E51: Supply Chain Shortages, Inflation, DeSantis, Ted Sarandos Netflix Memo, Cancel Culture, Fan Q&A

Show Notes: 00:00 Cold Open 01:19 Titles 01:01 Intro Banter 04:24 Supply chain, labor shortage, 34:04 Taiwan 43:14 Sacks Desantis 47:00 Dave Chappelle 01:08:24 FDA 01:23:27 Question 1 01:27:08 Question 2 Follow the besties: https://twitter.com/chamath https://linktr.ee/calacanis https://twitter.com/DavidSacks https://twitter.com/friedberg Follow the pod: https://twitter.com/theallinpod https://linktr.ee/allinpodcast Intro Music Credit: https://rb.gy/tppkzl https://twitter.com/yung_spielburg Intro Video Credit: https://twitter.com/TheZachEffect Referenced in the show: Statista - The U. S. Car Models Most Impacted By The Microchip Shortage https://www.statista.com/chart/24969/vehicles-taken-out-of-production-due-to-microchip-shortages Zack Kanter on Twitter - "The "supply chain crisis" is a clever rebrand" https://twitter.com/zackkanter/status/1447376938805432321 Naithan Jones on Twitter - NFTs https://twitter.com/NaithanJones/status/1448989717756850179 Daily Breeze - No start date for 24/7 operations at Port of LA https://www.dailybreeze.com/2021/10/14/no-timetable-yet-for-port-of-las-24-7-operations-but-talks-ramping-up-officials-say/ LA Daily News - Port of LA to go to 24/7 operations, Biden announces https://www.dailynews.com/2021/10/13/biden-to-announce-that-ports-of-la-long-beach-will-begin-24-hour-operation/ Nikkei Asia - TSMC announces plans to build first chip plant in Japan https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Tech/Semiconductors/TSMC-announces-plans-to-build-first-chip-plant-in-Japan St. Louis Fed - Total Public Debt as Percent of Gross Domestic Product https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEGDQ188S Forbes - Druckenmiller Blasts Fed's 'Radical' Stimulus Policy https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanponciano/2021/05/11/billionaire-investor-druckenmiller-blasts-feds-radical-stimulus-policy-warns-it-risks-stock-bubble-blowing-up/?sh=2a9866e82fe8 David Sacks on Twitter - Desantis Dinner https://twitter.com/DavidSacks/status/1447780027110617089 Variety - Ted Sarandos Doubles Down https://variety.com/2021/film/news/ted-sarandos-dave-chappelle-defense-1235088647/ The Light of Other Days by Arthur C. Clarke https://www.amazon.com/Light-Other-Days-Arthur-Clarke/dp/0312871996 CFTC Orders Tether and Bitfinex to Pay Fines Totaling $42.5 Million https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/8450-21 NBC - Most adults shouldn't take daily aspirin https://www.nbcnews.com/health/heart-health/adults-shouldnt-take-daily-aspirin-prevent-heart-attack-panel-says-rcna2869 Botched - Man Wins $100,000 Breast Implants Bet! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=626ZaH9ZuPs

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:00Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Yesterday, the game went off the chain. It was, we started off at 500 and 1,000, and then we were like, bah! These $500 chips are so annoying. Then we started to play 1,000, 1,000. Then it was 1,000, 2,000. Then it's 1,000, 2,000, 4,000. Then 1, 2, 4, 8. Then 1, 2, 4, 8, 16. 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32,000 coming around.

• 0:21Jason Calacanis?

  Oh, my God. How much did you lose?

• 0:24David Friedberg?

  What was the big winner and big loser?

• 0:25Chamath Palihapitiya?

  How much?

• 0:26David Friedberg?

  I'm not gonna say.

• 0:26Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Just tell us how much.

• 0:28Jason Calacanis?

  Out 800. I put minus 800.

• 0:33Jason Calacanis?

  Minus 700. Don't say these fucking names, bro.

• 0:37David Friedberg?

  How'd you do, Chamath? I did okay.

• 0:39Jason Calacanis?

  Oh, oh, oh.

• 0:42David Sacks?

  You can tell that Chamath lost because when you ask him, how'd you do? And it's like, just, he goes from this super effusive, talking about the game to just like, one word, fine.

• 0:51Jason Calacanis?

  Okay.

• 0:52David Sacks?

  Fine. Okay.

• 0:53Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah. How was your night?

• 0:55David Friedberg?

  He's like, look, I shit $42 million for breakfast. It was fine.

• 0:59Jason Calacanis?

  Here we go. 3, 2.

• 1:18Jason Calacanis?

  Hey, everybody. Welcome to another episode of the All In Podcast. 50 episodes down. And, uh, yeah, we'll definitely get three or four more in before the band breaks up. Uh, with us today, again, uh, from an undisclosed location, David Sacks, the Rain Man himself, Chamath Palihapitiya, the dictator, and the Queen of Kinwa, David Friedberg. How's everybody doing? How's everybody feeling? How's everybody's week going?

• 1:46Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Really great. Yours?

• 1:49Jason Calacanis?

  Just, just great. Awesome.

• 1:51Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I, uh, I, I feel really good. I, um, I feel super grateful.

• 1:56Jason Calacanis?

  Aw. Really?

• 1:58David Friedberg?

  The markets are up.

• 1:59Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, the stock market's up today. He feels grateful.

• 2:04Chamath Palihapitiya?

  It's been a good week. It's been a good week.

• 2:06Jason Calacanis?

  I feel so much equanimity.

• 2:09Jason Calacanis?

  Market's up 4%. Friedberg, how are you doing?

• 2:14David Friedberg?

  My wife went to the hospital three times this week, all three times thinking she was in labor.

• 2:18Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Hey, bro, are you, how, how, I mean, we're, we're two centimeters dilated, we're still waiting here.

• 2:23David Friedberg?

  I mean, we, we are there too, and we're just waiting any day, like literally any hour. So we were.

• 2:30Jason Calacanis?

  How do we get action on this? Can we, can we bet who's gonna come first?

• 2:33Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I think, I think Friedberg's gonna come first because it's his third. It's only Nat, it's Allison's third, it's Nat's second.

• 2:39Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, yeah. So we can lay odds, two to one? What do we get?

• 2:42Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I'll, I'll take the over, under on, what day is it today? Today is the 15th. We're getting induced on the 26th. It's 11 days, you know? I'll take the over, under on the, I think the over, under on, uh, the 21st.

• 2:58Jason Calacanis?

  That you're setting the line?

• 2:59Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I'll set the line at the 21st of October.

• 3:01Jason Calacanis?

  I'm going over. I'll go over for a thou.

• 3:03David Friedberg?

  This is for Nat?

• 3:04Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Okay.

• 3:05Jason Calacanis?

  Okay.

• 3:06David Friedberg?

  Yeah.

• 3:06Jason Calacanis?

  So you, we got the over, we got the under. What do you got, Sax? Over, under, on the, uh, 21st? 26 is the expected date.

• 3:13David Sacks?

  Where are we betting on?

• 3:14Jason Calacanis?

  We're betting on Nat.

• 3:15Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Nat analysis.

• 3:16David Friedberg?

  Some people pay attention when their children are born. And when their children are born.

• 3:20Jason Calacanis?

  We're trying to get action.

• 3:22David Sacks?

  Aren't you guys a little too old to be having kids?

• 3:24Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah.

• 3:25David Sacks?

  I mean, are you even gonna see them graduate?

• 3:26Jason Calacanis?

  Sax, have you had a vasectomy?

• 3:28David Friedberg?

  I mean Sax, some of us are a whole bar mitzvah younger than you.

• 3:30Jason Calacanis?

  Sax, are you snipped? I would, if anybody was snipped, I would guess it would be Sax. Are you, are you snippy, snippy?

• 3:37David Sacks?

  Is, is this the type of vital information you think the audience wants to know?

• 3:40Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, I think they do, actually. I think that's a yes. I think he's been snipped. Chamath is definitely not snipped.

• 3:48David Friedberg?

  Nope.

• 3:49David Sacks?

  You can, you can, you wanna, you wanna come over here and, uh, inspect?

• 3:53Jason Calacanis?

  Do the procedure?

• 3:54David Sacks?

  Conduct an inspection?

• 3:55Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I don't think, I don't think you can visually understand that, Sax.

• 3:58David Friedberg?

  Let's, let's, we gotta, we gotta buzz this out, let's not go.

• 4:01Chamath Palihapitiya?

  It's not visually understandable.

• 4:03Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, Friedberg's definitely not snipped, as proven by his wife being pregnant.

• 4:08Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I don't think you say snip, bro. I think you just say vasectomy, then.

• 4:12Jason Calacanis?

  Ah, I'm just, you know, I think you say snip, snip. I think Sacks has been snipped. That's actually a good bet. We could book it on Sacks being snipped. Okay, listen, a lot of topics to get to. I think we were trying to get to this topic last week. Uh, there's been a supply chain, uh, interruption right now. There's some shortages, obviously, of key components like microchips. We all know this. According to Car and Driver, the top three models impacted by the chip shortage were the Ford F-Series pickup trucks, Jeep Cherokee SUVs and the Chevy Equinox SUVs. Basically, a lot of the cars, uh, that, uh, have advanced driving systems are now removing them. I was looking at getting, uh, an SUV for the winter. And I was looking at the Cadillac Escalade.

• 4:54Jason Calacanis?

  And they took self-driving out of the 2022 model, or the autopilot, basically, because they can't get the chips. Um, and we all know why this is happening, obviously, COVID. Uh, and then also on top of it, demand. So people are buying second computers, third computers, places like Dell are having, and Apple are selling a lot of desktops, a lot of laptops. Um, and, uh, there's also a labor shortage. So the labor force, obviously, uh, here in the United States is much smaller than it was. Uh, we all know that people are raising salaries to try to get people to come back to work. They're turning off the bonus unemployment, uh, early in some states. We're here in October. This is all supposed to be turned off by now.

• 5:36Jason Calacanis?

  So I guess I'll start with you, Chamath, in terms of, uh, the markets here. Uh, what do you think is happening? And is this an acute risk or just something that will pass?

• 5:48Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I think the, well, this is where I think I kind of generally disagree with the market. I think that most people are under the impression that these are short-term, um, kind of contractions and expansions, and that this is just a thing that needs to get worked through the system as we readjust to a post-COVID world, blah, blah, blah. I think it's different. And the reason I think it's different is if you just look at, uh, one thing and one thing only, which is that we have a massive labor shortage in America. And there is an incredible stat that I saw, um, which was the average hourly earnings of non-manager people in hospitality and travel.

• 6:32Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And the average salary, the mean salary was around 20 some odd dollars an hour, and it's now 33 bucks an hour. And so what that to me says is that we are going through a really sustained period where you cannot get people to do the work that needs to get done. Biden had to call the port of LA and try to get these guys to be open 24 hours a day. The President of the United States is calling a local port, trying to get it to stay open. But why can't they stay open? Because you have long Sherman, you have all these unionized folks who will expect to get certain levels of compensation, which they deserve in order to do that work 24/7. But then all of that is going to get put through the system.

• 7:14Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And if you still have millions of jobs that needs to get done in order for the economy to function, the only efficient way that that's going to get resolved is by raising salaries. And those are consistent and persistent. Those things are not just like, oh, you know what? I gave, yes, I did say 50 bucks an hour, but now I'm taking you back to 20.

• 7:31Jason Calacanis?

  You can't take that back. That's going to be, that's.

• 7:33Chamath Palihapitiya?

  So I, so I tend to, so that's one thing. And then second, so there's people, right? So labor capital, I just think it's getting more and more expensive to get folks to do work. And then there's the raw materials that you use to make anything. And everything that I see is that stuff is going bananas. And so I put these two things together and I'm like, I think this stuff is here to stay. I'm really kind of a little bit of a, you know, and I, and I had not worried and you, you can see in every episode before this, I was always consistently like, there is no inflation, you can fade the inflation trade. Now I'm kind of positioning myself to hedge myself in this situation.

• 8:11Jason Calacanis?

  All right, Friedberg, we've seen the pictures of the Long Beach and the Los Angeles ports. There's just ships out there like, I think 70 or 80 is where it peaked at in July. I don't know, have the latest data here of when it updated. But is there not a silver lining here that if people are making more money, then we're going to increase the size of the middle class and we're going to, you know, increase upward mobility? And that is a double edged sword. It's great that we increased the middle of class, but then they're going to want to buy stuff. So people are now making 35 bucks an hour and they were making 20. Now they got more disposable. Now they're going to go on Amazon and buy more stuff and it's going to accelerate this problem, is it not?

• 8:53David Friedberg?

  The challenge is the rate of change. This is what the Fed tries to manage. And you know, there's a White House Economic Advisory Committee that's involved in trying to figure out what's going to happen here. Because the current estimate is it's going to take at least a year or probably a year to work through the current logjam in the global supply chains. And during that period of time, as Chimaq points out, what's happening is the cost for goods is climbing because people have to charge more because there's limited inventory and people are bidding up the value of that inventory. As they do that, the businesses end up needing to get more labor and so they have to pay more to hire people. If they pay more to hire people, those people end up demanding more.

