Only sacks can lose 20 pounds and look worse.

Sacks, you know, with with all with all these gains and all your funds,

I would really love for you to cash them out and buy a belt.

Ask your wife or your house manager to help you find slim fit shirts at the local Macy’s.

You literally look like you’re wearing a parachute.

I’ve never I’ve never worn some fit anything.

Stand up for a second. Stand up.

I can’t. I’m not I’m not wearing pants.

Oh, my God.

Can somebody call HR? Are you really not wearing pants?

I got now I got I got shorts on.

No, that’s not true.

Are you really wearing shorts?

Yeah, I am.

No, it’s not. He’s lying.

No, I’m not.

Put your leg up.

Show us that pasty leg.

No fucking way.

Oh, my God.

Oh, my God. How big are those shorts?

That’s incredible.

He’s like Dom DeLuise and he lost a hundred pounds.

He didn’t change his wardrobe.

You’re rich, dude.

Change your wardrobe.

Oh, my God.

Those are like two toothpicks sticking out of a tent.

Oh, my God.

It’s like somebody set up a circus tent and didn’t tie down the ends.

He’s wearing a parachute and a circus tent.

Oh, my God.

We’ll let your winners ride.

Rain Man, David Satterthwaite.

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

Love you guys.

Nice queen of quinoa.

I’m going all in.

Hey, everybody.

Hey, everybody.

Welcome to another episode of the All In Podcast.

With us today, again, the podcast.

With us again today, the dictator, Chamath Palihapitiya and the queen of quinoa,

David Friedberg, in front of some bad art.

And from the mausoleum, a svelte, fighting weight, minus 20 pounds, the rain man himself,

David Satterthwaite.

You guys gave me the motivation.

I mean, this podcast.

We fat shamed you.

You fat shamed me.

You needled me for months.

And I’m like, okay, I’m going to lose the weight.

So, I’ve lost it.

What was your peak weight in the last 12 months?

I think I was at in the high 190s and I’m down to about 172 now.

So, it’s about 25 pounds.

Wow.

Since about April or May.

That’s really great, bro.

That’s fantastic.

I mean, honestly, your family thanks you.

I thank you as a friend too.

No, but seriously, that’s really fucking great.

I’m really proud of you.

Are you exercising too?

Thank you.

Or you just cut your diet?

It’s, I’m doing the same exercise regimen I was doing before, which is just running occasionally,

but it’s all diet.

It’s all diet.

It’s frankly severe calorie restriction.

And your Munich product has been very helpful.

But is it really severe calorie restriction?

Thanks for the plug.

I think so.

We were talking about Munich for the syndicate on the call-in app the other day.

These fucking plugs are dropping from the sky.

Well, hold on.

I’m allowed to plug another Betsy’s product.

You just did the Munich plug so you could put a call-in plug in your head.

You’re violating a rules of the road that we wrote down.

No, it’s not a violation of the rules because I’m not a shareholder in Munich.

I don’t have any interest in that.

But are you negotiating a deal?

No, but now I might.

Have you talked about funding Munich?

No, I haven’t.

But Freebird, can I invest?

That’s a good one.

We should actually throw that one in the syndicate if you guys want.

Yeah, Munich’s great.

I did it.

I lost some weight on it.

Saksipu, what’s your basal calorie burn?

Did you calculate that?

I’m not.

What does that mean?

Like your steady state calorie burn on a normal day.

Like if you’re not exercising or whatever.

Like based on your height, your BMI, your weight, all that stuff.

Yeah, I did.

I did look it up.

And I think it’s around 2000 calories a day.

But the thing that’s super interesting.

There’s a calculator online where you can enter your height, weight, and age.

And it’ll tell you how many calories that you burn every day.

So if you want to lose weight, you need to consume fewer calories than that.

It’s that simple.

Everything else that people do around weight loss that is not that is basically some sort of game.

You just have to consume fewer calories than you’re burning.

But the thing that’s really interesting about that calculator is that

the number of calories you can burn every year actually changes as you get older.

It goes down.

So the reason why people gain weight as they get older

is because you’re in a habit of consuming a certain number of calories every day.

But as you get older, like every year, you can consume say 50 fewer calories a day,

something like that.

And that basically becomes fat if you consume at the same level.

So you have to cut your consumption down as you get older or you will gain weight.

And in addition to your metabolic fitness,

meaning like having your exercise levels stay up to increase your metabolism overall,

you can also add muscle mass.

A lot of people lose muscle mass over time.

Muscle burns more calories per day just to kind of keep functioning.

So the more muscle mass you have, the higher your basal…

And you lose like half a pound to a pound a year after 40.

Is that correct?

Directionally free?

I don’t know.

But that sounds about right.

Yeah, that’s what I read.

That is about right.

And I think it’s because this dynamic where people are just consuming the same amount,

but they don’t realize that they can’t burn it.

And so it becomes fat.

You know, so to my case, first of all, you got to get your caloric intake down to 2000

just to get to steady state.

And that can be a challenge.

But if you really want to lose weight, you need to burn,

you need to basically consume a few hundred calories less than that.

And if you can consume 500 calories less than that per day,

that’s considered rapid weight loss.

And then you can actually see the results, which is very motivating.

Yeah.

So I like the idea of just going for the like significant, the 500 calories.

Where are you?

You’re at 1500 calories a day.

Yeah.

I mean, I think so.

I mean, I haven’t like precisely measured it out, but I’ve been trying to go for.

And is that you skip a meal?

Is that how you get to the minus 500 calories?

Yeah.

I will either skip breakfast or I’ll do a very light breakfast.

And then for lunch, I’ll do like something entirely plant based, like,

like suit, like a vegetable soup of some kind.

And then when it comes to dinner, it’ll be a more normal dinner, but no carbs.

No two dinners, one bottle of wine.

Wow.

No, no.

You have a good system.

The SAC system is vegetables first.

Yes.

Then fish, then poultry, then red meat.

So it’s not, you’re not like entirely all one thing or another.

You’re not like all vegan, which would be hard.

It’s not like you’re all, there’s no red meat or something like that.

You can do a little of everything, but you have to have a weighting.

And the weighting is based on what foods are the most calorie dense.

So the mistake that I think people make, and I think it’s one of these trick diets is like

with these protein, like the South beach type diet or the paleo diet, right?

Where they’re trying to trick their body into ketosis and all they do is eat a lot of red meat.

But those steaks have a lot of calories in them.

So it only works if you do it perfectly, where you totally trick your body and

keeping your body in ketosis forever is just not sustainable in my view.

It’s hard.

So I think you’re a lot better off just eating less calorie dense food and steak is very calorie

dense.

So, you know, again, you try to eat less first than fish.

I rarely eat beef, but I get to eat it today.

And I’m having steak night.

Dre’s coming over for dinner.

And in the season, he, whenever I text him and I say, Hey, what do you want for dinner?

Draymond’s always like fish, fish, fish, fish, fish.

And I said, bro, I, I get to eat steak so fucking rarely.

And today we’re having steak.

I can’t wait.

My mouth is watering.

When you get to, it’s because you’re on some diet, basically.

No, no, I do.

I just observed that I don’t eat meat.

Any more than once a week, maximum.

And right now I’m probably averaging once every two weeks, maybe even once every three

weeks.

And to your point, it’s much better.

I do these scans, you know, you can do these kind of body scans to know what your, your

total water weight, your total muscle weight, your total weight, your total body fat, all

of that stuff.

And your basic metabolic rate.

And I just kind of track it like once a quarter just to see where it is.

And I, I agree with you.

Like, I’ve really found that I can’t eat red meat anymore.

Like, it’s like, it just really fucks me up.

But it’s so good.

Right.

It’s so good.

Oh my God.

It’s so good.

The other, one other trick is that you should never consume calories like in liquid form,

right?

You should only be drinking water, tea, coffee, things like that, that don’t have any calories.

People go to Starbucks in the morning and they drink like 400 plus calories.

Then they have a, you know, cinnamon roll or whatever, or banana.

Yeah, they’re at 1200 at the start.

Yeah.

I mean, that’s it.

I mean, you’re going to be gaining weight on just from going to Starbucks in the morning.

There’s no, now if you do an Americano with a splash of almond milk or something, that’s

like five, 10 calories, that’s fine.

But, um, you, you have to stop drinking calories.

And then the one exception is like last night we did poker, we were drinking wine.

So that’s fine.

You know, I didn’t.

Cause I thought the wine was shit.

I thought the whole game was horrible.

Let me just tell you all the things that were wrong.

Okay.

Number one, I fucking came all the way up to San Francisco.

Chamath normally hosts.

Saks went over the top and Chamath is tilted.

Over the top in air quotes.

Number one, nobody arrived on time because nobody respects you enough to show up on time.

J Cal and I played heads up for an hour before anyone else showed up.

We were there from seven to eight just playing heads up.

It was fun.

It was fun.

I took all the free Berks money.

I own 3% of Munich.

You, as the host didn’t show up till nine 30 and you spent all of the time on the phone

outside in the room, trading Japanese bonds or doing whatever you were doing.

Talking to Peter showed up at 10 30.

You know, the game was basically randomly in the mock half the night.

Nobody was observing any good decorum run at once, run it twice.

There was just nothing going on.

You had stale fish.

OK, just sitting there rotting, stinking up the whole fucking room.

You know, you had 2013 cold, which is not even a good year.

Just FYI.

OK, 2012.

OK, 2015.

I mean, so anyways, I thought it was a disaster.

I stormed up and I left.

He did rage quit and it was quite a moment because we’re playing PLO.

Finally, Saks loses all his money.

But I did have three bowls of ice cream, which I regretted this morning.

All right, Saks, in your defense, why were you?

Why did you leave your guests for three hours while you talked at your own home?

