市场更新、收益率曲线倒挂、移民、SPAC 新规，以及 Meta 抹黑 TikTok

Chamath Palihapitiya (00:00:00): I mean, Jason and Saks look like fucking 2 accountants who've just been fired from Lehman Brothers in 2008. Jason Calacanis (00:00:06): Absolutely. We're carrying our boxes out to the street. in getting a taxi. David Friedberg (00:00:10): Saks does look appropriate for his setting. Jason Calacanis (00:00:12): How long are you in DC for? Saks appeal? You did an out one day. What are you doing? David Sacks (00:00:16): Yeah. I'm flying back tonight. -- for the fundraiser tomorrow morning. Jason Calacanis (00:00:19): Who's the fundraiser with? Do you wanna tell everybody? David Friedberg (00:00:22): A big boy? David Sacks (00:00:23): Yeah. It's an April fools joke. I'm hosting a fundraiser for a Democrat Jason Calacanis (00:00:26): Blue state. He's trolling everybody with his blue state. Put your red tie on. Put your red tie you have a red tie with you, Saxe? David Sacks (00:00:31): I wore a blue tie today. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:00:33): Really? Oh, you're trolling? full troll is on. Wow. What Jason Calacanis (00:00:37): a little troll artist. Alright. Let's get started. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:00:42): earlier ride. Jason Calacanis (00:00:44): Rainman, David Sachs. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:00:49): And I said, we open Jason Calacanis (00:00:57): Alright, everybody. Welcome to another episode of the All in podcast with us back from his Tahoe vacation. You were certainly missed even though the episode was record setting. The queen of Kenois himself, he'll reboot your physique with his Munich puts the mane in the kana. And he's your pal from NorCal, the Sultan of Science. David Friedberg. How are you doing, brother? Shit. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:01:19): Do you have a full sequence of these things? This is great. David Friedberg (00:01:22): You do actually do work for this podcast Chamath Palihapitiya (00:01:24): now? -- David Sacks (00:01:24): keep this going every week. It'll be amazing. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:01:27): Yeah. I mean -- I just Speaker 5 (00:01:28): feel like getting a plug in from unique Encona. That was my if I could get 2 portfolio -- K. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:01:32): Go ahead. Hit hit socks in me. Let's go. Speaker 6 (00:01:35): Alright. Well, you know, that he's back with us again the czar of ARR. the Savant of SaaS. Jason Calacanis (00:01:41): He puts the ass in Asperger's. He's a sucker. Speaker 6 (00:01:44): He's a sucker for Tucker, the rain melons out. David Sacks. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:01:51): That's so good. Speaker 6 (00:01:52): Alright. Next up, the dictator, agitator, and our frequent collaborator. He's back to back with a spat to trendsetter with his sweaters. Jason Calacanis (00:02:01): The future, he can foresee a Chmoth Palihapitiya. We gotcha, everybody. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:02:07): It's not as good as David's, I gotta say. Jason Calacanis (00:02:09): Well, there's a lot to go with Asperger's Tucker. I mean, he's material for sacks. I could have done 20 minutes 20 minutes. You could have done 20 minutes on Saks X, you are, of course, in DC with some star chamber thing, you, Bannon, TL, who's Who who what what star chamber bullshit are you doing in in -- No. David Sacks (00:02:28): I spoke at a foreign policy conference today called -- It's Jason Calacanis (00:02:31): the name of it. David Sacks (00:02:32): It's called Up from Chaos and sponsored by a group called the American Moment and the American Conservative. Jason Calacanis (00:02:39): Where did you speak about? David Sacks (00:02:41): Well, it's called up from chaos because our foreign policy has been chaos for the last 30 years. The United States has been in 7 wars. We've how many trillions have we spent on nation building? We've lost all of those wars, named one warrior we've won. Look at all the lives that have been lost, 1000 and Chamath Palihapitiya (00:02:55): 1000 David Sacks (00:02:56): of our soldiers, And then, you know, millions of innocent people all over the world. I've said it before. This is what happens when the United States goes around the world stampeding like a raging elephant. We need a more restrained foreign policy. So that's what I've been articulating. I don't know what what about that makes it either conservative or liberal. But, you know, what we need is is more restraint than Chamath Palihapitiya (00:03:18): -- -- David Friedberg (00:03:18): of all, it's too logical. David Sacks (00:03:20): It's too logical. Right? Yeah. You know, it's it's it's pretty much everyone in this town. I mean, there's no lobby for decreasing our involvement. Right? Because mean, the military industrial complex has gotten so big and so powerful. Jason Calacanis (00:03:34): I mean, Trump did not wanna start worse. It was key piece of his platform, and it did seem up until and we'll get into this, obviously, up until the gaffe from Biden 12 hours after I said you weren't giving him the benefit of Speaker 5 (00:03:49): the doubt. He threw me right under the law. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:03:51): -- David Sacks (00:03:51): just declared a new world order. I mean, he has bought himself this. -- Putin. Yeah. And he said regime change. I mean, he's bought into this liberal interventionism. Obama was much better. I mean, Obama had all the right instincts. He de escalated things in Ukraine. We could have had the situation back in 2014. Obama pulled the plug. And he de escalated it in Syria over the -- Damn it. Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:04:13): -- David Sacks (00:04:13): over the objections of his staff. I mean, the problem is if you the Obama basically got played by the the staff in the establishment. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:04:20): Because Obama Obama was there for 8 years, and he knew that, you know, it was all about doing the right thing. And also got the legacy and the judgment that would look back on his decisions, whereas everybody else is like, well, I'm here for this 4 year grift, and I'll be back for another 4 years later. So you know, the more chaos the better for a lot of those people. Jason Calacanis (00:04:39): He couldn't get us out of Afghanistan. Why couldn't he get us out of Afghanistan? Sack. because he wanted to. Right? David Sacks (00:04:45): He got played by the general. So Ben Rhodes wrote a book. Ben Rhodes was sort of one of Obama's right hand guys. And he coined a term that stuck for called the blob, which is the term for this sort of wash and foreign policy establishment. all the people in the state department and the think tanks and the sort of the the journalists who love being the drums of war. I mean, that whole establishment that just is addicted to war. And, you know, if you read that Atlantic Magazine interview called the Obama doctrine where Obama's interviewed, he lays it out. He says, look, there is a foreign policy playbook that presidents are expected to follow. in response to any provocation, any incident, you're supposed to react in a highly militarized way. And if you don't, you get attacked. And the generals he wanted to get out of Afghanistan, but the general started leaking against him that it'd be a fiasco. And then, unfortunately, Obama didn't stick to his guns. He didn't want to take those political hits. It was unfortunate. He really showed Jason Calacanis (00:05:47): up. We'll we'll get into Ukraine at the end of the show. But let's talk a little bit about markets up top here. The US yield curve inversion is upon us. Maybe you could give us a CP a little primer on what this means, the inverted yield yield curve. and why people are talking about it this week? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:06:03): Well, I think people yeah. We're talking about it. The reason they were is that they believe that it predicts a recession. And, specifically, what they look at is the interest rate on a 2 year bond. in an interest rate on a 10 year bond, and you subtract one from the other. And when it inverts, what effectively what it means is that, you know, typically in a healthy economy, you want rising interest rates over a long period of time. And the reason you would want that is that you are guessing that the economy will be healthy. There'll be a nominal amount of inflation, so things will tenderly increase in price. And as a result of that, you need to get paid more for the future than today. Right? So if you want me to take 10 year risk, You need to pay me a little bit more than if you want me to take 2 year risk. And so things should go up into the right. But when all of that stuff 10 years out all of a sudden is trading for a lower yield than today. What people think will happen is that, you know, governments will cut interest rates massively. They tend to do that in order to stimulate the economy, right, to get money back into the system, and they tend to do that because of a recession. And so people look at the the difference between the 2 year bond and the 10 year bond and they try to guess what's gonna happen. Here's the problem with all of this. It turns out that it's not as correlated as one thinks. The and, Nick, I posted this link so you you can just put it up there. But a bunch of economists at the fed actually went and You know, you have access to this data. They back tested this. And what they found was that there was actually a more predictive signal of recessions. which is the difference between the 3 month t bill and the 18 month t bill. And if you look at 3s 18 spread. They called that the forward spread at the at the fed. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:07:59): That's actually not showing a recession at all. In fact, that shows a very healthy ascent. largely taking into account the fact that the fed has told us that they're gonna rip in a bunch of rate increases over the next year to 18 months. So what are we to do with all of this? Well, when there's been a recession, it has typically been true that both the two's tens and the forward spread have collapsed to 0 or gone negative. That's this inversion. It has never really been the case that twos 10s inverts while the forward spread stays up and you have a recession. In the past, we've mentioned that when oil has these kinds of price spikes, it typically forecasts a recession. So if you put all of this data together, it's a really murky picture. So what are you supposed to do? it's not totally clear to me, but I think that the general way that I think the market is reacting to this is probably inappropriate, and I'll tell you why. And the setup, by the way, because of this inappropriateness is actually quite interesting. So why is the reaction inappropriate? Look. If you think about where we were in November and where we are today, almost April 1st. Right? So it's been 4 months, 5 months. We've had massive exposition of inflation. We've had massive disruptions to the supply chain. We've had the beginning of a war whose end is somewhat indeterminate today. That's causing a bunch of spikes and a bunch of really critical oddities the entire world needs. We've had a Federal Reserve that went from hiking 50 or 75 basis points to hiking 200 to 250 basis points by the estimated average. And so all of these things have happened yet the market is basically at an all time high, plus or minus at 5%. That really doesn't hang together at some really basic logical level. Right? So so what's gonna happen? Well, Brad said this last week, What has actually happened under the hood is a dispersion, which means the crappy companies have gotten crushed, and the good companies have gotten whacked but not crushed. Okay? And then when they rally, they rally disproportionately in favor of the good companies. So what are we doing right now? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:10:19): I think we are going to see this diversion of companies, and we're about to go through earning season. Right? We're at the end of q 1, and I think what's gonna happen is really interesting. You're gonna have a handful of companies who have a great handle on their business who actually project strength. I know what I'm doing, I know how I'm going to perform. The levers are in my control. I'm going to invest for the future. I'm gonna go and consolidate a market. Those companies will get rewarded. And then anybody else who has a whiff of indecision or whose structural business is flawed And then they use all of these other issues as a reason to explain their flawed business will get completely whacked. Two examples over this last week, and we had this debate. You know, the people were talking about restoration hardware and the CEO basically saying the sky is falling and there's a huge recession. And you know, my comment is, well, if you take the other side of the coin, restoration hardware sells overpriced crappy furniture into a housing market that's basically shut down because refi rates are at 5%. There's the other explanation for why his business is crappy. It doesn't necessarily have to be a recession. Jason Calacanis (00:11:29): And and just to clearly define it, a recession is two quarters or more of negative growth, the the economy contracting. And we've had about a dozen of these since World War 2. We remember a couple of them in our lifetimes. Obviously, the COVID situation created a recession for a couple of quarters. And then we had the great recession, which lasted I think that was almost almost over a year. Right? That was six quarters, I think, 5 quarters. So these happen every 10 years or so. So if we do have a recession and it it seems implausible to me that we would have negative growth for two quarters. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:12:09): So -- Well, the other the other interesting company, for example, was uipath, which uipath got whacked today 25 or 26%. And what they actually reported was that they thought that they were going to increase ARR to, you know, 1,200,000,000 from, like, 900. That's a that's a hue at that scale to grow 35, 40 percent in ARR in a year is really quite incredible. But their ACV numbers and their revenue numbers were a little soft. They got whacked, and now they're trading, you know, like, 11 times ARR. So you have some of these companies that are gonna blame macro headwinds they may actually just have a, you know, a flawed business model. You'll have these other companies who actually over perform, but may have been a little bit too highly valued, who'll get valuation reset. on any faint weakness. And so, you know, it's gonna be really up to these CEOs and these boards when they write their earnings releases To be very precise, those that have a handle on their business, I think, are gonna get really rewarded. And those that don't need to blame the macro market and just get all the bad news out now because this is the quarter. It doesn't get any better from here. Jason Calacanis (00:13:19): Sachs, best ways to fight a recession, cut spending, I'm sorry, increased government spending, cut taxes, Chamath Palihapitiya (00:13:29): where are we Jason Calacanis (00:13:29): at in terms of how many bullets we have to do these kind of things. We don't really have a, you know, ability to spend more money. And I guess lowering interest rates is the other way to stimulate do we even know we're going into a recession? So do you think we're going into a recession if we are? Is there a way to reverse it through the the normal tactics? David Sacks (00:13:47): We're definitely going into a slowdown. and whether it becomes a recession to be determined, I think there's a very good chance because we already were headed for a slowdown because of interest rate increases because of inflation. And now on top of it, we got all the supply chain disruptions from this war And we know that, you know, unplugging the Chamath Palihapitiya (00:14:07): 144,000,000 David Sacks (00:14:09): Russians in the Russian economy. We've basically unplugged that from the global economy. So that's gonna hit our economy if there's a little bit of delayed reaction there. So these are all negative indicators. And I think we're either gonna have a recession or something very close to it. Jason Calacanis (00:14:26): And they typically last 11 months. Right, Zach? So how long would the recession be? I think it's typically 11 months, 2 quarters, 6 quarters? David Sacks (00:14:34): Yeah. Normally, it's, like, 18 months till you get back to where you're to be or something like that. But you're right. We have very limited tools to fight this because we've already spent I mean, we've already broken the glass in case of emergency for COVID. we spent something like 10,000,000,000,000. By the way, that's what caused a lot of the problems is we flooded the zone with liquidity. Now we're trying to mop that up with interest rate increases that's slowing down the economy. So there's nothing left to really spend. You can't really drop interest rates much more. And if you do, you'll get much worse inflation. So it seems to me that we don't have a lot of tools here, and we could end up with something like a stack 1970 style. stagflation where we continue to see inflation with a slowing economy. Jason Calacanis (00:15:17): Let's unpack what that experience would be like. Economy slowing. There's less job openings. People are spending less money while the prices of goods and services continue to go up? David Friedberg (00:15:28): That's why they spend that's why they spend less money. And that's why there's there's recession. Like, I mean, you're paying six bucks for gas or you have less money to go out for dinner every week. Right? You pay you know, twice as much for an airplane ticket. You don't spend as much on the hotel. I mean, like, you know, the the rippling effects of the rate of inflation are decreased spending and there isn't enough time for, you know, the the new job creation engine to catch up And, you know, without a stimulus effect, you're in trouble. That's really the situation we're in, and that's what, you know, can kinda cause these stagflationary effects to to to drag on. Jason Calacanis (00:16:07): Almost every other time we've had a recession, people couldn't find jobs, and I I can remember them qualitatively, people saying, hey. I wanna get a job. I need more money. I can't find one. And now we're sitting here with more jobs. then we can fill. Still over 10,000,000 jobs available and and people are still resigning from jobs. So how how do we factor in the labor market, Chamath? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:16:30): Well, it's I think Jason Calacanis (00:16:31): this is -- It's super confounding. It's just not like previous ones. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:16:34): It is. I actually think, Jason, the explanation for all of this is Not necessarily about the supply demand dynamics of labor, but our social policies related to our birth rate and immigration. I posted this article link for you guys to read in the Atlantic, but basically, Our birth rate in 2021 absolutely fell off a cliff. It was less than 300,000 net births in the entire country. and net birth is defined as immigration plus births minus deaths. And when you look under the covers, You know, we had 2 really discontinuously bad things, one that was that has been building since Trump and one that was acute. The thing that was acute was that in 2021, after we had vaccines, which is a crazy thing to think about, We had a million deaths, basically, right, because of COVID. So that's a million people that largely exited the workforce plus or minus. Obviously, some not not all of those people working, but I think the overwhelming majority -- Jason Calacanis (00:17:32): Probably 50%. We have 50 percent we have a participation in Zoom. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:17:36): More. More. I suspect I suspect it -- Some could have been retired. Right? That's what I'm saying. I think it's probably, like, 70, 80% of the people that died were probably in the workforce in some way. you had you had all those people leave. We have a, you know, troublesome issue with births and birth rates. all Western economies do, basically, as a standard of living goes up and as the equality between men and women go up, birth rates go down without commenting on the the the dynamics of that. That's just that is just true. And so, you know, we should celebrate that in the sense sense like, you know, you want increasing equality. You want people to have more choice, etcetera, all these things. So how do you make up for the gap? while you make up for the gap in immigration. And the problem is that Trump closed the door -- Yep. -- and Biden has not reopened the door. And so, you know, we have had a a meaningful falloff in immigration, it doubly compounded because and because of COVID, we had border controls, and we shut the borders completely. So even if you know, you were a student that would come here, odds were maybe you'd get a master's or a PhD, and then stay here. None of those people can so nobody can get in. So That's the real problem that we have to solve, Jason, which is that you're not gonna get, you know, families to all of a sudden have kids. You know? That that's a 18 year problem if you started that problem today to get them into the workforce or 25 year problem. So immigration is really the only solution, and we don't really have the sponsorship to do in debt to domestic policy level. Jason Calacanis (00:19:02): Well, then you add to that the fact that labor participation, which when we were coming up, Chamath Palihapitiya (00:19:07): 67, 68% Jason Calacanis (00:19:09): of people in the country were choosing to work, and now we're we're down in the 60% and maybe kicking up to yeah. 62% it looks like on that Fred website. So We we we need to greatly increase the number of people in the country and the people participating in the labor force if we're to avoid a recession. Right? More people working We need to -- -- more economic and Chamath Palihapitiya (00:19:30): -- We need to boost it. Yeah. I I would encourage everybody to read this Atlantic article because I think Nick Thompson does a very good job of just basically summarizing the issues that that we have. Jason Calacanis (00:19:39): Friedberg, what are your thoughts here? If is it getting more people to participate in the labor importing more people both, and then how do you how do you get that to actually happen? Sorry. Derek Thompson, not Nick Thompson. Look. I'm I'm I'm not David Friedberg (00:19:53): an economist, but I don't know if that really solves the acute runaway problem that we're experiencing right now. One thing I'll say about inflation, let's say you're running a company and you raise your prices, you're not often going back and dropping your prices again. And, you know, you have to have a catch up effect for income and savings to make up for the increment in pricing. And that's really, you know, a key driver right now that the rate at which prices are going up and, you know, churn gas and other commodities trade back down but consumable, durable typically stay high after they inflate, you end up having, you know, kind of this persisting effect. it's really hard to kind of just grow your way out of that. So, you know, without stimulus. And so, you know, I'm not sure that the labor solution is gonna solve this kind of acute problem that we're gonna be facing that's that seems to be Chamath Palihapitiya (00:20:50): -- Jason Calacanis (00:20:50): And then what -- -- dragging on. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:20:52): What do you think about argument, though, that there's a substitutional effect. Meaning -- David Friedberg (00:20:56): Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:20:56): -- when prices of goods rise, people find cheaper goods. And then separately, what happens is, you know, part of a productive society is you make better and more interesting and more useful goods and services. And, you know, incrementally, GPUs technology, those things tend to be deflationary, so they do get cheaper. Meaning, you know, you used to pay for photo storage. Dropbox comes along, gives it away for free. then Google comes along and gives everything away for free. Yep. So you have this deflationary, natural deflationary effect where you tend to save money on the things you used to pay because a lot of people find that they can build a different kind of business model to monetize giving it to you or subsidizing it. Jason Calacanis (00:21:33): I think that's the key to mouth is that if peep if prices go up, then entrepreneurs are gonna look and say, you know what? There's a better way to do this. You wanna go on vacation. You wanna stay somewhere for 2 weeks. You can't afford the hotel. Okay. Let's try this new thing like this Airbnb. Somebody rents you their apartment. They move in with another person. For the week, you use their apartment, and you can rent for a 150 night instead 350 at a hotel, that that pricing when there's runaway pricing, people come up with better solutions for people. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:22:01): Yeah. I think I think that that's generally been true. And by the way, the if you think about the the biggest areas that have been sticky, which are energy policy and housing policy, the way that we'll have to unlock better pricing in those markets will be because we not not by increasing regulation, but by massive deregulation. You know, we have massive nimbyism up and down the stack that prevents us from building the housing supply we need. that has to get fixed. Right? And we need to have better energy policy. Like, for example, you take a state like California You know, it's the most populous state in the country. It's the richest state in the country, but it has electricity prices that are three times higher than the national average. That doesn't make any sense. Right? And so, you know, how do you expect renewables to really compete when people are so incentivized to fire coal in that gas? It doesn't make any sense whatsoever prices cannot be this high. They're high because of lobbying and because of lobbyists and special interests. And so if you rip that stuff out by deregulation, You actually allow, as you said, Jason, entrepreneurs to do the right thing, and they will push prices back down. Jason Calacanis (00:23:08): Saks? David Sacks (00:23:09): What's your question? Jason Calacanis (00:23:10): Well, I thought you might wanna comment on what we're talking about entrepreneurs, creating products and services that lower prices that then, you know, maybe crate the the exit ramp here to inflation and stagflation, some combination of that that's gonna be upon us. David Sacks (00:23:26): Sure. I mean, there's a lot of entrepreneurial energy in the US. strong. There the technology does cause deflation. It's deflationary. But this is not gonna help us get out of what's coming over the next year or Chamath Palihapitiya (00:23:39): 2. David Sacks (00:23:40): Look. The the bottom line is that we had a massive government over a reaction to COVID in which we printed and spent way too much money, something like 10,000,000,000,000 plus. And, you know, this is the classic hangover. after the party. You know, they put the punch bowl out for way too long, and now we're all gonna pay the price for it. Jason Calacanis (00:23:58): They spiked the punch bowl. David Sacks (00:23:59): They spiked the punch bowl big time. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:24:01): Yeah. David Sacks (00:24:01): And we're already seeing it. Think about, like, all the advice we're giving our portfolio companies to slow down their spending and extend their runway. Every board in America's gonna be doing that. So it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. But this yield curve inversion is, you know, fairly predictive. I mean, it's not perfect, but You know, CNBC had this report today. Historically, it's met when the yield curve inverts has been a better than 2 thirds chance for a session at some point in the next year. and greater than 98% chance recession at some point in the next 2 years. So it looks to me Jason Calacanis (00:24:33): like It it Chamath Palihapitiya (00:24:34): needs to be inverted for a at least 90 days, typically. But, again, I think if you look at the the the forward spread from the Fed, it's it's more accurate than the 2 stents. But your point is the same. Something is happening that we need to take seriously, and none of the outcomes here are growthy good outcomes. And the policy wants in Washington really need to figure out what their position's gonna be on this stuff and what they push next in terms of legislation. because we're gonna be going into the back half of the year in a midterm election where the economy is slowing. Interest rates are high. Prices are high. This is a horrible setup for the day. David Sacks (00:25:12): And let's think about what the priorities of the administration have been throughout all of this. I mean, 1 year ago, they did that whole $2,000,000,000 American rescue plan. They were warned by people like Stanley Druckenmiller that retail was back, the consumer was and yet they still printed Chamath Palihapitiya (00:25:28): 2,000,000,000,000. David Sacks (00:25:29): That caused a huge amount of inflation. It totally backfired. And that wasn't the end of it. If they had their way, we would have had 4,000,000,000,000 more of spending in the whole build back better. Now Biden just floated this new trial balloon over this unrealized gains tax. So last year, they floated the trial balloon about basically doing a wealth tax and everyone hated it and now they just proposed it again. It was insane. And even when they brought it out, they leaked that they had mansion support behind it. And then the next day, mansion came out and disavowed it and said, no. No. No. I don't support this. I mean, what is the administration thinking? It makes no sense. Jason Calacanis (00:26:04): Well, I mean, clearly David Friedberg (00:26:05): Our foreign David Sacks (00:26:06): policy I mean, I strongly believe we coulda cut a deal on Ukraine a year ago to diffuse the sole situation before it turned into a war. Now we got a war over there. Jason Calacanis (00:26:16): Well, let's talk about what they should do. I mean, number 1 on the list for me is we should be getting every entrepreneur from around the world, any really intelligent person who wants to go to graduate school here into this country. We need to have like, a a Manhattan project to just scoop up all these mutant geniuses from around the world and get them here and get them starting companies here Chamath Palihapitiya (00:26:35): You don't even need to do that. It it it was working. Jason Calacanis (00:26:39): And don't fuck it up. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:26:40): Bush Obama. All you had to do was just leave it alone. Everybody who is any good at anything wanted to come to the United States, including the 3 of us, Yeah. And all of a sudden, it's like, nah. It's good. Yeah. I pass. Yeah. Okay. I guess. Jason Calacanis (00:26:59): Yeah. Well, I mean, if you set out that you hate entrepreneurs and you resent them for success, don't be surprised if they wanna stay in the country that. But I I don't Chamath Palihapitiya (00:27:08): I don't think that's what it was. I think it was much crueler than that. I think that we went to a posture that said, okay. You know what? Net new immigration was viewed as something that was displacing people, wasn't a net value creator, was you know, in some cases, viewed very xenophobicly, and that is really problematic because it's actually about a large population issue. And it's about how you construct a healthy thriving population. Jason Calacanis (00:27:36): Yeah. This was Trump's worst, yeah, worst approach. He was best approach, clearly not starting War's worst approach, shutting the borders down for some populous reason when we actually need people in the country. David Sacks (00:27:47): Well, hold on. But, see, the way you just framed that, is why I think there's a problem, which is look, obviously, the immigrations are a very fraud issue. But the choice that's being presented to us by our political party is either you're in favor of immigration, you know, like bringing in all these superstars. Like we have founders at Silicon Valley, that makes sense. Or You're in favor of open borders. I mean, why are those the 2 choices that we either have h onebs or you have an open border? I mean, that makes no sense. I mean, what we should have is a sensible immigration first of all, we should strip the border security issue out of it. Because whatever the number immigrants in monoline. -- should be Chamath Palihapitiya (00:28:24): pro border security. Jason Calacanis (00:28:25): I mean, we need a point Chamath Palihapitiya (00:28:26): based system. We need to Jason Calacanis (00:28:27): have have a reasonable discussion between Democrats and Republicans about a point based system. there's qualitative distance. You you might have Chamath Palihapitiya (00:28:33): that for a long time, and it it works in Canada, and you're I think you're absolutely right. David Friedberg (00:28:37): Australian, New Jason Calacanis (00:28:38): Zealand, UK, They all have this. It's like -- Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:28:41): -- Jason Calacanis (00:28:41): what what does our country need right now? Okay. Do we need people, you know, who are laborers, or do we need people starting companies? Do we need you know, scientists -- I don't David Friedberg (00:28:48): know if you've noticed, but to me, this is very equivalent to the removal of SAT and act scoring and admissions in college. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:28:55): explain. David Friedberg (00:28:55): The the the notion of merit, the notion of performance is not one that really matters in this country as much right now. as much as the notion of equity. And equity really has kind of become the mainstay of not just how we're making policy decisions on a local level but a lot of these kind of national issues are becoming about equity. And it's about, you know, equitable consideration for wealth creation for existing citizens in the United States And the perception that a minority of people or some majority of people actually missed out on significant wealth creation over the past couple of decades as globalization and technology advances have accelerated growth in our economy, and the share of that growth has been disproportionately assigned to a small percentage of people. And I think it is that same notion that drives a lot of the the the kind of sub decisions, the local decisions that we're making as well as these important policy decisions. And the point that I think is critical that's really hard to get across to everyone or anyone for that matter is that you know? And I've talked about this a lot, but progress brings everyone forward, but it doesn't bring everyone forward symmetrically. Right? Progress brings everyone forward. Jason Calacanis (00:30:04): Give an example, Friedberg. David Friedberg (00:30:06): So Amazon's a great example. I've used it a lot. With Amazon, we've all been given access to more goods and cheaper goods than we would have had before. So we all benefit from that progress. Right? Everyone can get on an app and get freaking inflatable swimming pool delivered to their home and the vitamins they need within 24 hours at half the price of what it would have cost them to go down to the local Ace hardware store. that's an incredible benefit for all of us. So our share of wallet on that sort of goods has gone down. Therefore, we can spend more, get access to more stuff, and we're all prospering. if you think back to what life was like 30 years ago, 20 years ago to those of you who, you know, were spending money 20 years ago or whatever, it's an incredibly different proposition than what we had back then. and it really has changed the world and changed all of us as consumers' ability to consume more. That's amazing. The problem is Jeff Bezos is worth a $160,000,000,000. everyone looks at that and they wanna lamb base Jeff Bezos, and they wanna say, this is unfair. And equity becomes the discussion, which is why is one guy worth a Chamath Palihapitiya (00:31:01): $160,000,000,000. David Friedberg (00:31:03): The reality is he benefited everyone. Everyone got benefit from the value that he helped create in this world, in this market. And then the reaction is, we gotta stop this from happening. We can't let people be worth a $160,000,000,000 without putting their eye on the point that, you know, what I'm spending $3 a year or less because of this possum because of this technology that he brought to market. And so there's a lot of these solutions that I would say are progressive. They they progress us all as a society. Everything from biotech to technology and software, to any sort of business or services innovation that people are willing to pay money for, that people are willing to embrace in an open and free market. And then what happens is the spoils of that progress aggregate in a mind in a in a small way to a small number of people. and that's the payoff in capitalism. But when that happens over and over again for 250 years, you fast forward and by the way, a lot of those compound people wake up and they say, I don't want that anymore. And they miss the fact that progress is taken for granted. And here we are. We wanna give up progress and we wanna get equity. And it's gonna cause a real ripple effect that's gonna last for decades, and it's not the first time we've seen it. Right? This has happened historically over cycles that last hundreds of years in happening now in the United States and in the entire Western world. And I think it's gonna be really unfortunate generally for progress And all the ones, Jason Calacanis (00:32:25): you know, and all David Friedberg (00:32:26): all the advocates for equity are gonna kinda Chamath Palihapitiya (00:32:27): -- What's the solution? I think you're totally right. What's the solution? because that's it's just a really sad I've thought about this a lot. David Friedberg (00:32:34): And, you know, I look at what China did, and everyone's gonna say on pro China. But what was interesting about China recently is they ratchet up and they ratchet down that free market system. So they allow progress and then they disallow progress when the equity meter goes the wrong way. so if you kinda think about an equity meter and a progress meter, you have to balance those 2 over time. Because otherwise, what happens is you spring back. And then the springing back is when governments change, revolutions happen, you know, democracy falls apart, autocracy arise, all those sorts of awful things and or, really, I would say those cyclical things that happen. I don't wanna characterize any of them as good or bad, but the cyclical things that happen with society over time. And so, you know, that is effectively what's happening, guys. Like, the ultra high tax rate, the the regulatory regime, you know, the the government coming in and stopping Facebook I mean, these sorts of behaviors are almost like an attempt to mute and ratchet down both inequity as well as the, you know, unfortunate side effect of progress. Right. And I think -- We're Jason Calacanis (00:33:36): basically punishing excellence. and that is challenging for long term growth. David Friedberg (00:33:42): You're minimizing you're minimizing progress to improve the the the the rate of equity of distribution of gains. Right? And and it's it's very hard. because, by the way, what you're also doing is you're relating a first derivative and a second derivative effect. And so, you know, 1st order and second order effect. So it becomes a really difficult thing to and and people don't really see it this way. People see kind of the the very, you know, myopic view of I gotta redistribute wealth. I gotta help people that are out of jobs. guys have only seen their income go up by 10%, while everyone else's income's gone up by Chamath Palihapitiya (00:34:09): 40%. David Friedberg (00:34:10): And so, you know, politicians, you know, legislators react to that circumstance but assuming out is that circumstance arose as we all made progress with respect to security, with respect to health, with respect to food availability, with respect to consumables being cheaper, etcetera, etcetera. All these great things that progress has given us. And, you know, there's a ratcheting effect the hope I have is that that ratcheting isn't too binary. It doesn't flip too far back the other way too fast in which case you have a socialist state arise, a revolution arise, you know, all the things that we've seen kind of come out of Chamath Palihapitiya (00:34:47): -- Jason Calacanis (00:34:47): Or are people just canceling AP mats in California. David Friedberg (00:34:50): Precisely. Precisely. And then and then the the the the rippling effect of no more AP map and no more SAPs is you know, row row. Like, you know, yeah, fast forward Chamath Palihapitiya (00:34:58): 2018. Jason Calacanis (00:34:59): MIT brought back the I don't know if you saw this week. MIT brought back SATs as a qualifier. after they paused it. I think a lot of people are starting to realize this is a a road to nowhere. Sacks, what what do you think is to Chemut's point? Like, is there a solution to get America behind excellence and pragmatic, you know, kind of solutions for immigration. And if there is a way to do that, well, how would you do it? David Sacks (00:35:22): Well, I think like we're talking about, you gotta kinda unpack the issue. So like we talked about, strip border security out of it. Don't make that part of it. Then I think you gotta differentiate between high skill and low skill immigration like what you called the point system. I mean, if you look at whose founding companies in Silicon Valley, something like 40% of startups have an immigrant cofounder. So clearly, immigrants bring a ton of entrepreneurial energy to the US, but we also It's in our selfish interest to make sure that the immigrants we're letting in actually have the skills that make them potential founders. So I think it's just would be smart for us to think that way. And you can't even really have that conversation, it seems like, today, to have more of a skills based immigration system. I mean, who who's wanting to say that? Jason Calacanis (00:36:08): Well, you could just save 3 buckets. You know, here's people who need amnesty. David Sacks (00:36:12): Right. Jason Calacanis (00:36:13): Because they're being a a per prosecute persecuted in their country, and they're here because of humanitarian reasons. Here's a bucket. for high performers who are gonna add to our economy and crate jobs. And then here's another bucket, which is a lottery and a lineup system. Hey. You wanna come here because don't have skill, but you wanna come here because the country's so great. Okay. You know, each of those buckets is gonna have its own process, and your your odds might be different in each bucket. You know, is that so hard for people to grok? David Sacks (00:36:41): Right. You gotta remember, you know, we're we're we're sitting for in the economy. I mean, it's very easy for us to say this because we are sitting in Silicon Valley, and for us, immigration is an economic good. It's a benefit. But if you are in a part of the country or a part of the economy where you're in a low wage job, maybe you're a service employee or you're a union employee in the Midwest, the more immigrants that are let in, that are low skill, they compete with you, and drive your wages down. And that's why people are against it. So that's basically the conundrum is. As long as you're talking about immigration as being a single thing, it's gonna have a lot of political opposition. that's why we need to, you know, bifurcate it between high school and low skill. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:37:22): It it turns David Sacks (00:37:23): out -- -- high school people and -- Exactly. -- less low skill. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:37:25): The least if you had to rank them from least controversial to most controversial, I think letting in high skilled labor is probably the least controversial thing. Then and there is always controversy around this. It's always on the, you know, the bucket of people for humanitarian grounds. Right? Some people agree. Some people disagree. Should these people be considered refugees? Should they not? How many of your family members should you be able to sponsor? How many not, etcetera, etcetera. and that's somewhat controversial. But I think we can all agree. The most controversial bucket are folks that would otherwise come that would be considered lower skill because they are the ones that really put pressure in very practical measurable ways into the economy. And we just have to, to your point, segregate and differentiate how we think about this problem. Because again, if you take immigration the word away and actually just use immigration as an input to this equation on population stability, We have population instability right now. So unless we figure out something between live births and deaths, which I don't think we're going to solve, tomorrow. Oh. It's going to create a very large imbalance that our economy and our country cannot really recover from. Jason Calacanis (00:38:45): You know what? It's you you sparked by thinking there. It really is a framing issue. We should not call high skilled labor coming here as immigration. We should be flipping that to talent acquisition. We should be looking at it as America is trying to get more talent here so we can win the industries that matter. if we looked at it as this is talent acquisition. It has nothing to do with immigration. This is us going Chamath Palihapitiya (00:39:05): out and sourcing the smartest people to come here. So our companies win against other companies in the global economy to create more jobs for American, talent acquisition could be something we could be investing in. We should be thinking how do we win that all the problems that ALS, the solution is in some hardworking group of men and women, of which some will be entrepreneurs who want to be here. You know, we're trying to figure out how to actually build our own chips while there are semiconductor experts getting trained whether here or abroad who would wanna be here to do that job on behalf of the United States. Right? We wanna figure out climate independence. There are men and women being trained here and abroad. who want to be here and solve that problem on behalf of the United States on and on and on and on. And that's what it means to be and I'll use a sports analogy you know, the LA Lakers. Right? That's what it means to be, you know, the the New England Patriots. Everybody wants to play for you. And so when you're in that position and you have that branding tailwind, you have to use it to your advantage to stack the deck in your favor so that you're constantly winning championships. Otherwise, you're being really derelict in your duty. And I think, you know, hopefully, if people look at the broad population level issue that we just exposed because of COVID, there there is a status article as an example. in the county of Los Angeles, we are now, in the last 20 years, we've seen a 50% reduction in the birth rate in LA. from a 150,000 births here to about a 100. And if you forecast that forward, you know, before the turn of the century, the county of Los Angeles will have 0 net births. Hey. If you run if you run if you run the that's insane. Jason Calacanis (00:40:51): Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:40:52): So we we need to figure out how to solve this problem because it's it's it's a it's a it really impacts GDP, it impacts all these other issues that Freeport just talked about as well, the sense of equality and fairness. If we're not creating and growing, We are gonna fight over how to split a shrinking pie, and that does tend to lead to revolution. Jason Calacanis (00:41:15): Yeah. That's when people it could get really gnarly. We're we're not growing. Entrepreneurs are not coming here. New jobs are not being created. Imagine if Amazon wasn't created. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:41:23): The historical implications for what Friedberg said are really well defined in history. If you go back 1000 years, you look at every single time you know, an empire goes through that period of decline. When they have net negative growth, economic growth, and they have this sort of rising populism. What they end up doing is they end up fighting And they have different ways of fighting. Right? But they end up fighting over how to reallocate a shrinking pie. And there are many of those outcomes when they fight that ends up in, you know, really turbulent moments in history. Jason Calacanis (00:42:00): And that's where this wealth tax -- That's right. Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:42:03): That's where we have a responsibility to make sure you don't end up going through you know, a Russia scenario, a China scenario, you know, and there there are more productive ways to to solve these problems. Jason Calacanis (00:42:14): Oh, that that's where the wealth tax that was floated, which seems that's DOA already, but this concept of everybody having over a $100,000,000 having to assess all their worth and give 20% back minimum each year is that dividing of the pie. And maybe they could allocate less money towards. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:42:33): Can we all agree that, like, you know, on the margins when you make a lot of money, you can and should pay more taxes. I don't think that's a super controversial idea. on the margins if you are a massive polluter, you should pay some taxes to to compensate for the damage you're creating to the environment. These are not controversial ideas. The problem is that, you know, what's accent is true. You take a sensible concept. And then you pervert it because you have to contort it with all this language to make it political, and it loses all of its value in it then. So for example, you know, why does the administration have to write this law, potential law or proposal? In a way that so obviously violates the constitution of the United States, Are they that dumb? I don't think they're that dumb, but they do it to appease some political aspect of the Democratic Party. And then as a result, it becomes DOA Within 8 minutes of it being announced, Majin says this is dead. What is the point of that theater? It's virtual signaling. Yeah. David Friedberg (00:43:31): Aren't you a donor? You should know. Right? What what would they tell you? I mean, what's the Democratic party saying about Chamath Palihapitiya (00:43:36): -- What they would say off the record is that these were sacrificial totems to the progressive left. Meaning, that they do it for window dressing to destroy like, it's like throwing a cat a ball of yarn. David Friedberg (00:43:50): It seems like that that populist progressive left is becoming a bigger base than it was historically. David Sacks (00:43:56): In the outcry party it is. Yeah. I'm not sure how big it is, but in the democratic party. Yeah. Look. It's where all the energy is in the democratic party. It's where a lot of the donors are. That, yeah, that is who's driving the agenda in the democratic party today. That is why the Democrats are gonna get shocked in November. Reid Roy Tuoshera's substack. He is the Democratic political consultant who wrote the emerging Democratic majority predicting this is back in 2002. He wrote a book about how there would be a new Democratic coalition of young voters and minorities and women, and they would come together, and that would create, you know, democratic majorities and democratic presidents forever. And then Obama wins in 2008, and it looks like to share his predictions coming true. And he recently in the last two years has been warning that that some things happened that he could never have which is that working class voters are now moving out of the democratic party, not just whites, but also Hispanics and Asians Even black voters who are working class are all moving to the Republican party. So he believes the Republican Party is losing its national majority. Why? because progressives have taken over and on cultural and social issues, they are much more liberal than the working class of this country. So basically, what's happened is the Democrats have become a professional class party, and the Republicans are in the process of transforming into a working class party And that's turning everything upside down. But, ultimately, you know, with Youngkin winning in Virginia last year, and I think the Republicans on generic ballot or up, like, what, plus 10, plus Chamath Palihapitiya (00:45:28): 12. David Sacks (00:45:29): I mean, they're gonna have a huge, I think, wave in November You know, you gotta remember that professionals, meaning college educated voters, or only about a third of the electorate, I think about Chamath Palihapitiya (00:45:39): 37%, David Sacks (00:45:40): and then the other 63% are working class. The working class does not like this extreme social cultural progressive agenda. They don't like seeing their statues ripped down. They don't like this sort of what they see as kind of this this antagonism towards American history and American icons. They don't believe in in socialism, you know, and so on down the line. And the democratic party is increasingly speaking only to itself. I mean, they are in an echo chamber. And I think these progressives are gonna have to lose a few elections before they realize. I mean, the same thing happened to the Democratic Party Back in the 19 eighties. Right? You had Raul Reagan and then George Herbert Walker Bush win 3 landslide elections, Chamath Palihapitiya (00:46:23): 1980, 1984. 88. David Sacks (00:46:27): And then 5 and, you know, the Democrats nominate these, like, horrible candidates, Jimmy Carter, Walter Mandel, DuCaucus. And then who comes along? Bill Clinton Jason Calacanis (00:46:34): comes along. -- on the Greek. Susie on the Greek. Dukakis was pretty great. David Sacks (00:46:38): Okay. Like, we found the 1 fan. We found the 1 fan. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:46:40): The tear Jason Calacanis (00:46:40): when you came along, who's tear? David Sacks (00:46:42): Yeah. Who comes along in 1992, Bill Clinton, and he has this whole new faction within the Democrat party, the DLC, and his explicit mandate was to lead them back to the center. And then he chooses Al Gore as his running mate to double down on that image. I don't think Al Gore actually was that centrist, I think he's at but his image at that time was that he was pretty centrist Chamath Palihapitiya (00:47:02): He was just David Sacks (00:47:03): So so you had yes. I mean, I think at that time so it their democratic party had to lose for about 12 years before they nominated a candidate and put him at the leadership of the party, you could drag them back to the center. Now listen. I mean, all we have right now are four shadowings of this. We have the Youngkin Victory last year. We have the fact those 3 school board members in San Francisco. got kicked out. You know, we'll see what happens to Chastaboudin on June 7th. So we're getting these glimmers, and I think November will be a big test. But Where I think this thing is headed is that the the working class voters of this country don't like this radical progressive shift in the Democratic Party Then Democratic Party is gonna keep losing until they're willing to make changes. Jason Calacanis (00:47:48): And immigration is just such an easy one. And and courting me working person is what the Democrats did forever. So I don't know how they how they can screw this up. David Sacks (00:47:58): But remember, working class voters don't working class voters are not in favor of immigration account. They do not want unlimited number of immigrants coming -- Well, Jason Calacanis (00:48:05): they don't want unlimited, but they would like to see their family David Sacks (00:48:07): members there. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:48:08): -- David Sacks (00:48:08): their wages down. Jason Calacanis (00:48:09): But they do want their family members to be allowed in. So for the folks who are. David Sacks (00:48:13): You talked to you talked to Hispanic voters who are citizens in America. They are not in favor of unlimited immigration because it's way too much pressure for them. Jason Calacanis (00:48:21): reasonable. David Sacks (00:48:22): I'm telling you that it's not it's not like what you think. The the the more the higher you are economically in the social strata, the more professional you are the more you like immigration. Because, like, for people like us, we like immigrants because they found companies, and we invest in them. We see the economic vitality that they bring. But if you are a working class, okay, you do not want that wage pressure. You just don't. So unless the Democrats figure out a way to talk about it, the way we're talking about it where we separate high skill and low skill, they will lose with that message. Jason Calacanis (00:48:54): Alright. Let's get into some other things happening in the market. SEC is proposing a new set of rules to regulate facts. I wonder if anybody here can chime in on this who Chamath Palihapitiya (00:49:03): -- Well, I wrote -- Who Jason Calacanis (00:49:04): knows about it? David Friedberg (00:49:04): Look, I Chamath Palihapitiya (00:49:04): wrote a I wrote an editorial in Bloomberg. Basically, a year ago, spelling out a bunch of new regulations that I thought the SEC should adopt. They adopted a lot of them in this draft, So I think that that's really good. They missed a couple of key things. And this is again tying back to this other thing. When We're in this phase right now where we are really questioning how capitalism should work. I think that there are 2 reactions that people can have. One is you pass more regulation that entrenchs existing advantages And the other is you pass regulation that either deregulates or democratizes a market. And if I had to cast The half of my proposals that the SEC adopted, I would say it falls more into the first bucket than the second. And Jason, you've spoken to the second bucket of laws that the SEC could also change, which is, you know, it's in their power to give people an on ramp to prove that they are qualified and accredited so that they can participate in some of these really, you know, vibrant ways of making money beyond just investing in the S and P 500, like investing in startups if you if you're educated and capable of doing. The SEC at the same time proposed a bunch of legislation around reporting requirements for ESG. And if you look at both of these two buckets of laws, I think they're rooted in good ideas, and I think that there's some good concepts in it. But who really wins I think if you look at it, the American Bar Association had a huge victory here because the amount of incremental regulation is going up. which means, you know, what was a 300 page filing with the SEC will now be 350 pages. Right? I think that benefits lawyers. I think it benefits consultants. I think it benefits the accountant. So I think it benefits the ecosystem people that participate. It's not so clear how normal everyday folks benefit from a lot of this stuff. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:51:12): So I think if you strip it all away, what I would say is I think the SEC is trying to do the right thing, but I would really encourage them to do the second half of what they should be doing, which is making these on ramps better built. Jason Calacanis (00:51:28): Generally speaking, what do you think happens in this fax space? We had 600 of them. It's gonna Chamath Palihapitiya (00:51:32): it's gonna consolidate to the 10 of us that know what we're doing. Jason Calacanis (00:51:35): Got Chamath Palihapitiya (00:51:36): it. Just like, you know, look, the IPO rules are extremely sophisticated Did it hurt Morgan Stanley or Goldman Sachs's IPO business? No. It just meant that the 95 small banks that did IPO's went away and it consolidated to 6 and the league tables, you know, just churned between the 6. JPMorgan 1 year is the top. You know, then it's Morgan Stanley, then it's Goldman Sachs, then it's b of a, then it's Swiss. Similarly, Spax will consolidate around 6 or 7 players and, you know, will do most of the business. Jason Calacanis (00:52:04): What do you think, Friedberg of this new SEC announcement that they're considering climate disclosures for public traded companies, this would basically not only what they're doing in terms of consuming or, you know, allowing greenhouse gases and emissions, but also this Scope 3 concept your inputs? What is your supply chain doing? And what are your consumers doing? So if you're making the iPhone, what happens to the iPhone when the consumer gets rid of it? or what did it take to get those minerals out of the ground to make the iPhone? What do you think? Is this a net benefit? Is it the lawyers win? Or Does measuring all this actually mean we're gonna see publicly traded companies manage it better? A lot of opting into it already like Google and Apple. are doing it on their own accord. But what do you think generally of this regulation? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:52:48): Well, I'll say let me just David Friedberg (00:52:50): say something on the specs, and I'll answer that question. You know, if you read the comment that the the first FCC proposed rule, it was to amend the definition of a blank check company to make the liability safe harbor for forward looking statements such as business forecast, unavailable, and filings by specs. So, you know, this was, you know, I think one of the primary points of appeal over the past couple of years, we've all been private market, sophisticated private market investors. When we take a pitch or hear a pitch from a company, we all have the experience and the know how, not always correctly, but at least we know what to look for, what to ask. and over time have learned through our wounds and our failures to appropriately diligence forecast and understand what they mean and what they say. And, you know, because the public markets historically through an IPO are available to retail investors, you know, generally whatever the definition is of unqualified or, you know, folks who may not have the level of sophistication that, you know, some regulatory body has deemed as needed to be able to do that level of diligence, the statements that are made in an IPO and an s 1 need to be kind of factually referenced referenceable. And that's not true when it comes to forecast, and that's why they're not included in that's ones in in an IPO. But in a stack, the appeal was you can tell your forward looking forecast paint the rosy picture like you would for a startup. And then theoretically, the investors should make an assessment of the the risk and the upside and the and the objectives that the business is saying they're gonna go shoot for and achieve. And it's pretty evident. I think we all knew this coming out of last year that, you know, many investors made investments on the basis of those forecasts you know, being to some degree reasonably achievable or likely achievable. And it turns out that in many cases, they were not and were not achieved. And that's the big motivation here. So the real fundamental question with respect to Shamat's point about markets is how much do you want to have the government and a regulator play the role of deciding who is and who isn't sophisticated enough to make an assessment about a business's forward looking prospects. Or should we simply keep all forward looking prospects or, you know, forecasts like this, you know, out of those documents? David Friedberg (00:55:11): And it it's an important conversation to have. Because for years, people have been saying, I wanna invest in private companies, but I'm not a qualified investor. Therefore, I'm only gonna be able to invest in public companies And as we're seeing, the problem with investing in private companies or speculative companies is that you're investing on the come and more often than not, that doesn't end up happening. And that's a really hard lesson to learn, and specs have kind of forced them the retail market that have not historically invested in private companies to learn that lesson very fast. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:55:38): This is why, by the way, in my what what I what I was asking the SEC to do on top of the things that they already did was I said make us all invest our own money. You know, make the sponsor really monetarily at risk. I've invested a minimum of a $100,000,000 in every single deal I've done as a SPAC sponsor. That's a lot of money. Jason Calacanis (00:55:59): More skin in the game and disclosing that would be great, and maybe even having a clearing house where you could see the percentage of cash to the ultimate raise that the promoter has would Chamath Palihapitiya (00:56:09): be -- -- for great. All of that Jason is in the spirit of disclosure and transparency. David Friedberg (00:56:13): I just wish they would have Chamath Palihapitiya (00:56:14): done that. David Friedberg (00:56:14): You you still think it's important to have forward looking statements and needs inspect. I mean, if that ends up becoming, you know, the the the the cornerstone of this proposed regulation Chamath Palihapitiya (00:56:25): that goes through -- I don't think it's I don't think it's a cornerstone. I think what I think the thing is that there are really important businesses that need good stewards to help them get into the public markets to raise money to fund their business. And there are some people who really understand that, and there are many others who don't. And the thing that that the SEC should make a decision on is whether just having a bunch of middlemen serves a market better or having a combination of some middlemen and some principles, all competing is better. Because remember what like, what is capitalism really? You have these trapped sources of money. Right? When you buy an equity, right, or you buy a bond. You're putting money into a trapped asset. It's an unproductive asset. It may yield some return. But it's not money. generating it. It is dead money. Capitalism is about creating an incentive for you to take that money out of that dead asset, that unproductive asset, and put it directly into the hands of somebody who will make it productive. I'm gonna, you know, build some oil fields. I'm gonna make -- A battery factory. -- battery factory. I'm gonna make shoes. Jason Calacanis (00:57:36): Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:57:37): Whatever it is. Right? And so, you know, having more competition that creates the incentives for that process to happen to go from point a to point b should be the goal of the government. Because in the absence of that, again, going back to the previous conversation, you're gonna basically shrink the incentives of productivity. And I don't think that's what anybody wants to have Jason Calacanis (00:58:00): happened in the United States. easy solution to all of this. We have a test if you wanna drive a car. And if you wanna drive a big car called the truck, you have to get a different test. Do you wanna drive a motorcycle slider to even take that? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:58:11): By the way, Jason, I just wanna -- Why not have a test? brought up a really good point early, and I just wanted to put a fine point on what you said. Yeah. Let's just say all these companies, that's all of our startups included. Well, now when we go public, have to create these disclosures around scope 1, scope 2, scope 3 emissions. And there's this weird concept called materiality that exists in law which will now, again, have to get adjudicated. Let's say Apple doesn't disclose what's actually happening in their factories. Somebody can now sue them because they will say, that's a material disclosure that you didn't disclose. Well, guess what'll happen? That'll wind its way and meander its way through the courts. It'll take years. There will be tens and tens of 1,000,000 of dollars spent on that litigation because Apple will the vehemently defend the right that it wasn't a material disclosure because the implications otherwise will be measured in the 1,000,000,000 or tens of 1,000,000,000 of dollars. So who really wins? Consultants win? Yeah. Trial experts win. The lawyers win. Flavius. Jason Calacanis (00:59:12): Lobius win. David Friedberg (00:59:13): I just I just I just wanna frame this up for a second. I think it's important for people to think about, you know, costs that are external to the business operation. meaning costs that are borne by the broader society, by other members of society, not the business itself. So let's say that you're a company that makes products with a lot of sugar and, you know, or or cigarettes that, you know, we know when people consume a lot of sugar, cancer goes up, obesity goes up, diabetes goes up. The cost for cancer treatment, the cost for diabetes treatment, the cost for medical treatment associated with smoking or sugar or alcohol is borne by a health system where the ultimate cost is shared by a large group of society by a numb all number of members. Whether that's a public health insurance program or a private one, there's a group that shares that cost. And so you, as a consumer, are not paying that cost today? The question is should you be paying that cost? And this is true for CO2 emissions for carbon emissions. you know, you drive a gas guzzling car, you purchase gasoline, there is carbon that goes in the atmosphere. You're not gonna end up individually fixing the carbon out of the atmosphere later. the rest of us are gonna have to bear that cost as our homes burn down, you know, as floods cause you know, houses to wash away as all the catastrophe that we're all predicting is gonna happen, starts to happen. So the question is how do you account for those external costs And then the second question that will arise in a market based system that we have is who's gonna pay for those costs? Right now, we all assume those costs, and we don't charge anyone for them. We don't just we don't charge anyone for the obesity epidemic. We don't charge anyone for the cancer epidemic associated with cigarettes until we had that big legislation. that that that, you know, the DOJ's knocked that off. We don't charge anyone today for carbon emissions that we're all gonna have to pay the cost for. And so, you know, the first step is identifying and quantifying the external costs of the product or service that you're providing and deciding whether or not to tax the consumer of that product, whether or not to tax the seller of that product, and ultimately how to transition that capital back to the repair mechanism for pulling that the effect of that product back out of Chamath Palihapitiya (01:01:23): the system. Jason Calacanis (01:01:23): So in this analogy, Coca Cola, if people drank too much of it and got fat, would be responsible for their diabetes treatment. David Friedberg (01:01:30): Well, this goes back to the sugar tax point, which is should we have a sugar tax because there's a quantifiable effect that too much sugar has on human health, obesity, diabetes, Chamath Palihapitiya (01:01:39): Yes, sir. David Friedberg (01:01:39): I mean, so that's an argument. Right? And so -- Yes. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:01:41): -- David Friedberg (01:01:41): in order to do that, the first step is disclose the risk, disclose -- Yes. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:01:45): -- David Friedberg (01:01:45): the associated conditions that arise from the product or service that you're offering. And I think that's part of the intention. And a lot of very smart progressive people in Capital Markets some good friends of mine have been talk have been talking for years about the importance of this level of disclosure because it is the first step in truly a counting. Jason Calacanis (01:02:03): For climate you're talking about. Yes. David Friedberg (01:02:05): For climate. Yeah. Jason Calacanis (01:02:06): For climate. Yeah. Pretty controversial, Zach, do you think we should charge pew we should charge Coca Cola for diabetes? David Friedberg (01:02:12): Well, go talk ask the question of should you charge for a carbon related product for Chamath Palihapitiya (01:02:16): -- Jason Calacanis (01:02:16): Okay. I'll ask both. Carbon, should corporations be responsible for the downstream carbon from their customers and the upstream inputs? David Friedberg (01:02:26): At least disclosed it in the side. is ultimately gonna have to pay for that? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:02:29): Well, the answer the the answer to the former is yes. The answer to the latter is if you you know, there's a there's a term shit in, shit out. Jason Calacanis (01:02:38): Yeah. Garbage in, garbage out. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:02:40): I've spent a lot of time in climate. I know what's measurable and what's not. I've looked at the space a lot. And I just think that there is no credible way to execute on David what you're saying you want. All it's gonna do is gonna create a bunch of money that flows to consultants that create b s nonsensical reports. And the downstream and the downstream implication of that will be lawsuit upon lawsuit that gets adjudicated by the courts on this concept of materiality. Jason Calacanis (01:03:11): You think we should be recording a free burger or not? You agree disagree or agree with Shamal? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:03:14): No. No. I agree. It should be recorded. I'm saying -- Oh, okay. -- it's not possible. I'm saying the only winners and this will be the consultants. You agree with Jason Calacanis (01:03:22): that? David Friedberg (01:03:22): I'll agree. These carbon markets are absolute BS. Carbon sequestration mechanisms are absolute BS. I mean, none of this stuff is real. right now. It's all Chamath Palihapitiya (01:03:29): -- -- see fraudulent markets. David Friedberg (01:03:30): It's all grifter. It's all BS. Right. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:03:32): You know, you know, you'll look. I'm not trash. Yeah. I'm not trying David Friedberg (01:03:35): to be too disparaging with everyone there are good actors out there and good intentions, for sure. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:03:39): There is a treat -- But there's a lot David Friedberg (01:03:41): of ways that you can kinda take this stuff apart and say, you know what? This doesn't actually add up. and there's a good business to be at in the meantime, and everyone feels good running that business. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:03:50): Simple example, Jason. How will you know that a sensor that's on a flu of a manufacturing plant is accurate? How do you know that it's not been doctored? How do you know? Just a just a very, very simple question. Just that. Jason Calacanis (01:04:02): Well, when it came to Volkswagen, a a leak or leak the information from and and that's and the press got on it, and and that's how it was regulated. It was it was in the rearview mirror. That's where how Volkswagen got busted. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:04:12): So that's how we're gonna we're gonna fixed time. I mean, that's just a bunch of whistle blowers. Jason Calacanis (01:04:16): I mean, that's what happened also within RJ of Nabisco and the the cigarettes as well, the movie. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:04:21): -- changed as a result of that. Nothing. Jason Calacanis (01:04:24): No. In the cigarette industry, that led to the largest fines in the history of corporate America, I think, up until that time. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:04:29): We still don't have a tax. We still don't have a pool. Jason Calacanis (01:04:31): They don't have a tax -- We have a big tax on -- On cigarette. For sure. But to lower consumption. Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:04:36): Yeah. But we don't, you know, we don't force these companies to basically subsidize a portion of our health care costs. Every time somebody shows up with lung cancer, it's not like we say, know what? That's gonna be half born by RJR Nabisco. Jason Calacanis (01:04:47): Yeah. So, I mean, this I the measurement can't be bad, but I guess it's what you're saying. No. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:04:51): The med no. No. I'm saying, The concept is good. The measurement is literally so terrible as to be worthless. And so Jason Calacanis (01:04:58): Wouldn't there be a bunch of new companies that come up though that then create the auditing trail so you say, hey. We're gonna put the you have to have one of these companies put the sensors on your factory And it's a young act audited. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:05:10): Yeah. It's a small oddity of of you know, again, there's a lot of companies, for example. This is where Silicon Valley, I think, gets a little you know, caught up in their own nonsense. There's a lot of companies in Silicon Valley that have made a lot of money measuring bits. Right? Analytics companies because the exhaust of a tech company is sitting in some log file somewhere that's just a matter of being parsed. Right? do some ETL, do some transformations, put it in some beautiful table, run some query on top of it. Low and behold, you can know everything about your company. When you're measuring atoms, it's just a little bit more complicated. And I think that people underestimate that complexity. So while the desire of this is good, I think the whole point is that, you know, if you draft this language the wrong way again, my own I wanna be very precise with what I'm saying. What I think it will do instead of actually causing more conformity and have people emitting less carbon, It'll create a shadow industry of measurement and consulting around this industry while people debate materiality when they get caught. Jason Calacanis (01:06:16): Got it. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:06:17): That is not the point of this. But when you draft laws like this, you have to think about these implications. Jason Calacanis (01:06:23): So is there is there an easy answer here or just no easy answers? In terms of if we want companies to be somewhat more knowledgeable and responsible in their carbon emissions. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:06:33): Well, I think that the responsibility ultimately comes from the end consumer by or customer of a product. Because if they have an alternative, that offers them those trade offs, whether it's at a higher price or a lower price or the same price and they adopt it then these companies really pay attention. Right? Because, ultimately, what they really care about is their downstream profitability. Otherwise, I worry that a lot of what's happening in corporate America today is basically some form of greenwashing. You know? So for example, like, We joke, but it's true. When you look at these carbon offset markets, these indirect offset markets, what are they? A company spews all kinds of gnarly stuff into the environment. They hire a consulting firm. I just wanna explain to you how it works today. They hire a consulting firm. who uses an Excel spreadsheet to guesstimate how badly they have polluted the environment. Okay. It's a fundamental guess. Then they go to another company that says, well, can you buy me some equal and offsetting amount of credits? And company then will go and plant some trees or buy some trees, claim the trees exist, measure and impute again in a different Excel spreadsheet, how much, you know, carbon capture is happening by those trees? Do we know that those trees aren't getting sold ten times over to 10 other companies? We don't know that. So my my point is that the we have a lot of work to do to solve these problems. I would rather see, again, raw capitalism solve this problem. And I think in in in climate change, the most productive thing we could do is lower the barriers for trapped unproductive capital to get into the hands of really amazing scientists and entrepreneurs who are building things that can measurably remove carbon from the environment. Jason Calacanis (01:08:23): And there's really 2 easy ways to do it. 1 is have a test. And the other is on the roads, we have a speed limit. So if you are a non affluent person already, but you wanna dabble in this. It's a very simple way to do it, Jamov, I propose, have a written test just like you have a handgun or a car test, a driving test. And then how about you can deploy Chamath Palihapitiya (01:08:41): 10%? It's so incredible you just said this. You can allow an eighteen year old person to buy an a r give me the name of the gun, a Jason Calacanis (01:08:49): r 15. Add a car and go speeding down Chamath Palihapitiya (01:08:51): the highway. But they're not allowed to invest in Gopuff. Speaker 6 (01:08:55): Yeah. No. You're too Jason Calacanis (01:08:56): they're not sophisticated. You can shoot the bullets in the air while you're going down the road. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:09:00): What is going on? Jason Calacanis (01:09:01): It's well, I mean, and there's no path to it. That's the frustrating part. Like, in some places, it's hard to get a gun. You gotta take a 8 hour test in other places. You can just buy them on the wherever. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:09:10): You allow eighteen year olds. You can allow an eighteen year old to take psychedelics and marijuana legally -- Jason Calacanis (01:09:16): Yes. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:09:16): -- open in a market, Speaker 5 (01:09:18): but they Chamath Palihapitiya (01:09:18): but they are not -- Take animals. -- secondary shares of Stripe. Jason Calacanis (01:09:21): No. They're just yes. And so this is stupidity of it. Well, here and here's the other thing. You can have 2 different things. You have the tasks. So now you know the person's educated, but you could also say, hey. Listen. Whatever's on your tax return for the last 2 years, you can invest 10% of that a year in, you know, private companies. So if you made, I don't know, a 150,000 in the last 2 years, you made 75,000 a year? Okay. You could put 15,000 of them into Chamath Palihapitiya (01:09:43): companies. -- one. You will allow -- To speed limit. to go and work for startups to help build the enterprise value of a startup. Let's pick our favorite startup like an Uber but not invest in their equity before they go public. Right. Jason Calacanis (01:09:57): You're not sophisticated. You're sophisticated enough to build it. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:09:59): You'll you'll you're sophisticated enough to drive for them for years to help them build a $50,000,000,000 company, but not buy a piece of that company along the way. Yeah. That doesn't seem right either. Jason Calacanis (01:10:11): But you could pull over and buy scratch off tickets and lottery tickets till the cows come home, but you can't buy a scratch off ticket in a certain way. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:10:18): -- makes no sense. Jason Calacanis (01:10:20): Alright, Zach. You've been quiet in all of this. I know that you hate the environment and regulation. What's your thoughts? David Sacks (01:10:26): I'm not I'm not I'm just not deep in this topic, so I don't wanna way in. Jason Calacanis (01:10:29): Alright. Well, here's when you are deep in. Facebook hired a GOP lobbying firm to smear TikTok, according to the Washington Post daily arrest. What did you say to Maribel? You Speaker 5 (01:10:37): say to Zach? David Friedberg (01:10:37): He's saying this Speaker 5 (01:10:38): is -- He's here something you're deep in. It's a GOP. No. No. No. No. Jason Calacanis (01:10:42): You said you said he's, like, into destroying the environment or something. Speaker 5 (01:10:45): Yeah. No. He doesn't care about the environment. So, I mean, Saks is never going to go into the forest and even go near a tree. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:10:52): He doesn't go outside No. He's very looking for a sealed bedroom to his -- Absolutely. Speaker 5 (01:10:56): He's close to curtains. Jason Calacanis (01:10:57): He's like, oh, beautiful view of the sky. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:11:00): Oh, nature. -- like the pope, his has one of these things. He doesn't even have to sit down. He's just enclosed. He stands up. He's bulletproof glass. You know, he just waves as he goes by. David Friedberg (01:11:09): Zach, have you taken David Sacks (01:11:10): to get -- I've got I I go outside sometimes. I must prefer going to an outdoor shooting range than an outdoor shooting range. So Chamath Palihapitiya (01:11:16): -- Jason Calacanis (01:11:16): So you're going shooting. You said an outdoor Chamath Palihapitiya (01:11:18): 1. Jason Calacanis (01:11:19): So this is a really crazy story. Tell our friends broke it. Facebook paid the David Friedberg (01:11:24): GOP lobbying firm. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:11:24): -- Jason Calacanis (01:11:25): friend. Taylor of America. I had her on the show. Here is the excerpted from the internal targeted victory email obtained by The Washington Post quote, Get the message out that while Meta, Facebook, is currently a punching bag. TikTok is the real threat, especially as a foreign owned app that is number 1 in sharing data. that young teens are using bonus point if we can fit this into a broader message that current bills proposals aren't where state of turn generals or member of Congress should be focused. So what do we think? I mean, we've talked here many times about reciprocity. We can't have our social networks in China. Why should TikTok be here. I think we all agree. It David Sacks (01:12:03): sounds like they wanna do a PR initiative around the points that you've always made on this pod. Jason Calacanis (01:12:07): Exactly. No. I mean, that's the that's the the the they could be right about this, but doing a dirty tack. Yeah. I think TikTok should be bad. David Sacks (01:12:14): It's a dirty trick in a way for them to deflect attention from the cells onto some other problems. So there's something distasteful about that. But the point that they're making is kinda true. I mean, Jason Calacanis (01:12:25): we should not allow. I mean, the Chamath Palihapitiya (01:12:27): -- David Sacks (01:12:27): I'm not saying we shouldn't allow them, but I think what Wait. Jason Calacanis (01:12:29): You don't you think TikTok should be allowed in the United States, really? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:12:32): I I David Sacks (01:12:32): don't know about But I I just think that -- Well, no. Jason Calacanis (01:12:34): What do you think think about Chamath Palihapitiya (01:12:35): it for a second? -- David Sacks (01:12:35): problems people have with Facebook. They should have them, like, 10 x with TikTok. That's kinda my point. Jason Calacanis (01:12:39): A a 1000% in agreement on this. TikTok is run by a country that we wondered, do they care about the data? And then they literally passed the law Chamath Palihapitiya (01:12:48): if you wanna run your company, the government has Jason Calacanis (01:12:51): to have the data. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:12:52): I have fallen into a TikTok rabbit hole, and I would like to come clean. Uh-oh. -- with you guys. There's something there's something on TikTok called sandwich bros. What are these guys? These guys that make sandwiches. And then they cut the sandwich, and then they open it up so that you can see what's in the inside Jason Calacanis (01:13:12): of it. Guiches? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:13:14): I mean -- Delicious. No. Some of these fucking sandwiches these Jason Calacanis (01:13:17): guys are making. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:13:19): Dude, you I have watched an hour straight of -- Jason Calacanis (01:13:21): A sandwich Chamath Palihapitiya (01:13:22): chalks idea of Wow. Wait. Here's the best part. So then there is this woman who I thought was gonna be incredible. She's like, you know, I'm tired of these sandwich bros. I'm gonna be the first woman that really breaks through making sandwiches. I was like, you go get it. And she made a vegan sandwich. Goddamn it. And I was like, where is the meat? I wanted to be I wanted to be deep into it but like, you know, chicken Jason Calacanis (01:13:44): roast chicken. much. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:13:46): -- Jason Calacanis (01:13:46): is incredible. Bacon, avocado. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:13:48): Bacon, bacon, bacon. Jason Calacanis (01:13:49): Maybe maybe some pickles in there. Get a little yeah. I mean, this is the thing that I find. So chicken chicken chicken. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:13:55): -- the salad burrito. That's probably my favorite one. And the guy made it from scratch, like, everything from scratch. Jason Calacanis (01:14:00): I love that. In closing. Here's the problem. It's such a compelling product. You feel so terrible using it, so you love it at something and then you feel very vapid for having used and you have regret. And then the Chinese are running it, and they're programming our children, and have all their data and locations. You know, it's a lot of conflicted feelings. David Friedberg (01:14:20): What do you think they're trying Chamath Palihapitiya (01:14:21): to program in me with all the sandwich stuff? Jason Calacanis (01:14:24): Maybe you're too then, and you need to eat a sandwich. David Sacks (01:14:25): They'll be so sweet. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:14:26): Well, maybe they were trying to They said it'd be vegan. But I that sandwich, yuck. It looked marble. Jason Calacanis (01:14:32): I think this u UGI's they're trying to program Chamath. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:14:35): No fancy word, but yuck. That's what they want. They want you to get fat. Jason Calacanis (01:14:39): What are you seeing on your TikTok feed right now, Friedberg, since you're so obsessed with your phone? And should should TikTok be banned? Should Chinese be allowed to program our children with their algorithm. Yes or no, Friedberg. David Friedberg (01:14:50): It's exactly what you're looking at. David Sacks (01:14:51): Well, just mentioning the product makes you wanna use it. So Jason Calacanis (01:14:55): It's so addicting. What is so addicting about? Speaker 5 (01:14:57): Friedberg, tell Chamath Palihapitiya (01:14:57): me the best vegan sandwich you ever had. Like, the best one. Like, is there one that Jason Calacanis (01:15:01): stays edible? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:15:03): Quinoa. Quinoa. David Friedberg (01:15:06): There's a there's a great sandwich shop in Berkeley, you guys you know, I none of you, Jason Calacanis (01:15:11): I don't think ever go to Berkeley, Chamath Palihapitiya (01:15:12): but -- I live in Burlington too. Yeah. Jason Calacanis (01:15:14): Berkeley is Chamath Palihapitiya (01:15:15): -- David Friedberg (01:15:15): I'll get 1 I'll actually get one over to you. Jason Calacanis (01:15:18): Well, what what is it? What's not in the avocado, so the sprouts. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:15:21): Yeah. There's, like, sprouts, I don't David Friedberg (01:15:23): I actually there's one I Chamath Palihapitiya (01:15:24): like that's got the the David Friedberg (01:15:26): the feta cheese, like, the really good sharks, salty feta cheese. Yeah. Jason Calacanis (01:15:29): Okay. So feta cheese, a whole bunch. David Friedberg (01:15:31): It's actually voted one of the best sandwich shops in California, I think. Jason Calacanis (01:15:34): Yeah. Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:15:35): Really good. Speaker 5 (01:15:35): No. I David Friedberg (01:15:36): made myself a tempe avocado sandwich for lunch today. Jason Calacanis (01:15:40): Oh, yeah. That's -- Yeah. Oh, that's fantastic. You know what? I was gonna do that myself, and instead started to slam my hand with a hammer because it's more enjoyable. Speaker 5 (01:15:47): I should, like, smash my hand bang. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:15:52): I had crab ravioli. Jason Calacanis (01:15:55): Oh, wonderful. Wonderful. Absolutely great. You murdered those crabs? Delicious. Okay. But let's just go around the horn. Should, yes or no, tiktok b, ban. Should a Chinese company be allowed to have a social network atscale in the United States? Yes or no? Friedberg? David Friedberg (01:16:12): No. Yes. I don't think that we should be restricting the products and services that people choose to use. Jason Calacanis (01:16:18): even from a communist country that is likely spying on them. Okay. Got it. We know where you stand. Saxx. David Sacks (01:16:23): Well, I'd I'd want I'd wanna know that they're not that is not Spyware. Right? So Chamath Palihapitiya (01:16:27): -- David Friedberg (01:16:27): Yeah. But spyware is sure. That's illegal. If it's illegal, stop it. But, like Chamath Palihapitiya (01:16:31): -- Jason Calacanis (01:16:31): Okay. So you're you're saying you Chamath Palihapitiya (01:16:32): -- Jason Calacanis (01:16:32): It's not illegal. -- trust you trust the Chinese government. David Sacks (01:16:35): No. I don't trust them. It would be a serious it would be an issue I'd seriously look at. I might come out on the India side of things, but I'd like to understand a little better, like, what Jason Calacanis (01:16:41): the India side of things being that India has banned. They David Sacks (01:16:44): yeah. they expand it. Jason Calacanis (01:16:45): They're smart. Indian -- Yeah. -- are smart. David Sacks (01:16:47): I would Jason Calacanis (01:16:47): I think about that. David Friedberg (01:16:48): I just think it's a slow I think it's a it's Chamath Palihapitiya (01:16:50): a slippery slope because then you end David Friedberg (01:16:52): up seeing China band Iphones and you know, the whole thing kind of We're Jason Calacanis (01:16:55): already banned. They already banned Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram in their country. They don't allow Chamath Palihapitiya (01:16:59): us some -- There's still a lot. There's there's David Friedberg (01:17:01): a big consumer market in China for US and services, and it just seems like a slippery slope. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:17:06): Where do you send this? I think you guys nailed it, which is that I think these things have to be quid pro quo. It doesn't make any sense in my opinion, for us to allow a non American company to thrive where in that same end market our products are not allowed to compete. Jason Calacanis (01:17:24): Absolutely. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:17:25): So I think there are 2 things that matter to me, which is that, you know, if we're gonna allow TikTok to thrive here, it seems like there needs to be some version of the deal that says Facebook, Google, you know, these core products and services just need to have a chance where consumers can vote. That's one thing. And I do think separately what David said is really importantly true, and I don't think it applies to just TikTok. But whenever a product gets to a certain level of scale, and we can define what that threshold is. But it's probably in the half a1000000000to1000000000mal kind of range, monthly active users range. Jason Calacanis (01:18:00): Oh. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:18:02): You do have to worry of, like, you know, going through the source and making sure there's no crazy spy word in there. And I don't know exactly how to do that. But I think that that that should just be a general expectation for any product because look. Let's let's be honest. And and and we've had this conversation before. You don't think the odds are high that at some point, some very talented knowledge worker that is on an immigrant visa inside of one of these large tech companies isn't actually working on behalf of a foreign Jason Calacanis (01:18:32): Oh, they had Twitter had it. They had 2 people from the kingdom Chamath Palihapitiya (01:18:34): working there. So so my point is I think that that these things are probably true Right? Like, in the tens of thousands of employees that work in Big Tech, there's probably at least 5 or 10 of these people that work on behalf of foreign government. So we don't know what they may or may not have introduced in certain elements of the code. So it's not unreasonable to fund a, you know, an organization that can audit this code base. But I think that I would rather let them stay in order to open up that end market for our products. Jason Calacanis (01:19:03): Alright. We have to wrap on this Freebok a couple weeks ago, you outlined the the potential of famines caused by Putin's insane you know, war in Ukraine. David Friedberg (01:19:16): That's not what I said, but sure. Jason Calacanis (01:19:17): I -- Okay. -- I like the -- Framing it. Framing the way I want, but you commented on the possible famine caused by Putin's insane war. David Friedberg (01:19:24): Again, not what I said, but sheriff. Yeah. Jason Calacanis (01:19:26): Well, let's go to famine before Saxx loses his mind about Biden's quote of regime change, which I'll let you end on. So I actually get your victory lap. But somebody came for you and said, hey. Listen. Friedberg basically doesn't know what he's talking about. because commodity markets are showing that India and other folks are gonna step up, and there's not gonna be a problem with famine. So can you unpack that for us? David Friedberg (01:19:49): I I will tell you that we are already seeing a lot of scrambling happening for redundancy in these commodity supply chains. And there's a couple of issues, which I highlighted before, I'll highlight again. Number 1 is just the ability to export. So while there may be product commodity products sitting in these markets, getting them on chips, out of Russia, out of Ukraine, even if sanctions and trade restrictions are lifted and make them available, is very difficult because a lot of the carriers are concerned about insurance liability as they would be forced to go into a port and do a transaction with an entity that they're supposed to not do transactions with. So there's a lot of reasons why these ships are not going to port, not picking a product and not bringing it to where it needs to go. Critical risk in Africa in the near term. So this is an acute problem with respect to transport. The next problem is with respect to planting. As of this week, I'm gonna put a couple of links in here, and these links, Nick, are not in order with respect to what I'll say. But I'll, you know, I kinda put a bunch of these things out here, but there is an expectation that we could see up to an 80% decline in planted acres in the Ukraine. there's a bunch of really good anecdotes in this particular story about how farmers are scared about going out and planting because drones might blow them up. And mean, look, you're in the middle of a war zone. You're not in a rush to go out and plant. And so there's a lot of planting that needs to happen in order for us to have, you know, the expectation of the supply coming out of the field in about 6 months. So that's kind of the 2nd stage of the problem. It's a large export market for goods coming out of Ukraine and Russia might be don't you know, might we might have a kind of significant reduction in inventory as the number of acres that are planted goes down. And then the third thing that I highlighted before which is absolutely still very true, and I I put some data in here that you can all look at, is related to the price of fertilizer. So fertilizer prices through the roof because nat cat has gone up. So ammonia prices have gone up. Potash exports are prohibited from Russia. David Friedberg (01:21:52): So potash has gone up And so as a result, we're seeing fertilizer prices shoot up. And in a lot of countries, what I what I've included here in this particular link in the chat and and Nick on the YouTube, you can kinda put this on the screen. But there's a guy named Gary Schnicki. Gary is the ag economist. He's like the number one ag economist in the world. He's at University of Illinois. Everyone redo all his stuff in the industry. This guy breaks everything down to unit economics, numbers, helps people make decisions about what the plant, when, what the economics are. and he highlights the current economics for planting in Illinois. Illinois is the, you know, largest corn producing state in the US and a critical supplier of of our, you know, national kind of food supply. And he points out that, you know, as of right now, you would have to invest in Illinois about $810 to have a $243 return on corn because the price of fertilizer had gone so high. So you invest 810, you expect to make a little over a Chamath Palihapitiya (01:22:56): 1000, David Friedberg (01:22:57): and these you know, these these these are not assuming rent. The problem is when you factor in the cost of rent, the average rent in Illinois $227. So a lot of farmers in Illinois rent their land about half too. And so for a lot of farmers, it's actually uneconomical, not just in Illinois, but around the world now where the cost of the inputs, the cost of rent, the cost of production exceeds the expected profit coming out of the farm. And so farmers are not gonna plant. And so, you know, we're seeing kind of a major issue with with these farmers around the world kind of making planting decisions right now that are informed by upside down economics. This is being monitored, you know, fortunately in the US, the USDA reported today that it looks like the price of corn is such that a lot of farmers are gonna go back and plant soybeans, and we're seeing basically a historic plant thing. We're survey coming out today that says farmers are in fact gonna go out in the field. They are in fact gonna plant. But this is not true everywhere. We don't we haven't done the calculus on it yet. but there's a ton of anecdotal support and a ton of survey data that's coming out showing that farmers aren't gonna plant the acres that they normally would plant because costs are so high. means there's gonna be less production over the next year. That means Fana gets us in a year. That's a big problem. Jason Calacanis (01:24:10): Saks wants to know why they don't just use DoorDash or Uber Eats. He's to just order more food if they can't Chamath Palihapitiya (01:24:16): get -- This is not what's going through David's mind right now. Jason Calacanis (01:24:19): David's mind is Chamath Palihapitiya (01:24:19): -- David is honing in. He's like LeBron in the fourth quarter. Yes. There's there's, you know, David Friedberg (01:24:24): sent play. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:24:25): -- left. He's like, everybody get out of the way. Give him Jason Calacanis (01:24:27): a ball. He's gonna do his eyeball. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:24:29): He's about to play. Jason Calacanis (01:24:30): Clear out. Clear out. Alright. Here we go. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:24:32): -- one. David go. Jason Calacanis (01:24:33): Alright. Here we So right as we got off air and I was defending hey. Listen. Your your mind reading Biden, he's never said regime change. gotta give him some credit here. You're you're you're taking mad men, Putin's, you know, version of events over our own presidents. And then 12 hours later, I'm on the ski lift, and crazy grandpa decides to say, for god's sake, this man referring to Putin. cannot remain in power. Of course, the White House walk this back, but go ahead and take your victory lap. Sachs. David Sacks (01:25:08): Oh my god. Am I getting an apology here from Jay Cal too? Speaker 5 (01:25:11): It's not an apology. I you know, I at the time I was right, but I didn't Chamath Palihapitiya (01:25:15): lose this to him. David Sacks (01:25:16): You said I was was was basically pro Putin because of what I said, and now you're admitting that I was telling the truth. Jason Calacanis (01:25:22): No. I admit that Biden crazy grandpa said something he shouldn't said? And that maybe that reflects truly how he feels. David Sacks (01:25:29): And -- Right. That's called so in Washington. They call it that a Kinsley Gaff. Jason Calacanis (01:25:33): A Kinsley Gaff. Yeah. David Sacks (01:25:34): He's -- -- republican or Michael Kinsley who said, A Gaffe in Washington is when a politician accidentally tells the truth. That's what Biden did. He accidentally told the truth about what the administration's policy has been. Yes. And, you know, you can see this in the fact that, look, who's playing peacemaker right now in these peace conversations? It's been Macron from France. It's been enough Taliban from Israel. It's been Erdogan from Turkey. It has not been anyone from the United States. We've been strangely absent. And to the extent, We said anything about the peace process. It always seems to be us throwing cold water on it. So there's been a lot of people, you know, prominent commentators like Neil Ferguson who I quoted before. and others who have speculated that the United States' goal here is not a rapid resolution to the conflict, but rather to protract it, in order to make Russia bleed in order to destabilize and and topple the Russian regime. I think it was actually quite and and the the problem with that is this is very dangerous. I mean, just look at what Friedberg just said about the food insecurity that's causing it is very dangerous for us to protect this conflict so that that, you know, famine could be worse, the war could spread. It could degenerate. We could we could we could get drawn into it somehow. We want this thing to be over as quickly as possible, and I think It was actually the the buy in gas net net was a very positive thing because they had to walk it back so quickly. Jason Calacanis (01:26:51): And and severely. David Sacks (01:26:52): And severely, that it basically it showed the whole world and, you know, the media administration. No. We really need to end this quickly. We can't be dragging this thing out. So I think by stating what their clandestine policy was so clearly, it forced them to have to disavow it. Speaker 5 (01:27:09): And the only people who have David Sacks (01:27:10): said at the end of the day where these, like, NeoConzo, you know, no. No. What Biden said is true. We should try and topple Putin. Jason Calacanis (01:27:16): Yeah. Theoretically, he should go, but not Chamath Palihapitiya (01:27:18): -- David Sacks (01:27:19): Right. Jason Calacanis (01:27:19): Right now, Chamath Palihapitiya (01:27:20): it's, David Sacks (01:27:20): like, which is it, which is -- -- valid. And that was actually very clarifying for US policy because -- Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:27:25): -- David Sacks (01:27:25): regime change should not be our goal. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:27:27): I think I think the I think the the administration said something effective. He was speaking as a man. I was a president. Jason Calacanis (01:27:34): mean, let's I mean, look, can we be honest about Biden? I mean, he they they don't know what he's gonna say next. I mean, he's he's caught I I I mean, I don't mean to you know, speak ill of anybody, but cognitively, this is a huge gap. It's a huge mistake. you we're we're trying to resolve this thing and then you give Putin exactly the ammunition he wants. Oh, look. It's regime change. See? And I think what we may have here is 2 crazy grandpas. One that wants to put the US SR back together and one that wants to be the person who else Putin, neither of those is what the world wants. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:28:09): It's a real bummer that we are kind of on the 2nd stage here just idling around, looking around while these other countries are sort of creating a you know, almost like this new world order around us. That's It's a bone. Yeah. David Sacks (01:28:25): We put we played our hands very we played our hand very badly because we keep intervening in all these countries where there's no upside. I mean, I keep talking about it. all of these wars where he spent trillions and we got nothing out of it. Jason Calacanis (01:28:36): You're a peace, Nick. We like it. David Sacks (01:28:39): I'm just I don't see David Friedberg (01:28:40): the peace. I'm a realist. Jason Calacanis (01:28:42): You're a real interesting person. David Sacks (01:28:43): I do like peace better than war, but I don't understand the point of going to war when there's no vital American interest that's been jeopardized. Our security is not jeopardized. Our economy is not jeopardized. In fact, us protecting the war is gonna jeopardize those things. So -- Well, let's -- -- I don't get what American policy is designed to achieve or has been designed to achieve for the last 20 years. We've just been stumbling around the world making all these, like, virtue signaling statements about values. And then meanwhile, we end up, like, bombing the hell out of these countries. Jason Calacanis (01:29:13): Well, the Middle East for clearly for oil and energy. David Sacks (01:29:16): Afghanistan. That Jason Calacanis (01:29:18): means those were about oil. David Sacks (01:29:20): This is not oil. Jason Calacanis (01:29:21): That was our vital news. David Sacks (01:29:23): What were you doing there trying to build a new state, a new den new served democracy in Chamath Palihapitiya (01:29:27): that state? They were Jason Calacanis (01:29:28): It was revetcher 911. Yeah. David Sacks (01:29:30): So that that was legitimate that was a legitimate reason to go there, which was to get Bassan Bin Laden, and that was the just cause Chamath Palihapitiya (01:29:37): -- David Sacks (01:29:38): Wacked the cattle up. -- once and and and you know what? We should've got him at Torrebor instead of outsourcing it -- Absolutely. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:29:42): -- David Sacks (01:29:43): to the locals. That was a total stirrup. Jason Calacanis (01:29:44): Huge mistake. David Sacks (01:29:45): But once that job was done. We should have been out of there. Jason Calacanis (01:29:49): Out of there. Absolutely. What a what a misadventure. What do we have any do you have any thoughts, Saxon, like, the end game here because it does seem like Putin is getting exhausted, and maybe he he gets the win. David Friedberg (01:30:01): I think the main David Sacks (01:30:02): game is gonna is gonna be it's basically Ukraine's gonna be neutral. They can't be part of NATO. They get some security guarantees from the Western exchange for that. Crimea is part of Russia. It That's a fade accomplii. It happened in 2014. And then the last part is what they're really fighting over, which is this Donbas region, where you've got Russian ethnic speakers going up against Ukrainian far right nationalists -- How Jason Calacanis (01:30:24): close are we? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:30:24): -- David Sacks (01:30:24): and they can agree. Well, both those sides are willing to fight. So that's the issue. And look. The truth of the matter is but I think it's gonna result in some form of independence for these disputed territories of Donetsk and Luhansk. Right? I mean and but the reality is United States of America doesn't have a vital Jason Calacanis (01:30:43): interest. 7 days into this. Is it gonna end in is it gonna end in under Chamath Palihapitiya (01:30:47): 6 days? Zach suggested the right approach, I think, a month ago, which is let all of those people vote? David Sacks (01:30:55): Let's have a plot as I have a referendum. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:30:57): Create a create a referendum. Let them vote. Let them be self deterministic. And that may be the most reasonable middle ground for both sides to say, okay. Let's give this a shot. But I Yeah. David Sacks (01:31:09): If you could you're right. If you could achieve a cease fire. If you could get a cease fire here. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:31:13): Worst terrible and this. Yeah. David Sacks (01:31:14): If you could get a cease fire, have the UN observers come in and minister an election, Crimea. There's no doubt which way Crimea would go. I don't know what would happen in Lou Hanskrit Dannets. I think they probably would go independent. So let's just do a vote. It'll be about self determination, not appeasement, and let's find out. That's what we should be pushing for. Jason Calacanis (01:31:34): Yeah. People getting to vote on their future. Wow. Crazy idea. I mean, it's gotta end. I mean, it's gotta end a month too. This is becoming super damaging for Putin. Right? I mean, these economic sanctions Last David Sacks (01:31:45): four is giving Chamath Palihapitiya (01:31:45): -- David Sacks (01:31:46): There's a story that was on MSN. Jason Calacanis (01:31:49): It's, like, day 37. Jirvana's Chamath Palihapitiya (01:31:51): -- David Sacks (01:31:51): Yeah. Putin's approval opening in Russia is 83%. His approval ratings have gone up. We thought not you could say it's fake or whatever, but apparently this is a reasonably decent polling operation. This is a poll by Lavada Center, an independent pollster in Moscow. Jason Calacanis (01:32:05): What's that again? David Sacks (01:32:07): Apparently, his polling his poll numbers were Chamath Palihapitiya (01:32:09): 69% David Sacks (01:32:10): in January. They've gone up. Look. Russians will rally around the flag just like Jason Calacanis (01:32:13): But what about the resources and they're suffering in that country? I know. David Sacks (01:32:16): They're suffering, but the Russians are very good at suffering, Jaikal. It's their national pastime. You hurry dust Tuschayeski. Speaker 5 (01:32:21): Yeah. No. Not right. I don't like her readied up. David Friedberg (01:32:24): Warrant peace Speaker 5 (01:32:24): with us. No. I don't actually I would much rather watch the next Marvel movie or a Curisawa film. I am not interested in David Sacks (01:32:33): yeah. Listen. My whole speech was about the fact that American diplomacy could have prevented the -- last year. That's not to say that we caused it. It was it's Putin's decision to invade. It's his war. The bloodshed is on him. However, more of diplomacy could have defused the situation a year ago and we totally blew it. We just totally blew it. And this is gonna hurt us this I mean, look, This is one of those things that the administration thinks doesn't affect them. But you know what? When our economy goes into recession, because this is a straw that breaks breaks its camel's back, it voters are gonna take into consideration. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:33:07): You know, we do we do hire people in many, many industries to do their job and the people that are hired to be diplomats their job is to be diplomatic and to find compromises. Jason Calacanis (01:33:18): Alright, everybody. It's time to wrap here. Some exciting news on the conference front, Palmer Lucky of Andrew Technologies, building weapons and systems and defensive systems is gonna come. To the event, Chamath Palihapitiya (01:33:29): he is Jason Calacanis (01:33:32): not He's a fan of the pod apparently. He's a big fan of David Saxes. So we're gonna talk about the military. And and just as a general concept, I have a theme. I was just gonna float by y'all. I think a a lot of the talks and a lot of the the zeitgeist is around the problem I want to solve. So I'd like you all to think about that. I think that this will be a celebration of people who are trying to solve important problems in the world. So what are you solving for? Is it gonna be the I think the theme of the event. What are you trying to solve for? And so, Friedberg, if you can give maybe a little talk, Shamoff, David, I I would be great if the four besties gave a little 15 minute solo talk. We're gonna have a lot of these solo talks position. Hey. Here's what I'm solving for and then conversations about what we're solving for. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:34:15): Do you know Dahlio? You should get Dahlio. I think he'd be great. David Sacks (01:34:18): I don't know. Jason Calacanis (01:34:18): And Kathy Wood looks like I think Kathy Wood's coming too. David Sacks (01:34:21): So -- By the way, there's a new video that Dolly had just put out, which is, like, the 45 minute animated memory version of this book. Really good. And really good, I watched it. David Friedberg (01:34:29): I haven't -- I watched it too. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:34:30): Right? I watched it. David Sacks (01:34:31): And I thought it was really great. It's all about how Empires rise and fall and is pretty clear that he thinks we're a late stage empire. And he talks about a lot of the things that we're talking about on the show. And -- This thing's watched I watched Chamath Palihapitiya (01:34:43): it this week. thought it was exceptional, and then David Friedberg (01:34:45): I found the book. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:34:46): Yeah. I thought it was really -- I'm listening Jason Calacanis (01:34:48): to that halfway through. David Friedberg (01:34:49): Oh, look at you guys coming around. You're gonna listen to me. You're, like, to watch it on Chamath Palihapitiya (01:34:52): YouTube because his animations are excellent. David Sacks (01:34:55): Very nice. Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:34:55): The whole thing is David Friedberg (01:34:56): just superb. David Sacks (01:34:57): It's very accessible. I mean -- It's Chamath Palihapitiya (01:34:59): incredibly incredibly good. Highly recommend. David Sacks (01:35:02): Yeah. I mean, look, I I agree Chamath Palihapitiya (01:35:04): with you. I agree David Sacks (01:35:04): with you. And when when Chamath Palihapitiya (01:35:06): do you guys get Dahlio on the thing? Let's get them. Jason Calacanis (01:35:08): Yeah. So and and Dolly will reach out. I know we know you're listening, so considering David Sacks (01:35:11): I think the question to ask Dolly David Friedberg (01:35:13): is -- He's not listening. I think Jason Calacanis (01:35:14): he is, actually. I think he's fan of the show. David Sacks (01:35:16): Yeah. I think the question to ask audio is how do you revitalize a late stage empire? David Friedberg (01:35:20): That's right. That's a good Chamath Palihapitiya (01:35:21): -- Jason Calacanis (01:35:21): That is the question question. David Friedberg (01:35:23): Kenneth -- -- with the Jason Calacanis (01:35:24): Well, can it no. Can it be done? I think it's the real question. All in sum, it may Chamath Palihapitiya (01:35:28): 15, 16, 7. -- can is too theoretical. I think it's more how would you do it? Jason Calacanis (01:35:32): Yeah. Yeah. If it's possible, what would the path be? And it's gotta be something about building the pie, not shrinking it. That's for sure. May 15th, 16th, 17th, the conference is the 16th, and 17th, 625 of 700 tickets allocated. If you'd like to apply for a scholarship, go ahead and do that. It's not gonna be a brow down. The ratio has Chamath Palihapitiya (01:35:50): -- Congrats to you, Jason, for really pushing the diversity and -- Jason Calacanis (01:35:54): Yeah. It's gonna be Chamath Palihapitiya (01:35:55): a lot of scholarships and Women and people of color. It's good. Thank you for that. Jason Calacanis (01:35:59): Really, really, really great to see so many people applying. If you didn't get a response back for your application, you'll get it by April 15th. That's gonna be when we tell everybody if they're officially in or out, but we have been increasing the ratio. It was organically Chamath Palihapitiya (01:36:11): 90, 95% Jason Calacanis (01:36:13): male, female. and now it's Chamath Palihapitiya (01:36:16): 6535. Jason Calacanis (01:36:16): So we're really making progress on that front. So it's not gonna be a bro down. Sorry, Saks. It's not gonna be a bro down. It's gonna be diversity here. diversity was power, Saxx. David Sacks (01:36:26): I hope there's diversity of ideas too. Jason Calacanis (01:36:28): Yeah. Okay. Well, there you have it, folks. For the rainman, David Sachs, sultan of science. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:36:35): Can I wait to see 1 1 third of my besties tonight? Thanks a lot, guys. Jason Calacanis (01:36:40): Yeah. I'm I'm showing up. I mean, you gotta David Friedberg (01:36:41): Give us a seat over Chamath Palihapitiya (01:36:42): you're the one over 3. Jason Calacanis (01:36:44): Well, I mean, these guys, you gotta remember. These guys would have to have their drivers. Translator. Well, these guys would have to have their drivers. David Friedberg (01:36:52): Nick beeped the name. Jason Calacanis (01:36:53): These guys would have to have their drivers. Drive them 30 minutes and then wait for them outside and then drive them home after they've drinking $5000 worth of your wine. It's a it's a little bit overbearing. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:37:03): What David Friedberg (01:37:03): are you gonna port tonight, Tima? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:37:05): Oh, it'll be some really good stuff. Probably some like older Sasakai, I'm thinking. 80 fives. Oh. But FreeBird, if you come, I can also make some death temporary. Jason Calacanis (01:37:17): It's gonna be Chamath Palihapitiya (01:37:17): the best tempeh and Speaker 5 (01:37:18): you like it. Jason Calacanis (01:37:19): It's good for ravioli you've ever had. David Friedberg (01:37:21): It's good for the family. It's good for the planet. Jason Calacanis (01:37:23): It's good for the family. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:37:24): What is tempeh? David Friedberg (01:37:26): It's soybeans, fermented soybeans. It's delicious. You Chamath Palihapitiya (01:37:28): know what? Can I can I tell you what I what I think that yuck. Yuck. Jason Calacanis (01:37:34): Yeah. But, I mean, in fairness, your chef always makes something exceptional for Friedberg when he comes to dinner. Yeah. David Friedberg (01:37:40): because it's always you you're always a generous host, and your chef is always Jason Calacanis (01:37:44): exceptional -- Get your get Saks's driver and come down. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:37:48): Come back. David Friedberg (01:37:48): Send the hell send the Helly up to Morinda to grab me. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:37:51): Preperger's come. Jason Calacanis (01:37:53): Come. Come. Just get a driver. Zach, when do you land? Late late tonight. I'm Cool. On tilt? Come on tilt. David Sacks (01:38:02): We'll -- No. No. No. No. No. It'll be, like, 3 AM or something. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:38:05): Oh, 3 AM. Like, I'm so fucked up. Jason Calacanis (01:38:06): The game's over by then. Alright. See you later, besties. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:38:09): Love you, guys. Bye bye. Bye bye. Jason Calacanis (01:38:11): Bye bye. David Sacks (01:38:12): Bye catch you. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:38:14): We'll let your winter slide. Rainman Jason Calacanis (01:38:17): David Sanders. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:38:22): We open source it to the fans, and they've just gone crazy with it. besties are gone. -- 13. That is plenty of dogs taking a notice in your driveway. my half of the Azure will meet me. We should all just get a room and just have one big huge ordeal because they're all just useless. It's like it's like sexual friendship that they just need to release right now. What? Speaker 5 (01:38:53): You're the BP. What? David Sacks (01:38:55): You're a thief. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:38:56): What? What? Could be it. Where did Jason Calacanis (01:38:58): you get mercy? are back.