E46: False Ivermectin narratives, regulatory grift, wartime mentality in solving issues & more | LIVE from TPB Symposium!

Show Notes: 0:00 Open: LIVE from TPB Symposium 1:18 False Ivermectin story fools Rolling Stone, Rachel Maddow & more 15:47 Biden's recently announced vaccine mandates, why US hasn't been able to solve cheap testing 25:36 The threat of regulatory capture 34:18 Benefits of the "wartime mentality" when solving major issues 45:30 CCP looking to break up Alipay, what this means for US/China relations 49:11 Audience Q&A! Follow the besties: https://twitter.com/chamath https://linktr.ee/calacanis https://twitter.com/DavidSacks https://twitter.com/friedberg Follow the pod: https://twitter.com/theallinpod https://linktr.ee/allinpodcast Intro Music Credit: https://rb.gy/tppkzl https://twitter.com/yung_spielburg Intro Video Credit: https://twitter.com/TheZachEffect Referenced in the show: https://kfor.com/news/local/patients-overdosing-on-ivermectin-backing-up-rural-oklahoma-hospitals-ambulances/ https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/gunshot-victims-horse-dewormer-ivermectin-oklahoma-hospitals-covid-1220608/ https://twitter.com/RollingStone/status/1433922442850930696 https://twitter.com/maddow/status/1433521336282976256 https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1434854957614780424 https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-files-xcheck-zuckerberg-elite-rules-11631541353 https://www.ft.com/content/01b7c7ca-71ad-4baa-bddf-a4d5e65c5d79 https://sacks.substack.com/p/your-startup-is-a-movement https://twitter.com/DavidSacks/status/1426986193271640065

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

• 0:00David Sacks?

  Jake How looks like he's going to a night at the Roxbury.

• 0:02Jason Calacanis?

  Absolutely.

• 0:04Chamath Palihapitiya?

  He looks like Joe.

• 0:07Jason Calacanis?

  Shut the fuck up. Well, I'm a joke.

• 0:11Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I mean, you look horrible.

• 0:13Jason Calacanis?

  Thank you.

• 0:14Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Absolutely fucking horrible.

• 0:15Jason Calacanis?

  Okay, appreciate it.

• 0:18Jason Calacanis?

  Here we go.

• 0:36Jason Calacanis?

  Thanks for coming. This is the Production Board Symposium 2021. Tell us just a little bit about why we're here, David, and what this is and what it represents for the production board.

• 0:48David Friedberg?

  The Production Board Symposium, second ever. Thank you all for being here. We're excited. We have

• 0:56David Friedberg?

  an amazing group of science, scientists, engineers, folks from academia, from business, from the investing community, some of our investors. So we're excited to share thoughts and ideas over the next couple of days and thought we would chase half of you away by hosting the All In Pod tonight. So here we go.

• 1:17Jason Calacanis?

  Great. Okay, so first up in the news, Rolling Stone amplifies false ivermectin story. You were following this, Chabab. What do you think? This ivermectin controversy and

• 1:29Chamath Palihapitiya?

  You want to give a little summary of what the issue is before we talk about the hypocrisy of it?

• 1:35Jason Calacanis?

  Well, on September 1st, Oklahoma News Station K4 ran a story and published an article on ivermectin overdoses backing up rural hospitals. The article was titled Patients Overdosing on Ivermectin Backing Up Rural Oklahoma Hospital Hospitals and Ambulances. First line of the article, quote, "A rural Oklahoma doctor said patients who are taking the home dewarmer medication, ivermectin, to fight COVID-19 are causing emergency rooms and ambulances to back up." On September 3rd, Rolling Stone amplified the story in its own article. The only problem was

• 2:13Jason Calacanis?

  they tweeted it with a picture that featured people lined up in the cold. It turns out the picture was people waiting for vaccine shots back in January, not gunshot victims waiting to get into the hospital.

• 2:30David Sacks?

  Yeah, the story is totally false. You understand that, right?

• 2:32Jason Calacanis?

  Well, I didn't want to say fake news, but I know-

• 2:34Chamath Palihapitiya?

  No, it was beyond fake news. This was basically a doctored-up, conjured article by some person trying to incite a moral mania at Rolling Stone. Look, you tell me if the science of this is wrong. The whole premise is ridiculous. So, ivermectin, basically, as far as we know, because we don't know that much, acts on a handful of specific characteristics. It's one, we know, to be glutamate, which we don't really express in the same way as, like, fucking worms. And so, yes, technically, it can be used as a dewormer, but there are four or five other ways in which it acts, which we don't know anything about, because we haven't taken the time to do a broad-based, double-blind study. So, I think the fairest thing to say about ivermectin is, we don't know what it is.

• 3:18Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And so, neither the people that propose to use it as a solution for COVID, nor the people that rail against it, aren't really starting from the basis of fact. But then what happens is, you have these folks who basically are so turned off by the idea that, you know, people aren't getting vaccines, they're going to use this other thing, they basically doctor it up in an article. That wouldn't be so bad, because nobody reads Rolling Stone. Right? It's kind of a...

• 3:43Jason Calacanis?

  It's an ancient brand. Nobody's going there for medical news, yeah.

• 3:47Chamath Palihapitiya?

  But then the problem is, you get a handful of these folks who think they're really, really smart, who amplify it. Rachel Maddow amplifies it, Jimmy Kimmel does it on a comedy skit, and then all of a sudden, there's this enormous outrage. But the problem is, you can't put the genie back in the bottle when it turns out to be a completely fabricated lie. And then, all the people that are purporting to basically push this lie, who now have been outed, have no consequences, because they're on the left screaming at the right. And what happened when it was the other way around, we basically started to put people in boxes, we basically kicked them off these platforms, and again, so you have this compounding, building double standard. That, to me, is the worst part about it.

• 4:26Jason Calacanis?

  David, when we look at the ivermectin story, we also saw Joe Rogan got COVID. That was a big ha ha moment for a lot of people. And he took ivermectin as part of his treatment. And then people started amplifying that he was taking a worm drug for horses.

• 4:41Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Dewarmer.

• 4:42Jason Calacanis?

  Dewarmer and.

• 4:43Chamath Palihapitiya?

  It's at best an antimicrobial.

• 4:45Jason Calacanis?

  Right. It's used for both situations and a doctor prescribed it to him. He's thinking of suing some folks for treating this. What does this overall say about the state of communications around this pandemic?

• 4:56David Sacks?

  Yeah, I mean, look, this is really a media story. You had Rolling Stone publish this article based on a single source. You have this one crank basically saying that emergency rooms are turning away gunshot victims and people having heart attacks. Okay. And all they had to do, all Rolling Stone had to do was call up any one of these several hospitals, they immediately would have refuted the source, but they didn't do that. They also could have simply Googled the number of toxic ivermectin cases to find out if it was even plausible statistically that you could have ivermectin overdoses flooding Oklahoma hospitals, but they didn't do that either. Why didn't they confirm the sources? Because the article was too perfect. It confirmed all of their priors.

• 5:40David Sacks?

  Their first prior was about ivermectin. They've been waging this war on ivermectin, claiming it's a horse dewarmer when it's actually, that is one of its purposes, but it's not the only one. It was a, it was a drug designed for humans and is used against parasites. Now, as Tom said, we don't know whether it's effective against COVID. They got to do the double blind studies and then we'll find out. But that was sort of their first prior. And let's face it, the second prior was that this is in Oklahoma. Right? And so Rolling Stone wants to believe you have all these MAGA idiots out in Oklahoma eating horse paste. Okay. And that's why they love this story so much. And that's why Rachel Maddow loved the story so much. And she then starts spreading it. Okay. And after she gets called out, including by, say, Glenn Greenwald, as of last night,

• 6:25David Sacks?

  she had not taken it down.

• 6:26Jason Calacanis?

  She didn't take it down.

• 6:26David Sacks?

  Now, why? Because she knows there are no consequences for misinformation and lying. Why? Because Twitter and Facebook do not punish people on the left for misinformation. That is a penalty. They only meter out for people who disagree with their cultural and political biases.

• 6:42Chamath Palihapitiya?

  She's part of the secret cabal that gets the get out of jail free card.

• 6:45David Sacks?

  I don't, I don't even think it's secret. I just think these people all are part of the same cultural sort of milieu. They all have the same political and cultural biases and there is never, look, where is the Twitter warning? The Twitter label on the Rachel Maddow post even now saying that this tweet, this article is misinformation.

• 7:04Chamath Palihapitiya?

  It doesn't exist because it's inconvenient.

• 7:07Jason Calacanis?

  Free bird, let's talk about the science of.

• 7:09David Friedberg?

  I think I would pay forty dollars for all in podcast live. It's dynamic. It works.

• 7:14Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah. By the way, you're on the show. So.

• 7:16David Friedberg?

  Okay, I'm here too. Tell me the last time we heard a news story that didn't have bias to it. What was the last general thing that was reported that we didn't feel had the angle? That then elicited emotion, either love or hate or alignment or not.

• 7:33Chamath Palihapitiya?

  You can have that reaction to facts. There was an article in the Wall Street Journal just now about like the, the Democrats proposal on taxes. I have an emotional reaction to it, but it's fact based.

• 7:43David Friedberg?

  I've got a hundred, is it really? Was it?

• 7:47Chamath Palihapitiya?

  My reaction or?

• 7:48David Friedberg?

  No, the story.

• 7:50Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Yeah. They just said that they, the, the House proposal now is to move the cap gains rate to from 20 to 25. The corporate tax rate from whatever it was to 26 and a half. But it's, my point is there are articles written by folks who just want to get the facts across and let you judge. Whether it's good or bad, who knows? Time will tell. Then there are folks that basically manufacture shit because again, I think, and I think it's Matt Taibbi that said this. Because it creates moral mania and they want that.

