激进地方检察官、Facebook 与谷歌在澳之争及疫苗后的持续恐惧

David Friedberg (00:00:00): Cal, are you gonna do your Trump impression? Or you're gonna do your your -- Okay. Yeah. Jason Calacanis (00:00:04): Everybody, I'm getting my Twitter number back David Friedberg (00:00:07): next week. -- David Sacks (00:00:07): management syndrome right before we start the pod. David Friedberg (00:00:09): Wanna warm him Cat Cruz. David Sacks (00:00:10): This doesn't warm him up. It gets him deranged. Jason Calacanis (00:00:12): Get your show notes up, bitches. The way your winter's ride. Brainman David Sachs. Speaker 4 (00:00:23): And I said, we open source it to the fans and they discover reason. Love you. Jason Calacanis (00:00:33): Hey, everybody. Hey, everybody. Welcome to another all in podcast. With me today, of course, the dictator Chamath Palihapitiya, the queen of Kin Wah. David Friedberg. And, of course, yeah. Definitely the rain man is here. David Sacks, he's an excellent driver in the driveway. Yeah. Okay, boys. I guess we did it Chamath Palihapitiya (00:00:58): to episode 22. Your intro becomes 1 second longer for every episode we do. There's just so -- People love it. And people -- -- so laborious actually. You know what? They don't. They think it's so stupid. Jason Calacanis (00:01:08): I am you know, to understand persuasion. What I'm doing is I do the same intro, and it wants me to Chamath Palihapitiya (00:01:14): look into this stuff. We're still we're still talking about the intro. Okay. Let's just Jason Calacanis (00:01:16): you're see, everybody's obsessed about it. You prove my point. Alright, guys. Are we gonna dress? David Friedberg (00:01:22): Elephant in the room. Jason Calacanis (00:01:24): The elephant in the room, or do we just move on to topics? David Friedberg (00:01:26): I will say Chamath Palihapitiya (00:01:27): elephant in the room. David Friedberg (00:01:28): after the last show, I fought very hard with the 3 of you to not post that episode. You want it to can't. Jason Calacanis (00:01:38): You want to spike the episode. David Friedberg (00:01:39): I wanted to spike the episode, and I'll tell you why. I thought it was not good content. I don't think Vlad said anything new or remarkable or interesting. I don't think we had good analysis, and I think the whole thing kind of felt flat and felt like a PR stunt And I felt that truly and honestly, and I, you know, I made the case to you guys that we should cancel. Obviously, I lost And I think going forward, we should have a veto right, but, you know, we can talk about that offline. Jason Calacanis (00:02:04): Did you quit the show, or did you threaten to quit the show? David Friedberg (00:02:06): I threatened Chamath Palihapitiya (00:02:07): her with David Sacks (00:02:07): the show. -- now. David Friedberg (00:02:09): I'm I'm gonna after this, I'm gonna propose to you my rules, my ground rules for for going forward. One of which I think should be no more PR bullshit from Jason's portfolio. But, you know, besides that, I Jason Calacanis (00:02:20): think I might be able to David Friedberg (00:02:21): -- -- Jason Calacanis (00:02:21): hear a bestie guestie. Is that comdot come at the door? It's in dog. David Friedberg (00:02:27): And I I don't think that we're journalism. Speaker 6 (00:02:29): And I by the way, I David Friedberg (00:02:30): I don't I don't think that the journalism thing works for us. I think we're, analysts and commentators and, you know, we have opinions. And so to bring someone on and try and interview them with a four on one format, it just feels weird. It doesn't seem to work. It doesn't create an opportunity for discourse. And, frankly, you know, when you try and do journalism in this context, you either appear like you're softballing or you appear like you're doing Gotcha journalism, and I think both are bad. And so I think it works really well when the 4 of us just kind of chat and analyze and and shoot the shit and have opinions and talk and debate. And so my vote is to kind of avoid doing bestie guesties unless know, it's something pretty amazing and critical, and we can all kind of build a dialogue with that person around a topic. But yeah. So that's kinda my where where I'm sitting and and how I feel about it, that We've had a lot of debates, obviously, since since the last episode about it. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:03:20): Can can I can I build on what you're saying? you know, it this is, like, kind of like that really famous Teddy Roosevelt quote about sort of, like, the man in the arena with the dust on his face. Right? I feel like all four of us are in the grind doing things. And I think what makes the podcast good is it's almost like there's, like, you know, in a bad a ball game of four quarters, there's a time out and you come off the floor and you can actually just take a second to observe what you're seeing. And then the ref blows the whistle and you go back into the game. And I think for me, what makes this thing so fun is I feel like every Friday for these 2 hours, you know, it's basically the ref calls a time out or the coach calls a time out. And we can just kinda take a breath and just observe. Alright. What's happened? before we get back in the arena. And so, you know, just to your point, I don't think we're journalists and I don't think we should try to be because I don't think that's the point of what this is. It should be four friends talking about things that are important. And then to the extent that it's important and interesting for other people, they'll listen or not listen. And I think these last few weeks, we got caught up a little too much in, you know, ratings, where is it ranking? How can we go higher? And it's that the gamification of people's reactions that I think caused us, you know, to do that. Whereas the episode before, I actually kind of liked because Draymond is legitimately one of our really good friends. You know, we -- He's a bestie. David Friedberg (00:04:44): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (00:04:44): we see him we see him many, many times, obviously, less during basketball season, but a ton when he's outside, we play poker together. We all hang out together. So it's that to me, I think, is sort of inbounds. Last week, And then also, you know, last week, I would I think we were all supposed to be on point. I'll just tell you personally for me. I had an extremely crushing 2 weeks of work, I was extremely tired. I ended up literally unplugging and not doing anything for 3 days straight and sleeping. And so it well, I didn't even do my best even just to be either supportive or, you know, argumentative with Vlad. So I don't think I got anything out of it myself. Jason Calacanis (00:05:22): Okay. Coming around the horn and sacks, do you how do you feel that episode stands on its own? Obviously, it's very polarizing. We got barbecued in the comments. We got barbecued. on Reddit. We got barbecued on social media, but then there were a large number of people who said they really liked it. My mom David Friedberg (00:05:37): -- Speaker 6 (00:05:39): A Javelin. Dave O'Brien, PR. My portfolio manager. Right. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:05:44): I mean, Speaker 6 (00:05:44): there's a people Jason Calacanis (00:05:44): who liked it. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:05:45): The Guayel Pito is excellent. Speaker 6 (00:05:47): Right. There's twelve people in the lodge. Fun. Jason Calacanis (00:05:51): So let's give us your candid assessment because you weren't as hard as these other 2 on it. David Sacks (00:05:56): Yeah. I wasn't as hard as these other 2, and I do feel like that if they felt they that we were soft on Vlad, then they should have brought it harder. And they should have gone after Vlad and challenged him more. That being said, I completely understand and agree with what Friedberg is saying that, look. We're not journalists. We're not playing a game of gotcha. It's not our job to go after Vlad. I think a lot of the, you know, the comments on Twitter, that's what they wanted us to do, but that's not who we are. You know? Jason Calacanis (00:06:27): It's difficult for business too, Saxx. I mean, if you're attacking Vlad, and then the next day, we have to go into supporting founder mode It's kind of a bad look, isn't it? David Sacks (00:06:38): Yeah. I mean, it's not what we do. Right? Right. I mean, we we we are like Jamal was saying, we are in the arena. We're doing things. We're not critics sitting on the sidelines, pointing out, you know, what the doers of deeds did wrong. You know? And so it's not our job to you know, run an inquisition on on Vlad. You know? And so we're not really equipped to do that. I think I think Friedberg is right that it doesn't really make sense to have guess on the show if the job is to, you know, to get to the bottom of something as investigators. You know? We're not we're not investigators. Jason Calacanis (00:07:11): And It was, you know, a big story just to sort of put a cap in it from my perspective. You know, I'm always supportive of my guys. I try to be supportive of whoever I invest in, and I try to give them the benefit of the doubt. And this is a situation where, you know, people are up set, there were mistakes that were made. And so I think anything other than demolishing Vlad is considered by some constituency as a failure. Right? And so what are we supposed to do here? I can't be trashing my own company that I'm an investor and a supporter of and and founders who I believe in. David Sacks (00:07:43): It just would definitely authenticate it. There was a moment there was a moment in the pod, Jason, where I think, actually, the so on the whole, I thought Vlad did a did a good job in accomplishing his objective on our pod, which was the same objective he had in front of Congress, which was basically to run out the clock without saying very much. You know? And, you know, he he actually whoever prepped him for for congress did a pretty good job because he testified for 5 hours. and said nothing quotable, you know, which which is pretty much -- Kind of the goal. Right? Yeah. David Friedberg (00:08:14): -- David Sacks (00:08:14): situation. It's kind of the goal for for you. David Friedberg (00:08:15): -- Jason Calacanis (00:08:16): your head down. David Sacks (00:08:17): Yeah. Exactly. So but there was a moment in the pod last week where I think Lai got himself in a little bit of trouble. Friedberg did ask actually a pretty tough question about the guy in the street who who had lost all of his life savings, how would Vlad respond to that? He made this claim, well, I saved that person money because I shut down trading at the high. And and then we pointed out no. I mean, it it was a high because you shut down trading. You have the causation backwards. And then you you ran and said, woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. You know? Jason Calacanis (00:08:47): Well, my guy who's on the floor, Speaker 6 (00:08:48): I gotta pick him up. I David Sacks (00:08:50): What do Jason Calacanis (00:08:50): you talk about? Call the time out. I got in there. Speaker 6 (00:08:52): But let's David Friedberg (00:08:52): -- David Sacks (00:08:53): Yeah. Exactly. Yeah. Alright. Let's move on. Let's move on. Jason Calacanis (00:08:55): Do we talk about the insanely high profile guest that was plan for March 5th that just canceled on us. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:09:02): No. No. No. We should we should talk Jason Calacanis (00:09:03): about that. David Friedberg (00:09:03): -- Jason Calacanis (00:09:04): put on the because I you know, I this this the other thing about protocol, I'll just say Friedberg, is if we have a guest on, you cannot just spike the guest if they took the time to be on. David Friedberg (00:09:13): That was my Unless you tell them before they come on, I may That we might despite, Speaker 6 (00:09:17): you know David Friedberg (00:09:17): -- -- Jason Calacanis (00:09:17): doesn't code their David Friedberg (00:09:18): -- If we don't like it. Yeah. I think they Jason Calacanis (00:09:20): get that right? David Friedberg (00:09:21): None of us do this for profession. None of us are getting paid Speaker 6 (00:09:23): to podcast. David Friedberg (00:09:24): We don't have any advertisers. like, I completely agree. We're not here to get PR machine for people. I mean, Vlad had this freaking PR woman sitting on the Zoom call while we were doing it last week. You know? I, like, I just don't think that's Jason Calacanis (00:09:35): a little inside baseball that got interesting, I think. Explain what happened when -- Well, no. And we don't need Chamath Palihapitiya (00:09:39): to go there, Jason. I just think I just think what Friedberg says is right. Like, We we do this. We don't make any money from it. We do it because we like to talk. We I think we all learn from it. I think other folks enjoy it. They learn from it, but I do think that Freeburg's right. We're not gonna be used as a show. I think we're learning -- I don't bet. David Friedberg (00:09:56): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (00:09:56): which goes I think we're we're learning what the ground rules should be just like any other business. Flad's made mistakes. He's gonna change. We've made some mistakes, and we're iterating. And I think one positive iteration that Friedberg has proposed is If any one of us don't like an episode because we think it's basically moving away from our values, we should be able to spike it. And I I support that. Jason Calacanis (00:10:16): I support it generally, but I don't like the idea of inviting a guest on, and then it doesn't go out. And then telling you know, from our perspective, it makes us look bad. And then we tell the guest, well, you came out good. If we came out down, therefore, we're killing your opponents. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:10:30): I I don't think that's the point. I think what Friedberg says is, like, look. This is not for to be a marketing thing. And so -- Right. David Friedberg (00:10:36): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (00:10:36): we're gonna ask things that are exposed that are about having a real conversation where there's real honesty. And if you're gonna just be there and bat around as Zach said to run the clock out, then we're just gonna spike it. Fair enough. Fair enough. Jason Calacanis (00:10:49): I think if that's communicated ahead, I'm okay Chamath Palihapitiya (00:10:51): with it. By the way, come with your a game, and this is a great segue to talk about what actually we were a person that was gonna come on and realize that they probably were gonna get so pilloried that they basically spike themselves is David Friedberg (00:11:05): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (00:11:06): Yeah. They opted out. Chesse Boudin, the the district attorney of San Francisco. Tell tell the guys what happened, sex. David Sacks (00:11:11): Well, that we we invited him come on the podcast -- No. Jason Calacanis (00:11:14): No. We didn't invite to come. He, an intermediary, said that she could get him on the pod. Would we like to have him on the pod? We said, we discussed it. We said, sure. Have Chesta Boudnnan and then go from there, sex. We didn't, like, seek him out. He was David Friedberg (00:11:28): -- David Sacks (00:11:28): Well okay. David Friedberg (00:11:28): -- back counts David Sacks (00:11:29): us. So he he Great. So he but he agreed to be on the show. And then -- Yes. David Friedberg (00:11:34): -- David Sacks (00:11:34): you our scheduler got an email out of the blue like a day or 2 ago saying, sorry. He's not coming on the show. no explanation. Right? Isn't that what happened? Jason Calacanis (00:11:42): Yeah. That's basically it. David Sacks (00:11:44): I mean so look. Here's what I would say is, Chasa, Mister District Attorney, You don't have to come on the show, but I will challenge you to a debate anytime, any place, any format on your policies in San Francisco, So if you have if you have the way votes to invasion the debate, I am ready. And I thought Jason was a guy who had a little bit of courage. I mean, there was that night where people were discussing the situation in San Francisco and on clubhouse, and he jumped into the room. So I thought this was a guy who had some cojones. So, Chase, if you have if you have the Khotsbeth, you have the cojones, if you have the wave votes, Let's debate. Jason Calacanis (00:12:28): Let's debate. David Sacks (00:12:28): Let's talk about your policies. And by the way, he's an expert. This is what he does. you know, for a living expert. David Friedberg (00:12:36): Isn't he a defense attorney sex? You're gonna have a -- David Sacks (00:12:39): He was a public defender. He should he should mop the floor with me. I'm just Shelotekbro. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:12:46): Yeah. Techbro. Techbro. David Sacks (00:12:47): Who doesn't know anything who he can easily demonize? So I would say, come on. Let's go. Let's do a debate. I'll agree to whatever format you want, but we need to talk about what's happening in San Francisco because crime is out of control, and it's his fault. David Friedberg (00:13:02): trigger the young Spielberg Rainman song right about -- Here we go. Speaker 6 (00:13:05): Dropping. Boom. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:13:06): Damn the rainman. Speaker 6 (00:13:09): with me cackling inside. Should we, like, sex and hype men? David Sacks (00:13:12): Let's talk about it. We should talk about what's happening in San Francisco. Okay? So since since the last pod, there there has been another victim, Sherrya Masjoka, who was a a young young man from from originally from Kenya who he came to the United States for college just like Hannah Abe, who who was killed on New Year's Eve. He went to Dartmouth. All of his advisors said he was brilliant. He had a young wife and a three year old baby. He was in San Francisco for 10 days, goes out running, and gets hit gets gets killed by another drugged out hit and run driver who had been named let's say, I think it was Jerry Jerry Olee Adams or something like that. I don't have the the the guy's name, but he was arrested four or 5 times in the last year, and he was released every single time. by Putin's office. It's it's just like the New Year's Eve story where you had this repeat offender, Troy McCallister, hit you know, he was he had stolen a a car. He was fleeing another crime he had committed. He was on drugs, and he killed Hannah Abe and Elizabeth Platte. And this was this was another case where he was caught five times over the past year. And every single time he was not charged by Putin, he was just let go. And so we have this case. We have a a district attorney who doesn't wanna prosecute people. His agenda is decarceration. It's like a fire chief who doesn't believe in using water Jason Calacanis (00:14:44): Yes. And -- He he is part of the burn it all down party. Yeah. David Friedberg (00:14:49): Let me challenge you with the argument he might make, which I think I've heard him make a few times. which is really a position on the criminal justice system, not necessarily on local prosecution, but really what he says is once, you know, once someone ends up in the criminal justice system in the United States, it causes the cycle of recurrence and the cycle of repeat that is very difficult to get out. It it basically minimizes the opportunity for reform for an individual for a criminal to to reform themselves and to have a shot at being a successful member of society again in the future. And the objective is find other ways to to to kind of accelerate reform and not using incarceration as the only tool in the toolbox. What is, you know, what is the the argument back to him when he makes that point because I've heard him make that point a number of times and how do you kind of move past that that point with him? David Sacks (00:15:45): Yeah. So so The the the I'm not saying that incarceration is the only answer, but Putin's only answer is decarceration. He doesn't wanna prosecute anyone. He doesn't wanna lock anybody up, and we see the results immediately in this community. You have these repeat offenders Now killing people, they should have been locked up. It's you know, Putin's always putting forth these elaborate theories. This is, you know, the the social critical and article about it about why these crimes occur, and he never wants to put the fault on the people who are actually perpetrating the crimes. As always, economic desperation. He just put it forward a a theory that a decline in tourism is causing people to commit more home invasions Why? He he never watched yes. This was in the a subsequent chronicle article. Here, I'll pull it up on Jason Calacanis (00:16:34): the on Speaker 4 (00:16:34): the screen. Speaker 6 (00:16:34): I mean, Jason Calacanis (00:16:35): the other thing you left out, David, I'll say is And this was really, you know, hits home to anybody with kids is a food driver for DoorDash, not that it matters, which service, but was in San Francisco's Pacific Heights Neighborhood, which is the safest and most elite neighborhood. Ian, it's, you know, the Beverly Hills or Bel Air of San Francisco. And his car was carjacked with his four year old daughter and two year old boy inside. Now, of course, you should not be leaving two kids in the car putting that aside, that mistake, which I'm sure this father is suffering over. But he needed to make deliveries, obviously. He made a mistake leaving the kids in the car. But the we all got an Amber Alert last week on our phones. I mean, this is the law level of lawlessness. It's turned into escape from New York, level -- Right. David Friedberg (00:17:25): -- Jason Calacanis (00:17:25): Gotham City level chaos here, and the criminals know they will not be prosecuted. And this is the key criminal justice problem here. If you say you are not gonna prosecute crime and you demonstrate to the hardest corfaction of criminals that you don't prosecute, they're gonna take advantage of that weakness. And and that's what's happening. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:17:45): Let me take the counterpoint just for a second just so we can construct what the other side of the argument looks like. At the other side of the argument says, okay, these folks are largely, you know, engaged in an enormous amount of petty crime to support their drug habit. Right? I think that's probably the and that, you know, underneath that is just an explosion of opioids and fentanyl and whatnot. Underneath that is sort of economic uncertainty that's been compounding and just basically crusting over. And so folks would say, okay. These guys are a victim of a much broader economic malaise that needs to get fixed. I'm just I'm just you're shaking your head, Jason, but I'm just saying, I think that that's where the trail of breadcrumbs grows in the counter in the counter in the in in the counterargument. David Sacks (00:18:29): So -- Well, the the the these are these are the types of arguments that Jason makes in order to obfuscate and disguise that his real agenda is basically radical decarceration. You know? He's got this this childhood background where his parents went to jail when he was just a baby, and he grew up He says his earliest memories are visiting his parents in jail, and it profoundly affected his political views. Speaker 6 (00:18:55): And now we have to suffer through this. David Sacks (00:18:56): We're suffering David Friedberg (00:18:57): 44 -- -- Jason Calacanis (00:18:58): child to trauma. David Sacks (00:18:59): Here's his childhood trauma. And so so, Chamath, you're right about deeper causes, but it doesn't excuse the need to lock people up when they are dangerous to the community. And it's not just petty crime. I mean, let's let's go through the the actions he's taken as DA. Okay? So 1st week on the job just about, he abolished the whole cash bail system, okay, which voters in November just voted in with prop 25 to a firm. So voters of California want the cash bail system because it keeps criminals locked up. What Chase has said is that he would replace cash bail with an algorithm. Well, what exactly is that algorithm? He won't explain. well, he won't submit to 3rd party audit. There is no algorithm. They're just letting people go. Okay? Then the next thing he did was fire 7 veteran prosecutors in the DA's office who weren't on board with his agenda. These are people who have spent their whole lives prosecuting murders, rapes, I mean, hardcore crime, and it takes years of experience to learn how to be a prosecutor like that. So for him to just purge this office of these veteran prosecutors is a disaster for the city. I've been talking to people who used to work in the DA's office. And they tell me that the problem goes much deeper than that, that in addition to these 7 veterans he purged, Over thirty prosecutors, which is about a quarter of the whole office, have left under his reign because they don't like working for him. So, you know and he complains about being short staffed. He says a lot that he can't, you know, prosecute everyone needs to prosecute. He's so short staffed. The reason he's short staffed is no one wants to work for him. You know? David Friedberg (00:20:36): By the way, I think it's worth highlighting. This guy was elected. Right? So the the the city the voters in the city day -- -- Jason Calacanis (00:20:42): runoff if I stand. Right? David Sacks (00:20:43): He he won by something like 2000 