It was very interesting going to Sax’s kid’s birthday party.

Freeberg and I were there for about two or three hours. Sax showed up for the last half hour.

I think I was there for two hours and didn’t see Sax. And then I saw him on my way out the door.

But he had some YouTubers there who were pretty cool.

Yeah. Papa Jake and Logan. Thank you.

Papa Jake was great.

Yeah. You know, they have 7 million followers on YouTube. Eat your heart out, J Cal.

How many times bigger is Papa Jake than you?

Business and podcasting on YouTube is a new concept, long form.

And long form is not what the algorithm is designed for.

It’s obviously designed for short form and people getting to completion.

So getting to completion on a 90 minute video.

Are we talking about lovemaking again? Sorry.

Oh, God. Jesus. When I say completion, it’s not.

We need an HR department at All In.

Yeah. I prefer the short form format for that too.

Oh, God.

These are called open folks.

Hey, everybody. Welcome to another episode of the All In podcast. It’s episode 56.

We’ve made it past 55. The show, the band is still together.

Coming to you every Friday night far too late,

because the Rain Man obsesses over every edit in the podcast.

With us again, the All In Scorsese himself, David Rain Man Sacks,

and the Queen of Quinoa, the Sultan of Science, David Friedberg is here.

And with a power sweater that cost more…

No, turtleneck, turtleneck, turtleneck.

I’m sorry, a power turtleneck that cost more than your mortgage payment this month,

the dictator himself, Chamath Palihapitiya.

I’m Jay Cal. It was a pretty incredible week. I think we have to pander to the cryptocurrency

crowd because that’s just making ratings go through the roof here. I am absolutely

inspired by what we saw this week, with the Constitution Dow forming in about a week and

going from $1 or $2 million to $46 million raised through a Dow. If you don’t know

what these decentralized autonomous organizations are, it’s basically analogous to a corporate

structure, but that’s written in code. So you can get a group of people together,

typically in a discord. Then you create a smart contract. They collect in a wallet,

a bunch of ETH or it’s typically ETH right now. And then you get some kind of governance

written into the Dow, where people get voting power. They brought this together to bid on one

of 13 copies of the original Constitution of the United States. And it was a very controversial

moment last night, when 80% of the money was raised in the last 48 hours. And there was this

crazy auction going back and forth. With two representatives of Sotheby’s on the phone,

it hit $41 million. Everybody thought that the Dow had won, which would have mean would have meant

that almost 20,000 people who participated in this would then vote on what to do with this

$41 million offer. Coindesk incorrectly reported that the Dow won. And then the Dow announced that

they had in fact, not some other statistics. Their Twitter has 36,000 followers. The group reported

they needed 14 million to participate 30 million to be competitive and 40 million to have a great

chance of winning. They raised like, I think six or 7 million while they were on the air, you know,

and the auction had started. And the only downside to all of this is that there were huge gas fees,

people were spending 30 4050 bucks to donate 200, which was the average size of these.

Yeah, they should have done it on Solana.

All right, so here we go talking our own book again. Now we got somebody’s gonna clip this out.

Here we go.

What are you gonna do with your copy of the Constitution?

You know, it’s so funny.

We’re gonna auction it back to the day when you’re gonna burn it and make an NFT out of it.

So it’s funny. I did buy something at these auctions.

Yesterday’s

quite unique. I will I will not comment on what it was. But was it that turtleneck?

No, but

Banksy.

Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. But I did. So but I watched these auctions closely,

I guess is what I’m trying to say. And I was surprised that the US Constitution for sold so

little, you know, for a basically like the Magna Carta of the best startup that’s ever been created.

Well, but there’s 13 of them, right? So on a market cap basis,

on a market cap basis, you got multiplied by 13.

Yeah, great. 13 times 40.

It wasn’t one of the originals. It was the printing after the original was signed.

We have a 20. We’ve created a $22 trillion a year startup that keeps compounding by

45% a year. I would have thought these things would be worth, you know, a couple 100 million each.

Well, there’s a lot of there’s a lot of US memorabilia. But yeah, I mean,

but what I don’t understand.

It means the US Constitution, David is not as it’s not worth as much as it used to be.

That’s well, you know, you got other you got you got the original.