• 8:19David Friedberg?

  Drives the narrative, drives the emotion.

• 8:21Chamath Palihapitiya?

  But it's the last grasp of power of journalism. That's all they have left at this point. It's just to basically make it a complete fucking free for all and in it, they still have some kind of relevancy.

• 8:30David Friedberg?

  I have these old New York Times newspapers, like the whole year printed from like 1936 through 1944. It's cool. I think in this huge book and you know, well.

• 8:40Chamath Palihapitiya?

  But you must've been out all the time, but you didn't have time to read those.

• 8:43David Friedberg?

  Yeah. I mean, but you flip through these things. They are, they are just like old, like ticker stories, you know, it had absolutely no like narrative attached to it. There was no like, these are the people, almost the implicit right and wrong, right? The implicit morality of every decision that's being made of everything that's being reported on. I have a feeling the only thing that's gonna be left in like 10 years is The Economist and then like the mob rule in the metaverse. And that's kinda

• 9:07Jason Calacanis?

  Well, I mean, you also have podcasts where people can discuss these things in maybe a more honest, transparent

• 9:15David Friedberg?

  There's still a few great podcasts like that.

• 9:16Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Mr. Anti-Facebook, what do you think about this Wall Street Journal article that says that there's a secret cabal that basically gets a get out of jail free card on Facebook and nobody else does?

• 9:25David Friedberg?

  There's millions of people though, it said, right?

• 9:26Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah.

• 9:27David Friedberg?

  That's a lot.

• 9:28Jason Calacanis?

  You work there.

• 9:29David Sacks?

  It's exactly the point I've been making, right? Which is that there's two sets of rules. If you are part of the in-crowd, if you share the cultural biases, if you're part of the same class, whether it's, you know, socioeconomic or political or whatever, that of the people who are doing the content moderation, doing the censorship, you get a get out of jail free card. The rules are different for you. You can be Rachel Maddow and post an article that's complete bullshit and even after the entire Twitter sphere calls you out, you don't post a correction. But you don't get labeled, you don't get censored. But if you're on a different part of the political spectrum, you do. I mean, there's two sets of rules.

• 10:07Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Yeah, I mean, I think, I think it's insane. I mean, this is exactly what I think people have been saying for a long time. When people say, oh, you know, it's algorithmic, it's not really human controlled, there's, there's no real intervention. And then you find out there's actually literally something called cross-check, which its definition is check the hu, you know, check the algorithm and override it with my own bias. That's the, that's the definition of what the feature is.

• 10:28Jason Calacanis?

  Well, I mean, and whenever we start down this censorship route, like who gets to decide? And then what is their motivation? Even if they have pure motivation, there's no way to, you know, not read into that.

• 10:40David Friedberg?

  But assume the platforms die, assume everything deplatforms and decentralizes. And then like all media is through Substack or through the call-in app or through other kind of media.

• 10:49Jason Calacanis?

  Well, decentralized crypto-based blockchain Twitter.

• 10:53David Friedberg?

  There's no longer a platform, there's no longer a censor model. What's gonna end up happening. People are gonna click on the stuff that they wanna hear. Confirmation bias. It's gonna become more extreme. It's gonna become, you know, even more heated. There's gonna be splintering of media creation as there is right now that we see today, right? Every, every element of the spectrum will be kind of produced. And you're gonna end up clicking on the stuff that creates the greatest emotional response. Cause that's what people like to consume.

• 11:15Chamath Palihapitiya?

  How does a citizen who wants to inoculate themselves from fake news bias? How, how do you recommend they go after science? And how do they, they have to learn this stuff for themselves? They have to try to become an expert themselves?

• 11:27David Friedberg?

  Yeah, it's hard, like anything that's hard, right? I mean, there's, there's gotta be a will. I don't think that that's really, um. It's, it's not to be discouraging. I just think that it's a lot easier to not do that. Right? It's a, it's a lot easier to consume ice cream all the time. It's a lot more fun to consume ice cream all the time and to kind of plan your diet, eat healthy and work out and all this sort of stuff. And I think that's really where, you know, media, like a lot of things is headed. As we create these kind of feedback loops that are all, because everything's digital, everything ends up becoming a feedback.

• 11:54Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I bet, I bet you, I bet you, if you look inside, cause like now. Some rabid politician will get ahold of this Facebook cross check thing. I bet you. If you look and graph the number of people that were essentially whitelisted from being able to say whatever the hell they want. Versus what was popular on Facebook, you'd see a left versus right distribution very clearly. You'd basically see it, cause if you look at it now, I think there's a, I can't remember his name, but he's a, he's a former New York Times reporter that tweets out every day. The top 10 links that are shared on Facebook. And it's like, it's like a fucking train wreck. It's like one normal article and then it's like nine, like right wing conspiracies.

• 12:34David Friedberg?

  Ben Shapiro, Daily Wire.

• 12:36Chamath Palihapitiya?

  It's a train wreck every day. And so if you're, you know, a hipster sitting in East Menlo Park. You know, at some point, like the cuffs in your jeans are rolled up too tight, the fucking shirt cuffs are rolled up too tight, you know? And you're just freaking out. And then you're like, we need to create something. What do we call it? And we're like, cross check, you know? And then all of a sudden what happens is you just start introducing people. Hoping that then the list that gets published every day on Twitter changes. But then what happens actually is you find the exact opposite thing happens. That people are so like, they sniff out the bullshit. They're like, what is going on here? But then they double down. And the next thing you know, Ben Shapiro's nine, you know, eight of the 10 top stories every day.

• 13:19Chamath Palihapitiya?

  On Facebook and that's how you have Donald Trump and everything else.

• 13:24David Sacks?

  Next topic. Well.

• 13:28David Sacks?

  Go ahead. Well, I was gonna, I mean, I don't want to. They did it to themselves. Yeah, look, I think both sides are capable of, both sides of the political spectrum are capable of spreading misinformation and bullshit, and you have to vary your information diet, right? I mean, if all you do is participate in, you know, the right wing or left wing echo chamber, you're gonna buy into the ivermectin hoax, you're gonna, story here from Rolling Stone, or whatever it is. So you have to make an effort to, again, to vary your information diet.

• 13:59Jason Calacanis?

  Or masks, or the lab leak theory.

• 14:03David Sacks?

  The lab leak theory, exactly.

• 14:04Jason Calacanis?

  We now have five of these during the pandemic alone, right?

• 14:07David Sacks?

  Right. But see, what I object to is the fact that the censorship rules only seem to apply to one side of the spectrum. Is, look, both sides are capable of spreading misinformation, but only one side is being censored. Why? Because the people running these powerful tech companies agree, they're like, you know, 90 plus percent of that political persuasion. That is not healthy.

• 14:29David Friedberg?

  Can we, can we survey the audience and see if they agree? Raise your hand if you agree with Sacks.

• 14:33Jason Calacanis?

  How many people agree with Sacks that Trump should be reinstated on all platforms?

• 14:37David Sacks?

  There you go.

• 14:40David Friedberg?

  How many people agree that the tech platforms have a political bias?

• 14:47David Friedberg?

  How many disagree with that statement?

• 14:49David Sacks?

  Nobody.

• 14:49David Friedberg?

  Interesting.

• 14:50David Sacks?

  Phil Doitz, Phil Doitz, call him out, call him out.

• 14:53David Friedberg?

  Wife is the chief business officer of Facebook. Thanks, Phil.

• 14:55David Sacks?

  For the viewers.

• 14:56David Friedberg?

  Tell us, let us chat with you after the next investing day.

• 15:00David Sacks?

  Requisite hand raise. For the viewers at home who couldn't see that, because I don't know, do we have the audience on camera? No. So it was 99%. No, everyone, yeah. Everyone except for Phil Doitz.

• 15:11Jason Calacanis?

  Well, and these are Silicon, best described as Silicon Valley.

• 15:15David Sacks?

  To Barney, so that's why he had to raise his hand.

• 15:17Jason Calacanis?

  No, but to be clear for people listening.

• 15:19David Sacks?

  Phil's wife works at Facebook.

• 15:20Jason Calacanis?

  100% of the.

• 15:20David Sacks?

  He's gotta say no. It's okay. It's okay.

• 15:23Jason Calacanis?

  99%.

• 15:23David Sacks?

  But everybody else here agreed with that, and these are all people who are in the tech industry.

• 15:29Jason Calacanis?

  Liberal insiders.

• 15:29David Sacks?

  They know.

• 15:31Chamath Palihapitiya?

  So how many of us are Democrats? I mean, we're all mostly Democrats, I would guess.

• 15:34Jason Calacanis?

  How many people voted Democrat in the last election?

• 15:36David Friedberg?

  How many are not Democrats?

• 15:38Jason Calacanis?

  How many people voted for Trump? Raise your hand, nice and high.

• 15:40Chamath Palihapitiya?

  No, nobody.

• 15:41Jason Calacanis?

  Nobody? No, literally, there's only... That's very interesting.

• 15:44Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Here's a question I have. Okay, so we are firmly going down because I think it's pretty clear to me, I'd be willing to make the bet, that the media is on the side of vaccine mandates. Okay, they want the top-down control and the sense of theoretical safety that a vaccine mandate gives them in their own little bubble. And so that's why I think they support this. And I think, you know, blowing up ivermectin was kind of a method of many that they've undertaken to do that, whether we believe in vaccine mandates or not. But now it's coming. It's coming in the LA school district. It's, you know, Biden is trying to push this thing through the BLS. This is going to be a very, very big deal.

