E18: Inauguration talk, breaking down the $1.9T stimulus, the case for recalling Gavin Newsom & more

Follow the crew: 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/MikeSylvan Referenced in the show: M1 Money Stock https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M1 Friedberg's Spy Situation https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/chinese-national-who-worked-monsanto-indicted-economic-espionage-charges Sacks' thoughts on Wilkinson cancellation https://twitter.com/DavidSacks/status/1352432977460957185 Show Notes: 0:00 Bestie intro, Inauguration talk, Impeachment implications 20:22 Trump as a successful change agent, Facebook's Oversight Board overseeing Trump's appeal 34:07 Will Big Tech be regulated like utilities? Friedberg tells a spy story 44:15 Breaking down the $1.9T Stimulus package, needs for infrastructure bill, worst-case scenarios 55:06 How the tech ecosystem plays into inequality & how to fix it 1:04:00 Recalling California Governor Gavin Newsom, California's lockdown incompetence 1:17:32 Sacks rebukes cancel culture, this time from the right-wing mob

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

• 0:00David Friedberg?

  Hey everybody, it's me, Jason Calacanis. Welcome, welcome.

• 0:04Jason Calacanis?

  Hey everybody, it's me, Jason.

• 0:05David Friedberg?

  Thank God Trump's out.

• 0:07Jason Calacanis?

  I hate Trump and I love myself.

• 0:29Jason Calacanis?

  Hey everybody, happy days are here again. Champagne car of bottles popping, vuvclico again. Happy days are here again. Yay, Sacks is so happy. Trump's out of office, he gave an amazing speech about how great Biden's inauguration was. Welcome to the All In Podcast.

• 0:57Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Oh my gosh.

• 0:57Jason Calacanis?

  With me today, in our post inauguration afterglow, is the dictator, Tramapai Hapatia, the queen of quinoa, David Friedberg, and riding the blue wave, diving in, no more red pills. The blue wave is David Rain Man Sacks is with us. David, how did it feel to watch Biden's inauguration speech, which you said hit all the notes? And I see you wearing blue today. Let me have a sip of my vuvclico and tell us, you've got the blue jacket, the blue shirt and the blue headset on. You've ridden the blue wave. Tell us how you feel with Biden in office. I'm gonna drink my vuv.

• 1:42David Sacks?

  Jason, I'm just happy to see that you're happy. And it's, it's, does this mean, does this mean that I, that your Trump derangement is over? You're, you've gone cold turkey? You're on the wagon? And yeah, I'm just happy, I'm just happy to have my friend back and not have you part of this, this Trump derangement zombie horde that, that you've been in for the last few years.

• 2:11Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I, I'll tell you two quick stories.

• 2:15Chamath Palihapitiya?

  The first one turned out not to be true, but there was a New York Times alert that came out this weekend saying that they were gonna lift the travel ban. And for, for a moment, I was like, I was a little in shock and you know, my, I'm Canadian, my family's in Canada. I haven't seen them in a year. My mom is 80 years old. I haven't seen her in a year. And then the second was on the day the inauguration, Biden signed an EO, I guess, that, you know, starts to basically create a path to citizenship. And there are, you know, two women in my life who I think are

• 3:00Chamath Palihapitiya?

  just lovely, lovely people, who I've never been able to hire. And, and now this gives us a path to hire them and compensate them and the way that we wanted to. And so in these moments, I started crying. And I've probably had three or four moments and I realized like, holy shit, I have had so much pent up emotion, waiting for honestly, just like a normal average day. And like, simple, humane, good things. And I'm not, I'm not trying to sort of jump on the Biden bandwagon. I think that he's got a lot of work to do. But, but I do think that just at a level, simple, basic level of humanity, it was a different, it was a big sea change.

• 3:43Jason Calacanis?

  How did you take it, Friedberg? I'm curious, did you cry as well?

• 3:47David Friedberg?

  I observed the inauguration. It was interesting.

• 3:51Jason Calacanis?

  We didn't upgrade your firmware, sorry. We were supposed to push the two David firmwares for the ability to cry. But did you feel any emotion of the three emotions we've given you in your programming? Did any of them move at all?

• 4:05David Friedberg?

  I don't remember. I mean, I don't remember the origin of my non-emotional characterization, Jason, but yeah, I think it was.

• 4:15Jason Calacanis?

  It's just based on every interaction we've ever had with you, but continue.

• 4:17David Friedberg?

  Right. I guess that makes sense. So I feel like the Biden.

• 4:23David Friedberg?

  The Biden moment on inauguration day, it really did feel like a sigh of relief because so much of Trump, love him or hate him, has been driven by a degree of tension, right? I mean, he came in to office on the premise that he was going to drain the swamp. I mean, that's kind of a very kind of active, you know, position. He's going to go and he's going to change things. And, and I think, you know, the Biden tone is like, let's take it down a notch. Let's all take a deep breath. And I feel like that, that generated a collective sigh of relief. I'll also say that I watched that with the eyes of someone who voted for Trump.

• 5:03David Friedberg?

  I didn't vote for Trump, but I don't think I voted this year. I can't remember, it was in the middle of the pandemic. But I basically feel like there is a lot of folks. It's easy to say, let's unite the country when you're on the winning side. And when you're not, and you're sitting there and your guy got kicked out of office and your guy claimed that he got kicked out because of fraudulent activity and you're one of the 46% of Americans that are already disapproving of Biden's performance in his first two days of office.

• 5:41David Friedberg?

  You don't look at that as a moment of relief. You don't look at that as a moment of, of respite. And I feel like there's a little bit of a mist, a point of view in terms of how we're all covering it and talking about it. It certainly feels good to take the tension down and take, take a deep breath and have leadership not be putting the tension out there. But there's a lot of anger and disappointment still festering out there. And I think we need to be very cognizant of why and what we can do. And it would have been nice to see Biden not just say, let's unite, but actually step over the line and declare some of the policies and points of view of the other side as being valid and, and engaging more directly on those points versus saying, we'll all work together in the future. And we're already seeing, and we're already seeing this rift with McConnell and others in terms of how to deal with the filibuster in a unified senate. And I just don't think

• 6:26David Friedberg?

  that we're there. So, um, yeah.

• 6:28Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah. Sacks, what are your thoughts? And then we'll go to you, Trum.

• 6:31David Sacks?

  Yeah. I mean, look, I'm not going to swoon over an octogenarian reading cliches off a teleprompter. I'm sorry, I just can't do it. Now, that being said, uh, you know, the, the inauguration speech struck all the right notes of reconciliation, lowering the temperature, coming together. These are the things you're supposed to say at an inauguration. These are the presidential layups, if you will. It's kind of a weird thing that Trump could never quite get these layups in. Biden did what he was supposed to do. And, um, and I agree that there is a sense of relief in the temperature being lowered and, uh, and this, and the, the situation in Washington feeling a bit depressurized. And so I think he deserves credit for that. That's all for the good. I think the problem Biden's going

• 7:14David Sacks?

  to have is not just sort of, um, the Trump right opposing him, but the uncivil warriors in his own party. You know, uncivil warriors, I think was the most memorable line in his speech. There are people, I think, you know, on the left who aren't really on board with the reconciliation agenda. I mean, shortly after the election, you had AOC proposing a truth and reconciliation commission.

• 7:37David Friedberg?

  Right.

• 7:38David Sacks?

  Uh, to go after everyone from the, the Trump era. I don't think that's exactly the kind of reconciliation Biden's talking about. You have, I think, the repressive hand of big tech playing into this revenge agenda by acting as a speech cartel. And now we have the rest of the tech stack jumping on board with the, the speech cartel. You had an announcement from a whole bunch of finance companies, PayPal, Stripe, Square, that said they would, uh, cancel the accounts and by implication livelihoods of anyone connected to January 6th. Well, what exactly does that mean? I mean, there were many thousands of people at this rally on the mall. Only a few percent of them breached the Capitol and an even smaller percentage engaged in violence. But everybody who was at the mall,

• 8:22David Sacks?

  and really everyone in the MAGA movement is quote unquote, connected to, to that protest. So how many degrees of Kevin? And bacon are we gonna play in acting out these reprisals? And I think the worst part of all is that now we have in Congress a bill put forward by Adam Schiff that basically would create a domestic Patriot Act to to create giant new surveillance powers for the state to go after people they they deemed to be traitors and seditionists and domestic terrorists. And, you know, I actually tweeted a letter by Rashida Tlaib of the Squad opposing this. It's the first time I've stood with the Squad. I was proud to because the last thing the state needs right now is

• 9:06David Sacks?

  is more surveillance powers. And this idea that we're fighting a war against fellow Americans based on basically political dissent, that's not going to create reconciliation. That's going to lead to the next step in this horrible tit for tat game.

• 9:22Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Just to build on this for a second, there's a Rasmussen poll that came out today. Today's Friday, January 22nd. So two days after the inauguration and Biden's disapproval rating is 45%. And, you know, all of a sudden, you can think, again, as you said, three days ago, you know, a lot of people were on the losing side and are now on the winning side. And today, a lot of people that were on the winning side are quote unquote on the losing side. And you see how reflexive the reaction is. It's like an auto hate, right? It's like auto disapproval. And so if that's the case, it just it just begs the question,

• 10:03Chamath Palihapitiya?

  how much room? And how much tolerance will we have as a society? If we start to go after folks that is, you know, that effectively have an enormous amount of political dissent? Are there fringes of both parties that need to get basically found out, exposed and put in jail? Whether they're Antifa on the left or, you know, the far right extremists on the right? Absolutely. But hopefully the FBI already has enough power to do that. And that's already their remit. And what we're not going to have to do is pass an enormous number of laws. I mean, I've said this before, like, the Patriot Act was so crazy because it was a foreign actor and a foreign event on domestic soil that created it. But, you know, between the pandemic and now what happened in the Capitol, a biological Patriot Act, a domestic Patriot Act.

• 10:49Chamath Palihapitiya?

  These are all in the offing. And I think what we're gonna have to do is, again, it sounds cheesy, but find the common ground so that we can expose who are at the fringes of both parties, who are the real crazy people, round those folks up and deal with them with the laws that we have today. Because otherwise, the unintended consequences for the overwhelming majority of the Americans who are just normal folks is gonna be a little scary.

• 11:16Jason Calacanis?