There’s a lot of documents, you got the Declaration of Independence, you got,

you know, the Gettysburg Address, there’s time a dozen, the Tea Party memo,

I actually think Citizens United technically, guys, the Citizens United, if it was written not

one time, in one document by the Supreme Court, that would be worth much more than 40 million,

because it’s basically invalidated most of the Constitution.

Well, here’s one of the interesting things that happened here.

David, David, wait, David, acknowledge that what I just said is true.

No, I don’t understand what you just said.

But I just said, if you had printed the Citizens United verdict from the Supreme Court on a piece

of that would be worth more than $40 million. It was it was like democracy 2.0 is what you’re

saying. I don’t understand why people are getting so swept up in this thing. It’s kind of my neither.

Me neither. That’s what you guys are missing is this is a critical moment in the history

of cryptocurrencies, because the first three major use cases of cryptocurrency were kind of

you had money transfer, which is not as good as PayPal or Venmo or many other solutions.

No, Jason, I think you had store of value, hold on, let me finish store of value,

which is like, who cares? It’s plain waste to store value. And then NFTs got interesting,

but these DAOs are absolutely game changing the ability to have $47 million show up

and be prepared to be deployed in 48 hours. That’s not what you’re saying.

You ever hear of an ICO? ICOs were illegal, and they’ve been banned.

And how is DAO any different? I mean, because DAOs have governance,

DAOs have governance, and it’s a programmable governance. It’s a programmable corporate entity.

It is huge. If these things transfer ownership interest, they will be regulated like securities.

Of course, that is a very important point. And in this particular model,

the idea was it would all be kind of part of a nonprofit and it would not be kind of

owned by anyone. They were donations, in fact.

They were donations. And so as soon as these DAOs, which they should,

and it’s an incredibly powerful tool, if it does actually become a security instrument,

then it changes everything. And it is going to be that.

My whole thing is like, it’s one thing outside the US first, right? And then it’ll be crypto,

ex US crypto investments that are going to drive this. And that’s why the US is going to be left

behind. Here’s what you’re missing. These DAOs are pushing the envelope in the same way Airbnb

and Uber did in terms of, you know, bending the rules about ride sharing or renting your extra

room. These DAOs are kind of breaking securities laws, they were telling people were buying the

Constitution, people who donated thought they were buying part of it. We’re not missing the point.

So okay, but here’s the thing. If they bend the rules like this, what they showed to the SEC is

that there is a huge appetite for people to quickly form groups of capital at low dollar

amounts to do something important or interesting in the world. And Americans now have a taste of

that. They’re going to continue to have a taste of it. And I think it’s gonna force the accreditation

laws to change. I disagree. I think that what it showed is that this is yet another explanation

of fractionalized ownership that demand existed well before DAOs.

Totally. It’s it exists today, it’ll exist tomorrow,

a DAO was just yet another on-ramp. But much like most fractional ownerships

are terrible financial trades for crappy assets, so was this. So said differently,

if you’re going to spend the time to open a Robinhood or E-Trade account,

it still matters whether you buy a share of Lycos or a share of Google.

Right.

Okay. And so whether you do a DAO or whether you have an LLC, to me, it’s irrelevant. The underlying

asset didn’t make any sense, had zero chance, in my opinion, of any meaningful appreciation.

And so if you really want to make something work, and if you want to prove the DAO,

then I would have hoped that they would have actually asked a few smart people, Hey, guys,

people who buy art, people who know crypto, what are some assets that I should own? Because if

this does appreciate, you’ll do more to prove the questions that you beat them out on the

so obviously, the value is greater than what the DAO thought it was.

Jason, you’re like an accredited investor. This is non accredited investors who are doing this.

I know. And that that unsophistication was clear. The stupidest thing you can do if you enter an

auction, okay, is to declare how you’re going to be an underbidder. So like, it’s basically saying,

Hey, guys, you know, here’s my top tick. And I’m willing to be and I can and so now you force these

guys to be the underbidder at $1 over there. That’s fine. That’s a mechanical issue.

Saks, what do you think?

Well, I wonder, I wonder if the reason why they chose this particular type of asset is because

it’s collectible, and therefore explicitly excluded from the securities laws. So basically,

you know, that maybe maybe they’re limited in terms of what they can go after, because they don’t

want to be a security. But until but if that’s the case, then it does limit, I think the

applicability of DAOs, right? Because what you want is, is to create corporations that are

programmable, that you can have shareholder votes through the tokens, yeah, things like that,

you know, basically a digital version of what they do analog in the real world with,

you know, share certificate, shareholder meetings and stuff like that, that nobody ever attends.

