0:00

right, everybody, welcome back to

0:02

the All In podcast. Our

0:04

incredible comedian celebrity guest

0:07

got sick at the last minute today and

0:09

didn't make it. We won't say who it is, but

0:11

my lord, when he comes on this show, you are

0:13

going to laugh your ass off because he's awesome. I

0:15

like the comedians. I think that their takes on society

0:17

and culture are pretty interesting, I think. Do you

0:19

think it will work in our form? And what's your

0:22

prediction here? We've never done it. I think the quality

0:24

of the show is best when it's less just people

0:26

doing takes and it's more the back and forth banter.

0:28

So, yeah, that's what I'm always trying to do is

0:30

get the ball to go around the horn and get

0:33

some real dialogue going here. But,

0:35

you know, sometimes people feel passionate

0:37

with me again this week on the All

0:39

In podcast, David Freiberg

0:42

and Shamoth Pollyhopitya. My name is Jason

0:44

Calliakana. So you can follow me

0:46

on x.com/Jason. He's at Shamoth and

0:48

he is at Freidberg. Why

0:50

I make fun of you in the replies on

0:53

Twitter anymore? Oh, because

0:55

my ability to reply to you. No,

0:58

what I did was my replies

1:00

were so many Maggle lunatics and crypto

1:02

scams that I had no choice but

1:04

to like, I had to do something

1:06

because I would have like 500 replies

1:08

to every single one. And

1:10

I put it on subscription

1:12

and I said, if you want to reply, it's $3 a

1:15

month now. 1500 lunatics signed up.

1:17

I did, so I control it. Just so

1:19

you control me. And I thank you for

1:21

the $3 every month. It's all going to

1:23

charity. The

1:45

letter from Pam

1:47

to Cash is

1:49

crazy. Dear Director Patel, before

1:52

you came into office, I requested

1:54

the full and complete files related

1:56

to Jeffrey Epstein. In

1:59

response to this request, I received

2:01

approximately 200 pages of documents.

2:04

Late yesterday, I learned

2:06

from a source that the FBI field

2:08

office in New York was in

2:11

possession of thousands of pages of

2:13

documents related to the investigation and

2:15

indictment of Epstein. Despite my repeated

2:18

requests, the FBI never disclosed the

2:20

existence of these files. When

2:22

you and I spoke yesterday, you were just

2:24

as surprised as I was to learn this

2:26

new information. By

2:29

8 a .m. Tomorrow, February

2:31

28th, the FBI will deliver

2:33

the full and complete Epstein

2:35

files to my office regardless

2:37

of how such information was

2:39

obtained. There will be no

2:41

withholding or limitations to my or your

2:44

access. My question to you guys is

2:46

do you think that this is much

2:48

ado about nothing and then that the

2:50

FBI needs to have the discretion to

2:52

be able to say no? Or

2:54

do you think this is one of these things where you're

2:57

not allowed to

2:59

do what they're doing. It's above

3:01

my pay rent. I don't know the law

3:04

of FBI investigations. And

3:06

then what if they investigated a bunch of

3:08

people? They were not guilty, and then

3:10

they were in the files. Maybe they

3:12

need to look at them before they do

3:14

a document on. Maybe there's informants in there. I'm

3:17

trying to think of what happened with the whistleblower

3:20

papers from... This is something different.

3:22

This doesn't say... Let's negotiate what

3:24

we should release together so that

3:27

we protect people. This

3:29

says we're just going to lie to

3:31

you and tell you that, you know, here's her

3:33

side to the story. Maybe they have another side.

3:35

Maybe the FBI has a different side. We have

3:37

to hear from them, right? Is this

3:40

just like people are intrigued by the gossip

3:42

angle of it? Or is it because they

3:44

want to prosecute people for hurting people? Or

3:46

is it because they want to cancel people and

3:48

this is a nice opportunity to cancel? Like,

3:51

what's the... I think an

3:53

interesting question because this thing's been going on for 20

3:56

years. I think this actually has more to do with

3:58

conspiracy theories and now the deep state. Like,

4:00

is there a deep state cover -up? Is

4:02

the question. I think the question

4:04

is, if the chain of command

4:07

requests something, are you allowed

4:09

to withhold it? Because you decide in

4:11

your own judgment that the

4:14

person above you doesn't deserve to know it. I

4:16

think that's an important question. Yeah, the thing

4:18

about the FBI is the FBI... can

4:21

withhold information from the president,

4:23

from other folks, if there's

4:25

an ongoing investigation, sources

4:28

are like secret and they would be

4:30

in jeopardy and national security concerns. I'm reading

4:32

here, so. I'm very excited to see these next

4:34

two days unfold. Listen, it's a breaking news story

4:36

that we'll have more to say about it next

4:38

week when we get the facts. All right, it

4:41

has been an amazing 24 hours

4:43

from my guy, David Friedberg. I

4:45

am so proud of you. If

4:48

people don't know, David

4:50

Freberg was on I'm sorry

4:52

celebrity Jeopardy this week and

4:55

He had what I can't say

4:57

that I can't say you're right bleep

4:59

it out bleep it out So you

5:01

were on celebrity, quote unquote, Jeopardy. It

5:04

shows you how much of a bar

5:06

there is. The bar was pretty low.

5:08

They're now inviting podcasters apparently. But Jeopardy's

5:10

watched by like 10 million people every

5:12

episode, right? Yeah, they have like a

5:15

huge audience on regular Jeopardy. I think

5:17

it's like 9 million a night or

5:19

something or 7 to 9 million a

5:21

night. Yeah. But I think it's

5:24

celebrity Jeopardy because it's like later it's

5:26

got a smaller audience. But it's still

5:28

like a couple million people watch this thing, which

5:30

is crazy. So you were on and for the

5:32

last. four or five months we've all had to

5:34

like bite our tongues, and

5:37

you've been in a full scale, I

5:40

don't wanna say panic, but you've been hand -wringing

5:42

about your performance, and

5:44

spoiler alert, Freeburg

5:46

won. Not only did he win, he

5:50

fucking crushed it. I was like watching

5:52

this. This was like better than watching

5:54

the World Series of Poker or a

5:56

Knicks Warriors game for me. Here

5:58

is my favorite moment.

6:00

the all -in call. As a

6:02

tribute, he gets the deli double

6:04

and... I'm gonna go all in,

6:06

Ken. Oh, yeah. Okay. How dare

6:08

you? 12 ,800 for Dave, but

6:10

you have to be correct in

6:12

African geography. Known for

6:14

its snows, this Tanzanian peak is

6:17

both Africa's highest and the world's

6:19

tallest freestanding mountain. What is Mount

6:21

Kilimanjaro? That is correct. ,000.

6:24

What did you think of that moment,

6:27

Shumanth? He goes all in, and these

6:29

people, they think that they're gonna get

6:31

freeberg? by giving him a question about

6:33

Africa, not knowing that he's African -American.

6:39

Honestly, like a six -year -old. You

6:41

guys want to hear something crazy? A six

6:43

-year -old should know that category. That category, African

6:45

geography. I was at dinner the night before

6:47

with our friend Xander and his wife. And

6:50

we started talking about their

6:52

son. was taking a

6:55

quiz on African geography and they started

6:57

giving me all the questions. And we

6:59

were actually quizzing at dinner the night

7:01

before on African geography. It was like

7:03

a slumdog millionaire moment. And I

7:06

was like, in my head, I'm like, there's no way that's real.

7:08

We literally were just talking about African geography at

7:10

dinner the night before. And I'm like,

7:13

the judges had to have been listening

7:15

or something. But you were nervous. You

7:17

talked about being nervous and your techniques

7:19

are friend Jason Kuhn. But

7:21

we actually are lucky enough to

7:24

play with one serious professional poker

7:26

player in our game. Jason

7:28

Kuhn comes to the game and he coached you a

7:30

bit. What was his advice

7:32

to you? Well, I was a little

7:35

wound up because I've watched Jeopardy since

7:37

I was a kid. I

7:39

mean, I don't watch it regularly, but a couple months ago,

7:41

I was kind of watching the show. I kind of reached

7:43

out and was like, hey, do

7:45

you guys know anyone on the show? And that's

7:47

how I got hooked up. And

7:51

I'm like, wait, I'm really going on. That's awesome.

7:53

Okay. And they're like, you're going

7:55

on Celebrity Jeopardy. So I watched the

7:57

Celebrity Jeopardy episodes from last season and

7:59

I figured I could get like 60 % of the answers.

8:02

But you get there

8:04

and you don't realize how

8:06

hard it is to buzz in in time.

8:09

Cause if you buzz before the light turns

8:11

on. I've heard this over and over. How

8:13

does it work? Because you bought, I

8:15

understand. an actual

8:17

buzzer to practice with. Am I correct? You

8:19

did this? Well, yeah, I bought this cheap

8:21

buzzer on Amazon the press. But it didn't

8:23

do anything. So I'm watching the TV at

8:26

home, watching old Celebrity Jeopardy episodes from

8:28

last year. And I'm like, oh, buzz in, buzz

8:30

in. But the problem is when you're there,

8:32

you're not allowed to buzz till the light comes on.

8:34

And if you buzz too early, you get locked out

8:36

for a quarter second. And that

8:38

quarter second makes a huge difference.

8:40

So I was actually behind the

8:43

people I was against. Most of the

8:45

show I felt when I was buzzing in I'm like I

8:47

know the answer and I kept missing I kept missing so

8:49

I still did okay, obviously, but Wait a

8:51

second. Let me ask you a question about that buzzing

8:53

thing a light goes on When does the like go

8:55

on when the question is finished? When

8:58

the guy so they show they show the question

9:00

on a huge screen So the whole screen gives

9:02

you the question right away so you can read

9:04

ahead so you can read ahead just read the

9:06

whole thing boom Yeah, then you have to wait

9:08

for Ken Jennings to finish as soon as he

9:10

finishes Annunciating the last syllable of the last word

9:12

the light turns on But here's

9:14

what I found out there is a

9:16

delay of about 150

9:19

to 200 milliseconds difference between

9:21

your eyes and your ears

9:23

you actually hear stuff before you see

9:25

stuff and Which is really

9:27

interesting like for your brain to register it and

9:29

people have different different delays But for me, I'm

9:31

like waiting for the light and then I buzz

9:34

in and it's too late because the people next

9:36

to me. So speed of sound versus anyway, I was

9:38

a little I was a little wound up going into

9:40

this. I call Jason Coon because I realized there's no

9:42

upside. By the time I show up, I'm like, I'm

9:44

going to look like an absolute idiot for saying some

9:46

stupid stuff, getting answers wrong, which, of course, everyone

9:48

texts me last night being like, how'd you miss?