• 9:36David Friedberg?

  And the cycle can actually go the wrong direction where you have an inflationary spike that persists. How do you taper that inflation? It's not necessarily great for economic growth if you can't produce the stuff. And it can actually cause these runaway kind of effects in the dynamic system of supply and demand when you have these things clogging up the system for supply. So it is a real risk and it is the biggest thing that, you know, the White House, this economic task force is kind of trying to figure out right now is where's the balance lie where you can, you know, basically try and taper this inflationary effect that's being caused by this logjam in the supply chain without causing economic disruption by raising interest rates.

• 10:19David Friedberg?

  And so it's a really kind of complicated, you know, second and third derivative formula that needs to kind of be resolved. And that's why so many of these little elements are so important to get right.

• 10:27Chamath Palihapitiya?

  By the way, rates, by the way, central bankers around the world have raised rates. The only place that hasn't gone up is Europe, ECB and the United States of Federal Reserve. So, and let's be honest, you know, Europe and the United States, we absorb labor and materials from all around the world, right? We are the net importers, we are the net ultimate buyers of last resort of all of these things. And so if you're seeing inflation in those other, you know, supply-driven economies, they are going to come on shore, they're going to hit us in the face. I think prices are going up.

• 10:56David Friedberg?

  The other free market argument that could be made is that these current trends will accelerate a trend towards more automation of low-cost labor. Because it now will make sense for businesses to invest in the capital, in the CapEx, in the infrastructure, and ultimately for technology companies to build that tooling, to support that infrastructure, that will automate jobs like working in fast food, like doing local delivery, like doing factory assembly, like moving things across the country in trucks. So self-driving trucks, you know, factory automation, biomanufacturing, additive and 3D manufacturing and 3D printing.

• 11:40David Friedberg?

  These are all industries that could benefit from the fact that labor now for kind of, you know, traditionally low-income work has gotten so expensive that it starts to make sense to switch to the technology alternative, which historically may have been too expensive, but now starts to make economic sense to businesses.

• 11:55Jason Calacanis?

  This is

• 11:56David Friedberg?

  And so there's a number of these automation industries that may significantly benefit, and that ends up ultimately being deflationary and the market comes into balance. So that's another way to kind of think about the macro on what may play out here.

• 12:06David Sacks?

  There's a bigger risk here than just inflation. I mean, there's also a risk of stagnation or stagflation, because it's not just that prices are going up and workers' wages are going up, which could be a good thing, but goods and services just aren't being produced. So, I mean, I know, like my own experience, I recently ordered a Tesla. When I got a Tesla a couple of years ago, like I got it in two weeks. It was like almost instant. This time, they wanted me to wait two months. I just got an alert that it's going to take two more months beyond that. So we have no idea. And if, you know, Tesla doesn't get most of the money, I don't think, until I actually take delivery of the car, right? That's when you make final payment. So now they can't book that revenue and those earnings. And Tesla isn't even the car company that's most affected by this.

• 12:49David Sacks?

  You know, the big, you know, traditional American auto companies like Ford are even more affected. So if companies cannot deliver their products, that can cause an economic recession. And I think, like, these are major storm clouds looming on the horizon. Now, what is the cause of this? I mean, I think it's It's it's multifactorial. A lot of things that Chamath said, I just want to really highlight this port issue. There was a great tweet storm by Zach Cantor earlier in the week where he said, "The supply chain crisis is a clever rebrand. It makes it seem like there are grand exogenous forces at work rather than the unions holding ports for ransom while dozens of ships pile up,

• 13:28David Sacks?

  working just two shifts with a two-hour break in between the country at their mercy." And he goes on to elaborate on that. And that is why.

• 13:36Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Sure, but they're allowed to do that.

• 13:38David Sacks?

  But but to Chamath's point, this is why Biden felt the need to to get involved. So

• 13:45David Sacks?

  that the problem is, if you read the fine print on this story of Biden announcing that the ports of LA and Long Beach will open 24 hours, which they clearly need to to get the goods to market. If you read the like, the bottom part of the story, everyone's announcing their intention to go 24/7, but there is no date certain for when that's going to be. It's a negotiation with the unions. So Chamath, to your point, they are going to have to negotiate with the unions. You know, initially, it looked like the story was that Biden was going to use his sway, his his clout with the unions to basically push them to take a deal. But I don't think he's really done that. Everyone's just announcing their intention to negotiate. Well, you know, if the ports are holding the whole country hostage like this, that could cause a recession. I think that's gonna rebound very badly on Biden.

• 14:30David Friedberg?

  They're they're they're running. I think they're running 24/7 now, aren't they, Sax? Long Beach and LA are both running 24/7.

• 14:36David Sacks?

  Well, I just posted this article that came out. I mean, like yesterday, and it says it was published two days ago, and it said there was not a date certain for when this. Oh, it's updated October 14th, which is yesterday. And if you read the bottom of the article, it says they have not determined a date for when 24/7 operations will start. They've just merely announced their intention.

• 14:57David Friedberg?

  Oh, yeah, I'm just saying, the Biden administration says it's not really. They they announced it as if it was a done done.

• 15:03David Sacks?

  Look, unless Biden is willing to. Listen, I mean, Chamath, you're right that they're entitled to negotiate. But here's the thing. I mean, they're holding the whole country hostage now. They're holding the economy hostage. So at a certain point, if their demands are unreasonable, It's I think proper for the President of the United States to step in and say, guys, this is ridiculous. You have to go back to work. We're gonna make, you know, we're gonna help negotiate a deal here. That's what Reagan did with the air traffic controllers. The air traffic controllers union shut down the whole commercial aviation system. Reagan got involved, said you cannot shut down the economy this way. You must go back to work. Yes, exactly. So I think Biden is probably gonna have to get

• 15:40Jason Calacanis?

  Not that these longshoremen are or the ports, I guess they're not striking. They're just not doing an extra shift. But he could do an executive order.

• 15:47David Sacks?

  If they're doing two shifts, if they're doing two shifts, two hours a day, that's like withholding, that's, that's like a partial strike.

• 15:53Jason Calacanis?

  Wait, they're doing two two-hour shifts or two eight-hours? Eight-hour shifts. They can't be doing two-hour shifts. That doesn't make sense. Why would anybody go to work for two hours?

• 16:01David Sacks?

  Read what Zach Hanner posted. He said that they're working just two shifts with a two-hour break in between.

• 16:06Jason Calacanis?

  Okay, but those might be two eight-hour shifts with a two-hour break in between is how I read that.

• 16:09David Sacks?

  No, no, no. He says, read the, the tweet here. He says, before any changes this coming week, the longshore routine at the ports involve two shifts, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. to 3:00 a.m. An overnight shift of five hours is available, but is up to 50% more expensive and rarely used. So basically, you're talking about, yeah, it's an 8:00 to 4:00 p.m. shift with a two-hour break or 6:00 p.m. to 3:00 a.m. So basically, yes, so it is for that six hour, that's two six-hour shifts.

• 16:38Jason Calacanis?

  They should be running it like, you know, Elon runs the Tesla factories when they're building, which is 24 hours a day, overlapping shifts. Just get it done. It has to be a sense of urgency here.

• 16:47David Sacks?

  They're gonna have to pay him some reasonable overtime, but they can't, the, the unions can't hold the whole country hostage. And look, if Biden, unless Biden steps in to solve this, we will have a recession. So it will rebound very bad.

• 16:57Jason Calacanis?

  This could be a recession.

• 16:59David Sacks?

  I, I think it's bigger than just the ports. I don't think reopening the ports is, is the entirety of it. I think there's a lot of other things going on. I mean, Jake, out to a point you've made, we had four million people drop out of the labor force last month. I mean, that was unbelievable. So yeah, the unemployment rate looks great, but the number of people actually going to work is significantly lower. I mean, that was a huge shock to all the economists, seeing that many people drop out. There's still too many people who essentially are being paid not to work in one form or another, and that is hurting the economy. You also have this issue in, in China, which is very interesting. This was, I think, covered in the New York Times about how dependent Chinese factories are on coal.

• 17:39David Sacks?

  And which, you know, is a bad thing. Obviously, that's not a clean energy source, but because of restrictions on coal. It's actually started to impact manufacturing over there. We can debate whether that's a good thing or bad thing. But it's contributing to the effect. Um, I suspect that China has woken up to this and they will, they're not going to shut down their economy because of concerns about clean energy. So I assume this is a very temporary decision. Um, and then of course you have the whole issue of COVID restrictions. I mean, there were a lot of international COVID restrictions. It wasn't just in the US that where they were shutting down factories or creating, you know, a lot of rules that got in the way of keeping factories open. Um, they were doing this internationally and there's a lot of regulations around seafaring as well because of COVID restrictions.

• 18:22David Sacks?

  So you have this pileup, I would say of, of regulations ultimately. I'd say with COVID as the origin that have now caused this, um, supply chain crisis. And unless it gets fixed, it could absolutely cause a 1970s style stagflation type recession next year.

• 18:40Jason Calacanis?

  Trabat, do you buy that? Do you think we could have a, this combination of people refusing to go to work or just opting out and saying like, yeah, it's even if you pay me 35 or 40, I'm just not interested. I have enough NFTs and I don't want to go back to work.

• 18:53Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I, I actually think that's exactly what it is. There was this really interesting, um, tweet that I saw on Twitter. Hopefully Nick, you can find it, but it was some kid that basically said, you know, I'm growing up in Atlanta and there's a bunch of kids that I used to run with. Um, you know, who would otherwise be in the streets, right? Causing all kinds of trouble. And these kids are now at home like specking NFTs and like, you know, posting on Tik Tok or whatever. It's just a completely different reimagination of like labor and time spent. And, and that's just a very small example. And so that maybe touches retail or maybe touches, you know, quick service restaurants. But there's all these different things where now that at the end of this pandemic, people are making very different decisions about their time

• 19:38Chamath Palihapitiya?

  and how to spend their money. And again, I'll tell you again, there is a lot of people, you gotta remember how many people in the United States have died or are dealing now with some reasonably important health issues at the back end of coronavirus. Half a million people, a million people? I want you to keep in mind what I told you guys before, there is seventy, seven zero trillion dollars that has to get transferred down from all these baby boomers down to these people in their twenties, thirties and forties. And don't think for a second that they're not making different optimization decisions around perceived wealth. So I just think inflation is here. I think the labor shortage is going to get worse, not better. I think we're gonna have to pay people more to get out

• 20:21Chamath Palihapitiya?

  of it. I think prices are going up, input costs are going up, energy costs are going up.

• 20:28Chamath Palihapitiya?

  So this is it. And I mean, I think, I think that probably the Fed and the ECB are really raising this time next year, they're probably in a really, really tighter posture.

• 20:40Jason Calacanis?

  What do you think, Friedberg?

• 20:42David Friedberg?

  We should also remember that there are gonna be some responses from

• 20:46Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Sorry, Friedberg, glassing tech stocks in the fucking toilet.

• 20:51Jason Calacanis?

  Why?

• 20:51David Friedberg?

  Because no bueno for multiples?

• 20:53Chamath Palihapitiya?

  No bueno, no bueno for no cash flow growth stocks.

• 20:56David Friedberg?

  Yeah, in rising rates, everyone's gonna start buying yield when

• 21:00Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Yucky poops. Nobody wants it. Yucky poops.

• 21:02Jason Calacanis?

  Wait, let's explain this to the audience. Why Friedberg? Why, why are you agreeing with your mom?

• 21:06David Friedberg?

  I mean, once interest rates go up, you'll see that dividend yields will go up, which means stock prices go down because people will expect a higher return. Because if I can buy treasury bonds and make a few points of return on my money, and I'm gonna have to buy a stock, I'm gonna wanna, I'm gonna demand a few more points of dividend yield on that stock. And so, so, so the price technique, you know, the, the price for stocks will typically go down to match the yield that you're gonna get from these more risk free investments.

• 21:32Chamath Palihapitiya?

  No, no, to be more precise, a stock is either

• 21:37Chamath Palihapitiya?

  a promissory note about cash today, or effectively a promissory note about cash in the future. Thing with tech stocks is we tell everybody the same thing. Your money's gonna come thirty years from now because we're gonna be a monopoly by then. And every dollar that I have today, I'm going to reinvest into R and D and engineering. And in a, in an environment where interest rates are zero, you're happy to do it because you're like, well, great. These guys are investing at way better rates than zero, which is what I get from, you know, my bank. And so I want Facebook and Google and Amazon and all these startups to be putting all this money in the ground on my behalf. But when interest rates start going up, they say, no, hold on a second. I need more money upfront. Less money in the future because the future becomes more uncertain.

