Hey, everybody. Hey, everybody. Welcome to the all in podcast with us today again.

The Queen of Kinhwa, David Freeberg, David Sachs, the rain man himself.

And of course, the dictator here, Chamath. And let’s get ready. It’s time.

Chamath and Sachs. Here it comes, everybody. Sachs is ready in the red corner.

Representing Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and rich people everywhere.

David, the rain man, Sachs. And in the blue corner, representing the underserved,

the forgotten, the underdogs, the woke left, Chamath Palihapitiya.

Let your winners ride. Rain man, David Sachs.

And instead, we open source it to the fans, and they’ve just gone crazy with it.

Love you, guys. I’m the Queen of Kinhwa. I’m going all in.

And I will also be representing John F. Kennedy, who said a rising tide lifts all boat,

and maybe even some Bill Clinton, too. Bill Clinton, Bill Clinton, I was going to say.

Don’t forget the champion of the left and the right. Yeah.

Bill Clinton did a great job. He ended the welfare state.

All right. So here we go, folks. In show housekeeping, we do need to point out

that we’ve been running some polls. The fans of the show have been running polls. And I don’t

even know why I’m bringing this up because I got barbecued in them. But we have three polls we need

to share with the audience from Twitter. The first is if you could have just one of the all

in pod besties to mentor you and your startup growth, who would it be and why? Looks like

Rain Man, you ran away with that one with 39 percent. The Dictator with 34. Queen of Kinhwa

coming in at 17. And Uber’s their fourth investor came in with a measly 8 percent.

I will tell you, this is why 83 percent of startups fail. They choose the wrong mentor.

I don’t know. Perfect.

So I was proud to win this one. But the truth is, so Chamath was slightly ahead.

And then I put my thumb on the scale by retweeting the poll, because obviously my followers are more

likely to vote for me. So then I shot ahead and I kept real quiet because I didn’t want Chamath

retweeting it to his one point two million followers. And if he had done that, he probably

would have blown me out of the water. But I kept real quiet till the time elapsed.

And then I and then I shared it with the group.

Nobody keeps a track of followers, but it’s actually closer to one point five.

The only person who knows your follower count better than you, Chamath, is Phil Hellmuth.

Actually, every morning, Phil Hellmuth subscribe,

subtracts his number of subscribers from yours to know the net. All right. Second poll came up.

Thanks, Matt, for this, by the way. Matt Yarger, no friend of mine.

All right, per request. Let’s do another poll and see the other side of the story. If you could have

just one of the all in pod besties moderate your podcast, who would you choose? And it turns out

the dictator 31% to my 30.6% a full 1% more than me. I came in second world’s best wingman and

rain man. 21% queen of King Wah 16%. And then most importantly, which bestie would you want in

your on your side in a bar fight? I will say Chamath smooth velvety voice that that ran away

for him here. Thank you. Yeah, I think I think that I think the audience is just trying to hurt

Jason. They’re just trying to hurt Jason. That was it. That was it. Jason has heard he’s inadequate

by more than 1%. Usually, it’s measured in inches, not percentages. Somebody was dunking

on me on Twitter. And they’re like, you’re the poorest of all your friends. I was like,

that’s the strategy. Always have more powerful and richer friends than you. Then you don’t have

to worry about picking up the check. Okay. And then there was another interesting AI breakthrough

this week. Did you talk about the bar fight? What was the bomb curious? The bar fight one? Hold on.

You’re right. I didn’t get to that one. The bar fight was Oh, here we go. For some reason.

These morons seem to think that your stick legs are going to help them in a fight.

Bro, that’s a bad. Honestly, I need to correct this. Like that was maybe bad lighting or a bad

camera. You’re holding up a Pandora’s box right now. Honestly, they’re not there. Guys, guys,

guys, guys, guys, honestly, come on. They are not as skinny as people seem to be railing. And

honestly, I’m happy to, you know, if there’s a standard way of measuring proof, okay, you know

what, Jason, if there’s a standard way, if somebody can tell us what is the standard way of

measuring leg circumference, I’m happy to submit my, my, my measurements. I don’t think they’re

that skinny. They’re really, really anorexic. Super disturbing. Thank you. You got a lot going

on up top. I’m very proud of you. But below the belt. It’s not true, bro. I work on my legs a lot.

You know, it’s, it’s, it’s keep working. It’s legs and abs to keep your back strong.

One thing this, this podcast will win in a poll is the hosts talk about themselves more than any

other podcast on the internet. We need to talk about each other in order to make fun of each

other. Yeah, this should be called the navel gaze podcast. All right, here we go. So besties that

you most want in a fight Queen of quinoa coming in dead last. Yeah, I’m coming in at 17%. Rain

Man 32%. And Shamath, I guess that thirst trap you tweeted got you 39% in that bowl.

I the other thing these polls is why democracy doesn’t work, but go on. I can I can hold my

own in a physical altercation. I think I think you want Shamath and I because I think sax is

going to be under the table calling 911. And Freeberg is going to try to talk it out and get

just absolutely sucker budge. Like guys, we don’t really need to buy.

Jason Jason is the one that would smash the beer bottle, create a shiv and say let’s go.

Let’s go. I would I would have Jason, I would I would actually pick Jason as number and

if you were going to be in a bar fight, Jason certainly touts his taekwondo skills.

On more than one occasion, he’s claimed to be an expert in taekwondo.

Can we pull up the video? Isn’t there a video of you doing?

Where’s the video of Jason pushing help you?

If you want to see Jason and a grown man, another grown 50 year old overweight man fighting,

we have video. Yeah. Well, that one, I don’t know if we should show but Nick,

you should definitely insert the image of J Cal trying to do the taekwondo kick and it

looks like he’s about to have a herniated groin. It’s about to fall over. Yeah,

I was in my 20s. All right, let’s start Jason. What do you got? What do we got this week?

I guess the topic we should get right to is inflation. This is a topic we’ve been talking

about a whole bunch. Because we’re printing a ton of money. Everybody seems to think the hedge

against inflation is to buy Bitcoin, or do you put your money into equities? And are we actually

going to see things other than homes and education, massively inflate? We’ve seen some anecdotal

evidence of this. Tesla increased the price of their cars, used cars have gone up in price,

which is a function of the lack of production of some cars during the pandemic. So there might

be a multitude of factors there. But just putting it out there, are we going to go are we going to

face inflation that you know, goods and services are going to just go through the roof and cost?

Or do we have enough efficiency in the system that the average consumer is not going to see

massive inflation on the products and services they buy? Coming out of the

Isn’t the real issue that Chamath says inflation is good, and he because it creates a quality and

he thinks 1979 was a great year. I think we should go straight to that.

Give a general discussion. Let’s go. I think we should go to Chamath to explain his tweet storm.