So it wasn’t it wasn’t three hours.

You guys were being well attended to.

I made sure that you were well attended to.

And then I had to duck out well attended to.

What are we, preschool?

What do that?

What are you talking about?

Execute a couple of a couple of a couple of trades.

So what were the calls?

Well, you know, crypto is like a 24-7 market these days.

Crypto never sleeps.

So David Saks has to excuse himself.

Yeah, I got wired 800 Hong Kong gold had to trade.

Yeah.

So OK, so first of all, the food was amazing.

We had like this incredible.

You didn’t eat it.

You didn’t eat it.

No, I did.

I did.

You had the Brussels sprouts.

You ate none of it.

I’m on a diet.

I did eat the sushi.

There’s like this incredible sushi spread.

We had so much sushi.

Most of it didn’t get eaten.

Then we had pizza’s got the best late night pizzas from two different

pizza places got delivered.

There was more than one pizza per person in terms of selection.

It was Tony’s Neapolitan.

You had homemade caramel sauce poured over to my that was good.

No, don’t you?

Don’t let you.

That was great.

Yeah, props to the chef put Dolce de leche on the vanilla.

Yeah.

And the Colgate in 2013, the state nine is a fantastic ball of wine that I had another

ball of it earlier this week.

We just lost 42% of the audience.

They are now on the YouTube comment saying, why are these people?

Why do we listen to this pot every week?

And here’s the reality.

It’s your mouth is you were very quiet and sort of sullen the whole night from really

the time you got there.

It’s kind of true.

You didn’t really participate in the conversation.

And Sky hypothesized that the reason why you were so withdrawn is because you were upset

that the game had moved from your place to my place.

And you thought somehow I was trying to hijack your game, which is not true.

We do a game at my place.

Maybe no, no, no, no, no, no.

I told I told Sky text already.

I said, hey, guys, we normally run the game Thursdays at my house.

I’m happy to come up.

But it’s harder for me because that’s almost do right.

So you were upset from the get go that you were.

No, I wasn’t.

I told I told him that pretty candidly.

Well, I mean, there’s another underlying here.

Friedberg and sacks have not come to the last three games at your mom’s house.

Is there something going on here?

Is it just the commute?

I think the commute is hard.

I mean, in fairness to you guys,

it’s hard.

I only missed the last game.

I went, I went to sacks.

Hasn’t been coming.

And I know he’s in he’s in town.

Is there something on sacks where you can’t?

No, it’s anymore.

You haven’t.

I mean, it’s either the commute or sometimes I’m out of town, you know, so you were in town

the last couple of times.

I don’t know.

I think it’s kind of you and come up.

Maybe you need to go for a walk.

I’ll come.

I’ll come the next Wednesday game.

Whenever the next game is, you should come.

But I mean, what are you doing?

Staying home playing chess with Peter Thiel on your iPad?

I mean, come on.

Both me and Friedberg are about to have kids.

We cannot.

Oh, the game is over.

No, no, no.

For another couple of weeks.

Yeah.

We’re going to revert back to that terrible COVID app, iPad app playing poker, where like

everyone gets at each other.

Oh, the Chinese app that was fixed with a bunch of people colluding.

Everyone is so angry.

Yeah.

Well, we’ll get it back in the next.

Let’s let’s start our show.

Let’s start.

Let’s start the show.

First up in SPAC land, Donald Trump has done a SPAC and it’s for his Trump Media and Technology

Group.

And he’s launching an app called Truth Social, which you can preload, I guess in the app

store, you’re allowed to preorder stuff.

Now that that was kind of an interesting feature.

The company will merge with the SPAC called Digital World Acquisition Corporation, ticker

symbol currently DWAC.

It’s led by somebody named Patrick Orlando, who is a Florida based investment manager.

I’m not making that up.

I don’t know if Orlando is actually his name.

He founded a sugar trading business and built two energy distribution businesses,

allegedly or supposedly.

Freeberg said maybe he’s a real estate guy who knows the stock peaked at $157 a share

this morning, Friday morning.

So the SPAC started at 10 bucks.

It started at 10.

So that’s 16x before dropping back down to 100.

It’s become a bit of a meme stock on Wall Street.

That’s trading was halted.

It puts this at something in the range of a, you know, well over a $10 billion market cap.

And there is literally no technology, no team.

And a bunch of technologists looked at the source code just by doing view source, I think,

on the on the web pages.

And there’s an open source project, I think, called Master Don or Master Tan.

I don’t know.

I think it’s Master Don that they seem to have just copied the code from.

It’s like a distributed version of Twitter.

And it seems they just cut and pasted the code and didn’t even change the license.

You know, like the GPL license, we’re supposed to give credit to who wrote the code.

So no business, no team, no IP, no users, no money, no office, no nothing.

It’s basically…

It’s an NFT.

This is an NFT.

It’s an NFT.

And basically…

It’s an exchange traded NFT.

It’s an NFT of Donald Trump.

The value of this thing is like closer to…

Donald Trump is closer to 20 billion because there’s a $1.7 billion value if they hit certain

stock prices, according to the press release they put out, but there’s not a good SEC filing on it.

So at 1.7, that means he got 170 million shares, which are now worth, let’s say,

at $157 a share.

Donald Trump has effectively 20 plus billion dollars.

Oh, so he’s finally a billionaire?

And he’s finally a billionaire of equity value in his stake in this thing.

He’s actually a billionaire.

And I think this is the absolute penultimate NFT.

It is traded against a caricature that is a one of a kind, completely rare.

All of his quote unquote media IP is going to be licensed into this SPAC.

And so if you want to own a piece of it, this is the way to own it.

And people are trading it like an index on the Donald Trump character.

It’s an index on that.

I think it’s an index on the right.

I think it’s an index on an alternative to Fox News.

The traditional media?

The traditional media.

It’s a huge fuck you to actually the mainstream media.

I think this is good.

Twitter?

Oh my god, it’s gonna tilt the hell out of like the folks that write at the New York Times.

My gosh.

Did you see Jack Dorsey’s tweet, by the way?

No.

I’ll put it in the chat.

But he made a comment on it after there was a screenshot.

I mean, let’s be honest.

It’s a grift.

I mean, this is the ultimate peak grift in the peak bubble of our lifetime.

Period.

I think it’s a vote.

Like Peter Thiel said yesterday, you know, like Bitcoin is a vote against the establishment.

This is a vote against the establishment.

All right.

What are the chances that an actual app launches Saks?

Like, and when would that actually happen?

When can this crew of dipshits actually write a line of code and actually release a product?

You know how hard it is to release product.

Yeah, that’s a good question.

I mean, what they’re saying is that they’re going to launch a new social network,

I guess, Twitter style called Truth Social.

And the primary interface will consist of a feed of short posts from users you follow.

Sounds familiar.

However, these posts will be called truths instead of tweets,

and re-shares will be known as re-truths.

Wow.

So that’s what’s coming.

And the slide deck that’s available on the company’s website list, Twitter, Facebook,

Netflix, Disney Plus, CNN, iHeartMedia, Google Cloud, Amazon Web Services,

as some of TMTG’s current and future competitors.

So basically, you know, Trump is proposing an alternative to all the traditional media

and social networks that have basically banned him.

But I do think that the trading here does represent, there is, I think, a groundswell

for social media platforms that are not controlled by big tech.

And, you know, there’s Trump has 70 million tech voters, sorry,

70 million voters of those, probably 30 to 40 million, you would say are,

would be fans of his on social media.

He’s been banned from Twitter and Facebook.

And this is his response.

He’s to create his own platform.

I don’t know whether it ultimately be successful.

But I think what you’re seeing here is the demand for alternatives to,

you know, censorious platforms that are controlled by big tech.

So if he has 30 million real fans, Chamath,

what number of them would download the app and participate in the first year?

He had 90 million followers on Twitter, Jacob, which doesn’t count.

But that’s half of the Twitter registered account.

We had 70 million people vote for him.

So what are the real fans, not just Republicans who don’t want Hillary?

I don’t think that’s the way to think about this.

I would I would view this as differently than this.

What’s what’s insane is you have this entity here, which is essentially a cash shell.

That’s now basically, you know, 300 odd million dollars of cash.

Plus what looks like 18 or 19 billion dollars of brand value, like of intangible goodwill.

And the sum total of that is what the total market cap of this thing is.

So if it is 18 billion, then that’s what it is.

What this allows them to do, and this is where it kind of gets interesting,

is these guys, what it shows me is they could come back and actually raise

an enormous amount of money.

They could issue, you know, a secondary stock sale.

They could do a convert.

They could raise billions of dollars because the demand is there.

And then with those billions of dollars, they could actually do something really meaningful.

They could go and acquire an existing app, Jason.

Call it, call it.

They could acquire engineers and a product that already exists.

Maybe do an acquire, yeah.

They could acquire a traditional broadcast outlet and give Trump,

you know, a way to short circuit his launch of a Fox competitor.

So I actually think this is a huge vote.

I think David’s right.

It’s a vote against censorship.

It’s a vote for Trump.

It’s a vote for the right.

It’s a vote for alternative voices.

And as a result, I think a lot of folks in the mainstream who have Trump derangement syndrome

are now going to be, you know, reawoken and in complete full tilt for a while.

Yeah, it’s pretty tilty.

TMTG Plus will be, you know, it’s terrible branding, but the TMTG Plus is going to be there.

Look at this, you’re already tilted.

I’m super, no, I’m not tilted.

I mean, I think the whole thing is just a super grift.

I don’t think they’ll ever get a product out the door.

And if they do, I think they get to maybe five, 10 million users.

They’re going to raise.

J-Cal, they’ve got a $20 billion market cap.

They could do whatever the hell they want.