• 22:20Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And that's the big trade off for tech companies where they get really pummeled.

• 22:24Jason Calacanis?

  Okay. Well, is there a number in terms of the interest rate?

• 22:26David Friedberg?

  There's a class of tech companies, right? Like Amazon, sorry, like Microsoft, Oracle, Google, where you are actually seeing an apple, you're getting dividends and you're getting share buybacks, where the cash is coming out of the business and those are the mature businesses that also still happen to have growth attached to them. And I don't see how portfolios are going to shed those assets. Um, you're going to shed the more speculative, hey, you know, we're not yet at a point of maturity. We're still 20, 30 years out. Whatever. Yeah. The, the guys that are investing and there's no kind of line of sight to true cash flow coming back to the shareholders. But look, at the end of the day, the point I was trying to make earlier was that, um, there, there is going to be a response, right? So we've seen, remember when the pandemic kind of set in and everyone started ordering from home?

• 23:10David Friedberg?

  Amazon rushed out and hired a hundred thousand local delivery drivers. They bought all these trucks and they built their own supply chain infrastructure for last mile delivery to get products to people's homes. And we're now seeing on the other side, Walmart, Home Depot, Target and other big retailers integrating their supply chain to get product into stores. And so they're starting to buy trucks, hire people, pay them significant, you know, wages to be drivers on staff for them. Rather than contracting to these third parties that are saying, oh, we don't have any inventory. We don't have any trucks. We don't have any drivers. We can't do anything for you now. And so the response is, think about it, you're a product company, you're Tesla. Tesla just went out and did this massive deal, um, in Caledonia to source, you know, some mineral that they need to make batteries or to make their, uh, their, their cars. I can't remember exactly what it was.

• 23:55Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Nickel.

• 23:55David Friedberg?

  But you're, you're increasingly going to see the businesses that have a balance sheet, step up and actually start to integrate their supply chains rather than have this. More resilient, this disparate set of service providers, each of which is only kind of, is all typically operating at max capacity, and then they can't kind of respond to these sorts of jolts to the system. And so we're going to see a lot of investment, I think, by businesses that make product or deliver product to the consumer, as they try and integrate the supply chain problem themselves. And that may take some of the strain off the system and some of this inflationary risk out of the equation. We'll see over the next couple of quarters. But certainly in this last earnings report, I saw some statistic, a very large percentage of earnings reports spoke directly about supply chain disruption affecting the forecast for the business, the ability for the business to meet their

• 24:39David Friedberg?

  forecast goals. And that's just hurting everyone.

• 24:41Jason Calacanis?

  Okay, so throwing to Sacks.

• 24:43David Friedberg?

  So they're going to have to do something about it if they're resourced to do it, right?

• 24:46Jason Calacanis?

  All right. So Sacks, though, there are some silver linings here. Companies become more resilient, they become more automated, they build a full stack, they build their own factories. We're seeing, you know, the Taiwanese semiconductor company is doing a $7 billion project to build a new factory in Japan, funded by the Japanese government. So we're seeing a lot of redundancy, and we're also seeing the middle class grow. If people are making 35 bucks an hour, 40 bucks an hour, and they're getting healthcare and they're starting to have overtime and other concessions being made, that builds the middle class. It sounds like we're solving some problems as well as, you know, dealing with this, I guess what you call indigestion.

• 25:28Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Absolutely. Inflation is a good thing. I know people think it's like a really bad, terrible thing. There are certain kinds of inflation that are really productive. We have had to find a way to fight the bad parts of technology. Technology is great, nine out of 10 things, it's amazing. Efficiency, you know, all these great characteristics that it gives you. But one crappy externality of technology is that it's deflationary. You can do more with less. And that's fundamentally not great for earnings. It's not great for labor participation. It's not great for all these things that people, you know, are really upset about today. So.

• 26:04Jason Calacanis?

  It's great for the individual company getting those gains.

• 26:07Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I actually think it's kind of like, it actually balances out the natural pace of technology, which is like, you have the natural ability to just actually have cheaper, faster, better, this inherent efficiency that's building up on one side of the ledger. But then what's great is on the other side of the ledger, you actually have, you know, labor being able to balance it out. And I think that that's a really good thing because they can demand more to do the rest of the work that's not covered by tech.

• 26:31Jason Calacanis?

  So Sacks, what are your thoughts about this expanding middle class? Isn't it a great thing that, you know, people are saying, I'll stay home instead of making 12 bucks an hour. It's an unfair wage. It's not a livable wage. And then all of these companies are saying, you know what? Okay. They folded so quick, the big companies, they went to 18 to $35 an hour instantly. They always had the money to pay more. They just didn't need to.

• 26:54David Sacks?

  Increasing wages in real terms is a good thing. I think you have to ask why the wages are going up. Is it going up because of increased productivity, which is a good thing? Or is it going up because of inflation? If it's going up in, if it's going up because of inflation, then the wage gains are somewhat illusory because all the products that consumers want to buy are also going up in price. All we've done is sort of is devalue the dollar. So we have to, we don't know yet whether these, what we do know that inflation is actually very high. We don't know exactly if these wage gains are permanent or just a function of that. But let's go back to this inflation point for a second. I think this is actually really important. We're at something like a 5.1% inflation rate. It's just about the highest

• 27:36David Sacks?

  since the late 70s, early 80s. Now we have this threat of a supply chain crisis. This is, you know, this is potentially

• 27:43Jason Calacanis?

  No, we have a supply chain crisis.

• 27:45David Sacks?

  Yeah, exactly.

• 27:46Jason Calacanis?

  I mean, if people can't sell cars.

• 27:48David Sacks?

  Right. This is a recipe for stagflation 2.0. Now, the, now I think there's an assumption that if inflation persists, the Fed will simply just fight it. They'll increase interest rates somewhat and they'll control it. But I actually think that the degrees of, of action that the Fed can take here might be more constrained than people think. I just want to flag. So one of the primary sources I use for the, the national debt is this website, fred.stlewesfed.org. It's a good website that has a lot of charts by a branch of the, of the Fed. So they have this chart, we've seen that Federal debt as a percentage of GDP is at sort of all time peacetime highs. You know, we're now, we were at 100% for a few years and now because of COVID, we just rocketed

• 28:33David Sacks?

  up over 120%, we're close to 140%. Now, the argument by mostly liberal economists that the debt didn't matter was because the debt service remained very low on this debt. So we had a huge increase in debt, but because interest rates were so low, the debt service was still very, very small. And I think, you know, they have a good piece on this website about this as well that I'll just post here in the notes. But I think, I don't know if you guys remember back to a pod we did in May where we talked about Stanley Druckenmiller came out swinging against the Fed and he warned about this very situation. I just want to like, I want to just read this, this article that we covered back, I think in May, it feels like an eternity ago.

• 29:17David Sacks?

  But do you remember when we just talked about this? What Druckenmiller warned is that if yields on the 10-year Treasury rise to the projected level of 4.9%, which is simply the historical average, the government spending would be close to 30% of GDP each year, simply paying back interest expense compared to 2% last year, unless it monetizes the debt, which experts think is unlikely and Druckenmiller believes would have horrible implications for US dollar. So in other words, we now have this enormous debt. The only reason why debt service payments aren't crowding out the entire federal budget is because we've had interest rates at historically abnormal lows, zeros basically.

• 29:52Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah.

• 29:53David Sacks?

  So how exactly is the Fed going to fight inflation? If they jack up interest rates to where they should be, say 4.9%, then the entire federal budget will be going to debt service.

• 30:03Jason Calacanis?

  They're actually working against themselves, right? It's, it's like you're the bank and taking the loan at the same time. This is like somebody who gets a variable interest mortgage and they get five, 10 years into their mortgage and then all of a sudden they go from interest only and some low interest rate and then they have to pay market rate and they realize they can't afford the home. We might not be able to afford the budget we're putting out there is what you're saying, Sax.

• 30:23David Sacks?

  Well, I'm, I'm saying the Fed may not have the tools, all the tools they want to fight inflation if it comes back, or I mean, it's going to be politically very unpopular. I mean, can you imagine the pressure the Fed will be under not to raise rates if it means that all of these discretionary programs basically have to be cut, that we have an austerity mode in the federal budget? How are we going to pay for all this debt service?

• 30:42Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah. And then the first thing they're gonna think about is, hey, maybe we should cut military spending since it's the largest at the time when China is doing sorties in and around Taiwan and the South China Sea. And we've got, you know, six, you know, navies doing coordinated sailing there, which I think is a adjacent issue here.

• 31:03David Sacks?

  Historically, historically, great powers that want to remain great don't owe over 100% of their economy, especially, you know, when a lot of it's held by foreign powers. I mean, that is a situation that makes us fragile, not anti-fragile, right? Because if we hit a crisis, if there is, you know, some unforeseen military conflict, what glass do we break now in case of emergency? We've already spent, we're already at, we're in peacetime and we have wartime levels of debt. And now inflation is making a return and the Fed is gonna have to make some really tough choices about whether to control inflation and essentially impose austerity on the, on government spending, or whether they monetize the debt, which will lead to a runaway depreciation of the dollar. Neither one of those things is a good situation.

• 31:49Jason Calacanis?

  How would the Fed impose austerity?

• 31:51David Sacks?

  Well, they can't, but, but again, if debt service rises to 30% of the federal budget, where's that money gonna come from?

• 31:58Jason Calacanis?

  You have to raise taxes and cut spending. You have to do both.

• 32:01David Sacks?

  Which is why, and I think this is Joe Manchin's point. You know, if you've been listening to Joe Manchin talk about the current reconciliation bill, and he says, look, 3.5 trillion doesn't make sense. We don't know what situation we're gonna confront in the, in the future. We don't know what crises are coming. We're gonna reduce our ability to tackle all those future problems by overspending right now. That's been Joe Manchin's argument. And looking at this risk of stagflation in the forms of the supply chain shortage and this 5.1% interest rate number, you'd have to say that if we want to preserve any flexibility next year to raise interest rates, you better be really careful about how much debt you incur now.

• 32:38Jason Calacanis?

  Jamal, agree?

• 32:39Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Yeah, look, when Druck said that the 10-year breakeven was sort of, you know, at a five-year high at the time.

• 32:49Chamath Palihapitiya?

  We're back there now.

• 32:52Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Look, I'm just gonna, I said this on CNBC, I'll just say it again. I think it's coming. I don't think it's a short-term blip. And I think that we are in a period that will resemble the late 70s.

• 33:09Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And I think that, you know, you kind of want to be risk-off and not own risk assets. And by the way, it is hard, okay? Because like, we are all, all of us, all four of us, both risk, all, we're both risk-on. And all we own are risk assets that are, you know, it's one thing to say, "Let's take risk," but you could take risk in like, lower of all things. This is, this is like, taking risk in the most risky thing. That's what we all do.

• 33:37Jason Calacanis?

  And at a time when people have run up the valuations of private market companies to a level that just nobody can understand.

• 33:43Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I mean, look, I think you got a year to 18 months to kind of clean this stuff up, meaning like, as market participants, we can, you know, we can shuck and jive and get everything into a decent place, but it's coming. And I hope I'm wrong, but I think we'll look back on this and we'll say, we said it probably eight to 12 months before it really reared its ugly head, but it's coming.

• 34:04Jason Calacanis?

  Friedberg, any thoughts on what's happening in Taiwan and what, you know, even a modest conflict there would do to markets? Given how, to Sax's point, this is the opposite of anti-fragile. We are in like, full fragility here. I mean, this is like, you know, a tray full of champagne glasses on a boat in rough seas. At any point, we could trip and everything comes crashing down. Does it feel like that to you, Friedberg? Or do you feel like we're going to be able to navigate this?

• 34:33David Friedberg?

  I mean, I don't know about Taiwan, but I think we're just gonna keep inflating our way out of this mess.

• 34:39David Friedberg?

  Remember, like, that's what we did last year. And it's what we'll do again this year. The biggest losers in that equation are the middle class. Because, you know, the middle class actually owns assets that are now going to be worth less.

• 34:59David Friedberg?

  Folks who are not in the middle class, that are below the middle class, don't own assets, so it doesn't really affect them, they just make higher wages. But stuff costs more, so they'll be fine. And then, you know, wealthy individuals will end up getting taxed away to fund some of this. And I think that's the inevitable kind of way that the equation balances.

• 35:17David Sacks?

  Right. And I mean, think about how much tax rates are about to go up right now in this reconciliation bill. We haven't even gotten to like any of these crises. By the way, we don't know for sure if they're gonna happen. I think we could describe these things as storm clouds right now that are very much on the horizon.

• 35:31Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Multiple storm clouds, right? It's sort of like they're converging.

• 35:35David Sacks?

  Right. And if they do materialize in the way that we're talking about, what weapons do we have left in order to fight them? What weapons of fiscal policy? What weapons of monetary policy? We're already gonna have taxes at an all-time high.