And then I’ll respond. Okay, there. So I think David, you got unnecessarily emotional and

personal that was not again, these these were things that I’ve learned from someone who I

will say without betraying him is an extremely well respected person at an extremely well known

institution that basically has helped make a lot of sort of, you know, capital allocators,

very smart about things and has made people a lot of money. So I was relaying what I learned

through him. So let me just relay that, again, and I’ll just start with this. Whenever you have a

dollar of income, you can do one of two things with that income, you either consume things,

right, so you buy, or you can save and you can put it into investments for the future,

right? So consumption and investment. The reality is that most people so the lower 60% of the income

distribution essentially spends above their income, right, the lowest actually spends at

so $1 earned is $1 spent, and then the middle two, because they have access to credit $1 earned,

they spend about, you know, percentage points more than that, when you get to the richest

20% of the population, they’re actually able to save and they save about 13 cents of every

dollar and they’re able to invest in the future. So consumption and investment,

the reality is inflation comes through a volume of activity, right? So you as a rich person can

go and buy one $100,000 necklace at Tiffany’s, it doesn’t move the needle for inflation. But when,

you know, 200,000 people buy $1,000 television, that’s felt in the economy, it moves. So inflation

comes because of gross tonnage of volume. So you need consumption. And by definition,

what that does is it pushes consumption into those, you know, that 60 to 80% of people that

are not the top 20%. So what it means is that, you know, you have a volume game of people buying

things. And when they buy more of those things, inflation goes up, how do they buy more things,

they have more income because their propensity is to consume. So then you have to ask yourself,

where is this incremental income coming from? And all he has observed, which I think is very

credible is we had the supernatural event in the pandemic, we’ve now started to print trillions of

dollars of incremental consumption. And that’s going to start to lead to the most simple ways

in which consumption manifests in inflation, which is via commodity prices. What does that mean? Let

me state simply, a rich person lives in a well insulated house, drives an electric car, and

eats fish. A less rich person lives in a poorly insulated house, lives, you know, drives an SUV,

and eats beef, beef versus fish. As a simple example, it consumes 2030 50 100 times more

input costs to generate that same pound of protein that a fish does. It’s just an example of showing

how income distributions and the effects and the consumption patterns of large swaths of people

drive different consumption behaviors, which drive inflation. So all he was trying to represent to me

was that idea, which is that we have printed trillions of dollars, we are creating artificial

levels of consumption, that consumption will actually drive up commodity prices,

commodity prices will actually drive up inflation. Then what he told me was the best analogy,

again, it’s not perfect, but it rhymes to the history is what actually happened in the 1970s.

Which is that by having this sort of boundary condition, you have to ask yourself what will

happen if inflation rips higher. And, you know, starting in the late 60s, through the 70s,

that’s kind of what you had a same kind of boundary can forget the way in which the money got to

people, you know, in this case, it was a government check. But in the late 60s, and early 70s, we had

similar kinds of programs, we had Head Start, we have, you know, AmeriCorps, we had Food Stamps Act,

we had the Social Security Act, all of these things were transfer payments. And when you put

that much money into the hands of a large swath of people, consumption went up, commodity prices

went up, inflation went up, it peaked in 1979. But it also happened that when that happened,

the gap between the rich and the poor was the lowest it had ever been. And so I thought that

that was a really interesting thing to observe. Okay, sacks, you were triggered, you were triggered

by this. Well, I wasn’t triggered. I just said it was my worst take ever. And then

it wasn’t my day you were triggered. It wasn’t my day.

Let me explain what’s wrong with the tape. I created a PowerPoint. So

I pulled a Chamath. No, it’s not boring. And Chamath has done it too. So don’t,

don’t even go there. I’m gonna do email. You guys come and hit me up in the second half.

No, no, no, we’re gonna keep the Friedberg index high. So go ahead,

sacks. Take us through the PowerPoint. What do you want to say?

I’ll keep this quick. Okay, so I’ve called the PowerPoint Chamath’s worst take ever.

David, it says right at the top of disclaimer, here is something I learned today. Why is it

my take? Well, you said you responded to me then saying that I didn’t like facts. So

that was your response. So I am proving I’m going to show you some facts. Okay.

So first of all, let’s ask the question was 1979 a good year? I don’t think you can just

cherry pick this one number, the Gini index and say that this was some sort of great year.

1979, a severe recession begins, which ultimately leads to negative point 3% GDP growth in 1980.

The word stagflation misery index become household terms. We had unemployment of 6%

on its way to 7.2%. In 1980. We had a 13.3% in inflation rate. The prime rate for 30 year

mortgage was 11.2%. Wow. Yeah, try to good luck trying to buy a house. We had long lines of the

gas pump. There was an oil embargo. Do you guys remember the gas pump lines? I wasn’t born yet,

but go on. Yeah, it was crazy. And then you know, Jimmy Carter declares a national crisis

and confidence. This was the so called Malay speech. He was well on his way to becoming

a one term president. So what this shows is David, hold on, let me just do the takeaway.

So the takeaway is that, you know, the Gini index as 1979 was a great year. And, you know,

the issue is the reason it wasn’t is because it’s a lot easier to make everyone equally poor

than ever than equally rich when the economy does poorly, guess what the gap shrinks.

Then Margaret Thatcher had a great line about this. So long as the gap is smaller,

they would rather have the poor be poorer. That’s a great video everyone should watch

on her last speech to parliament. Chamath posted this chart showing this is the percentage of

wealth held by the top point 1%. Chamath, we’ll go to you next to explain one, two and three.

But let me just point out, look at when else the Gini index was plummeting the 1930s.

The Great Depression did a great job creating relative equality by making everyone poor. So

my point is, yeah, I understand there are these equalities, but you know what creates inequality

economic booms. That’s what creates inequality. What we should care about is not just inequality,

but economic growth, real wage growth, poverty, how many people are below the poverty line,

and concentrations of power. So that’s what we should be looking at not just this Gini coefficient.

Let me stop there. I’ve got other slides, but I’ll stop there and let you respond.

Go back one slide. The three points there were just interesting to me. Number one was

LBJ and the war on poverty and all those social programs. Number two, and you spoke about this,

but I don’t think you’re doing a full accurate assessment. What Carter’s biggest mistake was,

was he stopped the transfer payments, because LBJ started them. Nixon continued them. Carter

stopped them. And I think it’s important to frame

what transfer payments are for people who don’t understand.

Well, it’s basically like, you know, there are all kinds of ways to get money into the

hands of individuals. You know, we now talk about universal basic income. That’s a way

of transferring money from the government and from systemic holders of capital to individuals.

Food stamps was away, the social security was away. There’s all kinds of different ways.

Welfare was away until Clinton disassembled that. So I think that what we’ll never know

is what would have happened if Carter hadn’t actually stopped those balance of payments.

And the key point is about what happened then afterwards in three. So you had this

basically stopping by Carter. He didn’t get to reap any of the benefits of it.

Reagan comes in and says, you know what, we’re going to simplify the tax code.

We’re going to defund all kinds of stuff, including, for example, all the mental health

defunding that he had already done in California that spewed people with mental health disease

onto the streets of San Francisco and Los Angeles. And that sort of continued. And then

the real cataclysmic change on top of all of this, which sealed the fate of that trend line happened

in point number three, which is when George George Bush in 2001 had this really seminal decision,

which is he had the ability to block China from entering the WTO, and instead he let them in.

And he traded that for a vote on the Security Council. And when you think about what really

happened there, you will unleashed 1 billion people willing to do anything at a cheaper,

faster and better rate, you ushered in globalization, you ushered in the gutting

of the middle class of America, and you transferred all that wealth creation that

could have happened in a more inefficient, but in a balanced way that could have benefited

Americans and you ship them abroad to China. So I think it’s just interesting to note that

basically, since 1979, we’ve all been singing from the same playbook. And, and I think that

maybe what we need to do is figure out whether we need to come back to this idea of shifting

the balance of payments back into the hands of individual consumers. And all I’m saying is

without making a judgment, is when you look at what Biden has done in just in the first 60 days,

$1.9 trillion of stimulus, and a proposed $3 trillion stimulus package, we’re just,

you know, we’re not even infrastructure package, we’re not even three months into his presidency,

and you forecast that forward, it feels like we’re entering an era of spend, spend, spend.