I think it’s all people just manipulating the stock like GameStop.

Like Chamath said, they could turn that into cash.

We’ll see.

I mean, they could turn a billion of it.

I don’t think they can get the 20 billion.

Trump today, in one day, is worth more than two times the New York Times.

Can you imagine what’s going on in the New York Times right now?

Yeah.

And that’s just brand.

Well, let’s see.

I mean, not all these SPACs stay at $150 a share, you know.

So, J-Cal, I think you’re right that people outside the tech industry really underestimate

how hard it is to build technology products that are any good, you know, that have a good UI.

They’re delightful to users.

It does require real talent.

And if you’re not sort of from the industry, you don’t even know what kind of talent you need to

hire.

However, I think Chamath has a really good point that with this kind of market cap,

they could acquire their way to a portfolio of assets.

Like, for example, okay, Rumble right now has become the alternative to YouTube among,

not just conservatives, but anyone who’s been deplatformed.

There’s a lot of leftists now.

There’s Locals.com that you invested in.

Yes, exactly.

I invested in Locals, which is Dave Rubin’s thing.

So, but just to take Rumble for a second, because it’s kind of the YouTube competitor,

you know, they’ve got something like 30 million users plus.

It’s a very, it’s a pretty big and growing audience.

But there is Locals.

There are other assets.

And you could, and I think the last valuation of Rumble, I think it was announced when Peter

Thiel actually invested, I think it was around a $500 million valuation.

Even if you paid a gigantic premium to that, I mean, if your market cap is 20 billion,

you could spend 2 billion on that.

You could spend 5 billion on that, you know?

And by the way, sorry, just to dispel this idea, you don’t need good UI

if you have the right feature set.

And Reddit is the perfect example where they’ve always been on the side of free speech.

And they’ve always been on the side of allowing people to vocalize and pursue their own passions.

Even if some of those things were really, you know, for the mainstream, beyond the pale,

their UI is terrible, but they have thrived because that single feature

dominates any desire for elegant UI.

And so, I think what you’re going to find over this next iteration of these apps is

how valuable free speech is.

And there are enough examples, whether it’s Rumble or Reddit or others,

that show you that the ability to not be censored dominates.

4chan, Discord, they’re all very similar.

It’s going to tweet.

It’s going to tweak.

Oh, my God.

The folks on the left are on super mega tip.

They did figure out how to do data analysis and marketing during his 2016 campaign.

And they did get that guy Pascal or whatever.

And they figured out Cambridge Analytica.

So they did figure out how to get some tech people, right?

Saks to, you know, by the way, can I just say one thing?

The other super tilting thing is people will want to fade this trade.

And, you know, they’re going to be silent.

They’re going to they’re going to be silently wishing for this thing to crater.

And I think there’s going to be a lot of profit taking on this because I think it’s very

speculative.

But I think we will all be shocked at the actual closing enterprise value when this

thing de SPACs because it will de SPAC.

And we’re all going to kind of scratch our heads thinking, how did we not see this?

I mean, I didn’t see this.

I would have never.

And there’s going to be at least a billion dollars of cash available when they do their

second at least, at least.

I mean, they can do whatever they want.

Yeah, they’re going to have more more cash available to them to invest.

And then you’re he is he is firmly back in the game.

And by the way, one of the comments Garamucci made this morning, it’s a very astute one,

which is I’m rooting for the SPAC because if this actually does de SPAC at this valuation,

Donald Trump is not running for president again, because he’s now got a $20 billion

media business or $20 million of equity value in this new media business that he’s going

to keep running.

Sax, what do you think?

That could be a win-win for the Republican Party.

But you’re buying the stock, you’re joining the board.

Sax is leading the B.

Yeah.

I mean, I think Chamath raised a good point that sites like Reddit have shown that

like a beautiful UI is not necessarily the feature that users want in every case.

I do think you still have to have some tech talent involved in order to produce a good

product.

Just to give you an example.

So this product wasn’t supposed to have its soft launch until next month.

But somehow, some users found a way to access the site.

And they were setting up accounts within hours of the announcement.

So one vandal claimed the at Donald J.

Trump handle and posted a picture of a pig with extremely large testicles.

Really?

Now, I would just submit that you at least need to have enough tech talent to prevent

something like that from happening.

Yes.

I mean, maybe it wasn’t a vandal.

I mean, maybe Trump posted that photo himself.

It’s not impossible.

It’s on brand.

But anyway, my point is they still have to assemble the tech talent to build this.

Or I like the idea better of just acquiring the collection of assets that they need.

And I think you’re right.

I think it’s multifaceted.

I think it’s a social network.

But a lot Twitter, I think it’s probably some sort of video not underestimate the number

of people in Wall Street, who are on the right, and who will help these guys make very good

decisions, even if they do it sort of, you know, quote, unquote, clandestinely, meaning

they’ll never be on the cover of helping them do a big M&A or whatever.

But there are there are a lot of those folks that will help make sure that this dispatch

cleanly, that they have access to capital, that they know how to go and raise and tap

the markets.

And what’s beautiful about the public markets, and you can say this is, you know, an issue,

but it’s not in this case, is that, you know, you can go on and basically support this guy

in a way that’s relatively anonymous, because it’s not like you have to disclose that you

own this stuff if you’re if you’re a private investor.

So I think that he’s back in the game in a big way.

And I think this is going to really shake up the media landscape, if they can execute

well, they just need to think about this as an M&A vehicle, not as an engineering and

product creation.

Yes, 100% agree.

100%.

Would you sell call in for a billion dollars in equity value at $100 a share to these guys

today?

Yes.

I can answer on his behalf.

Yes.

Yes, I mean, is that what you were doing?

I’ll take the 20x lift.

No, no.

I’ll take 20x in eight months.

Jake, you want to be my agent?

I think you have a quicker line to trump.

No, no, no, no, no.

I think actually, this might be like to Peter Thiel’s point, like, maybe don’t take the

product, literally, but take the market cap seriously.

Because this is a lot of if they can keep even a $5 billion market up, I do agree that

does make them dangerous in terms of buying assets.

And I do think they can get the first five, all of these right wing services get five

to he gets five to 10 million people to sign up for him, even his like signal.

He was at like a million, you know, very quickly.

He’s got like a signal or telegram group, I think.

And he got to me, he could buy maybe he could buy Ben Shapiro’s daily caller.

That’s a big media brand on the right that people listen.

Yeah.

Keep Ben Shapiro there to run it because Trump needs operators.

And the more disruptive thing isn’t to buy stuff on the right, it’s to buy stuff in the

center or even stuff on the left.

Again, it’s very hard.

If you’re a public company, it’s impossible.

Actually, if Trump Media Group now has a currency and tries to acquire assets, the directors

have a fiduciary responsibility to actually vote in favor of that deal, because they’re

not allowed to look at who the buyer is and say, No, we don’t want to do that.

So if he puts out a reasonable fair market offer price, you know, of the closing price,

plus 3035%, there is not a single public market director in the world, I don’t care

how democrat tick they are, or how much of a donor they are, they’ll always vote the

deal, because otherwise, they will get personally sued.

And that’s the liability in public markets.

So I would be very careful about this thing.

This thing is going to get really serious really quickly.

I wonder if there’s a tentpole media personality that he could acquire in the same way Spotify

got Joe Rogan and Netflix got Dave Chappelle.

Back to somebody they could offer $100 million.

They shouldn’t do that.

They should do what Saks just said, which is that, you know, that that list of like

the dumpster fire on Facebook every day, which is like Dan Buenigno, and Ben Shapiro, and

blah, blah, blah.

He should just go and get all those guys.

Yeah, that’s what I just said, round them up.

But I wonder if there’s like a comedian, you know, like, you know, Bill Maher’s obviously

hates him.

But then is there somebody in the middle who is like a notable comedian on the right Saks?

I’m not fully vetted on your buddies.

But who’s in that alt-right cohort that?

Well, I think there’s comics who are willing to be politically incorrect and non-woke.

So, I think, what’s his name?

Like Bill Burr or something like that, isn’t he?

Yeah, Bill Burr’s in that team Netflix.

But yeah, I wonder if a Bill Burr, he hates Trump, though, I think.

Or who is the guy who got canceled for exposing himself?

Louis CK.

Yeah, Louis CK.

Louis CK.

I mean, I’m not saying he’s conservative, right?

But, you know.

No, he’s not.

He’s available.

Both those guys hate him.

He’s highly available.

I mean, actually, one thing to think about is, you know, Trump got all these people to

do like the monthly $25 reoccurring subscription.

And he got in a little bit of trouble for that because people didn’t know they were

signing up for it.

But I wonder if he could get a million people or 5 million people to pay $10 a month for

the Saks.

Yeah, absolutely.

If there’s something there behind the curtain.

I mean, if it’s nothing but like, I don’t know, a newsletter of his extemporaneous tweets,

I don’t think so.

But if there’s real content there from people they care about, why wouldn’t they?

Wait a second.

What if he just did every Friday night, a rally on a video service where he just did

one of his two or three hour standup routines and had different people come up and talk

like his pillow guy and all of his other weirdos in his circle?

I think this could be like the Oprah Winfrey network where she may like anchor the Temple

show or something.

But there’s a lot of other creators on the network.

I think that’s the opportunity he has.

The question, quite frankly, though, is whether he’s operational enough to actually drive

to these outcomes.

I think it’s very easy for us to imagine what you could do with $20 billion and his

media brand.

And the question is just, does this get executed that way?

Now, it’s not going to be a real estate sugar guy from Florida that’s going to manage this

thing to an outcome.

Does Twitter then let him back on the platform if he has this competing platform?

Does Facebook?

How does that work?

