通胀大辩论、亚马逊推特开怼、重新思考供应链

Jason Calacanis (00:00:00): Hey, everybody. Hey, everybody. Welcome to the all in podcast with us today. Again, the queen of Kinwa, David Friedberg, David Sacks, the rain man himself, and, of course, the dictator here, Shamoff, and let's get ready. It's it's time Chamath and Saks. Here it comes, everybody. Sacks is ready in the red corner. Speaker 2 (00:00:28): Representing Richard Nixon, Ronald Jason Calacanis (00:00:28): Reagan, Ronald Reagan. and rich people everywhere. David, the Speaker 2 (00:00:38): rain man sucks. Somebody's gotta Jason Calacanis (00:00:39): do it. -- corner David Sacks (00:00:40): representing Jason Calacanis (00:00:45): Kelby J. Under served. The forgotten. The underdogs. The woke left. Chamath, Polly, Papa, cheers. What Speaker 2 (00:00:59): your winter's ride. Jason Calacanis (00:01:01): Rainman, David Sachs. And it said, we David Sacks (00:01:06): opened so And and I will also be representing John F Kennedy who set a rising who set a rising tide lifts all boat. And maybe even some Clinton too. David Friedberg (00:01:25): Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton. I was gonna say, don't forget. Really? Don't forget those things. -- left and the right. Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:01:31): Bill Clinton did a great job. He ended he ended the welfare state. Jason Calacanis (00:01:35): Alright. So here we go, folks. In in show housekeeping, we do need to point out that we we've been running some polls. The the fans of the show have been running polls, and I I don't even know why I'm bringing this up because I got barbecued in them. But we have 3 polls we need to share with the audience from Twitter. The first is if you could have just one of the all in pod besties to mentor you and your start up growth, Who would it be and why? Looks like Rainman, you ran away with that one with 39%, the dictator with 34. Queen of Kenois coming at 17, and Uber's their 4th and faster came in with a measly 8%. David Friedberg (00:02:15): I will tell you this is this is why 83% of startups fail. They choose the wrong mentor. Jason Calacanis (00:02:22): Perfect. David Sacks (00:02:24): So I was I was proud to win this one, but the truth is, so Tremoth was slightly ahead. And then I put my thumb on the scale by retweeting the poll because, obviously, my followers are more likely to vote for me. So then I shot ahead and I kept real quiet because I didn't want Shamox retweeting it to his 1,200,000 followers and he had done that, he probably would have blown me out of the water, but I kept real quiet till the time elapsed. And then I and then I shared it with the group. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:02:51): No. Nobody keeps a track of followers, but it's actually closer to Jason Calacanis (00:02:54): 1.5. The only person who knows your follower better than huge about is Phil Helmut. Hell Helmut. Actually, every morning, Phil Helmut Subscribed subtracts his number of Subscribers from yours to know the net. Alright. 2nd poll came up. Thanks, Matt for this. By the way, Matt Yager. No friend of mine. Alright. Per request, let's do another poll and see the other side of this story. If you could have just one of the all in pod besties moderate your podcast, or would you choose? And it turns out the dictator 31 percent to my 30.6%, a full 1% more than me. I came in 2nd, world's best wingman, and rainman, 21% Queenekingois, 16%, and then most importantly, which bestie would you want in your on your side in a bar fight? Speaker 2 (00:03:47): I David Friedberg (00:03:47): will say it's Chemut's smooth velvety voice that that ran away for him here. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:03:52): Thank you. David Sacks (00:03:53): Yes. I think I think the the no. I think the audience is just trying to hurt Jason. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:03:56): I think we had They were David Sacks (00:03:57): just trying to hurt Jason. That was it. That was it. Like, Chamath Palihapitiya (00:04:01): Jason has heard he's inadequate by more than 1% for a long time. Oh, it's so I mean, people -- Usually, it's measured in inches, not percentages. Jason Calacanis (00:04:11): Somebody was dunking on me on Twitter, and they're like, you are the poorest of all your friends. I was like, that's the strategy. Always have more powerful and richer friends than you, then you don't have to worry about picking up the check. Okay. And then there was another interesting AI breakthrough this week. Wait. Wait. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:04:28): Did you talk about the bar fight? What was the bomb curious thing? Jason Calacanis (00:04:30): Oh, the bar fight 1 hold on. You're right. I didn't get to that one. The bar fight was oh, here we go. For some reason, these morons seem to think that your stick legs are gonna help them in a fight. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:04:44): Bro, that's a bad. I honestly I I need to correct this. Like, that was maybe lightning or a bad camera? No. Speaker 2 (00:04:51): I I Chamath Palihapitiya (00:04:51): hope it's like no. Hold on. No. Stop it. No. Wait. Wait. Wait. wait. Oh, boy. Jason Calacanis (00:04:57): You know David Friedberg (00:04:57): what I mean? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:04:59): You were holding up David Friedberg (00:04:59): a Pandora's box right now. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:05:02): Wait. I honestly, there's not there guys, guys, guys, guys, Guys, honestly, come on. They are not as skinny as people seem to be railing. And, honestly, I'm I'm happy to you know, if if there's a standard way of measuring okay. You know what? Jason, if there's a standard way, if somebody can tell us what is the standard way of measuring legs, circumference. I'm happy to submit my my my measurements. I don't think they're that skinny. They're really, really interesting. super disturbing. Thank you. You got Jason Calacanis (00:05:32): a lot going on up top. I'm very proud of you, but below the belt -- It's not Chamath Palihapitiya (00:05:36): true, bro. I work on my legs a lot. You know? Jason Calacanis (00:05:38): It's it's it's -- Keep working. -- Chamath Palihapitiya (00:05:39): my It's lags and abs to keep your back David Friedberg (00:05:42): strong as you go. -- thing this this podcast will win in a poll is the hosts talk themselves more than any other podcast on the Internet Chamath Palihapitiya (00:05:50): if we don't want Speaker 2 (00:05:51): When you Jason Calacanis (00:05:52): said talk about each other in order to make fun of each other. David Friedberg (00:05:54): Yeah. This should be called the Naval Games podcast. Alright. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:05:56): We got it. Jason Calacanis (00:05:57): So besties that you most wanted to fight, Queen of Kinois coming in dead last. David Friedberg (00:06:01): Yeah. Jason Calacanis (00:06:01): I'm coming in at 17%. rainman 32% in Shamalff, I guess that thirst trap you tweeted got you 39% in that poll. David Friedberg (00:06:10): The other point the the other thing these polls Okay. It's it's it's why democracy doesn't work, but go on, Chamath. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:06:15): I can I can hold my own in a physical altercation. Jason Calacanis (00:06:18): Let's see. I think, yeah, I think you want Chamath and I because I think Sachs is gonna be under the table calling 911. And Friedberg gonna try to talk it out and get just absolutely sucker punch. Like, guys, we don't really need to fight. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:06:33): Jason Jason is the one that would smash the beer bottle, create a shiv, and say, let's go. Let's go. Alright. I I would I would have Jason I would I would actually pick Jason his number Jason Calacanis (00:06:43): 1. If you were gonna be in a bar fight. David Sacks (00:06:44): Jason certainly touts his Taekwondo skills. On more than one occasion, he's claimed to be a expert in Taekwondo. David Friedberg (00:06:52): Can we pull up the video? Isn't there a video of you doing? So where's Chamath Palihapitiya (00:06:55): the video of Jason Pushing help you? Yeah. That's a big news video. If you wanna see Jason, and a grown man, another grown fifty year old overweight man fighting. We have video about that. Speaker 2 (00:07:09): I don't Jason Calacanis (00:07:10): that that that one, I don't David Sacks (00:07:10): know if we should show, but Nick, you should definitely insert the image of Jay Cal trying to do the Taekwondo kick. And it looks like he's about to have a herniated groin. It's about besides Speaker 2 (00:07:20): you and fall over. Jason Calacanis (00:07:20): -- insert that picture. Yeah. It was for my twenties. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:07:22): Alright. Let's start, Jason. What do you got? what do we got this week? Jason Calacanis (00:07:25): I guess the the topic we should get right to is inflation. This is a topic we've been talking about a whole bunch. Because we're printing a ton of money, Everybody seems to think the hedge against inflation is to buy bitcoin, or do you put your money into equities? And are we actually gonna see things other than homes and education massively inflate. We've seen some anecdotal evidence of this. Tesla increased the price of their cars. Used cars have gone up in price, which is a function of the lack of production of some cars during the pandemic, so there there might be multitude of factors there. But just putting it out there, are we gonna go are we gonna face inflation that, you know, goods services are gonna just go through the roof and cost? Or do we have enough efficiency in the system that the average consumer is not gonna see massive inflation on the products and services they buy? coming out of David Sacks (00:08:16): the pit. Isn't isn't isn't the real issue that Chamath inflation is good? And he because it creates a quality, and he thinks 1979 was a great year. I think we should go straight to Speaker 2 (00:08:25): that -- Alright. Jason Calacanis (00:08:26): -- who's gonna let's let's go -- No. No. Let's go. -- give a general discussion -- Speaker 2 (00:08:29): Oh, let's Jason Calacanis (00:08:30): let's go I think we should go to Shamoff David Sacks (00:08:31): to explain this tweet storm. Okay. And then I'll respond. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:08:34): Okay. There we go. I think, David, you got unnecessarily emotional and personal. That was not again, these these were things that I've learned from someone who I will say without betraying him is an extremely well respected person at an extremely well known institution that basically has helped make a lot of sort of, you know, capital allocators very smart about things and has made people a lot Speaker 2 (00:09:03): of money. So I was relaying Chamath Palihapitiya (00:09:03): what I learned through him So let me just relay that again, and I'll just start with this. Whenever you have a dollar of income, you can do one of 2 things with that income. you either consume things, right? So you buy or you can save and you can put it into investments for the future. Right? So consumption and investment. The reality is that most people, so the lower 60% of the income distribution essentially spends above their income. Right? The lowest actually spends at, so a dollar earned is a dollar spent. And then the middle 2 because they have to credit, a dollar earn, they spend about, you know, percentage points more than that. When you get to the richest Jason Calacanis (00:09:48): 20% Chamath Palihapitiya (00:09:49): of the population, they're actually able to save and they save about 13¢ of every dollar, and they're able to invest in the future. So consumption and invest The reality is inflation comes through a volume of activity. Right? So you as a rich person can go and buy Jason Calacanis (00:10:04): 1 $100,000 Chamath Palihapitiya (00:10:06): necklace at Tiffany's, it doesn't move the needle for inflation. But when, you know, 200,000 people buy a $1000 television, that's felt in the economy. It moves. So inflation comes because of gross tonnage of volume. So you need consumption. And by definition, what that does is it pushes consumption into those, you know, that 60 to 80% of people that are not the top 20%. So what it means is that, you know, you have a volume game of people buying things. And when they buy more of those things, Inflation goes up. How do they buy more things? They have more income because their propensity is to consume. So then you have to ask yourself, well, where is this incremental income coming from? And all he has observed, which I think is very credible, is We had the supernatural event in the pandemic. We've now started to print 1,000,000,000,000 of dollars of incremental consumption. And that's going to start to lead to the most simple ways in which consumption manifests in inflation, which is via commodity prices. What does that mean? Let me state it simply. A rich person lives in a well insulated house, drives an electric car, and eats fish. A less rich person lives in a poorly insulated house, lives, you know, drives a an SUV and eats beef. beef versus fish as a simple example. It consumes Jason Calacanis (00:11:31): 20, 30, 50, Chamath Palihapitiya (00:11:32): a 100 times more input costs to generate that same pound of protein than a fish does. It's just an example of showing how income distributions and the effects and the consumption patterns of large swathes of people drive different consumption behaviors which drive inflation. So all he was trying to represent to me was that idea. which is that we have printed 1,000,000,000,000 of dollars. We are creating artificial levels of consumption that consumption will actually drive up commodity prices. Commodity prices will actually drive up inflation. Then what he told me was the best analogy, again, it's not perfect, but it rhymes to the history. is what actually happened in the 19 seventies, which is that by having this sort of boundary condition, you have to ask your of what will happen if inflation rips higher. And, you know, starting in the late sixties through the seventies, that's kind of what you had. A same kind of boundary can forget the way in which the money got to people. You know, in this case, it was a government check. But in the late sixties and early seventies, we had similar kinds of programs. We had head start. We have, you know, AmeriCorps. We had food stamps at we had the Social Security Act. All of these things were transfer payments. And when you put that much money into the hands of a large swath of people, consumption went up commodity prices went up, inflation went up, it peaked in 1979, but it also happened that when that happened, the gap between the rich and the poor was the lowest it had ever been. And so I thought that that was a really interesting thing to observe. Okay. Jason Calacanis (00:13:13): Sax? You were triggered you were triggered by this. David Sacks (00:13:17): Well, it wasn't triggered. I just said it was Shamas Worse take ever. And then and then the the damage Chamath Palihapitiya (00:13:23): David, it wasn't my it wasn't my take. Jason Calacanis (00:13:24): It wasn't my take. It wasn't my take Chamath Palihapitiya (00:13:26): on with the take. David Sacks (00:13:27): No. No. That's okay. Jason Calacanis (00:13:28): Well, let David Sacks (00:13:28): me explain what let me explain what's wrong with the take. I created a PowerPoint. So Oh, boy. I pulled it Shamoff. No. It's not boring. And and Shamoff has done it too, so don't don't even bother David Friedberg (00:13:40): do email. You guys come and hit me up at the second half. Jason Calacanis (00:13:43): No. No. Friedberg, we're David Sacks (00:13:43): gonna keep Speaker 2 (00:13:44): the we're Jason Calacanis (00:13:44): gonna keep the Friedberg index high. So go ahead, Saxx. Take us through the PowerPoint. What what do David Sacks (00:13:48): you want? I'll I'll keep this quick. Okay. So I've called the PowerPoint to Moss wars take ever. Speaker 2 (00:13:56): Oh, Chamath Palihapitiya (00:13:56): no. David David, it says right at the top of disclaimer, here is something I learned today. Why isn't my take? David Sacks (00:14:02): Well, you said you responded to me then saying that I didn't like facts. So that was your response. So I am proving I'm gonna show you some facts. Okay? So first of all, let's ask the question, was 1979 a good year? I don't think you can just cherry pick this one number, the the Ginny index, and say that this was some sort of great year. 1979, a severe recession begins, which ultimately leads to negative point 3 percent gd growth in 1980. The word stagflation misery at index become household terms. We had unemployment of 6% on its way to 7 point Jason Calacanis (00:14:35): 2% David Sacks (00:14:35): in 1980. We had a 13.3% in inflation rate. The prime rate for 30 year mortgage was 11.2%. Wow. Wow. Wow. Yeah. Try to good luck trying to buy a house. We had long lines of the gas pump. There was an oil embargo. We had price controls. Jason Calacanis (00:14:50): -- the gas pump David Friedberg (00:14:51): lines? I wasn't born yet, but go on. Jason Calacanis (00:14:53): Yeah. It was crazy. David Sacks (00:14:55): And then, you know, Jimmy Carter declares a national crisis and confidence is the so called Malay speech. He was well on his way to becoming a one term president. So what the shows is Jason Calacanis (00:15:05): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (00:15:05): David, Jason Calacanis (00:15:05): that, you know David Sacks (00:15:06): so hold on. The no. No. Let me just let me just do the takeaway. So the takeaway is that, you know, the GINI Index says 1979 was a great year. And, you know, the the issue is the reason it wasn't is because it's a lot easier to make everyone equally poor than ever than equally rich. When the economy does poorly, guess what? The gap shrinks. Then Margaret Thatcher had a great line about this. So long as the gap is smaller, they would rather have the poor be poor. That's a great video everyone should watch on her last speech to parliament. Shamath Chamath posted this chart showing this was the the percentage of wealth held by the top 0.1%. Tremoth, we'll go to you next to explain 1, 2, and 3. But let me just point out, Look at what else the Ginny Index was plummeting, the 19 thirties. The great depression did a great job creating relative equality by making everyone poor. So my point is, yeah, I understand there are these equalities, but you know what creates inequality? Economic booms. That's what creates inequality. What we should care about It's not just inequality but economic growth, real wage growth, poverty. How many people are below the poverty line, and concentrations of power. So that's what we should be looking at, not just this gini coefficient. Let me stop there. I've got other slides, but I'll stop there and let you respond. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:16:18): Sax, boo. Go back one slide. The the the three points there were just interesting to me. Number 1 was LBJ and the war on poverty and all those social programs. Number 2, and you spoke about this, but I don't think you're doing a full accurate assessment. What Carter's what Carter's biggest mistake was was he stopped the transfer payments. Because LBJ started them, Nixon continued them, Carter stopped them. And I think it's important to Jason Calacanis (00:16:46): Explain what transfer payments are for people who don't understand. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:16:49): Well, it's basically like, you know, there there are all kinds of ways to get money into the hands of individuals. You know, we We now talk about universal basic income. That's a way of transferring money from the government and from systemic holders of capital to individuals. food stamps was away. The Social Security was away. There's all kinds of different ways. Well, welfare was away until Clinton disassembled that. So I I think that what what we'll never know is what would have happened if Carter hadn't actually stopped those balance of payments. And the the key point is about what happened then afterwards in Jason Calacanis (00:17:28): 3. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:17:28): So You had this basically stopping by Carter. He didn't get to he didn't get to reap any of the benefits of it. Reagan comes in and says, you know what? We're gonna simplify the tax code. We're gonna defund all kinds of stuff including, for example, all the mental health funding that he had already done in California that skewed people with mental health disease onto the streets of San Francisco and Los Angeles. And that sort of continued And then the real cataclysmic change on top of all of this which sealed the fate of that trend line happened in point number Jason Calacanis (00:18:00): 3. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:18:00): which is when George George Bush in 2001 had this really seminal decision, which is He had the ability to block China from entering the WTO and instead he left them in. And he traded that for a vote on the security council. And when you think about what really happened there, you will unleash 1 billion people willing to do anything at a cheaper faster and better rate. You ushered in globalization. You ushered in the gutting of the middle class of America and you transferred all that wealth creation that could have happened in a more inefficient but in a in a balanced way that could have benefited Americans and you ship them abroad to China. So I think it's just interesting to note that basically since 1979, we've all been singing from the same playbook. And I think that maybe what we need to do is figure out whether we need to come back to this idea of shifting the balance back into the hands of individual consumers. And all I'm saying is, without making a judgment, is when you look at what Biden has done in just in the 1st 60 days. Jason Calacanis (00:19:07): $1,900,000,000,000 Chamath Palihapitiya (00:19:09): of stimulus and a proposed $3,000,000,000,000 stimulus package, we're just you know, we're not even Jason Calacanis (00:19:15): -- Infrastructure package. -- Chamath Palihapitiya (00:19:16): we're not even 3 months into his presidency and you forecast that forward, it feels like we're entering an era of spend spend spend. And that was an opinion of mine which I believe is actually fairly accurate. I do think it will drive inflation. I do think it'll drive commodity prices. And I think on balance, I do think it will suppress the wealth creation of the rich, and I do think it will give folks that don't necessarily have investments, the ability to make more on real income, which they will spend. David Sacks (00:19:45): Well okay. Just just quickly. So I'm gonna begin by agreeing with the the part of Shamaz response that I agree with, which is what happened around 2000, 2001, which killed wage growth for the average worker. Chamath is right about that, but it it wasn't just George W Bush. It was a bipartisan disaster. In 2000, Bill Clinton pushes congress to approve the US China trade agreement and gave them full access to the WTO. This was basically temporary MFN. And look at what he said. He said, economically, this agreement is the equivalent of a one way street. It requires China to open its markets to us in new ways, and it turned out to be a one Way street the other way. And then he also said that for the first time, our companies will be able to sell and distribute products in China made by workers here in America without being forced to relocate manufacturing to China, we'll be able to export products without exporting jobs. Well, gee, the exact opposite happened. So and then and then what happens in 2001 is Bush makes this situation permanent. He grants permanent what's called permanent normal trade relations, which basically MFN status in perpetuity to China granting them full access to our markets. And Chamath is right that that devastated the average worker because all of a sudden, they're being forced to compete with, you know, foreign labor that's potentially making $2 a day and is not subject to the same labor laws and environmental laws. as workers in the US are. So I agree with Chamath about what happened then. But but I gotta go back and clean up this view of what happened between Jason Calacanis (00:21:16): 1980 2000 David Sacks (00:21:17): because that's where I think we have this this disagreement. Jason Calacanis (00:21:20): Let's talk about the China thing for a second. I -- Yeah. -- we made a mistake there. we got hoodwinked. We don't have access to their market. I think it's it would be good to pause for a second and say, okay. We tried this experiment for 20 years. There was some good that came out of it. Our companies were able to grow and become the dominant players in the world like Apple. But and Amazon. Right? We did capture a lot of this value, and a lot of people came out of poverty in China, I guess, on the margins. That's a good thing we can all agree. But it's a communist country, and we basically enabled a communist country to become essentially, you know, our our counterparty in running the planet and and and in our leadership positions on the planet. What do we do now in terms of unwinding this? Is there a way to roll this back, or do we just mute it from this point forward? And how does it become a A Street, or is that just not even possible as we've seen with the NBA and some other companies, Twitter, Google, just not being allowed to even operate in China? David Friedberg (00:22:16): Who's we? America, the United States? Jason Calacanis (00:22:20): The United States. Speaker 2 (00:22:20): I mean Jason Calacanis (00:22:21): -- David Friedberg (00:22:21): US citizens, US companies, global companies. I mean -- Yeah. Jason Calacanis (00:22:24): -- David Friedberg (00:22:24): you know, I think that the the challenge is your your framework. Right? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:22:27): Guys, I think I think there's one big thing you're fear of forgetting in 2001, which is I think that Bush actually traded away access to the WTO so that they could guarantee China's vote when he wanted to go to war with Iraq, which happened in Jason Calacanis (00:22:39): 2003. Okay. Well -- 22 David Sacks (00:22:42): dumb decisions that got worse by being put together. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:22:45): All I'm saying is it was a trade. It was a trade. He traded he traded access to he traded access to the WTO in return for their support for a UN resolution to go to war with Iraq. David Sacks (00:22:55): Look. I you know, you Jamath, you said that I was defending the Republican point of view. I'll I'm not. I'll be the first to say that George W Bush was his presidency was a disaster. I think it'll go down as one of the worst. He got us into all these stupid foreign wars in the Middle East, he began them. I think the decisions with China were a mistake. So I certainly don't wanna defend that. And by the same token, I think Clinton Years were were generally great years in America. So this is not partisan, free analysis on my part. Jason Calacanis (00:23:24): What what do you think though about the China concept here and and how we would go forward And what's what's the path forward with China? David Friedberg (00:23:31): I I I mean, again, like, I think it comes down to your objective and who are you solving for. Jason Calacanis (00:23:37): And -- Who should we solve for? Democracy, the human species? David Friedberg (00:23:42): Well, I mean, I I feel like the the the point of view that, you know, one government is innately better than another is being tested and proven right and wrong every day right now. And and I'm not sure that fair to say that just because the form of government that the, you know, that the Chinese have kind of adopted and used to govern their their their their country and their people is innately wrong. There's certainly things that are innately wrong in many democracies and that are innately wrong in many non Democratic republics. And so I I'm not sure it's fair to just say that, you know, that that's really the objective is let's get rid commune at the moment. That was an easy kind of simple, you know, check that you could use a few decades ago as a way to kinda rally everyone emotionally towards some cause. But I I think this there there's a lot of businesses today that operate effectively in their own kind of geopolitical cloud, and it's a little bit a of a kind of misstatement to think that an American company is an American company. It's not that American, quote unquote, American companies solely build their stuff and sell their stuff in the United States. Many, quote unquote, American companies build stuff overseas and sell stuff overseas. And global is globalization as much as we might wanna kinda poo poo the effect it's had on the average quote unquote American worker it really has transformed the way businesses operate with respect to politics and Countries There's a oh god. What's the book? I can't remember the book, but there's a book that speaks to how a a lot of large multinational corporations today have to operate as if they were countries into and onto themselves. And so they have competing interests with respect to what the average American or the American government or the American people might have even though they might be quote unquote American companies, and there might be some intricate tie. And so I'm not sure it's as simple as we have to, quote unquote, defeat China. We are so intricately tied to the to the economy of China, to the workers of China, and vice versa. And I think that it's a much more complicated thing than, you know, here's our 3 point checklist for how do we, quote unquote, beat China. David Friedberg (00:25:50): And that's that's why it's hard, and that's why I think a lot of smart people have, you know, kind of taken on and been challenged by and failed at trying to resolve a path forward where there's this quote unquote looming enemy that is gonna become the global economic power, which strips the American people of of their influence around the world. And, you know, that may be kind of the inevitability of the 21st century. I don't think that there's Jason Calacanis (00:26:12): a -- -- dark inevitability if David Friedberg (00:26:14): I don't know if there's a simple easy answer, and I don't know if from a from a business point of view, let's say, I'm a company. I'm not sure necessarily feel the effects of 1 country affecting, you know, having more influence globally with other countries than others, turns out a lot of businesses have greater influence than a lot of governments. And so, you know, one way to kinda think about the evolution of globalization And maybe even with respect to kind of the the notion of what we've been talking about at decentralization is that maybe governments themselves become less important in the 21st century. And it's the kind of decentralized online movements and and businesses and and, you know, other kind of entities that perhaps are not as regulated and controlled and owned by governments, and maybe the big failure of the 21st century will be governments. We'll see. Jason Calacanis (00:27:01): Jamath? Yeah. That's on China. David Friedberg (00:27:02): That was a bit esoteric, but Jason Calacanis (00:27:04): -- No. No. I I think it's -- Yeah. it is I I need to -- Chamath Palihapitiya (00:27:07): The thing the thing that you're not willing to acknowledge is that even when GDP shrinks, it's like a it's a it's shrinking from a base where there's substantive growth year over year like, you know, are the GDP in 1969 where LBJ was president was less than a $1,000,000,000,000, and the GDP now is, like, 23 and a half $1,000,000,000,000. And so it's been nothing essentially but a straight line up. And so, you know, this idea that we the inflation causes, you know, the the only way that we close the wealth gap is by making everybody poorer is not true. Where some people may be getting less rich at the same rate so they feel poorer But the idea that you actually become poor is just not true. It's a feeling that you have, but it's not rooted in fact. Jason Calacanis (00:27:47): So, Saks, when when you look at the wealth gap Are you concerned about the gap or are you concerned with, you know, the status of the folks on the bottom and how much their lot in life has gotten better? David Sacks (00:28:00): Yeah. I mean, I'm concerned with both. Actually, there there I have a slide on this too. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:28:05): I would buy this argument, and I've heard this argument from before from not as smart as David. I would buy this argument if GDP did something other than go up in an absolute straight fucking line Speaker 2 (00:28:17): No. David Sacks (00:28:17): It doesn't. It doesn't. It does. Well, hold on. I I me I'm gonna show let me show GDP in a second. The first thing I wanna just cover is that part of the problem with the Ginny and deck is it doesn't fully account for government transfers. This is something I didn't fully know until I researched it after your tweet storm came off. But, basically, only 2% of the populate. So The publicly reported stats are that 13.5 percent of the US population lives in poverty. Once you actually take into account all these programs and transfer payments, it's more like 2%. You can see this on this chart in the left here that the green represents the transfer payments. By the way, I'm not against transfer payments. I think we need a social safety net. I want the social safety net to be as effective as possible. I don't want it to trap people in government dependency. I want it to work. I want it to get people out of poverty and into the opportunity economy. But I absolutely believe we need a social safety net and we need these transfer payments. And you can see that the green bars there make a huge difference in reducing poverty. The Gini Index doesn't really take that into account. Well, how do you fund this these types of transfer payments. The more of a of a stronger economy that you have, the more that you have a government, the more that you have an economic boom, the more that you see real wage growth and the ability to fund these programs. Let's go back to let's let's just look at GDP for a second. So if you go back to let's go back to this period, 82 to 2000. I call this the Reagan Clinton boom. I see this as a bipartisan, a relatively bipartisan period. where under Reagan and Clinton, you had GDP growth of almost 4% compared to the usual 2, 2 a half percent. By the way, this is why Reagan and Clinton left office with huge approval numbers despite scandals. Remember Reagan had Iran contra, Clinton had Lewinsky? None of that mattered, really, in the eyes of the American people because the economy was so strong. David Sacks (00:30:05): And you can see that here. And by the way, it hasn't been this strong in the 2000. We've never really gotten back to this type of economy you know, since since, you know, Jason Calacanis (00:30:16): 2009. Is that because of the economic boom of the PC and Internet errors? what would we attribute David Sacks (00:30:22): it to? The technology boom has a huge impact. But let me just describe what started it. Okay? What's what happened in 1981? Reagan's inaugurated as president in January of 1981. He cuts the top marginal income tax rate from 70 to 50%. And I would say equally important, you have Paul Volker at the Fed. He breaks inflation. He jacks up interest rates, causes a very severe recession in 1982, but it broke the back of hyperinflation, and we it ushered in decades of declining interest rates. You can see that on this chart here. Interest rates have more or less been in the decline since Paul Volker was at the Fed, what does this do? It made the the it reduced the the the the risk fee rate of return, which leads to more investment in Jason Calacanis (00:31:06): -- David Friedberg (00:31:07): And everything. Jason Calacanis (00:31:08): -- David Sacks (00:31:08): in in everything. At least some more investment. It caught it caused a rally in the Bonmar market and the stock market. And by David Friedberg (00:31:14): the way, no one remembers in a modern era. I'm sorry, Sucks. But, like, most interest rates for buying a home, mortgage rates were over 6 a half percent for most of the Yeah. It was 15th the last couple of decades. Yeah. David Sacks (00:31:25): Yeah. Good good luck my good luck buying a home in the 19 seventies. Right? Like Jason Calacanis (00:31:29): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (00:31:29): David David. Can you Like, can you actually be intellectually honest and overlay aggregate actual GDP on this chart? because what you'll see is it goes up into the right independent of all of this bullshit. David Sacks (00:31:43): No. That that's not true. You can save Chamath Palihapitiya (00:31:44): That's absolutely true. And I'll just Well, you know, I share screen now. Jason Calacanis (00:31:47): GDP growth rate versus -- David Sacks (00:31:49): No. This is this is GDP growth rate. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:31:51): Forget growth rate. What is the actual number Jason Calacanis (00:31:55): Right. We're talking about the real number, not the percentage growth because I was actually about to ask those real numbers. Speaker 2 (00:32:00): This is David Friedberg (00:32:00): a change in GDP. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:32:02): I know. Speaker 2 (00:32:02): But this is the David Sacks (00:32:03): this is the change in GDP. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:32:04): I I'm talking about grade 2 mathematics here, guys. The absolute number. Jason Calacanis (00:32:08): The absolute number keeps going up into the right because -- David Sacks (00:32:11): No. No. It doesn't. These these these dots that are below 0 or recessions -- Right. But the would hurt my eyes are Chamath Palihapitiya (00:32:17): those are changes from the year before. So when you're compounding naturally Jason Calacanis (00:32:21): -- David Sacks (00:32:21): No. No. No. No. No. The green and red bars at the very bottom are changes from the year before, but these are absolute percentage changes in GDP. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:32:29): I know. David Sacks (00:32:29): So -- A recession a recession is defined as 2 quarters of negative growth. So GDP can go down. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:32:35): Dave, David, can I just show you the aggregate GDP growth from 1960 to 2000? And you can just look at this and tell me, what's what what is wrong with the trading economics website? that that everybody else would use. Jason Calacanis (00:32:48): Yeah. Pull it up. I mean, I I think one of the things that I have as a question for everybody is is there a is there a major difference between 2%, two and a half percent, 3% growth in terms of how we all experience our lives. And what are we optimizing there for? Are we optimizing for consistency or we and, you know, no recessions? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:33:10): Well, this is what's interesting. So do you see this chart right here? Jason Calacanis (00:33:13): It's perfectly consistent with the exception of Chamath Palihapitiya (00:33:15): the actual crisis. -- GDP. Okay? It started off at less than a trillion in 19.50 something. It was about, you know, a $1,000,000,000,000 at 19.68, and it's about $23,000,000,000,000 now. This is the aggregate of what has happened in the American economy over the last 70 years. Jason Calacanis (00:33:33): Compounding interest is an amazing thing. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:33:35): Now exactly right. Now this has happened in Democratic presidencies, Republican presidencies when rates were at 16% when rates were at Jason Calacanis (00:33:43): 0%. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:33:44): So all I'm saying is we have a natural tendency and inertia to move forward. The rate of change, we can debate. And obviously, this ebbed and flowed over years. but the fact that it's towards moving forward and downhill with increasing momentum is undeniable. And so, again, I would ask when we think about the fact that the natural tendency is that the next 5 or 10 year period in aggregate will become bigger and better. There'll be more of the pie to share. Why is inflation a bad thing? Because all it does is depress financial assets. It drives up earnings and income which drives up consumption of the lower 3 or 4 quartiles of the or lower 3 quartiles of the earnings population, I just don't see why it's such a bad thing. David Sacks (00:34:28): I think I think mild mild inflation, you know, in the 2 to Jason Calacanis (00:34:31): 4% David Sacks (00:34:32): range is is fine and it's probably better. It's certainly better, I would say, than 2 to 4 percent deflation. But when you start to get runaway inflation like we did in the 19 seventies, it massively increases interest rates. And that makes it harder for people to buy houses and borrow money and invest money because now the risk for your return is higher. And Chamath Palihapitiya (00:34:53): and that -- That only applies. I know, but that only applies to the top quartile of the population. The bottom 3 quartiles don't give a shit about what you just said. because they don't do it. David Sacks (00:35:05): I I don't think people wanna have to spend $600 on a loaf of bread. You know? That's it look. you look at Venezuela, you look at Weimar, Germany. You do not want inflation to get out of control. And it can spiral out of control because once people start to Jason Calacanis (00:35:19): expect is that realistic, though, that it will spiral out of control given technological advances, efficiency? I mean, what that's the fact trapped the tool against -- Chamath Palihapitiya (00:35:28): You are bringing up, I think, the the really brilliant point, which is could it really even happen today? Because if you think about where we allocate our time and attention and consumption, half of it by definition are things that are just so naturally deflationary. We're all you know, we're we're we're on YouTube, you know, Facebook, TikTok all the time. Those are naturally deflationary syncs of time and energy and effort and money Right? So today to to Jason's point, like, I think that that's actually true. I don't think that it's even possible to actually have hyperinflation anymore. Jason Calacanis (00:35:59): Where do we have hyperinflation? NFTs, Bitcoin -- Yeah. -- Chamath Palihapitiya (00:36:03): equities, and homes. Financial assets. And homes. Jason Calacanis (00:36:07): Right? I mean and that's a highly regulated and and I guess healthcare and educate higher education. Those but pretty much anything that David Friedberg (00:36:16): the government's involved in. Basically well, and the government's not involved Chamath Palihapitiya (00:36:20): in NFTs in Bitcoin. Those are the anti government portfolio. But but, by the way, health care inflation really started in Obama because of Obamacare. David Friedberg (00:36:27): And anything that the government's involved in in flights. David Sacks (00:36:30): Yeah. because if the government's paying the bill, why wouldn't you raise prices? David Friedberg (00:36:33): Well, there's there's no competitive this one customer, charge whatever you want, etcetera. David Sacks (00:36:38): So so so so so so so so to be clear, I inflation is not my number one concern right now. I'm just saying that it would not be a good thing to let it get out of control. That's all. But it's not it's not the biggest concern on my list. Jason Calacanis (00:36:50): Your main concern is dunking on Chamath for that tweet storm. David Sacks (00:36:54): No. No. I'm not dunking on him. I'm he he dunked on me saying that, you know It Jason Calacanis (00:36:58): basically turned into a bunch of fifteen year old girls who said something and got misinterpreting on social media, and now we have to work it out. No. No. David Sacks (00:37:06): No. I'll I'll tell you about it Jason Calacanis (00:37:07): Friday, and you, the audience, are the beneficiaries. David Sacks (00:37:10): No. I I I'll tell you I'll tell you my my main concern is this idea that economic booms are not a good thing because, you know, God forbid, the people at the top might get richer. That's the problem. Jason Calacanis (00:37:22): -- pivot to that then. David Sacks (00:37:23): Yeah. I Jason Calacanis (00:37:23): don't know if you guys have been following what's happening with the head of operations at or I guess he's the head of warehouses at Amazon. Amazon is standing up to Elizabeth Warren on Twitter they're mixing it up. Did you guys see these tweets? Let's pull them No. What? David Friedberg (00:37:39): It's going what? You haven't seen these? No. Jaemath, didn't you donate, like, some ridiculous amount of money to Elizabeth Warren's campaign? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:37:46): No. 25 k. Just a little tasty poo. It was a little teaser bet, and I and I didn't like what I saw, so I had to shut it down. I shut it down on the turn. Oh, flop was not there, man. The flop flop got it from you. Speaker 2 (00:37:58): You you David Friedberg (00:37:58): you limped in? You limped in Chamath Palihapitiya (00:37:59): with 7 4. I lipped in with 74 off suit. I put a little teaser bed out there. I didn't like what I saw, and so I I folded. Jason Calacanis (00:38:06): Basically, Amazon is finally saying, hey. We're just gonna we're gonna stand up when Elizabeth Warner Bernie Sanders kinda attack us and attack Bezos. And they just said, listen. You guys set the minimum wage, do your job. We moved the minimum wage at Amazon to $15 an hour. We made our decision Get back to work and set the federal minimum wage of $15 an hour and stop telling us we don't pay our taxes because you make the tax law. So essentially, this dovetails with the hearing. I don't know if you guys watched any of the hearing with Zuckerberg and everybody. But, basically, they were seems like Big Tech Chamath Palihapitiya (00:38:43): is just putting their foot down Jason Calacanis (00:38:45): and saying, just tell us what you want us to do because we're doing it. We're giving people 15 David Sacks (00:38:50): what what Zuckerberg and Dorsey basically said is that if you don't like that kind of speech, then why don't you prohibit it instead of telling us to do it? You can't and you won't because, you know, it's it's it's a violation of the first amendment. So that yeah. They were kinda pushing back on them saying, listen. If if you have such a problem with that pass the law. Jason Calacanis (00:39:09): Yeah. And this guy, Dave Clark, you guys know Dave Clark at Amazon? Nope. So this is the guy who's been mixing it up. And if the audience is listening, you can see a bunch of this on the YouTube channel because we we'll put in Chamath Palihapitiya (00:39:22): the process. He's like the number 2 guy there. He he runs all he runs the entire retail business, I guess. Jason Calacanis (00:39:28): Yeah. So now Amazon is on a full court press to engage with, let's call it, the socialist left. I guess they call themselves Democratic socialists because they don't wanna be called socialist. And they're saying, like, listen. We give people health care. We give them 15 bucks an hour. And if you wanna tour the facilities, tour the facility, but nobody is peeing in bottles. And then, of course, the press and A couple of people showed bottles with pee in them that drivers can't stop to even go to the bathroom, which I think is a tragedy and horrible, people should not have to pee in bottles. I mean, they asked me about it on CNBC today. I was like, oh, this is a serious question. nobody should be peeing in bottles. But if you look at this exchange, I think we're kind of hitting the end of this debate, which is everybody kind of agrees. We should have health care for everybody in the country, we should have a $15 minimum wage. Why are we dunking and fighting with each other? When we've got this adversary, which is or 2 adversaries with Russia and China. We have these 2 crazy adversaries who wanna build authoritarian countries and control the economy and eventually control the planet. Why is why are Americans fighting with each other over these issues? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:40:32): I mean, this is this is just incredible. I I just wanna read it. Bernie Sanders says, I look forward to meeting with Amazon Workers in Alabama on Friday All I wanna know is by the richest man in the world, Jeff Bezos is spending millions trying to prevent workers from organizing a union so they can negotiate for better wages, benefits, and working conditions. To which he replies, all we wanna know is why the senator is one of the most powerful polls in politicians in Vermont for 30 plus years, and their minimum wage is still only 11.75. Amazon's minimum wage is $15 plus great health care from day 1. The senator should save his finger wagging lecture until after he actually delivers in his own backyard. To your point, it it is getting to a point now where folks are like, alright, guys. So step up and change the laws and change the incentives. And I think that that's gonna be really important. Saxi, you had something that you you were really miffed by what Zach said or something. At the thing about David Sacks (00:41:28): all this. Well, I what what Zach was trying to do in that hearing, the the certiquiri guy. What's his name? Ben Thompson Chamath Palihapitiya (00:41:36): or her -- Stratekary. So I think it's Stratekary. Ah. No. No. No. No. It's Stratekary. No. Jason Calacanis (00:41:42): Shretetri, I I he'd literally said it. He came to the poker game that we do at the d conference or the reco conference, whatever it's called, co conference. And he said it's structurey. David Sacks (00:41:53): Right. It's strategy plus tax. Right? Jason Calacanis (00:41:55): It's the worst name that was ever created, Chamath Palihapitiya (00:41:58): Stratechery. Yeah. For Tetra. David Sacks (00:41:59): Anyways, for sure. Jason Calacanis (00:42:00): It's a hundred bucks a year. He's got, like, 10,000 people paying for it. It's crazy. What what -- That makes -- The way he David Sacks (00:42:07): Okay. Great. So the way thank you for that thank you for that clarification. What what Ben Thompson wrote, the way he describes is statement is that Zuck was pulling up the ladder on all the other social networking sites that might come afterwards. And it was look, it was one of those tactical maneuvers that's in Facebook sort of narrow self interest, but it's so obviously in their self interest that, you know, people slam them for that. It's just too Machiavellian. And, basically, what Zuckerberg said is, listen, we now have over 30,000 people doing content moderation you guys should check you you, the the lawmakers, should change section 230 to say that, you know, you, the social media sites only get section 230 protection, the liability shield if you engage in this kind of content moderation. But if you're a site that doesn't, then you don't get protection. What's what Zuckerberg trying to do? You know? small startups can't hire 30,000 people to do content moderation. So this is, like, classic regulatory capture, but done brazenly in the open at a congressional hearing? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:43:10): I think you're right. I think it kind of makes a a lot of sense from him. The the game theory is pretty obvious, which is like, okay. make it now impossible for anybody to compete with us. And you basically lock us in forever, which it's pretty pretty brilliant The the question is, why do you think the odds are that politicians fall for this? I think they're they're forcing their hand now, so they don't have Jason Calacanis (00:43:30): much choice. David Sacks (00:43:31): Yeah. Well, I mean, the Democrats on that committee have basically been saying that disinformation is a huge problem and you, the social media sites, need to correct it. You need to control it. And so Zuckerberg comes along and says, okay. Great. No problem. We've hired 30,000 content moderators. We're gonna do what you said. In fact, we're gonna hire more. And by the way, if you really wanna get tough about this, why don't you modify section 230 to require it? Well, how many other startups can ever hire that number of content moderators? This is creating a moat that will basically protect Zuck in Facebook forever. Red Capture. Jason Calacanis (00:44:04): Yep. And the other crazy thing in this was the this stupid format they come up with where they give each person who's, you know, a senator or congressman who's or congress person who's doing the questioning, they give them 5 minutes so that, like, I only want a yes no answer. And you're like, I'm gonna ask you the most challenging problem in the world. I need you to answer yes or no, binary, 1 or 0. And it's like, well, that's not kind of how a nuanced issue works. like section 2:30. This is gonna take some time. Can I get 1 minute to answer the question? 2 minutes to answer the question? And so Jack and Zuckerberg and everybody just kinda threw their hands up. They're like, I I can't answer this in a yes, no. Can you ask me give me 30 seconds to answer these questions? It was pretty ridiculous. then they were trying to get them all to say that their platforms were used for the January 6th insurgency, and I don't agree with Zuck on much. But he was like, no. I think the people who were involved in January 6 were responsible for it. So whether that's the president or the people who broke into the capital, they're the ones who are actually responsible for this. You guys didn't want -- David Sacks (00:45:06): So so no. I well, I I I I read I read some summaries of it, and I think Dorcey actually did did a great job. And I I like I liked his performance. And let me read you a quote. Mike Solana tweeted this. So But he said, Jack said, I don't think these decisions should be made by private companies or the government, which is why we're suggesting a protocol approach to help the people make the decisions themselves. That was Jack Dorsey. Now that almost sounds like me if he just changed the word protocol to First Amendment case law. So I don't want these companies or the senate judiciary committee, you know, censoring people. I wanna use a revered external standard which is the first amendment case law that's been developed over the last 2 centuries. So Jack wants to use a protocol. Okay. But fine. But he's on the right track here, which is he's saying, look. We don't wanna be in the business of having this power to decide who's gonna have access to, you know, to the town square. And that's a step in the right direction. Jason Calacanis (00:46:03): But he's also got a project there to turn social networks into open standards. So in other words, the way we can all anybody can make an email client because email is an open standard. Anybody can build a web page or a browser because HTML is an open standard. he wants to do that, and he's working on that inside of Twitter where anybody is going to be able to take their tweets and they're gonna be decentralized. there there's gonna be no central server, and you're gonna be able to bring your own algorithm. So if you feel the algorithm is causing you to see extreme views. You could say, I want mine to only lean towards I want this one that leads towards positivity and kindness. Right? And somebody can make a 3rd party algorithm that gets rid of jerks? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:46:47): You guys probably saw this week, but a deal was announced and investment was announced Andresen, Sequoia, myself, and a few others, we did this thing called BitClout. Jason Calacanis (00:46:58): Oh, I heard about this. Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:46:59): So what is it? Just to give you a sense of it, it's like -- I've David Friedberg (00:47:01): been hearing about separately from a bunch of people. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:47:04): Yeah. So, I mean, like, the in a in a nutshell, you know, what these guys did was they said, okay. Well, you know, we're just gonna take this entire blockchain concept, and we're gonna fork it, and we're gonna create this thing where folks can essentially have one blockchain. They can, you know, have content around it and then identify sort of people and nodes. And all of a sudden, like, we all have this currency that sits on top of this Bit Cloud currency. And why that's interesting is their first app that they built on top of this was basically a a kind of a clone of Twitter just kind of as a proof of concept app. And I think, Jason, it's moving to a place where now people with reputation and people with trust can actually signal that they have it. And then that's a probably a better way over time for for for folks like us to figure out what is valuable and not valuable, what is trustworthy and not irrespective of whichever end of the spectrum it's coming in off of. And then if there is disinformation, you know, that person's, quote, unquote, bit clout stock, right, that their token will fall in value. There'll probably be a lot of interesting apps that are built on top of this. I was really drawn to the general idea of the project, then I think that's what Andresen and Sequoia probably felt as well. So, you know, there are these interesting solutions. There's Bit Cloud. There's Jason, what you this open source project at Twitter. It's all it's all gonna be really interesting. But I think if we can get to a way where we can quantify reputation and trust, that's the another way of around working around the pulling up the latter effect of of what Facebook and Twitter effectively told Congress this week. I wanna talk to you guys about what the hell the hell is going on in the Suez Canal? And what does this mean? I mean, Friedberg, what the fuck is this? This is unbelievable. David Friedberg (00:48:56): You know, it's so random and unfortunate, but this this ship that weighs 200,000 metric tons that's taller. It's longer than the Empire State Building is tall, going through the Suez Canal, which I think, you know, there's about a 100 ships a day go through the Suez Canal. And it's you know, the Suez Canal really is, you know, kind of an amazing engineering accomplishment that connect the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea. It basically allows ships from Asia to not have to go all the way around Africa to get to Europe. And the the ship goes into the Suez Canal, and it had a blackout. Its power went out. And so it just kept cruising without being able to control steering because there's, like, frigging power steering on these massive ships. You know, like, they don't have, like, a wire connected to the rudder. And so No Jason Calacanis (00:49:46): backup no backup battery supply, I guess. David Friedberg (00:49:48): Who knows? No one knows. But, like, the power went out, and the total blackout on the ship, they couldn't get the power back on, and the thing just keeps cruising and cruising and cruising. and it cruises right into the side, which is this big sand barrier on either side of the Suites canal, and it gets lodged in the sand barrier on the side. Now when you have 200,000 metric tons moving at a few miles an hour, that's an incredible amount of momentum of energy. And so it when it lodges in the side, that's you know, it's lodged in there. Jason Calacanis (00:50:15): And now it's stuck -- -- time to acceleration. David Friedberg (00:50:17): Yeah. It's actually math math time math time's velocity, but, yeah, you're you're close. And so the thing just basically got lodged in there, and they can't get it out. And now they think it's gonna take another week or 2 before they'll be able to kinda dig all around the hand and tugboat the thing out of there. But I think what's interesting so 10% of global trade moved through the Suez Canal, and about a 100 of these massive ships a day you know, move through this canal. But it really highlights the fragility of our global supply chain. Similar to kind of the experience I think we had during the COVID pandemic, all of a sudden, things like toilet paper were less available to us. But, you know, a a small power outage on a boat on a ship you know, in the middle of of the Suez Canal can suddenly block up so much of global trade and cause, you know, massive fluctuations in prices and availability of supplies and products for businesses around the world is gonna be rippling economic effects for a period of time. It's unclear how significant they're gonna be. But, you know, I I really do think that taking note of the fragility of our of our supply chain in this particular context it's worth taking a step back. And, you know, I spent a lot of my personal my work time, obviously, off the podcast, thinking about kind of our systems of industry. And, you know, the the global industrial revolutions were really predicated on this notion of centralization. you know, we took a lot of our production systems and we centralized them and and created automated repeatable tasks, and that reduced the cost and allowed us per unit of production to basically make things much more affordably. But the problem with centralization generally speaking in supply chains is exactly this, which is you you have a supply chain that is much more delicate, and it is much more I I mean, think about the difference in power. Right? David Friedberg (00:52:03): If the power goes out at a power plant, all the homes that are connected to it lose power versus if every home had their own power generator or solar cells they could continue to support themselves, And in a similar context, so much and this goes back to our conversation earlier about globalization, so much of our global supply chain for industry has become centralized by finding the lowest cost possible, but it loses all of its durability. And so the 21st century and a especially leading into this infrastructure bill that we're gonna be talking about or or that's gonna be talked about for for a long time now for months to come. presents an opportunity for us to think about durability in industry and durability in supply chains that I think is really profound. and allows us to shift the balance of of power, but also shift the set the the sources of production of all the things we consume as a species in a in a much more distributed way. And that can be done using green technology, using, you know, 3 d printing Jason Calacanis (00:52:59): -- -- printers. Yeah. -- David Friedberg (00:53:00): using bio manufacturing, you know, using the solar. There's a lot of -- Vertical farming Jason Calacanis (00:53:05): -- David Friedberg (00:53:06): Vertical farm. Yeah. Whatever. I I'll disagree with you on that one, and we'll talk about that separately. I I would argue like so much of of industry has been centralized because, remember, when the industrial revolutions took hold, The only skill set we had as a species was mechanical engineering. And in the years that followed, we developed skills in chemical engineering and ultimately in software and hardware engineering and now more recently in biochemical Engineering where we can use biological systems to make stuff. And the advent of those technology capabilities, I think, really gives us the opportunity today to reinvent these supply chains. And so the Suez Canal, I hope, is a little bit of a wake up call, and I hope leads into some of the thinking around the infrastructure build proposals where we're about building durability in the supply chain. And in that process, by the way, creating manufacturing jobs, you know, in a more distributed way. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:53:54): Let me build on what you're saying. So for all of the people listening that really, really care about electrification and electric cars, and there's a bunch of Tesla Bulls here. You know, Tesla uses a specific kind of battery called NCA. And There's, you know, other forms of batteries, but for the most part, and Tesla in China uses this LFP chemistry. But the point is there's a lot of very, very valuable nickel that goes into making lithium ion batteries. And so if you believe in electrification and you believe in, you know, 0 emissions and you believe in using these batteries, you need to believe in nickel, which is a tough business. Okay? You're you're grabbing, you know, rock out of the ground, and you're leaching this this extremely important metal out of it. So just a little while ago, there is a huge nickel manufacturer called Norless nickel. Right? And they have these 2 Russian nickel mines. And just very recently, they flooded And the plug which had been erected for localizing the flooding was washed away not for the first time not for the second time but for the third time. And people now think that getting all this water out of the mine may take at least a year. Okay? So what what why should we care? Well, right now if you think about all the batteries that were forecasted to make in order to sort of eliminate climate change and you know, do all these good things and for you know, Tesla to make their beautiful cars or whomever that that, you know, They need nickel. And right now, we have we have a deficit of nickel that's going to emerge now in less than a year and we have we have about a 37 to 40 percent shortage of what we need. So it's like you have all these grandiose visions of how the world should work and an electric failure in a barge shuts down the global supply chain for weeks. Flood in a nickel. A a flood in a nickel mine is gonna cause the price of a Tesla to basically double. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:55:56): And shouldn't people at some point Ask ourselves. Is this really what efficiency is supposed to feel like on the ground? And it may not be. Right? And so maybe, again, going back to the first conversation, a little bit more inefficiency, a little bit more inflation A little bit more redundancy will allow us to be resilient, and maybe that's what we really want. We don't -- Well, Jason Calacanis (00:56:20): I mean, you could ask the people in is what they want after they lost their power, and these have they have 1 like snowstorm, and the whole city is destroyed. I mean, there really is There is something to having the redundancy in your home and the supply chain and obviously drugs, which we witnessed during the pandemic. David Sacks (00:56:39): And and we can set some opportunities with Jason Calacanis (00:56:41): the infrastructure. David Sacks (00:56:41): We were so we were so concerned about short term profit maximization that we offshored our entire pharmaceutical production and PPE manufacturing to China, which then said that they might ration it to us based on, you know, geopolitical concerns. Jason Calacanis (00:56:58): No. Thanks. So, yeah, that that that is that David Sacks (00:57:00): is penny wise and pound foolish. the absolute definition. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:57:04): Is the is the infrastructure bill gonna fix it Friedberg? Do you have a rundown of the infrastructure bill? David Friedberg (00:57:09): You know, there in a good there isn't good clarity on this. My concern is that there's gonna be lots of push for things like roads and you know, stuff that doesn't create ongoing jobs that so much money is gonna go into basically a a a disguised stimulus package. versus, you know, the ideal kind of infrastructure program set is to enable industry if you go back and you think about, like, the Manhattan Project and the Apollo mission, you know, those were very expensive government programs that have a very specific mandate. But because there were big investments and difficult problems, they unlocked a lot of industry that followed that initial development cycle. And I think that that is kind of a good guideline for us to think about with respect to what we might hope for an infrastructure build to do, which is to create unlock for industry as opposed to plowing money into short term service contracts with a bunch of guys who are gonna make a ton of money building roads, and it doesn't really change the industry very much. And so I'm concerned it's gonna be a giveaway of money that's gonna create a short term stimulus, but doesn't really create long term effects in the industry. But we'll we'll see what kinda comes as they get more clarity on this, there's certainly a big push for, quote unquote, green. But I'm not sure the people that are, quote unquote, green advisers in this in this context are gonna be thinking about this, you know, this next century of opportunity. You know? Yeah. So so so we'll see. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:58:28): America's gonna have to have a come to Jesus if they actually really give a shit about climate change. Yeah. I'll give you an I'll give you a different example. Like, again, to to really electrify you have to pull metals out of the ground. That is a dirty business. Okay? And there are impacts to the environment even if you're the best at it. And right now in in the Western Hemisphere, it takes 20 years to green light a mine. 20 years Our shortages start in the next year. In China, they have, you know, no issues whatsoever. Right? Let's just say. So maybe it takes them 7 to 10 years to get to get a project green lit. Now I'm not advocating that we become China, but I think that it's really important for us to realize that, like, you know, If we're gonna really take this seriously, you can't have progress being hijacked by things that may not matter as much in the grand scheme of things. Like, there is the opportunity, for example, to build a massive set of copper and nickel mines in the western hemisphere But the minute that they get greenlit, they get there's an injunction that's filed by an NGO that'll say, ah, you know, we have to think about the land grouse. And it's like, well, the very like, what the fuck is the land grouse? And at some point, you have to figure out whether you actually want your kids to have asthma or not and whether they can suck up, you know, PM2.5andpm10 for the rest of their lives or you care more about the landgruss. And this is gonna come come to a head And, hopefully, the infrastructure bill paves the way for these decisions because I think as a country, we're gonna have to decide because many other countries in order to have clean air and drinkable water are gonna basically prioritize humans over the landgrills. Jason Calacanis (01:00:11): Yeah. I mean, it reminds me of the nuclear discussion we had earlier in this podcast of, like, we can't even put a new nuclear power plant in Chamath Palihapitiya (01:00:18): this country without it taking decades. And any any any interesting updates on the business side I saw Is Microsoft really about to buy Discord for Jason Calacanis (01:00:27): $10,000,000,000? Yeah. If you look at that compared to you know, the Slack acquisition is Slack got bought for 28,000,000,000 with was it 800,000,000 in revenue, yearly revenue at the time? and Discord has a 150,000,000, and they're gonna pretend. David Friedberg (01:00:43): It's unbelievable. Jason Calacanis (01:00:44): It's it's an even higher multiple -- So that time's real about your Yammer David Friedberg (01:00:48): sale for 1,200,000,000 at this point. I mean, holy. David Sacks (01:00:51): Well, it was it was in hindsight. It was probably cheap. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:00:53): It made David Friedberg (01:00:54): the market. David Sacks (01:00:54): You know? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Well, I mean, back in 2012, we we really thought back in 2012 that 1 to 2,000,000,000 was, like, the best case scenario of yeah. The upper bound of what a SaaS exit would look like. We just never realized how big the market could get. And now, obviously, you have Slack at close to 30,000,000,000. You have DocuSign, IPO, and you have 40,000,000,000. You have Zoom at over a Jason Calacanis (01:01:17): 100,000,000,000. David Sacks (01:01:17): And so the markets just ended up so much bigger than we ever thought. And we were the optimists. We were the ones building companies in SaaS back then. And so the cloud has just been so I mean and you see this now with, you know, the numbers that Azure and Google Cloud and AWS keep reporting where they're at, like, tens of Jason Calacanis (01:01:36): 1,000,000,000 David Sacks (01:01:36): of revenue, and they're still growing, like, 40, 50 percent a year. So the cloud is just so much bigger than what we all thought and what came before. So that's what I mean so I just decided to stop trying to find new ideas and just I mean, new like, a new thesis and just keep investing in this. That's why I'm kinda all in on on SaaS right now. Jason Calacanis (01:01:58): Do you think Microsoft is doing this to compete with Slack, or they're doing it to just really take over gaming? Do you have any insights, Saks? David Sacks (01:02:06): I think probably it's probably an element of both where they do like, one of their few consumer business lines that done really well as Xbox and gaming, and they bought Minecraft. And so I think they can get some value out of it there, but I I have to believe that this is competitively driven. They gotta be worried about Slack. I mean, the crown jewel at Microsoft is the Office Suite. And the reason they bought Yammer is to accelerate the transition of office into cloud, social, and mobile. And and it it did help do that. And they gotta be worried about Salesforce now. buying Slack. I mean, that is Benioff has been wanting to go after office for a long time, and this is his way to do it. Jason Calacanis (01:02:47): Yeah. Alright. There you have it, folks. Another all in podcast is in the can. Let me just ask a question. Are people making summer plans? and fall plans based on the I'm making Chamath Palihapitiya (01:03:00): I'm making I'm making tonight plans. I can't wait to get you victims into into the poker room sucks. I want you fly in David Friedberg (01:03:06): because I use Come and play. Jason Calacanis (01:03:08): We need to we need to we Chamath Palihapitiya (01:03:09): need a full besty victim. David Friedberg (01:03:11): Well, Zach, what's your plane tonight? Like, are you going to some fancy, like, pasta restaurant with your wife. Jason Calacanis (01:03:16): What are you doing popping bottles with David Sacks (01:03:18): yeah. Yeah. David Friedberg (01:03:19): Who are you hanging out with tonight's Saturday? Speaker 2 (01:03:21): What are Chamath Palihapitiya (01:03:21): you doing? Yeah. What are you doing these? I'm Jason Calacanis (01:03:23): just saying David Sacks (01:03:23): with the kids. was Friday night. David Friedberg (01:03:25): Dan, I'm Chamath Palihapitiya (01:03:25): just gonna ask again. Do you know their names? Yeah. Exactly. Speaker 2 (01:03:29): Put them Chamath Palihapitiya (01:03:29): to bed. -- do you have? David Friedberg (01:03:30): Put them to bed, fly up north. -- days. Come to the poker game. Jason Calacanis (01:03:34): Tell us your kid's middle names. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:03:36): Actually, that's a good one. That's a good Speaker 2 (01:03:40): one. Jason Calacanis (01:03:42): You're like, yeah. Whatever. Job. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:03:45): Yeah. Who knows? Speaker 2 (01:03:45): I went to the movies last night. Jason Calacanis (01:03:45): I wish I took my eleven year old out. She she was she wanted to get a Shake Shack, so I took her to Shake Shack. And the movie theater was there, and it was open. And I was like, oh, let's go check it of what's going on at the movie theater, and Terminator 2 is playing 15 minutes later. David Friedberg (01:04:03): Great film. Jason Calacanis (01:04:05): Incredible film holds up an amazing to see on the big screen We walk in. I kid you not, you know, a hundred seat theater with these beautiful big chairs. Nobody there, and they were so Wait. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:04:16): Sorry, Jake. Did you rent the whole thing? Jason Calacanis (01:04:19): No. It just happens to be that they're open for business. They space people out. Speaker 2 (01:04:22): And it Jason Calacanis (01:04:22): was $5 a ticket to see David Friedberg (01:04:26): I'm taking my I'm taking my daughters to the movies this afternoon. First time they've ever been to the movies. They're, you know, three and a half and and 2. I am so excited to take them to a movie theater. So we rented the whole theater for $99. It's the best deal in town. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:04:41): What what movie are you seeing? David Friedberg (01:04:43): Trolls. You could choose a movie. That's the cool thing. There's, like, a list of, like, 50 films, and you could pick a film. So I got, like, a little kid's film for them, and they're good to go see a movie theater and have Opcor and have the experience. That'd be awesome. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:04:54): And you can have other friends there? David Friedberg (01:04:56): Yeah. You can have up to twenty people. See, you rent the whole theater for 99 bucks, and you you can kinda you wanna come see Trolls, Jamach, just cruise up. I'll send you a ticket. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:05:03): Oh my god. That's the coolest fucking thing. That's all. Jason Calacanis (01:05:05): -- versus Kong is happening, and I'm renting a theater for it. So if everybody wants to bring their kids, It's a great -- My kids David Friedberg (01:05:12): would never sleep after saying that. Speaker 2 (01:05:13): It's Jason Calacanis (01:05:14): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (01:05:14): No. No. It's not for 3 to Jason Calacanis (01:05:15): five year olds, but, you know, ten year olds. Yes. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:05:17): It's a hundred bucks. This is an AMC theater. 90 nine bucks. It's awesome. Jason Calacanis (01:05:22): For AMC. Yeah. But the the Synopolis, I think, charges 200, and that's the like, really high end theater where you can press a button and the waiter comes. And the waiter was like, thanks for coming. We really appreciate it. Like, you're one of the first guests Chamath Palihapitiya (01:05:35): No way. David Friedberg (01:05:35): There is no way. Jason Calacanis (01:05:36): Yeah. It was kind of like an emotional moment for me to take my daughter again because that's what we would do every Friday. David Friedberg (01:05:42): Yeah. You know, school yeah. There's no way movie theaters go out of business. I mean, they're just it sucks like like a traditional experience. It's so American. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:05:48): It's just just -- -- AMC's trading David Sacks (01:05:51): Yeah. I wonder Jason Calacanis (01:05:51): AMC would be an interesting Chamath Palihapitiya (01:05:53): I I Sachs is saying David Friedberg (01:05:55): this conversation out. He's like, I got my movie theater downstairs. The the the Usher is on standby, ready again. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:06:00): How many Jason Calacanis (01:06:01): seats are you Zach's just like, oh, you could only rent a twenty seat theater? Speaker 2 (01:06:03): I have a David Friedberg (01:06:04): forty seat theater. A sec. How many theaters are do you have built in your various homes? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:06:09): Yeah. Do you only have Speaker 2 (01:06:10): a lot Jason Calacanis (01:06:10): of theater for home sex? Is it one theater per home? No. He's got a multiplex in each. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:06:14): In case people wanna watch Porn movies. Speaker 2 (01:06:17): They meet Jason Calacanis (01:06:18): at the pop court stand. David Sacks (01:06:19): I'm I'm excited to go back to the movies. I I Jason Calacanis (01:06:21): -- David Sacks (01:06:21): Me too. -- I'm gonna I love going to movies. David Friedberg (01:06:24): I love it. How are you guys to go to Disneyland. I I wanna take my kids to Disney. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:06:28): I can't wait. I can't wait. Jason Calacanis (01:06:29): I can't wait. David Sacks (01:06:31): COVID is COVID is over. I'm so sick. By by the way, how right how right were we? I think it was, like, 2 or Jason Calacanis (01:06:36): 3 David Sacks (01:06:37): pods ago. We were saying that COVID would be over by Memorial Day. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:06:40): Memorial Day. And -- Even in California, Gavin Newsom basically is finally capitulated to logic, and everybody can get a shot now as of April 15th. Jason Calacanis (01:06:49): Yeah. Which means by which means Chamath Palihapitiya (01:06:51): by May 15th, everybody who wants to get vaccinated -- Well, it Jason Calacanis (01:06:54): took me to recall 2,200,000 signatures. David Sacks (01:06:57): I took the recall and and shame and shaming him and berating him on Twitter constantly. I mean, Peter Pham was tweeting out, like, every day, the the growing inventories of scene and all the open appointments. We all were, and it's like ridiculous. We kept at mentioning him. Jason Calacanis (01:07:11): 5,000,000 shots on shelves in in a pandemic I mean, you don't need to be Friedberg to understand how vaccines work. Each person's a blocker. Right? David Sacks (01:07:21): Yeah. And and the other thing the other thing that got Newsom to move was that Biden gave that press conference in which he moved up the date And so then that prompted Newsom to move up his date. And the same thing happened like a month ago when when Biden gave that that speech where he said he gave that May 1st date as the date everyone should get vaccinated. So frankly, it'd be nice if we had a governor who would just do the right thing without the constant threat of recall and tweet shaming and, you know and and and the president dragging him, you know, into the future. But but I guess Jason Calacanis (01:07:56): -- What should we do with all I'm curious what you guys think of what we should do with all this extra supply. I had an interesting idea for the economy. If you come to America and you've tested you don't have COVID. Right? You take a test on the before you get there. If you come to America, we will give you the vaccine at the airport. Jason, I think -- I David Friedberg (01:08:14): think here's what we're gonna do. From now on -- How Jason Calacanis (01:08:16): great would that be for Troy? -- David Friedberg (01:08:17): gonna have 3 little chips a week, and you get to put a chip in a jar, and then you can suggest one of your ideas. But then once you hit Chamath Palihapitiya (01:08:24): the Rudy, we're done. Okay. I think it's just a question Speaker 2 (01:08:27): for the Jason Calacanis (01:08:27): economy. Yeah. David Sacks (01:08:29): vaccine tourism. Speaker 2 (01:08:30): Vaccine no. Jason Calacanis (01:08:31): No. We like formalize vaccine chores. If you come to America for vacation, complementary vaccines on the way in. Mhmm. David Sacks (01:08:37): I mean, we're ready at the point. We everyone look. I mean, look. Effectively affected no. I think effectively we're gonna have that. It won't be at the airport. But, I mean, the all the restrictions are coming off in every state by mid April now. And Jason Calacanis (01:08:50): -- -- David Friedberg (01:08:50): people can't afford an international plane ticket. You know? They're not, like, gonna come to the US to to get a shot. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:08:56): I I would like to advocate that we take these extra vaccines and we ship them to the developing world. David Friedberg (01:09:01): Yeah. They should go south of the border for sure. For sure. David Sacks (01:09:04): Yeah. And by the way, we're doing a much better job vaccinating people than Europe. I mean, it's unbelievable that COVID is spiking in Europe right now because they've been so incompetent at getting people vaccinated. Jason Calacanis (01:09:14): Well, their issue was they did wanna put the order ins. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:09:17): Shockingly incompetent. The Canadians and Jason Calacanis (01:09:19): the European said, we want you to prove to us the vaccine works. before we put Chamath Palihapitiya (01:09:23): our order in. I don't think So this is Jason. I think I think Jason, like, I think that, like, sometimes, I think over the last 40 years, there's been 2 polar opposites of governing people. 1 is what I would call the autocrat. And the other is what I would call kindergarten soccer. where when the ball no matter where the ball is on the on the soccer field, every player on every team is surrounding us. Speaker 2 (01:09:46): Yes. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:09:47): And so as a result, no progress is Here, progress is bursty and unpredictable and sometimes not great, but it can happen. And this is where, like, you know, so like, I mean, we are I'm I'm still shocked at the lack of scientific rigor and understanding by these people. And so how could you have An entire Western set of countries who are theoretically not stupid be in this situation in April of 2021 knowing what we know. David Sacks (01:10:17): Yeah. Well, how's how's how's Brexit how's Brexit looking now? Because Briton because Britain is, like, is almost fully vaccinated. Their COVID numbers are coming way down, and then the British variant. The British variant, it started in the UK, is spreading like wildfire across Europe, because they're too bureaucratic to get everyone vaccinated. So, I mean, Britain is looking really good by comparison right now. And Chamath Palihapitiya (01:10:41): They opted out of kindergarten soccer. David Sacks (01:10:44): Yeah. And and by the way, this is just to tie back to the infrastructure for a second. I don't have a problem with the infrastructure if the investment's gonna be spent wisely. But how much of us trust the government to spend the money wisely as opposed to on pork barrel spending and wasteful projects and taking too long? We have the Bay Bridge in San Francisco. The original Bay Bridge took 2 years to build, and then the the repair of it took 17 years where they did, like, the the upgraded version. And that's the problem we have is that nobody really trusts our government anymore to allocate this money wisely. Jason Calacanis (01:11:16): Just to give people an idea, doses administered per 100 people, 39 Chamath Palihapitiya (01:11:21): well, now 40 for Speaker 2 (01:11:21): the US, and Israel a Jason Calacanis (01:11:21): 114. obviously, there's 2 dough shots. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:11:28): And Spain, 14, Italy, 14, Canada, 12. Mexico 4. My mom who's almost 80 just got her for a shot, which I think is inexcusable, Justin Trudeau if you're listening. Jason Calacanis (01:11:41): Disaster. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:11:42): I just I just think that's unacceptable. Unacceptable. She's seventy nine years old. It's unacceptable. Jason Calacanis (01:11:49): God. I mean, David Sacks (01:11:51): literally -- These politicians these politicians and bureaucrats designed this complicated system to prove that they're helping people just like nuisance credit score equity points in California. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:11:59): It's it's it's it's it's it's And Jason Calacanis (01:12:00): all they do is David Sacks (01:12:00): get away. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:12:01): Equity. That's what Well, David Sacks (01:12:02): all they do is get in the way. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:12:04): The red the red light should go off, and you should run far away from whatever comes after. We're gonna solve an equity problem. We see -- Let's go for efficiency. Jason Calacanis (01:12:11): Let's let's go yeah. Alright, everybody. we'll see you all next time on the all in podcast. Love you, guys. Love you, guys. See you tonight. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:12:18): See you tonight, boys. See you tonight. Love you. Oh, yeah. Gotcha. Chip in a chair. Chip in a chair. Jason Calacanis (01:12:23): that's you. Bring us some of that bring us some of that sacks crafty poo money. Come on. Yeah. Buy it. Come on. We'll we'll we won't play PLO. We'll keep it to hold them. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:12:32): Yeah. We David Friedberg (01:12:33): know we we know if Chamath Palihapitiya (01:12:34): you fly up if you David Friedberg (01:12:35): fly up for the evening, you're gonna be just fully committed. You know, you're gonna be playing. Right? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:12:39): Hold them only. David Sacks (01:12:40): You're right. I'll I'll come in tilted because I'll be negative Jefffuel. Yes. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:12:47): Just go for Jason Calacanis (01:12:47): a coin toss. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:12:49): How about if we cover it? We'll just do a flip and we'll cover it for you. Jason Calacanis (01:12:52): cover your Chamath Palihapitiya (01:12:53): Jeff Fields boy. That's not a no. I didn't hear no. Speaker 2 (01:12:55): It's not Jason Calacanis (01:12:56): a no. Somebody's low. David Friedberg (01:12:58): Someone's in text and tell her to kick him out of the tonight. Speaker 2 (01:13:02): We'll let your winners ride. Rainman, David Saffens. And it said David Sacks (01:13:10): open sources to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it. Speaker 2 (01:13:18): besties are gone. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:13:27): driveway. Jason Calacanis (01:13:32): We should all just get a room and have one big you, George, because they're all these useless. It's like this, like, sexual tension that we just need to release them out. What? You're the bee Flex, sir. Dear feet. Speaker 2 (01:13:45): What sweatshirt. Jason Calacanis (01:13:46): Where did you get Murphy's arm back?