And that was an opinion of mine, which I believe is actually fairly accurate. I do think it will

drive inflation, I do think it’ll drive commodity prices. And I think on balance,

I do think it will suppress the wealth creation of the rich. And I do think it will give folks

that don’t necessarily have investments, the ability to make more in real income,

which they will spend. Well, okay, just just quickly. So I’m going to begin by agreeing with

the part of Chamath’s response that I agree with, which is what happened around 2000 2001,

which killed wage growth for the average worker. Chamath is right about that. But it wasn’t just

George W. Bush, it was a bipartisan disaster. In 2000, Bill Clinton pushes Congress to approve the

US China trade agreement, and gave them full access to the WTO. This was basically temporary MFN.

And look at what he said, he said, economically, this agreement is the equivalent of a one way

street, it requires China to open its markets to us in new ways. And it turned out to be a one way

street the other way. And then he also said that for the first time, our companies will be able to

sell and distribute products in China made by workers here in America without being forced to

relocate manufacturing to China, we’ll be able to export products without exporting jobs. Well, gee,

the exact opposite happened. So and then and then what happens in 2001 is Bush makes this situation

permanent. He grants permanent what’s called permanent normal trade relations, which basically

MFN status in perpetuity to China, granting them full access to our markets. And Chamath is right,

that that devastated the average worker, because all of a sudden, they’re being forced to compete

with, you know, foreign labor that’s potentially making $2 a day, and is not subject to the same

labor laws and environmental laws as workers in the US are. So I agree with Chamath about what

happened then. But but I got to go back and clean up this view of what happened between 1980 and

2000. Because that’s where I think we have this, this disagreement. Let’s talk about the China

thing for a second. Yeah, we made a mistake there. We got hoodwinked. We don’t have access to their

market. I think it’s, it would be good to pause for a second and say, Okay, we tried this experiment

for 20 years, there was some good that came out of it, our companies were able to grow and become

the dominant players in the world like Apple, but an Amazon, right, we did capture a lot of this

value. And a lot of people came out of poverty in China, I guess, on the margins, that’s a good

thing, we can all agree. But it’s a communist country. And we basically enabled a communist

country to become essentially, you know, our counterparty in running the planet and in our

leadership positions on the planet. What do we do now in terms of unwinding this? Is there a way to

roll this back? Or do we just mute it from this point forward? And how does it become a two way

street? Or is that just not even possible, as we’ve seen with the NBA, and some other companies,

Twitter, Google, just not being allowed to even operate in China? Who’s we? America,

the United States, the United States, I mean, US companies, global companies. I mean,

yeah, you know, I think that the challenge is your your framework, right? Guys, I think I think

there’s one big thing you’re forgetting in 2001, which is, I think that Bush actually traded away

access to the WTO so that they could guarantee China’s vote when he wanted to go to war with

Iraq, which happened in 2003. Okay, well, two dumb decisions that got worse by being put together.

All I’m saying is it was a trade, it was a trade, he traded, he traded access to he traded access

to the WTO in return for their support for a UN resolution to go to war with Iraq.

Look, I, you know, Chamath, you said that I was defending the Republican point of view. I’m not,

I’ll be the first to say that George W. Bush was his presidency was a disaster. I think it’ll go

down as one of the worst. He got us into all these stupid foreign wars in the Middle East,

he began them. I think the decisions with China were a mistake. So I certainly don’t want to

defend that. And by the same token, I think the Clinton years were were generally great years

in America. So this is not a partisan analysis on my part. What do you think about the China

concept here and how we would go forward? And what’s what’s the path forward with China?

I mean, again, like, I think it comes down to your objective, and who are you solving for?

And who should we solve for democracy, the human species? Well, I mean, I feel like the environment,

the point of view that, you know, one government is innately better than another is being tested

and proven right and wrong every day right now. And, and I’m not sure that it’s fair to say that

that just because the form of government that the you know, that the Chinese have kind of

adopted and used to govern their country and their people is innately wrong. There’s certainly

things that are innately wrong in many democracies and that are innately wrong in many

non democratic republics. And so I’m not sure it’s fair to just say that, you know, that that’s

really the objective is let’s get rid of that communism. I mean, that was an easy kind of simple,

you know, check that you could use a few decades ago as a way to kind of rally everyone

emotionally towards some cause. But I think there’s a lot of businesses today that operate

effectively in their own kind of geopolitical cloud. And it’s a little bit of a kind of

misstatement to think that an American company is an American company. It’s not that American

quote, unquote, American companies solely build their stuff and sell their stuff in the United

States. Many American quote, unquote, American companies build stuff overseas and sell stuff

overseas. And global is globalization as much as we might want to kind of poopoo the effects it’s

had on the average quote, unquote, American worker. It really has transformed the way businesses

operate with respect to politics and countries. There’s a God, what’s the book, I can’t remember

the book, but there’s a book that speaks to how a lot of large multinational corporations today

effectively have to operate as if they were countries into an unto themselves. And so they

have competing interests with respect to what the average American or the American government or the

American people might have, even though they might be quote, unquote, American companies,

and there might be some intricate tie. And so I’m not sure it’s as simple as we have to quote,

unquote, defeat China, we are so intricately tied to the to the economy of China to the workers of

China, and vice versa. And I think that it’s a much more complicated thing than you know,

here’s our three point checklist for how do we quote, unquote, beat China. And that’s that’s

why it’s hard. And that’s why I think a lot of smart people have, you know, kind of taken on

and been challenged by and failed at trying to resolve a path forward where there’s this quote,

unquote, looming enemy that is going to become the global economic power, which strips the American

people of their influence around the world. And you know, that may be kind of the inevitability

of the 21st century. I don’t think there’s a dark inevitability if but I don’t know if there’s a

simple easy answer. And I don’t know if from a from a business point of view, let’s say I’m a

company. I’m not sure I necessarily feel the effects of one quote, unquote, country affecting,

you know, having more influence globally with other countries and others, it turns out a lot

of businesses have greater influence than a lot of governments. And so you know, one way to kind

of think about the evolution of globalization, and maybe even with respect to kind of the notion of

what we’ve been talking about decentralization, is that maybe governments themselves become less

important in the 21st century. And it’s the kind of decentralized online movements and businesses

and you know, other kind of entities that perhaps are not as regulated and controlled and owned by

governments. And, you know, maybe the big failure of the 21st century will be governments. We’ll see.

Chamath, you have that’s on. Sorry, that was a bit esoteric. But

no, no, I think it’s Yeah, it is.

It’s actually the thing, the thing that you’re not willing to acknowledge is that even when GDP

shrinks, it’s like a it’s a it’s it’s shrinking from a base where there’s substantive growth year

over year, like, you know, our the GDP in 1969, where LBG was president was less than a trillion

dollars, and the GDP now is like 23 and a half trillion dollars. And so it’s been nothing

essentially but a straight line up. And so, you know, this idea that we the inflation causes,

you know, the only way that we close the wealth gap is by making everybody poor is not true.

We’re some people may be getting less rich at the same rate, so they feel poor. But the idea that

you actually become poor is just not true. It’s a feeling that you have, but it’s not rooted in fact.

So when you look at the wealth gap, are you concerned about the gap? Or are you concerned

with, you know, the status of the folks on the bottom and how much their lot in life has gotten

better? Yeah, I mean, I’m concerned with both. Actually, there I have a slide on this, too.