9:50

Hoosiers, how'd you miss this? All right, here we

9:53

go. Since you're bringing up the big mess. This

9:55

is real. Daily double. Oh, man,

9:58

you get the daily double. 16

10:00

,000 crushing crushing their soul crushing

10:02

their souls not my best category

10:05

I'll do 4 ,000 look great

10:07

even 20 ,000 if your eyes

10:09

are climactic moments in sports movies

10:11

Jimmy Chitwood buries a jumper from

10:14

the top of the key to

10:16

win the hickory Huskers the Indiana

10:18

State Championship What is hoops? Sorry,

10:21

what am I doing? I'm

10:23

so embarrassed watching it. I can't watch

10:25

dream come on dude Hoosiers.

10:29

I know. I know. Hoosiers. I

10:31

mean, come on. Gene Hackman, he died today. And

10:33

no one sends me a text being like, oh,

10:35

I can't believe you got that answer. Great job.

10:37

Everyone just sends the text. How did you not

10:40

get Hoosiers? How did you not get cream? It's

10:42

always like, oh, I knew the answer. And

10:44

I realized as I'm walking to Jeopardy,

10:46

I'm like, you know what? There's no

10:48

upside. Because what'll happen is everyone will

10:50

just call you an idiot for the

10:52

things you've missed, which is, yeah. I

10:54

mean, and let's face it, your, the

10:57

sultan of science. You went to an ID

10:59

school and you worked at Google. So there's

11:01

an expectation. You should run these people over.

11:03

You did run them over from bed. You

11:05

know who you're facing in the semifinal? We

11:07

don't know until all the quarterfinals are over.

11:10

And that'll be in the next couple of

11:12

weeks here. When you see a category come

11:14

up, like the Hoosiers one, right? I think

11:17

that one was about sports movies, right? Yeah,

11:19

that was sports movies, like big. So don't

11:21

you, when you see sports movies in your

11:23

head, catalog probable answers like Rudy, and,

11:27

you know, field of dreams and Yeah.

11:30

Yeah, so you had all those ready to

11:32

go. But dude, you don't understand, is there?

11:34

Like, look, I'm not a guy who gets

11:36

very nervous. I don't get like stage fright

11:38

or like wound up, but for Jeopardy, it's

11:40

so weird. You're up there and you can't focus

11:42

or concentrate like you normally can. My brain had

11:45

these like weird brain farts where I'm like, I

11:47

know the answer. Why isn't it coming out? or

11:49

I buzz in and I said like Beethoven instead

11:51

of Debussy and I'm like, why did that come

11:53

out? For Claire DeLune, you don't have to. I

11:55

mean, dude, don't get me started. So there's weird

11:57

stuff that happens up there that's really hard to

11:59

explain. And then you're angry about the buzzing and

12:01

you can't buzz in in time and you're on

12:03

the set of Jeopardy and it's like, oh my

12:05

God, I'm actually on the set of Jeopardy. It's

12:07

also real. And you're like watching the

12:09

scores. Are there people? It's very

12:11

overwhelming. Are there an audience? Yes.

12:14

There is an audience. How many people?

12:16

Like a hundred people there? About a

12:18

hundred people, yeah. Yeah, that's nice. Yeah.

12:20

Before you go on the show, they

12:22

have you do a practice round in

12:24

front of the audience, just so you

12:26

get, everyone gets used to it. And

12:28

I deliberately answered wrong. And I

12:31

was like acting like an idiot and acting like I

12:33

couldn't buzz and acting like I didn't know the answers.

12:35

You leveled him? I tried to be like a little,

12:37

I tried to be a little diabolical. Yeah, I don't

12:39

really know what I'm doing here. Ooh, sharp elbow. Yeah,

12:42

and then I came out swinging and I felt like

12:44

I had to kind of get aggressive out the gate

12:46

and you have done that before in a bar fight

12:48

once I was like guys guys We don't need to

12:50

get in a fight and then I bang it's clocked

12:52

again. Anyway, we're so proud of you You won you

12:55

trounced them I have to say the money for the

12:57

humane society the United States all the money went to

12:59

charity humane side of the US How much did you

13:01

make for them in the end if you win the

13:03

whole tournament? It's a million dollars. Oh, and

13:06

then I talk food As the winner, your charity

13:08

gets more, and the losers, their charity gets less,

13:10

but it's a fixed amount. It's like $30 ,000

13:12

or $50 ,000 or something like that. Nice. I

13:14

think they should put the three of us on

13:16

together. Normal episode, that

13:18

would be crazy. Oh my God. If the three

13:21

of us were on it. would wreck your ass.

13:23

No, you would not. I will play you Heads

13:25

Up Jeopardy any time for money. Let's play poker.

13:28

Yeah, I say we play poker. We'll play for

13:30

all of the all -in profits. I'll

13:34

give you two retards. 2x the

13:36

chip stack and let's see what happens. Oh my

13:39

god, Ed. That sounds so compelling. Would you do

13:41

it? Actually, Jake, how would you do that? Would

13:43

you do it? All the profits. All

13:45

the profits. I'd do it for all the profits, but I

13:47

would carve out 25 % of the profits for a four

13:50

-way tournament that was televised live. If we could get 2

13:52

million in sponsors, then we'd be up no matter what. Grift.

13:56

Endless grifting. I'm thinking like a business. a

13:59

businessman. I want to do this

14:02

so that I inflict pain on one of

14:04

you or both. What gives Chamath happiness is

14:06

hurting us. That's exactly that. That's his love

14:08

language. It's hurting the people he loves. I

14:12

love language. It's hurting the people who love

14:14

him. I like putting you

14:16

two to the test and I like to see

14:18

you two break. Okay, this is what makes him

14:20

feel good. Anyways, did you guys see Brett Atcox

14:22

tweet? No, what did you say? Friend of the

14:24

pod, Brett Atcox, who's the CEO and founder of

14:26

Figure. He just announced today

14:28

that he's moved his timelines up by

14:30

two years. He's going to be beta

14:33

testing robots in the home by the

14:35

middle to end of this year. That's

14:38

crazy. Crazy. Crazy.

14:41

Are you an investor in his company? I don't

14:43

talk about my investments. But

14:45

in this case, no. But

14:47

in this case, no, I'm not an investor. So

14:51

we're not talking a book here. I

14:53

do think Optimus and this figure and

14:55

the other This is about a dozen

14:57

of these doing it credibly. If

14:59

they can make these for what you

15:01

want, 20 grand, when do you think

15:04

it becomes something a middle -class household,

15:06

you know, dual -income household would buy

15:08

one of these five years from now,

15:10

10 years from now? How probably could

15:12

they be? Well, I think the issue

15:14

is bounded by two things. One is

15:16

that I'm not sure that the generalized

15:19

AI is good enough yet. And

15:21

what he did was he had a deal with

15:23

open AI, which he

15:25

pretty publicly canceled a few

15:28

weeks ago. And he announced

15:30

his own model. And

15:32

I don't know the details of it

15:35

to know whether he rolled it himself

15:37

or this is just like taking some

15:39

open source based model and iterating from

15:42

it. But I

15:44

think the model is not perfect

15:46

yet to be general purpose. That's

15:48

one. And then the second

15:51

is a practical issue with the robots, which

15:53

is that the actuators themselves are

15:55

good, but they're not great. And you can

15:57

see it in the demo where it's an

16:00

incredible demo because it shows the value and

16:02

the power of the model where there's

16:04

sort of this master slave orientation that has

16:06

to happen where one model is actually doing

16:09

most of the computation and the second model

16:11

and the second robot is in feeding

16:13

off of it. And the demo that they

16:15

do, Nick, you can probably find the video

16:17

is of them sorting a bag of groceries

16:20

for the first time. totally unsupervised, which

16:22

it's an incredibly cool demo. It's a cool

16:24

demo. The thing that you notice, though, is

16:26

that the actuators are good. They're not great.

16:29

And so the physical dexterity is still relatively

16:31

limited. And I think that that doesn't

16:33

allow these robots to be super functional in

16:35

the next couple of years. But when they

16:37

get that figured out, then I think it

16:40

could be really useful because if you

16:42

have a robot like this that could sort

16:44

the groceries, make food, do

16:46

the laundry, mow the lawn,

16:49

so to speak. It just requires a

16:51

level of dexterity that's not yet totally

16:53

possible. But see, in this example, what

16:55

you're seeing are the two robots basically

16:57

figuring out how to communicate semantically between

16:59

the robots. And that's incredibly powerful. And

17:01

it's yet another sort of breakthrough that we need.

17:04

So I don't know, we're probably like a couple

17:06

of years away. But see, look at the dexterity

17:08

there. He's taking the pepperage farms and feels like

17:10

he's crushing the pepperage farms or she or whatever

17:12

you call this robot. Please don't

17:14

misgender the robot. But it's really incredible.

17:16

The coolest part of this demo, by

17:19

the way, which I loved was they

17:21

take an apple and then the second

17:23

robot figures out that it should go

17:25

in the fruit bowl, pushes

17:28

the fruit bowl to the first

17:30

robot and then the first robot.

17:32

Oh, that's cool. There it is.

17:35

But that level of semantic awareness

17:37

and understanding between two models working

17:39

dependently is very cool. Look

17:42

at that. That's very cool. They're collaborating

17:44

with each other, it makes total sense.

17:46

I can tell you here on the

17:48

ranch, I would love to have an

17:50

all -purpose robot going out there and

17:52

using the weed wacker and trimming the

17:55

bushes and the hedges and getting me

17:57

wood and collecting chicken eggs. There's a

17:59

million things they could do on a

18:01

ranch. It'd be immediately applicable for ranch

18:03

work. And if they are 24 hours

18:05

a day, it doesn't matter if they

18:07

go slow. But I think this is

18:09

the category people are sleeping on. And

18:12

I don't know who on the... On

18:14

our prediction show said this will be

18:16

the year of robots, but it's been

18:18

this is the year of robots for

18:20

30 years in the industry and does

18:22

feel like this is it for a

18:24

burger You're sticking with your prediction. I

18:27

assume. Yeah, I am. Yeah, I think

18:29

it's also It's not just this kind

18:31

of dexterous automation, but I do think

18:33

drones autonomous vehicles I put them all

18:35

in the same category whether there's some

18:37

it's some combination of mechanical response

18:40

to a machine vision system that

18:43

I think has become like accelerated

18:45

this year. You need a lot

18:47

of rare earths to make robots.