• 35:45Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Yeah.

• 35:46David Sacks?

  Yeah, well, we're gonna have taxes.

• 35:47Chamath Palihapitiya?

  We're gonna print money. No, we're gonna print money and we're gonna pay ourselves. We're gonna go to the central bank. It's what you said, we're gonna monetize our debt.

• 35:54David Friedberg?

  And taxes will go up.

• 35:55Chamath Palihapitiya?

  That is a disaster.

• 35:56David Friedberg?

  Remember, the top marginal tax rate was what, 70, 80% in the 60s and 70s? I mean, you know, that's likely where we're gonna go back to.

• 36:05David Sacks?

  Well, I think we're already gonna be back there as a result of the reconciliation.

• 36:09David Friedberg?

  The spending we've already done, yeah.

• 36:11David Sacks?

  Right. So we've already, we've already broken the glass in case of emergency. We've already done.

• 36:15David Friedberg?

  You're gonna, you're gonna see some of these wealth taxes get chased down. You're gonna see the top marginal tax rate go up 70, 80%. You know, I mean, I think that's the way the equation balances. It's not like the world's gonna end. We're gonna solve it by taking assets away from some and we're gonna inflate all assets.

• 36:28David Sacks?

  That sounds pretty bad.

• 36:30David Friedberg?

  Yeah.

• 36:32Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, I mean, seventy, if you

• 36:33David Friedberg?

  By the way, it's not going to affect most people.

• 36:35Jason Calacanis?

  Who's going to work and taking the risk?

• 36:37David Sacks?

  Friedberg, it will affect most people. It will affect most people, even though they don't think it will, because it's going to affect the quality of our economy.

• 36:44David Friedberg?

  I'm just trying to predict what's going to happen, Sax. I'm not saying this is the solution to our problem. I mean, I think the solution to our problem is technology, but you know, the question is, does that come to market fast enough?

• 36:52Jason Calacanis?

  Say, say more about that.

• 36:54David Friedberg?

  I, I feel like we need a deflationary set of technologies that can like mitigate all of these effects, right? So software, automation, self-driving trucks, things that take the labor force. Because people don't want to work low-income jobs factually. And you know, now that there's a world, now that there's, in America, now that there's a world where people don't have, where people have other options, because other jobs have been created because we pump so much money into these other industries. We're seeing people migrate away from low-income jobs, like driving a truck for $10 an hour, or working at McDonald's for $8 an hour. And so to fill that gap and avoid the economic collapse that will occur in those sectors of the economy, you need to automate and you need to find solutions that can replace the labor

• 37:36David Friedberg?

  with some alternative technology solution that actually allows the product to be fulfilled to the consumers that demand it. Um, or you're going to see rates go up, like you're going to be paying $12 for a hamburger because you're going to have to pay everyone $25 for working at McDonald's.

• 37:48Jason Calacanis?

  Would, would an easy or Chamath or Sax, either you can take it. I'm sure you're both going to have opinions here, but um, we've been battling over immigration and, and nobody even seems to understand how many people are coming into the country or under what system. Should we not tie the number of jobs available, you know, over the trailing X number of months, years, quarters, to how many people we're bringing to the country? And couldn't we solve this by allowing five million people, a million people, whatever it is, per year, a half million people in to take those low-income jobs and utilize that uh, group of people to, you know, get businesses back on track?

• 38:21Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I think it's too convenient to say that these are all low-income jobs. I don't think that's necessarily true. Um, and I think that it, it then starts to introduce a whole bunch of other constraints to the system. These are folks that then need healthcare. These are folks that need childcare. These are folks that need, you know, that they are also um, a tax on resources as well, right? We are all taxed on the natural resources and the infrastructure of our country. And so, you know, it, I don't think that that's the solution necessarily to that specific problem.

• 38:50Jason Calacanis?

  But what if the jobs that were, the people who are coming in?

• 38:54Chamath Palihapitiya?

  We have enough people here to do the work.

• 38:56Jason Calacanis?

  But they won't do it.

• 38:57Chamath Palihapitiya?

  What we don't have is a market clearing price for that work to get done. And so what I'm just trying to say is, I think that the simpler and more obvious solution is to raise salaries until you get people to fill these jobs. And I think that it's happening. And so I do think that over the next year, or two, or three, you're going to see, you know, labor rates basically go back up and employment rates go back down, and salaries go back up, and inflation go back up. All of these things are going to happen together. That's the solution. I think immigration is a solution to a completely different problem.

• 39:30Jason Calacanis?

  Which is?

• 39:31Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Which is that we're not competitive. Like, I've, I really-

• 39:35Jason Calacanis?

  So you're talking about bringing in elite, highly educated, technical people?

• 39:38Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Look, I really think that running a country should really be like running a sports team. You know, and-

• 39:44Jason Calacanis?

  Recruit the best talent.

• 39:45Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And you should really be recruiting the best talent. You should be looking at game film. You should be coming up with plays. You should be running and testing those plays. You know, you should have different plays that you run in the first quarter versus the fourth quarter, different plays when you're on the goal line.

• 39:59Jason Calacanis?

  Sure.

• 39:59Chamath Palihapitiya?

  You know, and, and I think that like, when you look at professional sports, one thing is that they don't see color, gender, sexual orientation. They see ability to be performant.

• 40:09Jason Calacanis?

  Statistics.

• 40:09Chamath Palihapitiya?

  At a task, and statistical excellence.

• 40:12Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah.

• 40:12Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And then they go seek statistical excellence. And, and, and if you translate that to a country, my simple rubric on immigration is every year, there's a draft, and America is the free place every free agent wants to go.

• 40:27Jason Calacanis?

  We're the Yankees, yeah, we're the Warriors, yeah.

• 40:29Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I fuck the Yankees.

• 40:30Jason Calacanis?

  We're like the Warriors.

• 40:32Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Yankees are trash. Jesus Christ.

• 40:34Jason Calacanis?

  I'm just going with who historically has won the most-

• 40:37Chamath Palihapitiya?

  We're the New England Patriots.

• 40:38Jason Calacanis?

  Okay.

• 40:39Chamath Palihapitiya?

  We're the Chicago Bulls. We're the, you know, we, we are the team that everybody would want to play for. It's up to us to have a good GM, and a good president of the team, and a good front office that just picks off all these smart geniuses.

• 40:52Jason Calacanis?

  This should be, I think your great point here, Chamath, is you're saying, let's take the emotion out of this immigration, and let's make it a point-based system, which, by the way, the point-based system is what Australia, New Zealand, the UK, Canada, all do. And Americans don't even know what the point-based system is. Sax, what are your views, as somebody who, I've heard-

• 41:11Jason Calacanis?

  Leans a little bit to the right on opening up immigration or maybe sweeping all this amazing talent globally who have the highest statistics go.

• 41:20David Sacks?

  I like Chamath sports team analogy. We want to get the biggest stars from all over the world to come to the US. I mean, I think that makes sense. I think, you know, this so-called immigration issue gets so confused with so many different things. I mean, first of all, there's immigration and then there's border security, right? And immigration are just having a border period. And so many people think that if you're pro-immigration, you basically can't have a border. I mean, that makes no sense. You know, we need to have a border and we need to have actual, like have an actual immigration policy. It shouldn't just get be like, okay, you make it across. I like, I like what you're saying.

• 41:58Jason Calacanis?

  Or if you're a guy, Ron DeSantis becomes president, what should his, what will you tell Ron?

• 42:02David Sacks?

  I like, I like what you're saying with, I like what you're saying with the point system, having it be skills-based. I mean, that makes sense, right?

• 42:07Jason Calacanis?

  Would the Republicans do that? They've been so emotionally tied to this issue because of Trump. Can they actually, you know, tie themselves to something performance-based and be not emotional about it? Can they change their position?

• 42:21David Sacks?

  I think Trump actually did endorse like a more skills-based immigration system. I think that, and I don't know that Republicans are the ones being emotional about it. I mean, the people who are here.

• 42:30Jason Calacanis?

  Both sides are clearly super emotional about it.

• 42:32David Sacks?

  The side that I think is like insane are the people who don't think we need a border. I mean, you clearly have to have a border. Yes. And even Obama came out recently and made a statement that you have to have a border because the, the, the progressive left had gone so far. It's almost like they wanted to be, whatever Trump was doing, they want to do the opposite of, you know, it's like pull the 180. And so it's almost like the Biden administration policy became to stop doing whatever it was that Trump was doing, including finishing the wall. I don't, I don't really understand why that was like such a problem.

• 43:04Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, building a wall also seemed like ridiculous. We could just put up sensors.

• 43:07David Sacks?

  It's just one piece. It's just one piece of the solution, but to stop it amid construction.

• 43:11Jason Calacanis?

  Let me ask you a question. It broke this week that you're hosting a fundraiser for Ron DeSantis. You got a little bit of blowback from that. From the woke, you know, and the San Francisco crowd. But in terms of your influence with somebody like that, do you think you can actually influence them to get Ron DeSantis to listen to this episode and maybe talk about the point-based system and change the framing of that? Do you think you have enough influence to do that?

• 43:35David Sacks?

  I don't know. I mean, I don't know exactly what his position on immigration is. That's not that. That's not like the set of issues that's that I respect him for. I mean, the reason why I wanted to support DeSantis is that he was the first governor to end these insane lockdowns. And I mean, this is back in, it should have been obvious to everybody by May of 2020, that the lockdowns didn't work. And he was the first one to to roll them back. And and Florida did very well, especially considering that they have so many old people in Florida. So, you know, on the whole, not would I have done everything exactly the way he did it. No, you know,

• 44:08Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Nobody did it perfect. But is he is he a Trump supporter and a Trump acolyte? Or is he distancing himself from Trump?

• 44:17David Sacks?

  I think, honestly, I think that like, point of view is coming from the point of view of somebody who's not in the Republican Party, doesn't have to deal with the dynamics of winning support in the Republican Party.

• 44:27Chamath Palihapitiya?

  No, no, that's what I'm saying. Yeah. So you you have to basically toe the line with Trump to get the nomination.

• 44:32David Sacks?

  I don't I don't see this toeing the line. I just think, look, I think he's his own person. He's the governor of Florida. He's setting policy over there. He can be supported or not based on what he's doing in Florida. I think like, Trump is the issue that everybody on the other side will want to talk about. But I don't think it's relevant to what he's doing.

• 44:51Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Isn't there a civil war inside of the Republican Party over this? And should we support Trump with January 6 and all this stuff?

• 44:58David Sacks?

  I wouldn't say it's a civil war, but there definitely is some some conflict. And yeah, I mean,

• 45:03Chamath Palihapitiya?

  How does it resolve?

• 45:05David Sacks?

  I hope it resolves in, look, I think elections are always about the future. I don't think people want to relitigate the past. And I think that and I think that the Republican Party would be wise, I think, to find a candidate of the future and not try to rehash or relitigate the past. Another good reason for me to support DeSantis. I think he is a future looking, future oriented candidate. I do think that, look, I'll say it, the stuff I hear Trump doing now in these speeches where he's relitigating what happened last year, and attacking other Republicans like McConnell, because he doesn't, because they failed his personal loyalty test. It's a little bit like what he did frankly in Georgia with the runoffs where he sowed so

• 45:50David Sacks?

  much chaos that the Republicans lost a seat, the Purdue seat that they had won on election night and then they had that runoff. And you have to say that a huge part of the reason for that was the was Trump attacking Raffel's Burger and and all the the Georgia GOP because he thought they were insufficiently loyal to him. And then, you know, you had the whole the tape come out of can you just find 11,000 votes? I mean, I think voters in Georgia punished the Republican Party for that by by giving that seat to the Democrats. That is the that that margin created the Democratic majority, which will now give us probably an incremental four to six trillion of spending and tax increases that we wouldn't otherwise have had. So I do think these elections are very important and it would behoove the Republicans.

• 46:35David Sacks?

  Look, I'm not I'm not like one of these never Trumper people who I'm just obsessed with Trump, period. I just think the Republicans need to run a future looking candidate, not a backwards looking candidate in 2024. And I think DeSantis could be that guy. It's very, very early to say. I mean, the first thing he has to do is run for governor for reelection in which I think is next year is 2022. So I will support him for that.

• 46:59Chamath Palihapitiya?

  All right. Did you guys anybody read the Ted Sarandos memo?

• 47:03Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, this is great. They should definitely jump into this. We talked about the Chappelle performance, Sacks and Free Bird. You haven't seen it. Did you watch it?

• 47:10Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Did you watch it?

• 47:12Jason Calacanis?

  Oh, God, what nerd.

• 47:13Chamath Palihapitiya?

  You haven't watched it yet?

• 47:14Jason Calacanis?

  Oh, my God. You guys are culturally bankrupt.

• 47:17Chamath Palihapitiya?

  What were you guys doing this week? Like fucking beakers and like, you know, Sacks, you were just like.

