E90: Twitter subpoenas, market overview, Pelosi's Taiwan visit & more

0:00 Bestie intros 2:07 Twitter subpoenas the besties! 16:03 Markets overview: dead cat bounce or have we hit the bottom? 34:10 De-globalization trends, Pelosi's Taiwan visit 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: https://twitter.com/DavidSacks/status/1554963395660566533 https://davidsacks.medium.com https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_gas_price https://www.macrotrends.net/1369/crude-oil-price-history-chart https://www.newcomer.co/p/folk-songs-and-stock-charts-coatue https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1554485039710310401 https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/Geographic_Boundaries_of_the_First_and_Second_Island_Chains.png https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/01/opinion/nancy-pelosi-taiwan-china.html

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

• 0:00Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Just a couple of questions before we kick off. Okay. Look, it's what I told you before. It's bad bitch o'clock. Okay? It's thick 30. I've been through a lot, Sax, right now, but I'm still 30, okay? Is everybody back up in the building, Sax? It's been a minute. Tell me how you're healing. Because I'm about to get into my feelings. How you feeling, Sax? How you feel right now?

• 0:19David Sacks?

  What language are you speaking right now?

• 0:22Jason Calacanis?

  This is a language called hip hop, Sax. You right remember when you had at your 50th?

• 0:29Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Oh, yeah, when you had

• 0:31Jason Calacanis?

  And she sang

• 0:32Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And she sang

• 0:34Jason Calacanis?

  And your

• 0:37Jason Calacanis?

  was dancing to beep.

• 0:40David Sacks?

  Delete that.

• 0:41Jason Calacanis?

  Delete that.

• 0:43David Friedberg?

  Let's start executing the insta-strike with Jake Al.

• 0:45Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Why insta-strike?

• 0:46David Friedberg?

  When he says something that we just insta-strikes, we don't have to edit it later. Just insta-strike.

• 0:50Jason Calacanis?

  It's because I am taking back my power. I was in therapy the other day and they told me I need to take back my power.

• 0:57David Friedberg?

  Insta-strike.

• 0:58David Sacks?

  But he apparently reads the comment section because he knew Friedberg that you won the episode last week.

• 1:02Jason Calacanis?

  Oh, big time.

• 1:03David Sacks?

  Which I agree with. I thought you did a great job.

• 1:06Jason Calacanis?

  It was big Friedberg energy. Finally.

• 1:08David Friedberg?

  I honestly do not like the competitive nature of the show. I think it makes us all hate each other and it's not a good dynamic. We should just fucking do the show with each other.

• 1:17Jason Calacanis?

  I know, but the point is your performance after I threatened to fire you for the show has gone up.

• 1:22Chamath Palihapitiya?

  You know who also doesn't like the competitive nature? Jake Al, because he's losing.

• 1:27David Sacks?

  Yeah, totally.

• 1:28Jason Calacanis?

  The fact that I'm even still here is winning.

• 1:30David Sacks?

  I love how Jake Al thinks he can threaten to fire Friedberg. It's like the janitor at Staples Center think he's gonna fire LeBron because he played poorly in a game.

• 1:38Jason Calacanis?

  This is a motivational technique. I got the best out of him. I'm like Michael Jordan. He's my Dennis Rodman.

• 1:44David Sacks?

  You're like the hot dog dealer, okay, pal? He's like LeBron James. You're the hot dog dealer.

• 1:48David Friedberg?

  I do not insta-strike these comments.

• 2:08David Friedberg?

  Alright, everybody. Welcome to the All In Pod. With us again, David Friedberg took a break from playing his stray video cat game. Sax is here in his deposition, apparently.

• 2:20David Sacks?

  By the way, do you guys wanna see this? Look at the size of this.

• 2:24David Friedberg?

  JCal is apparently playing No Comment today on the subpoenas. So I will open the show, I will open the show by asking David Sax, would you like to tell us about what you're holding in your hand?

• 2:34David Sacks?

  Yeah, okay, so I got this subpoena from Twitter. This is a non-party subpoena for-

• 2:40David Friedberg?

  Didn't Twitter subpoena your tweets?

• 2:42David Sacks?

  Yes. Let me get to that. This is subpoena-

• 2:46David Friedberg?

  I thought they're public!

• 2:48David Sacks?

  They are.

• 2:50David Sacks?

  These nitwits have walked Lipton billing them probably $2,000 an hour to subpoena tweets that are public. Brilliant strategy. But this is called a subpoena for production of business records in an action pending outside California. So I'm not a party to the law, at least they're not suing me, because I have no involvement in this thing. But they sent me the broadest ever subpoena. It's like 30 pages of requests. And now I gotta hire a lawyer to go quash this thing, because they basically want any of my communications with any of my friends over the last six months. It's insane.

• 3:24David Friedberg?

  Sax, can you just explain to the audience and to us, like, is this is a court sanctioned subpoena? The court is basically allowing the lawyers to demand that you hand over these communications, is that right?

• 3:35David Sacks?

  Yeah, but I haven't had a chance to fight it yet. So now, at my own expense, I gotta hire a lawyer and go send them to fight it, because this is a ridiculous, overbroad subpoena. And by the way, I'm not even involved in this thing. I'm just a commenter on Twitter. I don't have any, let me just save, walked Lipton a lot of time right now. I'm not in possession of non-public information about this. And, you know, the craziest thing is, yeah, like you mentioned, they cite my tweets as an exhibit here, and they say they want-

• 4:10David Sacks?

  All documents and communications concerning your statement in a tweet dated April 16th, that the "new Twitter CEO checklist includes eliminate all bots and fire useless employees", 50% question mark. So obviously they didn't like that. Your statement in a tweet dated April 25th, crazy thought, what if Jack masterminded this whole thing? Your statement in a tweet dated July 18th, that "randomly sampling 100 accounts a day is not a serious effort", and/or your statements in any other tweet concerning the merger, blah, blah. Let me just save them time right now. I don't have documents and communications concerning my tweets. Now, I know to a lawyer at Wachtel Lipton, that looking at my tweets, and how

• 4:55David Sacks?

  brilliant they are, you may think that I have extensive documentation and source material for them. But let me tell you what happened. I went to go take a shit, and I basically tweeted off the cuff, and that's how that tweet ended up in the public record. There are no documents and communications concerning my tweets. And this idea that somehow, I guess what they're trying to get at, is that somehow, I was tweeting on behalf of someone or at someone's behest, not true. Go look, well before this year, at my public tweets and blogs, about the topic of free speech. I've been a critic of Twitter's for a long time on the issue of free speech. I've written a content moderation, I've written about

• 5:38David Sacks?

  what I think a content moderation policy for a social network that cares about free speech should be. You know, I've written all these posts on Medium, going back years now. You know, I was a critic of Twitter throwing Donald Trump off the platform. So, these views that I've publicly stated are, the reason I've stated them is they're just my views, and there's just nothing more nefarious or something behind them, other than that. And they're just, I think they're just trying to chase a there, that's, there is no there there. So, let me just save it a lot of time.