No, I think at that point, they have the perfect excuse not to let him back on, which is like,

hey, we’re not censoring him because he’s there’s an alternative.

They don’t want to let him back on.

In a way, I guess you have to ask yourself if Twitter had let him come back on and gave

him his platform back after like a six month or a year timeout.

Would he even be doing this?

No, he says in he has a press announcement where he says that I mean, he says here that

Trump Media and Technology Group’s mission is to create a rival to the liberal media

consortium and fight back against the big tech companies in Silicon Valley, which have

user unilateral power to silence opposing voices in America.

This is what’s given him the opportunity is their censorship.

Their censorship just created a $20 billion war chest.

I mean, the most tilting thing of this whole conversation is it’s worth twice as much as

the New York Times.

So I’ve been saying on this show for over a year that censorship backfires in ways you

can’t expect.

You never think through the second and third order consequences of their censorship.

It’s like when Angela Merkel came out and said, hey, like, wait, did Twitter just

deplatform ahead of state?

Why are we depending on them?

I mean, there’s all these second or third order consequences they never think through.

And now they’re coming back to bite them in the ass.

Yeah, I mean, forcing people to get vaccines is now leading to whatever percentage of people

just retiring or, you know, or not coming back to work.

And that’s causing a bit of bedlam in the economy, as we talked about.

All these authoritarian tendencies create a backlash of some kind.

And if our ruling elites would just have a lighter hand, there’d be a lot less tension

in the country.

We had an interesting discussion last night at during, but I think it was on the other

side of the table.

So maybe you two didn’t hear it.

But we were talking about is Biden going to run again in 2024?

And what would that look like?

And I just said, I can’t imagine Biden in a debate three years from now, like, he doesn’t

seem I don’t want to be derogatory here, but he doesn’t seem very crisp the last time four

years later.

So what do we think?

Chances of Biden running in 2024 chances of Trump running in 2024 with all this information

and what would that look like?

Zero and zero.

You’re zero and zero.

Freeberg, you even care?

Nope.

Yeah, I didn’t think so.

Look, I mean, I think Trump’s gonna run this $20 billion media empire and gonna be happy

doing that.

I think if it’s not Biden, it’s gonna be a proxy.

So it’s not going to be too far off in terms of what the

you’re deep in this sax you’re hosting, as people were talking about on Twitter.

And you tilted all of San Francisco or 90% of it, you’re hosting

DeSantis for a fundraiser,

his first fundraiser for his reelection as governor.

He hasn’t said anything about his plans in 2024.

It’s way too early for that.

Do I think Biden or Trump could be on the ballot?

I think it’s 5050 for both of them.

All right.

But I would like to see but look, instead of having two 80 year olds running against each

other, I would like to see, say 240 something or just younger leaders, you know, giving

America a real choice.

All right, where do we want to jump off to now venture capital,

venture capital, because clearly sacks is is having extraordinary liquidity events at

11 o’clock at night on a Thursday night that freeberg money is not made is simply transferred

from one perception to another perception to another.

Wall Street speech.

Sax was like in his

monologues from Wall Street last night, he was leaving the poker table to go to into his

soundproof chamber that oversees his estate next to the poker room.

And from there, he was on his phone screaming, pacing back and forth, doing deals.

Gecko style.

He had his 300 pound trader next to him.

He was placing orders.

And something’s going on in the market.

I mean, sacks, you know, do tell.

But clearly, the venture liquidity

waterfall that’s going on right now is playing into a lot of it.

It is bonkers.

Wait, we got to show that chart.

Highlight the statistics, Jake, because it is truly extraordinary how much

liquidity venture firms are having this year.

All right, well, just to look at the value of US venture backed companies that went public

or were acquired 290 billion 280 billion in 19 and 20.

And then this year, 2021.

So far, we’re at 590 billion is literally doubled.

But if you look back, it was but 110 billion in 2018.

So we are now five, six x where we were five years ago.

And this is, again, the value of US venture backed companies that went public or acquired.

So the liquidity is bonkers.

And we’re seeing that in real estate, you know, jets being bought, whatever.

The VC industry has experienced three years of record breaking exits.

This is a Twitter user who tweeted it.

2021 is obviously smashing all those levels.

Yeah, I mean, for the last until the last three years, the previous 1520 years,

the exits per year were in this 50 to 100 billion range, then they’ve jumped up to 600

billion in the last year.

And in the previous two years, it was 300 billion each.

So yeah, I mean, it’s just more money has has been made, or distributed out in the

venture capital industry in the last three years, I think the previous 20 years combined, at least

the last three years.

Yeah, that doesn’t that doesn’t even factor in what’s happening in crypto, right?

And crypto is just I’m sure there’s some crypto in here, Coinbase is in here as

No, like, like, like, in my portfolio, as an example, like, you know, like venture returns,

which have which have been excellent across the board.

So forget mine, just everybody’s venture value kind of like slowly ticks up over time,

right?

Because like, you know, you’re doing this work, and then that work gets valued.

And then somebody else comes in and raises a new round.

And, you know, you hopefully can defend your prorata, yada, yada.

So it does create a lot of compounding value.

But it’s, you know, and it’s relatively fast.

But compared to crypto, it’s unbelievably slow.

Whereas in crypto, you know, quarter over quarter, you have these swings that I’ve I’ve

personally never ever seen, like I was telling you this story yesterday, we own something,

which I’m not going to tell you what it is, but it’s a crypto thing.

And our nav, I had to mark my book up a billion net asset value on that asset,

I had to mark it up, because, you know, we have to submit to our auditors and just keep

an accurate sense of what our book value is $1 billion in a quarter.

I’ve never seen that in my entire investing career.

And here’s how what it does to me and my whole team.

I have a budget for next year of how much I want to spend.

Instantly, that number goes up.

And what it really means is I’m probably just going to be getting the same ownership,

but I’m just going to be paying more for it.

And if I’m going through that, I think everybody’s going to go through it.

What it’s going to do is it’s like all of this, all of these returns are great.

All of these increases are great.

But I’m not sure that there’s going to be that much more progress.

There’s not necessarily going to be that many more startups, because it’s just harder and harder to

find good things in the same for the same number of GPS in a place.

And costs are going bananas, salaries are off the charts.

I don’t know if you guys saw but Stripe, for example, there was a tweet about how

Stripe starting to pay like starting engineers 280k.

I don’t know if that’s true or not.

But there was a tweet in Twitter.

And I thought to myself, my gosh, like 20 years ago, a starting engineering salary was 5060k

in the Bay Area.

And so you’ve seen this incredible price inflation.

So it’s actually quite good.

Again, it’s sort of what we talked about yesterday.

All of these gains eventually come back around and get recaptured.

And so I think like you’re starting to see the beginning of this really incredible cycle of

wealth transfer, essentially.

So the funds may make it.

But it’s going to come back to a question about the crypto stuff.

Is there any worry there that these valuations match reality?

Because you might have a very small float on these a lot of excitement, and they’re not

actually products being used by customers in the real world.

Here’s the thing I because it’s an internal permanent pool of capital, I have no legal

requirement to actually mark.

Okay.

But the reason we do it is because we want to track nav and AV and book value.

Okay.

And, you know, I compensate my team based on how well we compound book value.

But you’re right.

It’s a huge problem, because I don’t know how to get liquid on these things.

And so you see this thing sitting on your, your balance sheet.

And you’re like, what do we do with this?

How do you move it around?

You can’t, you cannot.

And so I would rather there’s a there’s a great guy.

He was an early pioneer of private equity.

And he had this phrase, which he said, like, you know, the best way to mark up a deal is

right at the end.

So if you put in, you know, $10 million into a Series A, if you could be allowed, the best

thing to do would be carry that at a $10 million value right until the minute you get liquid.

Because then you don’t go through the psychological rollercoaster ride of having to go through

these marks.

Because then when these marks come back down, Jason, to your point, there’ll be there’ll

be a quarter where we give back that billion dollars of that, maybe, you know,

I mean, what do we all do?

It’s a huge mindfuck.

Let me ask a question about valuation.

Saks, when you’re doing yours, because this came up when I was doing mine and marking

my funds.

If a secondary transaction occurs, and somebody buys calm or, you know, slack, or whatever,

it’s when it’s a private company at $10 a share, but the last time you purchased it,

or there was a funding two years ago, it was at $2 a share.

Where do you put the valuation at what the secondary market is trading it at, or what

you last paid for it, or somewhere in between those?

And who makes that decision, Saks?

What is the best practice on this?

Because secondary market transactions, people are actually making a transaction.

Right.

But is that as good as a venture firm, you know, plodding down and joining the board?

No, it’s not.

So first of all, you don’t want to be making these decisions ad hoc, you want to have a

policy.

So we have a written policy, and there’s a process for amending it if it ever needs to

be amended.

And what our policy does is it just uses the most recent preferred round to give us the

value of the shares.

And then there can be adjustments based on market conditions.

Like, we know that it’s usually on the downward, right?

Like, if a company we know has had a huge problem, they’re not going to fundraise again.

So there’s not going to be a new market anytime soon.

You’re saying it’s a zombie company, perhaps.

Yeah, if it’s a zombie company, we can mark it down.

But basically speaking, we use preferred financing valuations to set marks only.

Now, we do sometimes buy secondary shares, and there’s a methodology for putting a value

on them.

Usually, it’s basically what we buy them at.

And if we somehow otherwise own common, we’ll use the 409A.

That’s what we do too.

Yeah.

I think it’s a really, really clean policy.

You want to be conservative in these because nothing would be worse.

Yeah, I think you have to be accurate, not conservative.

Accurate, yeah.

Well, I mean, you could be, yeah, I guess the question is, like, you could see somebody

playing some games where, you know, you buy, you know, some shares at the, you own shares

in the company, you buy some shares in secondary, and now you’ve got two marks, right?