I would buy this argument. And I’ve heard this argument from before from people not as smart as

David, I would buy this argument if GDP did something other than go up in an absolute

straight fucking line. No, it doesn’t. It doesn’t. Well, hold on. I’m gonna show me show GP in a

second. The first thing I want to just cover is that part of the problem with the Gini index

is it doesn’t fully account for government transfers. This is something I didn’t fully

know until I researched it after your tweet storm Chamath, but basically only 2% of the population

the publicly reported stats are that 13.5% of the US population lives in poverty. Once you actually

take into account all these programs and transfer payments, it’s more like 2%. You can see this on

this chart on the left here, that the green represents the transfer payments. By the way,

I’m not against transfer payments. I think we need a social safety net. I want the social safety net

to be as effective as possible. I don’t want it to trap people in government dependency. I want it

to work. I want it to get people out of poverty and into the opportunity economy. I absolutely

believe we need a social safety net. We need these transfer payments. You can see that the green bars

there make a huge difference in reducing poverty. The Gini index doesn’t really take that into

account. Well, how do you fund these types of transfer payments? The more of a stronger economy

that you have, the more that you have a government, the more that you have an economic boom,

the more that you see real wage growth and the ability to fund these programs.

Let’s just look at GDP for a second. Let’s go back to this period,

82 to 2000. I call this the Reagan-Clinton boom. I see this as a relatively bipartisan period

where under Reagan and Clinton, you had GDP growth of almost 4% compared to the usual 2%,

2.5%. By the way, this is why Reagan and Clinton left office with huge approval numbers despite

scandals. Remember, Reagan had Iran-Contra, Clinton had Lewinsky. None of that mattered

really in the eyes of the American people because the economy was so strong, and you can see that

here. By the way, it hasn’t been this strong in the 2000s. We’ve never really gotten back

to this type of economy since 2009. Is that because of the economic boom of the

PC and internet eras? What would we attribute it to?

The technology boom has a huge impact, but let me just describe what started it.

What happened in 1981? Reagan’s inaugurated as president in January of 1981. He cuts the top

marginal income tax rate from 70% to 50%. I’d say equally important, you have Paul Volcker at the

Fed. He breaks inflation. He jacks up interest rates, causes a very severe recession in 1982,

but it broke the back of hyperinflation. It ushered in decades of declining interest rates.

You can see that on this chart here. Interest rates have more or less been in the decline

since Paul Volcker was at the Fed. What does this do? It reduced the risk-free rate of return,

which leads to more investment in everything. It leads to more investment. It caused a rally

in the bond market and the stock market. By the way, no one remembers in a modern

area. I’m sorry, Saxe, but like most interest rates for buying a home, mortgage rates were

over 6.5% for most of the last couple of decades. Yeah.

Good luck buying a home in the 1970s. David, can you actually be intellectually

honest and overlay aggregate actual GDP on this chart? Because what you’ll see is it goes up and

to the right independent of all of this bullshit. No, that’s not true. You can see it.

That is absolutely true. Can I share my screen now?

GDP growth rate versus… No, this is simple. Forget growth rate.

What is the actual number? Right. We’re talking about the real number,

not the percentage growth, because I was actually about to ask the question.

The real number, guys. This is a change.

I know. This is the change in GDP. I know. I’m talking about grade two

mathematics here, guys. The absolute number. The absolute number keeps going up and to the

right because… No, it doesn’t. These dots that

are below zero are recessions in which GDP actually shrinks.

Those are changes from the year before. So when you’re compounding naturally…

No, no, no, no, no, no, no. The green and red bars at the very bottom are changes

from the year before, but these are absolute percentage changes in GDP.

I know. A recession is defined as two quarters

of negative growth. So GDP can go down. David, can I just show you the aggregate

GDP growth from 1960 to 2000? And you can just look at this and tell me what’s what

what is wrong with the trading economics website that that everybody else would use?

Yeah, I mean, I think one of the things that I have is a question for everybody is,

is there a is there a major difference between two percent, two and a half percent,

three percent growth in terms of how we all experience our lives?

And what are we optimizing there for? Are we optimizing for consistency or we opt in,

you know, no recessions? Well, this is what’s interesting.

So do you see this chart right here? It’s perfectly consistent with the

exception of the financial crisis. This is aggregate GDP. Okay, it started off

at less than a trillion in 1950 something. It was about, you know, a trillion dollars in 1968.

And it’s about $23 trillion now. This is the aggregate of what has

happened in the American economy over the last 70 years.

compounding interest is an amazing thing.

Now, exactly right. Now, this has happened in democratic presidencies,

Republican presidencies, when rates were at 16%, when rates were at 0%.

So all I’m saying is we have a natural tendency and inertia to move forward,

the rate of change, we can debate. And obviously, it is ebbed and flowed over years.

But the fact that it’s towards moving forward and downhill with increasing momentum is undeniable.

And so again, I would ask, when we think about the fact that the natural tendency is that the

next five or 10 year period, in aggregate will become bigger and better, there’ll be more of the

pie to share. Why is inflation a bad thing? Because all it does is depress financial assets,

it drives up earnings and income, which drives up consumption of the lower three or four quartiles

of the lower three quartiles of the earnings population. I just don’t see why it’s such a

bad thing. I think I think mild, mild inflation, you know, in the two to 4% range is is fine.

And it’s probably better. It’s certainly better, I would say than two to 4% deflation. But when

you start to get runaway inflation, like we did in the 1970s, it massively increases interest rates.

And that makes it harder for people to buy houses, and borrow money and invest money,

because now the risk free rate of return is higher. And that only applies, I know,

but that only applies to the top quartile of the population, the bottom three quartiles,

don’t give a shit about what you just said, because they don’t do it.

I don’t think people want to have to spend $600 on a loaf of bread. You know, that’s it. Look,

you look at Venezuela, you look at Weimar, Germany, you do not want inflation to get out

of control. And it can spiral out of control. Because once people start to expect

it, is that realistic, though, that it will spiral out of control, given technological

advances efficiency? I mean, what you backdrop, you are, you are bringing up, I think the really

brilliant point, which is, could it really even happen today? Because if you think about where

we allocate our time and attention and consumption, half of it, by definition, are things that are

just so naturally deflationary. We’re all you know, we’re on YouTube, you know, Facebook,

tick tock all the time. Those are naturally deflationary sinks of time and energy and

effort and money. Right. So today, to Jason’s point, like, I think that that’s actually true.

I don’t think that it’s even possible to actually have hyperinflation anymore.

Where do we have hyperinflation, NFTs, Bitcoin, equities, and financial assets,

financial and homes, right? I mean, and that’s a highly regular and I guess healthcare and

educate higher education, those but pretty much anything that the government’s involved in.

Basically, what the government’s involved in NFTs and Bitcoin, those are the anti government

portfolio. But But by the way, healthcare inflation really started in Obama because

of Obamacare. Yeah, anything that the government’s involved in inflates.

Yeah, because if the government’s paying the bill, why wouldn’t you raise prices?

There’s no competitive market, there’s one customer to charge whatever you want,

etc. So to be clear, I inflation is not my number one concern right now. I’m just saying that it

would not be a good thing to let it get out of control. That’s all. But it’s not it’s not

the biggest concern on my list. Your main concern is dunking on Chamath for that tweet storm.

No, no, I’m not dunking on him. He dunked on me saying that, you know,

basically turned into a bunch of 15 year old girls who said something and got misinterpreted

on social media. And now we have to work it out. And you the audience are the beneficiaries.

No, I’ll tell you, I’ll tell you, my, my main concern is this idea that economic booms

are not a good thing. Because, you know, God forbid, the people at the top might get richer.

That’s the problem to that, then. Yeah, I don’t know if you guys have been following

what’s happening with the head of operations at work. I guess he’s the head of warehouses at

Amazon. Amazon is standing up to Elizabeth Warren on Twitter. They’re mixing it up. Did you guys

see these tweets? Let’s pull them out. No, it’s cool. What? You haven’t seen these? No.

Chamath, didn’t you donate like some ridiculous amount of money to Elizabeth Warren’s campaign?

No 25k just a little tasty poo. It was a little teaser bet. And I and I didn’t like what I saw.