• 16:27Chamath Palihapitiya?

  What do you guys think is the right thing to do on vaccine mandates irrespective of all we're going to hear over the next?

• 16:34David Friedberg?

  Government or private employer mandates? Or both?

• 16:38Jason Calacanis?

  Well, we should, let's walk through it.

• 16:39Chamath Palihapitiya?

  You're saying both?

• 16:40Jason Calacanis?

  For the government employees, let's start with that.

• 16:44Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Well, the government mandate? No, it goes through the BLS. It says any company, public or private, that is 100 employees or more.

• 16:50Jason Calacanis?

  Well, I mean, I think we all agree that people in the military or people in healthcare, they should all be vaccinated or they shouldn't come to work, correct? Do you agree with that?

• 17:00Chamath Palihapitiya?

  But that's also not even enforceable. Like, Sorkin, Andrew Ross Sorkin tweeted out, like, he had to take his kid to the urgent care. And he walked in and the doctors weren't wearing masks or something.

• 17:11David Friedberg?

  Yeah, I read that.

• 17:11Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And said something about like not being vaccinated, it doesn't matter, blah, blah, blah. And he like...

• 17:16Jason Calacanis?

  Well, that goes to enforcement, but I mean, the military has said you have to be...

• 17:20Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And I thought, wait, you brought your kid to the fucking urgent care? Don't you first need to know what's wrong with the kid? You can't prosecute this person's opinion on masks and vaccines before you figure out what's wrong with your kid.

• 17:31Jason Calacanis?

  Well, what do you think, Sacks? Military, what about military healthcare teachers?

• 17:35David Sacks?

  I think the crux of the issue is whether employers should be able to require that. Well, there's two issues. One is whether employers should be allowed to require it, which I think everybody agree, not everyone, but, but most people I think agree that private employers, and you could lump the government in with this, should be allowed to test or their employees or require their employees to be vaccinated if they want to. And, or at least I would support that part of it, is let private enterprises require vaccination if they want. If they decide, hey, in order to come back to the office, you gotta be vaccinated so everyone's safety, they can impose those rules. Now, the question is, do we need to go beyond that to have a federal mandate?

• 18:16David Sacks?

  And it's not that I'm anti-vaccine, I just think that's like an awfully authoritarian thing to do, and it raises a bunch of questions. So, for example, I have a friend who owns a chain of dry cleaners, okay? He's got over 100 employees, mostly minimum wage in a bunch of different locations. About 20% of his employees-

• 18:35Chamath Palihapitiya?

  What is his ethnicity?

• 18:38David Sacks?

  What does that have to do with anything?

• 18:39Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Just curious.

• 18:40David Sacks?

  He's Sri Lankan.

• 18:44David Sacks?

  Anyway, so-

• 18:45Jason Calacanis?

  He's the third most famous Sri Lankan American. Keep going.

• 18:48David Sacks?

  Yes, anyway, so, he's got 100 employees, about 20% of them are anti-vax, and they will not get vaccinated, okay? So, they will walk out if, you know, if this is required. They would rather quit that job. Hold on, but he can't run his business if there's a 20% walkout. He just can't do it, okay? So, now we get to the soft part of the mandate, which is, well, instead of requiring the vax, he can do a weekly test. Well, we did that outside here. Who's gonna pay for those tests? Who's gonna administer them? Is it like, you know, they had a nurse out here with the full, you know, you know-

• 19:22Jason Calacanis?

  Hazmat.

• 19:22David Sacks?

  Yeah, the hazmat thing. So, you know, that's not cheap. So, how, who's gonna pay for that? Who's gonna do that? What's the documentation around that gonna be? Is it get logged into the computer system? What kind of proof? Is it, does it require a trip to the lab? Or is this something we can do in five minutes? I mean, look, if we had done what Friedberg said a year ago- On this pod, we should do, which is have these $1 five minute tests be available everywhere. Then maybe that sort of rapid test out would make these mandates more palatable, but we don't have that yet. You know, there aren't enough of these.

• 19:54David Friedberg?

  It turns out we still need it even with the vaccines because no vaccine is going to be 100% effective. And with.

• 19:59David Sacks?

  Right. But my point is since we don't really have that solution operationalized, you know, having a hard vax mandate on 100 million employees of private enterprises. You know, that's going to cause, I think, chaos in the economy.

• 20:13Jason Calacanis?

  What if we get a variant, David, or if we get a variant, God forbid, that is more dangerous than Delta. Let's say it spreads just as fast, but it's five times as deadly. Does that change your thinking about this mandate? And where do you stand on the mandate?

• 20:27Chamath Palihapitiya?

  No, I, I, I think the mandate in this very specific narrow instance makes sense. And I think what we should be fighting about is how we actually write it so that it's not wholly expansive. And the reason is because we know that there is a probabilistic

• 20:43Chamath Palihapitiya?

  distribution of outcomes where a non trivial percentage of them results in a variant that is deadly. And so we can understand the math and we can understand a sense of time to figure out that if we don't do something and if we don't get to some amount of control around what this is, we're all in really big trouble. So because of that specific thing, I just think this is where, you know, look, the president has the ability to invoke the War Measures Act to do all kinds of things that are super normal. And, you know, we would never say that those abide in normal times and we've created a framework for him to be able to do those things in non normal times and then revert to normal.

• 21:24Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I think this is one of those cases just because I don't think the economic consequences and the social consequences. If we let this thing continue to compound and continue to mutate, it doesn't make any fucking sense. We're not learning anything.

• 21:37Jason Calacanis?

  We could have used the War Mandate Act across two presidencies to demand some companies make a dollar test.

• 21:45David Sacks?

  Yeah.

• 21:46Jason Calacanis?

  We have 75, 80 tests approved in Germany. They're down to $2 or $3. Why has the FDA not gotten us to that level that Germany's at?

• 21:56David Friedberg?

  And why haven't we done the war mandate? I mean, we have like a constructed capitalist model of like, let the free market tell the government what is the right thing to do. And so then they invite Abbott and they invite the guys in and they're like, you know, the White House and they have a consortium meeting and everyone's kind of a little bit chuckling about this, like, oh, this is awesome. It's another $2 billion payday, which is what they just got. I don't know if you saw uh, the, the write-up today, but the federal government is paying Walmart for the difference between the wholesale cost and the retail cost so that consumers cannot now go buy Abbott tests at the wholesale price at the store. $2 billion taxpayer money gone. When we could have had a bunch of smart scientists get together at the White House

• 22:40David Friedberg?

  with a bunch of engineers, take over a frigging factory and on a piece of paper, print 8 billion fucking tests. And then chop them up and distributed them for 50 cents. And instead, we have this problem where we're like depending on the Korean supply, I kid you not, of the test kits that are like plastic. That's where they make all the like pregnancy test kits and all this stuff. And these um, this like, the, the commercial model is like, tell us how you want to make these tests, tell us what the right model is. And of course, you end up with a $30 test when in Germany, you can go buy a 50 cent test at any liquor store. Um, and so it's, it's constructed wrong. Straight up corruption. And if you go back, like, you know, I don't know if you know this, the, the production board is named after the Straight into the microphone.

• 23:22David Friedberg?

  Named after the war production board, which was um, set up during World War II. It's pretty humble. What's that? It's pretty humble. Yeah, um, took the war out, you know? Um, but it was, uh, but it, the idea was like, how do you take a system level, uh, design approach? Uh, to solving kind of big problems. And um, one of the issues that we had during World War II was a supply chain problem on making tanks and planes. And so they put together a bunch of smart people, Deutsch knows this better than anyone. Cause he was alive back then. He was alive and he was, you can look at the old photos, he was there. Sitting in front of guys. You have the hammer. Say hi to him before he dies. He may die tonight. In the factory floor. Old as fuck. And um, and there was basically a coordinated effort. It's his birthday today, by the way, sorry. Lakai, happy birthday.

• 24:07David Friedberg?

  Happy birthday. But there was a coordinated effort by engineers at the top down to design a system for making these things cheap and fast. And that's an approach that I think we lost, right? Like, we kind of gave way to this model of, eh, laissez-faire, like, you come in, you tell me what you think we should do. Okay, that's a good idea. Let's take photos and we're out and that's it. Like, we don't have a wartime mentality right now. We haven't had a wartime mentality since COVID hit. Everyone's continued to try and parade around and get re-elected and, you know, earn votes and things.

• 24:37Jason Calacanis?

  So we're basically not, we're not taking this.

• 24:38David Friedberg?

  Well, we're not acting, we're, you know, like, every, every time kind of a business or a government or any organization goes through a phase, it goes through a wartime phase or a peacetime phase. We should be acting like we're in a wartime phase and we're not.

• 24:49Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Can I ask you a question?

• 24:50David Friedberg?

  You may.

• 24:51Chamath Palihapitiya?

  If three or four of us basically pulling it up some money, could you go and print eight billion of these fucking tests?

• 24:56David Friedberg?

  In the US, you cannot get them approved without the FDA.

• 24:59Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I'm not asking for approval, I'm saying, could you do it?

• 25:01David Friedberg?

  100%.

• 25:02Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And how long would it take?

• 25:03David Friedberg?

  You could buy some old friggin' paper mill and in three months, I mean, you know, this, this, actually, people in this room who could do this in, um...

• 25:09Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Now, isn't there a framework within FDA that basically allows you to effectively experiment on yourself?

• 25:16David Friedberg?

  There's a compassionate, there's a, it's for drugs, it's for therapeutics, not for diagnostics.

• 25:22Chamath Palihapitiya?

  So you're saying that if I wanted to build my own test and use it, I could not?