18:49

Yeah, where could we ever get

18:51

those from? Hmm. Does anybody

18:53

owe us a little money? Is anybody behind on

18:55

their payments? Maybe the Vid could be a little

18:57

taste. I

19:00

don't know if you guys have seen this,

19:02

but there was a company in the 90s

19:04

that was all the rage called Segway. They

19:06

were going to absolutely change cities and everything

19:08

and they never did, but. it was basically

19:10

like a scooter you could walk on and

19:13

had a balancing kind of system to it

19:15

but they made robots and here they're making

19:17

these lawn mowers now and these lawn mowers

19:19

are really like cheap they're a thousand bucks

19:21

and they work here in austin i have

19:23

seen two or three of these on people's

19:26

lawns this could be like you know what

19:28

was the one that you did in your

19:30

house rumba so your point free bird there'll

19:32

be purpose driven ones to deliver you a

19:34

burrito do your lawn etc and A

19:37

room is like 300 or 400 bucks, I

19:39

think. And this thing's a thousand bucks. Man,

19:42

this is gonna get crazy. I

19:44

do think it's a lot harder

19:46

to create one of these general

19:48

purpose systems in automation than create like

19:50

vertically or kind of utility specific automation

19:52

systems. So a device that just

19:54

does one thing, delivers something to you

19:57

in the air or drives your

19:59

food to you or loads and unloads

20:01

your dishes. I'm not sure if that's...

20:03

The whole idea of the humanoid

20:05

is... It's ambitious. Yeah.

20:08

It is a general purpose device and

20:10

it makes a technically very hard roadmap,

20:12

I gotta imagine. Some of the bulldozers

20:14

out there are also now becoming remote

20:16

controlled. So you can get like a

20:18

bulldozer that you have to put in

20:20

a dangerous situation and they're remote control

20:22

and they're going to have AI. So

20:25

I got pitched on a startup one

20:27

time that was going to go up

20:29

into Tahoe Hills. and

20:31

allow humans with remote controls to drive

20:33

them off little bulldozers and make firepats.

20:35

So imagine some fire breaks out. You

20:37

send in or helicopter in the bulldozer,

20:40

no human in it. Just got a

20:42

5G connection or a Starlink connection and

20:44

zip, zip, zip. You're doing

20:46

fire roads in the middle of the smoke dense

20:48

area. It's going to be really interesting when these

20:51

things get dialed in and they're getting dialed in

20:53

every day. I'm going to ask Brett to be

20:55

a bait alpha tester of one of these robots

20:57

in my house and then we'll go and do

20:59

it. We'll do a segment. That'd be great. Excuse

21:01

me, robot. Can I get

21:03

some more Morels? Too sweet,

21:06

Morels. Let's talk about Stripe. I thought

21:08

the report was really good. We had

21:10

the Collison Brothers on last week. They

21:13

crushed it. Great job to them. And

21:15

then here is a quick summary. So

21:17

in terms of processing... ad

21:19

yen 1 .34 trillion stripe at

21:21

1 .4 trillion. I mean that's

21:24

incredible that they're both in the

21:26

almost the same exact space one's

21:28

growing 33 % stripes going 38

21:30

% valuation ad yen 56 their

21:32

public stripe private 91 .5 billion

21:34

I guess that's the private market

21:36

premium Employee account very interesting here

21:38

since we've been talking about a

21:40

Jamie diamonds rant last week ad

21:43

yen 4 .3 thousand stripe over

21:45

8 ,000 and both are profitable

21:47

Adyen's got a billy in Ibada,

21:49

which is extraordinary, but Shraib has

21:52

a higher margin. What's your take

21:54

on Attala to City, sir? I

21:56

thought there was three takeaways. The

21:58

first takeaway for me was the

22:00

value of Stripe's ecosystem is probably

22:02

underappreciated. I think Patrick mentioned it,

22:05

but he just kind of said it as a

22:07

passing fact and none of us picked up on

22:09

it. in the report, they talk about all the

22:12

additional products that they're able to build around core

22:14

payments. And one of them is the billing product.

22:16

It's half a billion dollars a year of ARR.

22:19

That's just incredible. And I think if

22:21

they figure out network effects inside of

22:23

the Stripe ecosystem, that's interesting. So that's

22:25

first, which is the hub and spoke

22:27

of payments being at the center of

22:29

all of these other incremental services. I

22:31

think that that's really interesting and underappreciated

22:33

for Stripe. That probably speaks to why

22:35

there's such a difference in valuation because

22:37

Aden has less of that ecosystem, or

22:39

at least it's not nearly as well

22:41

described maybe as Stripes is. That's number

22:44

one. Second is, I go back to

22:46

what I've been saying for a while

22:48

now, but the rise of these stablecoins

22:50

is really interesting. The

22:53

stablecoin infrastructure globally, the

22:56

push for a bunch of these

22:58

national governments to embrace them inside

23:00

of India, inside of Brazil, slowly

23:02

it's happening inside of the United

23:04

States. So I think that that

23:06

was really interesting. And

23:09

then the third takeaway, Nick,

23:11

I sent you this

23:13

tweet, was just the

23:15

nature of the AI

23:17

ecosystem relative to the

23:20

rest of SaaS. And

23:22

what this is was from Stripe's

23:25

report, which showed the time to

23:27

get to 5 million of annualized

23:29

revenue. And the average

23:32

SaaS company took 37 months. And

23:34

by 2024, the top 100 AI

23:36

companies got there in 24 months.

23:40

I mean, that's efficiency in the market, right?

23:42

I mean, that's why we're all looking at

23:44

AI saying, we could see a lot of

23:46

our economic issues come from growth and the

23:49

growth is very clear. You can do more

23:51

with less and you can generate more revenue

23:53

with AI. So it's pretty clear the trend,

23:55

Yajma. I think it's really clear. I

23:58

mean, I can give you a little. factoid

24:00

from 8090, we got to 5

24:03

million of revenue in three months.

24:06

Really crazy. A couple of

24:08

wows in there, yeah? A couple of big ones. Yeah. And

24:12

so it's just a very

24:14

different selling motion than I've

24:16

historically seen, where the

24:18

ROI is just so obvious

24:20

in terms of the efficiency

24:22

that it creates and the

24:24

cost savings. you can generate

24:27

relative to traditional enterprise software.

24:29

It's a more straightforward sale.

24:31

The ROI is clear. The revenue

24:34

is bigger. It happens faster. There's

24:37

also, I don't know if you're seeing it,

24:39

but there's a sense of urgency in the

24:42

market right now. People feel like they have

24:44

to adopt this new technology fast because there's

24:46

competition, because the gains are

24:48

so clear, because in a slowing economy,

24:50

this is maybe a way to accelerate

24:52

revenue. I'll be honest with you, at

24:55

least with the are 80, 90 customers.

24:57

I haven't seen that yet. We're in

24:59

eight or nine segments of the economy,

25:01

big segments of the economy. It's

25:05

more still about the frustration that they have

25:07

with what I would call the software

25:09

industrial complex. There's a

25:11

big, and you can see it with

25:13

what's happening to Salesforce and other big

25:15

companies is that these renewal cycles are

25:17

getting harder and harder to justify. And

25:20

so people are willing to take some bets

25:23

and see if there are different ways in

25:25

dealing with this problem. And

25:27

I think that's the real

25:29

opportunity is if you can

25:32

find a repeatable pattern to

25:34

help these companies replace that

25:37

big software spend that they

25:39

have, that scales really

25:41

quickly. And the only way to do

25:44

that really is using AI in two

25:46

ways. AI inside the machinery of what

25:48

you're using yourself to make the things,

25:50

right? So those are things like cursor

25:53

and whatnot to just fully accelerate. And

25:55

then AI within some very specific products

25:57

that the customers actually need that also

25:59

create efficiency. So there's two different places,

26:02

but the problem with using it in

26:04

both of these two different places is

26:06

in the first one, you can manage

26:08

the errors. It's very straightforward.

26:10

At the end the day, code either

26:12

compiles or it doesn't. So even if

26:14

you're using something like cursor, which is

26:16

an incredible product, There are no errors

26:18

at the end of it because the

26:20

thing actually works or it doesn't. The

26:22

problem is actually when you use these

26:24

models in actual work. And if you're

26:26

in a regulated environment, particularly it gets

26:29

very complicated because if you generate a

26:31

hallucination in a healthcare business and it

26:33

causes a patient record to be incorrect,

26:36

there are huge consequences there. And

26:39

that we haven't solved yet. That

26:41

exists in regulated finance. It

26:43

exists when you're dealing with real estate and

26:46

construction. It exists when you're

26:48

dealing with power. It exists in aerospace,

26:50

right? Imagine if an LLM helps you

26:52

design a plane better. But if there's

26:55

a tolerance error and that's not well

26:57

understood, that could have

26:59

horrific consequences downstream. So

27:02

we're working with all these people to try

27:04

to figure it out. It's a very difficult

27:06

technical challenge. But I just thought

27:08

the Stripe data was really interesting because it

27:10

validates what we're seeing, which is the the

27:12

growth in this industry is not like anything

27:14

I've ever seen before. Back to the stablecoins.

27:17

Here's a look at

27:19

Tether. They're at $143

27:21

billion in tethers out

27:23

there. Who knows what's

27:25

reality there? They've got a little bit of

27:27

a shaky history. And then

27:29

USDC, Jeremy Olers, is at $56 billion

27:32

already, and that's only been in existence

27:34

since, like, really in

27:36

earnest, like 2021, I

27:38

do think Stripe's main business could be

27:41

for sitting here in five years, Chamath,

27:43

could be sitting on $300 billion and

27:45

getting whatever it is, 3%, 4%, 5

27:47

% on some coupon, right? They could

27:49

be making $10 billion, $20 billion in

27:52

pure profit. If they have a stablecoin

27:54

out there, that gets widely adopted. Yeah,

27:57

and I think the best way for Stripe

27:59

to actually do this is just to build

28:01

it and to actually facilitate

28:03

payments between existing Stripe customers. Because again, it's

28:05

sort of what I said last week. These

28:08

are all ultimately ledger entries. And I think

28:10

that the more that you can commoditize these

28:12

things to be a simple ledger entry inside

28:15

of two systems of record at two companies,

28:17

that's a much better product feature. I think

28:19

Stripe has the scale to do that now.

28:22

And to your point, they could have

28:24

an enormous stablecoin business. At the same

28:27

time, they're probably better off just embracing

28:29

what's already been built. It may be

28:31

disruptive to try to launch yet another

28:33

one. I don't know They bought that

28:35

other company. So I got to think

28:38

they'll launch their own but bridges the

28:40

facilitation. It's the rails Yeah, but I

28:42

mean, I think you know, this is

28:44

where brand comes in if you have

28:47

a trusted brand amongst developers and There's

28:49

three choices. Are they gonna take tether

28:51

which people go? Maybe it's

28:53

a little sordid. It's offshore. I got some challenges there.