  I thought a really interesting reconciliation moment happened with the woman who stole Nancy Pelosi's laptop. I don't know if you guys were, have read that story, but this woman who stole the laptop and was considering selling it to the Russians or something, she's 22 years old, she's obviously was misguided in doing this. And the judge basically explained to her that she was releasing her to her mother's, you know, care and that her mother would go to jail if, you know, she did anything further. But she said, listen, you know, you're a beneficiary of the Constitution. You are getting a speedy trial. You are getting representation. And she used it almost as a civics lesson. And I think we had a discussion,

• 12:00Jason Calacanis?

  maybe two episodes, when the pod got a little hot, which was great for ratings, by the way.

• 12:07Jason Calacanis?

  And for our relationships. And it resulted in a reconciliation dinner that we had. A little, a little wives dinner. Our wives brought us together for dinner to just make sure everything was on the.

• 12:17David Sacks?

  Well, Chamath, Chamath brought us together for dinner.

• 12:20Jason Calacanis?

  And brought wives.

• 12:21David Sacks?

  And brought wives, yeah. And, no, I mean, it was, it was a good thing because frankly, Jason, I was starting to hate you, just, just a little bit. But, but I could feel the hate, you know? And Chamath being empathetic as he is, recognized the situation. And so we've decided to do, you know, at least a quarterly besties dinner, to make sure that, yeah, that the contentiousness does not get out of hand and interfere with our friendships, which are more important than our politics.

• 12:51Jason Calacanis?

  Ultimately, that's what we all hope. Is comes out of this podcast, which is a deeper understanding and reconciliation of of issues that we disagree on and breaking bread, having a meal or having a civil conversation, even if it gets a little heated, keeping it civil is important. I thought that this is the way to handle it. A lot of these, we're going to be able to use some amount of judgment on the people who stormed the Capitol and say, okay, this person's misguided. They took a selfie. This person broke windows and then this person, you know, threw a fire extinguisher at a cop. And we have to make sure that the justice system is deployed in a fair way and more surveillance and and more investigations.

• 13:34Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I don't think that's the solution. I think more surveillance, more investigations, absolutely, because I think the FBI has the power today to do that. And I think they should. They, like I said, they should find every single person involved, find the appropriate crime, make sure that they're punished. But the idea of passing broad sweeping surveillance powers over every American citizen is fucking nuts.

• 13:56Jason Calacanis?

  Bonkers.

• 13:57Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And by the way, all that's all that's going to do is create these honeypots for foreign governments to want to attack anyways, because if that capability exists, it exists in code on servers somewhere and folks in China and other places will want to find out where that is and they will be attacking it all day long. And so the last thing we need is we're already leaking enough information about ourselves online willingly and unwittingly. I don't want there to be a honeypot. That's the first thing. The second thing I just want to say is I thought it was incredible. What Mitch McConnell did, just back to your comment, Jason, about making sure folks get the right adjudication. I think Mitch McConnell set the stage to have Donald Trump impeached. And the reason I think that is this was the

• 14:41Chamath Palihapitiya?

  first time he was completely unequivocal, which is that Donald Trump provoked all these folks. And I think what it allows the Republican Party to do is to get together under closed doors, you know, behind closed doors, circle the wagons and say it's either him or us, we choose right now. And I think what's going to happen, if I had to guess, is that that allows a lot of people to break ranks and support the impeachment in the Senate that's going to start on Monday. And I think there's a real chance now that that this impeachment goes through and he gets convicted.

• 15:11David Friedberg?

  I think it's worth just thinking about the implications of that. If you did that, there are Trump loyalists, there aren't really GOP loyalists. And I guess there are GOP loyalists, but there are a lot of Trump loyalists that are not loyal to the GOP at this point. And Sax, you know, correct me if I'm wrong, but if Trump does actually create a fringe party, does create a patriot party, as he suggested he might, you could see up to 20 million Americans joining that party. And, you know, that would reduce the ranks of the Republican Party significantly. And in kind of, my understanding is in political theory, what would result is you always have a balance in the parties. And so the parties kind of adjust left or right to create that balance. Ultimately, it's just kind of the

• 15:55David Friedberg?

  organic way this this works. In order for the Republican Party to gain, you would probably see a lot of membership move over to the Republican Party, which means that the Democratic Party is going to move further left. And, you know, think about the implications of that. If Trump does, if they do actually kick Trump out of the party, and he does set up a fringe party, you will likely see the Democrats move further left, creating a much more kind of conflicting story for some of the centrists than what they're telling today of what's going to happen in the future. And that's a very different America in the next two to three years that could be created if they took that risk. And I think they have to associate that calculus when they're making this decision. You know, you can talk

• 16:39David Friedberg?

  about justice and wanting to kick him out of the party, but the implications of him leaving the party are rather profound.

• 16:45David Sacks?

  Oh, it would fracture the Republican Party. It would be, I guess, the best historical analog would be when Teddy Roosevelt left the party to form the Bull Moose Party. He actually fractured the Republican Party and that allowed, I think, Woodrow Wilson to win the presidency, beating Taft. Yeah, I mean, the Republicans would basically lose every election from now until Trump is no longer, you know, a force in American politics if he created, I guess, the

• 17:12David Friedberg?

  Or they'd have to move, they'd have to move left, right? I mean, in order for them to gain, you know, more people, they'd have to get the centrist Democrats, they'd have to move left, and that'll give the Democrats the ability to move left.

• 17:21David Sacks?

  Yeah, I mean, it's, it's, it's a, it would be a dream scenario for, for the Democrat Party. I'm surprised, I'd be surprised at the end of the day if, if, if enough Republicans went along with, with this to, to fracture the party. But, um, look, I, I understand that on some basis, you know, Trump, Trump caused what, what happened at the Capitol. He convened everybody, he rabble roused. But I think that, frankly, if you have a trial, I think the question we have to ask is, like, what agendas does this serve? Does this serve a reconciliation agenda? Or does this serve a revenge agenda? I mean, the guy's already out of office. I thought we canceled the Trump reality show, and this is like bringing it back for another season.

• 18:05David Sacks?

  Because this trial is gonna be a shit show. Just like all things Trump, you have a trial in the Senate, and it's gonna turn into a total farce, okay? And, you know, look, I think cosmically, Trump was reckless, he was responsible, but when you actually look at the legal definition of incitement, it's actually very hard to prove incitement. So now Trump's gonna get his lawyers up there, and they're gonna be pushing back on this, and it's gonna consume the country for months. And I just think we should be moving forward right now. The guy's already out of office.

• 18:35Jason Calacanis?

  I thought it was gonna be three days and done. Why would it take months? I'm curious. You're just saying you overhang from it?

• 18:40David Friedberg?

  They're talking about, they're gonna start at mid-February, right? It's not gonna be three days. This goes on until the trial's over. I mean, it'll be at least a week of discussion, right, Sax?

• 18:51Jason Calacanis?

  So Sax, is it, do you think the GOP preventing Trump from being able to run again is worth the year, the week of animosity, let's call it?

• 19:03David Sacks?

  I don't, I think we should just move on as a country. And I, you know, at the end of the day, I think that's what's good for Biden's agenda. I mean, this will become very consuming.

• 19:13Jason Calacanis?

  What's good for the GOP, though? If you're, as a person who would align themselves with Republicans mainly, I would say, what do you think is best for your party, the party you're part of?

• 19:24David Sacks?

  Just moving on, just moving forward.

• 19:26Jason Calacanis?

  What if Trump comes back and gets the nomination in 2024?

• 19:30David Sacks?

  I mean, I think that is definitely a risk you take. But I think that-

• 19:33Jason Calacanis?

  You want to take that risk?

• 19:35David Sacks?

  I, you know, I'll leave it to the voters to decide what, what makes sense.

• 19:40Jason Calacanis?

  Interesting.

• 19:41Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I, I, I think that the only salvation for the Republicans is to repudiate Trump. And, and I, and I actually agree with, with Friedberg. I think that this creates the opportunity for this, I think Trump wants to call it the Patriot Party, to be sort of center-right. I think Democrats probably ebb over time, you know, center-left. And then the Republicans actually are this interesting power broker because they can actually tack to the middle and be centrist, you know, about a social safety net combined with, you know, small government. If you could somehow tiptoe and, and, and balance on that line, I think that is the winning strategy that people want.

• 20:19David Friedberg?

  But I think that's, that's my point, is the Republican Party is going to have to move left in order to create balance between the two parties again, because they are going to lose 20 million voters to the Patriot Party. And that's the profound shift that's going to happen. And when the Republican Party moves left, the Democrats are going to move further left. And so-

• 20:38Jason Calacanis?

  Maybe. I don't think that moving that far left is a really winning strategy for them.

• 20:42Chamath Palihapitiya?

  No, but I think, I think Friedberg is right. So as an example, I, I think I can say this, but like, I, I had a call this week with the mayor of Miami, Francis Suarez. What an unbelievably impressive guy. Holy fucking shit, this guy is amazing. What he's done in Miami is incredible. I mean, the GDP growth is like Chinese GDP growth, 10%, 8%, 6.5%. He's running fiscal surpluses, you know, crime is down, down, down. He's done an incredible job. This guy's a fundamental centrist. You know, and when you talk about what his beliefs are, I was like, what is this guy? Is he a Democrat? Is he a Republican? I was like, he's like, honestly, I'm a centrist. You know?

• 21:25Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And, and so my point is if whoever tacks to the middle will find the ability to attract incredible leaders that I think are, are, are our next generation set of leadership.

• 21:39Jason Calacanis?

  So in that way, Trump as a change agent, uh, Sacks was a success in that he broke the system. And this was Peter Thiel's kind of concept when he put him in. And I know you don't speak for Peter, but Peter's idea was, hey, this person's a change agent. He's going to be this, you know, drain the swamp person. Maybe that didn't happen, but he has basically made everybody reconsider what party they want to be part of and what they actually want on the political agenda. And now we're so, we've never been more focused on politics and how our country runs in our lifetime, have we?

• 22:12David Sacks?