• 6:08David Friedberg?

  You and I can talk, because our friends have no comment on this matter.

• 6:12Jason Calacanis?

  I have one question. I have a follow-up question. During this movement that you had, and you composed the tweet, is there any documentation of the movement?

• 6:20David Sacks?

  No, but you know, next time that I compose a tweet on the can, I will document it thoroughly and I will send it to the lawyers that walked out of Lipton.

• 6:28David Friedberg?

  What happens if you don't respond in 20 days?

• 6:31David Sacks?

  I don't know. I mean, I gotta, I mean, now I've hired a lawyer. But by the way, just so people understand, you may think that because of my position in business or something that these things happen all the time. They don't. I've been maybe subpoenaed like three times in my entire career and I've never been subpoenaed in my capacity as an individual. It's always been in connection with a company. And I don't think I've gotten one of these in over five years. So this just does not happen that often. These guys are totally chasing at straws. And it leads me to believe they're wasting my time and Twitter's money. And so somebody at Twitter should just rein in their lawyers because they're, I'm sure racking up a fortune in legal fees.

• 7:09David Friedberg?

  It sounds like, Sacks, the case is that they're trying to make that Elon used his network of friends to help wash away the deal because he didn't like the price anymore. And had his friends, you know, kind of tweet about bots and other stuff to support his case for killing the deal because he didn't like the price. And they're trying to see if there's any communications that he specifically said he didn't like the price.

• 7:32David Sacks?

  Yeah, I mean, look, they all, in addition to my tweets, they want all my documents and correspondence related to my appearance on Megyn Kelly, my appearance on the Will Kane podcast and, you know, other media appearances I've done. Look, you know, I had no coordination with Elon before appearing on any of those shows. I just went on those shows and said what I think. I mean, look, it's not like I'm a guy who doesn't have hot takes every single week on various issues, you know. We do, we've been doing this podcast for years. I've been tweeting for years. I'm just a commentator on this. I have, I've never been in possession of non-public information. And I've tweeted my takes based on the public information that's been available about this dispute. Now, you know, after I appeared,

• 8:15David Sacks?

  for example, on Will Kane, I remember Elon tweeted in support of my appearance. But there was no coordination before I appeared or after, for that matter. He just liked the appearance. So it's just me spouting off, doing what I've been doing on this pod and tweeting for years. Now, I can understand if maybe they're trying to read something into it. They're on a fishing expedition. But I've just told you.

• 8:37Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I just think the whole thing is just such an enormous waste of time. Just get into court, adjudicate the thing and move on.

• 8:46David Friedberg?

  I was reading yesterday this guy who follows the Delaware courts pretty closely. He had a bunch of commentary and he mimicked some of the stuff or the judge apparently on the case said some stuff about preserving the integrity of the court, meaning that the interpretation people are making is that ultimately they don't want to, the court is unlikely to try and force the merger because if the merger then doesn't get consummated, it damages the reputation of the court's ability to make enforcement action. Therefore, it's more likely that they just impose a fine.

• 9:18Chamath Palihapitiya?

  But what is the enforcement action if, I don't know, we should ask somebody who's a

• 9:24David Friedberg?

  Force the merger.

• 9:25Chamath Palihapitiya?

  No, but

• 9:26David Friedberg?

  Force you on to buy Twitter.

• 9:27Chamath Palihapitiya?

  But what does that mean, force?

• 9:28David Sacks?

  I don't know about that, okay? All I know is that this discovery request is overly broad. It's a phishing expedition. It's harassment of me. It's going to cost me time and money to get rid of this thing. I didn't do anything to deserve it or prompt this. I wasn't part of the transaction. I just wasn't. And I've never, I've never, and I've never said anything in regards to the transaction that should lead anyone to believe that I'm in possession of non-public information.

• 9:54Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Yeah.

• 9:55David Sacks?

  So this is harassment, it's punitive, and the fact that they're citing my tweets in which I criticized Twitter's management, it's just petty and vindictive.

• 10:03Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Yeah, I agree.

• 10:05David Friedberg?

  Can you get your legal fees reimbursed?

• 10:07David Sacks?

  I'd probably not.

• 10:09Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Good luck. No. Five or six years ago, I approached Twitter about what I would have called a friendly activist, myself and another large fund. And the reality is there's a lot of data that sits in the public domain that you can use to get a very clear view of Twitter's advantages and disadvantages. And so, you know, all of these issues that Twitter is dealing with has been known for a long time to people that spent any time analyzing the stock, comparing it to other social media stocks. So I just don't understand what all of this is about. At the end of the day, a person

• 10:52Chamath Palihapitiya?

  That had a point of view has changed their mind. Get to the bottom of what that person thinks, but going on these broad fishing expedition, I think is just really stupid.

• 11:03David Sacks?

  And then what was Joe Lonsdale subpoenaed for? I mean, he just appeared.

• 11:07David Friedberg?

  For being at the All In Summit.

• 11:08David Sacks?

  For being a guest at the All In Summit. So, so that, that just shows you how silly this is too, because Elon, we did an interview, the four of us interviewed Elon at the All In Summit in Miami back in, was it May? When did we do that?

• 11:22David Friedberg?

  Yeah.

• 11:22David Sacks?

  In any event, so Elon appeared, but he dialed in by Zoom. It's not like he was walking around the hallways, bumping into people and talking like there was, he did not communicate with anybody else at the summit.

• 11:35David Friedberg?

  Yeah.

• 11:35David Sacks?