• 25:25David Friedberg?

  If you want to build a, if you want to build a diagnostic test that tells someone whether or not they have a, an illness, you have to get FDA approval in the United States. So.

• 25:33Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And what if you just publish the formula?

• 25:35David Friedberg?

  Some restatement is regulatory capture, like, is, is one of the biggest issues we have.

• 25:40Jason Calacanis?

  And in related, uh, news.

• 25:41David Friedberg?

  By the way, another insane statistic, just sorry to interrupt, I saw this today. I forgot, someone we know tweeted this. The, who, who wants to guess the ratio of administrators to doctors in the US healthcare system?

• 25:53Chamath Palihapitiya?

  300 to 1.

• 25:54Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, I saw it, 300 to 1, yeah.

• 25:56David Friedberg?

  900 to 1 today.

• 25:57Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Oh, my God.

• 25:58David Friedberg?

  And that is up from 5 to 1 in 1970.

• 26:01Chamath Palihapitiya?

  By the way, can I just build on what you said?

• 26:03David Friedberg?

  900 to 1.

• 26:04Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Your initial tweet said 300 to 1, and it ended in 2010, right before Obamacare passed? So from 300 to 900 was all Obamacare?

• 26:12David Friedberg?

  Yeah.

• 26:14Jason Calacanis?

  Regulatory capture. Sax is shaking his head.

• 26:15Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Which, by the way, nothing against Obamacare, because I think like coming as a Canadian, I actually believe in subsidized healthcare. And I think the the principle of Obamacare was great, but there was one fatal flaw, which is it basically said, okay, you know what, you're capped at the following margin. And the minute that people said, wait a minute, I can only have a 20% gross margin, what do you do? You just jack up prices to basically jack up revenue. Because if you can only take 20%, you're going to take 20% of a bigger number than a smaller number. And so it completely burned the incentives for any healthcare company in the United States to do anything other than just basically walk prices up. And it's funny, because if you look at the stock prices of these companies, you would have made more money being long United Healthcare than you would have been

• 26:57Chamath Palihapitiya?

  owning Facebook, Google, any of these other tech companies in the last decade. Crazy stat.

• 27:02Jason Calacanis?

  Speaking of regulatory capture, Tesla got left out of this new tax credit or proposed tax credit.

• 27:09Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Insane.

• 27:09Jason Calacanis?

  For electric cars. I don't know if you saw that, but Tesla wasn't invited a couple of months ago to Biden's EV summit. Elon responded like, I wonder why I wasn't invited. It turns out it's because they're not a union shop. Their employees make much more money than union employees make. And now, as a punishment, but hold on, as a punishment, the $12,000 credit that they're giving to, or they're proposing to give to all EV manufacturers is only if you have union employees. It's 4,500 less to Tesla. So literally, two massive regulatory captures and corruption go. Or maybe Sax.

• 27:47David Sacks?

  No, I mean, I don't have much more to add to that. I mean, you hit the nail on the head. I mean, this is to serve the unions. It's not to serve clean energy. Or the EV industry. I mean, a little bit for EV, but it's mostly for the unions.

• 28:04Chamath Palihapitiya?

  On the one hand, what we do is we say that climate change is this existential issue. But then when the rubber meets the road, if you look inside the infrastructure plan today, we unveiled basically how we're going to do all the tax credits. And again, it's just an enormous amount of just sloppy regulatory capture. We're doubling and tripling credits in certain places. We're disallowing credits in other places. When you follow the dollars, what happens is you can map it to companies. Those companies tend to be mostly public, large balance sheets, large lobbying efforts. And it's not necessarily the most important companies that matter. So if you know, if I said to you, what are the most important companies in climate change? You'd probably say, well, maybe it's direct air capture.

• 28:46Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Maybe it's nuclear, maybe it's some other thing that basically helps you go to a different place. And where does all the tax credits and tax dollars go? Sunrun, Sunpower. These are companies that basically, you know, have this oligopolistic hold, stranglehold on essentially installing solar panels and battery walls in homes across the United States. And it's not to say that that job isn't important, but to basically explicitly block other people out. Because all the chatter today on, you know, or some of the chatter today was around just, if this bill passes as written, you're going to see these stocks rip. And so obviously, the positive reinforcement loop of Wall Street and hedge funds getting behind these companies, their market cap goes up, the amount they allocate to lobbyists go up,

• 29:31Chamath Palihapitiya?

  and then all this bullshit just continues to cycle through the system.

• 29:34Jason Calacanis?

  Freiburg, how far are we away from small nuclear reactors and fusion just from a science perspective and then on a regulatory basis?

• 29:43David Friedberg?

  I don't know enough. I mean, yeah. Look, I mean, from what I've seen, there are great technologies that, you know, we should be able to kind of realize. My understanding and speaking to investors, some in this room, and I know Chamath looked at this area a lot, is, you know, there's the regulatory burden that's made it so difficult to launch nuclear. Technically, it seems like there's great breakthroughs. There was an announcement from a group this past week. CFS, yeah, on a new, um, uh, superconducting magnet system that they spent years designing. This is a Bill Gates backed company. Anyone here an investor? No.

• 30:20Chamath Palihapitiya?

  None.

• 30:21David Friedberg?

  Huh?

• 30:22Chamath Palihapitiya?

  None.

• 30:23David Friedberg?

  And, uh, basically it enables like the tokamak plasma fusion based systems, uh, to be kind of reliably produced now. And so they've, they've, they've had a proof of demonstration of this, uh, of the superconducting magnet system that effectively allows you to control a plasma, which is like 10 million degrees Celsius in a little donut that spins around. And that plasma allows you to kind of pull energy out that can be used for, you know, effectively you put a bunch of material in, this thing runs and more energy comes out than you put in. It's magic. Um, and so, you know, this has been a theoretical kind of concept for decades. Uh, getting the superconducting magnet system to control the plasma in a very small space, uh, using a very small kind of system was proven. And now they think that they're, you know, call it four or five years away.

• 31:07David Friedberg?

  Uh, you know, by the way, everything in nuclear is always four or five years away. So four or five years away with a grain of salt, uh, from kind of having a demonstrable kind of, uh, system. So there, there's technologies that are clearly like on the brink or, or proceeding nicely, but as we know, um, a lot of, a lot of these sorts of technologies similarly are kind of regulatory burdened.

• 31:25Chamath Palihapitiya?

  We're about a hundred degrees away, I think, from a, from a operational, functional room temperature semiconductor. And

• 31:31David Friedberg?

  Superconductor.

• 31:31Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Superconductor, sorry. And, you know, I've told a team that I'm working with on this project, I don't want to go into energy generation or unless we can do it in a small form manufacturing thing that can be adopted broadly. But if you try to go and, you know, basically build some distributed energy resource out over here that powers Cabala Point, it's impossible because you run into these people who don't really understand the science, won't take the time. And, you know, we've taken so many steps backwards from nuclear that it's probably just going to take decades. And it's going to take some cataclysmic climate change event where the only way out is the super abundant energy source where you're willing to basically say, ah, fuck it, we're fucked otherwise.

• 32:13David Friedberg?

  By the way, if you were to go to Mars today, you wouldn't be pulling a bunch of fucking, you know, oil out of the ground and burning it and, you know, rotating a

• 32:21Chamath Palihapitiya?

  You shouldn't.

• 32:22David Friedberg?

  I mean, and you wouldn't necessarily, I mean, you'd be using, you know, solar at the beginning, but you wouldn't necessarily rely on solar, the, you know, the cost of material to transport from here to Mars, to yield the best energy potential would likely be some sort of nuclear power source, right? As it is in a lot of military systems.

• 32:38Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I have a question, Sax. Elon was saved by Obama. I mean, just kind of like having, we were there, meaning like, you know, it was in that moment, he was able to get that deal with Daimler, he was able to get these, you know, tax credits, the auto bailout, you know, all of that stuff. But then it seems like we're in the middle of a Democrat administration and they may go out of their way to basically try to fuck this guy.

• 33:01David Sacks?

  I just think it's like become a special interest free for all. There was an article today that the national deficit year to date is 2.7 trillion. And I think that we're on October 1st fiscal year, so there's one more month, so it'll be about 3 trillion. Last year was over 3 trillion because of COVID. They haven't gotten to the infrastructure bill yet, that's going to be another 1.2 trillion. On top of that, the Democrats are saying they want another 3.5, well, not all Democrats, but thank God for Joe Manchin, but another 3.5 trillion. And, you know, most people can't even really say what's in that 3.5 trillion dollar bill. I mean, it's, we're at 28 trillion, something like that of national debt. I mean, and it's all just like special interest plunder.

• 33:42Jason Calacanis?

  Well, I mean, if you look at the results, the results aren't there, correct?

• 33:45David Sacks?

  Yeah, and then on top of that, um, well, you know, I understand, I mean, with respect to Obamacare, okay, that's a major item on, let's call it the Democrat wishlist, was to give everyone healthcare, and we didn't even get there, okay? But you can sort of understand that. But most people, I think even on the left, can't really say what the big ticket item is that's going to be delivered for this 3.5 trillion that is proposing to be spent. So, um, I mean, it's just, it's just become this like, you know, special interest free for all.

• 34:18Jason Calacanis?

  Friedberg, we talked about not having a wartime stance with the pandemic. We don't have a wartime stance with global warming or extreme weather, whichever term you want, should we?

• 34:28Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Yeah.

• 34:32David Friedberg?

  Yeah.

• 34:34Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, we're burning money out of like a drunken sailor.

• 34:37David Friedberg?