  Well, Trump, you're right that Trump was a classic disruptor. You know, Keith Raboy has this line about founders that, uh, disruption is created by disruptive people. And Trump was, you know, one of those very disruptive people. I mean, it, just to take two examples, I mean, he created a total realignment on our views around China. I think it's now a bipartisan consensus that, you know, we should not keep feeding China and making, you know, keep feeding that, the, the Chinese tiger and turning into a dragon. Um, everyone seems to think now that, that some reappraisal is warranted. And the other, the other big issue was the forever wars of the Middle East. You know, I think Trump first created a realignment within the Republican Party when

• 22:54David Sacks?

  he said, no more Bushes, he meant no more of these stupid foreign wars. Um, and I think that was an important realignment. Um, so yeah, I mean, he's been a very disruptive figure. I think that, um, everyone's breathing a sigh of relief because we've moved on. I think that he unnecessarily was incendiary and sort of pressurized the situation. Um, but I think the best thing at this point is to move forward and not keep rehashing the Trump era.

• 23:20Jason Calacanis?

  Speaking of rehashing, I don't know if you guys know about what is happening with Facebook, but they have an oversight board they created last year in the spring. And the oversight board is not to do the day-to-day policing of Facebook and Instagram and WhatsApp activity, but it is to be a place where people who have been, have had content removed or have had their accounts suspended to appeal. They have taken the Trump case, as it were, and given it to their Supreme Court, which is the Oversight Board. And the Oversight Board is going to make a judgment basically on should Trump get his social media accounts back.

• 24:03Jason Calacanis?

  They have complete autonomy from Facebook. They are funded by Facebook with 120 or 130 million dollars over the next six years. So they're getting like 20 million dollars a year to run this. They've got a really amazing bench of intellectuals, public intellectuals, and they're sort of above Facebook in this regard. What do we think should happen to Trump's social media accounts? Should he have a path to reclaiming them? And with this board that exists as this abudsmen, as I talked about in the last episode, what do we think of this process? And do we think maybe Twitter and YouTube should join this Oversight Board?

• 24:41Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Let's separate these two things. And actually, Jason, you just framed it perfectly. Let's separate the two issues. One is, is any of us comfortable with a random set of people that some people will like and other people not like making these decisions on our behalf that are not necessarily trained to make these decisions? I mean, these aren't elected, trained judges or lawyers that sit for a bar exam. These are just, you know, private citizens ultimately at the end of the day. I think that if you allow this to happen at scale, there's going to be a bunch of decisions that you'll be okay with and support. I think a lot of people probably are cheering when Trump got blocked. But if you can abstract it away and think about all the people that you actually care about, what if the administration was on the other side and now all of a sudden, you

• 25:24Chamath Palihapitiya?

  know, these people took curry favor with the administration, went in a different direction, and people that you cared about got blocked? It is an untenable situation, and I think this is the slippery slope that the framers never intended. I don't think it should be people like this making any decision like this. And in many ways, it's a, it's a fig leaf for these companies to pretend they're doing the right thing while they're really shirking the real responsibility.

• 25:47Jason Calacanis?

  Friedberg, you agree?

• 25:50David Friedberg?

  It's hard to say on this specific, so I think we should just take a broader point of view on this, which is how do tech companies create independence in the platforms that they're building so that they don't get scrutinized as monopolists? And so there are several examples of this being done, both successfully and not successfully, across the tech ecosystem. Google made Android open sourced. And by making the Android operating system open sourced, they were able to have their own forked versions that they were able to install on phones with partners like HTC and Samsung and others, that they could then have their search engine be the primary search engine. So the entire Android operating system is available for anyone to work on, for anyone to fork, for anyone to use.

• 26:34David Friedberg?

  And then Google's iteration of that open source platform and Google's contributions, which they were making regularly, allowed them to kind of have a great commercial outcome without being the owner of the operating system, having learned from the mistakes of Microsoft in the past. Facebook tried to take a similar approach with Libra, and it was a total shitshow and a disaster. I don't know where it is today. But they tried to create this also independent board to provide oversight and to, you know, to kind of do the, you know, all the open source work on the Libra currency. And Facebook was going to then use that on their platform as their kind of, you know, token cryptocurrency solution. And obviously, there was so much scrutiny because no one believed the independence.

• 27:17David Friedberg?

  And I think we're hearing the same thing now about the Facebook Oversight Board. Jack Dorsey is now taking the same approach with Blue Sky, which is meant to be this open sourced, you know, independently managed social media protocol system. And so Twitter would effectively become an application layer on top of this open sourced approach to how do you decide what goes on social media? How do you decide what's inappropriate and appropriate? And what technology protocols are available for everyone to use? And what business and arbitration protocols are available for everyone to use in an open sourced way? And we'll see where Jack goes with Blue Sky. He seems to be doing a better job messaging and organizing teams.

• 27:59David Friedberg?

  of people to work on this and I don't see the pushback that Facebook is getting with their Oversight Board. So unfortunately, a lot of these, the big tech platforms, in order to avoid the monopolistic allegations and the allegations of control and influence, they're creating independent, independent systems and it's hit or miss. And I don't think we yet know, I think in the next year or two, we'll see how Blue Sky, Libra, the Facebook Oversight Board and some of these other platform.

• 28:25Jason Calacanis?

  What would you do, David?

• 28:26David Friedberg?

  Deep platforming approaches.

• 28:27Jason Calacanis?

  What would you do? Let me just put it to you. If you were in charge, you were the CEO of Facebook or Twitter, would you have a path to reinstating Trump? Yes or no?

• 28:35David Sacks?

  Can I jump in on that?

• 28:37Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, let me just get Friedberg's. Would you, yes or no, reinstate Trump?

• 28:41David Friedberg?

  Oh yeah, 100% we should have a path to it. I think, like I've said in the past, having some objective, I think that, number one, I don't think it was inappropriate for them to kick him off the platform from a legal perspective. I don't, Saxon and I might disagree, but we can probably argue for an hour, but I think from a freedom of speech point of view, they're private companies with private accounts and they did what they wanted to do. Was it the right thing to do? I don't think that was the right thing to do.

• 29:01Jason Calacanis?

  So you would give him a path to getting his account back?

• 29:04David Friedberg?

  And so I think you need to create an objective system and you need to give everyone, whether it's Trump or whomever else, everyone has to have the same set of standards that they're held to and then a universal approach that anyone can appeal and.

• 29:15Jason Calacanis?

  Okay, but that's the approach, but knowing what Trump did on January 6th, would you let him back on your platform if you were CEO? Is the question I'm trying to get out of you, Friedberg, but okay, David, you go.

• 29:24David Sacks?

  Yeah, I mean, so here's the fundamental problem is that the town square is now owned by Facebook and Twitter. The town square got privatized and our speech rights are now in the hands of Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey as a practical matter. I mean, you do not have speech rights in the modern world if you get deplatformed by big tech. And until now, there's been no way to appeal their decisions. We have had no transparency into their decisions. So I think Facebook creating this appeals board is a step in the right direction. But, you know, they're calling it their Supreme Court, but I'll tell you, my Supreme Court is the Supreme Court, you know? At the end of the day, we all know that the most important part of a trial is jury selection and Zuckerberg is still picking these 20 people. And, you know.

• 30:08Jason Calacanis?

  Actually, just in case in point, he picked the top, he picked the four and the four picked the next 16 and then they don't have an ongoing. Ability to pick the next ones and they have some amount of terms. So just to give you

• 30:21David Sacks?

  Okay, well, fair enough. And like I said, look, I don't want to criticize this move on its own because it is a step in the right direction. We need an appeals process when people get canceled. Okay, that part is good. But what I would like to see, like I said, my Supreme Court is a Supreme Court, and they've spoken to this issue. And I would like to see these social networking monopolies apply a First Amendment standard, a speech policy broadly consistent with the First Amendment. And sometimes that will mean allowing speech we don't like, but it will result in a greater level of speech protection for all of us.

• 30:54Jason Calacanis?

  Well, it would just remind back on the platform.

• 30:56Chamath Palihapitiya?

  No, but hold on a sec.

• 30:57Jason Calacanis?

  If you're going to go by that standard.

• 30:58Chamath Palihapitiya?

  The problem is with this Oversight Board concept is that it completely violates exactly what the Supreme Court is meant to be, which is a country by country set of governance and standards and laws. Like, I'm just looking at the Oversight Board people right now. These people look incredibly well credentialed. Emmy Palmore of Israel, Catalina Botero Moreno of Colombia, Nigat Dodd from Pakistan, Helene Thornings Schmidt from Denmark, Catherine Chen from Taiwan, Jamal Green from the United States, Alan Rusbridger from UK, Andrea Sajow from Hungary, and it goes on and on. How are we supposed to adjudicate a set of standards at a national level? Like, when we have the, are all these people from all these different countries supposed

• 31:42Chamath Palihapitiya?

  to opine on US constitutional right of free speech and have an idea?

• 31:45Jason Calacanis?

  The idea would be they would use some global standard, but then also take into consideration local standards. That's what they've, their stated purposes and why they're so diverse.

• 31:53Chamath Palihapitiya?

  The setup for that, though, Jason, is that then, you know, when, when there's a, you know, the Hindu nationalist BJP party has a specific point of view. And so when Modi wants to get elected, there's going to be specific kinds of free speech laws there. You know, Poland's going to have a different point of view, and they're not going to respect what's happening in the Oversight Board. Case in point, Australia passed a potential law, or is considering passing a law, which is basically around if, you know, treating Facebook and Google as quasi publishers and that, you know, they're, I think that they have to pay some kind of royalty now for articles that are shared or published or whatever. And Google said, I'm out. And then Facebook said, I'm out too. And so what does that mean for, you know, 200 million people?

• 32:38Chamath Palihapitiya?

  You're out. What does that mean? You're out. You can make money when the getting's good. And all of a sudden, you build this public infrastructure. When the country's rules change, I actually respect that more than trying to create some of this broad holistic governance committee because I think it's a shit show. You can't cherry pick which laws you want to observe and respect and then which laws you don't.

• 32:58David Sacks?

  Yep, I think Chamath makes an excellent point about how difficult this is going to be to implement. Let me propose an alternative that actually comes from a former law professor of mine at the University of Chicago, Richard Epstein. He made the point that he wants to apply common carrier regulation, at least in the US, to these monopolies. And the example he gives is that the railroad monopolies could not deny you service based on your political views. And, you know, this is, this is a, this is a real issue. Imagine, you know, going back in time, you know, we had the Lincoln Douglas debates, for example, the way that Lincoln and Douglas went around the country was by train. Imagine if some railroad magnate, some oligarch said, Mr. Lincoln, I don't like your views.