votes. It was a tiny tiny number of votes. David Friedberg (00:20:47): Regardless, people voted him in on a platform that he very clearly articulated and is now realizing in office. So there was something about that platform that I think is worth noting was and is appealing. and and probably is to a large number of people -- Large versus it. Right? And -- David Sacks (00:21:05): No. The the the the part of it that's appealing, okay, is that is that is that we we do believe that there are too many people in prison and that a better and a better way to deal with a drug addict to commit, say, petty theft is to send them to treatment, okay, as opposed to putting them in prison. Right? So I think we can all agree on that. But but his agenda is so much more radical than that. He just doesn't wanna lock people up. Take take Troy McCallister. Okay? This is a dangerous person who He was he was facing trial for his 3rd strike. Okay? He committed armed robbery. He robbed the store with a gun. Okay? He he was facing a 3rd strike for that for that robbery. And one of the first things Chase did when he came in was basically releasing for time served. He basically pleaded that down. That was someone who's facing a life sentence. That is the reason why Hannah Abe and Elizabeth Platt are dead is because he didn't wanna prosecute that's a violent offender. David Friedberg (00:22:03): Exactly. I I I'm not disagreeing, by the way. I think, like, what is interesting to me is that so many people have an eye on and agree with the notion that criminal justice system needs reform. The problem is realizing that reform with a radical district attorney doesn't really resolve to a solution. It resolves to more problems on a local level. Jason Calacanis (00:22:24): Here's what David Friedberg (00:22:25): I'm saying. And and and even Chaso said this publicly, which is, like, you can't just solve this problem from the DA's office. It is a much bigger and broader problem. And the radical action he's taking isn't solving any problems. It's creating far more. And I think it is worth noting, though, that there is should and likely will be, especially with Kamala Harris as vice president some attempts at reforming on a federal level, you know, how how how criminals are treated, how the system realizes opportunities for them to reform and and come back into society as productive members. But to your point, you lose all sense safety and security if you try and do it solely on the local level. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:23:05): Well, let me let me ask a question. Like, look. Now we have basically political activism and judicial activism on not just the right. Right? People used to Pillery Trump for putting in all these, you know, extremely conservative judges who felt they were gonna just sort of like legislate their own point of view. You know, supreme court nominees who were gonna try to overturn Roe v Wade But it turns out it's happening on the left as well, I guess, just more at the local level. How pervasive is this? Like, Meaning, the issues of San Francisco, are these are these the same issues of other cities and towns in America? David Sacks (00:23:38): Well, I mean, you've got Gascon in LA who's running the exact same agenda as, he's not prosecuting third strikes. He was just sued by an organization of deputy DAs, and the judge is now requiring him to uphold the law, which is 3 strikes. He will not bring 3rd strike charges on his own. He's also this is both Gascon and Putin now have prohibited prosecutors from attending the parole hearings of dangerous convicts murderers, rapists, whatever. And victims groups are up in arms because they need a prosecutor to go there and explain to the parole board why this person does not deserve to be released. And so you now have recall movements forming and by the way, they've also done stuff like take death penalty off the table. They've take taking gang enhancements off the table. They're, like, voluntarily they're unilaterally disarming their their the the prosecution teams. They're taking away weapons at their disposal to lock people up. And this is why you're already seeing recalls forming around gas going in LA. There's now a recall of boot and forming in David Friedberg (00:24:42): San Francisco. David would Chamath Palihapitiya (00:24:43): go back to what FreeBird just said. They're probably not doing a bait and switch on their platform. So let's just, like, what do you think it is about what they are saying that resonates on the way in with the plurality of people. David Sacks (00:24:58): Here here's the thing that resonate. And and and it's not that again, it goes back to this idea that incarceration is definitely not the only answer. This is where I agree. The problem is Buddin is on the other side of it where decarceration is his only answer. Right? We need to use multiple weapons or tools or tool kit here. So so hold on. So for for example okay. Let's take the let's take the drug addict who commits a petty petty theft. We all agree that person should go to treatment not to jail or prison. Right? A nonviolent -- Of course. -- offender. Okay. Jason Calacanis (00:25:30): Reason. But David Sacks (00:25:31): how are you how are you gonna get that person to go to treatment? Because right now, there is no leverage whatsoever to get that person to go to treatment because Putin's is not bringing charges. He's not prosecuting. The choice should be given to that person. Listen. You can either go to jail or you can go to treatment, which is what's it gonna be. Yeah. That's right. Right now, we have all these social services. Guess what? Nobody uses them. because a hardcore addict is not gonna avail themselves of those services. I David Friedberg (00:25:56): I would make the argument that we have a broader, bigger problem with the criminal justice system as it operates. And it is deep, and it is complex, and it is freaking awful. There's a book from a few years ago that this guy named Shane Bauer wrote I'm just trying to remember the name. I think it's called American Prison. And the guy goes undercover, and he goes and works in a in a in a in a penitentiary in Louisiana. and he reports on what the conditions are like. And these are these these prisons that are run by private companies that are contracted by the state locally. Jason Calacanis (00:26:26): Yeah. David Friedberg (00:26:26): And what it's like to be an employee, one of companies and what these employees do and how the prisoners are treated, there is no system for reform once you end up behind bars in most prisons in the United States. And that is you know, he makes the argument. Others have made the argument. That is a has a long history that dates all the way back to slavery in the United states. And in some cases, it's just about an attitude. In some cases, it's about unions, especially in California, where we have a a huge cost for for corrections and for the the health care and the pensions for corrections officers. And so there's a lot of complex competing interests in history that relates to why this criminal justice system doesn't largely work and look at, like, at how things are working. And so the problem is everyone sees this or a lot of people will see this. Voters will see this system. treating people poorly, being inept, being corrupt, being racist, being racist, and they wanna fix it. And the way they fix it is they see a guy who shows up, and he's like, I'm a sledgehammer. and I'm gonna fix it. I'm gonna take care of all these people. And the reality is when you try and take a shotgun and shoot it inside of a room, it's gonna cause more problems than good. And I think that's really what he is. He is a manifestation of the anger of voters and the anger of people that look at how complex and racist the system is and how difficult it is to resolve these problems. And we're all looking for a simple big hammer answer and he's got the biggest mouth around, the biggest man. Speaker 4 (00:27:52): And that Speaker 6 (00:27:52): and that and that David Friedberg (00:27:52): and that's why people vote for him. Jason Calacanis (00:27:54): Alright. Chamath, and then we'll wrap David Friedberg (00:27:55): it in. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:27:56): Absent a few words specifically racist. If you took that out, you could use that entire statement you said and describe Trump as well. Meaning, the left and the right are moving to these polls where it's all about authoritarian sort of strong men. At the federal, state, local level, folks to your point, David, that just wanna go and take a sledgehammer to things and depending on your political beliefs or depending on the biases or depending on your life lived, You're gonna gravitate to these two poles. And what's crazy is over the next 20 or 30 years, these polarizing figures will become crisper, sharper, smarter. You know, they'll find a way to ferment all of all of the support without any of the long tail shittiness that Trump figured out. Like, Trump was you know, he's like a beta test of an idea. Right? He was like version 0.1. Wait till we see version 1.0 of the American strongman or strong woman. It's really gonna be fucking scary. David Sacks (00:28:57): Well yeah. And and this is this is a guy who what was a fan of of Hugo Chavez long after he revealed himself to be a strong man, intent on ruling for life. And so, yeah, he is very much in that mold. He is a sledgehammer to the system. But but, look, I think and and the problems are big and complicated. But, look, we all have a role to play. The reformers have a role to play. Public defenders and defense attorneys have a role to play. and the district attorneys and prosecutors have a role to play. And the problem we have right now and the role of the district attorney is to prosecute it. Okay? David Friedberg (00:29:31): -- Jason Calacanis (00:29:31): think that this by the way, Saxx is a very difficult problem to solve. I think there are just so many misaligned incentives. It's very clear that We don't try to reform people when they go to prison and that there's a weird incentive when it's a for profit prison and the customers and the revenue is based on how many people you have in the prison. So if we just get rid of that, there's no private prisons where people have an incentive to keep people in there. And then if we made treatment free for everybody and had overcapacity of treatment centers, and then we look at the drug schedule and say, These are the drugs that are not these are the drugs that are not harmful, and these are the drugs that are really, really, really harmful. We're looking at a fentanyl issue like it's a cannabis issue and that that's drugs. Cannabis versus fentanyl is like a nuclear bomb versus like, a slingshot. It there's no comparison between these 2 things. David Sacks (00:30:29): Right. And and but here's the thing. No one's going to treatment. when they're not forced all Jason Calacanis (00:30:33): entire life. Right? But there's no treatment to go to. Maybe the wait for treatment is David Friedberg (00:30:38): 6 Jason Calacanis (00:30:38): to 8 weeks, 12 weeks. David Sacks (00:30:39): That's not true. Jason Calacanis (00:30:40): In a lot of places. David Sacks (00:30:41): We we we have a lot of social services that aren't being used. There are there is a lot of treatment available. People don't wanna do it unless they really have to. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:30:47): Let me bring it back to where we were before. Maybe the right thing is to actually have a bunch of these sledgehammer folks go off for the next 10 or 20 years. You know? The trumps and the HSobudin's, maybe they're all the same, and maybe what we're all just saying is enough's enough. This system doesn't work, so let's just tear it down. every single brick of it, brick by brick at the local state and federal level. All all I'm saying is just I would just wanna get your reaction to that statement, Maybe maybe that's what we'll see. David Friedberg (00:31:16): -- David Sacks (00:31:16): people are that that is what Putin is doing is he is deconstructing the district attorney's office from the inside. he is destroying it. He is not bringing charges against people. He's driving away all the veteran prosecutors. He's bring David Friedberg (00:31:28): -- Jason Calacanis (00:31:28): To Chipotle's David Friedberg (00:31:29): -- David Sacks (00:31:29): He's bringing in all his he's bringing his his own people. who all were public defenders and have that mindset, and people are dying. Look. We could see the results right now in the streets, innocent people are dying. Hinn Abe, Elizabeth Platt, Cheerio, Muscardia. David Friedberg (00:31:43): -- Jason Calacanis (00:31:43): an emergency. But at Chichimat's point, is there any validity Saxx or Friedberg too the burn it all down, cause chaos, and then people come in and say, you know what? David Sacks (00:31:52): That's not gonna -- This needs to Jason Calacanis (00:31:53): be fixed. Let's have a nuanced discussion. Will Nuance be added to this discussion? Sachs or favor? David Sacks (00:31:58): We need to improve things incrementally. Okay? You're not gonna make things better by dismantling the whole district attorney's office. I mean, come on. We need to improve things incrementally. David Friedberg (00:32:07): Yeah. I mean, look, everything looks exponential until it cycles back. So, you know, you you're only gonna have so much evolution to Gotham in San Francisco until enough people put their hands in the air and say, okay. You know, time for a change. Let's go and let's start fixing this. David Sacks (00:32:23): They are. They are saying that. That's why we're having Jason Calacanis (00:32:26): that that's what I'm saying. -- recall Chesobuddin movement? David Friedberg (00:32:29): seeing a muscle and making it stronger, I think, you know, we're learning a lot about what approaches the criminal justice reform work and what approaches do not work. And it is clear that a local only non prosecution position is not gonna work with respect to both criminal justice reform and the satisfaction of the society at large. And we're realizing that. And I think we we are inevitably I mean, there's so many people that are up in arms. We are inevitably gonna cycle back the other way at some point very soon here. David Sacks (00:32:54): Yeah. And, honestly, I I think you guys are over intellectualizing this a little bit. You know? When when Sherrya died because he got hit by by that repeat offender, They asked his wife, who's responsible for this? She said, very clearly, the DA. That is who is responsible, and she's right. Let's stop over intellectualizing this. I know the problems are big and complicated. Frankly, people like Chase up prey on that. because they can kind of obscure what they're doing with, you know, some nice sounding obfuscations, some nice sounding words. But the reality is he's not prosecuting the way he needs to. We gotta stop this. Jason Calacanis (00:33:32): Yeah. And then it is possible to have nuance and to hold multiple ideas in your head at the same time, David. You could there's a practical reality to people cannot murder people People cannot drive in cars and run red lights on fentanyl while saying, the criminal justice system is incredibly biased and racist, and people who are of color in Texas, you know, wind up in jail for 5 or 10 years for selling a bag of weed, and then we're investing in companies that are making Weagummies or people are buying stock in weed companies at the same time. You can't have one person who's a black teenager in is going to jail for decades for doing what somebody in California or Seattle or Canada is getting an IPO for. I mean, this is a fundamental injustice in the world. And you're right. That's something my chest appraise on. But there must be nuance here where we look at each individual situation and say, what are the ways to solve the problem? surgically, not with a shotgun to David Friedberg point, but with maybe a scalpel and a and a sniper rifle, do we wanna move on to questions from our audience because they submitted hundreds of questions, or do we wanna move on to the Australian news and Facebook backing out of publishing news if that's Chamath Palihapitiya (00:34:41): a good thing Jason Calacanis (00:34:42): or a bad thing? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:34:43): Let's end with the q and a, I think. Sox What the fuck is going on with Facebook and Australia and climate change and this is insanity? David Sacks (00:34:50): Yeah. So I think what's going on in Australia is is contemplating a law that would require Facebook and Google. And I think just those 2 companies to essentially pay royalties for hyperlinks to to to to use publications. And I think this is mostly at the behest of some powerful newspaper magnates down there, I think, like Rupert Murdoch and David Friedberg (00:35:13): -- Jason Calacanis (00:35:14): It looks like you say magnates. David Sacks (00:35:16): It's like -- Well, they are. I mean, you know, And so it but but but this issue is is gonna be very closely watched by Europe and maybe even the US. It's basically a like a a wealth transfer from Google and and Facebook to the traditional media and to traditional publishers. This is an issue where I actually side with with Zuckerberg and Facebook on this. I mean, I threw up a little bit in my mouth saying that. But but no. But look. Tim Burners Lee has come out and said that it could really interfere with the open Internet and the worldwide web if you start to tax hyperlinks. I mean, historically, hyperlinks and the titles on hyperlinks were were were were were fair use. You could you could use those things without violating somebody else's copyright or need to pay them a royalty. And so I think that it's it's bizarre to me that that Facebook can and Google wouldn't now be able to use hyperlinks. And I'm kinda worried about where that goes. And, you know, I so David Friedberg (00:36:24): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (00:36:24): Well, Facebook Facebook said that they're not gonna publish links now for Australian News. And then but then they followed that up with they were also going to start dismantling any anti climate change content. I don't know if that's just just in Australia. David Sacks (00:36:39): Well, there's labeling. So there's another thing going on, which is they've decided not to label any posts involving climate change, which is part of the whole censorship debate. And and so yeah. I mean well, it's separate, but related in the sense that the traditional media is cheering on censorship. But then when Facebook essentially sensors these links because they don't wanna pay royalties to the traditional media, then the traditional media is up in arms. And so they're very selective in how they how they view these issues. My my principle is very consistent, which is I want an open Internet. I'm against censorship in all of its forms, and I And I you know? And I'm I'm worried that this new Australian law could really lead to some lead to an overall reduction or shutdown? Jason Calacanis (00:37:25): Here's what's really, I think, going on is that with fair use, the doctrine of fair use is a 4 part test you're a lawyer, obviously, you know all this, Saxx, but to sort of educate people in the audience who don't, there's no specific number of characters, no specific percentage of the original work that you can use you to clear yourself a fair use Fair use is a test when it goes before a judge. A judge looks at this 4 part test. The percentage of the work you used is the public confused. Is there some educational or criticism version of it? So if you were to use 10% of this podcast and you were to wrap it with you know, put us in a picture window, and you were 50% of it. And there was no confusion that you were commenting on this. That would be fair or if you were to use it in educational system and if you were monetizing it. Now if you were to just clip our podcast like this one website, clip the podcast that made 60 clips of it, took our file, and I sent them a cease and desist actually and said, hey. Don't do this. We're doing it ourselves. They fought us. And they said, we're fans. And I said, I don't care if your fans are not. You're not linking back. You're not giving us credit, and you're doing 60 clips. If you wanna do 1 or 2 clips and you wanna comment on it, that's fine. But you can't take all 60 clips and make a 60 clip version of this. And so fairness is in the word fair use. The problem with Zuckerberg and with how Google has used journalist content is, they are clipping out specific sections of it and putting it in something called one box on Google. So many of you might have said, how many people you know, how many pounds are in, you know, whatever or what time is this TV show on? And then the content that was made by the ringer or The New York Times gets clipped, and they put just that section, David, with an algorithm, and they give you the answer. so you don't need to go visit that website. This is tipping over into what I would call unfair use because you're -- Okay. David Friedberg (00:39:18): -- Jason Calacanis (00:39:18): eliminating the person linking. Now let me finish. Yeah. If it was just the URL and you didn't pull the headline, you didn't pull the abstract, and you didn't pull a photo, that would be fine. There is a very easy solution to this, which is If you wanna pull the link and the headline, you pay $0. But if you wanna pull anything else, David Friedberg (00:39:39): 100 Jason Calacanis (00:39:39): characters, etcetera. You need to get a license from that person unless you are doing actual criticism. So there's nothing to stop anybody in Australia right now from taking the screenshot of a New York Times story or an Australian, you know, newspaper story and writing some commentary on it. You just can't wholesale take everything. And so what we're seeing here is a real time negotiation between private parties into what is fair. And I think Google has a really rich history of sharing revenue. The app store, they give 70% to app developers. YouTube, they give 55% to creators. And with AdSense, they let you put ad on your website, and they give you David Friedberg (00:40:16): 68¢ Jason Calacanis (00:40:17): on the dollar or something in that range. They never actually disclose the exact percentage, but that's what I'm told it is. Facebook has given $0 to Instagram uses $0 to WhatsApp uses $0 to WhatsApp uses $0 to Facebook folks. They're too greedy. And what Facebook needs to do is either not use the content or come up with some reasonable payment and come to an agreement with these folks who are now banding together and they're realizing the traffic we get from Facebook and Google is not worth what they're taking away from with us, which is all that revenue that, you know, they earned in the free market. And so this is a free market debate, and I think the government should stay out of it to a certain extent and let the free market work, which is all publishers should get together in the United States and confront Facebook and say, pay us unless you use anything more than the headline. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:41:03): But Jason, I think these things are interconnected Right? On the one hand, if you're if you have an economic stake in distribution of content but then you're also then going to decide under, you know, an opaque definition what is truth or not truth, you all of a sudden just become I mean, the purest form definition of a publisher. Right? And I think it just becomes a very treacherous place for both Facebook and Google to end up in. So it's almost almost Jason Calacanis (00:41:32): paying the bell, by the way. David Sacks (00:41:34): Yeah. No. You're right. Google's paying for it Facebook, it's decided not to. But Facebook, they said something like only 4% of their their their posts involved this kind of content. So is this not a big deal for them the way it is for for Google. Jason Calacanis (00:41:47): Well, I think it is a big deal for Facebook. They're just trying to make a point here because Zuckerberg's -- Yeah. David Friedberg (00:41:52): Yeah. David Sacks (00:41:52): And they're they're being they're being they're being overly heavy handed in their response. Yeah. There's no question about it. They're they're throwing their weight around. It doesn't look good. But I'm not defending Facebook. I'm defending the principal. I mean, look, if this Australian principal were used, you wouldn't have the drudge report. You wouldn't be able to create a sigh of of news links. Jason Calacanis (00:42:09): No. You could if it was commentary. You could put the link and write commentary. It's when you just rip the links. People are objecting David Friedberg (00:42:15): -- David Sacks (00:42:15): Understood. -- to Jason Calacanis (00:42:15): ripping the links without any commentary. Judge Report rewrites the headline, puts his own spin on it, and then links, he would never get caught into this, and there is no publication that would ever object. what they're objecting to is taking the photo, taking the first paragraph, and the the the the synopsis is 30 or 40 percent of the value. And so Facebook is a better and Twitter what their algorithms are better front pages than the New York Times front page. David Sacks (00:42:41): Well, why isn't this applying to Twitter then? Jason Calacanis (00:42:44): I I think it will ultimately. They'll they'll go there as well. I think