  What's going on right now, and actually, a lot of what we're going to talk about this symposium over the next day or so, is that there is effectively now a raging free market appetite for these solutions. The capital is pouring in, the entrepreneurship is blossoming, ballooning, the technology is advancing. So, you know, to some degree, folks might say, you know, this is going to get solved. But there are major infrastructure solutions that are needed for us to accelerate the outcome and win the war. And those infrastructure solutions aren't going to get funded by SoftBank, and they're not going to get funded by Chamath. They're going to need to get funded by the type of dollars, I mean, you keep building your book like you are, you will fund them in the next decade.

• 35:20David Friedberg?

  But Saks, you know, kind of speaks to the kind of numbers that I think, you know, are necessary here. I mean, you think about how much money we spent on COVID without any results over the last year. It really begs the question, if we were kind of to take an ROI-based approach to where are we spending these dollars? This would probably be the first on the list. And by the way, the private market and jobs will benefit. And what happened in this bill, this infrastructure bill this past year, that's now been, you know, more kind of definitively drafted, is a bunch of infrastructure jobs that are basically giveaways. They're not actually solving problems with climate change, they're not pushing technology forward, they're not creating these alternatives that we're talking about. They create 10x and 100x outcomes.

• 36:03David Friedberg?

  They are yesteryear solutions, and they're not going to move the needle enough. And so, you know, look, I do think like, it's unfortunate, but the climate change war production board is needed to kind of get the kind of dollars motivated that are needed to create the kind of infrastructure to solve these problems, despite the free market appetite. The free market appetite, by the way, fuels the outcomes, but it still needs, it needs something behind it.

• 36:26Jason Calacanis?

  Chamath, is it possible, just as we're having this discussion here, we're looking at an incompetent, corrupt government that is filled with grifters who are bought and sold, and then on the other side, and causing massive problems?

• 36:40David Friedberg?

  That's a, that's a I wouldn't say that people, I disagree that people are corrupt and grifters. I do think that

• 36:46Jason Calacanis?

  Really?

• 36:46David Friedberg?

  Yeah, I do think that there's a lot of good motivations. I just think that the

• 36:49Jason Calacanis?

  In government?

• 36:50David Friedberg?

  Look, there may be corruption, but I don't think that that's the the universal truth, right? People are generally, you know, you, we've all met politicians, right?

• 36:59Jason Calacanis?

  Well, are they corrupt or are they incompetent? Which one is it?

• 37:00David Friedberg?

  It's a point of perspective, right?

• 37:03Jason Calacanis?

  What's your perspective?

• 37:04David Friedberg?

  My perspective is that they're all being told by their constituents what they want, and then they're doing it.

• 37:09Jason Calacanis?

  Or by lobbyists.

• 37:10David Friedberg?

  Or by lobbyists, but

• 37:11Jason Calacanis?

  Are they supposed to listen to lobbyists?

• 37:13David Friedberg?

  At the end of the day, the way that the the system is set up is people get reelected by doing what the people that are going to vote and put the dollars and put the votes out for them are asking them to do. And that's the way that this has kind of resolved itself. So, and by the way, when the war, when wars happen, you know, when, I guess, when a war happened in the 20th century, that wasn't the driving force. The driving force was existential, and it was we have to win the war. And that's the, that really needs to be the mindset we all need to adopt today, which is an existential mindset. We need to win the war, and it can't be about what my constituents are telling me, what the lobbyists are telling me.

• 37:47Jason Calacanis?

  So despite this either incompetence, graft, or if you're more charitable, you know, it's a complex problem to solve. Despite all of that, we have massive entrepreneurship in the country. We have massive capital allocation at an extreme violent rate. In fact, a lot of that money is coming from all this money being pumped into the system. So in a way, do you think the only solution we have, Chamath, is entrepreneurs in startups who are getting large amounts of money to solve these problems? Because it's not going to happen by government, obviously.

• 38:17Chamath Palihapitiya?

  We have a ton of great entrepreneurs, and I think that we're doing things,

• 38:23Chamath Palihapitiya?

  we're doing, we're, okay, so, this is, this is, if you look at the internet, in the 20 years that we've been grinding in the internet, we've had an incredible tailwind that helped us, which is all these people, much like the folks in this room, but in different companies 10 or 20 years earlier than you are now, abstracting parts of the stack so that the rest of us could use it, right? And so, you know, I remember 2006, we were racking and stacking servers at Facebook in Santa Clara, me, Adam D'Angelo, like, and I was like, what the fuck are we doing? And I remember in 2008, when Adam D'Angelo, he was our CTO at the time, left, he started a company called Quora. D'Angelo's like, I'm building on AWS. And I thought he was a fucking idiot.

• 39:06Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I thought, who builds on AWS? You build your own data centers. Now, if you said that to somebody, you would be the idiot, right? So if it's that, or if it's the tooling and the tool chains that we've been able to build on top of, all of that abstraction and simplification has allowed an order, or frankly, probably even maybe two orders of magnitude of entrepreneurship to come. That's also now happening in biotech. So all of that is an incredible progress. The problem now is, we used to be a part of the economy that was an afterthought. We were over here. Politicians didn't need to understand, they didn't need to take the time. Their first reaction is denial, because it basically pushes up against power, and that really freaks them

• 39:49Chamath Palihapitiya?

  out. But now, we're at a point where we are so integral, they need to understand it better. Here's a perfect example. Last week, Illuminus patents expired. So if you're in the business of healthcare, and if you're in the business of like, you know, CRISPR, gene therapy, any of the stuff that actually a lot of you guys are involved in, you would love for the fact that, you know, next-gen sequencing could have a thousand flowers boom, bloom, 90 different methods, the cost of a sequence goes down to a penny. It's not possible today, because you have to go through one methodology, you have one company to work through, you have one set of reagents, or a set of reagents that one company sells, and it's basically

• 40:32Chamath Palihapitiya?

  cordoned off. That can't change because of technology, because they can then sue you, go to courts, and they win. And so this is where you have to interface with the government, and they just need to get smarter. Because otherwise, there's only so much innovation we can do before their historical legacy things like patents and IP come and bite you in the ass.

• 40:54Jason Calacanis?

  Sax, what do you think? Is entrepreneurship alone, and capital allocation by aggressive, you know, thoughtful and bold capital allocators enough to solve the incompetence in Washington or the graft?

• 41:07David Sacks?

  Well, it's gonna have to be. And, I mean, here's the good news, bad news, okay? I had a tweet that kinda went viral. So when Afghanistan happened, you know, We spent two trillion dollars, twenty five hundred American casualties, forty thousand wounded. And what have we gotten out of it? The Chinese are about to take up residence in Bagram, in our splendid air force base. And the Taliban are one of the best equipped armies in the world. That's basically what our two trillion dollars got us.

• 41:36Jason Calacanis?

  And China's gonna build a superhighway.

• 41:37David Sacks?

  Right.

• 41:38Chamath Palihapitiya?

  By the way, did you see the thing where like the Taliban were flying around in our helicopters?

• 41:42Jason Calacanis?

  It was.

• 41:42Chamath Palihapitiya?

  How did they learn to fly our helicopters?

• 41:44David Friedberg?

  No, it was fake, apparently.

• 41:45Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, it was fake news.

• 41:46David Friedberg?

  Fake news.

• 41:46Jason Calacanis?

  Fake news.

• 41:47David Sacks?

  They do have more Blackhawks now.

• 41:49Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Outrage then.

• 41:49David Friedberg?

  Apparently, apparently the helicopters that were left behind are non-functional, so let's just clear that up.

• 41:53David Sacks?

  That's not true.

• 41:54David Friedberg?

  Yeah.

• 41:54David Sacks?

  They have more Blackhawks than any other army in the world except for us. Um, I mean, haven't you seen all the photos of them? They're all decked out in our uniforms. It's incredible.

• 42:02Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Really?

• 42:03David Sacks?

  Oh, yeah. They got our night vision goggles and the whole thing.

• 42:06David Friedberg?

  Photos on the internet.

• 42:07David Sacks?

  No, no, no, there was reporting itemizing the inventory, the cache of weapons we left behind. It was gigantic.

• 42:13Jason Calacanis?

  All right, let's get to the question now. The good news, bad news.

• 42:16David Sacks?

  Okay, so that's, that's, that's the bad news. That's what two trillion dollars of government spending got us. The, the good news is I went back and I looked at how much money has been invested in the venture capital space over that same twenty year period that we were in Afghanistan.

• 42:29Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah.

• 42:29David Sacks?

  And it roughly tallied up to about two trillion dollars. I didn't know that, actually. I just, I added up the charts. And about, and most of it was in the last five years because there's actually been a huge acceleration in the amount of money coming into VC. Over the last several years, the Softbanks, the Tigers, and so that you've had these mega.

• 42:46Jason Calacanis?

  Late-stage funds.

• 42:47David Sacks?

  The mega late-stage funds. So the truth is, for really way less than, I'd say a trillion dollars of, you know, early-stage, like true venture money, we've been able to create the entire technology ecosystem as we see it today. I mean, not entire, I guess, go back twenty years, there's five years in the late nineties. So the, the, the private enterprise system has accomplished so much with relatively so little money. You compare the efficiency of it, you almost wonder, how did we squander so much money in Afghanistan?

• 43:20Jason Calacanis?

  How's it possible?

• 43:21David Sacks?

  It took active looting by many different forces to basically. Squander. I mean, think about like

• 43:27Jason Calacanis?

  They literally had to burn money.

• 43:29David Sacks?

  Every venture backed company at every stage in the last 20 years.

• 43:34Jason Calacanis?

  Uber, Airbnb.

• 43:35David Sacks?