  He was a guest by Zoom. So if you want to know the communications that we had, just go watch that public recording of us interviewing Elon. There's just, again, this, there's no need for this fishing expedition.

• 11:49David Friedberg?

  Guys, this is the, this is the record for the longest amount of time in his life J Cal has not spoken. So I want to, I want to acknowledge this moment and we can move forward.

• 11:59Jason Calacanis?

  Um, Sacks, did you do any prep work for the interview with Elon while you were?

• 12:05David Friedberg?

  Wow.

• 12:06Jason Calacanis?

  In the commode?

• 12:07David Sacks?

  No, no, there's no prep work. I showed up.

• 12:09Jason Calacanis?

  Barely.

• 12:09David Sacks?

  I barely showed up.

• 12:10Jason Calacanis?

  Barely.

• 12:11David Sacks?

  I barely showed up. You guys remember.

• 12:13Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Yeah. Oh my gosh.

• 12:16Jason Calacanis?

  See, and you guys don't want to do All In Summit 2022. Come on, 23, come on.

• 12:20David Friedberg?

  We're good. We're good.

• 12:21David Sacks?

  Yeah, exactly. Why do I need another one of these?

• 12:25Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I actually want to have Free Bird Stands create an event honoring him and I'm going to appear there as the keynote speaker.

• 12:31David Friedberg?

  Absolutely.

• 12:32Jason Calacanis?

  Sultan of Science Con.

• 12:33David Sacks?

  Actually, I should really thank you, J Cal.

• 12:35Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, totally.

• 12:36David Sacks?

  For throwing the summit. Thanks, J Cal. First, I blame Twitter's executives, then I blame you.

• 12:42Jason Calacanis?

  I think you could put, listen, if we do another All In Summit, maybe it's profitable and we can pay our legal bills.

• 12:49Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Can I, can I just say like, as a user, just as a user, okay?

• 12:53Jason Calacanis?

  Commentary.

• 12:53Chamath Palihapitiya?

  The, the bot issue is really real. Like, how many accounts are there which have like 20 or 30 followers that just spew vitriol, either positive or negative constantly? Every time you tweet anything, it makes tweeting impossible. I used to be an ardent user of Twitter. And I think in the last year, it has become exceptionally unusable.

• 13:18Jason Calacanis?

  Well.

• 13:18Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And so they should just fix, they should fix that product quality problem.

• 13:23Jason Calacanis?

  In fairness to Sacks, he did pay $10 per account to have those created and to troll your replies. But it is true. If you, I always screenshot it. I look at who's like trolling me in replies. And inevitably, it is a six month old account with, that's following 100 people and has no followers or five followers and it has like some, you know,

• 13:44Jason Calacanis?

  large string of numbers at the end of the name.

• 13:47Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Every time you say something, every time I say something, it's like every other comment is about a stock. It's about a crypto thing that they want you to click on. And so, you know, this last month, I've started to experiment with turning comments off. And it's been the best because I can still communicate out, it gets the same reach. Millions of people will see what I have to say, but I don't have to deal. And all of the other people that follow me theoretically for useful information, don't have to deal with all of the bullshit that comes with it now.

• 14:14Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, but you'd also pick, you should try.

• 14:16Chamath Palihapitiya?

  There's a real problem on that platform that needs to get fixed.

• 14:21Jason Calacanis?

  Here's the thing, it's easily fixable because if you go to LinkedIn or Facebook or Instagram, you don't see this. So if it, if the other platforms can figure it out across many different companies, it's not like there's some secret sauce here. You, you just have to put up, you know, a couple of reasonable gates and have some reasonable reporting and you take a little friction out and people will not be able to create bots en masse.

• 14:44David Sacks?

  Yeah, I noticed that problem, you know, in the early days of the Ukraine war, when I would tweet out my opinion, my non, my contrarian opinions, my non-consensus opinions on the Ukraine war.

• 14:53Chamath Palihapitiya?

  You get attacked. I saw, I remember.

• 14:55David Sacks?

  Oh my God, it was ruthless and.

• 14:57Chamath Palihapitiya?

  But those are not real people. Those are not real people. Those are algorithms.

• 15:01David Sacks?

  Yeah, when you would go click on those accounts, you would see that they were accounts created that month. With zero followers, zero following. And they're brand new accounts without any history and they were all tweeting the same thing, accusing me of being Neville Chamberlain. It was all just, you know, Putin talking points or whatever. So there, you know, I think particularly when you speak out against the current thing, there's, you know, an organized effort to try and drown you out. And, but look, the Washington Post had a story about this, that Ukraine was really good at what they called strategic communications.

• 15:35Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Yeah.

• 15:36Jason Calacanis?

  Misinformation.

• 15:36David Sacks?

  We used to call that propaganda, but in any event, yeah, I mean, look, there is absolutely a problem there.

• 15:41Jason Calacanis?

  It's now a playbook. If you, I don't know if you guys saw the Zack Snyder recut of Justice League. Supposedly, there were bot armies that put the pressure on Warner Brothers to release his cut of that movie. And that he might have in some way been involved was the insinuation, and it actually drove commerce. They gave him the whatever, 30, 40 million dollars to recut the film. All right, let's talk about markets, since that's what everybody really comes here for. Looks like inflation is finally maybe getting a little pushback gas, and oil is way down. Big win for Americans, and obviously, the administration, there clearly is an upper bound to how much people will pay for a gallon of gasoline. Consumption is actually going down, which is interesting.

• 16:24Jason Calacanis?

  Humans pretty adaptable there. Jobs, and we've talked about this every month as we watch it, finally dipped under 11 million, as Sachs predicted. You know, we're going to shed 300,000, 400,000 jobs, it seems, every month, which should take this, you know, 10, 11 million number over the next year down to maybe five or six, which would still be an unbelievable number, still put us at very robust full employment, which has been a big question.

• 16:50David Sacks?

  Also, there's a number of open job, the number of job recs. It went down by something like half a million in one month.

• 16:57Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, and it's been going down 300, 400. So it's, it's kind of been pretty consistent, but there's clearly something going on here. And

• 17:07Jason Calacanis?

  the stock market, interestingly, we've started to see a little bump here, even crypto, which the most speculative of all assets, I guess. Bitcoin bounced as well, you know, hitting 22, 23 now, so.

• 17:23Jason Calacanis?