The embedded risk in venture capital has always been the following, which is that you have

money that goes in into the A. And there is an incentive today, especially because so

much money is trying to come in, where you want to drive as much growth as possible,

because then the B is at such a large step up that the IRRs look amazing.

And then the C looks greater than the B. So then everybody’s, quote, unquote, making paper

money, which allows you to create more incentives to raise more capital.

The problem with all of that is that if these valuations ever turn out to not be real, or

there’s a valuation reset, or there’s inflation, or the public markets don’t value growth stocks,

it takes a long time for it to work its way through the venture ecosystem.

And all of this liquidity will probably make it even more, quote, unquote, you know, violent when

it does happen, because it’ll eventually will happen. We’ll go through a rerating, like the

year 2000, who knows when it is and what the catalyst is. But that’s the real downside of not

of all of this is that it’ll eventually have a valuation reset that’s going to make this

super real for people. US venture capital funds have raised a combined 69.1 billion in 2020,

edging past the 2018. And a couple of these were because of Andreessen Horowitz,

doing a pair of mega funds with 4.5 billion in commitments recently. And so

it’s been just a tremendous amount of funds being made. And then to give you an example,

clubhouse went from 100 million to a billion to 4 billion in under 18 months evaluation led I think

each time by Andreessen Horowitz. So what you’re saying in an example like this, or in your

hypothetical example, and I’ll just make it a real world one. If they take though, and by the way,

these are 2021 2020 stats, I don’t know what the 2021 stats are. So those are old stats. There’s

probably many more. I think actually, I have the updated stats. Funds have raised 96 billion for

2021. That’s the most updated fairness to all of the venture capitalists. I think that they’re

doing exactly what they should be doing. And in fairness to all the crossover funds right now is

the time to be putting maximum money to work as fast as possible, not necessarily intelligently,

not necessarily in a concentrated way. But the real game if you want to play it at the

institutional level is to just put all the chips on the table, and then go back to the store and

get some more chips as quickly as possible, put them all on the table, come back and get more

so that when it all you know, is said and done, you have as many dollars working. And the worst

case is, you will return the average return of the market. And if that happens to be good, you’re you

look good. If it happens to be crappy, you’ll be no worse, better, worse off than anybody else.

But meanwhile, you will have collected enormous fees. And so that’s the point in the cycle we’re

at. And I think that anybody who’s doing it makes a ton of sense. I think it’s it’s a really logical

thing to be doing. The ones that have had big liquidity events are also retiring. I mean,

we’re seeing across the board GPs of these ultra successful funds that have returned 5x plus taken

their kid. Yeah, and they got their carried interest and they share their 20-25% share in

that and they walk away. But if you look at the value of all global public equities, it’s about

$100 trillion. And so if you’re seeing, let’s say that we’re raising $100 billion a year of

venture capital in these funds, and then you’re making a 2.5x average market return, which is

not normal, right? Let’s assume that’s the normal cycle we’re in right now.

That’s $250 billion of liquidity realized in a year out of $100 trillion of global public equities.

That’s only a quarter of a percent of the disruption of public equities. And think

about it. Technology is set up to disrupt all of these old school businesses that are public and

mature and scaled. And that’s what the $100 trillion represents. So it’s actually, looking

at it statistically, it’s not that unfounded that we’re only seeing a quarter percent market cap

disruption of public equities each year, because those public companies aren’t disrupting each

other generally, maybe to some extent they are, they’re getting disrupted by new companies that

are emerging, new startups. And so I don’t think that this is necessarily the peak, it may be

the beginning of a continuing disruption cycle that we’re going to see persist for the next decade or

two, especially as more of the old school industrial businesses, which make up a bulk of

that market cap, start to get disrupted, not just by software, but also by automation, by ESG angle

investing, by life sciences, and all these other kind of technologies that and these interests,

these market interests that are going to disrupt those old industries, I think we could even see

an acceleration from here. So, you know, I don’t think that this is necessarily peak, frenzied,

bubbled, low interest rate fueled outcomes. I think this may be kind of part of a longer term

trend that is statistically probably not that big a deal.

Saks, are you concerned about this peak bubbly market? Or do you think,

you know, like Chamath said, push all your chips in and raise as big a fund as you can. And,

you know, if the game is going to be played at these high stakes, you want to be at the table?

Well, I like what Freeburg said, I think it’s a super interesting point that this could just be

the beginning. Look, we live in an age of accelerating technological progress. So why

wouldn’t the returns from that accelerating technological progress also be accelerating?

You know, we had this thesis 20 years ago, when the internet first started that you had the new

economy replaced the old economy, it took a few years longer than people thought, but we are fully

there. And the number of new companies being created now is just exploding. There is a lot

of this the this liquidity that’s being generated is being now pumped into the next set of funds,

which will go to founders, they’ll be able to create more companies, they’ll be able to keep

more of those companies, because there’ll be less dilution. And then a lot of this wealth

is trickling, a lot of the VC money is trickling down into the competition for salary. So anybody,

really anywhere in the world who can learn how to write code, can now, you know, make a six

figure plus salary because of remote work. So all the salaries all over the world are equilibrating.

So I mean, this is an incredible pathway to prosperity for I mean, certainly the United

States, but really the whole world for humanity, for humanity, it’s really positive, assuming it

keeps going, assuming it’s not just totally liquidity driven. And, you know, I don’t know

exactly, you know, how all those macro forces will play out. But, but I mean, this seems very

positive overall. The other the other thing it’ll lead to just quickly is a change in who has

political power, because, you know, ultimately, you know, money is the mother’s milk of politics.

And the people who are making all these returns will eventually fund politicians. And, you know,

yeah, well, yeah, I’m one of them. Yeah. But look, I think there’s two kinds of like,

I’d say prototypes, politically speaking, for people in the technology world, you’ve kind of

got the sort of standard woke progressives who are funding a lot of this crazy stuff,

like decarceration cities, whatever, we talked about that before. But I also think there’s

another prototype that’s less loud, and they feel that they’re, they kind of keep their views more

to themselves, which is, I call them libertarians, who are sort of liberal on social values,

but libertarian on economic policy, they don’t like government regulations, certainly,

if they’re in the crypto world, they don’t like government regulations, they could see how they

create, you know, friction to progress. And they believe in markets and, and they will, I think

they’re gonna want to fund politicians who support that those types of things. So, you know,

I could be very positive, politically, in that respect.

What’s interesting, I just want to build on what you built on what Friedberg said, which is,

I think the best point you made was look on a global basis of the opportunity for an individual,

somebody who is, you know, graduating high school, college, they’re 18 1920 years old,

because of remote work, anybody can work from anywhere, technology companies have unlimited

resources, and they need an un never ending supply of developers, or even a salesperson,

a marketer, you know, back office, etc. And they can work from anywhere on the globe and make a

six figure salary, you know, whatever 5060 7080 k for one of these entry level jobs and sales.

And all the information on how to get those jobs is available for free from startups that have put

open courseware online or very free courses. Yet we’re looking at this massive technological

change. And the New York Times is position is that technology is destroying humanity and

polarization of wealth is destroying humanity. What we’re actually uncovering here is all of

this money being invested in these companies is giving an opportunity for people around the world

to get high paying jobs. Totally. And actually, can I can I can I mention a really interesting

item in that was just in Politico today, which is about Al Sharpton was lobbying in Congress

against changing the carried interest treatment. So remember, you know, all of us in VC,

make our compensation in the form of carried interest.

Explain what it is.

Well, it’s basically, you know, if a fund is in profits that you know, the VC will get the VC

is firm will get say 25% of the upside after they pay back all their LPs. That’s called the

carried interest. Because of the way that these partnerships are set up that is treated as a

capital gains as opposed to ordinary income, assuming it meets the holding periods of the

underlying assets. So there’s a big debate about whether you know, VCs and private equity people

should be paying ordinary income or long term cap gains on those returns. Al Sharpton was

lobbying against changing it because in this political Politico article, he was saying that

it would impede the efforts of black entrepreneurs to build lasting wealth if you jacked up the tax

rates, because there’s a lot of fund managers and you know, who, who are black, who are making a lot

of money now, and they don’t want to be subject to this change in treatment. So that was super

interesting. You know, this tech boom is not, it’s not exclusive. I mean, the tech industry gets this

rap as if it’s this highly exclusionary place. It’s not I mean, three of the people on this pod

right now are immigrants. So you know, the wealth that’s being created is not going to traditional

centers traditional, it’s not going to the heirs of, you know, Northeastern, you know, families

or something who’ve been sending their kids to Harvard and Princeton for generations,

it’s going to entirely new people who haven’t had this kind of wealth before.

Another positive externality of this wealth, all these massive gains that folks who have invested

in venture capital have gotten has caused one really interesting positive change. So Amherst,

which is a really exclusive liberal arts college in the northeast made so much money,

their endowment is so flush with cash, they basically eliminated legacy admittances,

which means if your parents got in, you were 70% likely to get into Amherst,

an equivalent kid whose parents didn’t go to Amherst had a less than 6% admit rate,

right. So huge disparity, basically said, if you were a legacy kid that exists,

you know, we all know this, it exists at Harvard, it exists at all these Ivy League schools.

But Amherst is now so has made so much money through VC investments, as an example,

they’re like, we’ve canceled admittances. So there’s there are there are some really positive

things that are happening with all this money that’s being made.

Al Sharpton’s rationale aside, anyone’s going to get wealthier, they’re paying less taxes.

So I think, you know, you’re broadly, yeah, you’re gonna see a bit of a focus on that point.

Obviously, which is why Freeberg, California was massively in the bonus, in terms of budget,

surplus and cash because of this issue. And they were spending money like drunken sailors.