  That's how much money we spent in Afghanistan. I mean, how much of that money went to line the pockets of private contractors and, you know, warlords we were paying off. I mean, it was a giant kleptocracy. Okay. So, but the good news is, look what we got for that same amount of money here. You know, and not just here, every, every private venture backed company. So I do think we are capable of accomplishing great things, but with relatively small amounts of investment. And thank goodness for that, because that's the only thing that's producing anything in our society. But, um, but I mean, it's true, right? But, but, but look at what Washington's about to do. They want to stomp on all this innovation. I mean, they want to jack up the cap gains rate to the same, to higher than ordinary income. I mean, that is the return on investment

• 44:20David Sacks?

  for the, for the, for venture capital, for the kind of investment I'm talking about. I mean, they want to make it punitive. Now that's not going to pass. Thankfully, because we got Joe Manchin, but that's about it.

• 44:30David Friedberg?

  By the way, I will, I will contradict myself and agree with Sacks. I do think there will be a hundred X, thousand X, 10,000 X breakthrough that will resolve a lot of the challenges we face as a species on planet earth over this century.

• 44:43Jason Calacanis?

  So we're optimistic.

• 44:44David Friedberg?

  I'm a hundred percent optimistic. I'm actually, this might, that's my, the, the, the title, you gave it away, the title of my talk in the morning, uh, tomorrow morning. Um, yeah, but yeah, I do, I do. And by the way, my talk says absolutely nothing about the government and we've been railing against the government. Now everyone's kind of feeling sad and we sound like a bunch of old guys sitting at the Starbucks talking, talking about the government, how they suck. Um, but at the end of the day, I do think that, um, the ingenuity of, uh, the human spirit and science will resolve the problems that we face today.

• 45:15Jason Calacanis?

  Oh, Jesus Christ.

• 45:15David Friedberg?

  And we are not going to end up, we're not going to end up demanding on the government to solve the problem.

• 45:21Jason Calacanis?

  All right. I want to talk about one of the

• 45:22David Friedberg?

  By the way, we should kind of be mindful of the time.

• 45:24Jason Calacanis?

  Take questions, uh, from the audience. So if you have a question, I'm going to jump out there.

• 45:27David Friedberg?

  Um, should we do that now? Cause we're kind of

• 45:29Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah. I'll just end with the CCP, uh, is now, um, moving to break up Ali Pay's, uh, business. This is after Jack Ma, uh, went on, um, a holiday to learn how to oil paint. Thoughts, Chamath?

• 45:42Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Well, I think this is sort of like one other step in what we've been talking about for a while, which is that China is basically becoming a completely vertically-integrated government, where the public and private sector has no real clear delineation. And I think that that actually has a lot of implications to us, because they export an enormous amount of technology and building blocks to us, and we have no recourse if those guys either change their mind. And this is sort of what pulls us into this next very complicated phase of geopolitics, because for example, if they decide to cut us off, you know, in our... They will invade Taiwan. I've said this before, but I think that they will.

• 46:24Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And we will have no choice except to deploy troops into Taiwan. Because in the absence of the silicon that we need from TSMC and a couple of other manufacturers there, we have zero capability here. This is why you see Intel... I mean, for any, like, any second, when you guys hear an Intel press release that says they're investing $90 fucking billion, do you not think, "Where does Intel come up with $90 billion?" Right? This is a pull-through from US government, because it allows us to start to rebuild an enormous amount of critical infrastructure that we've left to other people. So, you know, China is systematically decomposing and basically destabilizing all the China internet companies. They're gonna control and inbound all of the critical resources,

• 47:09Chamath Palihapitiya?

  and we're gonna have to have these really hard conversations unless... This is again why I go back to, "I don't believe what you said. Entrepreneurs are not enough of a solution. We need the government to step in with intelligence, not with anything other than that." They don't need laws necessarily, they just need to understand the problem.

• 47:26David Friedberg?

  Or get out of the way in some cases?

• 47:29Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Or step in and, for example, like, you know, allow the regulatory capture to be disrupted. But they won't do it because special interests... And by the way, special interests, what do they spend? You know, if you try to donate to a fucking congressman, $4,000, $2,500? Like, these people aren't spending $80 million to defend an $80 billion business, they're spending $80,000!

• 47:54Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And that's why we can't have progress. That's crazy to me.

• 47:58Jason Calacanis?

  Sax, your thoughts on China's recent actions to basically deprecate entrepreneurship?

• 48:05David Sacks?

  It's a continuation of the trends we've been talking about on this show, like Tomath was saying. I mean, they're bringing these entrepreneurs, these, they're moguls, they're oligarchs under their thumb, under the thumb of the CCP and Xi Jinping, they're consolidating control and power and money. And it's also about the data. That was another part of the, this new law is they want to get their hands on the data that

• 48:30Chamath Palihapitiya?

  They control all the credit data of every single person that uses Alipay all throughout Southeast Asia. That's fucking crazy.

• 48:38Jason Calacanis?

  And everybody's TikTok user. Yeah, we got there at the same time. Yeah.

• 48:43Chamath Palihapitiya?

  It's crazy.

• 48:44Jason Calacanis?

  It's crazy that we allow TikTok in this country.

• 48:46David Friedberg?

  If you were running the Chinese government, wouldn't you do the same?

• 48:49Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I would do everything that they're doing, which is why it's crazy to us that we are sitting here allowing it to be done to us. That's what the crazy, the crazy part is not what

• 48:58Jason Calacanis?

  There's nothing about what they're doing.

• 48:59Chamath Palihapitiya?

  What they are doing is not illogical.

• 49:01Jason Calacanis?

  Right.

• 49:01Chamath Palihapitiya?

  What we are doing is illogical. Because we should have a reaction to these things. We should have a point of view. It can't be tacitly sticking our head in the sand.

• 49:11Jason Calacanis?

  All right. Who's got a question for one of the besties? Okay. Let's try and make it a tight question.

• 49:15Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Talk up the book, Yon. Of course, these bills are incredibly wasteful, but you're, you guys are engaged. So how come you're not looking through them and saying, this piece I like, this piece is messed up? Because it doesn't sound like you've read them either.

• 49:28Chamath Palihapitiya?

  To be, to be honest with you, I haven't read them. I rely on these summaries that I get from my team. And to be honest with you, the legibility of these things are incredibly low. And the problem is every bill that gets written now, it's almost like it goes through a process of you take a two-page bullet point bill, which is really what senators or congresspeople understand and approve. And then out comes the other end, 2,000 pages that are undigestible. So you're absolutely right. I don't, I rely on these summaries. I have zero idea what's really in there.

• 50:01Jason Calacanis?

  Let's take another question.

• 50:03Speaker 04

  Yeah, I'm Alex Filippenko. You did this poll of whether the media are right-leaning or left-leaning, and the overwhelming majority said left-leaning. But do you think that that's in part because for four years we had been fed so many lies and so much misinformation from the extreme right?

• 50:25Jason Calacanis?

  David, that question was directed to you.

• 50:30David Sacks?

  I mean, look, I think there were plenty of polls, if you go back like 10, 20, 30 years, there's a media organization, there's a guy named Brent Bazell who was doing studies of media bias, and if you were to actually look at how people in the media voted, it was 90-plus percent Democrat, I mean, it's, it's been, it's been a thing for a long time. And now, it came to a head, I would say, during the Trump administration, because the, the press, I think, in going after Trump, gave up something important, which is, they gave up their objectivity. I mean, they flatly would, I mean, it was, you know, whether you want to call it Trump

• 51:13David Sacks?

  derangement syndrome, or whatever, I mean, they now saw it as their duty not to report objectively both sides, but they would just flatly declare, uh, things that Trump were saying were false, you know, you still see this today. Uh, I'm not saying that all the things he said were true, maybe he did say false things, but normally, if you wanted to say that one person's saying something false, you would get a source on the other side, and then you would quote them, and then that's how you would basically construct the article. And you had the press basically, almost really become unhinged, and I think they, they kind of ripped the empire jersey off their backs, um, to, in order to chase after Trump. And I think, you know, ultimately, they got him, um, Trump was a one-term president,

• 51:58David Sacks?

  but I think that it's really contributed to the polarized media environment we have now.

• 52:03Jason Calacanis?

  Any way to get that referee jersey back on the press, you think?

• 52:07Chamath Palihapitiya?

  No, no.

• 52:09Jason Calacanis?

  Sax?

• 52:10David Sacks?

  Well, how? I mean, they, you know?

• 52:13Chamath Palihapitiya?

  The, the problem is, the journalism and media have changed so much.

• 52:16David Friedberg?

  The nature of press has changed.

• 52:18Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Yeah.

• 52:18David Friedberg?

  Right, it's fragmenting and splintering, much like everything else. There's, um, you know, we talk about this at some of our companies. I keep referring to our companies because I know a lot of people are here today. But, you know, we talk about the fragmentation of food brands, for example, or the fragmentation of people's kind of individual media selection. The same is happening in the press where, you know, you're now kind of going to pick and choose the five articles you want to read as opposed to buying one of three newspapers and reading everything in that newspaper each day. And I think that's fueling this, which is not necessarily, in my opinion, and I've said this before, not necessarily a constructed or designed decision of the quote unquote "press", but it's more a phenomenon that arises from the individuals that consume the media and they make selections.

• 53:01David Friedberg?

  And that selection bias ends up driving the clicks and the votes and the counts and the prints of that particular form of media. And guess what we end up choosing? The stuff that triggers us more and makes us feel some stronger emotion. And then it creates a feedback loop and that's where this is coming from. And I think it's enabled by the internet, not necessarily bad actors at platform companies, but it's inevitable in a decentralized world or a platformed world, that's where we're going to go.