  What do you think, Chamath, about markets? You may have called the bottom here on the program a couple of months ago, and I started j-trading three weeks ago, based on our discussions here, thinking we're bouncing along the bottom. Is it a head fake right now?

• 17:37Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I think at the time, initially, I think I said, you know, it rallies to around 4,000. I was a little off rallies.

• 17:47Jason Calacanis?

  What rallies to 4,000?

• 17:49Chamath Palihapitiya?

  The S and P.

• 17:50Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah.

• 17:52Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Probably gets to forty-two hundred, forty-three hundred. Look, it's always important from my perspective. Trading at forty-one fifty today, just so people know. Yeah, it's always important from my perspective to just take the other side and just intellectually debate with oneself why the other side could be right. So at this point right now, what people would say is, okay, the Fed's going to capitulate at the beginning part of 2023. We have a pretty clear forecast for all the rate increases that have to happen.

• 18:22Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Everybody's doing the work that's necessary, either raising prices, cutting costs, or doing both, letting people go, et cetera, et cetera. So maybe we're there. Okay, so what's the other side of that? Well, I think, again, as I've stated before, the other side starts with energy. And the reason why I think it's important is that it really is the conflation of an economic system and a political system using an instrument. And if you look inside of what's happening in Europe, there's a lot of complexities here that I think need to get unpacked. So for example, a couple of days ago, the French government basically said that they're going to start producing less nuclear energy. And you'd say, well, why would they do that?

• 19:08Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Well, it turns out because, you know, the temperatures are so high, you cannot use the water to cool these nuclear reactors because the the exiting water is then so hot that would actually destroy the ecosystem of the lakes and rivers that they use to feed natural fresh water in to cool the nuclear reactor.

• 19:27Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Second,

• 19:29Chamath Palihapitiya?

  because it's so hot, all the rivers are below their natural level. Barges that carry coal and nat gas are getting stuck on the Danube. The Po, which is the longest river in Italy that feeds all the fields. Actually can't is below the level where it can actually off, you know, offload the water. So farmers can't basically do what they need to do to produce a food supply. So if you play all of that out, you start to see an issue where by, you know, October, November of this year, we're back into the same complexity where energy is the tip of the spear around which everybody starts to debate all of the national security issues that we have to deal with. The Ukraine war, et cetera, et cetera.

• 20:13Chamath Palihapitiya?

  So I don't know. I mean, you know, you've made a lot of money this year by basically doing the following, which is the exact opposite of everybody else. When everybody else was freaking out, had you bought, you would have made a ton of money. Now everybody's like, it's over. And you can tell that by looking at the VIX, which is the volatility index. We're about to get into the high teens. You have systematically, it has been true that when the VIX is in the teens, you tend to basically buy volatility, which is essentially you get short stocks. And when the VIX is in the 30s, you tend to basically sell volatility and you buy equities because we've hit the bottom. If you've been doing that for the last year, you've made a ton of money.

• 20:55Chamath Palihapitiya?

  So there you have it. I really don't know what's going to happen from here, but I tend to think things still have to get a lot worse to flush everything through the system.

• 21:03Jason Calacanis?

  And for people who don't know, the VIX is the ticker symbol that you can look up yourself for the CBOE's volatility index, which measures the stock market's expectation of volatility based on the S and P index's options trading. If you look at oil, Saks, we are now down to 87 bucks for a barrel. Haven't been here since, gosh, looks like, yeah, February, maybe. And so, and gas prices plummeting, something going well in this regard?

• 21:38Jason Calacanis?

  What are your thoughts?

• 21:38David Sacks?

  Yeah, I mean, it's that particular commodity is coming down. I still think we have a big inflation problem.

• 21:45Jason Calacanis?

  Why do you think it's going down?

• 21:46David Sacks?

  I guess production's stepping up. I mean, in response to higher prices, people increase production and the price comes down.

• 21:53Chamath Palihapitiya?

  No, no, no, no, no. There's less demand. The crazy sad thing about this whole thing with Biden was that OPEC came back and they basically said, we can increase like 600,000 barrels a day. But the only two countries that are able to do it were, I think, Kuwait and Saudi. And the total number of barrels is about 100,000. So with all the bluster and all of this stuff.

• 22:12David Sacks?

  You're right, actually.

• 22:13Chamath Palihapitiya?

  There's no supply.

• 22:14David Sacks?

  It's because the interest rate increases are actually having an effect.

• 22:16Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Correct.

• 22:17David Sacks?

  You know, these rate increases are like chemotherapy. You know, it's on the economy.

• 22:22Chamath Palihapitiya?

  The gas demand is lower than the summer of 2020 in the middle of the pandemic.

• 22:26David Sacks?

  Yeah, you're right. So the commodity prices are reflecting expectations that the economy is slowing down and, you know, maybe in a recession.

• 22:35Jason Calacanis?

  So supply modestly up, demand massively down equals, hey, we want to get people to buy this commodity, we'll lower the prices. Lo and behold, the same thing is happening a little bit with groceries, and we'll see what happens with travel. Homes also spectacularly falling down in price, and the inventory spiking as well. So what's your take here? Unpack the 75 basis point increase in the chemotherapy that you were going down that road.

• 23:01David Sacks?

  Well, let me just speak to this rally in the market for a second, because I think there was a really interesting chart that Philippe LeFond showed at that COTU summit that we talked about on this pod a few months ago. And I'll just put it on the screen, I put it in the chat. What it basically shows is that during, you know, protracted bear markets, you can still get substantial bear market rallies. And so during the 2000, 2001 dot com crash, you had these plus 32%, plus 41%, plus 45% rallies, but even while the market as a whole was going down. And so they ended up being sort of sucker rallies.

• 23:42David Sacks?

  Now, I don't know if that is what's happening here, but it is a possibility.

• 23:47Jason Calacanis?

  One interpretation of this could be, people are picking the winning stocks while the losers continue to lose, and that's what's causing this, you know, jagged edge or the dead cat bouncing, as they say. Which is what we're seeing in a lot of these public companies, right? I don't know if you're watching, but Uber, you know, obviously I'm still a big shareholder, had a massive print and other companies have been doing equally as well, Apple included.

• 24:10David Sacks?