Yeah, that nobody, nobody ever attends each other meetings. And, you know, I get these notices of

votes that are to be held. Nobody ever feels Yeah, no one fills that stuff out.

When people have super share, super voting, and so you feel like you have no say,

but in this case, you do have a say, and they’re going to do assets like, imagine somebody had

10,000 acres of rainforest or a national potential National Park. And all of a sudden,

you pop up a DAO. And if the SEC says, you know what, $500 or less, you can bet your money,

however you want, hold on, let me finish. And they take that $500. And you get a million people to put

$500 in which is completely conceivable. Somebody could buy $500 million worth of national forest

and say, I’m going to make this into a public trust to protect the environment. This is on the

brink of changing the world ICOs, you could have the exact same thing. No governance, they had no

governance that was missing. What was the benefit? Hold on ICOs were for the benefit of the scumbags

who did those grifts and ran away with the money. This is an organization with a predetermined

governance structure. This is like creating a new country or a new format for an LLC. That’s

what you’re missing. Okay, are you done? Yes. What you’re missing? You’re painting the optimistic

scenario of what these things could do. And you’re correct. But what’s always happened in

the history of humanity is these scenarios have resolved to people figuring out ways to scam

other people to make money. Sure. While this one looks all true, it’s just like, let me finish

without interrupting. Thank you. But just like, you know, this looks like a great altruistic

action, we’re going to go out and buy the USS Constitution, US Constitution, the next deal

will end up being some shitty art piece that’s worth 100 grand, as Chamath points out, they’ll

buy it for 10 million, everyone will lose their ass. And the next 500 will look the same. And

that’s why we have securities regulators and security laws. Because in the past, when these

sorts of structures that weren’t digitally governed and all this sort of stuff, and people

would go around and they would put together pools of money from other people and promise them the

world. And then they would turn around and steal their money and walk away. We created securities

regulators that could oversee and not have independent governance, but have distributed

governance across a regulatory system to make sure that this doesn’t happen. And that’s the

slippery slope of where this goes. I’ll say one more thing about the structure of this particular

Dow, which I know can be resolved, but it creates a problem in that everyone is betting or investing

a fixed dollar amount without knowing how much equity they’re getting. And so when you say,

hey, I’m going to put in $500. And there’s currently $10 million, or let’s say there’s

$10,000 in this thing. It’s like, hey, okay, I’ve got 5% ownership in this thing.

If the next guy shows up and puts in $10,000, you now have two and a half percent ownership

in this thing. And you’ve inflated the value of the thing you’re buying. And that’s effectively

what happened in the structure of this particular Dow, where the more money people put in,

the more they were paying and the less they were owning. And you couldn’t adjust that.

The correct structure in the future for people that do care about equity and ownership will be

I want to buy 1% and I’m willing to pay a max of $500 to buy that 1%. And with that rule engine,

which I know can be built into Dow’s, people can then structure what they’re willing to bid and how

much they’re willing to participate in and the Dow as a whole can resolve what it’s willing to pay

to go buy an asset. And everyone can feel like they know what they’re getting as they get into

these things. And then the third problem with this particular Dow as we saw, and I know it’s

kind of the first big one like this was the obvious point that these guys were showing the

world how much they were about to go bid on this asset. And if you take $46 million and you divide

it by 1.13, or which is, you know, remember, there’s a 13% buyers premium on this asset,

they showed everyone what they’re going to pay. And of course, they lost at $1 over they were the

they were the underbidder. I’ll say something else. The only fractionalized asset that has

ever been proven to appreciate reliably our stocks. Every other fractionalized asset where

you take something and then you divvy it up, generally has been a trash burger,

you need to either own the whole thing yourself. Or if you’re going to own it with a bunch of other

people, the only thing that’s reliable are equities. Now, that’s just a historical artifact

for how money has been made. So I appreciate Jason, what you’re saying, which is, I think,

actually, you care about the structure, because I think it has huge implications to people pursuing

wealth creation for themselves for people participating in private markets. But I do

think that you’re overblowing this one example, because I don’t think this showed any of that.