• 33:42David Sacks?

  I'm not going to give you passage on my railroad monopoly. The common carrier rules would have prevented them from doing that. And what Epstein suggests we do is if you're a, essentially a monopoly, a speech monopoly in the, in the US, one of these platforms that has, you know, gigantic network effects, you have to apply the common carrier rules.

• 34:05Jason Calacanis?

  It's an interesting concept, I think. Let's move on to the economy. And it'll be very interesting. We'll, we'll monitor, obviously, what the, this oversight board does. And we're going to monitor what's going to happen with this January 6 insurrection.

• 34:20Chamath Palihapitiya?

  By the way, then, sorry, Jason, the last thing on this is you could, you could tell, if you, if you graphed, and I'm sure somebody listening to All In can graph and tweet this, but if you graphed the price to earnings ratio of big tech.

• 34:37Chamath Palihapitiya?

  As all of these issues have come out, like, you know, if you looked at a time series of their PE, and you put on there, you know, things like George Floyd, things like the Capitol riots, you know, all of these things that have created these

• 34:52Jason Calacanis?

  Flashpoints.

• 34:52Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Issues around free flashpoints, the massacre in New Zealand in Christchurch that was livestreamed on Facebook, all this stuff, what you'll see is, at least capitalism is voting that these companies will not be allowed to be companies much longer.

• 35:08Jason Calacanis?

  So the smart money is betting that they're going to be regulated and something's going to change.

• 35:11Chamath Palihapitiya?

  It's going to be a quasi-governmental organization, exactly, that the level of regulation at a government by government level is going to be so onerous as to make these companies quasi nonprofits that work on behalf of countries.

• 35:22David Friedberg?

  Yeah, they're gonna, they're gonna become utilities, right? They're getting, they're gonna get regulated like utilities at some point.

• 35:27Jason Calacanis?

  Or they're gonna have to adopt some governance, like we've talked about, or other options will emerge, and I think what Jack is doing with the, is it Blue Sky is what they're calling it?

• 35:39David Friedberg?

  Blue Sky, yeah.

• 35:40Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, what they're really doing with Blue Sky is saying your profile and your data is going to be stored on some blockchain or some decentralized system like Bitcoin or like any other peer-to-peer service, which means it's not on their server. Twitter just pulls all that data together. So we would all have our own domain names in calicanis.com or sax.com slash profile dot whatever the HTML equivalent is, let's just call it dot social. You know, your sax.social URL would be your profile on Facebook, Twitter, and everywhere else. And when you post it to it, it would post to Facebook and Twitter. Therefore, they could say, we don't actually host this stuff, we're just pulling it together, which then destroys their business model, perchot's point.

• 36:26Jason Calacanis?

  What do we think, as a little aside, is going to happen with the TikTok case now that Trump is out of office and Biden is in office? We sort of alluded to China, Sacks being a super important thing that we all have consensus on now. What should happen with TikTok? And do you think Biden will go after TikTok and say, hey, we got to get this out of here because it's, you know, essentially spyware and Jock Ma was just resurfaced? And let's just talk about China for a second.

• 36:54David Sacks?

  Yeah, I think the sad reality is that the whole TikTok thing is gonna get swept under the rug. I think there'll be no restrictions on TikTok. I think what we need, the issue with like with banning TikTok, though, is that it's just one place where China can collect data on all of us. I mean, the reality is there's thousands of places. And so, you know, I do think that taking some action on TikTok is warranted, but it would, it is a little bit of selective enforcement. But what I would like to see is some guarantee, some assurance that TikTok is collecting data in the way they're saying they're collecting it, and that there's not sort of spyware within the app. And I don't think we know for sure whether there's spyware or not.

• 37:39Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I'll say it slightly differently. I've maintained this for a while, but it is inconceivable that inside of big tech, and every single company that you define big tech, is not at least one spy from Russia, China, India, Israel, Pakistan. Saudi Arabia.

• 38:02David Friedberg?

  Did I tell you guys I had a spy working for me at Climate?

• 38:05Chamath Palihapitiya?

  No.

• 38:05David Friedberg?

  Did I tell you guys about this?

• 38:07Chamath Palihapitiya?

  No, tell us the story.

• 38:08David Friedberg?

  It's public, so I'll share it. We had a data scientist named Haitao, great guy, worked on our remote sensing team, and worked on our nitrogen model, which predicted nitrogen content in soil, and was very deep in the code base and everything. And shortly after I had left, I found out, so Climate, just for the audience, my company I started and ran was acquired by Monsanto in 2013, which is a big seed company. A lot of people know it for other things. And so I left, and I found out that the guy quit, went to the airport, and the FBI intercepted him at the airport, and they found tucked into his bag a thumb drive, and he had downloaded all of our code base for our nitrogen models.

• 38:52David Friedberg?

  And he was taking them to give them to the Chinese government. And so he's in jail right now, he's in prison in the US right now. But this was like, the most nondescript, super nice scientist, data scientist guy you've ever met, like you would have had zero suspicion. And it turns out he was a spy.

• 39:09Chamath Palihapitiya?

  This is the point. How many of those exist in Facebook?

• 39:11David Friedberg?

  And it was so, and by the way, it was so easy for him to get access to our code base, and he pulled all this stuff down, and he had the whole model, and you know, there's a lot of articles about what happened. In our case, but you're right, it's happening all over the place. And and I don't think that we fully appreciate like how much of America's IP is stored in software and data and how accessible that is to employees inside of these organizations and that the security is not adequate to protect that data and that IP.

• 39:40Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And then the crazy thing is like, you know, when just to connect the two dots here on this Jack Ma thing, like when you saw that video where like, you know, basically he was forced to, you know, show fealty to

• 39:51Jason Calacanis?

  I'm okay.

• 39:52Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I'm okay. And, you know, this is all about the Chinese party.

• 39:55Jason Calacanis?

  I'm not being held captive.

• 39:57Chamath Palihapitiya?

  My gosh, like, I mean, these are all quasi governmental companies. Alibaba exists because of the largesse of the Communist Party in Xi Jinping. If that wasn't clear after last week, I mean, and so to your point, like, you know, if any company gets a hold of of US user data or otherwise, it's effectively the Chinese government getting a hold of that data.

• 40:18Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, we don't need proof, David, when Jack Ma disappears and then comes back and looks, he looked nervous on that video. I'm no expert, but he did not look like he was the Jack Ma who was giving speeches and inspiring people. And I don't know what this does to entrepreneurship in China, but I mean, who in China is going to start a company now and want to be the next Jack Ma or Jeff Bezos?

• 40:42Chamath Palihapitiya?

  No, I think I think, Jason, it's even simpler.

• 40:44Jason Calacanis?

  What happens?

• 40:45Chamath Palihapitiya?

  It makes it makes entrepreneurship even simpler, meaning for those entrepreneurs that thought that there was a balance between financial imperative and moral imperative, there's no balance. You can flush the moral imperative down the fucking toilet. They China will allow you to get super rich and super successful as long as you super toe the line.

• 41:03Jason Calacanis?

  Mm hmm.

• 41:04Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And that's the message.

• 41:05David Sacks?

  Right. It's like what Putin did with Kordikovsky in Russia. It's like he basically told all the oligarchs, you work for us now. And that's basically that it worked. That's basically the message from the CCP to Jack Ma and to every other entrepreneur in China is you work for us now. And by the way, civil military fusion was part was was a policy expressly announced by President Xi. You know, one other data point on this, I think is really interesting is that Biden just announced that he was keeping on Christopher Wray as the head of the FBI. Christopher Wray gave a speech back in July at the Hudson Institute about the counter espionage efforts

• 41:49David Sacks?

  that the FBI is engaged in. And he was saying that the FBI has more cases now related to to Chinese counterintelligence. He said that the FBI is opening a new China related counterintelligence case every 10 hours.

• 42:04Jason Calacanis?

  Wow.

• 42:05David Sacks?

  And to a day and of the of the nearly 5,000 active FBI counterintelligence cases currently underway across the country, almost half are related to China. So this is directly from a speech he gave in July. So I think it's really interesting. Now, at the time that he gave this speech, you know, a lot of people were saying, well, this is just Trump's more of Trump's China baiting. But I think that by Biden keeping on Chris Christopher Wray, there's a continuity of policy there. And I think, you know, focusing on TikTok is probably the wrong thing. We need a more comprehensive policy to deal with counterintelligence.

• 42:38Jason Calacanis?

  Well, it's a good start, though, to say if you hit scale, we're not going to let you operate here, and we want reciprocity. Adding to this outgoing Secretary Pompeo is the day before the inauguration tweeted, I have determined that the People's Republic of China is committing genocide and crimes against humanity in China, targeting the Uighurs, Muslims, and members of other ethnic and religious minority groups. That's quite a bomb to leave the day before. And I think this signals we are going to keep resetting this relationship. And what an incredible opportunity for us to bring factories back here, bring, as we've talked about here, manufacturing back, correct, Friedberg?

• 43:18David Friedberg?

  That's what I think. Let's kick it off. We got, we got three mil, three million factories in China. I think we've got less than a hundred thousand in America.

• 43:27Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Let's go. It will be so glorious. It will be so fucking glorious. I mean, think about this, right? Look, think about the amount of money. Like, at the end of the day, what is a government's purpose? Is it to run or profit? No. You know, that's our job, right? Is it to run at break even? I would actually say no. I think it's to basically promote the prosperity of current and future generations of its citizens. And so

• 43:52Jason Calacanis?

  We should be investing. This is the perfect investment.

• 43:54Chamath Palihapitiya?

  So if we're going to be printing, you know, trillions of dollars and, you know, we should talk about the stimulus bill because Biden's going to rip in another two trillion, which I think

• 44:01Jason Calacanis?

  There's a perfect segue. Let's do it.

• 44:03Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And then, by the way, and then after that, there's going to be this, it's amazing infrastructure bill. Put the money to work. Let's reclaim a bunch of this capability on shore and let's rebuild America.

• 44:15Jason Calacanis?

  Okay, Friedberg, you looked at the 1.2 trillion dollar stimulus package that Biden is proposing. How much of that goes towards rebuilding factories in America?