  I think two things happened last week. One is there were a number of companies that reported good earnings and I think even more importantly, has strong forecasts. So that helped. And I think it was just, there was so much pessimism and negativity that just companies reporting decreases that weren't as bad as people were expecting, created some room to move up. But the other thing that, that drove the rally is that the Fed made these comments on the heels of that 75 basis point rate increase, that we were close to neutral. And so the market seemed to get really optimistic that we wouldn't get much more in the, in the way of rate increases. Maybe there'd be a 50 basis point rate increase

• 24:51David Sacks?

  towards the end of the year, which would bring the Fed funds rate up to about the two-year bond rate. So the idea was we're close to neutral and markets really reacted to that. The thing about that is though, that I think what the Powell, what Powell and what the Fed says today about rates is way less important than what the inflation data will actually show in a few months. If we still have 9% inflation three months from now, then I don't think the rate increases are done. So at the end of the day, I think that the data here is going to be a lot more important than what the Fed says, because certainly the Fed has said a lot of things over the past couple of years that turned out not to be true.

• 25:32Jason Calacanis?

  You would agree, they seem to be doing something correct here with the 75 bips, you know, and, and taking it a little more seriously. It's having an impact.

• 25:40Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I'll say it again. I've said it now five pods in a row. We've never seen a moment in history, in American history, where when CPI has printed successively above 5%, that it got under 5% without Fed funds getting to that same number.

• 25:57Chamath Palihapitiya?

  So we should all hope that this is the exception that proves the rule. But there's an enormous amount of data that would tell you that we have to take rates to double what the equilibrium rate is thought to be right now.

• 26:12Jason Calacanis?

  There was no print in August. They take the month of August off. They could do an emergency print and then they're expecting 50 or 75 bips in September if they do that. Sacks, Chamath Friedberg.

• 26:22David Sacks?

  I think 50 is the expectation for September. But look, I think it's appropriate now after all the rate increase they've done to take a pause. They're going to get two full months now of inflation data before the September Fed meeting. I think it's appropriate to let the economy digest these rate increases and see where we're at. And let's see where the next two months inflation print is and then that'll determine what happens next.

• 26:44Jason Calacanis?

  Friedberg, based on all this, what's your outlook for the economy?

• 26:49David Friedberg?

  I think there's more. We all try and be predictive based on the current set of conditions in the world. And there are a number of conditions in the world that the switch could flip very quickly. And there's enough of those triggering events right now that the probability of any one or any set of them happening in the next couple of months is probably pretty high. You know, I kind of talked about it on the show a few weeks ago, that it's like a bunch of tortoises sticking their head out of the shell. And you know, there's a few that might pop out here. There's obviously a massive problem

• 27:31David Friedberg?

  with getting gas to Western Europe for this winter. There is an emerging problem with food insecurity in Africa, South Asia, around the world. There is obviously continuing escalating conflict in Eastern Europe.

• 27:49David Friedberg?

  This NATO situation may or may not help. The Taiwan visit may or may not help. Is it escalating? Yeah. Well, I mean, I think Sweden and whatnot joining NATO is Okay. is going to be viewed as provocative. And it could not make things cooler and calmer over there, but make them more tense. I mean, we view it as a security issue, but it really is a conflict escalation issue. And then I think that there are emerging markets problems. You know, Argentina is facing 60% inflation. Brazil has a criminal as their president right now, and he has said publicly in the last couple of days that he will not leave office if he loses the election because the election is fraudulent.

• 28:34David Friedberg?

  And if that happens, then you could see massive civil unrest. He's been encouraging the population in Brazil to go to the streets and fight back. And there are a number of these flashpoints. And by the way, that's a massive

• 28:46David Friedberg?

  you know, food supplier as well as a massive holding in EM credit portfolios around the world. U.S. consumer credit is a problem. You know, we just had the largest number of new credit card accounts opened since 2008 in Q2 from the New York Fed report yesterday. All of these things I'm painting as pictures of potential flashpoints for what could quickly become wildfires or brush fires that spread very quickly in markets and could escalate some of the considerations. So I don't feel like I look around and say, everything is good, we're in a good place. There are some indications that some of these stagflationary considerations and concerns we may have had and the way that markets are behaving right now

• 29:29David Friedberg?

  gives us a pause, gives us a respite, makes us feel okay. But there are also a lot of things that could go wrong. And any one of those things could be a triggering point. So I always think in terms of probabilities. There's a whole bunch of low probability things. But when you have enough low probability things, the probability that something in the set is triggered becomes high. That's where I kind of say, look, the probability of something being a flashpoint for us this year is high. I also still think that globally, we are very primed for conflict right now. And we feel like and are hoping that the Russia-Ukraine thing resolves, but there are other points of escalation. Look at what's happening with Pelosi visiting Taiwan. Everyone that's even well informed is scratching their head, saying, what the heck is going on here?

• 30:13David Friedberg?

  There is currently an indulgence in conflict. And I think that that indulgence will, you know, cause more harm than good, particularly for these financial markets that we're commenting on right now in the months ahead. So, um, look, you know, like I've always said, I'm not going to be one to time markets. It's like trying to time social behavior, like who's going to say some word first? I don't know the answer in a, in a population of people, you know, you can kind of guess how people are going to behave. But markets are the output, the manifestation of social behavior. And so timing markets is very difficult. I think you can do a good job analyzing businesses and the quality of businesses and how they will perform over time. I don't think that anyone over time can do a good job timing markets.

• 30:53David Friedberg?

  And I think that there's a lot of these things that could really shift anyone's perspective on what you believe right now very rapidly in another direction, based on any one of these things happening.

• 31:03Jason Calacanis?

  Chamath, do you feel the world is, as Dr. Doom here is, you know, setting it up?

• 31:08David Friedberg?

  I'm not, by the way, I'm not being negative. I'm just pointing out that there are a set of things that could flip things the other way, right?

• 31:13Jason Calacanis?

  Absolutely. I'm being slightly facetious here, but you painted a pretty stark picture of, hey, there's all these tipping points around the world. Chamath, do you feel like this is how the world works? There's always a bunch of potential tipping points. There's always going to be wars sadly, and there's always going to be countries that are dealing with dictators or insolvency, especially in frontier markets and emerging markets. Or is this chaos, you know, really acute and people should be, you know, anxious and in a panic?