this will become the test case, which is if you want to take more than just the headline, and, like, you know basically, that's it or the URL. If you wanna have that little snippet, pay us. Pay us something. It doesn't have to be a lot. But this could actually solve if these networks that are making tens to 100 of 1,000,000 of 1,000,000 of David Friedberg (00:43:07): 1,000,000,000 Jason Calacanis (00:43:07): of dollars, if they just said, you know what? David Friedberg (00:43:10): 1% Jason Calacanis (00:43:10): to the news organizations to keep them viable, just like anybody else would pay on the licensing fee for terrestrial Why David Sacks (00:43:18): is why is the Australian government setting the price? And why are they only applying this to Google and Facebook? Jason Calacanis (00:43:23): Well, the I think gonna go right down the line. I think it's just a starting point. But to my point, I said earlier is I don't think the government needs to do this. Right. I think the news organizations on mass should get together and put their foot down and say no. And if they did, they would get paid. David Sacks (00:43:36): It sounds like what the government should do is clarify what fair use entails. And then Maybe it's just a maybe it's a link plus a title. I I mean, look, it's it's never just a link. Right? It's a hyperlink plus the David Friedberg (00:43:48): -- The snippet. -- David Sacks (00:43:49): plus the work. Yeah. Exactly. Jason Calacanis (00:43:50): Yes. The snippet is the issue. David Sacks (00:43:52): Right. So fine. So the government should clarify what fair use is. And then if Google and Facebook, whoever want more, They gotta go and negotiate for it. Jason Calacanis (00:44:00): Exactly. David Sacks (00:44:01): But but Australia is doing more than that. They're setting the price, and they're limiting their overreaching Paul see just to Google and Facebook because they know that if they applied it to everybody, Jason Calacanis (00:44:10): it would take the Internet. We we already do this in the United States, David, with local carriage of news organizations on terrestrial TV. So we already we already mix it up with the FTC doing this with licenses and the public good. So it's the extent Speaker 7 (00:44:24): I think the other thing that, you know, is gonna happen with all of this is like on the other on the other side of this, the actual media organizations themselves that theoretically could benefit from this are frankly just going out of business anyways. I I there's a, you know, there's a Wall Street Journal alert for the owner of the LA Times who's about to sell the times. Like, It's very likely that the times in David Friedberg (00:44:45): 4 Speaker 7 (00:44:46): or 5 years doesn't even exist. So I don't really know where all of this goes. It accept that, you know, everybody's just gonna be an individual person blogging and tweeting whatever opinion they want. Right? So there'd be no money to pay anybody because it won't really matter. But what will be left is then these rules on arbitration a fact and fiction. And I think that that's where we're gonna end up. That's gonna be a crazy place. Because then those folks those folks then really are the puppet masters. David Sacks (00:45:14): Yeah. I I I I I agree that these traditional publications have, like, a fundamental business model problem, and it's not gonna be salt like, I think there's a a like, a misplaced blame on Facebook and and Google. I mean, the fundamental problem with all these publications are, you go search for a news article on something, and there's, like, 10 versions of the same thing or more, a 100 versions. And, you know, when when newspapers we saw thousands of newspapers all across the country, and they had a the local geographic monopoly. But once it all got digitized and moved online, you realize how much redundancy there was. You have thousands of reporters claim the exact same thing. And there needs to be consolidation. It doesn't make sense to have a 100 article. David Friedberg (00:45:52): Not only that, but a point we made last time, which is, you know, facts have largely commoditized or most facts. Like, you know, remember, we used to open the newspaper and look at what the stock market prices were. We we opened the newspaper and looked at the sports scores. We looked at what happened in this place and this place, facts about events, facts about the prices of things, facts about sports scores, that's all completely commoditized. I mean, that's, like, 90% of the content of what people used to read the newspaper for has gone online. And so as we talked about last time, newspapers and publications of the like have largely moved into, you know, different sorts of narrative. And, you know, it's created a marketplace that has a lot more competition because anyone can write that as we are we're seeing with sub stack and medium and Chamath Palihapitiya (00:46:36): As we're seeing with our own podcast. David Friedberg (00:46:38): And we're seeing with our own podcast. And I think that's This feels to me like, you know, I went to a media conference back in 2008, and there was this huge battle between Google and Viacom. And I I was at the conference, and I think Larry Page is on stage or someone or Eric Schmidt was on stage, and the Viacom CEO got up. And he's like, when are you gonna start paying us for our content? And I think that that and you really screamed at him in a room of, like, 800 people. And I feel like that same kind of point of view has persisted until there's finally some legislation that they feel kinda gets them justice. Meanwhile, the world has passed them by. And, you know, I think this this will be kind of some transitory legislation that ultimately content is gonna democratize anyway, and the content creation is gonna democratize. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:47:26): Last topic for me because I really want Friedberg's answer to this because I also just saw an alert how the federal government is opening up a vaccination site in Miami Dade County. I actually saw Francis Suarez retweeted. What the hell is going on with vaccinations? Are we gonna get vaccinated soon? David Friedberg (00:47:43): I said it in December, and I I tweeted about it. And I've repeated it multiple times since that the US has enough supply to vaccinate pretty much anyone that wants to get vaccinated because we are producing and delivering 3 to 4 million doses per day in the US right now. And there is a just a fundamental issue, especially like I mean, look at California, you know, they haven't opened up, quote, unquote, vaccination to people outside of tier or what they call tier 1a. And so this is much more of a kind of policy issue then an administrative issue, then a supply and demand issue. There's enough people that want the vaccine and there's enough vaccine. So just let people get fucking vaccinated. And so I feel like the market forces are now kind of converging with policy a little bit more than they were a month ago. And the policymakers are no longer fighting and complaining about supply and complaining about constraints. You know, we've got mass vaxxites now in California the amount of money that's being wasted, by the way, in this process makes me wanna vomit every time I read about it. That's a whole another separate issue. But it feels to me like we're probably May, June, when enough people are vaccinated that we can have, you know, a circumstance where people are gonna fly without masks and be comfortable doing so. But I'm sure there will be these over you know, constraining rules around what people can and can't do in public for a very long time. Like I mentioned, what happened, I do wanna say one thing that I've noticed. we we were we were all we played some poker the other night, and we were with a a friend who got vaccinated. And I was like, he said, this is my first time playing poker with people, and I was like, well, you got vaccinated. Like, why aren't you? He's like, well, I don't know if other strains are gonna get me or if this thing's evolving and other people are gonna get sick. And if you think about what's happened over the last year, people have been conditioned to be afraid. And so even though we're getting vaccinated, even though this thing is moving and working, I'm concerned that we're not gonna end up in a more simple state. Schools aren't opening. David Friedberg (00:49:38): people aren't flying. People aren't doing stuff even after vaccinations and science and data shows that these things are okay. Jason Calacanis (00:49:44): in Florida. David Friedberg (00:49:44): And maybe there's some things that maybe there's some cases of it, but what I'm saying is, like, you know, the human subconscious gets trained first, and then our conscious mind rationalizes what we feel. We've all now been trained over the past year to be very afraid. And then we all come up with these rational excuses about why I can't do x, y, and z. It's like, but you've been fucking vaccinated. You're fine. Like, all the data, all the science says, go do whatever you wanna do. Go into a nightclub, sweaty, next to people robbing beat the music. -- Jason Calacanis (00:50:15): Bloomberg. Yes. Tell us tell us about the throbbing nightclubs. Yeah. David Friedberg (00:50:19): It's like that scene from you Jason Calacanis (00:50:20): so animated. David Friedberg (00:50:20): It's like that scene from Goodwill. I think, remember when he talks to the psychology, he's Jason Calacanis (00:50:23): like, tell us back Speaker 6 (00:50:24): your rave stories again. Activate the 4th emotion. David Friedberg (00:50:28): 4th, yeah, throbbing rave, give up to the mom. Whultating music. -- bodies and -- Jason Calacanis (00:50:34): Did the molly just kick in Friedberg? Speaker 6 (00:50:36): Did you drop a molly at the start of the pod? David Friedberg (00:50:38): But my point is, like, people are really afraid. And I think -- Jason Calacanis (00:50:41): I just got the best idea for an episode. David Friedberg (00:50:42): The biggest concern I have is frankly less about are we gonna get vaccinated. I feel like the convergence between market forces and government nonsense is now gonna allow us to all get vaccinated. But the the issue is really gonna be like, how do you break through these rules and the fear that that basically become Chamath Palihapitiya (00:50:57): I want but I don't understand. Where where are the max vaccination sites in California and who's eligible? Like, why aren't we just making this thing like a drive through? David Friedberg (00:51:05): We used to David Sacks (00:51:06): This is David Friedberg (00:51:06): where we can absolutely pick up right now. David Sacks (00:51:08): It's it's one that's ridiculous. David Friedberg (00:51:09): You gotta -- We all have absolute violent agreement that California is so messed up with respect to how we're vaccinating. We have so much supply. We're sitting on half our frigging supply right now in California. 30,000,000 Jason Calacanis (00:51:19): vaccines sitting on shelves. We are now at 75% deployed, David Friedberg (00:51:23): 80% deployed. -- got, like, 4 1,000,000 vaccines sitting in storage. David Sacks (00:51:26): It should be a drive through, and you just get in line and you go. Jason Calacanis (00:51:29): And instead what we're David Sacks (00:51:30): doing is in no. But in what we're doing now is you gotta schedule Jason Calacanis (00:51:34): an appointment. -- is bullshit. David Sacks (00:51:35): Because you first, you gotta qualify, then you gotta schedule an appointment. And then the the the clinic, whatever's only open from 9 to 5, And so, like, how many doses they really administering when you gotta make an appointment? Probably 1 every half hour. So maybe they get through sixteen people a day David Friedberg (00:51:49): or something like that. Qualifications? David Sacks (00:51:52): Yeah. I think I find a $1,000,000 and lose their medical license if they inject the wrong person. So, I mean, you're talking about 16 people per day at a site when they could be doing a couple of 100. I mean, it's crazy. Jason Calacanis (00:52:03): Well, Johnson and Johnson is coming, and that's refrigerator stable. Right? Friedberg -- You don't even need it. -- have bought David Friedberg (00:52:09): 1,300,000,000 David Sacks (00:52:11): vaccine. But let me let me go back to Freberg's point about when will life get back to normal. I'm not as pessimistic as you are, Dave, about the this idea that life won't go back to normal. And part of the reason why is I'm seeing so much outrage about school closures right now. California is one of the only states in the country that still completely closed all the schools, and people are absolutely up in arms. I'd say it's as big an issue as this floating crime issue. Crime is a big issue in the cities, and school closures is the big issue in the suburbs. And if these two things don't turn around, I think Avenue's gonna recall. I mean, people are just on fire about this. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:52:47): Yeah. David Friedberg (00:52:47): But, I mean, my point was, like, our our wealthy conservative you know, a friend that lives in Florida was afraid to go do stuff even after he's been vaccinated. Yeah. And I think that's what's permeated everywhere. It's just like there's Jason Calacanis (00:53:01): been Friedberg. It's like a shark attack. You know, if there's a shark attack, you know, at Half Moon Bay, whatever, people don't swim there for a couple of weeks, and then somebody swims and they're like, oh, the water Right? People will jump back in. I think it's April, David, to your point of when this goes back to normal. Because if you look now, people have been saying, free brew. Correct me if I'm wrong. would you put a 5 x multiplier on the confirmed COVID cases, a 4 x multiplier David Friedberg (00:53:24): at this point? 5 x, I think, is the right median median. So if Jason Calacanis (00:53:27): you have David Friedberg (00:53:28): 30,000,000 Jason Calacanis (00:53:29): people who've had the vaccine had COVID, you're looking at five times that is a 150. Now you have 60,000,000 people who have been vaccinated were at 210 were 330,000,000 Americans, 70,000,000 are under our kids. So, you know, we're we're basically getting to herd immunity. And if you look at the slopes right now, What is causing the drop in cases this massively, David? Is it herd immunity, vaccine, or are people suddenly wearing masks What is it? David Friedberg (00:53:54): There there's complexity because everyone assumes that there's one thing that affects the whole population. But remember, the way viruses work is they're hyperlocal. And so the local population dynamics looked at on a scale is where you see the statistical results of the scale And so, you know, we saw this in North Dakota. A bunch of people got really sick. They got to herd immunity in communities, and then all of a sudden it dropped off the curve. when you zoom out and that's happening, combined with behavioral changes, combined with vaccines, then you start to see these statistical things happen at scale. So it's not a simple answer, but the answer generally can be we are coming down the slope, we are getting to a point of, you know, general, like, low case counts, low death counts, slow fatality, and we should be living a normal life, allowing our economy to kind of progress again. And we're still caught up in this kind of fear fear fear cycle. day Jason Calacanis (00:54:43): Let's just do this end on this. Pick a date when you think all 4 besties are vaccinated. I'm gonna say April 1st. June. June? Okay. What do you got for your break? I say April 1st, we're all gonna be vaccinated. David Friedberg (00:54:54): Literally a choice. I mean, any one of us could go get vaccinated in the next month. I mean -- Jason Calacanis (00:54:58): How? None of us are over 30 PMI. I mean, Saks was for a minute. David Friedberg (00:55:03): California's opening 1 b. A lot of the other states are opening broadly. If any of you wanted to get on a plane and go get vaccinated, somewhere else he could. I mean, there's places now that have open vaxx or will in the next 30 days, you can go get vaccinated. Speaker 6 (00:55:13): So -- So Jason Calacanis (00:55:13): you say 30 days, which would be March 15th or David Friedberg (00:55:16): I think that's a choice for the 4 of us. If you guys wanna hop on a plane, we can go get vaccinated. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:55:20): Does anybody have access to a put? Sorry. But doesn't that con you're you're you're saying in an open vaxx state anybody can show up without proof of right now. Jason Calacanis (00:55:28): You have to have a driver's license. I've looked into this. David Friedberg (00:55:30): There have been different ways that this has played out, but generally speaking, there are market forces at play where, you know, where there's a will, there's a way. Not saying that you're cutting line and screwing people over, but there are vaccinations that are happening all over the country now. with people that wanna get vaccinated. In in by the way, in California next week, tier 1 b opens up. So anyone Chamath Palihapitiya (00:55:48): What does that mean? What does tier 1 b? David Friedberg (00:55:50): it's a total d s definition. It is absolutely ridiculous. I absolutely think this is the biggest waste of time and money ever. But tier 1 d definition in California is health care work sorry, childcare workers. So anyone that's a teacher or works with children Jason Calacanis (00:56:04): kids. David Friedberg (00:56:04): If you're nanny or your day care people, you know, wanted to, they could go in and get vaccinated. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:56:10): Oh, wait. Our our nanny can get vaccinated David Friedberg (00:56:12): starting next Wednesday in California. My god. And so all you need to do is go get to a VAC site with VAC scenes. And and by the way, they all a lot of them have vaccination supply now, or they will this weekend as apparently big shipment going out. And, also, all food and agriculture workers are loosely defined so people that work in grocery stores, restaurants, farm workers. Jason Calacanis (00:56:31): You're saying how much staff they get. David Friedberg (00:56:33): Anyone if you have a chef, they can get back to no. No, judge. Jason Calacanis (00:56:35): I think two people at a 4 on here might have chefs. I think 2 of us definitely don't. David Sacks (00:56:40): So so if you take care of your own kids and cook your own food. You can't get vaccinated, but if you do that for somebody else, you can. Jason Calacanis (00:56:47): So, wait, you're saying if you have a chef and you have nannies, you get vaccinated. David Sacks (00:56:51): No. You don't. I don't know what I'm saying is is you -- Yeah. David Friedberg (00:56:53): If you're a chef or a nanny for someone else, you can go get vaccinated next week. David Sacks (00:56:57): Right. But but if -- David, what do you want Jason Calacanis (00:56:59): for dinner? I'm coming over right now to make whatever you want. I'll watch your Speaker 6 (00:57:02): kids this weekend, Dave. Get me a shot. David Sacks (00:57:05): It's so insane. We have all these ridiculous job categories and distinctions. It's just like with the lockdown policy, they had 10 pages of exceptions for essential workers. Listen, if you've got a policy with 10 pages of exceptions, the policy doesn't make any sense. David Friedberg (00:57:19): Yeah. Like all the like and this caused all the controversy in LA. Like, anyone that works in the movie business is an essential worker. But people that work the people that work in restaurants at bars are not -- Let's David Sacks (00:57:30): see this for what it is. It is payoff to Doosem's political supporters. The the the politicians are using They use essential worker exceptions, and now they're using vaccines as political capital. They dole them out to their supporters. so that, you know, in exchange for, you know, votes down the road. Jason Calacanis (00:57:49): Also the remember the exception, David, if you serve more than 7 courses in your prefix, you can get a vaccine. So that is the French laundry. If you add an amuse boost and an intermezzo, you qualify for the vaccine. There are people going to states renting houses and getting driver's licenses and getting vaccines. I know about Yeah. David Sacks (00:58:10): It's called vaccine tourism. David Friedberg (00:58:12): By the way, think about it this way. In 6 weeks, I think a lot of those restrictions are gonna fall by the wayside because the supply is gonna completely outstrip the nonsensical, you know, restrictions and prioritization methods we put in place And hopefully, god willing, these idiots who have the ability to vaccinate people, open up their sites 247 and drop all the bullshit questionnaires and registration requirements, let people drive in, get a shot, wait 15 minutes, and leave, and have just some basic principal people on-site that can take care of people if they have a adverse allergic reaction and get shots in arms. We have the shots We have the supply. We're gonna be oversupplied by May. We are gonna have far more shots than there will be demand. And so, you know, we just need to get this kind of nonsense thrown out the the window. Straight to Jason Calacanis (00:58:58): Q And A. This is from Vadesh. He says, where are you investing your money over the next 10 years. So Friedberg, you wanna start, and then we'll go to Saxon then I was talking about this David Friedberg (00:59:12): pretty largely you know, on the podcast, I mean, two areas that are super interesting to me that I'm spending a lot of time on is obviously biomanufacturing. so the idea that we can kind of move away from traditional animal based agriculture and systems of production to systems where we use genetically engineered microbial organisms to produce molecules and materials and food and that that that's system of production can have a radical impact on on the environment, on the opportunity for jobs, on the cost of goods and and things that humans want and consume. And that's that's a primary area of interest for me, and I think it's a multi decade. I think by 2050, you know, we should see most of our goods that are manufactured rather than being made in the traditional sense, which is basically old technology scaled up which is what the industrial revolution did, but really shift to a new model of manufacturing where we use a smarter machine, which is a a biologic organism to So that that's my interest. Speaker 6 (01:00:16): Saks. David Sacks (01:00:17): Yeah. So I'm I'm focused on the area of bottom up SaaS, which is basically business software that can go viral. very much in the mold of Yammer, which was a company I founded and sold back a a dozen years ago. Jason Calacanis (01:00:30): You want the precursor to Slack. Let's be honest. David Sacks (01:00:33): Right. Jason Calacanis (01:00:33): It could have been 27,000,000,000, but you did not ride your winner. You took the quick Billy, and that was not a mistake because it lets you invest in the other 20 Correct? David Sacks (01:00:44): Kinda. I mean, so so Jason Calacanis (01:00:46): So you oh, you do have to chip on your shoulder about selling too early? David Sacks (01:00:48): No. No. No. Speaker 4 (01:00:49): It's not David Sacks (01:00:49): it's it's not Chip. I I would say that around the time that PayPal hit a $200,000,000,000 market cap and Slack had a David Friedberg (01:00:55): $27,000,000,000 David Sacks (01:00:57): outcome. I started realizing, you know, if I just stuck with my ideas longer, you know, I probably would would do better. And I'm like, you know, I don't really need to come up with a new thesis or a new idea. I already came up with the idea 12 years ago, which is to make business software viral. I'm just gonna keep investing in that thesis. So it's not that original or new for me, but But but it is you know, bottom up has become the, I would say, almost the the dominant mode now of David Friedberg (01:01:23): -- Jason Calacanis (01:01:24): Explain that to somebody who doesn't understand what you mean. Bottom up. David Sacks (01:01:27): Yeah. So so bottom up means that the entry point for the software is any employee in the company. They can just start using it. They go to your website. They start using it. They spread it to their coworkers. as opposed to top down. Top down is, like, the Oracle sales guy who carries a bag. It goes to meet with the CIO. And, you know, sells him a big expensive implementation. That's the and that's traditionally what business software used to be is a is a big top down IT sale. Bottom up is This is going in through the rank and fall employees. Jason Calacanis (01:01:55): Alright. Chemoth Palihapitiya. For the next 10 years, where are you putting your money? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:02:01): Two areas. In a well, it's not even 10. I would say for the next for the rest of my life. So it's I think these arcs are multi decade, but inequality and climate change. And so, you know, the inequality side, what does that mean? It's any business. Jason Calacanis (01:02:19): The second you said inequality and climate change, Saxx left. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:02:22): Like, he's going to throw up. He's just like, what? He doesn't even throw up. Speaker 6 (01:02:26): He just gets red. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:02:28): He went to throw up. David Friedberg (01:02:29): No. He's like, oh god. Yeah. Speaker 6 (01:02:30): Here we go. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:02:31): Oh, no. He's back now. Jason Calacanis (01:02:32): He's back. David Friedberg (01:02:32): Zach, did you throw up when Timoff said, like, holiday conversations out of your bag? David Sacks (01:02:36): What did Speaker 6 (01:02:37): you say is woke nonsense? Did you just go throw up? David Sacks (01:02:40): No. I I I I'm Speaker 6 (01:02:41): never said. You threw up. David Friedberg (01:02:42): He had to polish his glock. Speaker 6 (01:02:46): Bye. Just called the security DJ. He went said Chamath Palihapitiya (01:02:48): he kissed his gold bricks that David Friedberg (01:02:50): he keeps Chamath Palihapitiya (01:02:50): in his house. No. inequality basically means anything that evens the starting So they if that's -- Love it. David Friedberg (01:02:59): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (01:02:59): healthcare software that solves a chronic condition or if that's financial software that drives inclusion, And then climate change is pretty obvious, but the the panoply of things that we need to do to basically, you know, slow the warming of the earth Those are the 2 areas. Jason Calacanis (01:03:15): Huge opportunity. Huge. And I have for the dash if you even care, I take a remora like approach. if you don't know what a Ramor is. You ever see, like, a big shark, and then there's, like, a bunch of things stuck to it. And it's, like, following the shark, and it just eats whatever basically, what I do is I'm getting behind these three guys, and I just draft on these 3 sharks and just try to weasel my way onto their cap tables. It's a it's a living. You know? Basically, I Speaker 6 (01:03:38): go to Jason Calacanis (01:03:38): the poker game and try to Now in all sincerity, I am state I am vertical agnostic because I think the great companies make the verticals. They create the categories. and the categories don't exist. David Friedberg (01:03:50): At your stats Chamath Palihapitiya (01:03:51): particularly. Yeah. David Friedberg (01:03:52): What's that? At your earliest yeah. Jason Calacanis (01:03:54): Yeah. And so what I do in the early stage is I am focused on the process. And the process I'm trying to master here is what I do at usindicate.com, which is find great companies and share it with now 7000 accredited investors and let them decide, you know, how much they want to invest in each deal. And just to give people an idea, we are on a $60,000,000 run rate this year of deploy capital via the syndicate. In other words, it'll be four times, five times what my fund will do. fund has access to a 100% of deals, but the syndicate has access to 60% roughly. David Friedberg (01:04:28): So now that we've broken our no advertising role. Jason Calacanis (01:04:30): Yeah. No. I mean, we're we're all Trucking our book here. Let's take another question, and Angel is available from Harper Collins Business. What oh, here's a good one. What -- By the way, if David Friedberg (01:04:42): you wanna save money on car insurance, metro mile.com. Sorry. Go ahead Jason Calacanis (01:04:45): for miles.com. Absolutely fantastic. Also, the ticker symbol, what's the biggest investment Venture miss, you had early starting out that would have been a ridiculous return. What is our anti portfolio looking like Friedberg will start with you, then go Chamae, then go Saxe. Speaker 4 (01:05:02): Friedberg David Friedberg (01:05:03): -- I was with Jack Dorsey -- -- painful. -- in in at this conference, and he went around and did a pass to the half on who wanted to invest in his new startup called Square. That's my story. Jason Calacanis (01:05:18): What what is that? A 50 is that a $50,000,000 myth? David Friedberg (01:05:24): Yeah. I'm not gonna say it it it would have been bare. I mean -- You Jason Calacanis (01:05:27): put 50 k in at 10,000,000. But, David Friedberg (01:05:29): I mean, the here's by the way, an interesting thing going back to this the point made earlier and that we've said in the past, you know, when Square went public, there was a lot of questions and trepidation around its valuation. Big fund managers were poo pooing the company. And what's the market cap of Square today? Saks, you might know. 100, 120,000,000,000. Wow. I mean, 125,000,000,000 today. That's incredible. Right? Because, like, when they went public, people were kind of poo pooing it, saying this thing is a this is a sub $1,000,000,000 company. you know, it shouldn't be worth anything more than a $1,000,000,000 and look at it just a few years later. Anyway, yeah, I missed it. I missed that one on the seed round and And I've just watched with with awe, what -- By the way, the -- -- they need to to innovate to to build business. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:06:11): As a public company, it troughed at a $4,000,000,000 valuation. It did. Right. It did, like, 5 years ago. And so within 5 years, it's gone from 4,000,000,000 to a David Friedberg (01:06:20): 124,000,000,000. Jason Calacanis (01:06:21): I I was in a venture capital fund that invested in it. they distributed the shares. I sold half. And I was like, I'll just keep half. I like Jack. I sold half at 72, and now it's at 276. And so ride your winners, folks. Sachs anti portfolio, which one is the most painful. David Sacks (01:06:38): Honestly, I haven't missed that much just to be Jason Calacanis (01:06:39): perfectly frank. There you go. David Sacks (01:06:41): Jesus Christ. Unbelievable. David Friedberg (01:06:44): What a douche. What a douche. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:06:45): What a fucking douche. Jason Calacanis (01:06:47): Well, actually, I I analyzed my chess game with Peter Tio, and actually my check my castle Queen Side Castle was actually a brilliant move. he hadn't pinned my -- No. David Sacks (01:06:58): I mean, look. I I I I tend I I look. I don't overthink these things too much. I mean, it's why I'm in, like, 27 unicorns. If the company looks good, I I invest. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:07:10): Is it still it still help you feel it Speaker 6 (01:07:12): got believable? You have no problem. 16th ring. Jason Calacanis (01:07:16): But at 129 of the last 30 seconds. David Friedberg (01:07:19): No. What would you say your total, like, multiple is on all your angel investing? Like, do you understand what Jason Calacanis (01:07:24): that number is? Saks answer the question. Come on. The audience asked what you missed. Can you just be humble enough to say Speaker 4 (01:07:30): you missed something? David Sacks (01:07:30): No. No. No. I'll tell you. I'll tell you. So this was a sort of a semi miss is that -- Yeah. David Friedberg (01:07:35): -- David Sacks (01:07:35): is that -- Oh my god. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:07:36): It's not even a miss, am I miss. David Sacks (01:07:37): No. No. Well, here's how Jason Calacanis (01:07:38): I made up for it. Speaker 6 (01:07:39): No. No. No. David Friedberg (01:07:39): I only put in half my normal amount. David Sacks (01:07:41): No. No. No. Let me tell you what happened. I did miss it. So back in 2007, I thought Twitter was gonna take off. I had a, like, a former employee who wanted to sell secondary. And so, you know, I had a deal worked out to buy, I think, a couple $100,000 of shares at, I don't know, $40,000,000 valuation or something like that. And we submitted it to the company, and then they roofed it for because I think Chris for Chris Sakka, basically. I don't know if you remember. SOCI had set up, like, some secondary David Friedberg (01:08:09): -- Secondary thing. Yeah. David Sacks (01:08:11): So, yeah, the the fact that, you know, I wasn't able to complete that transaction probably cost me you know, a couple 100,000,000 bucks. Jason Calacanis (01:08:18): A Chamath? Anti portfolio, what sticks out? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:08:21): I have a I have a huge Airbnb. portfolio. Huge Robin Hood. You know, Airbnb at a billion, obviously, I actually did invest. I agreed to invest, but then I got into a huge public snafu with with Chesky because he was taking a bunch of money off the table, and then we ended up not even finalizing the investment. David Friedberg (01:08:38): And your letter was your letter was published. Your email deleted. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:08:40): My email was leaked. Yeah. It was leaked. So I was really pissed when they did that. But, anyways, that was a decade ago. Not much has changed, I guess. there is one thing that above all others, which is sadly also in my portfolio. my portfolio and my Andy portfolio is the same thing. You can guess what it is, but that's Bitcoin. At one point, you know, we controlled low single digits, mid single digits of the entire float. And had I held onto that? That's talking about, you know, a mid decabillion dollar position. So my anti portfolio in in the unrealized loss and unrealized gains or losses, if you will, on Bitcoin, is in the many tens of 1,000,000,000 of dollars. Jason Calacanis (01:09:24): Yep. Mine is clearly Bitcoin as well because I was reporting on it when it was 10¢, and I was one of the first journalists to write about it. and talk about it on my podcast. And I had, like, maybe 10 of these bitcoins in a wallet of that was Mount Cox, and it got hacked and it all went away. And then my wife bought it at under 200. And so now we have a joking house that my wife is going to because of her incredible trade. because she she saw it as well, return more on her. It's it's conceivable she'll return more than my entire investing career. So shout out to Jade for getting that one. David Sacks (01:09:59): Actually, I I made that mistake too that Shamoff made of of not hodeling enough long enough So that that is that Speaker 6 (01:10:06): is helpful. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:10:06): Did you see this article? I I fished this article out, but in 2014, I was buying a a a landed Martis Camp in Lake Tahoe. And I told the sales guy there, Jeff Fall, I said, hey listen, I'll buy this lot if you let me buy it in bitcoin because I wanted to promote Bitcoin. Bitcoin as a transactional infrastructure. So we went to a company called BitPay. They wired it up, and I bought it for $1,600,000 in Bitcoin. That was 2800 coins, which right now is worth a 140 or a $150,000,000. What Jason Calacanis (01:10:39): are you gonna build on that lot? I know. I I don't Chamath Palihapitiya (01:10:42): I don't even own that a lot. Jason Calacanis (01:10:43): You should make it a grave. You should make it a grave plot. You should just David Friedberg (01:10:47): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (01:10:47): Well, my my ex wife owns a lot. I hope I hope You know, she enjoys it, but I'm saying David Friedberg (01:10:51): -- Jason Calacanis (01:10:52): You literally could have bought the Knicks Lakers and the Warriors and then the majority owner in each. Alright. Let's take another question. What's the number one macro uncertainty or risk you guys are most worried about for your investment portfolios? There's Chamath Palihapitiya (01:11:07): there's there is only 1, and I think it's inflation. But I think it's important to understand where inflation is coming from. The single biggest risk to all of us is what's going to happen in the following order of operations. So I think all of this sort of at the coming out of the pandemic basically what you're gonna have is, like, 4 or 5 major trading blocks in the world. Right? You have China as a stand alone. You have Europe as a standalone. You have America slash North America under Biden. I think it can be more North America as a as a standalone. And then you have these sort of what I would call random, you know, friends with benefits. Africa, South America, Japan, Korea. Okay? But those are all bit players to these 3 huge trading blocks. Everybody what's gonna go and they're gonna go and get vertically integrated. So it sort of builds a little bit on what David said. Like, you're not going to have, you know, one central place where you get this thing basically i e, China that you ship on a boat to get over here for a whole host of reasons, national security, carbon, etcetera. So you're gonna have all these vertically you know, vertically integrated supply chains and resilient economies. You know what that does when you have to try to build that stuff? Prices go screaming higher. Because instead of having one factory in China making 9,000,000,000 iPhone cases, You have now 50 factories all around the world each with their own infrastructures and costs and whatever. And so I think you're gonna reflate the world. I don't know when it happens, but that's sort of the biggest risk to all of what we do