• 44:26David Friedberg?

  Well, none. So, so remember, there's, yeah, but

• 44:30Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And it's 1.9 billion.

• 44:32David Friedberg?

  It's 1.9 trillion.

• 44:33Chamath Palihapitiya?

  1.9 trillion.

• 44:34David Friedberg?

  Yeah. And so, and so just to put that in context, you know, Wall Street has talked about there were going to be four, four massive stimulus bills, you know, since last April, May, I think they've talked about this and we're seeing this come to fruition now. And Chamath, correct me if you've heard differently, but there's always been the expectation we would have the big first stimulus, which we had last March, then a second stimulus. People have been waiting for the state stimulus or the local government stimulus, which this one now captures. And then the fourth program was always going to be infrastructure. And we haven't seen details of the proposed Biden infrastructure plan yet, but I'm pretty sure it's going to have a lot of green energy stuff tied up in it. But let's just, let's just hit the numbers, right? So

• 45:15David Friedberg?

  in 2009, post-financial crisis, to keep the global economy from collapsing, Congress passed an $800 billion aid package.

• 45:26David Friedberg?

  Eight hundred billion was extraordinary at the time and we'd never seen anything like it, TARP. And last March, if you'll recall, we passed this emergency $2 trillion package, you know, more than 2X what we had during the financial crisis. And now, just in December, right before the year wrapped up, Congress passed another $900 billion package. And now, we're talking about this $1.9 trillion package getting passed. And we've eclipsed anything you could have ever considered possible in terms of fiscal stimulus. At this point, the M1 money supply, which I sent the link out ahead of this for Meg to share, has gone up by 75% in just the past year. And now, if we break down the $1.9 trillion stimulus bill, you know, a huge chunk of

• 46:11David Friedberg?

  it, and this is what Wall Street's been waiting for, is $350 billion is going to state and local governments. So, think about San Francisco or the state of California, the city of Chicago, the city of New York. All of these folks have seen their revenue decline and they've had to run massive emergency programs. Where's that money coming from? They haven't been able to raise taxes. They've had to put a hold on receipts. And so, this is meant to bridge the gap at the local level. And this is really important because so much of capital markets still very much fund local and state governments through municipal bonds. And those bonds, if they start to default, are going to have a dangerous rippling effect in the economy.

• 46:53David Friedberg?

  So, bridging the state and local government budgets with this $350 billion package turned out to be, you know, an absolute need. And the Republicans prior to the election were pushing hard against this and saying, "Let those states fail. They're mostly blue states. Let those cities fail. They're mostly blue cities. They're mismanaged. They're being stupid about how they're operating." So, this is a big deal. There's $160 billion for COVID fighting. Some of which, you know, I throw up on $20 billion for vaccination, which equates to about $150 per person they expect to vaccinate, which is an extraordinarily high cost if you actually think about it on a first principles basis. It's ridiculous how inefficient they're going to be at this. $50 billion for testing, $40 billion for protective gear and supplies.

• 47:36David Friedberg?

  And what this indicates to me is so much of what goes on in government and government spending is skating to where the puck used to be, not skating to where the puck is going. And it's almost like by the time this money gets deployed, I'm not sure we're going to need as much protective gear and supplies. I'm not sure we're going to need as much testing if we can actually get the vaccinations done in the next 90 to 100 days and much of the country starts to recover from this. You know, you've now got $150 billion program sitting out there that doesn't need to be out there and it's a waste of money. What we should be doing is taking that money and investing in biomanufacturing infrastructure so we can more quickly develop and deploy vaccines in the future.

• 48:12Jason Calacanis?

  What would it cost to build a factory, just back of the envelope, that was capable of making the next, you know, let's call it 1 billion vaccine shots?

• 48:21David Friedberg?

  Yeah, it's not a lot. So here's the, let me, I'll give you guys the unit economic build and you can do the math at home. Four grams per liter is the expected yield of a, of a biomanufacturing facility. And a liter is like, you know, how many liters of water do you have in a tank? You can build half million liter facilities for a couple hundred million dollars. And that's four grams per liter every seven days. And a vaccine or the antibody therapies that we've seen, the antibody therapies are about two grams and that'll save someone's life. The vaccines are a fraction of a gram. And so you can start to kind of do the math on how just a few billion dollars invested

• 49:04David Friedberg?

  in building some of these biomanufacturing facilities that are modular and can be very quickly reprogrammed to make a new molecule can be used to support the future vaccine supply chain and the future antibody therapeutic supply chain, which is critically needed in this country. If I were to take $160 billion for COVID fighting. Give me 10% of that and we'll be ready for any virus in the future and we'll be able to print out vaccines for the whole country within 30 days. And so a little bit again of this is not really forward thinking. It's scientists and doctors saying what they need. What they're talking about is last year's need. They're not thinking in terms of what the industrial supply chain needs are going to be in the future on an ongoing basis for this country. At this point, I'm not seeing it. And so I feel a little bit let down by that. And I hope that the infrastructure programs that are going to be proposed in the next

• 49:49David Friedberg?

  in the next bill will start to encompass some of that work.

• 49:52Jason Calacanis?

  Paradoxically, it's going to cost a trillion dollars to upgrade our nuclear weapons. We're literally going to spend a trillion dollars over the next decade upgrading our nuclear weapons.

• 50:03David Friedberg?

  That's a nutty statistic. Is that, is that true? That's nutty.

• 50:06Jason Calacanis?

  That's right. I'm reading a headline right here.

• 50:08Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Wow. Here's my, here's my little wish list for this infrastructure bill. I think when you look at some of the most compelling work that's happened in the developing world, so like if you're going to go and, you know, build a massive water facility or an energy installation, a lot of people are worried, hey, listen, I have to deal with, you know, local currency risk. I have to deal with, you know, corruption. I could have the government, you know, take away this facility from me without notice. The rule of law may not be strong. And the World Bank has this mechanism where you can basically go and ensure, you know, for, I think it's like one or 2% of your project cost, the whole project. And it really makes things work.

• 50:51Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I would love to see the US government effectively create a program that is similar but different in the following way. There are some enormous things America needs to do where the IP exists with our allies and there is an enormous fear what would happen if that IP leaked specifically to China.

• 51:15Chamath Palihapitiya?

  One example is if you believe and you care about climate change and the making of batteries, there's an enormous amount of IP that sits with the Japanese that, you know, if we could license and work with as a country, we could build factories all over the country and we would be the leader in climate. But that'll take the US government to basically work bilaterally with the Japanese government to basically say, listen, if it takes the NSA to fucking protect this shit, we will do it. But you can send-

• 51:45Jason Calacanis?

  Or you run them. We could just give them their sovereignty in those factories.

• 51:49Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Ah, you know, these are for-profit companies that are relatively risk averse. They're not going to rip in 10 million bucks, $10 billion to build, you know, a cathode plant in the US. I would, other people would. But that's my hope in the infrastructure bill is that we take some of these things that have worked in the developing world and we use it to grease the skids in how we rebuild America. It would be fucking glorious.

• 52:11Jason Calacanis?

  And also just think about how much a nuclear power plant costs. It's like 6 to $9 billion to build a nuclear power plant. And we haven't built many new ones and we're on the way there. But if part of this trillion dollars, we could build 10 more of those. Energy independence would continue and global warming would go down. Anything to add there, David? Looks like you want to comment.

• 52:30David Sacks?

  Well, I just, just one final word. You know, the great Senate leader Everett Dirksen famously said that, you know, a billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you're talking about real money. And now we're talking about a trillion here and a trillion there. And these are really big numbers. And I think we should be very concerned about debt and deficits. No one's really talking about this yet, but all of this money has to be paid back at some point.

• 52:57Jason Calacanis?

  Well, what's the worst that can happen, David? Let's actually do that. I mean, I'm asking the question in a non-joking way. What is the worst that can happen?

• 53:05David Sacks?

  Oh, I mean, a debt crisis.

• 53:07Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Inflation.

• 53:08David Sacks?

  Well, not just, so inflation, because the government will eventually have to monetize the debt by printing more money. The dollar stops becoming the world's reserve currency. Maybe Bitcoin becomes the world's reserve currency. Maybe something else does. It could be, lead to, you know, very severe, to basically a debt crisis in the future.

• 53:26Jason Calacanis?

  What would that look like for companies and citizens of America?

• 53:30David Sacks?

  Well, if you're middle, if you're middle class, your savings get wiped out. You know, if you so, so if you're super rich, the reality is there's already been tremendous asset inflation. So there's already been a lot of inflation, but frankly, if you are very rich and own assets in the stock market, you're, you're sort of, you're protected, you know? But if you're a middle-class person with most of your savings in your bank account, that money is now worth a lot less.

• 53:54David Friedberg?

  Or your home.

• 53:54David Sacks?

  And you're destroyed, or your home. Yeah, you get destroyed by that. It's really very sad.

• 53:58Jason Calacanis?

  So if you own equities and the market is on a rip, you know, paying an extra couple of million dollars for your second home is not a big deal because your equities have gone up more than that or equal to that. And if you're

• 54:10David Sacks?

  Right.

• 54:10Jason Calacanis?

  Somebody who get makes income, we have a separate issue.

• 54:14Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Well, look, this is, this is a, this is a bigger issue, but I, but I, and I think we should talk about this at some point because this is what the grand fallacy of technology was supposed to be. Like, you know, if you, if you break down capitalism into its two most natural states, you have labor and you have capital, right? You have workers and you have owners. And the, the biggest problem that technology did was it drove a wedge and it created an extremely small owner class and an extremely massive labor class. And so the reality is that a very few, very, a handful of people can, can get extremely wealthy by being owners of these next generation assets. And then everybody else is essentially, you know, rendered as labor. And so this wealth inequality just grows and grows and compounds.

• 54:58Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And so we have to figure out a way.

• 55:00David Friedberg?

  Yeah. How's that different than the past?

• 55:02Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Because like I think it's got, I think, I think technology accelerated that dynamic.

• 55:05David Sacks?

  Well, I think, jumping in on this, I mean, I, I think that technology creates bigger winner take all outcomes and that's fed into inequality. But the good thing about tech or the tech ecosystem is that frankly, we have option pools, right? We have broad-based ownership of these companies. If you go work for a Google or Facebook or whatever, you get, you get option grants.

