科技巨头开始收缩、美联储失职、全球债务与俄乌局势

Jason Calacanis (00:00:00): Hey, everybody. Welcome to episode 98 of the all in podcast with us. Again, the Sultan of Science, the queen of Kinois, looks like he brought a trucker hat. Are you getting jealous of the Montclair hat, or are you just not bathing anymore? No. I need to David Friedberg (00:00:15): I haven't had an haircut in, like, 6 weeks. I'm getting my haircut this It's Jason Calacanis (00:00:18): not gonna make a difference. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:00:19): I think what Friedberg is trying to tell us is that he is the zodiac killer. Jason Calacanis (00:00:24): It's flomping known. Alright. There he is. The unibar. Alright. And Moncler Sacks is here with his $400 Moncler hat and, of course, the dictator himself. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:00:37): I asked Ron I asked Ron to cut my hair so that the white patch is more prominent. I think he did a good job. David Friedberg (00:00:42): Do you add the white patch with coloring, or is Chamath Palihapitiya (00:00:45): it -- No. It's natural. Speaker 4 (00:00:46): It's just there. It's just there. No where else Jason Calacanis (00:00:49): looks so odd if you were doing it on purpose. It's super random. I like the way it looks Chamath Palihapitiya (00:00:54): I like the way it looks. David Sacks (00:00:56): Jay Leno had to look like that. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:00:57): I'm about to go. By the way, you know this. In the fall, truffle season, I like to grow it so that it's more wavy. Jason Calacanis (00:01:03): White for white truffle season. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:01:04): Got it. I needed to have a reset cut so that then we could grow it wavy for the fall for truffle season. David Sacks (00:01:11): Listen, Chamath, the only thing less relevant to us than your cashmere sweaters is your haircut. Jason Calacanis (00:01:20): The let your winners ride. Rainman, David Saffens. Speaker 4 (00:01:27): And I said We open source it to the fans and make discoveries. Jason Calacanis (00:01:36): Alright. 2nd announced the hiring freeze and a reorg at Meta. He also said Meta will reduce headcount for the first time in its history. Medus headcount in 2023 will be smaller than it was this year. He called it the end of an era of rapid growth this on top of Apple Reporting and Apple got walloped in the market for the first time and forever. Apple pull back iPhone production for the 14 after slower than anticipated demand. As I mentioned on previous episodes, they've kind of done a gentleman's layoff Similar to, I think, Meta in that Apple said you have to be back in the office 3 days a week. A bunch of people quit. So you don't have to pay them, I guess, huge packages when they quit that way. Google CEO Sundar Pichai also called out employees in July as you guys all read. And he wrote, there are real concerns that our productivity as a whole is not where it needs to be. For the headcount, we have Google, of course. 174,000 employees. So I guess the question I have for you is, are these the last towers to fall Achimov in this pullback that we've seen? These are companies that don't need to do the layoffs. They have tons of cash, so they're obviously doing that to maintain earnings, one would, and to maybe send a signal to employees that they need to work harder? What what's your read on these these past week's shoes to drop? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:02:54): Well, it definitely is the end of an era. I think it is sort of like the the end of this phase of Big Tech where you had this, you know, unfettered growth where these business models were largely unassailable, and they you know, we're really just fighting to grow into their valuation and just generate more revenue to justify where they where they traded at. And now it's this next phase where they have to operate more like a cash cow business. And so, you know, It's an acknowledgement that the growth is tapering. It's an acknowledgement that they're gonna trade on a pretty tight band in terms of multiple. which means that they have to manage expenses much more tightly, which means that they can't have a really broad based surface area in which to operate an experiment. You have to keep the experiments small. You have to manage your expenses. You can't have employees basically, you know, Run over the place, management has to have a firm hand in in dictating strategy and what people work on. So I think all of that signals it. I actually Jason, I don't think this is the end. I actually think it's the beginning because these companies, Apple Facebook, Google, maybe a little bit Microsoft are the most sensitive to valuation because they are the most widely held. Right? These are these are the equivalent of US treasuries in the equity markets. The safest most predictable safe haven in times of stress. If you wanna own big chunkycashflowgenerating businesses that are relatively unassailable, You couldn't pick 4 better businesses than those. And so the fact that they see enough in the horizon to say that we need to batten down the hatches should be a warning to everybody else. Jason Calacanis (00:04:41): Friedberg, is it as simple as this that the they're moving from top line growth to bottom line and they're gonna need to look at the expenses? What's your read on this for Silicon Valley? David Friedberg (00:04:49): Well, I just wanna do math for a second because I remapped I started working in Silicon Valley in Jason Calacanis (00:04:56): 2001. David Friedberg (00:04:58): You guys were a little older than me, I think, but like, we were right at the kind of yearoneofthe.comimplosion and all the fallout that happened from all the funding that happened from 97 to 99 to 2000. And so from 01 to 03, it was super, like, deflationary. Everyone was cutting costs and all the money that had been raised was kind of being pissed away or companies were liquidating and, you know, so on. And then starting in 2004, which is actually when I joined Google, but there was also this big movement starting 0304 of, like, what people called, web Jason Calacanis (00:05:32): 2, David Friedberg (00:05:33): then kind of new business models and new businesses started to emerge that seemed to have real traction in real legs, and it was a different story and a much more rational story than what you saw leading up to kind of Jason Calacanis (00:05:44): 2000, 2001. David Friedberg (00:05:46): And it was around that time when Google started offering these crazy benefits. Right? It was like, there's a gym and free food and all these amazing workplace, and suddenly, everyone had to do that to keep up. Right? Facebook obviously mimicked it. All the other big companies mimicked it. And then it became mainstay, and they also raised compensation in the valley significantly because Google had really cracked the nut on how to extract value from the Internet. And it really changed everything in Silicon Valley and changed everything in tech because suddenly every tech company whether you were enterprise software or hardware or an Internet ecommerce site to be competitive in a higher grade talent, you have to have the same sort of environment. high wages, great salaries, really share the value of your employees, you know, gyms and free food and all this sort of stuff. So it's the first time, I think, in a generation since, like, 2003, 2004 that we're seeing things start to turn the other way where instead of adding more benefits, you know, making things more attractive, giving more value to employees, we're really seeing the recession hit these kind of leading indicators of how things are gonna be in the valley. And as a result, I think we should expect to see a similar impact on compensation on benefits, on value share, and on kind of proclivity to hire an opportunity to kind of jump jobs and, you know, opportunities that we've all kind of taken for granted over the past 18 years. And this is gonna be a real shock to a lot of people that work in tech. And a lot of people that have gotten used to the idea that every company offers great benefits, there's always another job to jump to you that'll pay you more. And that that as that engine of growth that was really driven by these big companies, by Google, Facebook, Apple starts to slow, No one needs to compete with them anymore as much, and the compensation bands get tighter. And the option value gets tighter, and the free stuff gets tighter. David Friedberg (00:07:39): So it's the end of an era, and I think it's a new world for tech and and and Silicon Valley. Jason Calacanis (00:07:44): Sex, what are your thoughts here in terms of startups in relation to Big Tech maybe having these austerity measures kick in and a refocusing on profitability. David Sacks (00:07:53): The big takeaway here is just that nobody is safe. And it's not just tarps that have to, you know, tighten their belts. It's these big companies too. And I think we're headed for a broad base recession. That's what it seems like. You saw Druken Miller's comments this week predicting a hard landing in 2023. No one's talking about soft landing anymore. In fact, I think we're all wondering who's flying the plane. So I think we're headed for a pretty big recession. And I've just taken a slightly different direction. I'm down here in LA. had dinner the other night with a friend who's a showrunner in Hollywood. And so a showrunner basically is like the head writer and they basically put together the writing team and the, you know, the content for a show, and then they saw them to to networks. He said that, like, no one is buying anything anymore here. That last year, you had there was tremendous, you know, activity. And you saw, like, the the Game of Thrones guys, you know, DND, they got like a $300,000,000 deal from Netflix, and Shonda rhymes got Jason Calacanis (00:08:49): $300,000,000 deal. -- they did. David Sacks (00:08:51): Yeah. Yeah. They got, like, these they were massive multi 100 $1,000,000 deals being made last year, and that was just for, like, future writing deals. Like, Netflix wasn't even buying libraries when they did those deals. Jason Calacanis (00:09:00): They were locking down talent for the next day. David Sacks (00:09:02): Yeah. Exactly. So all of that has stopped. And the reason is that Netflix's stock has been hammered Right? And only so they not have the capital to do those kinds of crazy deals anymore, but they know that Wall Street is watching them. And so fundamentally, they're questioning whether their business model even works if they have to spend that much money on content. So then all of Netflix's competitors basically have stopped So this whole, like, frothy environment that you had for in Hollywood last year, that's just over. The faucet's been turned off and it's not even turned off to a trickle. It's just stopped. So you think that this, like, massive asset bubble that we had last year was just in crypto and gross stocks It's not. I think it actually trickled down into the real economy because Netflix was one of those gross stocks. The money then flowed into Friedberg in Hollywood and then lots of other places. This is one small example, right, that that this asset bubble wasn't purely just something that's gonna be localized to crypto. It affects real people in the real economy and we are just beginning to see the unwind of that. Jason Calacanis (00:10:08): Yeah. What's apps absolutely correct, I think, is people were more risk taking. They had free capital. They wanted to place more bets. And, sure, why wouldn't you bet on the game of thrones Friedberg for the next decade? But Looking at this, this is gonna be fantastic for startups. I mean, the startups I've worked with over the last 5 years have been they always come to me, oh, I got a developer, but got this person's got 3 offers from, you know, Facebook, Google, and they're like, how do I land this person? They got $300,000 a year offering a $1,000,000 in RSUs. And, basically, founders had to say, no. I can't get that person, and so they had to get creative. And they would hire people Ukraine, Uruguay, everywhere in between to try to find developer talent and they had to get creative. Now all of those people are not going to have 4 job offers. They're gonna have no job offers. They may have and laid off, and those crazy unrealistic out of school deals are gonna be gone. And this means massive consolidation of talent. you look at the startups community right now, tons of companies are just going out of business. They're packing it in. Those people are gonna go work at the other startups that are stronger. So whoever makes it out of this as a startup, this is how the cycle restarts is talent then consolidates on the winners who would be, like, taking the NBA and getting rid of the bottom, you know, 10 teams and just telling the best players there, move up to the other teams. and everybody else, you're out of the league. So I I think this is incredible setup for 2023 for startups to consolidate talent. So I'm I'm actually excited to see us. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:11:36): It's another data point that, again, I said it last week. I'll go out on a limb and predict my equivalent November fall predictions. Last fall, it was that the markets were gonna poop the bed. My prediction now is that I think the markets are bottoming and consolidating. Yep. Jason Calacanis (00:11:54): 100%. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:11:54): And this is the time, I think, to start nibbling and start getting ready to really rip the money in I think there's enough signals every day that kind of like tell me at least that on the margin, it's time because I think the markets do a reasonably good job of digesting news and then pricing the forward reality. Right? Like, today's price is really everything we already know. And so the real guess is what's about to happen in the future. And from my perspective, I'm actually pretty starting to get a little constructive here. I think that when when companies like Facebook really do this and, you know, like, if you think about it one way, the financial markets have always had this thing that we have called a fed put. What does that mean? A put is essentially the right to sell something. And what market participants have always known for the last decade is that if things got very hairy, if there was uncertainty in the market, the Federal Reserve would and they have consistently stepped in to create a buyer of last resort. And so it always eliminated that last part of true you know supply demand balance because they would just come and say, don't worry. In many ways in tech, what the big tech companies were were that You know, you could never really find what the true market clearing price for an engineer was or what the true amount of expenses you should spend on office space or Friedberg services. Because you always always had these companies which was an escalating arms race. You know, if one company had a massage, the next company had gyms in massage and physical therapist, and the other company would have buses to take you to the gyms in massage and therapist. And the next company would protein shakes that were freshly made, you know, and it just kept escalating and escalating because the costs didn't matter. And they wanted if nothing else to get that marginal engineer or product manager or business person to work at their company, which eliminated the risk that they would actually start something to disrupt them. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:13:52): Blocker strategy is very real. It should have the blocker strategies are is very real. So when you take this big tech put out of the market, you will get true price discovery and you will find out what the real price should be for this kind of an engineer, that kind of a product manager, you'll find out what are the real expenses you need to bear in order to build a real lasting business. and you'll be able to sort through all of that stuff out. So I think it's a really good moment. And again, it's yet another indication to me that I think broadly speaking The markets are now starting to stabilize. All the irrational behavior is starting to exit the system. The party is in the last few hours. Volumes going down, the alcohol's being taken away. People are hanging around with a little bit. Lights are coming on. They're like, I haven't been here a little too long. And I think that that's a very healthy process for an economy. And I think that that's what's happening right now. So I'm constructive. I'm a little bullish. I'll go I'll go out on a limb. I think You know, we could be 3 to 5 percent from the lows, but we're more near the lows than the highs. Jason Calacanis (00:14:56): It certainly feels like the double bottoming out process was the the launching along the bottom. And, yeah, who knows how hard the Chamath Palihapitiya (00:15:02): landing is, but I think it's Jason Calacanis (00:15:04): a great setup for startups and people who wanna start companies. I don't know if you saw Girly did a great interview. that trended on the Twitter. And he's just saying this is the best time to start a company, and I I have to agree with him. Like, you're gonna have talent available. And who are you competing against for buying ads? Like, there's so many marketing opportunities available. The first thing to go in a down market like this is advertising and marketing. So Chamath Palihapitiya (00:15:28): and by the way, we will we will also relive what we have empirically known to be true and it's been been pretty well proven. The investments that one makes in this period will probably be the best for many, many years to come because they'll have the most asymmetric upside. And that was true in Jason Calacanis (00:15:47): 2008, 9, Chamath Palihapitiya (00:15:48): and 10. It was true in 2000 and 2, 3, and Jason Calacanis (00:15:53): 4. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:15:54): you I mean, you're talking incredible companies just in those two periods. Think about this Atlassian, Tesla, Jason Calacanis (00:16:00): Uber, Google, Chamath Palihapitiya (00:16:01): Airbnb, Uber, Instagram, WhatsApp, incredible businesses that have created tremendous value. And so there are businesses that have been invested in for the first time in Jason Calacanis (00:16:11): 2022 Chamath Palihapitiya (00:16:13): and will be invested in for the first time in Jason Calacanis (00:16:15): 202324, Chamath Palihapitiya (00:16:17): which will be the leading winners of this next phase and this next leg up. And so the real opportunity is to find out who those companies are and get behind them, I think. Jason Calacanis (00:16:27): A 100 percent. As I always tell people, fortunes are made in the down market. They're collected in the up market. Friedberg, Speaker 4 (00:16:32): what are Jason Calacanis (00:16:33): your thoughts here in terms of the startup community or company builder? and talent because that that seems to be the piece that could be a silver lining on all of this Malstrom that we're going through. David Friedberg (00:16:45): I mean, technology always marches forward. So there's always, you know, there's always progress to be to be had and to be made. That's one universal truth about it's weird that we call it an industry because A lot of technology companies in Silicon Valley today don't sell technology to other companies, which is how Silicon Valley started nowadays Silicon Valley is reinventing other industries by being technology led. And that is certainly still true because there are so many I hate using the term but undisrupted industries to pursue efficiency gains across and technology built in Silicon Valley can can can drive that. Now when I say Silicon Valley, I don't mean the physical location anymore, and that's the confounding factor here, which is that there does seem to be this distribution opportunity that's also emerged at the same time where people are doing remote work and work from home and distributed workforce models that seem to be highly effective. You guys talked about Atlassian. I don't think they ever had an office. Right? I mean, don't don't most of the people work from home there? And I think that the success that's been seen in software companies that have operated that model also changes the the calculus because not only are Our wages are lower, and therefore, the cost of operating is lower, not needing a fancy expensive office in San Francisco is needed But you can also access far more talent than you ever could before. You don't just need people to live in the Bay Area or New York or LA or wherever you're operating from. So from a software perspective, this is an amazing time. I'll tell you there's a flipside to this like in life sciences, Real estate is more expensive than it's ever been right now in the Bay Area to get lab space. There's a total dearth of space. So there's certain segments that, I think, are physical in Jason Calacanis (00:18:36): nature -- -- large lab space like a specific a specific designation. Speaker 4 (00:18:39): Dude, I David Friedberg (00:18:40): mean, there's our revolution in genomics. that's totally transforming all of biology and human health and Jason Calacanis (00:18:45): life sciences. Speaker 4 (00:18:45): Do you Jason Calacanis (00:18:46): need a certain type of location that's sanctioned for that? Yeah. David Friedberg (00:18:50): Yeah. Lab space. is a certain kind of build out, and it's not you know? And so there's a certain amount of square footage, and it's being built out a lot around the pay area. But the thing about life sciences companies, is you do have to operate physically because you're doing some you're you're building something physical. And so that is an industry that continues to remain very well funded and very competitive. And I think, you know, there's still tremendous value. And by the way, there's a lot of public companies to invest in, not on the primary basis, but that are tools companies that are benefiting greatly from the continued demand and and and growth in spending in that category. Jason Calacanis (00:19:28): Sex, let's talk about competition. You know? Lot of talk, you know, of these large companies pursuing many different verticals we talked about, anticompetitive stuff, Linocon, the bundling in the suite of products at Microsoft, other firms, Now you have all these being cut. Speaker 6 (00:19:45): Death. What? Death to the room, Bob. Jason Calacanis (00:19:49): Death to the room. Speaker 6 (00:19:51): By the way, did you see that Elizabeth Warren of all the things she could send a letter to the FTC about? I guess she sent Chamath Palihapitiya (00:19:56): a letter about the Roomba. Jason Calacanis (00:19:59): I mean, Senator Karen Speaker 4 (00:20:00): is just too much, man. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:20:01): I mean -- There's a lot of Speaker 4 (00:20:02): other stuff going on, man. You can let the roomba slide. Jason Calacanis (00:20:05): The roomba slide. You'd that's not important. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:20:08): Oh, you know, all the things that are going on right now Speaker 6 (00:20:10): in 2022, it's the Roomba that gets on Chamath Palihapitiya (00:20:13): the that gets that's a bug divide. At this point -- Unbelievable. Oh, my point's not serious. Jason Calacanis (00:20:18): -- David Sacks (00:20:18): is sleepwalking. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:20:19): Oh my gosh. -- walking. What is going on? David Sacks (00:20:22): There's a there's a famous history of World War 1 called the sleep walkers because that's basically what it felt like is they just slept walk their way to World War 1. Basically, what should have been a minor regional war, the 3rd Balkans's war that nobody should have cared about. Nobody should have cared about this Franz Ferdinand guy except for, you know, the Austrians and the yeah. Exactly. But the whole world basically got themselves invested in this thing. And it feel and this is what we're worried about. We're worried about the Roomba when the administration is sleepwalking its way into the next World War? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:20:55): Well, I do not want Amazon, okay, to control my vacuum cleaner. I'm just gonna put that on the record. Okay? Because what happens if they -- They know where the dirt is. Speaker 4 (00:21:02): They know which rooms are dirty. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:21:04): What happens if they get a hold of Roomba? I'll tell you what happens. The next thing is they're gonna go after Dyson. Okay? And then once they do that, they're gonna put chips in these things. And all of a sudden, they're gonna know exactly what Jason said. What are you eating? Jason Calacanis (00:21:16): Where your duck bunnies are. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:21:17): Yeah. All of this stuff, it's this must be stopped, Lena Conner. No. But -- Stop that. Jason Calacanis (00:21:22): -- to the point of competition, you you you're seeing cuts to you know, all the non core projects at these big companies, this is gonna be great for startups. Right? Like, the idea that Facebook could focus on, you know, a 4th, 5th, 6th thing is gonna go away. Yeah? David Sacks (00:21:39): Well, look. You're right that great companies are built during downturns PayPal was built largely during the downturn. The startup I created Yammer was built largely during a downturn. So listen. There's gonna be opportunities, innovation doesn't stop just because we're in a recession or depression. But I gotta tell you, I unlike Chamath, I'm having a hard time finding a silver lining right now. Part of it is the comments that Druckenmiller just made, which and he's been right about this stuff. We've been talking about his predictions for over a year on this podcast. And -- He famously Jason Calacanis (00:22:09): shorted the pound for George Soros -- David Sacks (00:22:12): That was one of his first things started. But, yeah, since then, he's one of the most successful macro traders in the world and and, you know, universally respected, I think deservedly so. Remember, he said that that this was in mid 2021. He said the Fed was engaged in a radical monetary policy. Because even though we were starting to get inflation, it was around 5% then, that they were still engaged in this bond buying program. They're still bought, like, 160,000,000,000 of bonds. And here's the first one waving the alarm bells saying, what are they doing? Now his predictions have come true. I mean, we're in a inflationary spiral. And his prediction now is his central outlook is that the Dow Jones will be in the same place where it is today in 10 years. And he made the point that, yes, equity markets do go up in the long term. But how long term are you talking about? from night from roughly 1966 to 1982, the stock market was sideways. Jason Calacanis (00:23:05): Japan had a lost decade as well. Like, this is not unprecedented. Right. after an asset bubble. David Sacks (00:23:09): Right. And then from the Great Depression, it took until 1955 for the stock market to recover. So in the long run, the stock market will go up, but it could be you know, we could have a flat decade. This is his prediction. Right? But he's a very smart guy. And and then on top of that, that's not to say that you can't be one of the ones who make money during that period because lots of people do. But we're in for I think a very tough economic period because of just this radical expansionary fiscal monetary policy we've had. Basically, the Fed and the administration printed the last 2 administrations, but especially this 1, printed Jason Calacanis (00:23:48): $10,000,000,000,000 David Sacks (00:23:51): over the last couple of years. And they handed over the last few. Jason Calacanis (00:23:53): that's Most of that was under Trump, but continue. David Sacks (00:23:56): No. It's not. Jason Calacanis (00:23:57): 100%. I'll I'll pull it up in a second. But, anyway, keep going. David Sacks (00:24:01): we had Biden basically kept digging this hole. We had the $2,000,000,000,000 of American rescue plan, which we didn't need. We just had another Jason Calacanis (00:24:09): 2,000,000,000,000 David Sacks (00:24:10): of the infrastructure bill, the inflation reduction Chamath Palihapitiya (00:24:14): act. 500,000,000,000 for student debt. David Sacks (00:24:17): Yeah. Exactly. Jason, what are you talking about? And this was all after the emergency was over. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:24:22): But I think I think that you guys are debating the wrong thing. I think that what Druck and Miller. I think, by the way, just to be clear, both Druck and Miller and I can be right, which is he's commenting on the real world economy going into a recession. What I'm saying is that the stock market tends to be 9 to 12 months ahead of where we are, Nick, throw up that chart, please, that I asked you guys to share. Just to give you guys a sense of what I mean by David Sacks (00:24:44): by the way, while you're doing that, Jamath. Jason, look. I will agree with you that a lot of this stimulus Jason Calacanis (00:24:48): -- -- point I'm just pulling over. He did 7.8,000,000,000,000. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:24:50): Listen. A lot Jason Calacanis (00:24:51): of this is more than Biden. But fine. David Sacks (00:24:53): A lot of the stimulus happened under Trump you're right because that's when basically COVID happened. Remember, in the in that q 2 of 2020 quarter, the economy shrunk at a 30% annualized rate. Everyone thought we're going to a great depression. And that's why they passed all the stimulus by huge bipartisan margins. Jason Calacanis (00:25:08): Truckingill is best point is that this is all postvaccine. Right? Yeah. David Sacks (00:25:11): Yeah. So so look. And and I think we can definitely go back and second guess what happened during the Trump administration. There's an old saying that many of the worst ideas are bipartisan. But then so, you know, the spending that happened in 2020 was clearly bipartisan, and maybe it went way too far. But in the last 2 years, like drug said, it was post vaccine, post emergency. and they kept spending. And it's and not just the administration. It was the bond buying program of the Fed where the economy was already fully back, and they bought another 160,000,000,000 of bonds. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:25:43): Yeah. I think I think the thing is that, you know, I think Stan is a proven Republican. So maybe he is speaking a little bit of his book as well. I think it's fair to say that both Trump and Biden did not help. But, overwhelmingly, I think where the where problem stands is a central bank that was the same through both of those administrations. And I think we should probably focus on them because You're right. What they did was excessive. And what they essentially said is that if there is volatility beyond a certain amount, and people cry uncle, we will not allow the markets to sort themselves out in an orderly way we will step in. And that's what you know, again, what we just talked about. The central bank put, in this case, the federal. Interventions. Jason Calacanis (00:26:28): Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:26:28): And these interventions really pervert a market because you don't know what's going on. And that has huge ramifications in the real economy. So, Nick, if you just throw up this chart, the the the thing that is really important here and what this chart shows is essentially all of the hiking cycles that we've gone through since 1983. So Jason Calacanis (00:26:47): 83, 87, 8094, 99, 0415, Chamath Palihapitiya (00:26:50): and the current one. And here's what I just wanna call out for you guys. What's incredible is that other than the 183. So this is sort of like, you know, that last big one, What we've seen is that the stock market has a tendency to immediately go to the conclusion. Very early on in a rate hiking cycle. And now why is that important for normal folks listening to this thing? Well, the reason why that's important is right now we're in month 7 of a cycle. We obviously don't know how long it's gonna be. But The odds are improving every day that we're near the end versus the beginning. And why that's important is, again, if you're thinking about when to, you know, buy equities, for example, this is a really instructive guy because what it tells you is the closer we get to the end or more importantly the closer we psychologically know that the end is coming. we start buying. And that and that's just a broad based statement that has been true. So, you know, what you see right now, I think, is really interesting, which is despite all the bad information, oh my gosh. The Nord Stream pipeline blew up. Could it have been sabotage? Was it the CIA? Was it the Russians? Oh my gosh. Big Tech is slowing spending and firing people. Speaker 7 (00:28:13): China's in a coup. Jason Calacanis (00:28:14): I don't know if you saw that rumor. Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:28:16): How about something more benign? You know, the the US, you know, US Yuan is really trading in a crazy way. The US euro is trading in a crazy way. The US pound is going crazy. Despite all of that, every time we trade down, the market consolidates very quickly. And we sort of like so I think we're forming a bottom. I do think that Stan is right. We are going to see a hard landing recession. something will break in 2023. I hope it doesn't I hope it doesn't affect Speaker 4 (00:28:46): a Chamath Palihapitiya (00:28:46): lot of normal people, but it's likely. But the same time Jason Calacanis (00:28:50): -- -- define hard landing as well. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:28:51): I'll tell you in a second. But at the same time, I think what's happening is in the equity and financial markets, We are consolidating a bottom because we're seeing through to that end state, and this is where cheap equity gets bought. So why is there a reason to sell now I think a lot of the people that are selling the smart money sellers that I talk to are essentially right now selling to book in capital losses to offset other capital gains from this year, a term that's called tax loss harvesting. And so if you have gains through this year, which some of us do, This is the great moment to just sell the losers, to book the loss, to net it out so that you can minimize your taxes for next year. That's probably, I think, where we are at. And I think that's why they're still consolidated buying. So what is the hard landing, Jason? If I had to predict I think what David said is absolutely right. You're going to see unemployment get to an awkward and uncomfortable number. Jason Calacanis (00:29:48): 56%, Chamath Palihapitiya (00:29:49): I think could be something that we see. And I think you're gonna see a lot more companies pull way back on their spend because demand is gonna really modulate. Oh, you know, I'll give you an a crazy example. You know, what happens to all the people in the United States that are on armed mortgages. Right? Adjustable rate mortgages. When those things reset, they're gonna reset 2, 300 basis points higher. Their monthly payments are going are gonna go nuclear. Jason Calacanis (00:30:17): It's already Chamath. I literally had a family member call me about this, and they were like, what do I do? So in the UK -- Chamath Palihapitiya (00:30:22): Yeah. In the UK, Jason Calacanis (00:30:23): 40% Chamath Palihapitiya (00:30:26): of all mortgage dollars are interest only arms that will reset in January to around Jason Calacanis (00:30:34): 4%. 40%. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:30:37): Can you imagine how upside down the UK economy is gonna be when people have to spend three and four times more to keep their home? Jason Calacanis (00:30:44): And then people have to go to work. So people who have not been participating are gonna have those bills come in, and they're gonna have to go to work. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:30:50): They're gonna have to go to work. Jason Calacanis (00:30:51): Yeah. So, Friedberg, what what do you what do you think hard landing here? And then what do you think 2023 looks like in that regard? looking pretty bleak. Do you buy that we're bottoming out now as Jamantha's sort of hypothesized him? David Friedberg (00:31:06): I mean, I'll tell you I was running some back of the envelope math. You know how much debt there is in the world? Take a guess. Jason Calacanis (00:31:20): 200 couple 100,000,000,000,000. 200,000,000,000,000. David Friedberg (00:31:26): About 300,000,000,000,000. Yeah. That's debt owed by governments, businesses, and households. And if in response to the inflation, which is response to fiscal stimulus, is a response to the entire economy of the world shutting down for a couple of months. We end up raising rates from 0 to Jason Calacanis (00:31:49): 5%. David Friedberg (00:31:52): that's Jason Calacanis (00:31:54): $15,000,000,000,000 David Friedberg (00:31:56): of annual debt service, which is like, 18% of global GDP. Like, that the debt service alone. Speaker 7 (00:32:03): But what does that mean? -- percent. David Friedberg (00:32:08): That means that for every dollar transacted Jason Calacanis (00:32:11): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (00:32:11): No. Means nothing. -- to tax it. David Friedberg (00:32:13): No. It means you have your Jason Calacanis (00:32:14): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (00:32:14): What does it mean? Like, so so what? David Friedberg (00:32:16): So I'm saying that there's a massive squeeze hat that's gonna happen, right? And so what ends up happening ultimately is because you could run this across local governments, Jason Calacanis (00:32:25): I think it means demand destruction. I mean -- Sovereign debt, David Friedberg (00:32:29): households. Yeah. I think it means think no. No. I'll I'll Jason Calacanis (00:32:32): I'll tell you, Shamal, what it means. Speaker 4 (00:32:33): I'm certain Chamath Palihapitiya (00:32:34): that you have trouble, but it means nothing. And I'll tell you why. These people keep Jason Calacanis (00:32:37): -- David Friedberg (00:32:37): Because you can print more money? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:32:39): You print more money. I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but like, it is not as if we have a law, a constitutional law, or it's not as if governments have collectively decided. that you cannot have debt to GDP above a certain number. That doesn't happen, guys. We passed a 100 under Obama, and we've just kept printing money. So whether we like it or not and I'm not saying I'm a fan of this or it's right. We are kicking the can down the road, and what we're doing is we're extending the maturities. you know, you'll eventually have 100 year government bonds. Okay? Just like you have, like, now, you know, multi decade long corporate bonds. David Sacks (00:33:15): We missed a chance for that. We missed it. Because brilliant yellen actually said no to that. When when rates were, like, near 0, and we had the opportunity to refinance the US government debt with using long term rates, basically long term bonds. It actually was Trump who you know, crazy Trump who suggested, let's basically, shift the debt to a 100 year bonds. And she said, no. David Friedberg (00:33:36): She doesn't devalue the dollar. Right? David Sacks (00:33:39): So the the problem is that we have all the short term debt. And look at what what just happened in the UK. When Liz Trust tried to prop up the bond rates by basically intervening, is basically an inflationary policy to fight inflation. The markets puked all over that, and that's when their the pound hit you know -- Exactly. Jason Calacanis (00:34:00): There's there's only so you have to have a buyer of the debt. Right? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:34:02): I think the list trust thing is really actually a microcosm of how Unfortunately, Western governments are working, but I think there's a silver lining. Like, she basically came in a day after she got elected and said, okay. Guess what, guys? At the same time, I'm going to massively cut taxes, and I'm gonna give you fiscal stimulus. I'm gonna cap your energy bills, and I'm gonna have these huge transfer payments from the government into the hands of of British citizens. I'm not gonna comment on whether that's right or right right or wrong, but the financial markets to your point David absolutely hated it And within a few days, you basically saw the pound get crushed. But then what did you see? You saw the Bank of England. decide that financial stability was more important than financial viability. Meaning, the things that she wanted to do were not viable. So you could have let the financial markets sort this out, which would have forced the prime minister to basically abandon the policy. But instead, the BOE said, no. We're an unlimited buyer of UK Guilts, which is the name of the UK bond. And everything snapped back. We're back to where we were before her speech and before the chancellor of the ex Checker speech. And so it's as if nothing happened. And that's what's so insane to me, which is that even though the Bank of England, by the way, in the next week or 2 are gonna raise rates a 140 basis points. a 140 basis points, almost double what the Fed has done the last three times. They're doing both at the same time. They're both raising rates and they're acting as a backstop for bad policy. And this is what's wrong right now in the world. We do not have a real check-in balance. So so my point to Friedberg is just that I'm, like, emotionally in on your side. But the problem is, with these folks keep getting bailed out, David, they're just gonna keep doing this stuff, and there's no end in Jason Calacanis (00:35:48): Well, the and the the consumer doesn't get bailed out. So that if you look at it on a micro basis instead of a macro basis, you're correct. These governments will just bail people out even if they make bad decisions as we're seeing. But then the person whose variable interest mortgage just kicked in has $500 less a month in savings. So they're now not gonna buy an iPhone 14. They're not gonna upgrade their car every 6 years. They're gonna do it every 8 years. So the demand destruction that's happening is gonna be quite severe, and that's gonna reduce mon that's gonna -- And then mark Chamath Palihapitiya (00:36:18): my -- -- mark my words, the Federal Reserve will intervene. This is why I think we're in a bottoming process. I think the the bleeding edge of the smart financial actors are actually on Saksis side and Freeproek side. But then they're taking that next intellectual leap and saying, okay. Well, what happens when Apple basically says, hey, guys. I'm gonna have to fire 15% of my employees. I think what happens is the fed intervenes. And I'm I'm just using Apple as an example. But there there is a threshold of demand destruction, Jason. I think you're right where we have the Fed put come back on the table, and the markets just go bonkers. Jason Calacanis (00:36:53): So they instead of doing 75 basis points 2 or 3 times, they're just gonna be like, you Chamath Palihapitiya (00:36:56): know, the 50 to slow it down. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. They're gonna they're gonna get to four and a half very quickly. And then this something's gonna break like all these guys are saying. I think they're right. And then the Fed put comes back on the table. And we'll have this we'll have the UK you know, the UK thing happened in, what, 6 days. Ours will play out over 6 or 9 months. but it's gonna play out the exact same way. And Freeport's right. You know, we should have capped debt at, you know, a 100% of GDP or less, and Saks is right. We should have issued 100 year bonds at zero rates when we had the chance. We didn't do either of those things. Jason Calacanis (00:37:31): -- so incompetent, Saks? I mean, we there was no need to have rates this low for that long. And maybe they could just keep them at some average number instead of going down to 0 or that's spiking back up and just steering you know, spinning the steering wheel. You know? So violently, why don't we have some basic concept of maybe not having zero rates and keeping them at 2% or something reasonable so you have some dry powder. David Sacks (00:37:55): Well, if you go back and and listen to what the Fed said, and truck makes this point, they were all worried that they got there was an inflation print a few years ago where it was at 1.7%. And they all started panicking about not being at 2%. So for a point 3% move that they tried to engineer, they opened the floodgates. Okay? And that's basically what happened. And that's why he's so critical of it. The other thing is, the February, the Fed said we're gonna be data driven But then the data came in. Last summer, we got that surprise Jason Calacanis (00:38:23): 5.1% David Sacks (00:38:24): print, and they dismissed it as transitory. So they said they're gonna be data driven, but they weren't. They they were dismissive. Now on what basis did they conclude transitory. Like, what was the proof for that? There was no proof. That was a political consideration. The administration and yellen, this big part of that, immediately reacted to basically downplay the news. I mean, they PR ed it. I mean, they didn't want to admit that there was a problem. Jason Calacanis (00:38:50): They went from transitory to this is permanent, to now -- David Sacks (00:38:54): In 6 months. But during Jason Calacanis (00:38:55): -- And now we're at hard landing. Like -- Speaker 4 (00:38:57): Right. Jason Calacanis (00:38:57): -- these people are not competent. Are they just not competent? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:39:00): No. I think they're really I think they are competent, but I think that They're a little bit fighting with one hand tied behind their back. I think if you had to take the other side, Saxx, you know, the problem is they have a very specific strain of data that they focus on, and that data has all these weird anomalies to it. Like, you know, they should look at rent data. But the way that the rent data works is that, you know, you bleed it in 1 6th a month over 6 months. just as a as an odd example or, like, used car data only comes in a certain way. Jason Calacanis (00:39:31): So I think they're driving in the rearview mirror. I think there is something to David Sacks (00:39:34): think it's simpler than this, which is listen. I think all politicians do this, which is when they get bad news, they wanna spin it. And they're gonna delay acknowledging the bad news as long as possible. So what happened? Last summer, when this inflation started, they all dismissed it. It was all a talking point. I mean, every single one of them and here's the crazy thing is Jay Powell He's the only Trump official who got reappointed by Biden by a huge majority. How do you think that happened? And when did it happen? It happened at the end of May last summer. So just when this inflation print came out and yell into the administration. We're saying it was transitory, That's when Powell was up for renomination. And he swept through the only Trump appointment to basically be renominated without even a question by Biden. Why? because he got onboard the talking points. He wasn't gonna basically buck them at that time. So he waited 6 months. He bought into the talking points. That was a 100% political. I mean, it's -- I Jason Calacanis (00:40:29): told you. I read Paul. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:40:30): It's a very compelling argument. Jason Calacanis (00:40:32): But I've read the Chamath Palihapitiya (00:40:33): it's really compelling. It's really it's sad but compelling. Jason Calacanis (00:40:36): Sachs, you should read the Paul Volker bookkeeping at it. He basically says Reagan came to him off-site where they knew they weren't being recorded. and told them do not raise rates. So this idea that the fed is independent. Like, history now has shown us it is not. Like, the the there is mass of political pressure on them. I I think that -- -- David Sacks (00:40:55): especially at the time. Jason Calacanis (00:40:56): They're driving in the review, Mara. Clearly, the the data they have is not great. And then all this data is nuanced. You know, jobs and this massive amount of jobs we've had in this country is because of you we have a new immigration policy. We don't let people into this country. We kick out PhDs that we train. And then housing, we have iBuyers buying this. So to your point, Jamoth, I think a lot of the data has changed, and they're they've got a bad data set. They have a bad data word, and they're driving with bad information. They don't know their direction. They don't know their speed perfect. They want more fidelity on the data. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:41:26): You're right. If you went to a board of directors meeting for your company and said, How's the business doing? And the CEO says, well, you know, well, we're we're gonna have data from 6 months ago. And it's like, okay. I got that. But what about, like, last week? You would fire that CEO to your point, Jason. And these things are noble today. Like, there are businesses, for example, that are selling 1,000,000,000 of dollars worth of, like, IoT sensors here and there, energy sensors here. Everything is connected to the Internet. Everything is automated. Everything is running in code. You would think that the government would say there's a national level directive here to get this into some kind of a system that we can use because these decisions are becoming more and more important. I think that would be a wonderful idea and project and would had huge value. Jason Calacanis (00:42:14): A Manhattan project for understanding the economy on a very granular level. We you invested in a startup at one point. I remember I heard the pitch, where they had people around the world taking pictures of food prices, Africa, India, the United States, anywhere, and then putting them into a database normalizing them so you could know the price of tomatoes or potatoes on a global basis, you know, and normalizing all that data. They don't seem to have this data there. They're talking about August data and it's you know, we're we're now in October. It's a really odd situation. David Sacks (00:42:44): I think, you know, our friend Backers were made this point, which was that, look, in this last FOMC meeting, the Fed raised their forecast for what the neutral interest rate would be from 3 and a half to 4.6%. So in two months, they raised their forecast by over a 100 basis points. What is that based on? Like, is there a model I assume there is a model. I assume there's data. So why don't they just open source that? Why don't they let the markets like see the model they're using so we have a little more predictability. Of course, They always have the discretion to bucket or not follow it or whatever or change it. But, like, you know, wouldn't that be a better approach as to, like, let us see the data and the models in real time as it's happening. And then the community, like like an open source project, could actually, like, fork the model and actually create, like, better ones. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:43:33): Well, to your point to your point, like, there's the the Fed is actually known as the gold standard of transparency, so the IMF has kind of like a a view on how all these central banks act. Last week, they actually excoriated and this is good this just hurts me to say Canada because of their lack of transparency. Apparently, Canada doesn't even put up minutes And so they were like, hey, Canada. You you guys like yeah. And, you know, look. Canadians are I mean, the Canadian government at least, like, total moral virtue signalers, but they don't value transparency apparently. But to your point, David, there is a lot of opacity in these things that really determine how the real world works and the impacts to individual people are gonna go and get ratcheted way up, and nobody really knows what to expect even though the data is there sitting in plain sight. David Friedberg (00:44:25): I mean, two things can be true. I think the fed the process of setting central bank rates by the Federal Reserve Should be reset. I also think that it could be true that the Fed is not responsible fully for a lot of the conditions we're now facing, we did have a bunch of policy decisions that the whole world got swept up in. and seemed to accept as appropriate at the time when we shut the global economy down. And there was some weird assumption or belief that fiscal policy would allow us to soft land or recover out of that. And at the end of the day, all that fiscal policy did And I remember I was speaking with a smart person at the time, and he said, all the Fed's gonna do is they're just gonna inflate everything. it's gonna take a while, and everything will inflate. In that way, everyone will feel good for a while, but you can't just stop the spigot of capital moving, goods moving, and services moving, for months on end and assume that the repercussions will not actually be felt extremely harshly. And at some point, things are gonna come home to roost. and that is what's happening. There was no winning solution for the Fed or for any central banker. in light of the policy decisions that were made to shut the global economy down when COVID began, not to argue whether or not that was appropriate, but that was simply a statement of fact. I said it before, and I I don't understand if you were to take a 1st principle's point of view on this today and say, hey. Let's create a central bank, and how should it operate? You would take all the data from Intuit, from PayPal, from Visa, from Mastercard, from the Internet. You would take all of that data You would let the algorithms or the AI or the software figure out what is most predictive of certain inflationary, recessionary, Totally. And growth indicators. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:46:20): Totally. David Friedberg (00:46:21): And you would basically say, look. X percent growth, x percent inflation, solve for what the the central bank's interest rate should be, and it should vary at a 100ths of a percent or a basis point every day. And every day the rate is reset and the software resets it. And to have, you know, some degree of human logic or oversight seems appropriate, but to have a decision made in quarter percent increments once every couple of weeks seems seems kind of arcane. So I think both things are true. The Fed isn't necessarily fully responsible. We all wanna point fingers. You know, we can point fingers at at the the the mania that swept over the entire world. when we started our podcast and everyone was like, what the hell is going on? Speaker 7 (00:47:04): Why are we locking down the world? David Friedberg (00:47:06): And this is nuts, and it felt nuts and the response may or may not have been appropriate. But at the end of the day, there was a cost, and the cost is gonna be borne for very likely a decade or more if we are able to get through it all. Jason Calacanis (00:47:17): A lost decade is a possibility. David Friedberg (00:47:19): And said central banks can be rewritten. So yeah. Speaker 4 (00:47:21): Well, David Sacks (00:47:21): I think there's actually 2 original sins of the economic crisis we're in. 1 is lockdowns. You're right. That was a fiasco. It didn't do anything to stop COVID. It was an economic disaster, and then we overreacted to lockdowns by then printing all of this money, both fiscally and through expansionist monetary policy. So Friedberg is right about that. I but I think the other original sin here is the the QE and the ZERP, right, the zero interest rate policy that began. In 2008, 2009, we broke the glass -- We know we don't -- -- emergency. Totally. And then it just became standard. Like, it was on autopilot. Why did we keep printing? Why did the government keep buying Jason Calacanis (00:47:59): -- David Friedberg (00:47:59): It was a law tail event that became the meme. Yeah. Why is the problem David Sacks (00:48:03): is that every time government Jason Calacanis (00:48:04): event -- -- a bad idea. I mean, it's just -- Speaker 4 (00:48:06): Yeah. David Sacks (00:48:06): Milton Freeman once said there's nothing quite so permanent as a temporary government program. How many times have we seen this? Every time the government's supposed to do something on a one off emergency basis, like XERpet ends up becoming institutionalized. We still have kids in schools in California wearing masks. I mean, that it's the same crazy thing that people cannot get off these programs. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:48:25): the the thing about zerp, which if you look back, what really happened if you think about, like, how people live their lives every day, what what what has happened in our view of government and politicians. It's really eroded since 2007, 2008. Right? There's huge amounts of rancor. Nobody gets along. everything tends to happen on partisan lines. And the reason I think that that was allowed to happen or that accelerated is actually because of zerp. Because if you think about it, if you had failed policy, right, and the economy was completely broken, politicians would actually have to get together and try to solve the problem themself. And the last time they really did that was actually in the great financial crisis. If you look at TARP, And if you look at how all of these smart people actually had to get together in a bipartisan way to figure out how do we bail out America and prevent a banking crisis, That was the last real effort that touched a lot of people. But then, David, as you said, at the on the heels of that, we broke the glass And we've been fighting ever since, and the peak of that fighting was basically Donald Trump getting elected. And so I think, like, what shows is that if you have these irrational central bankers that will or that are willing to constantly bail people out you will never get a high functioning government because policy is irrelevant. Good policy doesn't matter. I think policy doesn't matter. If any of it goes wrong, the central banker will come in and bail us out. Jason Calacanis (00:49:52): Well and the the second and third order impact of these is can become quite acute. And and just for people who heard the word syrup like three times zero interest rate policy, basically keeping interest rates very low. Very dangerous to do because you get shit like this. Like, look at the number of unemployed people per job opening. And if you just look at this, like, ratio, this is the number of jobs per unemployed person, it gets way out of whack. And then if you look at this other chart just in terms of the total number of job openings, you know, we we started we talked about earlier in the pod hitting 11,000,000 to burn that office crazy, then what happens if you have too many jobs? You don't let immigration you you don't have a functioning immigration policy. Well, then you get this great, you know, people quitting their jobs, quiet quitting, and then the boomers saw their net worth go up so high because of their retirement accounts because of the stock market boom and because of the housing boom, You had all these rich parents now who are bailing out their kids who refuse to go to work and labor participation goes from 70% down to 62%. These are the unintended consequences of zerp. that, you know, now how do you get a generation to go back to work if their parents have, you know, a $2,000,000 home and $3,000,000 in stock a $1,000,000 home, a 1,000,000 Chamath Palihapitiya (00:51:09): in stocks. David Friedberg (00:51:10): Yeah. You Jason Calacanis (00:51:10): -- And that's what they're exactly. We're gonna break this. We're gonna we're gonna get Google and Apple who have unlimited cash to do a riff. Those companies don't need to do a riff. They're doing it because they have no choice now because they they wanna break the economy so hard. boomers have 71,000,000,000,000 in assets over March. I mean, the wealth transfer that's gonna occur between these 2 generations is crazy. Why would any -- US commerce. -- millennial with a boomer parent even go to work if David Friedberg (00:51:37): they've got a 1,000,000 US boomers have $71,000,000,000,000 in assets. Is that what you said? Speaker 4 (00:51:41): Yeah. Jason Calacanis (00:51:42): Yeah. That's the number I have here. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:51:43): So -- An entire turn of global GDP. in savings. David Friedberg (00:51:47): That's about 1 7th of the world's total assets. Jason Calacanis (00:51:49): It's just a lot of locked up wealth. And this monetary policy was done by boom. Or 70,000,000,000, Chamath Palihapitiya (00:51:57): controlled by Jason Calacanis (00:51:57): 76,400,000 Speaker 4 (00:51:59): people. David Friedberg (00:52:00): Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:52:01): So if you wanna really talk about the, you know, the rich In a global context, the rich are very specifically US boomers. David Friedberg (00:52:09): Yeah. That's 1 7th of the world's act. Jason Calacanis (00:52:12): 1 Chamath Palihapitiya (00:52:12): 7th of the world's assets it's controlled by 76,000,000 people. Jason Calacanis (00:52:16): How much of it is their homes? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:52:19): I mean, they were they were Woodstock, they, you know, they live the best life in the best times. They enjoyed the most of the peace dividend in the eighties and the nineties and the two thousands. They are the ones that control everything. Jason Calacanis (00:52:34): It's pretty crazy. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:52:37): It's I think it's less like Jeff Bezos and Gates and Musk. It's boomers. if you wanna go and really zoom out and get it right, it is boomers. It's 1% of the global population that controls 1 7th of the global wealth. David Friedberg (00:52:52): and they're all in the United States. -- boomers. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:52:55): Hiding in plain sight. US boomers. There you are. David Friedberg (00:52:58): Well, once these housing prices decline and the stock market declines, that number is gonna And that really is what's fundamentally happening with the fiscal policy and the effects it's happening today it's happening today, which is a redistribution of that value because we're basically deflating all those assets now. Speaker 7 (00:53:14): We're deflate we're gonna deflate -- The Jason Calacanis (00:53:16): average boomer was worth. -- David Friedberg (00:53:17): assets, and we're gonna deflate real estate assets. I mean, if you if Jason Calacanis (00:53:20): you just do the math on that back of the envelope, these boomers are worth a 1,000,000,000 a $1,000,000,000 each. Like, think about that. Like, every boomer is worth 900 k a 1,000,000 something in that range. 1,200,000. I mean, it's bonkers. That's the average. They that's how much wealth they have bonkers. David Friedberg (00:53:38): You you you 2 are a boomer, Jacob. Jason Calacanis (00:53:40): No. We're Jacks. merchant Xcare. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:53:44): We had the worst we had the we had we had, like, we got really shafted. It's like, we, you know, we grew up with flannel -- We we have -- -- Atlantis Morissette. Calacanis Morris said, no. Hold on. Jason Calacanis (00:53:52): Just kidding Chamath Palihapitiya (00:53:52): me. So hold on. Jason Calacanis (00:53:53): I mean, I know Rama. Smashing pumpkins. I mean, I Chamath Palihapitiya (00:53:55): thought it was easy. Jason Calacanis (00:53:56): 90 3 David Friedberg (00:53:57): are great. 90 3 was probably the best year. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:53:59): Smashing Smashing Pumpkins ever did it for me. Billy Corgan's voice was always like, Speaker 4 (00:54:03): ah. Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:54:03): It is great. David Friedberg (00:54:04): Really annoying. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:54:04): Rades against the machine. David Friedberg (00:54:05): Can we do a quick shout out for Coolio? sad to hear that he passed. Jason Calacanis (00:54:11): We're here for you. David Friedberg (00:54:12): Yeah. I mean, it was really sad. The guy was how old was he? Jason Calacanis (00:54:15): 50 -- Speaker 4 (00:54:15): Were you were you a big fan of Coolios? David Friedberg (00:54:17): I love Koolio. Speaker 4 (00:54:18): I was -- You can give him the nineties. There's Koolio story from the pod when he said, Gangsters Paradise. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:54:23): I feel you. David Friedberg (00:54:25): Yeah. And then when I saw him at Saks's birthday last year, I was like, dude, I Speaker 7 (00:54:30): I I love Coolio. David Friedberg (00:54:31): I mean, I I tell you what a big fan I am? What was the line you Jason Calacanis (00:54:34): said to him? You said I feel you? David Friedberg (00:54:35): I said I appreciate you in his ear. I Jason Calacanis (00:54:37): appreciate you. David Friedberg (00:54:37): I appreciate you. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:54:38): I appreciate David Friedberg (00:54:38): you. We fly down for the birthday. They, you know, they shelter you on the cars from the plane to the to the house. We get to the house, and, you know, we're all waiting. Speaker 7 (00:54:49): Of course, Saks is late Jason Calacanis (00:54:50): 2 David Friedberg (00:54:50): a half hours to his own party. We're all hanging out and starving. Speaker 4 (00:54:53): But then we go into Speaker 7 (00:54:54): the party And then they have, like, coolio shows up. So we're, like, sitting down at dinner for course 2, all of a sudden pop comes out of the the the woodwork Culio, I lose my shit. I run up on the Jason Calacanis (00:55:06): -- The coolio fan? Speaker 7 (00:55:08): The dance floor. I grew up. Coolio, like, is, like, high school jams, man. I mean, that's, like, in the car cruising. And at this point, I'm, like, 7 tequila watermelon tequila's ants. So I'm, like Oh Speaker 4 (00:55:18): my goodness. You got it. That's so horrible. No. On the Speaker 7 (00:55:22): dance floor, you know, jamming out to Julio. I think Julio thought I was Saxx, you know, because he's like, he's like, oh, 2 South African Jews. You guys all look the same. Coolio comes up, starts high fiving me and hugging me. And I'm like, what's up? Coolio, my god. This is, like, a dream come true. He's he's like hugging me. His face is right next to my face. I didn't know what to say, and I'm like, I'm I'm all I've I've had a little bit of tequila, and I and I whisper and coolio's ear Chamath Palihapitiya (00:55:46): I'm like -- Oh, Speaker 7 (00:55:47): no. I appreciate I appreciate you. Speaker 4 (00:55:56): you. Wow. I see Jason Calacanis (00:55:58): it. You cool it. Speaker 4 (00:55:59): Oh my god. David Sacks (00:56:01): I think I saw Friedberg throw his panties on stage to a woman. Speaker 4 (00:56:05): You are such a what a nerd. David Friedberg (00:56:08): I don't know what to say. Speaker 7 (00:56:09): I mean, what do you say with clearly? Speaker 4 (00:56:11): Clearly, you don't know what to say. David Friedberg (00:56:13): Yeah. My team my my team and TPB, they had a they had a cameo made for me that Julio sent in. It was super heartfelt and awesome. Saks posted it on the Internet, I think. David Sacks (00:56:23): I retweeted it. David Friedberg (00:56:24): Yeah. retweeted it, and it was I don't know, man. It was he was a he was actually a super nice guy. great guy, and it was super sad. Speaker 8 (00:56:33): Yo day. It's a friendly neighborhood. Coolio, bro. I'm out here on the golf course, thinking about you. I appreciate you, man. So I wanna wish you a very, very, very happy birthday, man. You feel me? I want you to drink good. I want you to smoke good. I want you to eat good. I want you to have some fun, bro. go big. Do it right. You're Dave. Happy birthday, man, from Koolio, shock Azul, man. Jason Calacanis (00:57:04): Well, all the stories are coming out now, and not your experience was not unique. He touched everybody he met. Literally, these college kids were David Friedberg (00:57:12): very genuine, very kind, like, So so Jason Calacanis (00:57:15): yeah. It was a real rumor David Friedberg (00:57:16): friendly and, like, you know, and and, like, wanted to ask about you. I mean, it's, like, a very, like, I could have been a politician if he didn't become a You think I'm music superstar with Chamath Palihapitiya (00:57:25): the nineties. He looked incredible. He looked like he was 25. I Jason Calacanis (00:57:30): mean, He literally went to these college kids met him. He went back to their, like, you know, frat house. He cooked them dinner And then he got a guitar out with them, and he sang gangster paradise with them. And he, like, orchestrated it with the crowd singing, whatever. He was -- So listen to that song. David Friedberg (00:57:48): Then there Jason Calacanis (00:57:48): was a video of him in Dublin on the bar singing. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:57:51): Can I just say something to I I've given the message Jason Calacanis (00:57:56): Before. Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:57:57): Before, but, like, you know Jason Calacanis (00:57:59): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (00:57:59): Take care of Jason Calacanis (00:57:59): your health. Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:58:00): Take care like, there there there are these incredible drugs. I just wanna call out Jason Calacanis (00:58:05): Health as well. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:58:07): If Lipitor, for example, or Crestor or these statins are not working for you, there's next generation kind of drug called the PCSK9 inhibitor, which essentially is effectively a gene therapy that's modeled after this very specific group of folks in the Nordics, I believe, who actually have effectively immunity against heart disease. And so it's taken 20 years to refine this drug, but this drug is a wonder drug and, you know, there are versions of it now that are injectable, you know, once every 6 months or whatever. So go and ask your doctor. If you're not if statins don't work for you, look at the PCSK9 inhibitor. And then separately, after you're 45 or so, you should Get a CT angiogram because these things are really important or, you know, a heart flow where they actually inject a dye, they characterize all your veins, they give you a calcium score. may not prevent this, but at least if it's if it's something cardiac related, you can get to the bottom of it, and and it's a knowable thing nowadays. Jason Calacanis (00:59:07): Yeah. Rest in power to our friend. And, yeah, take care of yourselves, your health. And speaking of health, shout out to Gwyneth Paltrow, Gpal, who in her Goop newsletter pointed out that she loves the all in pod and has to be honest she's obsessed with the personalities a little bit. Anybody wanna handicap that? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:59:32): Listen, let's be honest. 1 do I have Speaker 4 (00:59:34): to say Not David Sacks (00:59:35): you if that's a trying to say. Jason Calacanis (00:59:36): I've met her actually. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:59:37): I've met her. Doctors say, choose of the life for you. If you wanna if you wanna live in health after a meal, the best thing to eat is a little dark chocolate. Jason Calacanis (00:59:46): Do you get your dark chocolate from Goop? Do you have goop dark chocolate? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:59:49): Jason, I was trying to make a story where I have the chunkler. I'm saying that I am her favorite personality you fucking moron. Jason Calacanis (00:59:56): So you're handicapping that you're her favorite. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:59:58): She said she's obsessed with the personality floral. I'm gonna I'm gonna -- What does Jason Calacanis (01:00:01): she rank Her besties? I need to know. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:00:03): I'm gonna rank as Friedberg. Jason Calacanis (01:00:06): Oh, really? You think it's a free Speaker 4 (01:00:07): bird's nest. Jason Calacanis (01:00:08): That makes that's on yeah. Okay. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:00:10): than me than you. Jason Calacanis (01:00:12): Okay. I'll take it. The fact that Gwyneth Paltrow even understands, like, who we are is a win in my book. So I'll I'll be number 4 on her list. But, g pal, if you could rank the besties in your next newsletter, that would be appreciated. And we'll we'll take can rank your besties quite a tough trail. Alright. If Saks, you want some red meat? You I I saw you wrote a piece. You want your red meat? Should we throw it to you? David Sacks (01:00:37): Yeah. Yeah. Alright. Well, I mean, I think we we need a Ukraine update because, I mean, we're talking about all the reasons that there could be a silver lining or the markets bottomed out. I don't think you can know for sure that the markets are gonna bottom out unless you know that there's gonna be successful resolution of this Ukraine war, at least a non escalation of it. And all the things that have happened in the last couple weeks have been on the road towards escalation. Exactly. So in the last, like, just few days, you've had Zelenskyy saying that they wanna be admitted to NATO. You've got Putin, basically, annexing or saying he's gonna annex the Donbass. And somebody, we don't know who. But according to Radix Sikorsky, who's the Polish foreign minister, he think the US somebody blew up the NOR pipeline. So what is the common denominator? Jason Calacanis (01:01:24): Which NOR did they say was blown up? Was it 1 or 2? Was this I think it's toward 1. David Sacks (01:01:29): So it's the one that was actually, like, working. What is the common denominator of all these things? They're all eliminating key elements of what a piece deal would look like. So everyone understands that a piece deal would require Zelensky to give up on NATO. It would require Putin to make some compromises likely in the Donbass, and it would require the sanctions to be lifted and the energy flow speed turned back on. Well, So now those things basically have been removed from the table or at least potentially that's what's happening. So I don't see how you're gonna get a piece deal now. And so if you remove all the off ramps, what's left? Escalation. Speaker 4 (01:02:10): So David Sacks (01:02:10): it seems to me this thing's just gonna keep escalating. Jason Calacanis (01:02:12): I thought you wrote a good piece in the American conservative. Should America go all in on Ukraine? If you haven't read it, it it is 80% of rehash of what we've talked about here for the for the last year. But there's 20% new in it, I think. And I thought what was interesting in terms of new stuff you put in the piece, and it's it's a good summary of, you know, poke strategy versus what's going on here is that we've already proven. You know, if you if you did want to prove that Russia is not a threat With the exception of their nuclear, we now have proven that they're really not going to be able to do a domino and go into all these different countries with the exception of obviously the threat of nuclear power. So I I thought that that was a -- Well well, David Sacks (01:02:50): what I was really -- -- point. Yeah. Yeah. What I was really responding to in that piece is the assertion by the media that Putin is bluffing. How do they know that? You know, how do they know that? Like, you know, I think all of us understand poker pretty well. And None of us ever would have the confidence to assert that we know exactly what cards our opponent holds in any given hand and how exactly they'll play them. What do we do? What do smart play players do? We put our opponent on a range, a range of possible hands. of possibilities. And then we evaluate what did their previous actions tell us? What story are they telling through their previous actions? Well, what story has Putin been telling. This is not a guy who bluffs, in my opinion, or at least that is not the story for Jason Calacanis (01:03:36): the states. There's a chance he he would pop off a tactical nuke. It's a non zero chance, obviously. David Sacks (01:03:41): If that if his life is on the line, he is incentivized to use every weapon at his disposal to try and prevent his violent over snow. Jason Calacanis (01:03:50): -- isn't on the line here. He can he can back out. David Sacks (01:03:52): Yeah. But where is this thing headed if there's no compromise? Jason Calacanis (01:03:55): I think they you know, I I I I'm gonna stick with my original prediction that we wanted to ankle Putin. We wanted to prove he didn't have, you know, as much strength as he did, and we wanted to exhaust his resource so we could finally basically get him out of office at some point. So I do think regime change via exhausting him. I think it seems to have worked. We have exhausted -- Well, David Sacks (01:04:15): then you're agreeing Jason Calacanis (01:04:15): with Trey. David Sacks (01:04:16): You're agreeing with me. Jason Calacanis (01:04:18): I agree that we have exhausted his mean, he's proven he can't fight a ground war. Right? I mean, that that's a pretty -- No. David Sacks (01:04:24): He's escalating now. He's escalating. You think he's just gonna roll over? He's not gonna roll over. He's gonna escalate. Jason Calacanis (01:04:29): I think he but I think what we've proven haven't we is that he can't fight a ground war effectively. He he doesn't have the army. He doesn't have the weapons. compared to the west, and he's been exhausted. You know? And I think his he's spent now. The only thing he has left is what you're talking about is the nuclear option literally. David Sacks (01:04:47): No. Well, no. There's there's more intermediate options. First of all, he's just called for the the mobilization of 300,000 more troops. So that's -- How's that going for? Jason Calacanis (01:04:54): -- step 1. people are leaving the country. David Sacks (01:04:57): It's good. Yeah. Exactly. Look. There's gonna be very high cost on the Russian side. Yeah. They're gonna be very high cost on the Russian side. I would not assume that means that there's something in it for us. Jason Calacanis (01:05:07): So what I'm saying is so even with this, you know, the the conscription he's doing, this draft, he's doing forced draft. I mean, He is kind of redundant, but this conscription or draft, whatever you wanna call it, has proven that he doesn't even actually have the standing inside his own country. people are leaving. They're breaking they're looking about to break their arms. Like, it's it's pretty dark. David Sacks (01:05:26): I think you're making a lot of assumptions there just like the media who are saying that he is deaf bluffing. What I'm saying is we cannot know that he's definitely bluffing. Jason Calacanis (01:05:34): No. I agree with that. David Sacks (01:05:34): The United States of America is blessed with being the most safe and secure country in the world and really in human history. And the history is full of humans constantly being at war with each other. So that is a really valuable thing that we have. Why are we so secure? We're surrounded by -- Yeah. Jason Calacanis (01:05:51): -- David Sacks (01:05:51): Gigantic oceans. We have these gigantic moats. In addition, thanks to the wisdom of the Monroe doctrine, for 200 years, we have prevented any great powers from getting a foothold in the Western Hemisphere. We are completely dominant here and no one could ever stage an invasion in the United States. We only have one vulnerability. Just one. ICBM's. That's really it. So what are we doing? We are basically engaging in a proxy war with the person in the world who has the most ICBM's. and we are basically putting ourselves on an escalatory path with him. This would be like if Achilles had gone in front of the walls of Troy and basically taken off his armor and stuck his foot in the air and got a little bull's eye around his his heel. That is what Jason Calacanis (01:06:33): we're doing. David Sacks (01:06:34): Why in the world? Why would we do that? Or Jason Calacanis (01:06:38): if they are the last real threat, and they are the Achilles' heel. If we can -- David Sacks (01:06:43): They're not the last threat. They're not the last threat. We're never gonna be out of threats. Okay? Jason Calacanis (01:06:48): Well, we got 2 major ones with ICBMs. But, anyway, it looks like that we're in the end game now. What what do you think here. David Sacks (01:06:53): We're not in Speaker 4 (01:06:54): the end game. David Sacks (01:06:54): We're on a path towards escalation because all the off ramps have been removed. That's my point. Speaker 4 (01:06:58): And and David Sacks (01:06:59): and instead of saying, instead of trying to find a diplomatic solution, first of all, we keep removing all frames and then we we blithely disregard the threat to ourselves by saying he must be bluffing. This is incredibly stupid. Jason Calacanis (01:07:12): Did we think you say today? David Sacks (01:07:13): Hold on a second. The better question to ask is what's in it for us? What's in it for the United States of America? What is the vital interest that compels us to risk our security. There isn't one. This Donbas region hold on. This Donbass region is the Franz Ferdinand. of this situation. It is not historically important to us. We have invested in it all of this importance. And we are potentially turning a regional war into our world war. We are sleepwalking towards this. Unless somebody finds an off ramp, we are escalating our way into a much larger conflict. That is my point. And I don't see how anyone I don't see how anyone should reenter the markets. with this geopolitical risk hanging over our heads. David Friedberg (01:07:55): Yeah. This is kind of like what I said a few weeks ago, and JPMorgan put out a analysts report today saying that they were shifting from being, you know, call it roughly positive, sort of, like, Chamath's point earlier about being a little bit constructive in the markets right now and coming in and finding opportunities to buy to realizing that the sum of the portfolio of tail risks right now outweighs the upside that may arise from finding these low priced opportunities in the market. And that seems to be the prevailing market sentiment right now is that there are too many of these moments that while each one of them is low probability, the impact is of such high severity that the aggregate value expected value or expected loss of all of them actually quite significant, and that is heavily weighing on the market. And so, huge, Timav's point. I think and to the question earlier about market conditions, One catalyst for upside in the market while there is fiscal strain and economic strain and growth strain, there is also this geopolitical strain in the market, if 1 or more of these things starts to resolve, I think that weight starts to come off the markets, and you can see -- Oh, David Sacks (01:09:03): yeah. -- move up. Look. I can see the market taking off like a rocket if Ukraine gets resolved. I do think -- You're right. It's all fat tail risk. Jason Calacanis (01:09:10): That can -- -- resolved. David Friedberg (01:09:11): I think that can potentially be the political motivation here. which is that enough people like Chamath and you start making the calls to your representatives pointing out how strained the market is because of this tension in the region right now that maybe there is some path to resolution that becomes more active rather than passive because of that. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:09:32): this may be a little controversial so we can talk about it. But I think that the markets would have reacted much, much more negatively to a nuclear incident 3 months ago than now and may not even react as much as we may think it would 3 months from now. David Sacks (01:09:52): But what do you mean by nuclear incident? You mean a Nuke goes off or just a threat? Speaker 4 (01:09:57): You're David Friedberg (01:09:57): saying if if Putin blows up a nuke, the markets may not react that much? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:10:00): I think that the markets are basically ring fencing, Russia, Ukraine risk. in terms of currency instability, but that's sort of now gone away. We've ring fenced the energy risk because it looks like energy reserves in Europe are actually gonna be pretty meaningful. They're gonna spend whatever it takes. So all of the second and third order effects, it would be a humanitarian crisis, which would be horrendous. Okay? But the markets don't whether we like it or not react to humanitarian crises, they react to the 2nd and third order economic impacts of those things. And if you actually to think about what the second and third order economic impacts are, you're seeing many of those things get solved. And so what it would be, it would be a highly isolating effect It would be a humanitarian atrocity. He would be completely cornered from a from a worldwide perspective. the the the monetary and fiscal implications of that may not be as meaningfully disruptive today as they would have been 3 months ago. That's what I'm saying. David Sacks (01:11:13): Well, I one thing I should clarify, I I like Friedberg analysis of the the fat tail risk because I I'm not saying it's likely that this conflict goes nuclear. But I don't need there to be a high likelihood in order for me to be very concerned about it because of how disastrous an outcome that would be. So if you're doing an expected value analysis, it's really hard to analyze the expected value or negative value of a of a low probability disastrous event. Right? That's the classic fat tail risk. I do think that if the markets think they have priced in the effect of this war, then I think that's an argument for a lot of downside to this market because it seems to me that we're on a one way ratchet here. All the off ramps for us a piece or a diplomatic solution have been systematically taken away and all that's left are potential escalations. So Chamath Palihapitiya (01:12:04): No. I hear you. But how did those translate those escalations? to outside of those 2 countries and into economic terms for the rest of the world. David Sacks (01:12:12): Oh my gosh. Well, I mean, if the war spreads here, I'll give you a couple of scenarios. I mean, Well, here's one. I think we're just assuming that China is gonna stay out of it. Imagine if you're China and you're watching what's happening and you're worried that actually Russia could lose this war so badly that it emboldens hawks in America who wanna target China next. you know, who are basically on this global struggle against autocracy, you're gonna look at that and go, wait a second. Is it really in our interests for Putin and Russia to be completely toppled by this global struggle against autocracy. It seems to me they could enter the Russian side, not militarily, but in terms of support. So they would have an incentive, again, not to lose an ally. And then by the same token, I think the Russians could lash out. I don't think they're gonna go nuclear right away, but I think they could pull a Grozny I mean, don't you think that -- It's not what that Jason Calacanis (01:13:07): is. -- expensive. David Sacks (01:13:08): Well, when you know, in the Chetan War when Russia was losing, they just rubbled, Grozny. I mean, they basically leveled it to the ground. So, I mean, Putin hasn't done anything like that yet, but if he's facing defeat, isn't that Something that would be on the escalatory ladder is to basically start leveling Ukrainian cities destroyed Jason Calacanis (01:13:26): -- David Sacks (01:13:26): I I -- -- infrastructure all of a sudden. And then what is the response to the west? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:13:30): Yeah. I know I know -- Because David Sacks (01:13:31): the West may say, you know what? That's unacceptable to us. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:13:33): I agree. No. No. No. I I look I'm not debating how bad all of these things are. I'm just asking the question. What are the 2nd and third order economic impacts? Because the market doesn't reflect human atrocities. we may want it to, but it just doesn't do a good job of that. It does do a reasonable job of reflecting a discounted set of events in the future related to economic events impacts. And all I'm saying is that, you know, the most obvious impacts of this war have been to currencies, to commodities, and to energy. And the world has had 6 or 7 months to reroute what they've needed to roughly solve a large percentage of those problems. It doesn't take the fact that this is a bad war and it shouldn't. I'm not saying any of them. David Sacks (01:14:19): Right. Right. No. I look. You may you make a good point, which is that, look, the market discounts cash flow. So how do the cash flows get impacted? You may be right that valuation multiples have gotten close to correction. But I think the thing that we don't really know is what earnings and profits and revenues are gonna look like next year. And part of that is about the hard landing. Right? Like, how inflated are all these companies' revenues and earnings because of -- Hey. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:14:43): I hear you. I hear you, but this is why that chart is so important. every other time except in 1983 in modern history. So the modern history that we have all lived says that the stock market bottoms in the 1st third of a process. And so if you think that this process ends in Jason Calacanis (01:15:02): 24, Chamath Palihapitiya (01:15:03): that's a roughly 24 month process, 21 month process, We're in month 7. We're in the power rally of what would map to the last Jason Calacanis (01:15:12): 6 Chamath Palihapitiya (01:15:12): or 7 patterns of behavior. David Sacks (01:15:15): Yeah. I mean, I I I guess you you may end up being right about this prediction. I guess what I'm saying is that I personally would not wanna enter the market until some of these fat tail risks are taken the table. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:15:24): Yeah. Well, talking about nibbling in the market for a second. David Sacks (01:15:27): I'm not saying they're likely. I'm just saying that. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:15:29): Yeah. I understand. Obviously, none of us want this to happen. I'm just asking a very specific question, which is and making an observation, which is I wonder how the markets would react. And I I I don't see it being down a thousand points, and that may be wrong. But Jason Calacanis (01:15:43): -- David Friedberg (01:15:44): By the way, it Jason Calacanis (01:15:44): would certainly be shocking to to see that. Yeah. David Friedberg (01:15:47): the diversity of views that you guys all share, I think, really represents the market. There there Speaker 4 (01:15:54): is no Jason Calacanis (01:15:54): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (01:15:54): What view do you have? You too. You have a view. David Friedberg (01:15:58): Dude, I I'm like, what the fuck? Speaker 4 (01:16:00): Fuck. Wow. Jason Calacanis (01:16:01): I mean, But what Chamath Palihapitiya (01:16:04): is your view? Here's your view that we're okay. We're about to just go through the toilet. Like, what is your view? David Friedberg (01:16:09): From an equity markets point of view? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:16:11): Or just in general. Yeah. Like, tip back with the markets, your temperature, how do you feel? Like, how do you feel? David Friedberg (01:16:15): Yeah. I'm worried about money not moving. Jason Calacanis (01:16:18): What does it mean? Money, not moment. David Friedberg (01:16:19): I'm really anxious about invested dollars. Everyone seems I think I mentioned a while ago that dollars were kinda locked up in March, and then I went to this conference and people were like, yeah. We're loosening up and making a plan again in July. because the market was kinda turning back up, and now equity markets are turning down. Bond markets have turned down. Interest rates have spiked, and there's a bunch of these currency problems. So I'm very nervous about the flow of capital, which I remember happening in 0 8, and I remember happening when we were all joking over text when COVID happened and we're like, hey. The market can only go down 10% a day for so many days in a row, and everyone was kinda like, you know, Jamal was talking about wearing jeans instead of he's like, I can't just wear the same pair of jeans for the rest of my life Jason Calacanis (01:17:05): or something. That's true demand destruction. When he started, he said that. You're like, let the jeans from, like, when he was at Mayfield? Yeah. Yeah. David Friedberg (01:17:12): He's like, I don't need fancy clothes. I can just wear the same clothes I have for the trailer. Jason Calacanis (01:17:15): -- a storage locker Speaker 4 (01:17:16): to pull Jason Calacanis (01:17:16): those clothes out. Right? That was that was the David Friedberg (01:17:18): old for Chamad. Jason Calacanis (01:17:18): And I wrote piano on sale. Rent the rent Shamak's runway. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:17:22): The CEO, Laura Pianna, did send me a note after that podcast. He's like, because everyone's there. Speaker 4 (01:17:27): Yeah. The the the rate -- The GDC. Jason Calacanis (01:17:29): -- Speaker 4 (01:17:29): of our body. The rash, Jamat, stop by. I will David Friedberg (01:17:32): tell you guys, the biggest indicator of economic health is the rate of rotation of Chamath closet. because that's -- That is. It's big. Yeah. Jason Calacanis (01:17:38): He's like, you know what? I can take this season off. I'll just wear our last summer's season. That's when you know I started matches. David Friedberg (01:17:45): I would guess that the rate of rotation of Shamov's closet is probably predictive of IPO market. No. You know what? Jason Calacanis (01:17:51): I was I was there week. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:17:52): I'm rotating in. I'm rotating in, so maybe that's a good sign. The economy's not the rebound. Jason Calacanis (01:17:56): -- David Friedberg (01:17:56): rotating in. I'm ready to take some companies public. No. Speaker 4 (01:17:58): No. No. No. I'm Jason Calacanis (01:17:58): buying I'm buying stocks because I was at Chamath last week. and it was supposed to be black truffles. And then he jumped the fence. All of a sudden, white truffles over my shoulder. Boom. Boom. Boom. Boom. I was like, Chef. Chef. Chef. David Friedberg (01:18:11): Chef, Chef, Chef. Jason Calacanis (01:18:12): Alright. Listen. 4, the dictator, the prince of panic attacks, the Sultan of Science, the queen of Hein Hua himself. -- Chamath Palihapitiya (01:18:20): see the Kevin Hart Show if you're in San Francisco or San Jose, probably Speaker 4 (01:18:23): in Saturday. He's hilarious. Jason Calacanis (01:18:23): And for Moncler, Ambassador, David Sacks, the dictator himself. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:18:31): Will you be Jason Calacanis (01:18:32): -- I am the world's greatest moderator, and we'll see you on episode 99. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:18:36): Love you guys. Speaker 4 (01:18:37): Love you guys. We'll let Chamath Palihapitiya (01:18:37): your winners ride. Brainman David Jason Calacanis (01:18:39): Sachs. Speaker 4 (01:18:47): We open source it to the fans and they've just gone crazy lately. besties are I'm have one big huge order because they're all just useless. It's like it's like sexual friendship that we just need to release them out. What? You're the big b What? David Sacks (01:19:20): Your feet. Jason Calacanis (01:19:21): What? Where did you get Murphy's artifact?