• 47:22Jason Calacanis?

  Were you like in like some laboratory doing like Sacks?

• 47:24Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Yeah, they're beakers. They were doing their.

• 47:26David Sacks?

  I haven't watched it yet, but I don't need to watch it to know I support it.

• 47:30Jason Calacanis?

  Freedom. He's just, yeah, he doesn't have to click on the link. All right.

• 47:34David Sacks?

  So there's almost nothing Chappelle could say to make me want to cancel him. I mean, and by the way, I've seen a lot of Chappelle Chappelle and I love Chappelle. So I think I understand the gist of what he was doing, but I do need to see it still. But look, he should not be canceled. It's ridiculous. I don't think he is. He's gonna survive. Of course.

• 47:54Jason Calacanis?

  Well, this goes beyond this. Let me read you from it. So everybody knows that the name of the special he did was The Closer. It was released on October 5th. A lot of outcry from GLAD and advocacy groups and actually people inside of Netflix. There's been some resignations. There have been some people who contribute content to Netflix who are now saying they'll not work with the company. And it's really interesting. Ted Sarandos sent a memo to the entire company on Monday and he's, this is the second one he sent. And he says, "We know that a number of you have been left angry, disappointed and hurt by our decision to put Dave Chappelle's latest special on Netflix." Very interesting opening. He's, he's addressing their feelings. Just, this is a masterclass in a memo.

• 48:39Jason Calacanis?

  Cause in that first part, he just addresses, "I understand you feel that way." "With The Closer, we understand that the concern is not about offensive to some content, but titles which could increase real world harm." So now he's framing their argument as, "It's not because it's offensive, it's because of real world harm." You brought this up before, Sax, the real world harm concept with Apple and Antonio. "While some employees disagree, we have a strong belief that content on screen does not directly translate to real world harm." It's not exactly true. We'll get into that. "The strongest evidence to support this is that violence on screens has grown hugely over the last 30 years, especially with first party shooter games. And yet violent crime has fallen significantly in many countries."

• 49:22Jason Calacanis?

  And so he goes above and beyond, just talking about offensive material. "Adults can watch violence, assault and abuse, or enjoy shocking stand-up comedy without it causing them to harm others." "Stand-up comedians often expose issues that are uncomfortable because the art by nature is highly provocative." "As a leadership team, we do not believe that The Closer is intended to incite hatred or violence against anyone for our sensitive content guidelines." So basically, he says, You know, if you don't like it, change the channel. If you're a customer, you can cancel your subscription. Or if you work here and you don't like it, you don't need to work here. But is this the end of cancel culture? This combined with Brian Armstrong's positioning? Sax, this is your-

• 50:03David Sacks?

  I don't, I don't think it's the end of it, uh, for the simple reason, um, let's assume that this comic had not signed $60 million deal with, with Netflix. Let's say he had signed a $60,000 deal. Okay.

• 50:14Jason Calacanis?

  Or 6 million, yeah.

• 50:15David Sacks?

  Or 6 million or whatever. And, uh, and, and he didn't have the legions of fans that, that Dave Chappelle had. Do you think that Sarandos would be making the same decision? I mean, I think that special by, you know, by a, a Netflix comedy by Dave Smith would be swept under the rug right now. That would never see the light of day. Uh, I think the same thing was true with Joe Rogan and Spotify, right? I mean, Spotify made a $60 million deal with Rogan.

• 50:41Jason Calacanis?

  A hundred million.

• 50:42David Sacks?

  Oh, a hundred million. The employees all protested and Spotify stood tall for Rogan, but they had every economic incentive to do so. I don't completely trust these companies that if it wasn't massively in their bottom line interest, that they would have stood up for free speech. I suspect that if it was-

• 50:58Jason Calacanis?

  No, no, they would not have.

• 50:59David Sacks?

  They would not have. I think we all kind of know that.

• 51:02Chamath Palihapitiya?

  He said in the email, Sticks and Stones is one of the most watched, you know, piece of content we have. And this, the closer was like top four or five in America, uh, over like the last few weeks. So there's a huge economic incentive and, and Reed Hastings said the same thing when he posted the other co-CEO into a group forum, which said, listen, our job is to please our customers. And all this data says is that we've pleased our customer.

• 51:29David Sacks?

  Right. And I think in the case of-

• 51:30Jason Calacanis?

  That was, that is pretty-

• 51:32David Sacks?

  Right. And, and, and I think-

• 51:34Jason Calacanis?

  To me, that's him putting his foot down and saying, we're going to make the content we want to make.

• 51:37David Sacks?

  I don't, I don't, I don't think it's a principle. I don't think it's a super, look, I don't want to, I don't want to look past it because I think that it's so rare to get a memo like, uh, Sarandos wrote, uh, where he's defending artistic freedom or freedom of speech or what have you. I mean, it's so rare to ever see that, that I don't want to, um, gainsay it too much. But I also do believe that this sort of special treatment is- Really reserved for the for the artists, the creators like a Chappelle, like a Rogan. They're basically too big to cancel. I mean, these companies have spent too much money on their programs to just summarily cancel them. They also, again, like I said, have legions of fans who would rise up and protest if they were canceled. But I don't think, but I don't think these companies would make the same decision

• 52:21David Sacks?

  for the the middle, the mid-level creator. And in a sense, Rogan and Chappelle, they're post-economic, right? I mean, they've made so much money that they're free to do what they want, and they've got a big enough audience to protect themselves from these companies. But it's the little creator who's still on their way up, who could never take the kinds of creative risks that Chappelle is taking or that Rogan is taking.

• 52:41Jason Calacanis?

  Well, they can take it. They just can't do it on Netflix. But I, I, the, the tone of this, to me, sound, sounded like a manifesto and a, a the end of the discussion from dad, like, we're doing this. If you don't like it, get off the ship. But this is the way the ship is going. That's the way I read it. And I think Spotify did a similar thing with um, Joe Rogan, to your point, which was, hey, listen, there are some content out there from like Alex Jones or some people who are just conspiracy theorists. They took down those episodes, and Joe Rogan was like, I don't care. I got paid. Um, but yeah, it does feel to me like this is a tipping point when you put Brian Armstrong, Joe Rogan, and Chappelle together, that corporations are going to say, you know what? The mob is fine. You can have your opinion, but your opinion stops where we have to run a business. Friedberg, what are your thoughts?

• 53:27David Friedberg?

  I, I think, I think Netflix has a appreciation for artistry, certainly evident by the money they've spent and the product they've put out. And I think good artists and good artistry is, um, uh, you know, can be provocative. It's designed to make you change your opinion, look at things differently, think about things differently, and be challenged in the norms of, you know, your everyday life. And I think that's, um, that's important in art, in all forms. Um, and that means seeing and being exposed to and, um, being engaged by things that you don't normally get exposed to and engaged by. And I think that's what Chappelle is fantastic at. And I think that's what other great art is great at. And, um,

• 54:10David Friedberg?

  and I think that as long as Netflix maintains that ethos, that artistry does that. And the good thing is, people appreciate it. And they, uh, they appreciate that, that form. And they appreciate being challenged in that way. And I think that as a result, the market will, as Reed Hastings identified, continue to demand it. And as much as some people might be offended, it's the fact that it is offensive that I think makes it good.

• 54:32Jason Calacanis?

  So let me ask.

• 54:33David Friedberg?

  And I think that they appreciate. Hold on, let me, let me.

• 54:35David Sacks?

  Jake, I hope you're right about what this means. I mean, to me, let me be really clear. I mean, I hope it goes down exactly the way that you're saying, because that, that is what I want to believe is happening. I'm a little bit skeptical that this is a little bit more of a bottom line motive because they got so much money at stake. They can't afford to cancel Chappelle. But I hope you're right, that I hope you're right, that it's a statement of principle. And they will apply that principle to lesser known artists who can't protect themselves as much. Um, and you know, hopefully this is kind of like, you know, what it reminds me of is the Jon Stewart, um, lab, the, the, the Wuhan.

• 55:08Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah.

• 55:09David Sacks?

  Lab leak moment where you had Jon Stewart go on Colbert show. And he, all of a sudden, he made it okay to talk about the lab leak theory. It was like, you couldn't talk about it before.

• 55:20Jason Calacanis?

  He cracked the Overton window.

• 55:21David Sacks?

  Yes, exactly. And so hopefully Chappelle will do that for this, like woke cancellation mob is to finally get everybody to realize, oh, like we can stand up to this.

• 55:32Jason Calacanis?

  Chamath, is the Overton window, uh, on a go forward basis? Do you see it closing more, staying where it is, or perhaps even opening?

• 55:40Chamath Palihapitiya?

  There's a, there's a really great philosopher. This is a, this is my, maybe my one and only

• 55:48Chamath Palihapitiya?

  grand tribute to Peter Thiel, but he, he is, um, he's a huge supporter of a philosopher named Rene Girard. And, uh, uh, I agree with a lot of, uh, a lot of that. Uh, a, a lot of Rene Girard's philosophies. And basically it's called memetic theory. And the idea is you're born without preferences. And then you kind of just copy what's around you. And so what the other person wants is what you want. And that's what ultimately leads to a lot of conflict. And the only way to resolve conflict is, is with a huge grand sacrifice of some kind. Okay. Um, and if you think about it here, if you're going to really put, you know, cancel culture, if you're going to kill it.

• 56:31Chamath Palihapitiya?

  There needs to be some just massive escalation and conflict around this idea that allows us to resolve it in one way or the other, in one direction or the other. And I don't think this is it. I think it's not big enough, quite honestly. I think it's a little bit sort of like, you know, there's folks like us that love comedy and we're willing to keep it in a very strict box, which is, let people say what they're gonna say, be shocked with it, and don't take it on to yourself and don't, you know, and go and reflect it into the world. It's entertainment and you can, you know, it's like, I choose not to watch violent stuff because I don't like it. I find it, I find it very offensive. Or, you know, I don't play first-person shooters. I find it really unsettling.

• 57:14Chamath Palihapitiya?

  You know, Grand Theft Auto, I found it really outrageous. And other people will feel like that about Chappelle. My whole thing is, we should all be allowed to make those judgments, because I think we're all still pretty rational people at the end of the day and do the right thing in the normal world. But this isn't the thing that's gonna get this issue to be resolved. So I don't know how it comes. There needs to be some huge escalation around this thing. I suspect what happens is it actually just dissipates and goes away. And the reason is because everybody who's much younger than us has such a huge digital footprint that they've created through their whole lives. There is so much shit that's out there. Oh god, yes. That they just have no choice but to let everybody else off the hook.

• 58:00Chamath Palihapitiya?

  We, we are in a very different situation because we were doing some fucking shady stuff, always on the down-low, always hidden. Whoa, easy there. But that's how it was. We were not, our, our children were largely anonymous. You would, you would roll deep and you would just, you would pretend, you would not, you know. And now the culture is very different, and I think with that comes a lot of acceptance. Every, you know, every kid at some point may or may not be on Tinder, Bumble, Rea, you know, Grindr, whatever. So there's gonna be a body of that content that's up. Every kid will have said something crazy, you know, on TikTok. And all of this stuff will be there, and so you'll have a choice, which is, if you're gonna hold me accountable, I'm gonna hold you accountable, and so it's mutually assured destruction.

• 58:44Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And I think that's what causes cancel culture to go away in time. It's the last vestige of very guilty people of our generation.

• 58:52Jason Calacanis?

  Fascinating. What do you think, Friedberg? Is the Overton window opening, closing, or about the same over the next year?

• 58:58David Friedberg?

  What Timob is saying is right. I um, I think I've referred to this book called The Light of Other Days before when we talked. I think so, right?

• 59:05Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah.

• 59:06David Friedberg?

  The book is like all about this notion of all information is available to everyone everywhere. And societal norms completely change. People no longer find things offensive and they no longer. And everyone basically shifts to a mode of much more kind of open dialogue because, you know, keeping things behind closed doors and then positioning one person against the other completely changes when you can see everyone's cards all the time. Um, and so I think, yeah, generally we're headed that way. I don't think we're gonna. Information wants to be free. More information is being generated about each of us all the time. I don't think that we're headed in the opposite direction, kind of back to a Victorian era. I think we're going in the other way. So there's gonna be blips and starts, um, uh, that'll kind of, you know, be setbacks on that general trajectory.

• 59:49David Friedberg?

  Um, so yeah, I do think it's a moment, you know, it's a moment in time right now, um, where this is happening.

• 59:56Jason Calacanis?

  I mean, Sax, if you look at the two examples we've discussed. Brian Armstrong and Coinbase, that was about essentially Black Lives Matters and talking about social justice at work. And this one is about trans, uh, and trans rights. And essentially, I don't want to say poking fun at, or, you know, uh, discussing, uh, I mean, he basically says in it that he's Team Turf. If you were to take two organizations that standing up against would be the most challenging and difficult, I think those are the top two. No?