Yeah, I mean, I just think you’re gonna hear a lot of positioning for, you know, the case. And by

the way, I think that, you know, building individual wealth creates, this is obviously a

philosophical point, but you know, it creates a greater path to prosperity for more people

through the spending that they’ll underdo and growing the economy, then, you know, they’re not

so I don’t know, I mean, I feel like the Al Sharpton point is a good one to kind of make,

but it’s a broader one than that. Well, I think, in my view, the broader

point about the Sharpton thing is that it shows that we talk about this group of rich people,

the wealthy, the millionaires and billionaires, as if it’s a static class of people, at least,

this is the progressive attack. It’s not. I mean, what Sharpton points to

is that this group is constantly changing, there’s new people getting rich.

So, when we talk about the rich, if it’s new people getting rich, what we’re really talking

about is success. And if you really want to ban people getting rich, I mean, you’re talking about

banning success, our country can’t be successful that way. We’re not going to be able to outcompete

China if we’re preventing success. And by the way, we can’t fund all these progressive programs

if we are, you know, hamstringing success. So, you know, I think this, what we’ve created here

with this highly entrepreneurial, free enterprise system that’s funded by venture capital,

this is the golden goose of the American economy. And the most important thing is that we don’t

break it. Sachs, it might just be we may have underestimated its power is what we’re sort of

realizing collectively here today is that we’ve always thought that this thing is hitting all

time highs, this might be the beginning. Right? Like, it feels like this is getting bigger. And,

you know, in going at a velocity that is different than even when we came into the industry,

you know, the amount of exits, the amount the scale of these companies, the Coinbases,

the Robinhoods, the Ubers, the slacks, I mean, these are giant companies making huge international

impacts. I think it’s either that or this whole thing is liquidity driven bubble. So it’s one of

the two. It’s both. It’s both. Well, I also think the the Sharpton thing is a very interesting

point that we can go back to maybe episode 25 or 20. When we started this podcast, which was

Trump got massive support from the black and Hispanic community because of this entrepreneurial

freedom, upward mobility pitch, the Republicans were making that’s the perfect pitch for the

Republicans, not this divisive, divisive, you know, shut the border down, but more,

hey, we want everybody to support it. And I thought, well, how crazy is it was Michael

Che? Did you want to just add on this? And I’ll give it to you, Chamath. Michael Che was on the

Breakfast Club when our friend was hosting SNL. And he said, I don’t know, I think white people

just don’t like their billionaires for some reason. It’s weird, because we love our billionaires.

If Oprah or Tyler Perry was coming, we’d be excited about it. And I met Michael Che there.

Michael Che was really excited. He’s a fan of Elon’s and like,

it was a really great conversation. They had so true. It’s so true. Like,

why are we hating people who are changing the world and helping?

Right? Because it’s not we it’s, it’s, frankly, it’s white,

woke progressives. They’re crazy. They’re the crazy ones.

I think conservatives and what you call woke progressives

are the same. I don’t think it’s about a political affinity. I think it’s about people feeling like

they don’t have the opportunity that others clearly were able to realize. And it is amplified

and magnified by social media that that basically shines a light on the success that people have had

in a way that we’ve never had in history before. And it creates a great deal of feeling like I’m

missing out and I’m being left out. And that’s what’s driving a lot of the discontent on both

the left and 100% it’s not it’s not a political point of view. I think it’s a social point of

view. And the great progress we’ve had and the great success we’ve had as a society over the

past couple of decades, is now being realized through this media in a way that’s kind of

driving emotional conditions for people that haven’t had the same level of success.

Maybe if they stopped tweeting and complaining and just learn some skills,

like your skill is complaining as the only as the only colored person on this pod, what I’ll tell

you is I it’s very rare that I meet a colored person that hates a successful other colored

person just doesn’t exist, guys, tell us more. It’s just one of these things where you know,

we were we’re all grinding. We all know how hard it is to be on the outside looking in.

If any one of us makes it, there’s a lot of support.

I mean, we see that.

That’s just what I felt.

South African Jews don’t feel that way.

No, I mean, we see that in the incoming emails and tweets to you, Chamath. You are inspiring

people in India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, we see it constantly, they come up to you at events.

And they’re like, hey, if Chamath can figure this out, I can do I’m about to do this thing

in Africa. And I’m going there in December. I can’t wait. And you know, we’re thinking of

just doing a couple of like, lectures, let’s do it lectures and talks. And these these places are

going to get rammed with people. And it’s like, it’s beautiful to see, like, yeah, I just think

that minorities like don’t hate on other people that are successful. It’s just not you’re going

to Africa in December. Yeah. Why don’t we do all in Africa? What are we doing? Like,

where are you going? I got some stuff. I got some stuff. I’m getting email constantly by people who

are starting startups in Africa. I want to go I’ve never been I really want you can come with

me in early December if you want. I’m in I’m 100% I have nothing to do. I’m here’s the thing that I

wanted to talk about. What is crazy and this is Jason to build on your Trump comment. We may be

facing a situation I’d love to get your guys’s reaction where Donald Trump in his first two

years of his presidency may actually have gotten more done than Biden will get done in his first

two years. And I just want your guys’s reaction and thoughts on how that’s possibly could be

because we have a democratic president, we have a democratic Congress, and we may not get anything

done. I can speak to that. Here’s your

the windup. I can’t believe that the way the progressives have done this reconciliation

bill. It’s been crazy. Okay, look, from the beginning, they’ve been saying Biden, the

administration, the Democrats have been saying we want to do the biggest package of tax expense

since the Great Society. Okay, but here’s the thing. If you want to do LBJ type things, you

got to have LBJ type majorities. They’ve got a 5050 Senate and a three seat margin in the house

LBJ when he passed the Great Society, he had like 69 senators, he had a filibuster, super majority

filibuster proof, super majority in the Senate, he had something like 150 seat margin in the house.

That is the kind of margins you need to pass Great Society like programs.

So instead of having, I’d say, ambitions that were reasonable, the administration coxes with

the progressives, they come together with this over four and a half billion of spending three

and a half in the social welfare, 1.2 trillion of infrastructure, and they wanted even more. Okay.

And then they’ve been trying to jam this thing and they never went to the center of the party

to cinema, to mansion and said, hey, what are you guys willing to do? And so somehow, I think

they thought they could just jam this thing through over the objections of these votes that

they absolutely need. And I think there’s really this mentality on the part of the progressive left

that I think they’re so used to jamming people with speech codes and cancellation and censorship

and COVID mandates that are not passed by legislatures, but have been imposed by EDIC.

I think they’re just used to jamming people and they think they’re going to shame people on Twitter

like these centers, like mansion, like cinema into voting their way.

Guess what? It doesn’t work that way. Twitter is not the real world. Eric Adams showed that

in New York. He won that election. Exactly. Dave Chappelle has a 95% approval rating. Okay.

The critics hate him. The vote progressives hate him. Guess what? You know how many people were

actually at that Dave Chappelle protest? Like three dozen. Okay. The progressives don’t have

the votes. What they should have done, and by the way, their conduct through the whole thing

has been insane. AOC has basically been saying, if you don’t give us everything we want,

we’re not voting for your $1.5 trillion vote. They overplayed their hands.

These guys have like Ace Jack off and they’re shoving.

They’re putting a gun to their head saying, hey, unless you give us three and a half billion,

we’re not going to vote for one billion. Really? You’re going to do that? How does that make sense?

Call their bluff. We know progressives will vote for every penny they can. What Biden should have

done if we had a more hands-on president who actually wants to get things done, and he knows

this from his time in the Senate, he should have gone to those swing senators as a group and said,

hey, what can we get done here? Not to AOC and Pelosi. They can’t deliver.

I mean, the promise of Biden, I’ll say, you know, as somebody who voted for Biden,

I’m a little disappointed was he was supposed to be moderate, and he was supposed to bring

people to the center. And it doesn’t feel like he’s actually to your point, you asked us what

we think. I have, I’m not regretting because Trump had to go. It was too much chaos. There

was just too much risk having him in there. So I am glad I voted for Biden.

But I am unhappy that he cannot build consensus down the middle and get the far left to just,

you know, pump the brakes. I understand they have passion for certain projects,

but just get something done moderately and in a phased approach. Why does this have to be so huge

and confusing? Do a smaller thing three times.

Sachs is exposing what we may not know, which is that progressives are very loud,

but they may not actually represent a plurality of people. So for example, in the Netflix protest,

I saw a video, and there was about two dozen people, you know, and one person actually had

tweeted, Hey, I never even showed up to the office yet. But now I’m showing up to walk out of the

office. But then what happened was there were some other people that showed up and in the middle of

the protest, they had a sign that said, you know, jokes are funny. I like jokes. And then everybody

started chanting that. Then a black woman got up and she started to say Black Lives Matter. And then

everybody got confused and started to chant Black Lives Matter. And then they were all looking around

each other trying to find direction in this protest. And it became somewhat directionless.

And I think this is what you know, we’re now realizing is that, you know, remember what like

as managers in corporations, we’ve all heard this term, the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

But it may actually be the case that the squeaky wheel shouldn’t get the grease because it’s a

head fake, and we’re going to get lost in misdirection. Another example of this, there’s a

guy Dorian Abbott, and I wanted to talk about this as well. This is a guy who’s an acclaimed climate

professor. Okay, let me just give you the whole story. I’m just going to read to you. Because I

think it’s interesting. The first couple paragraphs of the story from the New York Times. MIT invites

geophysicist Dorian Abbott to give a prestigious public lecture this autumn. He seemed a natural

choice. He’s a scientific star who studies climate change, and whether planets and distant

solar systems might harbor atmospheres conducive to life. Then a swell of angry resistance arose.