• 31:44Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I think both of you guys are right. Like there's always stuff going on in markets and markets represent the collective sum of our wishes and expectations and also the realities. This is why I think for me at least, the way that I process this information is not trying to have an opinion on any one of those things, because I just, I find it too hard.

• 32:05Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And I don't have enough depth of understanding of any of those things. For me, I'd rather go back to the historical trends because those I find a little bit easier to parse. And whether any of those things are true and Can they turn that radio down? Jason, we're just docking some. Oh, okay. No problem. I just, we can't hear you. So I want to, no problem.

• 32:31David Friedberg?

  The second helicopter is replacing the first helicopter because of a fuel leak issue.

• 32:35Chamath Palihapitiya?

  The helicopter pilots are swapping out. Yeah, no, that's a.

• 32:36David Friedberg?

  The helicopters are switching on the heli.

• 32:38Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I mean, it takes a team to park this boat. I'll just be honest with you. So they're, they're trying to get it done. It's a little, no, but listen. So, so the, the, the real problem is that like, if I go back to the historical artifacts, have there been issues in the past? The way that, you know, um, Friedberg described? Absolutely. So this is why I think you can look at the fact that whenever there's inflation and whenever it spiked, this, what has had to happen by the Fed is you have to take rates above that key 5% threshold when CPI is above 5% to break enough demand so that the economy is reset.

• 33:17Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And I think that's where we are. So instead of trying to figure out whether, you know, I mean, the, the Brazil thing as an example that, that Friedberg said is crazy. Like he's basically, you know, he said publicly in a press release, the army is on my side and it's ready to help me, you know, keep and staying, just the craziest thing. So what are you supposed to do?

• 33:35David Friedberg?

  The fighters need to take to the streets.

• 33:37Chamath Palihapitiya?

  So what are you, so what are you supposed to do? In my opinion, I'm like, you know what? A version of Brazil has happened before. I don't know enough history, quite honest, to know the specifics of what happened then and how that could translate to now. And I don't want to spend the time understanding what's going to happen in Brazil right now. I'd rather just say there are 20 or 30 things that could very much complicate the world economy.

• 33:59Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I think the reality is that governments need to flush all this excess money out of the system. So that we can really find out what equilibrium demand is and get back to normal.

• 34:10David Friedberg?

  There's also, by the way, a really important trend, Chamath, unlike. That I think is playing out and will play out for the next decade on deglobalization. So as the US tries to build its own semiconductor manufacturing capacity, as China loses key trade partners, as all of these markets stop trading with each other and start to build redundancy, there is a massive, longer-range economic effect of deglobalization. Globalization enables efficient pricing, it enables labor and energy and everything to be done, you know, to go to the cheapest source, that's the way globalization has benefited us. We've been able to get cheap energy and cheap labor in overseas markets to do work for

• 34:53David Friedberg?

  us, and as a result, we've gotten access to cheap products. So when you deglobalize, you end up having to pay more for labor, more for energy, you have to build infrastructure, and the price for everything goes up.

• 35:04Chamath Palihapitiya?

  We've said this on the pod for two years now. That era of cheaper, faster, better is over. And what comes with that is better national security, but the cost of that better national security is higher prices.

• 35:19David Friedberg?

  Higher prices, less growth.

• 35:21Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And there's nothing that we can do to avoid that. I'm not sure I agree with the less growth. I actually think that there's enough excess slack to be absorbed by all of this free money, that I think you can still have sustained growth, but it will come with higher interest rates and higher inflation and higher input costs. Everybody will have to do their part to absorb some of this. But that's what's going to happen. And I think we should just deal with the medicine as quickly as possible. This is why the people that actually think that the Fed should just be very aggressive and get this over with quickly, I suspect on the margins are right. The problem is, they don't want to look at the historical artifact, because the historical artifact would say, wait, I need to raise interest rates by another 250 basis points. That's just way too disruptive for what the world is ready to hear right now. So we're going to incrementally...

• 36:06Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Plot along, and I think what Friedberg says is right, which is that there's going to be a whack-a-mole that emerges, that's going to tilt the markets, then the consumer credit thing will implode, that's going to tilt the markets, then Jair Bolsonaro will try to take over Brazil, that'll tilt the markets, and we'll go back to this, you know, inflationary, fragmented, deglobalized view of the world that just frankly takes higher interest rates to normalize.

• 36:29Jason Calacanis?

  All right, and Sax, I'll bring you on this. I mean, counter to Friedberg's point, the counter obviously would be, hey, we will have less dependency on dictators like Putin, Xi Jinping, MBS, et cetera, and that would be great for humanity, and we'd have resiliency in our supply chain. And, you know, the West now becoming unified, say what you will about the NATO membership and the timing of it, it's probably a great thing that the West is saying, hey, we're going to get together as a group, I think you would agree, and stand against dictators invading other countries, and if everybody pays their fair share to be part of NATO.

• 37:06Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Well, that's not, that's not what they said. That's not what they said.

• 37:09Jason Calacanis?

  Well, it is a fair point. Well, I mean.

• 37:10Chamath Palihapitiya?

  No, that is not, but be intellectually honest. Every day, we all said the first part, and nobody talked about that second part. And the only person who, you know, which is Josh Hawley, who's, you know, not exactly my favorite person in the world, but maybe Sax wants to comment, was the only one that actually said, which is probably the fair thing, which Jason, you are saying is part of the deal, it is not part of the deal.

• 37:30Jason Calacanis?

  No, no, should be part of the deal. I'm saying it should be part of the deal. And for people who missed what we said there, United States spends three and a half percent of our GDP on military. Other places in NATO might be spending one or two percent, and we're trying to get them all to two percent to be a little closer to us. And then this obviously trip to Taiwan, strengthening our relationship with that country, but at what cost, and why are we doing it now, all come into play here. So.

• 37:55Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Do you actually think that this trip to Taiwan actually strengthened our relationship with Taiwan? Did we come out with a deal for chips to the TSMC all of a sudden say?

• 38:05Chamath Palihapitiya?

  In what way? I'm curious.

• 38:06Jason Calacanis?

  Well, because they are, I mean, did you not see their statements and giving Pelosi awards? And they Taiwan very much wants to strengthen their relationship with the West. That that is their goal. They want to strengthen the West. They want the protection of the West. So, yes, it's

• 38:20Chamath Palihapitiya?

  You think that this was a coordinated?