• 55:25Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Yeah, but that's bullshit. That's 10,000 people. That's 10,000 people.

• 55:29David Friedberg?

  That's no one.

• 55:29Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And they're, and they're replacing 2 million jobs with 10,000 people.

• 55:33Jason Calacanis?

  I mean, this is why, this is why we need to have 100% participation in the markets by everybody in the country. Joe Greenblatt, who I had on my podcast recently is a proponent of this, Chamath, I saw you tweeting about it. When you're born in the United States, we should put $5,000 in a 401k that you can't touch until you're 65 years old. That is in whatever index funds and every person born gets that $5,000 and cannot touch it. And then we see where it winds up.

• 55:59David Friedberg?

  I'm not sure it solves, but it doesn't, it doesn't solve the problem that a lot of people have to climb up a hill first, right? They take on a lot of debt to get education, to put themselves in a position to ultimately be able to generate the income to do that. And I think, you know, sure, give them $5,000 in the beginning, but it's not going to get them where they need to be.

• 56:16Jason Calacanis?

  But it is, it does solve one portion of the problem, which is they don't have participation and we could take out the wondering what your retirement is going to be like.

• 56:23Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I think both of you are right. I think like there needs to be something that allows people to have a line of sight to savings. Like a lot, a lot of about being invested in, in anything where you own it, whether it's real estate, or whether it's a piece of artwork, or whether it's stocks and bonds. So many people don't even know how to begin and don't understand the concept of ownership. And so they are stuck in being in the ghetto of labor. And I think like one of the biggest things we can do is you can give them the taste of ownership so that they understand that difference, so that they want to be an owner.

• 56:55Jason Calacanis?

  Yes.

• 56:56Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Number one. And then to David's point, number two is we still have a responsibility to educate people so that they can actually have skills that they can monetize. And we have a responsibility to do that. And right now, we make it so fucking hard and we trick people because like we, we send them down the path of getting a $200,000 art history degree and then they end up working at a Starbucks and then they're fucked.

• 57:19Jason Calacanis?

  Which is impossible to monetize. I mean, it's ridiculous.

• 57:22Chamath Palihapitiya?

  You can't monetize that.

• 57:23Jason Calacanis?

  You can't monetize.

• 57:24David Friedberg?

  By the way, what you're saying, Chamath, is the reason I think retirement accounts were set up in the US was to shift away from pension fund models where people were getting a fixed income at retirement and shifting them to a model of equity and ownership in the markets where they could participate actively on a tax-free basis. But obviously it hasn't done enough, you know, I think. The big difference between the industrial revolution, the first and second industrial revolution and where we are with software in the last two to three decades is the capital required, right? It's very little capital to build a highly valuable software business. It required a lot of capital to build oil infrastructure and railroad infrastructure and factories. And so to your point, you get extraordinarily different outsized returns today than you did 100 years ago as an owner versus labor.

• 58:10David Friedberg?

  And the bridge to try and give people ownership through retirement accounts certainly hasn't been enough.

• 58:15Chamath Palihapitiya?

  So to your point, David, I saw this study. It was fucking crazy. I'm gonna get the exact numbers wrong, but the trend is accurate. When people used to actively manage their 401K, there was a very small participation rate, but the mean return was off the charts. And the amount of dollars as a function of their paycheck was off the charts. Call it 50, 60 cents of every theoretical dollar you could put into it. The minute that we went to pass it and that you could trickle money in, the number of people that participated literally more than doubled, but then the amount of that max dollar went off of a cliff. And so the problem that we've had is we haven't taught people.

• 58:59Chamath Palihapitiya?

  We've misdirected some of them to say, have a 401K, it replaces your pension, as if it's the solution. That's still not the solution. And we need to have ways of teaching people how to actually manage it. It's not that hard and the basics can be taught very simply. But right now, we are massively exacerbating this wealth gap, the way that we behave. And then all of this money that's gonna go in, this 1.9 trillion, whatever, how many trillion comes afterwards, is frankly, for the few that are smart enough to take advantage of it, will be amazing, but it'll still push the overwhelming majority of Americans who are stuck in labor deeper and deeper into that ghetto and they'll never get out.

• 59:39Jason Calacanis?

  It is definitely every little bit helps, right? Like if you have the 401k that helps. And then, you know, educate people. And I think if we gave everybody an ISA at birth, or an, you know, an income sharing agreement for these 20 professions that the government provided.

• 59:53Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Why, Jason, why is it that, you know, for example, if to invest in a startup, you either have to have more than $5 million or more than, you know, a million bucks.

• 1:00:02Jason Calacanis?

  200k a year. It's, it's bonkers. And they're gonna have to change it.

• 1:00:04Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And so if you're, if you're a product manager that's like really, really talented, or if you're like, you know, somebody else who's just got a, you know, a PhD in nuclear biology, and frankly, is, you know, is decided to teach for 60,000, and you can't participate even though you have the intellect to judge, like, we're just like, kind of like compounding.

• 1:00:22Jason Calacanis?

  It's even worse than that. The person who's changing the accreditation laws at the SEC and working on this said, "I cannot, I'm writing the accreditation laws, and because I make 150k a year, or whatever it is, under 200k, I can't participate, and I'm the one responsible for the law."

• 1:00:39Chamath Palihapitiya?

  That person must be one of the most sophisticated people in the world.

• 1:00:42Jason Calacanis?

  It literally is the most sophisticated person in the world when it comes to accreditation. And that's why we need to move to sophisticated investor, not accredited. And just some test. And if you did that, every single Uber driver, Lyft driver, Postmates driver, Airbnb host, or a person who used the Cash App or PayPal would have said, "I can, as one of the first users, I have access to buy shares."

• 1:01:03Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I'm just gonna say this.

• 1:01:04Jason Calacanis?

  I'll buy them.

• 1:01:05Chamath Palihapitiya?

  This problem has to get fixed, because I think in the next 10, I think in the, I think in the next 10 and 20 years, the United States is gonna fucking reemerge like a phoenix. And the reason, the reason is gonna be because of innovation around climate change, and agriculture, and biotechnology, and technology. These four areas are gonna recast GDP. But what that also means is that if we're gonna create, you know, 20 or 30 trillion dollars a year for the next 10 and 20 years, 300, 500 trillion. How the fuck do we make sure that more than 18 people participate?

• 1:01:40Jason Calacanis?

  Absolutely.

• 1:01:41David Sacks?

  Well, look, I mean, well, so I agree with a lot of what you guys are saying, but I can tell you every single one of the companies that I've invested in are looking to hire people right now. They cannot hire people soon enough. It's their biggest challenge. And it's not just coders. It's salespeople. It's marketing people. It's HR people. It's every, every role in their company. They have trouble trying to hire the right person. And, and, and they give options to all those people. So it's not just a small number of founders getting equity. This is basically a new category of call it entrepreneurial labor. It's labor who gets ownership in the company that's never existed before. And really what this comes down to is we need more people participating in the new economy. If you participate in the new economy, then you get

• 1:02:25David Sacks?

  ownership. And if you're in the old economy, then you really are stuck in labor. And so what we need to do is spread the opportunity that, that technology represents to more people.

• 1:02:36Jason Calacanis?

  That's part of the minimum wage. Maybe we should have a minimum equity participation. So we have the minimum wage over here, but if you're working for an entrepreneurial enterprise, why not get a minimum, you know, participation in the equity?

• 1:02:46David Sacks?

  Because the free market takes care of that. I mean, if you have the right skills.

• 1:02:49Jason Calacanis?

  The free market hasn't taken care of it, David. That's the problem.

• 1:02:51Chamath Palihapitiya?

  No, no, the free market has. I agree with David. The free market has. The problem isn't that.

• 1:02:55Jason Calacanis?

  How does a person working at Walmart ever participated in the Walmart appreciation?

• 1:02:59David Friedberg?

  That's the point. They will, they will leave and go to a company that gives them equity. And that's why you'll see this, this migration.

• 1:03:04Jason Calacanis?

  That's convenient to say, but if Walmart's the only job within an hour of their house, it's not.

• 1:03:09David Sacks?

  They gotta have the right skills, Jason. And so this all comes back to education. You know, we gotta, we gotta give people the right skills.

• 1:03:15Jason Calacanis?

  Why not let the people who are in rank and file jobs, the 30 million truck drivers, cashiers, et cetera, have equity participation as a right?

• 1:03:22Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I think, I think you're saying something different. Should they? Absolutely. Should the company that does that be created? Absolutely. Will they be rewarded with all the people that want to work there? Absolutely. So now somebody should go and start that fucking company.

• 1:03:37Jason Calacanis?

  Okay. I just think it's an interesting concept. I mean, we do have a minimum wage. Why not have a minimum equity participation?

• 1:03:43Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Jason, you just had, you know, the, the same woman that ran Elon out of California, Lorena Gonzalez.

• 1:03:49Jason Calacanis?

  She's doing another thing now.

• 1:03:51Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Just proposed a new bill. Like, do you want her to basically pick the equity thresholds?

• 1:03:57Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Because that's what you're saying.

• 1:03:58Jason Calacanis?

  Well, no.

• 1:03:59David Sacks?

  Let's pivot, let's pivot to California.

• 1:04:01Jason Calacanis?

  Okay, let's pivot to another disaster.

• 1:04:03Chamath Palihapitiya?

  California.

• 1:04:05Jason Calacanis?

  So the recall is well on its way. They need to get 1.5 million signatures. We're at 1.1 or 1.2, but we actually really need two because there's some verification process that goes on. So in all likelihood, we will see Gavin Newsom recalled. We agree on that?

• 1:04:20David Friedberg?

  Yeah, I'll tell you the stats I heard. There's about a million, call it a million, million one signatures. They've seen about an 85% verification rate to date. Sax, correct me if I'm wrong on this. They're getting, they're getting about 200,000 signatures a week. They're, you know, the cost for marketing and attracting people to get these signatures is coming in at like three to six bucks a signature. So it's really not a lot of money is needing to be spent to get this done. And, you know, even if the verification rate drops to 75 or 65%, you're still on track at this rate to hit the recall target by March 17th, which is the deadline. And so it appears highly likely they're going to get there. Sax, am I right on all that?

• 1:05:01David Sacks?