is that all of a sudden, you know, real rates go to, like, 6 or 7%. And then all of a sudden, you're not gonna look at a company trading at 50 times earnings and say, you know, you're gonna you're gonna question that. So that I think that's the biggest risk that I think. Jason Calacanis (01:12:56): Friedberg, what's your risk? Zach, what's your risk? David Friedberg (01:12:58): Zach, you go ahead. David Sacks (01:13:00): Yeah. So, actually, mine is pretty similar to Chipas. which is I think we're accruing these unfavorable deficits and debts and obligations. And, you know, all this money has to be paid back at some point that the that the US government's incurring. I mean, there's a California version of this where we've accrued a $1,000,000,000,000 of pension obligations that we have no ability to pay. So yeah. I mean, I think that eventually it translates into inflation, but I think it translates into something even worse, which is At some point, people become skeptical about loaning money to the US government. And the the because They don't want the US bill just print dollars to pay back these these loans. And the US dollar stops becoming the world's reserve currency. I think the reason why we're seeing Bitcoin go to the moon right now is people are starting to speculate on the idea that that this might be the future world reserve currency because it's not subject to manipulation by by, you know, by central banks. And and and and and, you know, and and let's think like, that that world looks if you think about, like, a world in which the the US dollar's not the world's reserve of currency anymore in which the government is basically broke. I mean, that is it's it's pretty scary to think about. David Friedberg (01:14:17): There's a Ray Dahlio who's a famous and, you know, prominent hedge fund founder of Bridgewater Associates wrote a essay, if anyone's interested called the big cycle of money, credit, debt, and economic activity. You can find it online. He published it last year. highly recommended reading. He has a few chapters that that proceed and follow that talks about the grand macroeconomic cycle of of governments and societies, and it's really worth the read. I think one really basic principled economic point is that governments operate in such a way that their their people ask for goods and ask for services the government spends on those services by borrowing more than they're making in income in that year. And and that is, I think, the the premise for a lot of how governments operate around the world. The only way that that works over time is if your future shows that that borrowing allows you to grow your revenue more and therefore you can underwrite taking on debt to pay in the future. So you you force growth. And, you know, I've said this a couple of times before, but it is the most basic principle, but it is also the most scary and shocking reasonable, which is the only way you can afford debt is if you have growth. And that forces you to find growth. And when you're forced to find growth, you get all of these unmatched produrbations in terms of economic activity and market forces. It is not necessarily the case that things should and would always grow. and we force things to always grow because of the mechanism by which we fund our services at a government level. And that is what's basically gonna ultimately lead to a lot of different types of crises, both kind of financial crises. But but also societal crises in terms of, you know, revolution and and and social pushes for socialism and and all the other things that that are typically associated with things like inflation. And so it is it is the big crisis of the the 21st century will be you know, we underwrote growth in the 20th century, and there's a lot of forces that that make kind of you know, bring that all to to kind of bear this section. Jason Calacanis (01:16:33): I see one that's maybe a little less acute and a little bit more big picture, which is the number of people living in democracies in the world. as a percentage of population, which has been going down, which if you asked anybody, they would be pretty shocked to hear. But just looking at the percentage of humans on the planet, not the percentage of countries because the percentage of countries that are democracies or, you know, flawed democracies is right now at, you know, 45%. And we have David Friedberg (01:17:03): 55 Jason Calacanis (01:17:04): percent of regimes are authoritarian or hybrid. And the population of people living in those is growing. So we we have countries that are authoritarian that are growing. Countries that are proceeds like in Europe or or in the west and the US, Canada are declining or not keeping up pace in terms of population growth. And that is, I think, gonna be the the major issue, which is does China win capitalism plus authoritarianism, or does democracy plus capitalism work. The next question, I think, is super fascinating, which is what would each of you wish you could teach every twelve year old right now, what a great question. Chamath, you wanna go first? Do you have something that comes to mind, or you need a minute to think about it? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:17:46): Well, it's such a fabulous question. I mean, there's there's there's so many Jason Calacanis (01:17:49): answers. Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:17:51): There's so many answers there. Jason Calacanis (01:17:52): Well, let's let's workshop it. Anybody just have a thought? What comes David Sacks (01:17:55): to mind? This is very this is very tactical. Okay? So I'm sure there's, like, grander things. But just the two things we're not really teaching are coding and financial literacy. Mhmm. Those are, like, the 2 big, I think, omissions in the curriculum right now and would be very helpful for for people to learn. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:18:13): Oh, I mean, on that theme, I would also then add, like, better eating habits and mental health exercises. Jason Calacanis (01:18:27): Freeburg, you got any? come to mind things you want your twelve year old or everybody's twelve year old to learn? David Friedberg (01:18:32): I think the principles of biology and how we look. I I mean, again, like, I feel like we underestimate, and we don't talk enough about the opportunity and the reality that is about to hit us like a tidal wave. of bioengineering, you know, everything in medicine is moving towards this notion of using biological machines to fix our bodies. like, not just a molecule, which is the historical way of doing medicine, where you find a molecule, does something in the body, you stick it in, you turn into a drug. But we are actually out on the precipice of creating machines biologically engineered or designed cells and proteins that can go into your body and do specific things and enhance your your life and improve your health and solve, you know, disease. Similarly, like I talked about earlier, biomanufacturing to make all the materials and food in a more sustainable way and a lower cost way. And so I think teaching the principles of DNA, how DNA causes protein, how protein causes function, and how cells operate and how that is basically being softwareized, and you can basically think about biology now as being software. I think that is the the trend of of of science And Engineering. I think computing created a great foundation, but I I think that's really if I were to tell my twelve year old daughter in 8 years is what she should consider doing or spending her time studying, it's bioengineering and and what the opportunities are that are gonna arise from that? Jason Calacanis (01:19:57): All great answers. I think for me, again, move it up a level since you guys took some of my answers. Financial literacy was definitely gonna be in there for me. But I would say radical self reliance. and entrepreneurialism and resiliency. I think a lot of young people right now don't believe that they have agency in their lives. in the world that they can create stuff, that they cannot be stopped if they go and do something. And they there's a victim mentality and culture that the system is rigged against you and that you cannot rise above, which I understand why people feel that way. But I actually think it's less true than ever, and so we have to basically really remind people that if you are radically self reliant, you can live the American dream. You can create anything you want. There is absolutely nobody who can stop you and you know, all the knowledge you wanna learn is out there. And so so the in radical self reliance for me is this concept of the ability to learn. And the ability to learn how to learn and having faith that you can learn any skill, you know, even 60, 70%, you know, very quickly. is what I see results in, you know, people being successful in life, this ability to take on any new topic with a zeal and an understanding that you can master it. Or or even 60 or 70% mastery means something, going around the horn, we're gonna plan a a bestie trip and we might even allow besties to come for the 1st live bestie show. What is your vote? I want everybody to type it into the chat room, I everybody's gonna type in where they most wanna have a a bestie show. Alright. I like it. Okay. So Chamath and I both wanna go to New York. Sachs wants to go to Miami to see Keith Reboy and Peter TL, his besties. Those are his alternate universe besties, by the way. David Friedberg (01:21:45): They won't do a podcast together. Jason Calacanis (01:21:47): No. Oh my god. How great would that podcast be? David Sacks (01:21:52): I think that would be I I think you call that the righties. Jason Calacanis (01:21:55): The righties. David Sacks (01:21:56): You've got the besties. You've got the leasties. If you get yep. The righties. Jason Calacanis (01:21:59): I'm starting the leasties. It's gonna be me, Howard Linzen, Sarah Cohn, and Prof g. Prof g. David Sacks (01:22:07): Why why wouldn't you call it the worsties? I mean, it's gonna be the worst yeah. Jason Calacanis (01:22:10): I'm gonna do the worsties just as a link. I had an idea. Here's an idea. If we wanna be the number one podcast, Friedberg, do you have any of that Molly from your 1999 2000 era? David Friedberg (01:22:21): I've never -- I've never done Molly. I've never done Holly. Sure. Jason Calacanis (01:22:24): You just made your own synthesis of it and took it. Okay. Great. Here's how we become the number one podcast. We all take Molly at Speaker 6 (01:22:31): the start of the podcast. We start the podcast 30 minutes in, and then we see if David Zach's because I love you. David Sacks (01:22:41): Can I just say we've done more self referential naval gazing bullshit on this pod? than any other pod, and I don't know. This is, like, even worse than David Friedberg (01:22:50): -- Speaker 6 (01:22:50): You don't need to listen Chamath Palihapitiya (01:22:51): to it people. We may need to spike David Friedberg (01:22:53): -- -- David Sacks (01:22:53): and fly. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:22:54): Nick will need to edit the fuck out of this and spike it. spike it. Alright, boys. Here we -- Love you. David Friedberg (01:22:59): -- Jason Calacanis (01:22:59): boys. I love you, Basties. Love you, David. Love you, other, David. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:23:04): Okay. I guess you. Jason Calacanis (01:23:04): Love you, Chamappala. Happy to you. We upgraded the Davids, by the way, with their outrage and contankerous firmware, which we saw from Friedberg when he threatened to quit the podcast over the publishing over the Robinhood. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:23:15): No. That's why we added the thirst trap feature set. That's why he went to throbbing and ball saving. Jason Calacanis (01:23:21): He was just throbbing and pulsing. We'll see you. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:23:23): Oh, yeah. It's time on the all in pop. Speaker 4 (01:23:26): We'll let your winner slide. Jason Calacanis (01:23:29): Raymond David Sacks. Speaker 4 (01:23:33): And it said -- We open source it to the fans in a this car crazy weather. Love you at my Jason Calacanis (01:23:42): sweet wanna try. Our ground mission. Speaker 4 (01:23:46): Best is our car. I know the 13th step. Jason Calacanis (01:23:49): That is my dog thinking, and I was driveway. Speaker 4 (01:23:57): We should all just get a room and have one big huge, George, because they're always useless. It's like this, like, sexual tension that we just need to release them out. David Friedberg (01:24:05): What? You're the bee What? Where are your David Sacks (01:24:08): feet? What? I'm gonna feel it. Speaker 4 (01:24:10): Where did Speaker 6 (01:24:10): you get Murkeys are back?