• 38:22Jason Calacanis?

  Hold on, let me finish. It does strengthen our relationship with Taiwan. The question is, does it provoke China? And was it necessary at this point in time in history? When the world does feel like it's a little bit of a powder keg?

• 38:32Chamath Palihapitiya?

  No, but so so six months from now, when all the fruits and vegetables that have been embargoed and not sent to Taiwan? And then the sand that allows them to make chips continues to not flow? Do you think that they'll still be positive about the trip?

• 38:44Jason Calacanis?

  We'll see. I mean, I let's go to Sacks. He likes to comment on these things, so.

• 38:48David Sacks?

  All right. Well, I want to dismantle everything you just said.

• 38:51Jason Calacanis?

  I know. That's why I set you up for it.

• 38:52David Sacks?

  So on Pelosi, I mean, look, once it came out that Pelosi was going to Taiwan and China threatened her and the US saying you can't go. Obviously, we couldn't back down from that because we can't let China dictate which of our officials can go to Taiwan. So at that point, we had to back her play. And you saw that everybody from Fox News to 25 Republican senators got on board. Okay. But here's the issue, the real issue is, should she even have been going? I think this trip was self indulgent. It was reckless. She was told by the Biden administration, don't go. This is not the right time. This is a sensitive time. The CCP's got their party conference in the next couple of months.

• 39:36David Sacks?

  There was no reason to basically provoke this showdown right now. And she just dismissed what the administration with Biden and what the Pentagon told her to do because she wanted to make some sort of valedictory tour to Taiwan. So, look, Nancy Pelosi does not deserve any credit for this trip. Did we have to defend her once? You know, once China threatened her? Yes, of course, we had to, like I said, back her play. But this was reckless and it was self indulgent and it didn't need to happen. And, you know, it really makes you wonder, who is calling the shots in this administration? When Pelosi won't even respect the wishes of a president and her own party? And what is she doing going over there? She's not the Secretary of State.

• 40:20Jason Calacanis?

  I had the same questions.

• 40:21David Sacks?

  She's not the president.

• 40:22Jason Calacanis?

  Had the same questions like, why now? Why not?

• 40:24David Sacks?

  Thomas Freeman had, well, because it's all about her making this valedictory tour before she's going to hand over the gavel. Look, the Democrats are going to lose the House in November. Once she passes the gavel to a new Republican Speaker of the House, I think she'll be announcing her retirement shortly after that. So this is all part of her farewell tour. But it didn't need to happen. And the fact that she did it in violation of the wishes of a president of her own party makes you wonder, who's calling the shots over there? And it kind of reminded me, you know, a few weeks ago, Gavin Newsom was over at the White House when Biden was over in Europe, and everyone was speculating, what's he doing over there? Is he measuring the drapes?

• 41:05Jason Calacanis?

  Moving in.

• 41:06David Sacks?

  Yeah, he's measuring the drapes. So, you know, it just goes to show, does this administration have control over anything, over the members of their own party? Over 60% of Democrats say they want someone different to run in 24. So, yes, there was a surface level of consensus and backing of Pelosi. But if you scratch beneath the surface, you see that the trip was unnecessary and reveals a president who doesn't seem completely in control of our foreign policy.

• 41:33Jason Calacanis?

  So in a statement, almost universally, the leadership of the Republican Party said, "For decades, members of the US, United States Congress, including previous speakers of the House, have traveled to Taiwan. This travel is consistent with the United States One-China policy, to which we are committed. We are also committed now, more than ever, to all elements of the Taiwan Relations Act." So One-China, if you don't know, is that Taiwan and China are all part of one unified entity? So we're, the Republicans seem to be supporting this in a cynical way, you're saying? Or it is consistent that other members of the United States Congress have gone, including other speakers of the House?

• 42:12David Sacks?

  I think there is bipartisan support now to defend Taiwan. I actually think that that is in the cards. I think there's a very high probability that we actually end up in a war with China.

• 42:23Jason Calacanis?

  Really?

• 42:23David Sacks?

  I don't know when. This century. Oh, yeah.

• 42:25Jason Calacanis?

  I don't think so.

• 42:26David Sacks?

  I think Taiwan's the biggest flashpoint in the world.

• 42:28Jason Calacanis?

  I would agree with that. But explain why you think there's going to be a war? Because I think a lot of people think there's way too much at stake here for there to be a war. So there is going to be some sort of negotiated settlement in the South China Sea. So why would you think, you think the majority case is there's going to be a war? Really?

• 42:44David Sacks?

  You have to look at it, first of all, from the Chinese point of view. They view Taiwan as sacred territory and for decades now, they have said in every single meeting, diplomatic meeting with the US, Taiwan is always their number one issue. They are hell bent on the reunification of mainland China with Taiwan and they would like to do it peacefully through coercion if they can, but I think they will do it militarily if they must. And the only question is when they feel that they will be strong enough to basically take the island by force. So that's, I think, the Chinese point of view and I think America is increasingly committed to the defense of Taiwan. So, you know, we have contradictory statements on this, though the one China policy says

• 43:28David Sacks?

  that we respect that there's one China, but on the other hand, the Taiwan Relations Act commits us to help in the defense of Taiwan. So we have a contradictory policy on this, but if you really want to understand.

• 43:43Jason Calacanis?

  And by the way, as does Saks, you would agree, China has flip flopped on this. I mean, it's only the last hundred years that they've really considered Taiwan strategic. They didn't care about it two or 300 years ago. They were kind of like, this is worthless, you guys do what you want.

• 43:53David Sacks?

  Taiwan was part of China until 1895, when Japan took it from them.

• 43:58Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah.

• 43:59David Sacks?

  They have been.

• 44:00Jason Calacanis?

  They didn't want it at that time. That's, that's the other thing. They were like, this is worthless real estate, we don't care.

• 44:04David Sacks?

  No, that's not true.

• 44:05Jason Calacanis?

  Well.

• 44:06David Sacks?

  Taiwan is extremely important strategically and if you want to understand why, I think you need to look at this map of.

• 44:13Jason Calacanis?

  Yes. No, I read up on that. It's really interesting.

• 44:16David Sacks?

  Can we pull that up, actually?

• 44:17Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, it's a really interesting discussion because 200 years ago, they didn't care and then all of a sudden they were like, wait a second, if we're going to be in wars with the West and Japan's going to be a democracy, we do actually have something at stake here. We'd like that island back.