Some faculty members and grad students argued that Dr. Abbott, who’s a profit University of Chicago,

had created harm by speaking out against aspects of affirmative action and diversity. Because in

videos and opinion pieces, he wants people and members of groups rather than as individuals.

He basically favors a diverse pool of applicants selected on merit. So but he said his planned

lecture at MIT was about climate science and to help people understand climate change,

and would make no mention of his views on affirmative action. But his opponents argued

that he was infuriating, inappropriate and oppressive. And so they canceled the lecture.

Now, here’s the question I have here. That’s another example of all of this stuff.

Are we better off with, let’s just say there’s 100 grad students, 100 brilliant minds at MIT,

being pushed to think even more specifically about climate change by an expert who can do that?

Or are we better off finding some more middle of the road person who may be not be as intellectually

ambitious around climate change, but has a whole bunch of other views not related to climate change

that are more palatable? And what does that do? For all of us, including probably all these people

who probably want a solution to climate change, but who have now held back the ability to teach

these kids? What do we do? What do we think about that kind of stuff? And this is where again,

the squeaky wheel in this case did get the grease. But are we actually better off in this example,

Friedberg diversity of thought drives successful outcomes?

All right, thanks for coming in for the all in podcast. We’re telling you shit you already know.

I mean, like, what are we talking about yourself, people listen to a bunch of opinions.

And if somebody says something you don’t like or challenges you to learn or grow or for you to make

a blog post or do your own stand up special, give your own talk that challenges their debate like we

do here every week. Right. But the same thing happened with that. What’s that ultra conservative

young guy sacks who went to Berkeley a few years ago, and they blocked him from joining the campus.

No, no, no, the Greek name, Greek name, you know, monopolist. Milo Yiannopoulos. He’s the right

wing guy, the gay provider. But here we’re talking about an expert in climate change,

giving a lecture about climate change to grad students who could then go and solve climate

change for the all of the world. I mean, this is MIT and U Chicago, which are probably two of the

smartest institutions of people in the world. Right? He’s not saying anything politically

offensive. It’s just that his unrelated views, they view they think are anathema,

and therefore they’re going to protest and block him. And of course, you know,

they always use the language of safetyism, which is Oh, well, if you allow this person on campus,

it threatens my safety. Really? This person’s a physical threat to you? No, he threatens my

self conception. Really? He said something that, you know, he’s gonna talk about something that

offends, you know, it’s just that, you know, he said things that that threatened my view of the

world. So my safety is jeopardized. I mean, this is this is literally the language that’s being

used now. I mean, free works reaction to it is Yeah, this is so obvious that we don’t need to

discuss it. But it’s not so obvious that it’s not taking place. It’s happening. It’s happening.

It’s happening. You know, what I find the most disappointing about the whole Netflix situation is

I thought Dave Chappelle, you know, even though maybe the special wasn’t as funny as other ones,

I thought it made you think in such a incredible way. And I was actually read that I looked up the

transcript, and I read the transcript, so I could think more about it, and try to form an opinion

about this turf issue and trans people and, you know, people punching up punching down and comedy,

it made me think. And then the entire discussion about this is just people walking out and

no discussion about what he actually said. And that to me is just a little bit of a tell like

if you are so upset about what he said, well, where is the transcript of what he said, break

it down sentence by sentence and tell us exactly what he got wrong and why so that we can continue

the discussion. The Netflix walkout and how this thing has unfolded. The reason it’s so unproductive

is because they’re not moving the discussion forward. They’re not actually listening to what

Chappelle said. And spoiler alert, if you haven’t seen it yet, I’m going to talk a little bit about

the what was in it. He talked about his friendship with a trans person who was a comedian, and how he

and she had these incredible discussions and learned a lot from each other and how she was

dragged on Twitter, and a lot of tragic outcomes. And I’ll leave it at that. But there was no

discussion about his relationship with that woman who had a tragic fate. And the substance of what

he said, Did you notice that come off that there’s no discussion about the actual words and

points that Dave Chappelle made that shows you that this is a disingenuous or a broken discussion?

Yeah, I just I just think that the problems that we have as a society are really big.

Friedberg talked about it, we have inequality problems, we have climate change problems.

You know, we have problems of sort of like systemic health issues. These are all fixable.

And I think that this other stuff is getting in the way of people getting organized to solve those

issues. 100%. And I think that that frustrates me, I would have really, I’m not sure I agree with

this guy’s views on affirmative action. Let me just be clear. I’m kind of, I think, on the margins,

affirmative action is actually, it levels the playing field. And so I support it. But I also

sort of the fact that if this guy is a brilliant geophysicist, and he’s already proven that I would

want my kids to be taught climate science from him. Sure. I don’t, I don’t think he’s out there

to try to like peddle his affirmative action views, you know, to a bunch of other physicists.

I don’t think that’s what he’s doing. No, that’s not what he’s celebrated life’s work. And so

I don’t care. I would want all of those really brilliant kids at MIT to have to be one step

closer to proposing a solution to climate change. I think that’s a pervasive global issue.

I mean, we don’t have the ability to prioritize these things. And, and that’s what’s just so

sad. We’re not gonna have an honest conversation about climate change, because we can’t have that

expert give us talk. And I don’t think we’re to Jason’s point, I don’t think we’re having an

honest conversation about the Chappelle special. I don’t think any of us believe that Chappelle

hates LGBTQ people, or I don’t think anyone in the audience thinks that and I think you have to

deliberately misinterpret what Chappelle is thinking or saying in order to believe

that his message is hate. I don’t think it is. Now, what I think the Chappelle special represents

a threat to is perhaps this idea of intersectionality that all of these oppressed

groups have to be on the same team. What he seems to be saying is there’s a group

of what he’s kind of making fun of is that there’s this group of sort of pampered, rich, white,

LGBTQ people who have made enormous progress. I mean, doesn’t he say at one point in the special

that, you know, I wish my community, you know, black people could have made as much progress

in 40 years in terms of acceptance as this group has. And yet this group now wants us to

immediately adopt all of their language and sensibilities and punches down, talks down to us

if we don’t. I mean, that’s kind of the point he’s making is he’s kind of revealing a little

bit of a rift between these between these two groups that are supposed to, by the way,

if you saw the clip of the protest, that rift was actually in display, because everybody got

confused about what they were supposed to support, because you had one set of chance, and then you

had jokes are funny chance. And then you had BLM chance from completely different cohorts of people.

And it just became a chaos. Well, I mean, everybody’s opinion must be put through the lens

of how many oppressed groups they’re from, you know, obesity, I’m black, I’m gay, I’m trans, I’m

short, whatever. I mean, like, how do we have, how do you even navigate a discussion

intelligently? If I have to say, okay, you’re Sri Lankan, but you’re rich Chamath and Friedberg’s

got Asperger’s, but he’s really smart about what I mean, it’s like, just make your point. And let’s

have an honest discussion about it. And why are we so upset about this special, when in China,

you know, we’ve got a million people, Uyghurs being sterilized and tortured. And then I don’t

know if you saw this week, Xi Jinping is saying, like, he wants to get rid of the sissy people,

a sissy man in is a term he’s using in China, right? They literally

media rules against effeminate men. Yeah, I mean, well, why are we not protesting that?

Well, we saw this in the Middle East as well. The real threat to LGBTQ people

are these authoritarian governments that really want to oppress, you know,

and murder gay people. Absolutely. Yeah. I mean, Chappelle is not the threat. I think,

I think Chappelle had to be silenced because what he’s saying is actually very heretical

to the progressive left, which is that not all of these groups are on the same page. And they,

again, they believe in this idea of intersectionality, that all of these groups

have to basically be on the same page. And actually, the more oppressed groups that you’re

part of, the more elevated you are. And so this idea that there could be a schism actually is

something they want to silence. Yeah, I mean, Chappelle’s quote, I don’t disagree with the

trans movement. I just agree with the way they’re going about it was his kind of point. And he’s

again, let me speak on as a, as a, as a colored person who grew up in a minority family,

you know, I would love to tell you that my parents were super, super open minded,

but that would be a lie. And, you know, I love them to death. And I think they tried their best.

But you know, they came with a ton of fucking baggage, and a ton of stereotypes. And you know,

I don’t think that my parents would have been the most supportive of other minorities,

whether it’s color or sexual orientation or ever, and it was a it was a lot of like,

very complicated conversations to explain to them how to see the world differently. And,

you know, that’s what happened when you pluck them out of a third world country and drop them

into Canada. And, you know, I think that my parents came far a very long way. I remember,

you know, when when I first started, you know, dating my ex wife, it’s like, it was a very

complicated thing for them to see me dating an Asian woman. Very complicated. They didn’t

understand. And then it was like, Well, do you do you want me to marry or date Sri Lankan? And

they were like, Yes, but as long as she’s not Muslim, and it’s like, What the hell are you

are you saying this? And, and so I’m just trying to tell you that this idea of intersectionality,

it does play out in a lot of our lives, because we all come from families, especially our aging

parents. Oh, my God. Yeah. Our grandparents, there were some, I mean, I love my parents. I’ll be

honest with you. They’re, you know, they try their best, but man, the thing that’s gotten me

particularly saddened or tilted, or just, you know, the thing that just sort of hits me is

we’ve made so much progress in so many ways as a society, yet we don’t celebrate that. And we

seem incredibly focused on marginal issues, to your point, Chamath, that are not global warming,

that are not education, that are that are not, you know, international relations and geopolitics,

you know, like there’s economic empowerment, there’s so many things that we could be focused

on that would actually make change that arguing about

and it would unite Kevin Hart on the office, you know, but it would unite people. That’s what I

guess. So that’s what I think is such a great opportunity. If we all collectively came together

and focused on a bigger enemy, right, climate change, climate change, governments, I think

you’d find much more accepting of each other, because we would have a common shared goal.

