01:13:18): $4. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:13:20): But I think California really needs to fix this. We need to figure out what's going on. And Alright. David Friedberg (01:13:25): I I just wanna ask one more question of you guys. You don't think that this you know, because I was having this debate with my family about Newsom, and I was telling them about the perspectives I was hearing from people and why everyone's so against Newsom. And I've heard all these different things that you guys have shared today. And, you know, they're very you know? And I'm hearing a lot of people kinda making the counterpoint like, This is a very difficult time. It's been an impossible year for everyone everywhere. So first of all, you know, Newsom was dealt a pretty difficult hand to play. And at the same time, we are all psychologically primed to look for grass being greener on the other side. I think a big part of you know, certainly, there's a lot of people leaving California belief for Texas and Florida, primarily because of taxes, and then you justify it with all the things that are wrong with California. But we're all really primed right now with this notion that that that it's a difficult place to be, but we're also really having a shitty year. We've had this pandemic businesses that have been shut. You know, everyone's sick. the economy is having issues. I mean, you know, there's there's there's a really difficult hand that's been dealt. David Sacks (01:14:27): Well, I don't I I don't buy that as an excuse for Newsom. I mean, that look. It is true that we're going through a very difficult time. But the reason I don't buy that as an excuse for Newsom is because this is not April or May of 2020. when we thought the fatality rate was 7%. And, you know, lockdowns could lockdowns could be justified then, but we now have so much more data. We've seen that states that did not do lockdowns like Florida and Texas, frankly, have been no worse off than those that have done very severe lockdowns. And so what is the point of continuing with this facade And and that is what I think we can legitimately blame Newsom for is the failure to learn and to change course based on data. Do adapt. Jason Calacanis (01:15:06): And where is the daily crunch briefing on what's happening? I think David Friedberg (01:15:10): -- And by the way, most of the spread is not happening at businesses. It's happening in homes, and in California, we have a particularly difficult problem because of multigenerational family homes, especially in the Latino communities that have been hardest hit by COVID. And the the transmission Jason Calacanis (01:15:26): rate -- Just skew with diabetes as well. David Friedberg (01:15:28): But, yeah, the transmission rate in those communities is 3 to 5 x what it is elsewhere. And I think, you know and that is not a result of businesses being open. In fact, those communities are also suffering the biggest hardships because businesses are closed. Well, by the way, Chamath Palihapitiya (01:15:42): this goes this goes to the vaccination strategy just being so idiotic. Like, you know, if you wanted to be equitable, then why weren't we just rolling through and basically getting those families to be vaccinated first independent of age. You know, you're you're you a -- Yeah. Apparently, also. -- all these vaccination sites, nobody shows up. David Friedberg (01:16:00): I spoke to SFDPH Department of Public Health about this last week, and they told me that they cannot get those communities. They're very non trusting of the vaccine. and they're having a real struggle getting people to sign up to take a vaccine. The problem is, even if that is the case, the problem is you should not be holding up vaccines for one community -- Chamath Palihapitiya (01:16:17): Then get everybody else vaccinated so they overheads. You cut the head off this fucking transmission. Jason Calacanis (01:16:23): Correct. Over 60 gets it. That's it. there's nothing to discuss. Let's wrap up. David Friedberg (01:16:27): Everyone everyone gets it, but you allocate a certain number of doses to you you basically have, like, a TSA pre check line. If you're over 60 or you're in certain communities, up to the front of the line, and that's it. But everyone can stand in line and put fucking shots in arms because everyone I know that's over 65 can't even get an appointment and it's bullshit. And the whole thing is it's it's incompetence. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:16:46): So I think but I think what Saks said is so right. It's like in these moments, Jake, and Friedberg. Like, a a light gets shone on the ability for people to figure things out. And then you know what the intellectual capability of these people are. And, like, look, we saw the intellectual incapability of Trump because we all said this guy could not adapt. Okay? And and so we are now seeing the intellectual incapability of Gavin Newsom. And I just think they're they're part of the same lot. They're just kind of you know, people who are in over their head. And they're beholden to people who got Jason Calacanis (01:17:26): them there. And their number one concern is staying in office, which means appeasing a bunch of special interest. Speaking of special interest, David Sacks is still on tilt about conservatives being canceled. David, you wanted us to wrap with this Wilkinson cancellation. So every podcast we're gonna have a right winger who's canceled, and David's justification for putting them back on Speaker 2 (01:17:49): the platform. Jason Calacanis (01:17:49): God, David. David Sacks (01:17:50): Well, actually so Yeah. This is this is this is the issue Cancellation of the Jason Calacanis (01:17:55): week with David Tanks. David Sacks (01:17:57): Yes. Yes. It's well, this is actually, it's not a it's not a left wing. It it So this is the issue to draw on social media right now is that a writer named Will Wilkinson was just fired from his job and canceled. But here's the thing, it was he's not a conservative. He's actually a liberal. Speaker 7 (01:18:11): What? David Sacks (01:18:11): And it was a yes. And it was a right wing tweet mob that got together to get inspired. Yes. And so Jason Calacanis (01:18:19): did you get this mop together to get him canceled? It's David Sacks (01:18:24): yeah. So David Friedberg (01:18:25): -- Jason Calacanis (01:18:25): We're back, everybody. So much for the wives dinner. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:18:28): Oh my god. Yeah. Jason Calacanis (01:18:29): You're gonna need another wives dinner. David Sacks (01:18:31): Well, no. I look. I I feel the need to speak out on this because I gotta make it really clear that I do not support cancel culture when perpetrated by the right against the left. I think it's David Friedberg (01:18:41): -- Jason Calacanis (01:18:41): What did he do? David Sacks (01:18:42): Okay. So he posted a tweet making a joke that maybe was importation all that funny. Basically saying that if we want unity, the one thing that, like, the Trumpers and the Biden supporters can agree on is hanging pence. You know? Jason Calacanis (01:18:55): It it's what? David Sacks (01:18:56): It's hanging -- Linching my pants. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:18:59): Linching pants is what? Exactly. Jason Calacanis (01:19:00): So you use the word lynching or hanging. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:19:02): He said -- He said hang, David Sacks (01:19:03): I think. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:19:03): No. No. I think he said David Friedberg (01:19:04): -- -- David Sacks (01:19:04): said hang. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:19:06): Oh, maybe. It's a Visa based, Jason Calacanis (01:19:07): and it's inciting violence on the march. But go ahead, Sax. It's in Portes. Yep. David Sacks (01:19:12): Well, no. Look. It it it's it's a it's a it's a joke that's not actually that funny and maybe in Portes. What he's referring to is the fact that the you know, that there were people on January 6th who were going after Mike Pence. Right? That was sort of the joke. Anyway, look, he'd that's not the point. He deleted it. He apologized for it. His boss is still fired him for it. Nobody believes that he was trying to incite violence. Okay? I mean, Come on. We all know that was not inciting violence, but but the mob pretended that he was in order to create its phony outrage And then his bosses have to pretend that -- Cater to us. Yeah. -- in in order to to appease the mob, and they pretend like it was incitement to violence so they can fire him. And then he even had to pretend that he was inciting violence because he had to then objectively apologize for it. And there's this that's the thing about cancel culture I really don't like is just is so fake and phony. We all have to pretend the things that aren't true in order to pacify some, you know, tweet mob whose outrage is manufactured anyway. And I don't like seeing the right doing this, and and that's what I tweeted about. And then we had all these people on the right responding to me saying an eye for an eye. You know? you know, the the left deserves this too. Now they're gonna get a taste of their own medicine. And the problem with that is, look, you know, you're you're you you might win this particular battle, but you're losing the war because you're now buying into the premise of cancel culture. You're now buying into this idea that we need to economically cancel people who disagree with us. And I I really reject that. Jason Calacanis (01:20:44): It's certainly bad timing to say Lynch or Hang, whichever word he used, obviously, lynching is a much worse word after people were chanting Hang Mike Pence, but he was making a commentary on that The joke didn't land. And when the joke doesn't land, you need to just take ownership of that and say that you shouldn't be canceled. You should say it was a poor attempt at humor. I apologize. David Sacks (01:21:05): Right. And, Jason, you know better than anybody else. Jason Calacanis (01:21:07): When a poor David Sacks (01:21:08): joke went. When a when a joke doesn't land. So -- Yeah. Jason Calacanis (01:21:10): I mean, it might. Here's one thing to learn about comedy. People don't remember the jokes that don't land. They they they remember the ones that land. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:21:18): Okay, everybody. It's like investing and start It's like you got a lot of losers to find the few winners. Jason Calacanis (01:21:23): Absolutely. That's my I'm a volume guy. You know that. governorchemof.com. governor sacks.com, governorfreyberg.com, and governorjs.com. Can I Chamath Palihapitiya (01:21:31): just say, Jason? Jason, if if Newsom is recalled, I I would like to put my name on the ballot, And my my my commitments are quite simple. I just wanna I'm gonna cut the taxes to David Friedberg (01:21:40): 0, Chamath Palihapitiya (01:21:40): and I'm gonna basically create an incredibly pro climate change jobs and protect jobs and prob biotech jobs economy. And I'm gonna raise teacher salaries, and I'm gonna give everybody a school voucher. David Sacks (01:21:55): Can we maybe maybe maybe on the next episode, we can all declare that we're running for governor and present our platform. Jason Calacanis (01:22:02): Oh, Chamath Palihapitiya (01:22:02): let's do that. Let's do that next Friday. Jason Calacanis (01:22:04): Next Friday. Alright. If I were to go to governorchemof.com, governor sacks.com, governor Wait. David Friedberg (01:22:08): Let's register our domain names. But register your domain name for the podcast launch. -- Jason Calacanis (01:22:13): registered all 4 of them, and the fall redirect to my Twitter handle. Thank you, guys. What'd you do? We'll see you all. I'm going. Love you boys. fight on the online podcast. Love you, besties. Love you, Saxx. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:22:24): Back at you. Speaker 2 (01:22:25): Back at you, Seabur. Jason Calacanis (01:22:30): we'll let your winners ride. Rainman, David Sachs. I'm going home. Speaker 4 (01:22:37): And I said, open source it to the fans, and they've just gone crazy like that. Jason Calacanis (01:22:47): for airliners ride. Best east are car. I don't know the 13th stop. That is plenty of dogs that Speaker 4 (01:22:54): you and I was driveway. Speaker 7 (01:23:01): We should only just get a room and just have one be cute, George, because they're all just useless. It's like this, like, sexual tension that we just need to release somehow. Jason Calacanis (01:23:09): What? You're the b p flirt David Sacks (01:23:12): your feet. Speaker 2 (01:23:13): What? What? Jason Calacanis (01:23:14): Where did you get Murkey's army back?