• 53:25Jason Calacanis?

  And also, part of the story is advertising went away as an option as Google and Facebook took over those markets. So they went subscription and how do you get subscribers? You pick a side. You can't really go down the middle.

• 53:35David Friedberg?

  I want to feel something emotional when I click and buy and spend 99 cents or whatever. Like it's not, I just, I don't want to like be bored to death. Everything is so stimulating in this digital world. Like I want to be stimulated.

• 53:44David Sacks?

  So there was a really interesting poll that came out today that speaks to this, which is, um, they, they asked, you know, people on the left or the right, what do you think the country's biggest problem is? On the left, the number one answer was Trump supporters. You know, so, you know, now on, on the right, it was a little bit more varied. It was the Taliban, it was China, you know, um, it was crime, things like that.

• 54:07Jason Calacanis?

  What should we be most concerned about objectively from each of you? What do you think the top three things we should be concerned about as Americans?

• 54:13David Sacks?

  I, I don't think the right answer for either side is like the other half of America. I think, I think that happens because you haven't varied your information diet. You're sitting there watching one station on cable news and you're being fed, you're being, basically being fed this stuff that the others, demonizing the other side, right? And, you know, the other side is, you know, is being otherized.

• 54:37Jason Calacanis?

  All right, let's take two more questions. Nico?

• 54:40Speaker 05

  Sharmat, this goes back to a point that you made about entrepreneurs not being enough and bringing in the government. I think a lot of the topics covered are bringing in a lot of government support or involvement. So from y'all's perspective, how do we bring in maybe new incentives on the government side to bring in younger people, smarter people, people who are going to make better change than what we may be seeing today?

• 55:03Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I mean, if you look at countries like Singapore, their solution was to elevate the role of government to be so high from a societal value perspective, it was an incredibly respected role. It was well compensated and it was a thing that was a real jumping off point to other positions of true influence. Here, we started with that idea. So like, you know, when you think about what's what played out in the 1940s, 50s and 60s, I think we had a lot of that. But then the problem was we had a handful of things that completely perverted the cycle. The cherry on the cake, I think, was Citizens United that basically just tore the Band-Aid off.

• 55:46Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And we are where we are, where it's not clear today that the most intellectually curious people are in government, nor does it even get its fair share. Okay, so what do you do about it? I think that there's an element of it, which is you have to play the game on the field, which is folks like us, what I would encourage all of you to do is if you're in a position to actually accumulate political power, you have a responsibility to do so and it is directly correlated with money. And so as you find companies and you get liquidity, you have a responsibility to be engaged because you will have a louder voice. I'm not saying that it's right, I'm not saying that it's fair, but it's a game on the field.

• 56:28Chamath Palihapitiya?

  The more you spend, the more time you get with all these folks and you should use that. Beyond that, we have to find a way of orienting them. So, once you get a seat at the table, I think it's about showing them that there's these nuanced laws that are a lot less sexy than they want to talk about, but that actually have real impact.

• 56:47Jason Calacanis?

  Sax, what do you think of senators getting paid like CEOs? Would that help solve the problem if people could look at it and say, "Well, I get paid a half million dollars in that job or a million dollars in that job"? Would we draw a different caliber of person?

• 56:58David Sacks?

  I wouldn't be opposed to that. I wouldn't be opposed to people in government, the top people making more money. I don't know that, though, that that really would be the thing that attracts a hire. I mean, I think most of those people go into it for power. And, you know, the problem isn't that they're not smart. I mean, some of them, I guess, aren't very smart.

• 57:18Jason Calacanis?

  Well, you also have the lack of, you know, since they can't make money when they're in, they have to figure out how to make it on the way out, you know, for, so probably alleviate some of them.

• 57:28David Sacks?

  Giving them a pay increase is not something I would be opposed to. I mean, it's something that's hard for them to do because it's easy to campaign against politicians who want to pay themselves more. But, yeah, I'd rather pay them more salary so they're less beholden to the special interests when they get out of office. But I don't think that by itself is going to solve the problem.

• 57:49Jason Calacanis?

  Let's take another question.

• 57:51Speaker 06

  So, my question is, how do we get both sides to agree, right? We want to get back to the truth. And in science and economics, we have a way to measure the truth. In science, you design scientific experiments and you measure it against reality. So, you, both sides can agree what's reality. In economics, you either make money or you don't make money, right? You can measure it against something. So, what can we do to get back to both sides agreeing on what is true?

• 58:14David Friedberg?

  I mean, I think the challenge is it takes more than 15 seconds to walk someone through the experimental design and the outcome and the action to be taken as a result. Same with any, I mean, I don't know what the viewership is of The Economist, but I'm pretty sure it's been going down.

• 58:29David Sacks?

  Zero.

• 58:30David Friedberg?

  Right.

• 58:30David Sacks?

  But this is why markets work better than, than politics.

• 58:36David Sacks?

  Right. This is why markets work better than politics because Friedberg, in order for you to pursue what you want to pursue, you don't have to convince a majority of the country to support it. You need to find one person who's willing to fund it. You know, you raise the money. So, and, and the same is true for every startup. And that's why progress is made by startups and not a lot of progress is made by politics.

• 58:57Chamath Palihapitiya?

  This is actually why, by the way, the whole-

• 58:58David Friedberg?

  That's why I don't think any of us spend time in politics, even though we talk about it all the time.

• 59:02Chamath Palihapitiya?

  No, but because it, it influences our decision-making. I think politics has done more to rekindle my interest in all things technology and specifically web 3.0 and DeFi than anything else. Because these last four years have completely convinced me that we need to find a very decentralized way of building the future.

• 59:22David Friedberg?

  It's going to be ugly though. I, I am, I, I am convinced- Yeah, I mean- I am convinced that the next 80 years is exactly that. Like, you know, in the physical world, there's a bunch of stuff that's going to happen. In the social world, it's going to be related to this DeFi decentralization movement that's underway. And it's underway because of what we're hearing about happening in China, what we're talking about happening in the US. And, you know, I mean, I don't know, I was, I won't give the context. I was hanging out with some people the other day. They, they were, they were, uh, working on my house and they, um, they were telling me every single one of them were trading crypto. Uh, and every single one of them were trading crypto and the whole conversation-

• 59:57Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Do you really expensive on it?

• 59:58David Friedberg?

  The whole, the whole conversation-

• 59:59Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Really expensive?

• 1:00:00David Friedberg?

  The whole conversation was about crypto and I don't trust the US dollar and everything's inflating away. And I, I think politically, we're not really awake to the fact that this is a broad, meaningful social movement. It's playing out with crypto bubbles and NFTs and other nonsense, but those are short-lived bubbles. Those are little feedback loops. Frothiness happening as the tide rises. Um, and I do think that that is going to be kind of the big pushing force socially-

• 1:00:26Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Which David is why China said no more crypto. What are your thoughts?

• 1:00:30David Friedberg?

  That's the big battle. And by the way, everyone's going to end up saying that.

• 1:00:32David Sacks?

  Let me, let me come back to crypto. Just one point on, on movement. So there's political movements and then there's kind of, uh, economic movements like private initiative. I wrote, I wrote a blog post called Your Startup is a Movement in which I compared being- I said a good start founders and evangelists for their cause. It is almost like leading a political movement. You have to go out there, kind of have a stump speech and evangelize people to your cause. Which, you know, i- is ideally a larger mission than just whatever, you know, benefits your company, right? This is why Elon has been able to, um, you know, frankly, why he's been able to sell uh, so many cars without spending a dime on marketing is because he creates a much larger movement than just what's good for Tesla, right?

• 1:01:16David Sacks?

  But the, the difference, I think, between, uh, sort of a, a private movement and a political movement is this, is that when you're successful as the leader of a company, everyone imitates you. So now because Elon's successful, everyone else is trying to introduce their own electric cars. Whereas in politics, whenever you start a political organization, you know, an equal and opposite organization will spring up to oppose you. And it's just very hard to get anything done. Maybe that's the way it should be because we don't want people imposing their political will on us, but this is why I, I am a big fan of startups and smart young people pursuing startups and not politics.

• 1:01:55Jason Calacanis?

  What do you think about decentralized crypto, you know, finance, uh, in America? Should we, should we allow it? Should we tax it?

• 1:02:03David Sacks?

  Well, we should clearly, we should clearly allow it because, um, th- this whole crypto stack, this whole, uh, decentralized finance stack that's being built could very well be the future of finance and we certainly want to be ahead of that curve. Maybe there's some bubbles in here in, in that, but I think what's really interesting, there's certainly a lot of really smart engineers, coders, entrepreneurs who are going to that area. And so I think it'd be a mistake just to discount it. I think we want America to be on the forefront of that technology wave, just like every other technology wave.

• 1:02:34David Friedberg?

  I'll make a prediction. My prediction is in the next 20 years, the DeFi movement will catalyze, um, a movement against the open internet. And it is because state actors will compete with private actors for this battle between centralized institutional state-based control systems. Like I want to have a know your customer if you want to buy crypto in the US. Versus all of these offshore places where I can go and sign up, get a bunch of money and trade forever and never pay the IRS a cent. And live my life in the ether. And the open internet will start to get threatened. We've seen this in the past where proxy servers and DNS servers got, you know, requests from the DOJ and take down notices. And if that starts to happen, where all the servers and all the fiber lines that are running in and out of the US and elsewhere.

• 1:03:18David Friedberg?

  Start to get kind of tackled, like China has a closed internet. Um, you could start to see this become a really ugly battle that that starts to play out. And I think we're not too far. I mean, I don't know if you guys agree, but I think the open internet is kind of going to be the great battleground to resolve this.