28:56

Am I going to use USDC? Okay. I haven't heard

28:58

of it. But okay. Yeah, they sound interesting. Oh, I'm

29:00

going use Stripe. I'm going to go right to Stripe.

29:02

It's kind of like the IBM, you

29:04

know, or Microsoft of payments. Right.

29:07

Nobody gets fired for picking Stripe, I

29:09

would say. So not anymore. Not

29:12

anymore. All right. Let's go through the

29:14

market update here. A lot of people

29:16

are trying to figure out, are we

29:18

going to have a market collapse, a

29:20

boom? Let's just look at

29:22

some of the numbers and have a

29:25

first principle discussion here S &P up

29:27

almost 2 % So far this year

29:29

Nasdaq 100 flat Dow up 3 %

29:31

So pretty good start to the year

29:33

in those index numbers But if you

29:36

look at the Mac 7 some of

29:38

them have had some serious compression Tesla

29:40

down 27 % I do think that

29:42

they had a big Trump Elon spike

29:44

Google down 10 % Amazon 9 Microsoft

29:47

about 8 % Meta Apple Nvidia or

29:49

up to varying degrees And

29:51

then coming into our taping this week,

29:54

but going down 15 % over the

29:56

last month, that too got the Trump

29:58

bump. And then

30:00

adding to all this confusion, unemployment

30:03

is still at historic lows. We're close to

30:05

4%. And if you look at the deportations

30:07

that were promised, they've been modest to start.

30:10

Obviously, they're just getting started. They need some

30:12

money to deport folks, but they've only been

30:14

deporting 500 people to 1 ,000 a day.

30:17

And we haven't heard many numbers about the last

30:20

couple of weeks as Doge has been sort of

30:22

the center of attention. So,

30:24

you know, they'd have to get to 2

30:26

or 3 ,000 people a day to have

30:28

low millions, let's say 2 or 3 million

30:30

people deported for it to have any impact

30:33

on unemployment. Finally,

30:35

Act 3, and then we'll get everybody's feedback

30:37

on this. CPI, up 3 % year over

30:39

year. We had dipped down to that nice

30:42

2 % handle. And now

30:44

it's back a little bit. If you

30:46

remember in September, it bottomed out around

30:48

2 .4%, just in time for the

30:50

election. It's interesting how that happened. That

30:53

same month, the Fed cut 50 bips.

30:56

Then it cut another 25 in December.

30:58

And since inflation's been growing, modestly, but

31:00

steadily, not insignificantly. So put it all

31:02

together. Tramoth, and what do you think?

31:04

And then Freiburg wrote to you. I

31:06

tend to be sort of in the Stevie Cohen

31:08

camp. It's not like the bottom is going to

31:11

fall out, but there's like a lot of room

31:13

for concern, I guess is the best way to

31:15

put it. Nick, I don't know

31:17

if you can find that clip at FII,

31:19

but he had a very precise summary of

31:21

how he saw the world, and I frankly

31:23

just agreed with everything that he was saying,

31:26

so he probably can say it better than

31:28

I. When you take

31:30

a brew of tariffs,

31:33

On top of that, we have slowing immigration.

31:35

And in addition, now you have doge. I

31:38

mean, that's austerity. We think growth is going

31:40

to slow to 1 .5 % from 2

31:42

.5 % in the second half. And so

31:44

I'm actually pretty negative for the first time

31:46

in a while. And it may

31:49

only last a year or so, but it's

31:51

definitely, I think the best gains have been

31:53

had and wouldn't surprise me to see a

31:55

significant correction. I think a

31:57

couple of very specific thoughts. The first

31:59

is that you're starting to see this

32:02

compression of the Mag7 towards everybody else.

32:04

So this is the forward PE of

32:06

these guys. And so what you're starting

32:08

to see is everybody else starting to

32:11

capture back some of the ground. People

32:13

are processing what the real upside of

32:15

the Mag7 is. Now if you go

32:17

to the other chart, what

32:20

this starts to show you though is that Mag7

32:23

is really priced to perfection. And

32:25

so you have to believe that the

32:27

world kind of stays the way that

32:29

it is. Otherwise, you're going

32:31

to have some amount of mean reversion.

32:34

So I think the stock market

32:37

on the margin is a little

32:39

expensive and not particularly that attractive.

32:42

Second, the bond market has

32:44

basically said, okay, we are going to

32:46

give you credit that Doge is going

32:48

to work and that tariffs are going

32:50

to work. So we've had some

32:52

pretty meaningful compression in the 10 year, which I

32:55

think is really interesting. I think it's very good

32:57

for Besant and for Trump. And

32:59

I think I've mentioned this before,

33:01

but we got to go in

33:03

and refinance $10 trillion in the

33:05

next six months. So

33:07

you could see this thing maybe

33:09

even get under 4 % if

33:12

we get a good string of

33:14

data. The real problem

33:16

I think though is that if you

33:19

look back and say, What does this

33:21

look like? The

33:23

example that I would give you guys

33:25

is in 2010 in the United Kingdom,

33:28

the deficit as a percentage of

33:30

GDP was 10%. And the UK

33:32

government embarked on a multi -year

33:34

austerity plan. And they said, we're

33:36

going to get the deficit as

33:39

a percentage of GDP back in

33:41

line. And ultimately, by 2016, it

33:43

got to 3%, which is where

33:45

we are trying to get to.

33:47

And right now, We're a little

33:49

bit under 7%. We're trying to

33:51

get it to 3%. So it's

33:53

interesting to ask what happened. And

33:57

there, the bond market gave

33:59

the UK government a ton of credit.

34:01

So they kept rates relatively low and

34:03

they brought them back from where they

34:06

were. That seems like

34:08

what's happening here. The

34:10

stock market kind of went sideways to a

34:12

little bit down. Let's

34:15

see what happens here. But the real big

34:17

thing is, in the UK, all

34:20

of this created tremendous dissatisfaction,

34:22

and you had Brexit. So

34:26

I think the question that I

34:28

have is, if we go through

34:30

a prolonged austerity program, and

34:33

the frustration amongst the

34:35

American populist builds, what's

34:38

the release valve? There the release

34:40

valve was voting to leave the EU. Here,

34:43

it's not obvious to me what a is.

34:45

Well, electing Trump was step one, and I

34:47

don't know if there's something even more populist

34:49

than Trump. No, I think he is the

34:52

mechanism of implementing the austerity. I think people

34:54

want this austerity. Just the question is, what

34:56

happens when the actual byproducts of that austerity

34:58

are felt by people for six or seven

35:00

years? I don't know what the answer is.

35:04

Certainly, people are in favor

35:06

of doge and downsizing the

35:08

government more than I think

35:10

anybody anticipated. People are

35:12

the statistics are showing and the polls

35:14

are showing free bird that it's incredibly

35:17

popular when you look at this I

35:19

Don't want to say conflicting, but it's

35:21

a lot of different Conflicting data here

35:23

as to what's going on. What do

35:25

you what do you see in the

35:27

numbers here? And what does your instinct

35:29

tell you because? Part

35:32

of this I think is getting used to Trump

35:34

again, right? Like he says a lot of stuff

35:36

some of them are scary some of them are

35:39

just trolling and everything in between.

35:41

So what are your thoughts here?

35:44

Are markets just adjusting to the

35:46

new team back in town? The

35:48

big question in the Trump actions

35:50

is around tariffs versus the tax

35:53

cuts that are being proposed versus

35:55

the spending cuts. Those are kind

35:57

of the three levers. And

36:00

there's a very serious sensitivity to

36:02

the economic outlook for growth and

36:04

inflation. as a function of how

36:06

far each of those three levers

36:08

are pulled and how they relate

36:10

to each other. Is

36:12

Trump actually going to pull forward the cuts

36:14

that he has talked about or that

36:16

Elon's talked about? How real is that? There's

36:19

a whole spectrum of opinions on that

36:21

right now. On one end, you're

36:23

looking at the House and the Senate reconciliation process

36:25

for the budget proposals that they've put forth, and

36:27

you're going to scratch your head and be like,

36:30

are we really cutting enough relative to what the

36:32

economists and others are telling us we need to

36:34

do? Meanwhile, you've got Elon and Trump saying, hey,

36:36

we're cutting, we're cutting, we're saving, we're going to

36:38

get to a trillion dollars a year. But that's

36:41

not showing up necessarily in the budget. Is it

36:43

showing up in the actions out of Doge, TBD?

36:45

So there's a whole spectrum of opinions on the

36:47

cuts. On the tariff side, there's a

36:50

spectrum of like how far these tariffs going to go. You

36:53

know, the United States

36:55

up until 18 something

36:58

was entirely tariff driven

37:00

in our federal governments.

37:03

Revenue and it was a way of being

37:05

kind of protectionary to the industry here and

37:07

then over time the tariffs rates came down

37:09

and down and down as we introduced an

37:12

income tax which started I think at 3

37:14

% right after the Civil War and went

37:16

to 5 % for high -income earners and

37:18

then obviously in the 20th century That's totally

37:21

flipped now. We have like no tariffs and

37:23

a 50 % income tax for the highest

37:25

bracket so Can we actually revert back to

37:27

a tariff driven income model for the federal

37:30

government and what is the economic effect on

37:32

growth? for corporate America in that world where

37:34

taxes get cut for the companies and for

37:36

individuals. But we make all of our

37:38

money from global trade. Does the

37:40

increased cost of global trade hurt companies

37:43

more than the benefit of paying fewer

37:45

taxes, lower taxes? That's the big economic

37:47

argument that's underway right now. And it's

37:49

funny. It kind of seems to fall

37:52

along political lines, believe it or not,

37:54

much like everything else. You know,

37:57

like economists that are democratic

37:59

aligned are... What's my party

38:01

doing? I agree with that.

38:03

Yeah, exactly. And so the

38:06

Democrat -aligned economists will say the

38:08

tariffs don't make sense. They reduce

38:10

economic growth. They have a negative

38:13

effect. We shouldn't be doing that.

38:15

And then the Republican -aligned economists

38:18

are saying, the tax cuts will

38:20

more than make up for the

38:22

reduction from the tariffs. And that's

38:25

the big unknown right now. So

38:27

I would say that the spending cuts,

38:30

wide spectrum, the income tax

38:32

cuts, big spectrum on what's actually going to get done

38:34

here, and then the tariffs, big spectrum on how far

38:36

this is going to go. And so

38:38

those three things, you've got like three

38:41

very wide ranges of things that all

38:43

interplay that ultimately determine inflation, economic

38:45

growth, government deficits over the next decade. And

38:47

we don't really have a clear picture yet

38:50

of how those three things interplay. And they're

38:52

all being hotly debated. And by the way,

38:54

there's high variability. They're changing day to day.