• 1:00:29David Friedberg?

  I guess so. I mean.

• 1:00:30Jason Calacanis?

  That's why I think this is the most, this is the most telling, is that you have two different organizations saying, hey, we're gonna put our foot down. Just for background, Netflix had a very strange, um, I didn't see the actual film, so I won't make judgment on it. Uh, but it was a very strange, uh. Trailer for a film called Cuties, which was really over-sexualizing young girls, like eight, nine, 10-year-old girls, and they didn't take it down in the United States, Netflix, but they did take it down in Turkey.

• 1:00:56Chamath Palihapitiya?

  It was in France. It was in France.

• 1:00:57Jason Calacanis?

  It was a French movie.

• 1:00:58Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Yeah, it was French.

• 1:00:59Jason Calacanis?

  And they have a different view of kids and sexuality and, yeah, I think people found it a little dark here in the United States, but they survived that one as well, or they weathered that one as well. So I think what people are finding is if you put your foot down at a certain point...

• 1:01:14Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I think what Sacks says is right, then. These guys have realized that if we have this very specific message around artistic freedom and we never violate it, because that's one of those things where if you take that hill, you have to be there forever, right? You can't have asterixes around that idea. But by doing that, they basically dominate the content production game in Hollywood, which then allows them to field the most content at the cheapest average price, which then makes churn less and customer acquisition higher. And they're already the largest media company in the world, and they're only going to get bigger. You know, Netflix has, what, 200 million subscribers? They're going to get to a billion subscribers. It's just inevitable. And so for them, I do think it's a very rational business position to take, which is that

• 1:01:59Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I have to appeal to a billion people over the next, you know, seven or eight years.

• 1:02:03Jason Calacanis?

  You don't have to watch everything on Netflix. You do not have to listen to every album and like it.

• 1:02:08Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Netflix is a fucking mess. I mean, they should spend 10 minutes and improve the UI so you can actually find something. My god, it's so bad.

• 1:02:15Jason Calacanis?

  And, you know, he basically, Sarandos, made the point that, you know, along with Chappelle's Show, they are funding a ton of content by people of color, probably more than anybody, and trans people. It's a big focus of what they're doing at Netflix, and it's, you know, it's essentially, to Sacks's point, more speech is better than less. All right, do we want to go tether? FDA chaos?

• 1:02:36Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Well, tether, why don't you do your reverse victory lap? Because after all, your shit copy-

• 1:02:41Jason Calacanis?

  It's not a victory lap for me, but... Bro, it was the exact opposite.

• 1:02:45Chamath Palihapitiya?

  It is not a fraud.

• 1:02:46Jason Calacanis?

  It's a fucking fraud. Come on.

• 1:02:48Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Can you please stop saying that apparently the CFTC went in, did the work and is actually now refuting what you thought was the case, Jason. So why don't you just own that?

• 1:02:57Jason Calacanis?

  How about I read you the quote from at least June 1st, 2016 to February 25th, 2019. Tether misrepresented to customers and the market that Tether maintains sufficient US dollar reserves to back every USDT in circulation with the equivalent amount of corresponding fiat currency held by Tether and safely deposited in Tether bank accounts. In other words, they told everybody they were one for one. They were not. They lied to the public. And that's why they're getting a $41 million fine. That's why they're banned from New York. And that's why they're banned from trading in Canada. And there's supposedly a Department of Justice. These guys are shady as F. AF. Shady AF.

• 1:03:38David Friedberg?

  Do you have an economic interest in Tether?

• 1:03:41Jason Calacanis?

  No, in crypto he does.

• 1:03:42Chamath Palihapitiya?

  No, no, no. I, I, I.

• 1:03:43David Sacks?

  How can anyone have an economic interest in Tether? All it is is a one for one tokenized dollar.

• 1:03:47Jason Calacanis?

  Well, no, it's not. That's what they claim it is, but it's not.

• 1:03:50David Sacks?

  You're right that it should be and we need an audit to establish that it is.

• 1:03:54Jason Calacanis?

  And they won't audit. They'll do an attestation. And when they did their attestation, all they have to do is show a document that says there's money in the account. They don't just have to show how long that's been in the account.

• 1:04:03David Friedberg?

  This certainly, this certainly feels like a security to me and I would think the SEC should get involved in regulating this.

• 1:04:08Jason Calacanis?

  You, uh, stable coins are the number one thing on Gensler and the SEC's mind right now.

• 1:04:13David Friedberg?

  Yeah. I mean, they, they make a claim of a secured interest in something, unlike a lot of other crypto.

• 1:04:17David Sacks?

  This is like the easiest part of crypto. This is the easiest part of crypto to regulate.

• 1:04:21Jason Calacanis?

  Why is it easy?

• 1:04:21David Sacks?

  Why? Because, because.

• 1:04:23David Friedberg?

  Just look at a bank account. You audit it. You're done.

• 1:04:24David Sacks?

  It's, it's a tokenized dollar. That's it. It is not, actually I'm not even sure it's a security. It basically is a digital representation of a dollar that should be sitting in a bank account somewhere.

• 1:04:32David Friedberg?

  It's a money market fund.

• 1:04:33David Sacks?

  Yeah, it's a money market fund.

• 1:04:34David Friedberg?

  But money markets are securities and they're regulated as securities.

• 1:04:37David Sacks?

  Okay, fine. But my point is, you know, there are complicated securities and then there's securities that aren't complicated. This is definitely the least complicated.

• 1:04:44Jason Calacanis?

  That this company only has to their own attestations, like 6%, 3 to 6% in cash in a bank account. And the rest is in highly volatile corporate, uh, paper.

• 1:04:57Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Here's the point that I was trying to make to you in the group chat.

• 1:04:59Jason Calacanis?

  Oh.

• 1:04:59Chamath Palihapitiya?

  When a company who's got billions and billions and billions of dollars of some stable coin.

• 1:05:05Jason Calacanis?

  Whatever.

• 1:05:05Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Or something that you think is zero. Okay. It's a multi, multi billion dollar market.

• 1:05:10Jason Calacanis?

  Tens of billions.

• 1:05:11Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Oh, sorry. Tens of billions.

• 1:05:12Jason Calacanis?

  They have 70 billion in Tether out there.

• 1:05:15Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And, and, and could you imagine if they like, let's just say that there were 70 billion of Tether and like, you know, one billion of securities? That would be a fraud of gargantuan proportions.

• 1:05:24Jason Calacanis?

  It might not be that far off.

• 1:05:26David Friedberg?

  If they, if they siphoned the money out for their own use, that would be a fraud.

• 1:05:28Chamath Palihapitiya?

  We'd be beyond talking about fines. But what I found comical, Jason, is your claims make it seem like Bernie Madoff, Enron level corruption craziness. Hold on. And the fine was 42 million, which is like, who fucking cares? 42 million? And it was between them and another firm. So either the CFTC completely got the fine wrong and they missed a zero or two zeros, or this was not nearly as big as you thought it was.

• 1:05:53David Sacks?

  I'm shocked, shocked that J Cal got overly excited about some perceived hopes.

• 1:06:00Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Well, here's the thing.

• 1:06:00Speaker 04

  You are a conspiracy theorist, Jason.

• 1:06:03Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I was right about Theranos.

• 1:06:06David Friedberg?

  Yeah, Jason didn't fully understand something and got very emotional about it.

• 1:06:09David Sacks?

  Look, here's the deal.

• 1:06:10Jason Calacanis?

  All right, that's it. I'm off. That's it. I got it.

• 1:06:12David Sacks?

  Here's the, here's the best case scenario for making sense of J Cal's points, which is it's possible that Tether, the company behind Tether, has all the money. They've just not chosen to keep it in dollar reserves. And so they put it in corporate bonds and a whole mishmash of different things.

• 1:06:29Jason Calacanis?

  To get the float.

• 1:06:30David Sacks?

  To get the float, to make more money.

• 1:06:31Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Maybe they were long Solvent.

• 1:06:33David Sacks?

  I don't, my, my guess is that Tether is solvent. I don't think it's, it lacks solvency, but, uh, but I personally would feel better about any stablecoin if it was a hundred percent dollar backed. I think it should be.

• 1:06:46Jason Calacanis?

  Which is what Jeremy LaRue is doing at, uh, USDC and Circle. I had him on the pod this week.

• 1:06:51Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I hope they bought the GitLab IPO.

• 1:06:54Jason Calacanis?

  Uh, well, I mean, the, the, the issue here is they also co-mingled funds, which is what got Foltzold in trouble. The users' accounts with their money in it was mixed with the operating capital. So they were using the deposits to operate the business, which is the biggest no-no. Uh, they were co-mingling the funds that people thought were backed. Uh, and Bitfinex and Tether were the same company. That's why they both got the fines at the same time. They've also been banned from doing any, having any customers in New York and they've been banned in Canada. And there's apparently a DOJ wire for it. So I think this is the beginning. Of the end, not the end of the beginning.

• 1:07:33Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Okay.

• 1:07:34Jason Calacanis?

  That's my personal belief.

• 1:07:35Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I was just wanting to get your reaction to what seemed like a really pathetic fine. For what could be a $70 billion fraud.

• 1:07:42Jason Calacanis?

  I mean, Facebook got a series of speeding tickets too. I mean, I think that that's, I mean, that's a big issue for our

• 1:07:48Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Bro, they paid, they paid $5 billion.

• 1:07:51Jason Calacanis?

  What's that?

• 1:07:52Chamath Palihapitiya?

  They paid like $5 billion or something, right?

• 1:07:54Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, and they're a trillion dollar company. I mean, it's nothing.

• 1:07:57Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I understand, but 5 billion's a big number. That's a big number.

• 1:08:00Jason Calacanis?

  Not in relation to their market cap and how much cash they throw away every year.

• 1:08:03Chamath Palihapitiya?

  42 million? I mean, that's a tax payment. It's a quarterly tax payment.

• 1:08:07Jason Calacanis?

  For, for you, Trum, not for us. Uh, or maybe for Sacks, he's doing pretty well too. Yum yum. All right, uh, do we want, we promised we'd do some questions. Should we do a couple of questions?

• 1:08:17David Friedberg?

  Sure.

• 1:08:19Jason Calacanis?

  I mean, we could also talk about the FDA.

• 1:08:21Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And, oh my God, the FDA. My gosh. Free Bird, you want to lead this?

• 1:08:25Jason Calacanis?

  Free Bird, you want to tell us about the chaos at the FDA?

• 1:08:27David Friedberg?

  Well, I don't think it's chaotic like you guys think it is. Um, I'll make that a counter. Why don't you, why don't you make your chaos point first and then I'll make a

• 1:08:34Jason Calacanis?

  Well, I don't, that's not my point. That's just kind of the, uh, what people

• 1:08:36David Friedberg?

  Yeah, people are perceiving this. So like, you know, there've been a couple of these, um, changes in recommendations. Now, all of these recommendations that, um, and, you know, the, these statements and approvals that have come out of the FDA are predicated on these independent advisory panels that are put together to look at, um, research data, um, assess the research data and make a recommendation on what they think is appropriate. So we saw this happen with the Pfizer, um, booster shot a few weeks ago, where initially the, uh, the advisory panel, which again is made up of independent doctors and scientists who generally don't have any sort of economic interest in the outcome here. They voted 16 to 2 against everyone getting a booster shot, and then they voted 18 to 0 in favor of everyone 65 and over and those at risk of getting a booster shot.

• 1:09:18David Friedberg?

  And then recently there was, you know, similar sort of consternation around the Moderna, and they ended up looking at data that indicated that maybe a half dose, which is 50 micrograms instead of 100 micrograms, would have a reasonable amount of efficacy relative to the side effect risk for people over 65, and therefore they made a recommendation to approve that as a booster, which the FDA is now approving. And so again, the way this process is run, and I think it's a good process, is independent advisors of doctors and scientists come together. And the one that recently came together was around this generalized use of aspirin as a heart attack deterrent. Because it thins the blood and limits the risk of people getting heart attacks.

• 1:09:57David Friedberg?

  But it turns out that such a large percentage of the population, or a large enough percentage of the population, were having bleeding issues, where your stomach bleeds. I don't know if you guys have this, but you know, you take ibuprofen or NSAIDs, your stomach can bleed. But that was causing more of a problem for people than they were seeing in the data in terms of a reduction in heart attack effects for people that were not highly at risk. And so they revised the recommendation and said, hey, let's give people that are only at risk and over a certain age aspirin, not just like to give it to everyone over 40 or 50. And so it took in account new data, and I think this is an important point. Science is messy, right? By definition, science is about gathering data, forming a hypothesis, testing again, iterating, restating your hypothesis. And it's designed to be circular.

• 1:10:40David Friedberg?