I think that this showed how unreliable and useless Ethereum is as a transactional layer

for these things. You know, the fact that these poor people now have money stuck in a Dow that

they can’t get out of, because it would the gas fees would negate their contribution. So that

didn’t be the bumps in the road. One second, please, you got to hold on. It didn’t prove

governance. Because as David said, we had this inflationary outcome, where all of a sudden,

I didn’t know the equity that I owned. The transparency worked against them, because

you’re bidding on an asset where you were clear about the threshold max price you could pay. So

you had no pricing power, and you had no opacity in your bidding strategy. So. So I think that

this was a PR lark. And in fact, they said it started out as a joke, and it took on a head

of steam. And so I think they felt like they had to execute what I would say is, there are going to

be some really amazing examples of DAOs. This proved none of those things that that the amazing

ones will prove, in my opinion. And this will invite regulatory scrutiny faster than it will

keep it away, right? You will see, you know, more of these scenarios where people get screwed out

of money like they did in this particular case. And I know a lot of everyone that participated

in this down. I know that there’s altruistic reasons. Who do they sue? Who do they sue?

Who do they sue? Who do they go after now that they lost the $200 that they contributed?

Yeah, I mean, there’s there’s there’s no structure. And I think that’s part of the

regulatory, you know, how do they get the money? I can respond. Who’s the person? Who’s the person

that like, you know what, honestly, if that if that DAO had called me, I could have actually

bid for them and actually won that fucking thing for half the price. You know what I mean?

So you got anything? You want to chime in?

No. I mean, well, I would like to give a closing. Why don’t you go for it?

All right. Number one, you’re all speaking like a bunch of rich accredited investors.

We need to think about people who do not get to participate. And what I see in my day job

is people go to an equity crowdfunding site, it’s too arduous to allow non accredited investors to

invest, it takes months, and it’s tons of paperwork. So then what happens is the best

deal flow, which goes to the people who are on this podcast who are already rich, we get to sweep

up all the best deals. Because people who are founders and who have opportunities in corporations

do not bother doing equity crowdfunding because the SEC in their wisdom to try to protect people

and they have good intent to your point, Friedberg has made it so arduous and painful for people

that they then don’t do it the founders I’m talking about this then keeps people down.

And when we were all poor, we got to spend our money gambling, or doing whatever we want with

it. But we all would have wanted to have when we were non accredited, the ability to place a bet

on a startup. And y’all are forgetting that. And what’s gonna happen here, all of what you’re

saying, all of what you’re saying, Chamath, in terms of the problems here are absolutely

accurate and valid. And those are what you need. You need to identify through projects like this,

the gas fees are a problem. So people can move this to Solana, you need to find out that they

don’t know how to do bidding. And maybe they shouldn’t say how much has been raised, so that

they can come in and bid more intelligently. And maybe they do need to pick a better target. But

this is $200 per person. There you guys are acting like these people are going to lose their shirts.

We agree with you. I agree with you. I agree with me. I agree 1000%. I’m a free markets guy,

I would love for there to be no regulation. And everyone will come in. And the problem is society

won’t let that happen. And that’s the point I’m trying to make. It’s other societies have

other societies. If you’re in the UK, if you’re in Australia, you can go gamble and you can go

bet on startups. There are different accreditation laws, we have antiquated ones that United States,

the United States regulatory regime will be invoked because people will lose money and

individuals will raise their hand and say I put money into a DAO that I lost my ass on and enough

1000s of people do that. And then Elizabeth Warren and AOC will get on their, you know,

and they’ll say, let’s, let’s fix this problem. Bernie Sanders will say this is unfair. The

billionaires are taking the money from people. And so I agree with you, we should let people

take risks, we should let people lose money, we should drop all the regulatory burden.

My point is really that I think structurally, what’s going to happen is there are going to

be more of those things that are going to show up that will rip people off. And that will heighten

regulatory interest. And people will come along and they’ll start to clamp down on this stuff.

And that’s, that’s my point. Okay, I also think this example has nothing to do with what you’re

talking about. I think what you’re talking about J Cal is laudable. And we should all want that

because I think that the broader number of people that get to participate in the wealth creation in

tech, the better. But there are different ways of doing that. I don’t think we have to run full

force and embrace the DAO as the only way that that happens. And I think that structurally,

the the the democratic norms inside of a DAO, in many ways make it much harder to govern inside

a regulatory framework. And it does set up a very binary decision by the SEC and US regulators,

which unfortunately, they’re not going to go and be supportive of because the binary decision

to support them would effectively negate their oversight. That’s right.