And then we would find commonality and achieving it.

Yeah. So Jake, Bill Maher invented a word to describe what you’re saying,

which is progressive phobia, which is it’s the reluctance to admit any progress because of the

fear that if you do admit progress, then that means that you will lack a justification for

all these, you know, progressive programs that people want. And so they have to make

the situations always seem as dire as possible in order to scare people into a certain agenda.

But yeah, there’s a, you know, unwillingness to admit how much progress we’ve made in so many

areas. The time they tried to cancel me was because I said on Twitter, isn’t it amazing that

every single skill you want to learn right now, and including the high paying jobs is now available

for free on MIT courseware, and anybody can learn this stuff for free. And you used to have to pay

$50,000 a year and get accepted into these, you know, Ivy League programs. But now all that

information is free. And all we need to do is expose people to it and give them the motivation,

the time to do and they were like, How could you say that, you know, people are not able to do it.

And I was like, and then a bunch of people replied, who were people of color or people who

were poor and said, I actually learned to code on the MIT website, I learned artificial intelligence,

I learned, I got my degree in, you know, social media marketing, or whatever at this website,

you to me that website, other treehouse. And all these people were saying, Yeah, I learned all

these skills. And I went from making working at Walmart to making 60k a year 70k a year. And

then there was this big fight, like, are you going to cancel me for saying there’s more

opportunity now than ever. And I hold that position, there is more opportunity now for

you to learn a skill and get a high paying job than in the history of humanity. The system is

more fair now than ever. Yeah, I was gonna say with that, in the in the world of in the world of

progress, there are some amazing innovations every day this week. And I put this in the chat,

and Nick, you can post the article. There was a gentleman in at the NYC and NYU Langone Center of

Medicine, who transplanted a pig kidney into a human and had that human kidney or basically had

that pig kidney not get rejected. Now, this was a person that was brain dead. And I guess, you know,

the family, you know, God bless them, donated this person’s body to science effectively,

they were kept alive, but then they were able to transplant the kidney in. And they were able

to see the urine production and creatinine production. And all of a sudden, now,

there is a chance that we could actually use pigs, genetically engineered pigs,

as a basis for us to basically get kidneys, hearts, lungs. That is incredible.

Freebird. So to your point, Saks, that is happening still every day. And we don’t talk

enough about it, because we’re up in arms about Dave Chabot.

Freebird, tell us, you know, if that in 10 years, what that looks like,

and the impact it has on society, if we take that pig transplant, and we just 10x it from now,

put a couple billion dollars behind it, what does it look like in a decade?

Well, I think there’s other techniques that are being developed that you could actually

generate actual human organs, using, you know, basis of induced, these induced pluripotent stem

cells. And regardless of the path, I do think like availability of organ transplants is going to

go up like crazy. The big infrastructure and technical challenge we still face is

we’ve got to build these GMP facilities to make all of these cell-based therapies,

not just organs, but also other cell-based therapies that are becoming the mainstay of

the future of medicine, personalized medicine for humans. And so, there’s also this tremendous

infrastructure opportunity. We’ve talked a lot about infrastructure in biomanufacturing broadly,

and other life sciences opportunities, but there’s a tremendous infrastructure opportunity

to build out facilities that can produce these therapies. And the therapy can be an organ or

a cell-based therapy that can target cancer in your body or what have you. And so, you can kind

of think about, look, we’ve resolved the science. Now we’ve also resolved the engineering. The next

step is to build it, right? And so, this is like, you know, the build decade or the build decades

globally for where the intersection of software and biology has enabled these incredible breakthroughs

in human health and manufacturing and food. And now the infrastructure needs are there. I’ve said

this before, I do think this is where we have the biggest gap in terms of infrastructure needs

and the biggest opportunity to kind of fill those needs. And if I were to kind of be in Congress or

be president, I would say this is the number one priority for an infrastructure bill. Because once

you get this going, it’s going to change lives and it’s going to change the economy.

So, high speed rail, costing us 50 billion, 100 billion versus this.

Yeah, yeah. We could build a bunch of GMC facilities or a bunch of biomanufacturing

facilities, a lot of stuff that we could build that would, you know, pay back within years

and have a huge outcome. Private markets maybe will meet this demand, but I think you gotta

you gotta kickstart this stuff. The economics are going to be unfeasible for a while.

If you want to get a CAR T therapy, which is a type of therapy that’s personal, you know,

personalized CAR T therapies today, your cost is about $450,000. You know, a local university here,

I was speaking with one of their lead doctors the other day, they built their own GMP facility

at a cost of $50 million and they can now get the therapies down to $40,000 per patient.

But they can only serve 250 patients a year using that kind of 90% cost reduction.

So, you can kind of see like, as you build these systems, and this is built locally by

a university, right? It’s not built for industrial scale. These guys aren’t commercial operators on

these facilities. So, if you start to build these facilities from a commercial point of view,

and you can bootstrap some of these things and this infrastructure costs,

very quickly, the cost becomes so low that you see these technologies proliferate.

And I think we should see that both, you know, this organ transplant one is a great case study,

cell based therapies, biomanufacturing, all sorts of opportunity.

You keep saying GMP facility.

Sorry, good manufacturing. Yeah, it’s, you know, if you’re gonna make cells that are gonna go in

your body, there’s incredibly stringent requirements on the safety and the cleanliness

and the practices that go on in that facility. So, these quote unquote, GMP facilities have a very

specific criteria of how you how you build and how you operate them.

They’re just highly, they’re high quality facilities is what you’re saying.

Yeah, think about like a clean room to make semiconductors, except in this case,

you’re making cells that you’re putting in your body. So, you got to be really careful.

All right, everybody, it’s been 70 minutes, 75 minutes, 80 minutes. Anybody have any last

minute plugs for products that they want to disguise as a compliment to another bestie?

I still think we should launch bestie coin, the all in coin and monetize the online podcast. We

were talking about this at poker last night. No monetization.

NFTs.

No, bestie. Bestie coin would be incredible.

I think I want to tell you about this guy, Lee Jackie, who’s known as the lipstick king in China.

He did a 12 hour live stream on Wednesday on Taobao. 250 million people tuned in he sold

$1.7 billion a product. So basically the equivalent of the entire adult population

in America. Watch this. Isn’t that incredible? That’s amazing.

That is just incredible. So that’s QVC. And as if in two and a half times the people who watch

the Super Bowl, it’s two and a half Super Bowls Jackie, the lipstick king, the lipstick king.

Guys, we haven’t had Monty on the show in a while. Let me bring him up. Oh,

Monty. Get him to the mic. Oh, Monty. Yeah. Anything you want to say?

Some Monty fan service. For those of you asking about the all in summit, we are looking at

locations in Miami. And we will have news shortly. If you want to sign up for the email,

when are we doing this thing? We’re gonna look at March, April, May,

but we’re gonna do a we’re gonna do an LA show in January.

We’re gonna do a live all in podcast at the upfront summit, Mark sisters event in LA.

But that’s like a closed event. And then the all in summit, you can go sign up for email updates,

summit.all in podcast.co summit.all in podcast.co. We’re not looking for volunteers. We’re not

looking for event planners. We have all the spaces in Miami, we could possibly know every

single person’s email just thanks to the fans for giving us every piece of information. Right now,

it’s just about dates, dates, dates, we got to find a two day date. And then whatever place we

use like Faina, the new world, the Jackie Gleason theater, there’s so many great facilities there

that have reached out to us. Once we pick the facility, we’ll know what the facility capacity

is. Some of them can fit 2000 people, some can fit 250. When we figure that out, then we’ll figure

out ticketing and get people there this time next week, both Friedberg and I may have kids.

Ah, it’s muscle. So are we are we skipping next week?

No, I’m actually not giving birth. I don’t know about you. But

no, we got to get pictures. And yeah, it’s gonna be incredible. Well, congratulations,

guys. And if this Africa trip is coming, I was Africa trip is happening.

I can’t wait. Do you what countries are you thinking about tagging along?

Of course. This is my life. I have my own. What’s the point of having my own schedule

and a bunch of powerful friends who are traveling the world doing interesting shit.

I’m the ultimate wingman.

Your motto is private jet will travel.

I’m a wingman, professional wingman as a service.

Kenya, Nigeria, Ghana, and there may be a couple of other wingman as a service.

That’s if you need to somebody fun with you for a couple of, you know, touchdowns, takeoffs,

wingman as a service.

He’s leaving with something.

I’ll bring Sonny as my body double.

Send Sonny in another escalade.

Paparazzi follow him and then we go to a little

Honda Accord and you go to the actual events.

I can’t wait. Actually, I’m super excited.

Oh, that’s gonna be fun. Yeah, man, get your passport. Let’s get to cut deck of cards.

Oh, actually, you know, that’ll be great. You can we can do a couple of fireside chats,

big fireside chats.

100% will take it on the road.

Yeah, for sure.

All right, everybody.

All right, boys, I love you.

Good luck, bro. Good luck.

And for the Queen of Kenoa, Rain Man, David Sachs.

Bye-bye.

Let your winners ride.

Rain Man, David Sachs.

We open source it to the fans and they’ve just gone crazy with it.

Love you, West.

The Queen of Kenoa.

I’m going all in.

Let your winners ride.

Let your winners ride.

Let your winners ride.

Besties are gone.

That’s my dog taking a notice in your driveway.

Oh, man.

Oh, man.

We should all just get a room and just have one big huge orgy because they’re all just useless.

It’s like this like sexual tension that we just need to release somehow.

Wet the beak.

Wet your beak.

We need to get merch.

Besties are back.

I’m going all in.

I’m going all in.