So I had to shut it down. I shut it down on the turn. The flop was not the flop.

You limped in you limped in with seven, four.

I limped in with seven, four offsuit. I put a little teaser bet out there. I didn’t like what

I saw. And so I folded. Basically, Amazon is finally saying, Hey, we’re just gonna,

we’re gonna stand up when Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders kind of attack us and attack Bezos.

And they just said, Listen, you guys set the minimum wage, do your job. We move the minimum

wage at Amazon to $15 an hour. We made our decision, get back to work and set the federal

minimum wage of $15 an hour and stop telling us we don’t pay our taxes because you make the tax law.

So essentially, this dovetails with the hearing. I don’t know if you guys watched any of the

hearing with Zuckerberg and everybody, but basically, they were all seems like big tech

is just putting their foot down and saying, just tell us what you want us to do. Because we’re

doing it. We’re giving people what Zuckerberg and Dorsey basically said is that if you don’t like

that kind of speech, then why don’t you prohibit it instead of telling us to do it? You can’t and

you won’t because you know, it’s it’s it’s a violation of the First Amendment. So that Yeah,

they were kind of pushing back on them saying, Listen, if you have such a problem with it,

pass a law. Yeah. And this guy, Dave Clark, you guys know Dave Clark at Amazon?

Nope. So this is the guy who’s been mixing it up. And if the audience is listening, you can

see a bunch of this on the YouTube channel, because we will put in a while he’s he’s like

the number two guy there. He runs all he runs the entire retail business, I guess.

Yeah. So now Amazon is on a full court press to engage with, let’s call it the socialist left.

I guess they call themselves democratic socialists, because they don’t want to be

called socialists. And they’re saying like, Listen, we give people health care, we give

them 15 bucks an hour. And if you want to tour the facilities tour the Philly, but nobody is

peeing in bottles. And then of course, the press and a couple of people showed bottles with pee

in them, that drivers can’t stop to even go to the bathroom, which I think is a tragedy and

horrible. People should not have to pee in bottles. I mean, they asked me about on CNBC

today. I was like, Are you this is a serious question. Like, of course, nobody should be

peeing in bottles. But if you look at this exchange, I think we’re kind of hitting the

end of this debate, which is everybody kind of agrees, we should have health care for

everybody in the country, we should have a $15 minimum wage. Why are we dunking and fighting

with each other? When we’ve got this adversary, which is, or two adversaries with Russia and

China, we have these two crazy adversaries who want to build authoritarian countries and control

the economy and eventually control the planet. Why is why are Americans fighting with each other

over these issues? I mean, this is this is just incredible. I just want to read it. Bernie Sanders

says, I look forward to meeting with Amazon workers in Alabama on Friday. All I want to

know is why the richest man in the world Jeff Bezos is spending millions trying to prevent

workers from organizing a union so they can negotiate for better wages, benefits and working

conditions. To which he replies, all we want to know is why the senator is one of the most

powerful Paul’s and polit politicians in Vermont for 30 plus years and their minimum wage is still

only 1175. Amazon’s minimum wage is $15 plus great health care from day one. The senator

should save his finger wagging lecture until after he actually delivers in his own backyard.

To your point, it is getting to a point now where folks are like, Alright, guys, so step

up and change the laws and change the incentives. And I think that that’s going to be really

important. sexy, you had something that you you were really miffed by what Zack said or something

at the thing. Oh, well, well, I what Zack was trying to do in that hearing that the

secretary guy, what’s his name? Ben Thompson.

I think it’s

no, no, no, no, it’s strategy. No strategy. He literally said it came to the poker game

that we do at the D conference, or the Rico conference, whatever it’s called co conference.

And he said, it’s true. Right? It’s the worst. It’s the worst name that was ever created.

strategy. Anyway, 100 bucks a year. He’s got like 10,000 people paying for it. It’s crazy.

What what makes the way he

Okay, great. So the way thank you for that. Thank you for that clarification.

What what Ben Thompson wrote the way he described Zuck statement is that Zuck was pulling up the

ladder on all the other social networking sites that might come afterwards. And it was, look,

it was one of those tactical maneuvers. That’s in Facebook sort of narrow self interest, but it’s so

obviously in their self interest that, you know, people slam them for that. It’s just too

Machiavellian. And basically, what Zuckerberg said is, listen, we now have over 30,000 people

doing content moderation, you guys should check you, the lawmakers should change section 230.

To say that, you know, you the social media sites only get section 230 protection,

the liability shield, if you engage in this kind of content moderation. But if you’re a site that

doesn’t, then you don’t get protection. What’s what Zuckerberg trying to do? You know, small

startups can’t hire 30,000 people to do content moderation. So this is like classic regulatory

capture, but done brazenly in the open at a congressional hearing. I think you’re right.

I think it kind of makes a lot of sense from him. It’s the game theory is pretty obvious,

which is like, okay, make it now impossible for anybody to compete with us. And you basically

lock us in forever, which it’s pretty, pretty brilliant. The question is, what do you think

the odds are that politicians fall for this? I think they’re, they’re forcing their hand now.

So they don’t have a choice. Yeah, well, I mean, the democrats on that committee have basically

been saying that disinformation is a huge problem. And you the social media sites need to

correct it, you need to control it. And so Zuckerberg comes along and says, okay, great,

no problem. We’ve hired 30,000 content moderators, we’re going to do what you said. In fact, we’re

going to hire more. And by the way, if you really want to get tough about this, why don’t you modify

section 230 to require it? Well, how many other startups can ever hire that number of content

moderators, this is creating a moat that will basically protect Zuck and Facebook forever,

right capture. Yep. And the other crazy thing in this was the stupid format they come up with,

where they give each person who’s, you know, a senator or congressman who’s a congressperson,

who’s doing the questioning, they give them five minutes. So they’re like, I only want a yes,

no answer. And you’re like, I’m going to ask you the most challenging problem in the world,

I need you to answer yes or no binary one or zero. And it’s like, well, that’s not kind of

how a nuanced issue works. Like section 230. This is going to take some time, can I get one minute

to answer the question, two minutes to answer the question. And so Jack and Zuckerberg and everybody

just kind of threw their hands up. They’re like, I can’t answer this in a yes, no, can you ask me,

give me 30 seconds to answer these questions. It was pretty ridiculous. And then they were trying

to get them all to say that their platforms were used for the January 6 insurgency. And I don’t

agree with Zuck on much, but he was like, No, I think the people who were involved in January 6

were responsible for it. So whether that’s the President or the people who broke into the

Capitol, they’re the ones who are actually responsible for this. You guys didn’t want

Yes. So no, I well, I read, I read some summaries of it. And I think Dorsey actually did a did a

great job. And I like I liked his performance. And let me read you a quote. Mike Solana tweeted this

So, but he said, Jack said, I don’t think these decisions should be made by private companies

or the government, which is why we’re suggesting a protocol approach to help the people make the

decisions themselves. That was Jack Dorsey. Now, that almost sounds like me, if he just changed

the word protocol to First Amendment case law. So I don’t want these companies or the Senate

Judiciary Committee, you know, censoring people, I want to use a revered external standard, which

is the First Amendment case law that’s been developed over the last two centuries. So Jack

wants to use a protocol, okay, but fine. But he’s on the right track here, which is he’s saying,

look, we don’t want to be in the business of having this power to decide who’s going to have

access to, you know, to the town square. And that’s a step in the right direction.

And he’s also got a project there to turn social networks into open standards. So in other words,

the way we can all anybody can make an email client because email is an open standard,

anybody can build a web page or a browser, because HTML is an open standard. He wants to do that.