• 44:27David Sacks?

  The island chain strategy was originally created by John Foster Dulles, this, one of the Secretary of State, I think, under Eisenhower, who was one of the initial architects of our containment policy against Soviet Union, but also came with this idea of how we would contain China in East Asia. And the basic idea is that China is surrounded by a series of island chains. The first island chain goes down from the southern tip of Japan to Okinawa, to Taiwan, to, I think there's some islands in the South China Sea, the Spratly Islands. It's got the northwest tip of the Philippines, that's the first island chain. Second island chain goes out to.

• 45:07Jason Calacanis?

  Vietnam.

• 45:07David Sacks?

  Eastern part of the Philippines. No, Vietnam's all the way down in.

• 45:11Jason Calacanis?

  Oh, yeah, okay, yeah.

• 45:11David Sacks?

  I see what you're saying. But I think its second island chain includes, you know, goes down to Indonesia. And then I think there's even a third island chain that includes Guam, although Guam actually might be in the second somewhere. It's somewhere around there. It's a heavily fortified American base. So the idea is if you want to bottle up and contain China, you do it by controlling these island chains. And Taiwan is really the central one. It sort of divides this East China Sea, where you've got South Korea and Japan, from the South China Sea, where you've got Vietnam and Malaysia.

• 45:44Jason Calacanis?

  Equally distant between Vietnam and Japan. It's literally, if you were to draw a center line of China's coastal access, that is it.

• 45:51David Sacks?

  Yeah. So, so the bottom line is this, if you want to pursue a policy of containment against China, you really want to control these island chains. Another way to think about it is that these islands are unsinkable aircraft carriers. They allow America to project power 6,000 miles away into the Pacific. That's how we saw it during World Two, is we had all these island hopping battles. And as we took these islands, they would then become a runway for the next stage of, to project American power to get all the way to Japan. So, you know, if you believe that we're headed for, or we already are in Cold War Two with China, and I think we are, I think China is really.

• 46:33Jason Calacanis?

  I think we'd all agree with that.

• 46:33David Sacks?

  The geopolitical threat, not Russia. The way that you would contain China and keep them bottled up is to have these islands in the American alliance. It's going to be very hard for China, which is now building a huge blue water navy, has actually more ships than the United States. It's going to be very hard for them to project their power all over the world if they are contained and bottled up and have to watch their own backs.

• 46:55Jason Calacanis?

  One note on the number of ships, though.

• 46:57David Sacks?

  In East Asia.

• 46:57Jason Calacanis?

  Is, you know, they, they have a lot of small ships. The tonnage wise, we have much more tonnage. And if you were to look. You know, even the the perfect setup, as you explained through these islands, is very similar to NATO and the what's happening with Russia. You know, we have Korea, we have Japan, we have Vietnam, the Philippines, we have an incredible alliance in this area. And that's a great thing for America. And Taiwan, obviously, is a jump ball here. But this is a setup for China, you know, having.

• 47:29Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Jason, what do you think about the repercussions of her visit? So CATL, which is Tesla's biggest battery supplier, basically, you know, delayed the announcement of a of a factory. It's not clear whether they're going to put it into the United States. They may actually pick a city in Mexico. But what the decision that was supposed to happen now has now been delayed until September, October. There's a bunch of, you know, there's all of these crazy military drills that happened. Was it all worth it?

• 47:54Jason Calacanis?

  I mean, that is the question. And I.

• 47:57Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I'm asking you. Was it worth it?

• 47:59Jason Calacanis?

  We don't have enough information, I think, to know what why this was done now. Was it a freelance offer?

• 48:04Chamath Palihapitiya?

  No.

• 48:05Jason Calacanis?

  Hold on, hold on. He asked me a question. Let me finish. Is it a freelance and Nancy Pelosi is completely freelance? Or is there a bigger strategy here is the question? Is China weak now? Are we trying to send a message to them? And one could equally take the side of the argument that the United States supporting Finland, supporting Sweden, supporting NATO, you know, supporting the Ukraine and supporting the Pacific is actually the right move here to contain the dictators.

• 48:32Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I agree, but we have a, I agree, but we have two people to do that. It's the president and the secretary of state.

• 48:36Jason Calacanis?

  Well, that would be a much bigger provocation, I think, is the issue. So if you sent the president, that would be a very big provocation.

• 48:43Chamath Palihapitiya?

  The Thomas Friedman article that Sacks mentions was pretty explicit that, you know, Blinken and Biden both told her, please stand down.

• 48:51Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah.

• 48:52Chamath Palihapitiya?

  The NSC and the Joint Chiefs said, please stand down. You are way over your ski tips here. And she's still there.

• 48:59Jason Calacanis?

  I agree. I agree. I've been very public. What is the point of doing this now is the question? And we don't have information.

• 49:06David Sacks?

  Once China tried to dictate to Pelosi that she couldn't go, of course, we had to back her play, but you have to be kind of a fool to fall for this in the first place. This was self-indulgent by Pelosi. She didn't need to pick this battle. The administration asked her not to. And look, let me give Biden some credit here. Biden has the right policy on Taiwan, which was stated this way. He says that we support the status quo and we are against unilateral changes to the status quo. We want the United States to be a status quo power with respect to Taiwan and force China to be the revisionist power. And we need to be very careful that we do not come across as the revisionist power. That would give China an excuse. So we want to just maintain the status quo. That should be our policy.

• 49:48Jason Calacanis?

  All right, everybody, we'll see you next time on the All In Pod. Bye-bye.

• 49:52Speaker 04

  We'll let your winners ride.

• 49:56Speaker 05

  Rain Man David Sack.

• 49:58Speaker 04

  And it said, "We open source it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it." Love you, Sack. I'm the queen of the wild. Let your winners ride. Let, let your winners ride. Besties are gone. That is my dog taking a hit of your driveway. Oh, man. My haberdasher will meet me at the place.

• 50:23Speaker 05

  We should all just get a room and just have one big U-Jorgie because they're all just useless. It's like this sexual tension that we just need to release somehow.

• 50:30Speaker 04

  What, you're the bee? What, you're a bee? We need to get murky. Besties are back.

• 50:47Speaker 04

  I'm going all in.