38:56

Every day, Trump's like this tariff, that tariff.

38:58

Yesterday, there's a whole bunch of confusion on

39:00

tariffs. Today, there's a whole bunch

39:03

of like discussion on how far the tax cut

39:05

extension is going to go in the reconciliation process

39:07

and on and on and on. So TBD. I

39:10

encourage people to use my 72 hour

39:12

rule and look out. What happens 72

39:14

hours after Trump says something spicy? Because

39:17

a lot of times he says a

39:19

lot of things. Well, it's not just

39:21

Trump. Yeah, but the House and the

39:23

Senate, they both put forward their budgets,

39:26

right? And now they go

39:28

through this reconciliation process. And

39:30

there's a lot in there that leaves

39:32

a lot to be desired. If

39:35

you're an absolute fiscal

39:37

conservative and you're trying

39:39

to get us to

39:41

3%, deficit as a percentage

39:44

GDP, you're like, wait a second,

39:46

does this do enough? And the tax cuts

39:48

are 4 .5 trillion over 10 years. So,

39:50

you know, it's approximately 450 billion a year.

39:52

If you're trying to catch up, how are

39:54

we doing tax cuts? But Jake, I'll remember,

39:56

you can't make those statements as fact, because

39:58

a lot of those over 10 year projections

40:01

are projections based on someone's estimate of the

40:03

economic effect of the tax cuts. So there's

40:05

also a lot of debate on that, which

40:07

is, hey, some people are saying, if we

40:09

make these tax cuts, the economy will grow.

40:12

faster than the CBO economists will estimate. The CBO

40:14

economists are trying to be conservative. So there's a

40:16

whole lot of debate going on right now on

40:19

like, how much is this really going to cost?

40:21

And people like, oh my God, Trump is talking

40:23

about raising our deficit so much over the next

40:25

decade. But then there's a different point of view,

40:28

which is, wait a second, if you assume that

40:30

the economy will grow because of these cuts, then

40:33

that's actually not true. And then there's all

40:35

these wild cards around the Golden Visa card.

40:38

Yeah, we're about to get to that. Yeah. Are the tariffs

40:40

going to be a trillion a year? Are they going to

40:42

be $2 trillion of revenue or No one really knows. And

40:44

it's just a negotiating position. So

40:46

no one knows. Yeah. No one

40:49

knows. So that's my main point

40:51

is this administration is all over

40:53

the place. The

40:55

cuts are great. But Jamal's right. The

40:57

bond market tells you a lot. The

40:59

fact that the tenure was peaked at

41:01

5 % two weeks before the election.

41:03

And then it peaked again the second

41:06

week of January at 4 .78%. Now

41:08

it's down to 4 .26 % today.

41:10

So it's come down by a full

41:12

half a point in the last month,

41:14

which tells you a lot about the

41:16

expectations on inflation and growth over the

41:18

next decade. And it's actually a reasonable

41:20

like sign that we don't think there's

41:22

going to be rampant inflation over the

41:24

next decade based on some of the

41:26

policy decisions and actions that are being

41:28

taken by this administration. So I would

41:30

say there's some indication that if If

41:32

you were to kind of try and

41:34

decode the enigma of the three things

41:37

that we talked about are going on,

41:39

you know, it's generally kind of deflationary to

41:41

some extent, or it's not inflationary. Are you

41:43

optimistic? Just net net Dave, you're optimistic about

41:45

this next four year period or not? I'm

41:47

honestly pretty uncertain and I'm pretty unhappy with

41:49

both the Senate and the House budgets personally.

41:52

I don't think too many cuts. Yeah, I don't

41:54

think there's enough action in there. I don't think

41:57

that and it's weird because you hear Elon talking

41:59

to all the members of the cabinet and he's

42:01

pretty clear cut. Hey, we've got to save. This

42:03

government is in a debt spiral. We have to

42:05

fix this problem, yada, yada. And then it's sort

42:07

of like business as usual, which like I said,

42:10

when we were in DC, that was exactly my

42:12

observation for every senator, representative, member of Congress that

42:14

we met with or that I talked to at

42:16

a cocktail party. It was the same bullshit. It

42:19

was like, I got to get this for my

42:21

people. That's the goal. And we've turned this federated

42:23

republic into a whole bunch of elected representatives showing

42:26

up in DC, scrambling and grabbing

42:28

money for their constituents. That's what they were

42:30

hired and elected to do. And it's a

42:32

really unfortunate circumstance that no one looks out

42:34

for the better interest of the US dollar

42:36

over time and says, you know what, we've

42:39

actually got a limitation on us. And that

42:41

limitation should be less than 3 % deficit

42:43

to GDP. That's our budget. That's

42:45

our max budget and start from there and

42:47

then do a build up. Yeah. Yeah.

42:50

I mean, Chamath, I think collective

42:52

action aside, you've been talking a

42:54

little bit about this. I

42:57

don't know if it was a couple of weeks ago, you were

42:59

tweeting about the great reset theory. And

43:01

there's you know, whatever that is,

43:03

the third or fourth turning people

43:05

have been talking about, you want

43:07

to maybe encapsulate your thoughts. I

43:10

think you have to figure out

43:12

what the goal is. So

43:15

one goal is you could say

43:17

that the Republicans want to have

43:19

consistent political power, right? That's a

43:21

reasonable goal. The Democrats want that

43:24

too, right? A different goal would

43:26

be to do what Friedberg said.

43:28

We're going to go and take

43:30

the lumps because we are going

43:33

to defend the dollar and the

43:35

credibility of the United States. We're

43:37

just going to make sure that

43:39

structurally it's sound and take the

43:42

pain that's necessary to reset. That

43:44

could be a goal. I think the reality is

43:46

something in the middle where you can't be in

43:48

one camp and you can't be in the other

43:50

because I don't think you can get anything done.

43:54

And somewhere in the middle,

43:56

I think the thing that

43:58

I have been thinking a

44:00

lot about is when will

44:03

Somebody sniff out what the

44:05

great coalition is that preserves

44:07

political power, whether that's the

44:09

Democrats or the Republicans. The

44:12

reality is that you

44:15

will have a consistent

44:17

majority if you get

44:19

three cohorts of people

44:21

together. Cohort number

44:23

one are the people that frankly

44:25

don't have many assets and are

44:27

the working in middle class, meaning

44:29

They don't necessarily own homes. They

44:31

don't necessarily have investments in the

44:33

stock market. So they don't particularly

44:35

care about what's happening there, okay?

44:37

That cohort dominates. There was a

44:40

clip of a discussion at Harvard

44:42

just this past week about the

44:44

different political coalitions that voted for

44:46

Trump versus Kamala Harris. The most

44:48

important takeaway that I took from

44:51

it is that if you make

44:53

$100 ,000 or more a year,

44:56

you're a reliable Democratic voter.

44:59

If you went to college, you're a

45:01

reliable Democratic voter. Everything

45:03

else is a reliable Republican voter. But

45:06

the thing to remember is that bucket of

45:08

everything else is growing faster than that first

45:10

bucket. So you

45:12

have this coalition of the asset

45:14

light working in middle class, and

45:17

then you have other people, patriotic

45:19

business people and patriotic business owners

45:21

and technology people that care about

45:23

innovation that MAGA has been able

45:26

to corral into a coalition. My

45:30

point is, if that

45:32

is the consistent, reliable thing that cements

45:34

political power multiple elections from now, and

45:36

we've seen this before in the past

45:38

where Republicans can go on a three

45:41

-term run or a four -term run

45:43

Democrats have as well in the past,

45:45

it is bad news for the stock

45:47

market and it is bad news for

45:49

asset owners because it doesn't reward the

45:51

constituents back to Friedberg's point. So if

45:54

you are going to feed your constituents

45:56

and your constituents don't own stocks, and

45:58

your constituents don't own homes, or

46:01

they are so wealthy that they

46:03

can be inoculated from a massive

46:05

drawdown in those asset categories, what

46:08

do you think the winning strategy

46:10

is? That

46:12

is my rough working version

46:14

of what our version of

46:17

Brexit is, right? So if

46:19

you have many, many years'

46:21

austerity, what does it really

46:23

result in? I think if

46:25

you want to cement political power, I

46:28

think it requires a walking down of

46:30

these asset markets in a meaningful way.

46:33

That's stocks and that's real estate. And I just

46:35

don't see any other way around it. Fascinating. The

46:38

good news is, I think, from my perspective is... But

46:40

by the way, sorry, last thing I would say, that's

46:42

a total theory and I could change my mind as

46:45

I get more data, but I'm just saying like, I'm

46:47

just trying to work through the possibilities. And

46:49

in the distribution of outcomes, that's sort of where

46:52

my head's at right now. I think it's like

46:54

a good mental model because politicians want to stay

46:56

in power. How do they stay in power? The

46:58

populace has to want to continue to back, and

47:01

they have to understand. Backing strategies that

47:03

reward asset owners when asset owners are

47:05

a shrinking minority is not a good

47:08

idea. Well, they're 60 % of

47:10

the country own assets, but 80 % of

47:12

those assets are in the top like 10%.

47:14

So it is definitely weighted heavily. People do

47:16

have some. I guess through the

47:19

401ks in some cases and yeah, 60

47:21

% of people own a home, 61%.

47:23

But yeah, I think it's a good

47:25

framework. The good news is if you

47:27

look at every time we have a

47:29

great technological revolution, whether it was the

47:31

iPhone or the internet, now

47:33

AI, that tends to

47:35

make the most impact on the

47:37

economy. And so based on what

47:39

I'm seeing in the streets, entrepreneurship

47:42

is on fire right now. But

47:44

that's not true. I think you're

47:46

confusing that with... people, like

47:49

everybody has an iPhone that's true,

47:51

but you're the one that's talked

47:53

a lot about this a lot.

47:55

It hasn't lifted average hourly earnings

47:57

that much. In fact, we've had

47:59

massive wage suppression. It

48:02

has rewarded the employees and

48:04

the stockholders of Apple or

48:06

Google or Meta, but that's

48:08

not everybody. Well, I'm

48:10

talking more about, yes, you're correct. It does

48:13

polarize the win in Apple shareholders, right, in

48:15

the case of the iPhone or Google, in

48:17

the case of the Internet. But it does

48:19

make the entire populace more efficient and the

48:22

United States more efficient since we led both

48:24

of those revolutions. I

48:26

don't think it does. I think it

48:28

benefits supremely a small cohort of people.

48:31

That's why the denominator goes up. But

48:34

does it affect individual people in

48:36

measurable ways on a broad -based

48:38

basis? I think that's been statistically

48:40

proven as not to be true.