  It's designed to be a learning system, not designed to be a system that defines absolute truth and absolute fact. And it's good to see the FDA doing this work, and it's good to see scientists reviewing new data and changing their recommendations. And we've seen this in health, we've seen this in the food system and the USDA changing their diet guidelines. And people used to be told, don't eat dietary cholesterol. It turns out saturated fat is what causes cholesterol in your blood. So there were a lot of changes that kind of emerged as new data was gathered and.

• 1:11:06David Sacks?

  Remember they told us to eat a lot of carbs? Remember the all carb diets?

• 1:11:10David Friedberg?

  Yeah. And then they learned and they made a change in their.

• 1:11:14Speaker 04

  Wait, wait, can we bring that back? I'm starving.

• 1:11:16Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I used to eat pasta every day. First it was rice in my 10s and 20s.

• 1:11:21Speaker 04

  Oh, I've seen you eat rice. Oh, the shoveling of rice. My lord.

• 1:11:25David Sacks?

  So Friedberg, I mean, if we're gonna be just intellectually.

• 1:11:28Speaker 04

  It's like me eating pizza.

• 1:11:29David Sacks?

  If we're gonna be intellectually honest about this, the fact that, you know, official, health officials can be wrong about positions they've maintained with. I guess seemingly total certainty for decades and now they can revise those positions. I mean, doesn't that lend some credence to some of these like anti-vaxx arguments when they say, well, gee, I'm skeptical about injecting our mRNA into myself.

• 1:11:52Jason Calacanis?

  I think it's a totally, you just got the episode banned on YouTube. We just got a warning.

• 1:11:57David Sacks?

  I'm glad, I'm glad I got the vaccine. I got the Pfizer vaccine. And I think, look, it could have saved my life. I mean, I had a very mild case of Delta. Yeah, I had one of the first breakthroughs because it's so, but, but it was very mild and I think that was because I got Pfizer. I think the risk return was completely worth it. And, but, but I can also see why people with like five-year-old, like kindergarten age, you know, don't want to get it, might not want to get it for their kids when the upside is absolutely, you know, tiny, given that it doesn't really affect five-year-olds very much. And the downside is not, there's no proven downside. How is that any different than the aspirin thing?

• 1:12:35Chamath Palihapitiya?

  It might not, I don't wish you had gotten really sick with Delta.

• 1:12:39Jason Calacanis?

  Yes, you are. There's a bunch of people on the left.

• 1:12:42David Friedberg?

  I don't, I don't, I don't disagree with the framing that, that here's what typically happens. The scientists or the FDA panel will say, based on the data that we have, this is our recommendation on what should happen. And then the framing that, that people then assume is, oh, this is what they believe to be absolute truth and with absolute certainty, this is what we have to do. And I think the translation layer to the general population is such that this is the 10 commandments I came down from Mount Sinai and this is what I'm saying has to happen. And the reality is it is based on data and that data changes over time. And I think that your point is right. There is no absolute certainty that the Pfizer vaccine is going to be absolutely perfect for everyone and it's going to absolutely reduce the risk more than it increases the risk for people five years old and younger.

• 1:13:26David Friedberg?

  And it's a, it's a very fair point that like, but the problem, as we've seen on all sides, is that the framing is that these things are binary and they're not, right? There's a probability distribution of, of which is defined as the risk and the, the things that might go wrong and the probability distribution of the benefits. And then people assume that it's just binary, yes or no, good or bad.

• 1:13:47David Sacks?

  Point there, I just want to underscore, let me kind of translate what you're saying is that the the people at the FDA are in these positions. Who actually understand the science make a cost benefit analysis and what they're saying and approving it is that the costs outweigh the risks. Sorry, the benefits outweigh the risk.

• 1:14:02Jason Calacanis?

  To the broad population.

• 1:14:03David Sacks?

  To the broad population, okay. By the way, that's why I got the vaccine. I don't know for sure. That there's no downsides in 10 years. All I know is there's an upside immediately and I benefited from that. So I was very happy to take it. But in any event, instead of this complicated cost benefit analysis, the media translates that into good, bad. It's almost like a moral case and then the politicians translate that into laws and rules. And if you question the rules, you're now a bad person because you you've opposed the quote unquote good side of the argument. I mean, for example. Gavin Newsom just signed a bill in California saying that if you are a public school.

• 1:14:43David Sacks?

  Child, elementary school, kindergarten, you have to get vaccinated in order to go to a public school, even though the vaccine doesn't even exist for them yet. I mean, you could be pro vax, which I guess I would consider myself to be clearly pro vax. I mean. I got it. My 13 year old got it. I support it. I think it's a smart decision to make, but to require a five year old to get it in order to go to public schools in California.

• 1:15:05Jason Calacanis?

  Well, he could also wait until we get the FDA data. Here's a question for you, Friedberg. You know, having this. One of the complaints has been the FDA restricts progress. I mean, I think actually Peter Thiel have this position for a while that we should, you know, just get rid of it and disband it. What do we think about having the FDA being framed as these are recommendations? And then each state gets to make a decision with their local FDA. So then if. Colorado or Texas or Florida had a difference of opinion about psychedelics, about vaccines, they could run their own studies and.

• 1:15:40David Friedberg?

  It's a really important matter of ethics.

• 1:15:42Jason Calacanis?

  Yes.

• 1:15:43David Friedberg?

  What are your ethics that you believe, you know, should be the guiding principles? For how the government plays a role in individuals making choice about their health and their body? And so if you believe that the government, and this is, there's no right or wrong here. It's simply a framing of what you believe. If you believe that it's appropriate for the government to make the decision about what's safe and not safe for you as an individual to do, then the FDA should stay in place and they should have their criteria of when they're ready to make a recommendation. There's enough data to define the benefit and the cost of a particular thing that you might put in your body and then telling you, yes, you should or shouldn't do this. If you, and if not, they're going to take their time and figure that out.

• 1:16:25David Friedberg?

  Now, if you don't believe that, then yes, the FDA should be disbanded and drug companies will go around and they will tell people, take this drug, it will save your life. And people will take it and there will be, there will be people that will suffer from that, there will be people that will have Or maybe something in between. There will be people that will die from that. Federal. And, and remember, like, the criteria for the FDA is do no harm. So, you know, that, that is the criteria for a doctor in general. It is a very difficult criteria to meet when there are costs to a drug or costs to a therapy or treatment. When people get chemotherapy for cancer, there are awful deleterious side effects to their body. But the benefit of saving their life and getting rid of the cancer, having at least a shot at doing that, is great enough. And the FDA has made a judgment call that that cost and that benefit kind of create an equation that says, this is an approved drug now. And that's really their goal.

• 1:17:10David Friedberg?

  And if they don't have enough data and they haven't taken enough time to figure that out, they don't feel comfortable approving a drug and making that recommendation. But then if you let them get out of the way and you let individuals make choice, you could see this being a disgusting free for all, where drug companies will hawk snake oil on people and a lot of harm will be caused. And that's, that's the counter argument. And I'm not saying one is right or one is Well, I was thinking there might be something in between. But it really comes down to, what is the role that you want? I mean, it's really that, what is the role that you want any government, whether it's states or the federal government, to play in deciding what you can and can't do with your body and what you can and can't put in your body? And ultimately, what companies that are making products for you can and can't say to you about the benefit and the cost of that product? And there's no simple solution, right? I mean, like,

• 1:17:49Jason Calacanis?

  Well, I mean, look at Kyrie, look at Kyrie Irving. I mean, he's basically is

• 1:17:52David Friedberg?

  And not everyone is equipped.

• 1:17:53Jason Calacanis?

  200 million dollar extension and he believes in vaccines.

• 1:17:56David Friedberg?

  Not every individual is equipped to look at the data and make a judgment call on their own. And so the question then is what authority will they look to? And if the alternative authority that they will look to is not as good as a, as a research team of 18 scientists, then they're probably going to end up getting bad advice.

• 1:18:11Chamath Palihapitiya?

  You think Kyrie, what do you think the alternative Kyrie retires?

• 1:18:15Jason Calacanis?

  I think it's 60% right now.

• 1:18:18David Sacks?

  I think he's giving up 200 million dollars because he won't get vaccines.

• 1:18:21Jason Calacanis?

  200 million dollar extension. He gets paid like 30 or 40 million dollars a year. He refuses to get the vaccine. He said, the reason he's not getting the vaccine is because of all the people who don't have a choice, the pilots who are being forced to get it or not go to work. So he is a privilege, he says, and he wants to make this decision for everybody else. Um, he also believes that the earth is flat.

• 1:18:42Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Stop. That was a joke. He said.

• 1:18:43Jason Calacanis?

  I don't think it was a joke.

• 1:18:45David Sacks?

  Where are you getting that from, J. K.?

• 1:18:47Jason Calacanis?

  Uh, typing Kyrie Irving flat earth. He talked about, how do we know the earth is actually round? And he basically was holding on to.

• 1:18:53David Sacks?

  Media distortion to me.

• 1:18:54Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Yeah, two days later he came out and he was like, you guys misinterpret. Anyways, that's, that's, that's neither here nor there.

• 1:18:59Jason Calacanis?

  He's, oh, he's what? He's unique and wacky.

• 1:19:02David Sacks?

  He sounds, so I would, I wouldn't make that decision.

• 1:19:04Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Why are you so pejorative? Like.

• 1:19:06David Sacks?

  I know, I know.

• 1:19:07Jason Calacanis?

  Because it's infuriating that he.

• 1:19:09David Friedberg?

  Just because someone disagrees with you, you say that they're wacky.

• 1:19:10Jason Calacanis?

  Because KG wanted to come to the Knicks.

• 1:19:13David Sacks?

  These are Taylor Loren's tactics.

• 1:19:15Jason Calacanis?

  Kyrie convinced him to go to Brooklyn. That's the reason.

• 1:19:17David Sacks?

  J. K., you're still a member of the media. You have like a vestigial tail here is that you just bought in to the framework that Friedberg laid out, which is the media takes complicated issues, cost benefit analyses and turns them into right or wrong, good or bad.

• 1:19:32Jason Calacanis?

  He didn't come to the Knicks.

• 1:19:33David Sacks?

  So now he's bad. He, now he's bad because.

• 1:19:35Jason Calacanis?

  He's bad for not coming to the Knicks. That's it.

• 1:19:37David Sacks?

  To me like a man of conscience, no, a man of conscience who's willing to stand up on principle, turn down 200 million dollars. I got the vaccine for free. I sure as hell wouldn't turn away 200 million dollars not to get it. So, I mean, it's not a decision I would make.

• 1:19:51Jason Calacanis?

  200 million to not take it, would you have taken? Would you have not taken it? Yeah, I think so. I think I'm not taking it for 200 million.

• 1:19:58Chamath Palihapitiya?

  There, uh, there was a, I, I heard a great story yesterday at the poker table. One of the guys was telling me. Uh, it's his backgammon teacher and he says his backgammon teacher or is it, you know, good backgammon teacher and a magician, blah, blah, blah. 20 years ago, he was asked.

• 1:20:16Chamath Palihapitiya?

  To get female breast implants for a year for $100,000. He did it and he kept them for 20 years.

• 1:20:27Jason Calacanis?

  That's quite a free roll.

• 1:20:28Chamath Palihapitiya?

  So, you know, the bar for people to do, the bar for people to do things is really not that high, uh, is really what I took away from that story. And what I take away from this story is,

• 1:20:38Jason Calacanis?

  So let's go around the horn.

• 1:20:39Chamath Palihapitiya?

  No, but Kyrie is willing to draw the line on something that he believes in and it's going to cost him $200 million. There's a lot of things that come with all of that noise.

• 1:20:49Chamath Palihapitiya?

  He should be allowed to make that decision, in my opinion.

• 1:20:53Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And I don't, I don't like the way that he's characterized because I think this is a good human being. He's a phenomenal basketball player.

• 1:20:58Jason Calacanis?

  There's no doubt it's phenomenal.

• 1:20:59Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Could you imagine how strongly he feels about this if he's willing to walk away from the game that he loves and that's, you know, been an enormous part of his life?

• 1:21:08David Sacks?

  Why, why is this so important to foist on Kyrie Irving, the need to get vaccinated? I mean, it's

• 1:21:13Jason Calacanis?

  Because in New York City, indoors, you have to, there's a vaccine requirement and he can't play at home games. He could play in Texas or Houston. So they've talked about trading him to Houston, but then when he went to New York and you also can't practice with the team in New York, New Jersey, I guess Massachusetts, there's a bunch of states where you can't go indoors without a vaccine. They're in close proximity to each other. You get the idea.

• 1:21:34David Sacks?

  I, I just think we're, we're turning a good thing into, which is the vaccine. I genuinely think it's a, it's a great thing that it got done so quickly. It's a miracle of science. And I think it's helped a lot of people. I mean, all of us. I mean, it's the thing that's going to end the pandemic largely already has, but we're turning into a bad thing. But why were we demanding that these holdouts, like every last person must get vaccinated?

• 1:21:57Jason Calacanis?