• 1:03:33Jason Calacanis?

  Well, and the original battle was over information and now it's over money and the dog.

• 1:03:37David Sacks?

  Well, I think there's a really interesting point there, which is, you know, I remember the late 90s, early 2000s, where the big technology investing wave. Was all about connecting people and goods into seamless global networks. And that's where all the investment went. Today, and, and behind that was sort of this utopian idea that the internet was going to break down barriers. And tribalism and remove geographic borders and create a single connected world. Well, what, what exactly is the bet on crypto today? It's a bet that fiat currencies are going to collapse and deteriorate, be undermined by money printing. The US dollar will stop being the world's reserve currency, most likely. That, uh, individuals need to be protected against the rise of the authoritarian state.

• 1:04:21David Sacks?

  These are the big themes of crypto. And if you think of major technology investing waves as essentially a prediction market. On what smart people think the future is going to look like. It's pretty scary that we're going from a utopian technology investing wave to a very dystopian technology.

• 1:04:38Chamath Palihapitiya?

  It destroys capitalism. You know, if you think about what capitalism is, it's not just the return on investment, but it's the tonnage of dollars, right? So, anyone who's a big investor here, I'll pick out Jan because he's done an incredible job. You know, you're putting more and more dollars in for more and more dollars out. That's the pressure, Brad. You know? These guys are under enormous pressure to get tonnage of dollars through the system in a productive way. And so, you know, these guys are at the forefront. But when you look at, you know, most of the projects on Solana, they're seeded with a few million dollars. And these are 60, 80 billion dollar market cap projects. And so, I don't know how capitalism survives in that world, number one.

• 1:05:22Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Number two, governance goes completely out the window because you're essentially replacing a set of norms that we've all agreed to about what a company is. It's an LLC or it's a C corp that is incorporated with laws. There is recourse for you. You can go to these places and sue them. Now it's a DAO. It's a bunch of rules written in a blockchain. Here's how it all works. Here's how I make my HR decisions. Here's this, here's that, here's the other thing. And then you basically decompose everything into a service where it's recursive. You cannot build with me unless you make yourself buildable to others. Okay?

• 1:06:04Chamath Palihapitiya?

  So, when you add all these three things together, I think, to me, it's the most incredibly positively disruptive force I have seen. I think it will destroy wealth. I frankly couldn't give a fuck. And I think it's better for the world. Let's take a final question.

• 1:06:21Speaker 07

  Thanks, Jason. And maybe to connect some of the dots, you know, I think the power of the individual, perhaps reflected in crypto, has never been greater relative to the power of government, right? Thomas Friedman talked about super empowered individuals 20 years ago. Whether you're a terrorist or whether you're a capitalist, the power of the individual is never been greater.

• 1:06:49Speaker 07

  The four of you started a movement earlier this year around what was going on in California. Right? A lot of people got excited about the recall, about what might come next. I think where we fail as entrepreneurs, where we fail as allocators is we had no strategic plan for California. We have no strategic alternative plan for America. The parties have platforms. Why don't we put together a strategic plan for this state, a strategic plan for the country that brings in these folks? The production board is a strategic plan for winning World War II.

• 1:07:35Speaker 07

  Right? And so to Chamath point that it's incumbent upon us to get involved. I think it's incumbent upon us to step up what it means to be involved. It's not hire a lobbyist in DC. It's not, you know, just show up and vote. But I actually think that the voice that you have carries a lot of responsibility. And I think that I would have liked to have seen the all in step up and do something to catalyze a strategic plan for California. Right? Not necessarily endorse a candidate, but let a candidate stand on top of that strategic plan if we really think about decentralized, right? You're supposed to run for governor.

• 1:08:14Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I'll be really honest with you. Why didn't you run for governor? You're supposed to run for governor. We don't, we don't, we don't have as four people our act together. We are still learning. Cause we are like anybody else in a startup. You stumbled into some success. There's about a million people that will listen, watch, consume this a week. And all the polling or all of the data that you poll, it's like New York, San Francisco, DC. We don't internalize that and use it for any strategic intent. There's still, if I could just to be honest with you, there's still infighting, bitching, complaining, you know, all kinds of fucking nonsense where if you saw the inside of it, you'd be like, hey, dipshits, wake the fuck up, get a plan together and act. We don't have that, Brad.

• 1:09:00David Friedberg?

  And we disagree on a lot.

• 1:09:02Chamath Palihapitiya?

  That's okay, but what we, but we, we can't get, we can't get away from ourselves. We are learning how to do that. Um, and we've had a bunch of instances where we've had to come together and say, hey, our friendship is the most important. So let's fucking sort this out and we've always been able to sort it out. We're going to get pushed to what every other, you know, startup founder story gets pushed to, which is now what?

• 1:09:27Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Are we just going to sit here babbling for another fucking three, four years through a pandemic and, you know, maybe you get to 2 million views, 3 million views, maybe Spotify gives you a deal and you can make 10, 20 million bucks a year. Who the fuck cares? So you're right, we have a responsibility to figure out if we are four reasonable voices in the sea and people are attracted to those voices, what do we use it for? And we've talked about it, but we haven't put pen to paper and finalized it.

• 1:09:56David Friedberg?

  By the way, we spend about 90 minutes a week on this podcast and then we go on to our own lives and, you know, it's never been kind of a constructive thing.

• 1:10:05Jason Calacanis?

  I also think we've also tried to experiment a little bit. David and I collaborated on getting Chesa Boudin recalled, but in different ways.

• 1:10:12David Friedberg?

  David Sacks.

• 1:10:13Jason Calacanis?

  David Sacks literally helped them start a recall Chesa Boudin campaign. Gary Tan, who listens to the pod, started his own with Democrats. And then I tweeted, anybody want to donate for an investigative journalist to cover Chesa Boudin's office because we couldn't find anybody covering it. $60,000 showed up for that GoFundMe page and we just gave it to a journalist who started this week and she's reported in the first 10 days on three different, like tragic cases in San Francisco that have not been followed up on by the DEA's office. So that was just a little, you know, example of dipping our toes and obviously Chamath, you know, being pushed to run for governor caught fire. Like we thought that was a joke. It was literally somebody who listens to the pod, put the website up.

• 1:10:59Jason Calacanis?

  He tweeted as a joke and then all of a sudden it's on CNBC. But the best thing has been the feedback we've gotten from people like you, Brad, and everybody in the audience, Bill Gurley, a lot of other people here. And we have thought about, hey, what do we use this platform for in terms of making change like that? And I think that that'll be year two of the podcast.

• 1:11:15David Friedberg?

  It's the right question and the right challenge, Brad.

• 1:11:16Jason Calacanis?

  It is.

• 1:11:16David Friedberg?

  Appreciate it.

• 1:11:17Jason Calacanis?

  I appreciate it. All right, David, we should let everybody get to pizza.

• 1:11:20David Friedberg?

  I want to say thanks to the besties, to Jake How, Jamal, Sax.

• 1:11:24Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Love you, Friedberg.

• 1:11:25David Friedberg?

  Appreciate it. Love you guys.

• 1:11:26Jason Calacanis?

  Go ahead, Sax, say I love you too, Friedberg.

• 1:11:28David Sacks?

  Say it out loud!

• 1:11:29Jason Calacanis?

  Say it.

• 1:11:29David Sacks?

  Back ass shit.

• 1:11:30Jason Calacanis?

  Back ass shit.

• 1:11:30Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Motherfucker.

• 1:11:32Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah. And just thanks for listening to the show. Thanks to Friedberg. If you want to make things truly uncomfortable, David loves to give a long embrace, a nice hug. Tell him you are his favorite bestie.

• 1:11:44Chamath Palihapitiya?

  This motherfucker. He, there's another friend who shall not be named, who is a side hugger. Nobody likes us. Who likes a side hugger?

• 1:11:54Jason Calacanis?

  Anybody side hugging?

• 1:11:55Chamath Palihapitiya?

  You want to get the full frontal hug when you hug a friend?

• 1:11:57Jason Calacanis?

  Full frontal hug with Sax. Give it to him.

• 1:11:59Chamath Palihapitiya?

  But I had to force him today because he comes into you, like, stand up, I'll show you. He comes in like this, and then he does this.

• 1:12:05David Friedberg?

  The hip hug.

• 1:12:05Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Like, he does, he does kind of a...

• 1:12:07Jason Calacanis?

  Hip to hip. That's called Asperger's.

• 1:12:08Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Nice to see you.

• 1:12:10Jason Calacanis?

  It's called Asperger's.

• 1:12:11David Sacks?

  Has anyone noticed that Jake How looks like he's going to a night at the Roxbury?

• 1:12:15Jason Calacanis?

  Absolutely.

• 1:12:16Chamath Palihapitiya?

  He looks like joking.

• 1:12:19Jason Calacanis?

  Shut the fuck up!

• 1:12:20David Sacks?

  Is it joking?

• 1:12:20Jason Calacanis?

  Well, like, I'm a joke?

• 1:12:21David Sacks?

  Sorry, I'm in life skin.

• 1:12:23Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I mean, you look horrible.

• 1:12:25Jason Calacanis?

  Thank you.

• 1:12:26Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Absolutely fucking horrible.

• 1:12:27Jason Calacanis?

  Okay, appreciate it.

• 1:12:28David Sacks?

  Is that your ready-to-see outfit or what?

• 1:12:30Jason Calacanis?

  Here we go.

• 1:12:31David Friedberg?

  Let's wrap it up.

• 1:12:32Jason Calacanis?

  All right. Well, this has been the All In Podcast, and enjoy your time at the conference.