48:42

That's why we have the populism

48:44

we have today. It's disproportionately rewarded

48:46

equi holders. That's obvious. And

48:49

wage earners, you know, have not had

48:51

the same escalation. But I'm talking about

48:53

the United States and our place in

48:55

the world and our economy when compared

48:58

to other countries. So I still think

49:00

if we lead AI, we will still

49:02

have the best standard of living, the

49:05

best overall economy in the world. What do

49:07

you guys think about the Golden Visa? I

49:09

love that. Well, this is incredible. because

49:12

I literally tweeted like six months ago, you

49:14

know, we should just sell citizenship for $500

49:16

,000 a pop and he added a zero.

49:18

I it. I'll give you a prediction. I'll

49:21

give you a prediction. I

49:23

will predict that within the next

49:25

few months after this gets announced,

49:27

you are going to hear about

49:29

founders taking $5 million of secondary

49:31

in a round to make sure

49:34

that if they are non -Americans

49:36

to get their visas. 100

49:38

% Check out this prediction. Nick,

49:40

we now have a poly market

49:42

trade. How many gold cards will

49:45

Trump sell in 2025? Poly

49:47

market? Oh, well done. I think

49:49

what is the bet? Well, so

49:52

you either can have zero. Okay.

49:54

You can have one to a hundred, a

49:57

hundred to a thousand. Here's

49:59

the different levels, 1 ,000, 2 ,500, 2

50:01

,500, 5 ,000. So you can basically buy

50:03

the level that you think. There's an 8

50:05

% probability right now in poly market. that

50:07

by the end of 2025, there will be

50:10

zero of these Golden Visa sold, 25

50:12

% chance of 1 to 100,

50:15

17 % chance of 100 to

50:17

1000 and so on. The most

50:19

probable level is actually 2500 to

50:21

5000, which is sitting at 29

50:23

% probability right now. I'm taking

50:25

the way over. This

50:28

is by the end of 25, J.

50:30

Cal. So they basically have get the

50:32

program up and running. So

50:35

it's by the end of 25. So people

50:37

are really just betting, when can he get

50:39

the first one done? And

50:41

then, yeah, how many does he get done? I

50:45

know. I'm going to take the top two. I think I

50:47

might take $5 ,000 and above here. Will you put real

50:49

money on that? You should do that. I mean, not

50:52

available to Americans, but if there was a way

50:54

to do it, I might do it. This is

50:56

not unprecedented, by the way. There is something called

50:58

the EB -5, which I talked about before on

51:01

this show, where non -citizens can invest a bunch

51:03

of money, but it's a bit of

51:05

a scam. I got pitched on it. People said, oh, we

51:07

can get you LPs for your fund. Here's how it works.

51:09

They invest in some, you know,

51:11

Fuguezi, Fugazi, real estate thing. You

51:13

have to create 10 full -time

51:15

jobs. Yeah, so there's a bunch

51:18

of scams going on about this EB -5. But

51:20

I said, as your president, I'm going to sell

51:22

these citizenships and get 100 ,000 people to do

51:24

500k each, right? And I said

51:26

they would sell like Taylor Swift tickets. I got to tell

51:28

you, I think out of the gate, Apple,

51:33

Meta, Microsoft buy, you know, one to 10 ,000

51:35

of these. So let's say you were able to

51:37

buy these and you could swap them out. Like

51:39

if somebody left and went back to their country,

51:41

you could still use it. You still have the

51:44

visa. These would become incredible for recruiting talent. If

51:46

you got to get the CEO of a company

51:48

over here and you can offer them that, you

51:50

could buy their company. Is that how it's going

51:52

to work or is it going to be tied

51:55

to a person, do you think? We've got two

51:57

different issues here. One is, could you swap these

51:59

between another person? We don't know. The president could

52:01

make it like that if they wanted to for

52:03

corporations to give them essentially what is a season

52:06

pass that you could swap between users. Those things

52:08

exist in the world as a concept. So he

52:10

could decide to do that. The second piece, is

52:14

how valuable they are. Are they worth $5

52:16

million or are they worth $1 million? Which

52:18

would sell the most? The way this

52:20

is proposed by Trump and Lutnik is

52:22

it's $5 million for basically a green

52:25

card. You get permanent residents in the

52:27

United States. You get to live here

52:29

permanently. They're getting rid of

52:31

the EB -5 program after this. That's their proposal.

52:34

And so here's the map. Let me ask you guys

52:36

a question. Jamal, J. Cal, how many

52:38

people in the world have

52:41

a net worth above 100 million. Oh,

52:46

above 100. Well,

52:49

we know that there are like 5 ,000,

52:52

4 or 5 ,000 billionaires is the estimate

52:54

I think globally. So a

52:56

cent a millionaires. Well, I think that there's

52:58

got to be 50 ,000. There's

53:00

a lot of hidden billionaires. So I would take

53:02

them. Russia and China. Even in America. I would

53:04

guess that there's at least 10 or 15 ,000

53:06

billionaires in the world. 100 millionaires.

53:10

And so then as a set working

53:12

backwards probably 50 ,000 that's what I

53:14

said 28 ,000 40 % of rumor

53:16

in the US, which means there's 17

53:18

,000 Who knows that number real come

53:20

on these these numbers are all made

53:23

up. So you know how many Russian

53:25

oligarchs have a hundred million dollars? Okay,

53:27

so whatever fudge factor you want 17

53:29

,000 is the reported number of 100

53:31

millionaires outside the US. Do you think

53:33

that that's the cutoff for people that

53:36

would spend 5 million? And then what

53:38

percent of them would buy a US

53:40

green card for 5 million dollars? I

53:43

think people with 20 million who are overseas in

53:45

Venezuela or the Middle East would spend 5 million

53:47

on it. If it was a path to them

53:49

becoming a US citizen, you amortize that over a

53:51

lifetime, you could make twice as much money living

53:53

here. So I think the number is like, if

53:55

you had 20 million dollars, you would give 25

53:58

% of your current net worth to get into

54:00

the US, of course. You're going to buy a

54:02

house here worth 10 million. And Donald Trump said

54:04

that you would not have to pay any tax

54:06

on foreign assets. Right. Easy

54:09

peasy. It's a true green

54:11

card. No, no, no.

54:13

A real green card is what I had,

54:16

which is your global income is taxed. That's

54:18

true. So it's worse, meaning the green card

54:20

is worse than this. This is way better.

54:22

So if I had to do it again

54:24

and this was available to me, I would

54:27

have spent five million bucks. I'm not sure

54:29

there's a million buyers. I think there's probably

54:31

10 ,000 max buyers of this thing. I'll

54:34

take the over of 10. I

54:36

wouldn't take the over of a million. I think you're right on

54:38

the million number. Is that what did Trump say?

54:40

He said there's a million people in the market. Nick, the

54:43

most probable is one to 2 ,500. I think

54:45

that's probably right. But you didn't ask the total.

54:47

You ask in year one. So

54:49

it takes six months to get in Washington.

54:53

This poll is dumb. The real question is

54:55

how hard will they be vetted because I

54:57

think the point is there's a lot of gray

54:59

money around the world So the question is

55:01

can you bring it into the light? Right.

55:04

So how many like look I

55:06

know of many people in India

55:08

many Who are extremely wealthy in

55:11

ways that we don't understand and

55:13

their wealth is literally like in

55:15

cash. It's in gold How are

55:17

they supposed to kind of like

55:19

if they wanted to like raise

55:21

their family? in America because

55:24

now it's possible. How do they do

55:26

that? How do they take their assets?

55:29

Do you go to JP Morgan and all

55:31

of a sudden like you show them this

55:34

golden visa and they say, great, we're gonna,

55:36

if there's a workaround to like the KYC

55:38

AML laws, Honesty -Freeberg, you could sell 2

55:40

million of these things. Don't

55:43

think so. If you literally have

55:46

to go through the existing set

55:48

of frameworks on like OFAC, AML,

55:50

KYC, all that stuff, it's probably

55:52

in the tens of thousands. All

55:55

I have to say is this

55:57

is one of the greatest proposals

55:59

ever. Oh,

56:01

it's great. It's fan -frickin'

56:03

-tastic, combined with Doge, okay?

56:07

If he gets this done, if

56:09

he gets Doge done, and he gets

56:12

accredited investing done, If you guess those

56:14

three things done, I'm voting for his

56:16

third term. We're going to redo the...

56:18

Jason, just to explain to us, your

56:20

personal interest in accredited investing, what's the

56:23

grift connection? I'm not sure I'm fully

56:25

tracking. It's not a grift connection. I

56:27

feel like there's a bunch of people

56:29

stealing money doing crypto scams and that

56:31

all of that would be solved if

56:34

people could just take a test to

56:36

become an accredited investor, which is like

56:38

currently six or 7 % of the

56:40

country, and then they would understand diversification

56:42

and... you know, how different devices were,

56:45

convertible debt, whatever. And if

56:47

they did understand that, you could take

56:49

people who are gambling in the stock

56:51

market and allow them to invest in

56:53

private market companies. And I believe that

56:56

would create more, this issue we brought

56:58

up in the last segment, about poor

57:00

people not being able to become rich

57:02

people and upward mobility. Upward mobility could

57:04

be very easily, hold on, let me

57:07

finish my thought. Upward mobility could be

57:09

so much better if a person who

57:11

is an Uber driver or an HR

57:13

person working at a company could put

57:15

$500, $1 ,000 instead of betting on

57:18

the NICs or the Jets God forbid,

57:20

they could put that $500 into this

57:22

new product or service they're using, LinkedIn,

57:24

or this new product or service they're

57:26

using, and then that would allow

57:28

more startups to get created. There are so many

57:31

people who contact me after reading my book and

57:33

say, I want to invest in startups, they can't.

57:35

And I will tell you, think they would be

57:37

so much better off putting $100 or $500 into

57:39

a startup than just wasting it at roulette tables.

57:42

Great. I'll take the opposite. Okay,

57:44

go ahead. And I'll tell you why.