  Yeah, I think they're at 1.2 million signatures. That's what I heard. And they're trying to get, they're trying to get to 2 million to have a buffer so that, you know, they, that, you know, they don't get pushed under the, but 1.5 is the, is the number they need. Yeah. They need 1.5 million certified signatures.

• 1:05:16Jason Calacanis?

  70% of the way there, according to the website recallgavin2020.com, which I believe is the official.

• 1:05:21David Sacks?

  I think they will get there. I think they'll get there and then there, and then the recall election would take place about four to five months after, after that. There's a couple of months where it moves through the finance committee. The recall election has to be budgeted. And then Newsom would have the opportunity to set a date within, I think, 60 to 80 days roughly. So I think we're looking at July for a recall election.

• 1:05:49David Friedberg?

  And Sax, how, how do you get, how does a candidate get on the ballot? Because Chamath is asking for a friend.

• 1:05:58Jason Calacanis?

  Wait a second, I want to be on to that. Should we have all four besties be on?

• 1:06:02David Friedberg?

  Yeah, we should all run.

• 1:06:04Jason Calacanis?

  All four?

• 1:06:05David Friedberg?

  Can we run as a team? We're gonna let the voters decide.

• 1:06:08Jason Calacanis?

  A squad?

• 1:06:09David Sacks?

  We're gonna, we're probably gonna have four Kardashians on there, so we might as well have four besties on there.

• 1:06:15David Friedberg?

  And one ex Kardashian.

• 1:06:16David Sacks?

  Yeah, so the, it's stunningly easy to be a replacement candidate. We should expect there'll probably be about 150 replacement candidates on the ballot. Every, every third tier C-list celebrity is gonna, you know, like, you know, back to Gary Coleman did it like, you know, 20 years ago. All every C-list celebrity is gonna do it to try and, yeah, to try and boost their Q rating. I'm sure we'll see Kathy Griffin on there. I mean, what she been doing. And so it's gonna be a farce.

• 1:06:48Jason Calacanis?

  Andy Dick is gonna run.

• 1:06:51David Friedberg?

  Can we, can we just, can we just, by the way, can we talk about why he's getting recalled? Because I do get this question a lot from people in tech and out of tech. And I just want to highlight some of the reasons I've heard, and I'd love to hear why you guys think he's, you know, why there's this push against him. But from people within the tech community, I've heard that the ad hoc lockdown rules have really pissed a lot of people off in terms of when businesses are allowed and not allowed to be open and kind of the responsiveness and the guiding principles around this during COVID. Obviously, the, you know, the inability to fight against the tax rate, but no one wants to be publicly saying that. The failed vaccine rollout, the failed testing. You know, Sax, Chamath, Jason, what do you guys think is the reason he's getting recalled?

• 1:07:35David Friedberg?

  What are the top five reasons you're hearing?

• 1:07:36Jason Calacanis?

  Hypocrisy is number one. I think it's the hypocrisy of going to those restaurants and then making people not go to the beach, which is crazy. And then I think number two is the virus. We've only deployed 37% of our doses in California. And that makes us, you know, of the major states that are putting out a lot of these vaccines, one of the worst performers. Second. Texas and Florida and New York are the other large states and they're at 56, 49 and 50%. We're still stuck at 37%. California, the cradle of innovation and technology and this bum, he's a bum. 37% we should be leading, should be 70%. He's a bum.

• 1:08:18David Sacks?

  Wait, wait, it's Newsome derangement syndrome. Oh my god.

• 1:08:22Jason Calacanis?

  No, I'm trying to get a viral clip. I'm trying to get a viral clip.

• 1:08:25David Friedberg?

  You guys know, Jason just has a problem with anyone in authority.

• 1:08:29Jason Calacanis?

  I know, it's the hair. He's got great fucking hair. It's the hair is too good, French laundry, the hypocrisy and then get to work.

• 1:08:37David Friedberg?

  So personality, personality for you is the biggest driver. Is that right, Jason?

• 1:08:43Jason Calacanis?

  No, it's literally the performance of their Washington DC, West Virginia, North Dakota, South Dakota, all 66 to 73% of their vaccines are, they're double us. Now it's smaller states, but still we're goddamn California.

• 1:08:57Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Here's what I would say as a list. Number one, we're the most heavily taxed. Number two, we are, we have some of the worst infrastructure in the country. We have some of the lowest and poorest performing schools in the country. We have the highest homeless rates for veterans in the country. We have the worst preparedness for climate in the country. And so it's basically just a complete bungling at every level. And so, and then the fourth or the then the last, which is the biggest one is we have now created an inhospitable culture for innovation. And the biggest problem with that is if these

• 1:09:39Chamath Palihapitiya?

  climate jobs and these technology jobs and these biotechnology jobs pivot to more accepting and progressive local and state managements like Austin, Texas and Miami, Florida, we lose these things forever. This is a multi-generational decay that we're starting. And so if we care about the state, I love California. I love San Francisco. I love how eclectic and unique and different it is. I was always happy to pay 10, 11, 12, 13, 14% because it was worth it. Now I don't know what we get for it. And so I think we, I think, I think he should get recalled. I just think he's, he's trash.

• 1:10:19David Sacks?

  And yeah, and just to underscore the point on lockdowns, we now have certainly more cases. We have more deaths and we have more deaths per capita than Florida, despite the fact that Florida has no lockdowns and a much older population. And so I was just in Florida a few weeks ago, like, you know, like Chamath was saying, you know, Suarez, the mayor there has created really a land of the free. I mean, it's really unbelievable. You can go to bars, you can go to restaurants. There's no lockdown whatsoever. They don't have as big a problem as California does right now.

• 1:10:54Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Why do you think that is?

• 1:10:56David Sacks?

  Because, well, because I think that the lockdowns-

• 1:10:58Chamath Palihapitiya?

  On a scientific basis, yeah.

• 1:11:00David Sacks?

  I think the lockdowns only forestalled the problem. Eventually, the virus finds a way around them. And I also think the thing that's happening in Florida is that, okay, so my aunt lives there, she's in her 70s, she's not going to bars and restaurants because she knows she's highly at risk. And so just because the government doesn't lock down, doesn't mean that people don't take sensible precautions on their own. And so, and so I think that what's happened is that people who are going out to bars and restaurants are low risk and they're keeping the economy going over there. And instead, in California, we have this very draconian lockdown policy and it's put all these small businesses out of, out of work.

• 1:11:35Chamath Palihapitiya?

  No, no, it's worse. It's not a draconian lockdown policy, it's a whipsaw. Oh, it's open. Okay, great. Now go and invest in a bunch of catbacks to make sure there's outdoor dining. Oh, hold on, you're closed. What is that?

• 1:11:45Jason Calacanis?

  It's brutal. It's so dumb.

• 1:11:46Chamath Palihapitiya?

  It's incompetent.

• 1:11:47David Friedberg?

  Tons of, tons of restaurant bar owners in San Francisco spent, on average, $30,000 building outdoor seating for their facility, only to have it all shut down three and a half weeks later.

• 1:11:56Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Incompetent.

• 1:11:57David Friedberg?

  I mean, can you imagine being an owner of that business, what the experience must have been like?

• 1:12:00Jason Calacanis?

  No, I mean, you would, literally, they're going to kill themselves. This is the tragedy of it. People will lose everything and there'll be suicides, depression, domestic violence, drug use.

• 1:12:09Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And then this guy's, and then this guy's having dinner at French Laundry during the whole, I mean, it's just such a bad look.

• 1:12:13Jason Calacanis?

  You know what, Chamath, I just got a note-

• 1:12:14Chamath Palihapitiya?

  What a bad look.

• 1:12:15Jason Calacanis?

  That he will, he's, he's actually been banished from being at the French Laundry. Apparently, it's been renamed the Sri Lankan Laundry and some notable Sri Lankan billionaire has bought the French Laundry.

• 1:12:27David Friedberg?

  French Laundry, by the way, got a, they got a, they got a $2.6 million PPP law that got forgiven. So, you know, there's a, there's a lot of heat on the French Laundry as a whole.

• 1:12:37Jason Calacanis?

  What does it cost to go to French Laundry? Eight hundred dollars a person?

• 1:12:39Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Anybody who wants, who's listening to this, who wants to go to the French Laundry, stay at home, pour a bunch of salt on whatever you're gonna eat.

• 1:12:48David Friedberg?

  Melt a stick of butter in the microwave.

• 1:12:49Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Melt a stick of butter in the microwave, drink it, and then basically take fifteen hundred dollars, light it on fire, you've been to the French Laundry. You're welcome.

• 1:12:57Jason Calacanis?

  Here's what you do. Take a really great steak.

• 1:13:00Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Trash.

• 1:13:00Jason Calacanis?

  And then cut it into a cube and throw out eighty percent of it.

• 1:13:03Chamath Palihapitiya?

  That place is trash.

• 1:13:04Jason Calacanis?

  And then put the cube in the middle of a big, large plate.

• 1:13:06Chamath Palihapitiya?

  That is, that's not even nouveau riche, it's just nouveau stupid. I got trash.

• 1:13:12Jason Calacanis?

  Meanwhile, people are down in like Texas getting like a brisket burrito for four dollars.

• 1:13:20Chamath Palihapitiya?

  But I think California really needs to fix this. We need to figure out what's going on. And

• 1:13:24David Friedberg?

  And I just, I just want to ask one more question of you guys. You don't think that this, um, you know, because I was having this debate with my family about Newsom, and I was telling them about the perspectives I was hearing from tech people, and why everyone's so against Newsom, and I've heard all these different things that you guys have shared today. And, you know, they're very, you know, uh, and I'm hearing a lot of people kind of making a counterpoint, like, this is a very, um, difficult time. It's been an impossible year for everyone, everywhere. So first of all, you know, Newsom was dealt a pretty difficult hand to play. And at the same time, we are all psychologically primed to look for grass being greener on the other side. I think a big part of, you know, certainly there's a lot of people leaving California, my belief, for Texas and Florida, primarily because of taxes, and then you justify it with all the things that are wrong with

• 1:14:09David Friedberg?

  California. But we're all really primed right now, um, with this notion that, that, that it's a difficult place to be, but we're also really having a shitty year. We've had this pandemic, businesses have been shut, you know, everyone's sick, the economy's having issues. I mean, you know, there's, there's a really difficult hand that's been dealt.

• 1:14:27David Sacks?