And he’s working on that inside of Twitter, where anybody is going to be able to take their tweets,

and they’re going to be decentralized. There’s going to be no central server. And you’re going

to be able to bring your own algorithm. So if you feel the algorithm is causing you to see extreme

views, you can say I want mine to only lean towards, I want this one that leads towards

positivity and kindness, right? And somebody can make a third party, there’s a rhythm that

gets rid of jerks. You guys probably saw this week, but a deal was announced and investment

was announced. And recent Sequoia, myself and a few others, we did this thing called bit cloud.

Oh, I heard about this. Yeah. So what is it just to give you a sense of it? It’s like,

I’ve been hearing about it separately from a bunch of people.

Yeah. So I mean, like the in a nutshell, you know, what these guys did was they said,

okay, well, you know, we’re just going to take, you know, this entire blockchain concept,

and we’re going to fork it. And we’re going to create this thing where folks can essentially

have one blockchain, they can, you know, have content around it, and then identify sort of

people and nodes. And all of a sudden, like we all have this currency that sits on top of this

bit cloud currency. And why that’s interesting is their first app that they built on top of this

was basically a kind of a clone of Twitter, just kind of as a proof of concept app. And I think,

Jason, it’s moving to a place where now people with reputation and people with trust can actually

signal that they have it. And then that’s a probably a better way over time for folks like

us to figure out what is valuable and not valuable, what is trustworthy or not, irrespective of

whichever end of the spectrum is coming in off of and then if there is disinformation, you know,

that person’s quote, unquote, bit cloud stock, right, that their token will fall in value,

there’ll probably be a lot of interesting apps that are built on top of this, I was really

drawn to the general idea of the project. And I think that’s what Andreessen and Sequoia probably

felt as well. So you know, there are these interesting solutions. There’s bit cloud,

there’s Jason, what you said, this open source project to Twitter, it’s all it’s all going to

be really interesting. But I think if we can get to a way where we can quantify reputation and trust,

that’s the another way of around working around the pulling up the ladder effect of of what

Facebook and Twitter effectively told Congress this week. I want to talk to you guys about what

the hell what the hell is going on in the Suez Canal? And what does this mean? I mean, Freeberg,

what the fuck is this? This is unbelievable. You know, it’s so random, and unfortunate, but this,

this ship that weighs 200,000 metric tons, that’s taller, it’s longer than the Empire State Building

is tall, going through the Suez Canal, which I think, you know, there’s about 100 ships a day go

through the Suez Canal. And it’s, you know, the Suez Canal really is, you know, kind of an amazing

engineering accomplishment that connects the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea, it basically

allows ships from Asia to not have to go all the way around Africa to get to Europe.

And the ship goes into the Suez Canal, and it had a blackout, its power went out.

And so it just kept cruising without being able to control the steering, because there’s like

friggin power steering on these massive ships. You know, like, they don’t have like a wire

connected to the rudder. And so, you know, no backup battery supply, I guess. No one knows,

but like the power went out and the total blackout on the ship, they couldn’t get the power back on.

And the thing just keeps cruising and cruising and cruising. And it cruises right into the side,

which is this big sand barrier on either side of the Suez Canal. And it gets lodged in the sand

barrier on the side. Now, when you have 200,000 metric tons moving at a few miles an hour,

that’s an incredible amount of momentum of energy. And so when it lodges in the side, that’s,

you know, it’s lodged in there. And now it’s stuck.

Mass times acceleration equals stuck.

Yeah, it’s actually mass times velocity. But yeah, you’re close. And so the thing just

basically got lodged in there, and they can’t get it out. And now they think it’s going to

take another week or two before they’ll be able to kind of dig all around the sand and tugboat

the thing out of there. But I think what’s interesting, so 10% of global trade moves

through the Suez Canal, and about 100 of these massive ships a day, you know, move through this

canal. But it really highlights the fragility of our global supply chain, similar to kind of the

experience I think we had during the COVID pandemic, when all of a sudden, things like

toilet paper were less available to us. But you know, a small power outage on a boat,

on a ship, you know, in the middle of the Suez Canal can suddenly block up so much of global

trade and cause, you know, massive fluctuations in commodity prices and availability of supplies

and products for businesses around the world, there’s going to be rippling economic effects

for a period of time, it’s unclear how significant they’re going to be.

But you know, I really do think that taking note of the fragility of our supply chain in

this particular context, is worth taking a step back. And you know, I spent a lot of my personal

my work time, obviously off the podcast, thinking about kind of our systems of industry. And you

know, the global industrial revolutions were really predicated on this notion of centralization.

You know, we took a lot of our production systems, and we centralize them and created

automated repeatable tasks. And that reduced the cost and allowed us per unit of production,

to basically make things much more affordably. But the problem with centralization, generally

speaking, and supply chains is exactly this, which is you you have a supply chain,

that is much more delicate. And it is much more I mean, think about the difference in power,

right? If the power goes out at a power plant, all the homes that are connected to it lose power,

versus if every home had their own power generator or solar cells, they could continue to support

themselves. And in a similar context, so much and this goes back to our conversation earlier

about globalization, so much of our global supply chain for industry has become centralized by

finding the lowest cost possible, but it loses all of its durability. And so the 21st century,

and especially leading into this infrastructure bill that we’re going to be talking about,

or that’s going to be talked about for a long time now, for months to come, presents an opportunity

for us to think about durability in industry and durability and supply chains that I think

is really profound, and allows us to shift the balance of, of power, but also shift the set

the sources of production of all the things we consume as a species in a much more distributed

way. And that can be done using green technology using, you know, 3d printers using biomanufacturing,

you know, using solar, there’s a lot of vertical farming, vertical, whatever, I’ll disagree with

you on that one. And we’ll talk about that separately. But I would argue like so much of

industry has been centralized. Because remember, when the industrial revolutions took hold,

the only skill set we had as a species was mechanical engineering. And in the years that

followed, we developed skills in chemical engineering, and ultimately in software and

hardware engineering. And now more recently, in biochemical engineering, where we can use

biological systems to make stuff. And the advent of those technology capabilities, I think really

gives us the opportunity today to reinvent the supply chains. And so the Suez Canal, I hope is

a little bit of a wake up call, and I hope leads into some of the thinking around the infrastructure

build proposals, where we’re about building durability in the supply chain. And in that

process, by the way, creating manufacturing jobs, you know, in a more distributed way,

let me build on what you’re saying. So for all of the people listening that really, really care

about electrification and electric cars, and there’s a bunch of Tesla bulls here, you know,

Tesla uses a specific kind of battery called NCA. And there’s, you know, other forms of batteries,

but for the most part, and Tesla in China uses this LFP chemistry. But the point is, there’s a

lot of very, very valuable nickel that goes into making lithium ion batteries. And so if you believe

in electrification, and you believe in, you know, zero emissions, and you believe in using these

batteries, you need to believe in nickel, which is a tough business, okay, you’re, you’re grabbing,

you know, rock out of the ground, and you’re leaching this, this extremely important metal

out of it. So just a little while ago, there is a huge nickel manufacturer called Norlisk Nickel,

right. And they have these two Russian nickel mines. And just very recently, they flooded,

and the plug which had been erected for localizing the flooding was washed away,

not for the first time, not for the second time, but for the third time. And people now think that

getting all this water out of the mine may take at least a year. Okay. So what, why should we care?

Well, right now, if you think about all the batteries that were forecasted to make in order

to sort of eliminate climate change, and, you know, do all these good things and for, you know, Tesla

to make their, you know, beautiful cars or whomever that, you know, they need nickel.

And right now we have we have a deficit of nickel that’s going to emerge now in less than a year.