  What about, what about a flight attendant? Should a flight attendant be forced if they're on a tiny tube going through the sky? Or should they be work somewhere at?

• 1:22:05David Sacks?

  You get so much protection by being vaccinated yourself that I don't think

• 1:22:09Jason Calacanis?

  So you don't believe in mandates now?

• 1:22:12David Sacks?

  Well, I think private companies have the right to

• 1:22:15Jason Calacanis?

  N B A is a private company.

• 1:22:16David Sacks?

  I know, I get it. So but I'm just I'm just starting to really question here whether it's truly necessary to get every single one of these last holdouts. I just there's something un-American about imposing on free people this decision. They can't just make up their own mind.

• 1:22:31Jason Calacanis?

  You in a previous episode said you were in favor of it if people were dying at a higher rate, if it was more acute.

• 1:22:37David Sacks?

  No, no, no, no. Well, hold on a second.

• 1:22:38Jason Calacanis?

  You did say that. You said if it was killing kids and a lot of people were dying.

• 1:22:41David Sacks?

  If it was if it was some sort of like Ebola, like, yeah, of course, it'd be a whole different cost benefit analysis.

• 1:22:47Jason Calacanis?

  Right, exactly.

• 1:22:48David Sacks?

  But look, what I said, and I think this is still my position, is that government shouldn't require shouldn't stick a needle in your arm. I think private businesses can do it. Or you don't use that service. So.

• 1:22:59Jason Calacanis?

  How much would it take for you to get B cups implanted for a year? For $1 billion, would you do it?

• 1:23:05David Sacks?

  A billion.

• 1:23:07Jason Calacanis?

  Only bees. I'm not saying like a strong D or something, just like a modest bee. I mean, is that a real story, Chamath?

• 1:23:13Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Yeah, send you the link. It's there's a huge article about it. It's in Wikipedia.

• 1:23:16David Sacks?

  Yeah, that's an old story. Jason, you've already got B cups. I hope someone's paying for that.

• 1:23:19Jason Calacanis?

  I've lost 16 pounds. I'm good. I'm good. I'm just like a perky A right now. B cups be gone.

• 1:23:27Jason Calacanis?

  This show has got off the rails. We promised the audience we'd take two questions. The first one is for Friedberg, and the first question comes from Daniel Neelis. He says, Alpha Phone made great progress in predictive protein folding. Is there anything similar for chemical synthesis? Could a similar system finally predict a less energy intensive pathway to ammonia than Haber-Bosch process, for example?

• 1:23:52David Friedberg?

  I don't see. This is a this is a this is a great question. When molecules interact, a molecule is a bunch of atoms stuck together, and there are electrons and protons that make up that molecule. And therefore, there's this kind of variable electric potential, energy potential that surrounds that molecule. And it's very difficult today to deterministically model how two molecules might interact with one another in physics. And it turns out that that resolves using quantum physics. And so today, we can't really kind of put two molecules together and say, here's what happens when you put these together and have a computer program very quickly and easily solve that. Quantum physics is involved, and we don't have a good way to simulate quantum physics in binary computers.

• 1:24:34David Friedberg?

  So, um, one of the theories, and, and there's been some work on this in, on the research basis, creating the framework for it, is that we can use quantum computers to simulate the quantum states of molecules and use that to figure out how molecules might interact with one another. And as a result, you could kind of see us creating simulations that resolve certain enzymes or proteins that might break apart molecules or stick molecules together, um, or other molecule combinations that might cause something to happen. The Haber-Bosch process, which is being referred to, was discovered through trial and error in the early 20th century by a German physicist, um, and engineer. And they realized that if they compressed atmospheric, um, air to 200 times atmospheric

• 1:25:17David Friedberg?

  pressure and ran it over an iron catalyst with electricity, it zapped, it broke apart the nitrogen bonds in the, uh, in the atmosphere and in the air that was compressed and trickled out ammonia, which is, uh, nitrogen and hydrogen. Um, and so this was like this amazing invention and it saved the world and fed the world. There's a great book called The Alchemy of Air, if anyone's interested in hearing about this. Um, but it was through trial and error and we got so friggin lucky as a species that we figured this out. Using quantum computing in the next 30 years, hopefully, we'll be able to deterministically, um, model these, these behaviors on a, on a, um, molecular and atomic level. And as a result, kind of build new systems to make things. Um, and that'll be an incredible, um, kind of toolkit for humans, uh, that'll advance a lot of science and a lot of engineering, uh, forward.

• 1:26:01David Friedberg?

  I'm still really strongly of the belief, and this goes back to your point earlier, I'm sorry I'm going on a bit of a rant. No, it's great. In a hundred to 120 years from now, I do think we'll all have a, a replicator in our room. That replicator will make all the things we want to make, nearly instantaneously with very low energy and very low cost. Including an organ, a new brain. An organ, some food, the next car you want to make. I mean, we could see, and I, by the way, this is a crazy concept. It's not just about, oh, you know, quantum stuff or the whatever was described in Star Trek, but the general principle that you can locally make things and locally make things cheaply with very little energy and very little input, changes the whole supply chain model. We're seeing this increasingly with new technologies, with 3D printing and biomanufacturing.

• 1:26:44David Friedberg?

  You start to put these all together and you take a nonlinear track out in the next couple of decades and you get to a point that all this nonsense we're talking about where we're mining stuff in one place and making it another and shipping it combining it all another.

• 1:26:56Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Sax, Sax, you're going to be able to print a conscience. It's going to be incredible.

• 1:27:00David Sacks?

  I'm so glad.

• 1:27:01Chamath Palihapitiya?

  You're going to be able to print an emotion.

• 1:27:03David Sacks?

  Audience question, so glad.

• 1:27:05Jason Calacanis?

  All right, here's a question for Sax. Matty, or I guess me and also Chamath, and I guess all four of us. Matty Chavez asks, between being a VC founder, angel, corporate employee, which has been the most fun, rewarding, and why? What advice would you give someone early in their career hoping to be, be like you, multi-channel investor thought leader when they grow up? Sax?

• 1:27:29David Sacks?

  Well, I didn't, I didn't become a VC until after I had already done a few tours of duty as a founder and operator. So, I mean, my recommendation would be to get involved in startups first, generally get some operating experience and that would serve you well.

• 1:27:44Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Startups or even bigger companies. I, I just think getting, getting some reps inside of an organization is critical.

• 1:27:51David Friedberg?

  I tell everyone that, that's coming out of college or early in their careers, it's important you go get that perspective and work at a bigger business. I mean, I spent a few years at Google and, you know, it was a thousand people when I joined, grew to 10,000 by the time I left, but like, I learned so much just in that role and seeing successful products, successful models for operating a business. It was really impactful for me long-term. And then you go and make all the mistakes as a founder building a startup, you know, and a lot of people end up with bad confirmation bias if they work at a startup that didn't work out and they think, and all they can draw from is a failed model for operating. If things didn't work right.

• 1:28:27Jason Calacanis?

  Which was your favorite? Which, you know, role has been your favorite to date, Friedberg?

• 1:28:31David Friedberg?

  You know, when I was an executive at Monsanto, it was really nice to have that private jet that would come out and take me places. They had a whole security requirement.

• 1:28:39David Sacks?

  I already have that anyway.

• 1:28:41Jason Calacanis?

  Wow, the 1%. I have the suppression of 0.1%.

• 1:28:47Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I would argue that was my, that was my, do not.

• 1:28:51Jason Calacanis?

  And Henry Kell, making a video.

• 1:28:54Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Do not edit it out. That stays. Edit it out. That's a you said it. It's in your heart.

• 1:28:58Jason Calacanis?

  You owe your words, David Sacks. What was your favorite sex?

• 1:29:02David Sacks?

  My favorite stint?

• 1:29:04Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah.

• 1:29:04David Sacks?

  Well, I mean, obviously, what we did at PayPal has gone on to become a legend. And then, you know, PayPal was the founder CEO. He led that to a unicorn exit. So you got to say those would be the two best professional experiences.

• 1:29:19David Friedberg?

  Being a founder. I was I was joking about the private jet thing. I honestly, like to me, and I, Sacks, I'm sure, you know, and the rest of you guys can feel the same, but like making a great product and selling that product and, you know, working with a customer with that product is is honestly like the most rewarding thing you can do. It's like, you know, getting your hands dirty and actually delivering something of value in the world. There's nothing more rewarding than that. I mean, all the financial engineering and making money and all the nonsense that goes on is really kind of a zoom out of that. But that's really where reward comes in.

• 1:29:46David Sacks?

  Yeah, I feel that way, too. I was joking about the private jet, too.

• 1:29:51Jason Calacanis?

  Which one?

• 1:29:52David Friedberg?

  Which jet?

• 1:29:53David Sacks?

  But actually, I think Nick, Nick caught me misspeaking. So yeah, it was the first experience with PayPal. The second experience was Yammer. We may have to do some audio work.

• 1:30:01David Friedberg?

  Which is your favorite private jet that you have?

• 1:30:03Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah.

• 1:30:05Jason Calacanis?

  By the way, I just want to to defend myself on stealing toiletries on Chamath's plane.

• 1:30:11Chamath Palihapitiya?

  No, don't don't defend yourself. Don't do it.

• 1:30:13Jason Calacanis?

  It was a mini bottle of Scope. I drank half of it. What are you supposed to do?

• 1:30:17David Sacks?

  Did you take?

• 1:30:17Jason Calacanis?

  Put it back in the drawer.

• 1:30:18David Sacks?

  How many did you take?

• 1:30:20Jason Calacanis?

  Plane or on Chamath? On your plane, I took a truth, true story. I did take the half bottle of Pappy.

• 1:30:27David Sacks?

  You took my Pappy Van Winkle?

• 1:30:29Jason Calacanis?

  It was like a half left. That's a $5,000 bottle. It's 2,500.

• 1:30:32David Sacks?

  Actually, I'll tell you a funny story about.

• 1:30:33Jason Calacanis?

  I boosted a half bottle of Pappy.

• 1:30:35David Sacks?

  So, yeah, okay. So here, I got to tell you this funny story. So I was going, I was going on, you didn't take it. I was going on a business. I was going on a business trip with. A couple of, you know, friends, coworkers who they're actually founders now of a company I backed. Anyway, we were going to like an event in, I think it was in Atlanta. So it was like a four hour flight. So they, they opened the liquor drawer, whatever, and saw the pap, and they asked like if they could have, I was like, sure, take whatever you want. And then I went in the back and, and went to sleep. So, but by the time we land, like four hours later, the entire Pappy Van Winkle like stash has been, they've gone through it and it's like, it's all these different types of Pappy.

• 1:31:17David Sacks?

  You've got the Pappy 23, you've got some of these, you've got some of these antique, antique ones. So they asked me, you know, they, they've never flown on a private plane before. They asked me, you know, say, hey Sax, how much did this flight cost? And I said, it costs about $6,000 in jet fuel and about $8,000 in Pappy Van Winkle.

• 1:31:37Jason Calacanis?

  Oh my God.

• 1:31:38David Sacks?

  It costs more on Pappy than in the

• 1:31:40Jason Calacanis?

  I'm from around the way. I'm leaving with something. I'm leaving with something, you know, like if I'm, I'll be on a PJ, I'm gonna leave with something.

• 1:31:47Speaker 04

  I think we found a way to end this podcast in the most insufferable way possible.

• 1:31:52Jason Calacanis?

  Insufferable way possible. Um.

• 1:31:56David Sacks?

  All right, Nick, edit it all out.

• 1:31:58Jason Calacanis?

  Edit, no, edit nothing. Highlight it, make it the opening. All right. For the queen of Kenwa, David Friedberg, for Rain Man, David Sax and the dictator.

• 1:32:07Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And also Sax, Sax, we're playing, we're playing next week at Saxi Blue's place at the mausoleum.

• 1:32:12Jason Calacanis?

  We're playing at beep.

• 1:32:13Chamath Palihapitiya?

  At the mausoleum. No, we're playing at the mausoleum. Nobody knows where the mausoleum is.

• 1:32:16Jason Calacanis?

  Nobody knows where the mausoleum is, but we're

• 1:32:18David Sacks?

  I'm in dock so many times. We better get security.

• 1:32:22Jason Calacanis?

  Trumoff is coming. I'll bring his.

• 1:32:24Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I'll bring him.

• 1:32:24Jason Calacanis?

  All right. We'll see you all next time. Bye bye.

• 1:32:26Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Later.

• 1:32:45Speaker 04

  Besties are gone.

• 1:32:51Speaker 04

  That's my dog, taking a piss in your driveway.

• 1:32:58Chamath Palihapitiya?

  We should all just get a room and just have one big huge orgy because they're all just pissed. It's like this like sexual tension, but they just need to release somehow.

• 1:33:07Speaker 04

  What, you're the bee? What, you're the bee? What, you're a bee? Bee? What? We need to get merge. Besties are gone.