57:46

I think you're right. It would be

57:48

great, but they should buy the S

57:50

&P. They should buy the S &P

57:52

index proven, scaled, audited, profitable, well

57:55

vetted, solid fiduciary responsibility with

57:58

public board companies. Yep. And

58:01

what will they learn from The problem

58:03

is most of these. people, most people,

58:05

even smart VCs, even intelligent people, make

58:07

extraordinary mistakes in the startups that they

58:09

back. I don't think that we have

58:12

a shortage of startups. I

58:14

think we have a shortage of good startups. But

58:16

if you flood the market with capital, you're

58:18

going to see the same problem we've had

58:20

with every venture capital cycle or every private

58:23

cycle, which is you get a whole bunch

58:25

of bullshit that gets funded, that shouldn't get

58:27

funded, that ends up eating a lot of

58:29

people's money, And unfortunately, when people are less

58:31

sophisticated and they enter the private investment markets,

58:33

they're not going to necessarily be left well

58:36

off. They're going to end up getting scammed

58:38

in a different way. Someone's going to show

58:40

some crazy, fancy PowerPoint to them, take their

58:42

money, and they're going to get eaten up,

58:44

which won't happen if they buy the S

58:47

&P. Go ahead. OK. Yeah. So let me

58:49

counter all that. They

58:51

should buy the S &P. Sure. And

58:53

they can do that today, right? They

58:55

can get a Robinhood account. They can

58:57

buy 11 % a year. Perfect and

58:59

that's the protectionist paternalistic approach that we've

59:01

had. What that doesn't do is it

59:03

makes them nice and safe and then

59:05

their thousand dollars becomes a thousand seventy

59:07

next year and eleven fifty the next

59:09

year great they learned one lesson. The

59:12

rule of seventy two and compounding interest

59:14

that's the only lesson they learn. But

59:16

when you start betting on startups you

59:19

learn how entrepreneurship works how product market

59:21

fit works and so sure put eighty

59:23

percent index fund and put twenty percent.

59:25

into investing in private companies, they would

59:28

learn more. And when Uber wanted to

59:30

give Uber drivers access to buying shares,

59:32

they're not allowed to. And so the

59:35

rich can buy whatever they want. They

59:37

can make whatever bets they want. They

59:39

can be in private equity. They can

59:41

be in all these things that have

59:44

the chance to 100X to 10X, but

59:46

poor people can't. All I'm saying is

59:48

if they're educated and they take a

59:51

course, let them do take

59:53

a little bit of risk in an intelligent

59:55

fashion and let them learn about entrepreneurship. I

59:57

grew up blue collar, and I

59:59

didn't have exposure to how private company

1:00:01

formation worked. I didn't understand any of

1:00:03

this. I had to battle my way

1:00:05

to learn all of it. If

1:00:08

you had a course and people could go

1:00:10

just as easily as they go to prize

1:00:12

picks, which I bet on every next game,

1:00:14

and they could go just as easily to

1:00:16

prize picks as they could go to Coinbase,

1:00:18

as they could go to a private market

1:00:21

company and invest, that would be better. for

1:00:23

upward mobility. So you're right, people are

1:00:25

going to lose money, but they're going to learn. What

1:00:27

do you think, Chamath? There's a little difference

1:00:30

between the two of us. I think that

1:00:32

both are true. I think that we're all

1:00:34

much better off just owning indices, or at

1:00:36

least that was true. I think

1:00:38

the problem with these indices right now

1:00:40

is those are not really well -balanced

1:00:42

indices because the rules have changed. And

1:00:44

the rules have changed because these companies

1:00:46

have been smart enough to Lobby

1:00:48

folks like S &P and S &P

1:00:51

has allowed these thresholds to creep up.

1:00:53

And so now when you're buying the S

1:00:56

&P 500, you're not doing that anymore. You're

1:00:58

buying the S &P 7, and

1:01:00

then the rest in the 493

1:01:02

is 60%. So if that's what

1:01:04

you want, that's fine. So

1:01:07

we'd have to fix the ETF market to make sure

1:01:09

that there was a little bit more transparency and there

1:01:11

was more balance. But

1:01:14

these weighted indices are basically just the mag

1:01:17

seven that that's neither good nor bad I'm

1:01:19

just saying that's what it is and so

1:01:21

yeah, and I'm just saying it just creates

1:01:23

the same problem people think they're buying diversification

1:01:25

because you're like hey go here and it's

1:01:27

diversified and turns out it's not not even

1:01:29

not even diversification just like vetted like mature

1:01:31

real companies versus what I think will happen

1:01:34

which we've seen time and again with people

1:01:36

that are not sophisticated or experienced so they

1:01:38

first enter in you the new market any

1:01:40

market is this process of adverse selection which

1:01:42

is you have predatory practices, predatory pitches that

1:01:44

show up and say, invest in this. a

1:01:46

great deal. This is the new thing. Most

1:01:48

people aren't able to vet that thing, and

1:01:51

they end up getting taken advantage of. And

1:01:53

that's the problem. They're getting

1:01:55

taken advantage of in every crypto thing right

1:01:57

now. So all I'm arguing for is more

1:01:59

education and a path for those people who

1:02:01

want to do it to show five hours

1:02:03

of education, 50 questions that they have and

1:02:06

above average. you know, knowledge of how private

1:02:08

companies work, just so they have the choice

1:02:10

to do that. I think the balance that

1:02:12

we will have to strike is there are

1:02:14

a lot of people that are on the

1:02:16

outside looking in with no assets. And

1:02:19

then second, there are a lot of

1:02:21

young people who want the high alpha

1:02:23

opportunities, like crypto represents.

1:02:26

And so, FreeBrick, it's easy for you to

1:02:28

pull the ladder up from under you because

1:02:31

you're already rich. But for

1:02:33

people that are not rich, and if you went back

1:02:35

to when you were poor, the question

1:02:37

is, how would you have reacted if somebody

1:02:39

above you basically said, I'm going to tell

1:02:42

you what you can invest in? And

1:02:44

would you have said, okay, that seems reasonable. I

1:02:46

know you're looking out for me. And I think

1:02:49

that's the question. don't disagree with that. I think

1:02:51

there's a reason we have securities regulations and securities

1:02:53

laws that public companies have to follow, but private

1:02:55

companies are more lax on. That's, that's where there's

1:02:57

this distinction. So I don't disagree. That's not, that's

1:02:59

not what I'm saying. I'm saying when, now that

1:03:02

you're rich, You want rules for everybody else. What

1:03:04

I'm saying is don't don't don't mischaracterize me to

1:03:06

mob. That's not true at all. I'm obviously a

1:03:08

free market guy. I don't give a I'm so

1:03:10

I can't poor people invest in you. I'm not

1:03:12

I'm pointing out the consequence of what would happen.

1:03:15

I'm not saying I disagree with some notion of

1:03:17

what happened to you with your portfolio of private

1:03:19

telling you what I think is going to happen.

1:03:21

Okay. What I'm asking you is go back to

1:03:23

when you were poor. How would

1:03:26

you react? I would want

1:03:28

to invest in everything. I'm not disagreeing with the

1:03:30

notion. I'm pointing out what will happen, which is

1:03:32

predatory assholes will show up and they'll rip people

1:03:34

off. That's what happens in every one of these

1:03:37

markets. you're educated, that's why the education commander hits

1:03:39

here. You'll learn something just like people are learning

1:03:41

right now to not bet on the jets ever.

1:03:43

What do you think the solution is? People

1:03:46

can lose their ass. They just need to know they're going to lose their

1:03:48

ass. I'm just telling you, that's what's going to happen. And then you know

1:03:51

what's going to happen next? Elizabeth Warren is going

1:03:53

to get on TV and be like, hey, we got to

1:03:55

fix this, put a bunch of regulations in place. Nobody cares

1:03:57

what Pocahontas has to say. That's how this goes. I'm pointing

1:03:59

out this is what happens in the least market. Yeah,

1:04:01

I agree with you. That is the cycle. But

1:04:03

what I'm saying is how do we fix it

1:04:06

then? How do you allow people that don't have

1:04:08

assets to have assets that work for them? How

1:04:10

do we do that? As you guys know, we

1:04:12

looked at the data. Even the best venture capital

1:04:14

firms in Silicon Valley, with the smartest, most sophisticated

1:04:16

people investing in private assets, were not able to

1:04:18

beat the NASDAQ over the last few years. it.

1:04:20

That's true. What I'm saying is what you were

1:04:22

saying before, I'm confused. What you were saying before

1:04:24

is people should only be allowed to invest in

1:04:26

the SMD. I say that. That is what you

1:04:28

said. That's not what I said. exactly what you

1:04:31

said. That is what you said. That is exactly

1:04:33

what you said. I said, here's what's going to

1:04:35

happen. I said, here's the this. OK, you're predicting

1:04:37

doom. Got it. Here's the other possibility of what

1:04:39

happens. eBay, Etsy,

1:04:41

Airbnb, DoorDash,

1:04:44

say to the people who are part

1:04:46

of their networks, for every hundred rides

1:04:48

you do, we're going to give you

1:04:51

$100 in shares. For every hundred nights

1:04:53

you book, we're going to give you

1:04:55

$1 ,000 in shares of Airbnb. And

1:04:58

by the way, you can buy extra shares

1:05:00

if you want to. And the government says

1:05:02

you can spend up to 20 % of

1:05:04

your yearly income, average for the past few

1:05:06

years on investing in startups. And

1:05:08

then some number of people

1:05:10

who built those networks, whether

1:05:13

it was Google's network or eBay's

1:05:15

network or Uber's or DoorDashes or

1:05:17

part of Tesla, some

1:05:19

number of those people are going to hit massive

1:05:21

home runs and they're going to move from the

1:05:23

bottom third to the middle third. And then some

1:05:26

number of those people are going to say, you

1:05:28

know what, I got really educated. I looked. And

1:05:30

I understood Tesla and I understood Uber. So now

1:05:32

I'm going to bet on this AI self -driving

1:05:34

company and I'm going to bet on this other

1:05:37

company that makes robots and delivers, you know, vitals.

1:05:39

And the entire group of people in our United

1:05:41

States is going to get more savvy about entrepreneurship

1:05:43

and capital allocation. That's a good thing.

1:05:45

I think what's going to happen is not much

1:05:47

of anything. I think the rules are going to

1:05:50

stay exactly where they are. In favor of the

1:05:52

top 10 percent. Because I think this argument between

1:05:54

the two of you is exactly the reason why

1:05:56

it can never change. And I think that that.

1:05:58

Now, again, so then what is the alternative? Maybe

1:06:00

it comes back to what I said before, which

1:06:02

is then the only alternative left is just the

1:06:04

debase assets. And then if you

1:06:07

debase assets and make them much cheaper, then

1:06:09

there's less money theoretically to lose per quantum

1:06:11

of investment. So maybe that's the right way

1:06:13

to think about it. We got to get

1:06:15

more people owning equities in this country. That's

1:06:17

just high order bit, because if you feel

1:06:19

like you have more agency in your life

1:06:21

and you're just Smarter and savvier

1:06:24

that's the American dream and we've lost the American

1:06:26

dream to your point in the early second month

1:06:28

Half the country doesn't feel like they can ever

1:06:30

get into the top half They don't feel like

1:06:32

they'll ever be able to buy a second home

1:06:34

or even a first So you have this helplessness

1:06:36

of one group of people who are like I

1:06:38

need a handout and the other group of people

1:06:40

are like Got any stock tips? Where are you

1:06:43

making money? What can I place a bet on?