And we have, we have about a 37 to 40% shortage of what we need. So it’s like you have all these

grandiose visions of how the world should work. And an electric failure in a barge shuts down

the global supply chain for weeks, a flood in a nickel mine is going to cause the price of a

Tesla to basically double. And shouldn’t people at some point, ask ourselves, is this really what

efficiency is supposed to feel like on the ground? And it may not be right. And so maybe again,

going back to the first conversation, a little bit more inefficiency, a little bit more inflation,

a little bit more redundancy will allow us to be resilient. And maybe that’s what we really want.

Well, I mean, you could ask the people in Texas what they want after they lost their power,

and they have one light snowstorm and the whole city is destroyed. I mean, there really is.

There is something to having the redundancy in your home and the supply chain and obviously drugs,

which we witnessed during the pandemic.

Right, right. I mean, we infrastructure, we were so we were so concerned about

short term profit maximization that we offshored our entire pharmaceutical production,

and PPE manufacturing to China, which then said that they might ration it to us based on,

you know, geopolitical concerns. No, thanks. So yeah, that that is that is that is penny wise

and pound foolish. The absolute definition is the is the infrastructure bill going to fix it

freeberg you have a rundown of the infrastructure bill, you know, there isn’t a good, there isn’t

a good clarity on this, my concern is that there’s going to be lots of push for things like

roads and, you know, stuff that doesn’t create ongoing jobs that so much money is going to go

into basically a disguised stimulus package, versus, you know, the ideal kind of infrastructure

program set is to enable industry. So if you go back and you think about like the Manhattan project

and the Apollo mission, you know, those were very expensive government programs that have a very

specific mandate. But because there were big investments and difficult problems, they unlocked

a lot of industry that followed that initial development cycle. And I think that that is kind

of a good guideline for us to think about with respect to what we might hope for an infrastructure

bill to do, which is to create unlock for industry, as opposed to plowing money into short term

service contracts with a bunch of guys who are going to make a ton of money building roads,

and it doesn’t really change the industry very much. And so I’m concerned, it’s going to be a

giveaway of money that’s going to create a short term stimulus, but doesn’t really create long

term effects in the industry. But we’ll see what kind of comes out as they get more clarity on

this. There’s certainly a big push for quote, unquote, green, but I’m not sure the people that

are quote, unquote, green advisors in this in this context, are going to be thinking about this,

you know, this next century of opportunity, you know, yeah, so so we’ll see,

America’s gonna have to have a real come to Jesus if they actually really give a shit about climate

change. Yeah, I’ll give you an I’ll give you a different example, like, again, to really

electrify, you have to pull metals out of the ground. That is a dirty business, okay. And there

are impacts to the environment, even if you’re the best at it. And right now in the Western

Hemisphere, it takes 20 years to green light a mine 20 years, our shortages start in the next

year. In China, they have, you know, no issues whatsoever, right? Let’s just say so maybe it

takes them seven to 10 years to get a to get a project greenlit. Now, I’m not advocating that

we become China. But I think that it’s really important for us to realize that like, you know,

if we’re going to really take this seriously, you can’t have progress being hijacked by things that

may not matter as much in the grand scheme of things like there is the opportunity, for example,

to build a massive set of copper and nickel mines in the Western Hemisphere. But the minute that

they get greenlit, they get there’s an injunction that’s filed by an NGO that’ll say, Oh, you know,

we have to think about the land grouse. And it’s like, what the fuck is the land grouse?

And at some point, you have to figure out whether you actually want your kids to have asthma or not.

And whether they can suck up, you know, p.m. to five and p.m. 10 for the rest of their lives,

or you care more about the land grass. And this is going to come, come to a head. And hopefully,

the infrastructure bill paves the way for these decisions. Because I think as a country, we’re

going to have to decide because many other countries in order to have clean air and drinkable

water are going to basically prioritize humans over the land grass. Yeah, I mean, it reminds me

of the nuclear discussion we had earlier in this podcast of like, we can’t even put a new nuclear

power plant in this country without it taking decades. And any, any, any interesting updates

on the business side? I saw is Microsoft really about to buy discord for $10 billion?

Yeah, if you look at that compared to, you know, the slack acquisition is slack up what for 28

billion with was it 800 million in revenue, yearly revenue at the time. And discord has 150 million,

and they’re going to pretend it’s unbelievable. It’s an even higher multiple.

For 1.2 billion at this point.

Well, it was it was in hindsight, it was probably cheap.

It made the market.

You know?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Well, I mean, back in 2012, we really thought back in 2012, that one to 2 billion was like,

the best case scenario of yeah, the upper bound of what a SAS exit would look like.

We just never realized how big the market could get. And now obviously, you have slack at close

to 30 billion, you have DocuSign IPO at 40 billion, you have zoom at over 100 billion.

And so the markets just ended up so much bigger than we ever thought. And we were the optimists,

we were the ones building companies in SAS back then. And so the cloud has just been so I mean,

and you see this now with you know, the numbers that Azure and Google Cloud, and AWS keep

reporting where they’re at, like 10s of billions of revenue, and they’re still growing like 40 50%

a year. So the cloud is just so much bigger than what we all thought and what came before.

So that’s what I mean. So I’ve just decided to stop trying to find

new ideas and just, I mean, new, like a new thesis, and just keep investing in this.

That’s why I’m kind of all in on, on SAS right now.

Do you think Microsoft is doing this to compete with slack, or they’re doing it to just

really take over gaming? You have any insights?

I think probably it’s probably an element of both where they do like one of their few

consumer business lines that’s done really well as Xbox and gaming, and they bought Minecraft. And so

I think they can get some value out of it there. But I have to believe that this is competitively

driven. They got to be worried about slack. I mean, the crown jewel at Microsoft is the

office suite. The reason they bought Yammer is to accelerate the transition of office into cloud,

social and mobile. And it did help do that. And they got to be worried about Salesforce now

buying slack. I mean, that is Benioff has been

wanting to go after office for a long time. And this is his way to do it.

Yeah. All right. There you have it, folks. Another all in podcast is in the can.

Let me just ask a question. Are people making summer plans and fall plans based on

the I’m making I’m making I’m making tonight plans. I can’t wait to get you

victims into the poker room. I want you to fly in. Come on, come and play. We need a full

bestie victim. Well, what’s your plan tonight? Like, are you going to some fancy like

pasta restaurant with your wife? Are you doing pop and bottles with?

Yeah. Yeah. Who are you hanging out with tonight? What are you doing?

Yeah. What are you doing with the kids? It’s Friday night.

I’m just going to ask again. Do you know their names?

Put them to bed. Fly up north days. Come to the poker game.

Tell us your kids middle names.

Actually, that’s a good one.

I went to the movies last night. I was I took my 11 year old out. She was she was

she wanted to get a Shake Shack. So I took her to Shake Shack. And the movie theater was there

and it was open. And I was like, Oh, let’s go check it out of what’s going on at the movie theater.

And Terminator two was playing 15 minutes later. Great film.

Incredible film holds up and amazing to see on the big screen. We walk in I kid you not,

you know, 100 seat theater with these beautiful big chairs, nobody there. And they were so excited.

Did you rent the whole thing?

No, it just happens to be that they’re open for business. They space people out.

And it was $5 a ticket to see.

I’m taking my I’m taking my daughters to the movies this afternoon. First time they’ve ever

been to the movies. They’re, you know, three and a half and two. I am so excited to take them to a

movie theater. So we rented the whole theater for $99. It’s the best deal in town.

What, what movie are you seeing?

Trolls, you can choose a movie. That’s the cool thing. There’s like a list of like 50

films and you can pick a film. So I got like a little kid’s film for them.

And they’re get to go see a movie theater and have popcorn have the experience.

And you can have other friends there.