  Well, I don't I don't buy that as an excuse for Newsom. I mean, look, it is true that we're going through a very difficult time. But the reason I don't buy that as an excuse for Newsom is because this is not April or May of 2020, when we thought the fatality rate was 7%.

• 1:14:41Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Right.

• 1:14:41David Sacks?

  And, you know, lockdowns could lockdowns could be justified then. But we now have so much more data. We've seen that states that did not do lockdowns like Florida and Texas frankly have been no worse off than those that have done very severe lockdowns. And so what is the point of continuing with this facade? And that is what I think we can legitimately blame Newsom for is the failure to learn and to change course.

• 1:15:03Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Adapt. You have to be adapting. And where is the like daily press briefing on what's happening?

• 1:15:09Jason Calacanis?

  I think.

• 1:15:10David Friedberg?

  And by the way, most of the spread is not happening at businesses. It's happening in homes. And in California, we have a particularly difficult problem because of multi-generational family homes, especially in the Latino communities that have been hardest hit by COVID. And the the transmission rate.

• 1:15:25Chamath Palihapitiya?

  They also happen to skew with diabetes as well.

• 1:15:27David Friedberg?

  But yeah, the transmission rate in those communities is three to five X what it is elsewhere. And I think, you know, and that is not a result of businesses being open. In fact, those communities are also suffering the biggest hardships because businesses are closed.

• 1:15:41Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Well, by the way, this goes to the vaccination strategy just being so idiotic. Like, you know, if you wanted to be equitable, then why weren't we just rolling through and basically getting those families to be vaccinated first independent of age? You know, you're you're you.

• 1:15:56David Friedberg?

  Apparently.

• 1:15:57Chamath Palihapitiya?

  All these vaccination sites, nobody shows up.

• 1:15:59David Friedberg?

  I spoke to SFDPH, Department of Public Health about this last week, and they told me that they cannot get those communities. They're very non-trusting of the vaccine. And they're having a real struggle getting people to sign up to take the vaccine. The problem is, even if that is the case, the problem is you should not be holding up vaccines for one community.

• 1:16:17Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Then get everybody else vaccinated so that you cut the head off this fucking transmission.

• 1:16:23Jason Calacanis?

  Over 60 gets it. That's it. There's nothing to discuss. Let's wrap up.

• 1:16:26David Friedberg?

  Everyone. Everyone gets it, but you allocate a certain number of doses to you. You basically have like a TSA pre-check line. If you're over 60 or you're in certain communities, you jump to the front of the line and that's it. But everyone can stand in line and put fucking shots in arms because everyone I know that's over 65 can't even get an appointment and it's bullshit. And the whole thing is incompetence.

• 1:16:45Chamath Palihapitiya?

  So I think what I think what Sacks said is so right. It's like in these moments, J Cal and Friedberg, like a light gets shone on the ability for people to figure things out. And then you know what the intellectual capability of these people are. And like, look, we saw the intellectual incapability of Trump. Because we all said, this guy could not adapt. Okay. And, um, and so we are now seeing the intellectual incapability of Gavin Newsom. And I just think they're, they're part of the same lot. They're just kind of, you know, people who are in over their head.

• 1:17:23Jason Calacanis?

  And they're beholden to people who got them there. And their number one concern is staying in office, which means appeasing a bunch of special interests. Speaking of special interests, David Sacks is still on tilt about conservatives being canceled. David, you wanted us to wrap with this Wilkinson cancellation. So every podcast, we're going to have a right winger who's canceled and David's justification for putting them back on the platform. Go David.

• 1:17:50David Sacks?

  Well, actually, so, yeah, this is, this is, this is the issue.

• 1:17:54Jason Calacanis?

  Cancellation of the week with David Sacks.

• 1:17:57David Sacks?

  Yes, yes. It's well, this is actually, it's not a, it's not a left wing. So this is the issue du jour on social media right now is that a writer named Will Wilkinson was just fired from his job and canceled. But here's the thing, it was, he's not a conservative. He's actually a liberal.

• 1:18:10Jason Calacanis?

  What?

• 1:18:11David Sacks?

  And it was, yes. And it was a right wing tweet mob that got together to get him fired. Yes. And so.

• 1:18:18Jason Calacanis?

  How did you get this mob together to get him canceled?

• 1:18:23David Sacks?

  It's, yeah. So.

• 1:18:25Jason Calacanis?

  We're back, everybody. So much for the wives dinner.

• 1:18:27Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Oh, my gosh.

• 1:18:28David Sacks?

  Yeah.

• 1:18:29Jason Calacanis?

  I'm gonna need another wives dinner.

• 1:18:31David Sacks?

  Well, no, I look, I feel the need to speak out on this because I gotta make it really clear that I do not support cancel culture when perpetrated by the right against the left. I think it's.

• 1:18:40Jason Calacanis?

  What did he do?

• 1:18:42David Sacks?

  Okay, so he posted a tweet making a joke that maybe was importate, it's not that funny, basically saying that if we want unity, the one thing that like the Trumpers and the Biden supporters can agree on is hanging Pence, you know?

• 1:18:55David Friedberg?

  It's what?

• 1:18:56David Sacks?

  It's hanging.

• 1:18:57Jason Calacanis?

  Lynch-ing Mike Pence. Lynch-ing Pence is what he said. Did he use the word lynching or hanging?

• 1:19:01Chamath Palihapitiya?

  He said.

• 1:19:02David Sacks?

  He said hang, I think.

• 1:19:03Jason Calacanis?

  No, no, I think he said lynching.

• 1:19:04David Sacks?

  I thought he said hang.

• 1:19:06Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Oh, maybe.

• 1:19:06Jason Calacanis?

  It's in poor taste and it's inciting violence on the march. Go ahead, Sax. It's in poor taste.

• 1:19:11David Sacks?

  Well, no, look, it's a joke that's not actually that funny and maybe in poor taste. What he's referring to is the fact that the, you know, that there were people on January 6th who were going after Mike Pence, right? That was sort of the joke. Anyway, look, that's not the point. He deleted it. He apologized for it. His bosses still fired him for it. Nobody believes that he was trying to incite violence. Okay. I mean, come on. We all know that was not inciting violence, but, um, but the mob pretended that he was in order to create its phony outrage. And then his bosses have to, uh, pretend that he was.

• 1:19:50Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah.

• 1:19:50David Sacks?

  In order to appease the mob and they pretend like it was incitement to violence so they can fire him. And then he even had to pretend that he was inciting violence because he had to then objectively apologize for it. And there's this, that's the thing about cancel culture I really don't like is just, it's just so fake and phony. We all have to pretend and things that aren't true in order to pacify some, you know, tweet mob whose outrage is manufactured anyway. And I don't like seeing the right doing this. Um, and that's what I tweeted about. And then we had all these people on the right responding to me saying an eye for an eye, you know, you know, the, the left deserves this too. Now they're going to get a taste of their own medicine. And the problem with that is, look, you know, you're, you're, you might win this particular battle, but you're losing the war because you're now buying into the premise of cancel culture.

• 1:20:36David Sacks?

  You're now buying into this idea that we need to economically cancel people who disagree with us. And I, I really reject that.

• 1:20:43Jason Calacanis?

  It's certainly bad timing to say lynch or hang, whichever word he used. Obviously lynching is a much worse word. Uh, after people were chanting hang Mike Pence, but he was making a commentary on that. The joke didn't land. And when the joke doesn't land, you need to just take ownership of that and say that you shouldn't be canceled. Just to say it was a poor attempt at humor. I apologize.

• 1:21:04David Sacks?

  Right. And Jason, you know, better than anybody else.

• 1:21:07Jason Calacanis?

  When a poor joke lands.

• 1:21:08David Sacks?

  When a joke doesn't land, so.

• 1:21:10Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah.

• 1:21:12Jason Calacanis?

  Here's one thing to learn about comedy. People don't remember the jokes that don't land. They remember the ones that land. Okay, everybody.

• 1:21:19Chamath Palihapitiya?

  It's like investing in startups. It's like you got a lot of losers to find the few winners.

• 1:21:23Jason Calacanis?

  Absolutely. That's my, I'm a volume guy. You know that. GovernorChamath.com, GovernorSacks.com, GovernorFreeburg.com, and GovernorJason.com.

• 1:21:30Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Can I just say, Jason, if Newsom is recalled, I would like to put my name on the ballot. And my commitments are quite simple. I just want to, I'm going to cut the taxes to zero. And I'm going to basically create an incredibly pro-climate-change jobs and pro-tech jobs and pro-bio-tech jobs economy. And I'm going to raise teacher salaries and I'm going to give everybody a school voucher.

• 1:21:55David Sacks?

  Okay, maybe, maybe, maybe on the next episode, we can all declare that we're running for governor and present our platform.

• 1:22:01Jason Calacanis?

  Oh, let's do that. Let's do that. Next Friday. All right. Everybody go to GovernorChamath.com, GovernorSacks.com, GovernorFreeburg.com, GovernorJason.com.

• 1:22:08David Friedberg?

  Wait, let's register our domain names. Register your domain name before the pod goes live.

• 1:22:12Jason Calacanis?

  I already registered all four of them and all redirect to my Twitter handle. Thank you, guys. I still have my posts. We'll see you all next time.

• 1:22:20Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Love you, boys. Bye.

• 1:22:21Jason Calacanis?

  On the All In Podcast. Love you, besties. Love you, Sacks.

• 1:22:24David Friedberg?

  Back at you.

• 1:22:25Jason Calacanis?

  Back at you, Friedberg.

• 1:22:30Speaker 04

  We'll let your winners ride.

• 1:22:33Speaker 04

  Rain Man David Sacks.

• 1:22:37Speaker 04

  And it said, "We open source it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it."

• 1:22:41Jason Calacanis?

  Love you, besties.

• 1:22:42Speaker 04

  I'm the queen of Kinoah.

• 1:22:50Speaker 04

  Besties are gone.

• 1:22:53David Friedberg?

  That is my dog taking a piss in your driveway.

• 1:22:58Speaker 04

  Oh, man.

• 1:23:00Chamath Palihapitiya?

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

• 1:23:09Speaker 04

  What? You're the bee. What? You're the bee.

• 1:23:11David Sacks?

  We are a bee.

• 1:23:14Speaker 04

  We need to get merch. Besties are back.