1:06:45

We're sitting here at a rigged game We all

1:06:47

get to play in one casino and then everybody

1:06:49

else gets to work in the casino I just

1:06:51

want the people who work in the casino to

1:06:53

be able to place some bets and maybe become

1:06:55

owners in businesses. Hey,

1:06:57

you know, I think talking about

1:07:00

the US Postal Service is interesting.

1:07:02

It turns out Trump is going

1:07:04

to issue an executive order to

1:07:06

dissolve the leadership of USPS. And

1:07:08

the Postal Service is going postal

1:07:10

about this in some ways, not

1:07:12

literally, but they're angry about it.

1:07:15

And they want to absorb the

1:07:17

agency into the executive branch. So

1:07:21

you know, post office has been operating

1:07:23

for 250 years. Trump plans

1:07:25

to fire the governing board and place the

1:07:27

agency under the control of? Lutnik. Lutnik. Commerce.

1:07:31

And for context, you guys, Postal Service

1:07:33

has lost $10 billion last year on

1:07:36

$80 billion in revenue. They can't figure

1:07:38

out how to just make a simple

1:07:40

profit margin or even break even. And

1:07:43

it employs 635 ,000 workers. By the

1:07:45

way, Howard did an interview with Fox

1:07:47

News yesterday where he said, One of

1:07:50

the ideas that he went back to

1:07:52

the president with was for the postal

1:07:54

service to do the census, which would

1:07:57

save four billion a year. Give

1:07:59

him another idea, which is I think

1:08:01

that non -farm payrolls and GDP, that

1:08:05

data should be collected by USPS as

1:08:07

well because they touch every business. You

1:08:10

can actually get instead of sampling with all

1:08:12

this error and all of this craziness that

1:08:14

we have, there has to be a way

1:08:16

for then all of these feet on the

1:08:19

street. to get us much more accurate information

1:08:21

so that the markets can actually function properly.

1:08:24

I am surprised that we

1:08:26

don't see even more dramatic

1:08:28

revisions. And that probably again

1:08:30

is like errors on top

1:08:32

of errors. I

1:08:34

really don't trust like, you know, you showed the

1:08:36

GDP data or you showed the unemployment rate, Jason.

1:08:38

No, we all know this stuff is crazy. It's

1:08:40

wrong. I just don't know how wrong it is.

1:08:42

Yeah, and this is where Shribe's data might come

1:08:44

in handy. I did a tweet about this and

1:08:46

it's one of the most popular tweets or controversy.

1:08:48

I got three and a half million views here

1:08:50

without an Elon retweet or anything. I

1:08:52

had a very simple concept here. Postal service

1:08:55

goes down to one time a week. Easy

1:08:57

peasy, once a week. There's nothing coming in

1:08:59

the US Postal Service that's that important. Two,

1:09:02

all citizens starting next year have to opt into getting

1:09:04

postal mail by paying $1 a year. So you got

1:09:06

to sign up for it. You got to give them

1:09:08

a credit card or something. I'm

1:09:10

thinking 80 % of people don't even

1:09:13

bother because it's all flowers and garbage

1:09:15

anyway. And what people don't know, because

1:09:17

I was in the magazine business and

1:09:19

I knew all about this, we had

1:09:22

a magazine rate, a media rate, and

1:09:24

all these marketers have, they're subsidized. So

1:09:26

this is the ultimate marketing and publishing

1:09:28

grift. Magazines, newspapers, anybody,

1:09:32

publications, advertisers, catalogs, they pay nothing. And

1:09:35

I think they should just double or

1:09:37

triple the rate or remove any discounts.

1:09:40

And then take all those buildings, Chamath,

1:09:42

put them into the new sovereign wealth

1:09:44

fund, redeploy the buildings, get some money

1:09:46

out of that, give every postal worker

1:09:48

two -year severance, or whatever, graduate it

1:09:50

down, full -year severance, half -year severance,

1:09:52

quarter -year severance, while you retrain them,

1:09:54

and just let the private markets handle

1:09:56

this. What do you think, Chamath, are

1:09:59

my suggestions? was a tweet from this

1:10:01

woman who got leaked some data from

1:10:03

one of her friends or colleagues in

1:10:05

the government where they broke down, I

1:10:07

think, seven or eight leases. real

1:10:10

estate things that were happening inside of, I think

1:10:12

it was Veterans Affairs, maybe. The

1:10:15

numbers are just astounding. Yeah.

1:10:17

Half the office space is not being

1:10:19

used. The other half is being underutilized.

1:10:22

It's bonkers. Bonkers. They're going

1:10:24

to be able to sell 75 % of this stuff.

1:10:27

So anyway, don't blame me here, but

1:10:29

I think it's like a really good opportunity. Our guy,

1:10:31

Jeff Bezos, come on the pod, Jeff, sit in the

1:10:33

sacks chair one time. That'd be fun to have him

1:10:35

on. He's making some big

1:10:37

changes at the Washington Post. He's

1:10:39

lost a fortune running this thing.

1:10:41

And it seems like he's getting

1:10:43

engaged and in founder mode, dare

1:10:45

I say. He posted to

1:10:48

his ex -account and he emailed everybody

1:10:50

that the editorial page is going to

1:10:52

be run differently. He said that while

1:10:54

newspapers once had a mandate to publish

1:10:57

opinions from the broadest possible spectrum, the

1:10:59

internet now mostly covers that. He said,

1:11:01

I'm confident that free markets and personal

1:11:03

liberties are right for America. I also

1:11:06

believe these viewpoints are underserved in the

1:11:08

current market of ideas and new opinions.

1:11:10

So he's going to focus on those

1:11:12

two pillars, personal liberties and free markets.

1:11:15

This seems awesome. And I could get

1:11:17

into why it's brilliant on a publication

1:11:19

basis. But I'm just wondering what your

1:11:21

thoughts are with him getting more engaged

1:11:23

with the publication that he was incredibly

1:11:26

hands off with. I was a little

1:11:28

surprised that he wrote this. I think

1:11:30

that If you want to write about

1:11:32

personal liberty, one

1:11:35

of the tenets of personal liberty

1:11:37

is free speech, but he's effectively

1:11:39

said that certain opinions aren't allowed

1:11:42

anymore. I don't think that

1:11:44

that's the solution to the Washington Post.

1:11:46

So all I think it does is

1:11:48

it polarizes the readership even more. I

1:11:50

looked inside of Google Trends. The overwhelming

1:11:52

majority of WAPO readers are in, obviously,

1:11:54

Washington, DC, and then Maryland and Virginia,

1:11:56

which are the two surrounding states. So

1:11:58

I think it's very much a Beltway

1:12:01

paper. I think he's trying to have

1:12:03

a direct influence on the ideas that

1:12:05

folks inside the Beltway read. And

1:12:07

so in as much as he's the owner, he's allowed to

1:12:09

do it. But I wasn't

1:12:12

a fan of that idea because I think

1:12:14

the Elon plan is much better. Here's

1:12:16

a fire hose. Go at it. You have to find

1:12:19

the people. Despite

1:12:21

all the conspiracy theories, I don't think he

1:12:23

suppresses free speech in the least. In fact,

1:12:25

I think it's a literal free -for -all

1:12:27

inside of action. It is a free -for

1:12:29

-all. I mean, we've got Nazi diamond pendants

1:12:31

coming from Kanye. The difficulty in X, which

1:12:33

I think will be the next set of

1:12:35

features that he'll have to figure out is

1:12:37

how the curation happens. Yeah. Where

1:12:40

you're curating, I'm

1:12:42

curating, other people are curating. How can then,

1:12:44

for example, like when I go to an

1:12:46

account that I like, There's no easy way

1:12:48

where I can mass follow a bunch of

1:12:50

there, the people that they follow as an

1:12:52

example, right? I can't just copy it. I

1:12:55

can't sort of start with a profile. Those

1:12:57

are all these things that allow you to

1:12:59

just take on all kinds of opinions right

1:13:01

away and filter from there. I

1:13:03

think that that is a really useful

1:13:05

feature. So I

1:13:07

don't know. I didn't think that if I was

1:13:10

the owner of Washington Post, I would have been

1:13:12

even more extreme on the free speech part. I

1:13:14

would not have sanctioned speech. It's

1:13:17

an interesting point. Newspapers historically always

1:13:19

had a point of view. They picked a

1:13:21

side. Fox, obviously, MSNBC now, and Cable News

1:13:24

picked a side. This will

1:13:26

make the publication, I think, by picking a side and

1:13:28

saying, hey, here's what we stand for. This is our

1:13:30

belief system. I think it will just make it viable

1:13:32

in one way. And you're right, he wants to have

1:13:34

a certain influence. That's why people buy

1:13:36

these things. That's why they've historically owned them. And

1:13:39

they have a point of view. And the

1:13:41

idea that it didn't have a point of

1:13:43

view previously was probably a mirage

1:13:45

that some people felt there was like

1:13:47

some objectivity, but I like it. I

1:13:49

like him being more engaged in it

1:13:51

and tightening it up. All right, four,

1:13:53

the Sultan of Science, Chamathpaya

1:13:56

Hapatia, our sick friend, the comedian,

1:13:58

get well soon. We can't wait wait to

1:14:00

have you on. It's gonna be

1:14:02

a hilarious time. And for David

1:14:04

Sacks, who's very busy, the

1:14:06

Rainman in Washington, DC, saving

1:14:08

the world. I am

1:14:10

the world's greatest moderator and we will

1:14:13

see you next time, bye Bye bye. Love you

1:14:15

guys. Bye bye. We'll let

1:14:17

your winners ride. Rainman,

1:14:19

David Sacks. And

1:14:23

it said we open source it to

1:14:25

the fans and they've just gone crazy

1:14:28

with it. Love you, Eskies. queen of

1:14:30

Kinoa. I'm going all in. Besties

1:14:37

are gone. I'm cold -thirsty. That

1:14:39

is my dog taking it. I'm missing your

1:14:41

driveway. Sacks, win it all, man. Oh,

1:14:44

man. My avatar will meet me You He

1:14:46

should all just get a room and

1:14:48

just have it one big huge orgy because they're like It's

1:14:51

like this like tension but just need to

1:14:53

release somehow. What? You're

1:14:55

a bee. What?

1:14:57

You're a bee. What?

1:14:59

We need to get merchies

1:15:01

our back. I'm going all in.

1:15:09

I'm going all in.