Yeah, you can have up to 20 people. So you rent the whole theater for 99 bucks. And you

you can kind of if you want to come see Trolls, come on, just cruise up. I’ll send you a ticket.

Oh my god, that’s the coolest fucking thing.

Godzilla vs. Kong is happening. And I’m renting a theater for it. So if everybody wants to bring

their kids, it’s a great series.

My kids would never sleep after seeing that.

No, no, it’s not for three to five year olds. But you know, 10 year olds. Yes.

It’s 100 bucks. This is an AMC theater.

99 bucks. It’s awesome.

For AMC. But the the Sinopolis I think charges 200. And that’s the

like really high end theater where you can press a button and the waiter comes.

And the waiter was like, thanks for coming. We really appreciate it. Like you’re one of

the first guests.

No way.

There is no way.

Yeah, it was kind of like an emotional moment for me to take my daughter again,

because that’s what we would do every Friday.

Yeah.

You know, school.

There’s no way movie theaters go out of business. I mean, they’re just it’s such like,

like a traditional experience. It’s so American.

I wonder what AMC is trading at. Hmm.

Yeah.

I wonder if AMC would be an interest.

I, uh, I, I just, I’m just saying this conversation out. He’s like,

I got my movie theater downstairs. The usher is on standby. Ready to let me in.

How many seats are you? Sax is like, oh, you can only rent a 20 seat theater. I have a 40

seat theater.

Sax, how many theaters are, do you have built in your various homes?

Do you only have one theater per home, Sax? Is it one theater per home?

No, he’s got a multiplex in each. In case people want to watch different movies.

They meet at the popcorn stand.

I’m, I’m excited to go back to the movies.

Me too.

I’m going to be able to do that soon.

I love going to the movies. I love it.

How excited are you guys to go to Disneyland? I want to take my kids to Disneyland.

Me.

I can’t wait.

Sax and I, when we first moved.

COVID is over. I’m so sick. By the way, how right, how right were we?

I think it was like two or three pods ago. We were saying that COVID would be over by Memorial

Day.

Memorial Day.

And even in California, Gavin Newsom basically has finally capitulated to logic and everybody

can get a shot now as of April 15th.

Yeah.

Which means by May 15th, everybody who wants to get vaccinated.

All it took was a recall. 2.2 million signatures.

It took the recall and shame and shaming him and berating him on Twitter constantly.

I mean, Peter Pham was tweeting out like every day, the growing inventories of vaccine and all

the open appointments we all were. And it’s like ridiculous. We kept mentioning him.

5 million shots on shelves in a pandemic. I mean, you don’t need to be Freeberg to understand

how vaccines work. Each person’s a blocker, right?

Yeah. And the other thing, the other thing that got Newsom to move was that Biden gave that press

conference in which he moved up the date. And so then that prompted Newsom to move up his date.

And the same thing happened like a month ago when Biden gave that speech where he said he gave that

May 1st date as a date everyone should get vaccinated. So frankly, it’d be nice if we had

a governor who would just do the right thing without the constant threat of recall and tweet

shaming and the president dragging him into the future.

But but I guess we do with all I’m curious what you guys think of what we should do with all this

extra supply. I had an interesting idea for the economy. If you come to America, and you’ve tested

that you don’t have COVID, right, you take a test on the forget there. If you come to America,

we will give you the vaccine at the airport. Jason, I think here’s what we’re gonna do from

now on. Great with that. You’re gonna have you’re gonna have three little chips a week and you get

to put a chip in a jar and then you can suggest one of your ideas. But then once you hit three,

we’re done. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Vaccine tourism. No, we like formalized vaccine tours. If you

come to America for vacation, complimentary vaccines on the way in. I mean, we’re already

at the point where everyone’s. Look, I mean, look, effectively affected. No, I think effectively,

we’re going to have that it won’t be at the airport. But I mean, the all the restrictions

are coming off in every state by mid April now. And people can’t afford an international plane

ticket. You know, they’re not like going to come to the US to get a shot. I would like to advocate

that we take these extra vaccines and we ship them to the developing world. Yeah, they should

go south of the border for sure. For sure. Yeah. And by the way, we’re doing a much better job

vaccinating people than Europe. I mean, it’s unbelievable that COVID is spiking in Europe

right now because they’ve been so incompetent at getting people vaccinated. Well, their issue was

they didn’t order in shockingly incompetent, shocking Canadians and the Europeans said we

want you to prove to us the vaccine works before we put our order in. I don’t think it’s that Jason,

I think I think Jason like I think that like sometimes I think over the last 40 years,

there’s been two polar opposites of governing people. One is what I would call the autocrat.

And the other is what I would call kindergarten soccer, where when the ball no matter where the

ball is on the on the soccer field, every player on every team is surrounded. Yes. And so as a

result, no progress is here. Progress is bursty and unpredictable and sometimes not great, but it

can happen. And this is where like, you know, so like, I mean, we are I’m still shocked at the lack

of scientific rigor and understanding by these people. And so how could you have an entire

Western set of countries who are theoretically not stupid, be in this situation in April of 2021

knowing what we know? Yeah, well, how’s how’s Brexit? How’s Brexit looking now? Because God,

because Britain is like, is almost fully vaccinated, their COVID numbers are coming

way down. And then the British variant, the British variant, it started in the UK

is spreading like wildfire across Europe, because they’re too bureaucratic to get

everyone vaccinated. So I mean, Britain is looking really good by comparison right now.

They opted out of kindergarten soccer.

Yeah. And by the way, this is just to tie back to the infrastructure for a second,

I don’t have a problem with infrastructure if the investments can be spent wisely,

but how much of us trust the government to spend the money wisely as opposed to on

pork barrel spending and wasteful projects and taking too long. We have the Bay Bridge in San

Francisco, the original Bay Bridge took two years to build. And then the the repair of it took 17

years, where they did like the the upgraded version. And that’s the problem we have is that

nobody really trusts our government anymore to allocate this money wisely.

Just to give people an idea, doses administered per 100 people 39. Well, now 40 for the US and

Israel 114. Obviously, there’s two dose shots, and Spain 14, Italy 14, Canada 12. Mexico for

my mom, who’s almost at just got her first shot, which I think is inexcusable. Justin Trudeau,

if you’re listening, disaster, I just I just think that’s unacceptable, unacceptable. She’s 79 years

old. It’s unacceptable. God, I mean, it literally is politicians, these politicians and bureaucrats

design this complicated system to prove that they’re helping people. It’s just like news.

It’s just all they do is get in the way equity. That’s the way the red the red light should go

off and you should run far away from whatever comes after we’re going to solve an equity problem.

We see let’s go for efficiency. Let’s let’s go. Yeah. All right, everybody. We’ll see you all

next time on the all in podcast. Love you guys. Love you best. See you tonight. See you tonight,

except bring us some of that. Bring us some of that sacks crafty poo money. Come on. Yeah,

buy in. Come on. We will play PLL. We’ll keep it to hold them. Yeah, we know if you fly up,

if you fly up for the evening, you’re going to be just fully committed. You know, you’re going

to be playing right. Yeah, you’re right. I’ll come in tilted because I’ll be negative.

Jet fuel. Yes.

Just go for a coin toss. How about if we cover it? We’ll just do a flip and we’ll cover it.

We’ll cover your jet fuels. Boy, that’s not a no. I didn’t hear.

Somebody’s low. Someone’s in text and tell her to kick him out of the house tonight.

We’ll let your winners ride.

Rain Man, David.

We open source it to the fans and they’ve just gone crazy with it.

Love you. Besties are

my adventure. We should all just get a room and just have one big huge orgy because they’re all

just like this, like sexual tension that they just need to release somehow.

Going all in.