Yeah, they got jobs to keep to, they have jobs to keep.

I think it’s a cynical and accurate prediction that they will fight it. But what you may not

be aware of is that there is in the startup act from years ago, they did allow equity crowdfunding,

they put a lot of throttling on it. And now they’re going to let you get accredited through

taking a course, or like kind of having a driver’s license or a gun permit. So it is conceivable that

the next time a DAO happens, and they’re trying to buy but can you stop conflating these things

together? You go, we’ve had iterations in the crowdfunding rules. You’re just trying to tag

this with a DAO. Can can you just separated? Wait, hold on a second. Can I just ask you a

question? Can you please just describe and acknowledge that the crowdfunding rules have

iteratively evolved in the absence of jobs? Yes. Okay, so just separate the two. They’re not the

same thing. They are two sides of the same coin because they’re not allow a global participation

in this and the capital can be formed instantly. This was done in days. That’s what’s so powerful

about it. It costs 10s of 1000s to 100s of 1000s of dollars to do an equity crowdfunding. This

costs nothing because it was for a in an ethereal superficial asset with a name that people

recognize. Let me hold on a second. Now let me replace the US Constitution with I don’t know,

Jason, you just sent a deal a day ago. What was the name of it? Let’s just call it acne.com.

Sure. Now what are people supposed to do? It’s not a known asset. They are not known

founders. There may be turbulent issues inside the company that are still being hammered out.

What are these people supposed to do? How are they in place a small bet?

Place a small bet, do some research, vote on it, do collective research in a discord.

You’re looking you have a bunch of researchers working for you. You defended me. You have a team,

your team does research and they’re smart people and they get paid very well. You were praising the

coverage that Wall Street bets did on GME on this podcast 40 episodes ago. You were saying

how incredible their research was because they were analyzing public companies who are governed

by securities law. They can’t do that with a private company. Yes, because there are no rules

that govern disclosure. GameStop had very strict disclosure rules because they were public. That

was what allowed Wall Street bets to understand what was going on under the hood of GameStop.

It was the disclosure of the funds that the SECs forced you to make that allowed people to

understand the long and the short book that was building against it. If that was in the private

markets, that data is not obligated to be provided in the wild. Wall Street bets would have had no

idea. I think you’re actually proving the opposite of what you intend, which is, it’s the regulatory

framework that allowed the retail GME position to happen. Go ahead, David.

Yeah, can I translate what Jekyll saying? I think what Jekyll saying is we need to create some

space here for innovation so that entrepreneurs can work out the kinks of these DAOs so that one

day Jekyll can run a syndicate on a blockchain and fundraise that way. Isn’t that what you’re

saying? Jekyll or anybody? I mean, here’s what I’ll say. You know, when we do a syndicate amongst

accredited investors, your book here in a weird way. I didn’t mention the syndicate. I didn’t

mention the syndicate.com once except for this as competitors to your syndicates, but now you’re

all on the doubt train. I see I was I, I thought were too big. So I think you could solve this

problem by looking at the bet size that people are allowed to make. So you can just say, Hey,

the upper limit is 5k. So now you’ve basically taken the individual cratering? Well, because if

you wanted to create a regulatory environment? Well, because it would be the risk. You create

a de minimis exception. So I see guys, the first 100% worth and 1% of another’s.

Okay, so make it a percent of net worth. No, the first thing principle of portfolio construction

is you need to be concentrated in the things you know, and you need to stay away from the things

you don’t if you cap the upside on the amount you can invest. What are people supposed to do

peanut butter around 50 bets? And you know what will happen Jason, most of those will be losers

because the mortality rate in startups is super high. And they’ll end up with basically nothing.

How do they do in Vegas? How do they do betting?

We’re not talking about how to invest. I mean, I think what we’re saying is that there’s that I

mean, this is where I actually agree is that the regulators should carve out enough room so that

innovation can continue around this concept of Dallas because who knows what they could become

one day. And we shouldn’t we shouldn’t kill this thing. Hold on, we haven’t killed anything

because nothing exists. And there are no rules about Dallas. The regulators haven’t said anything.

I think we all agree that crowdfunding rules should get much more expensive. That makes sense.

And with that, private companies should disclose more. That makes sense, right? We all agree with

that. So that you can have more disclosure and public available data. So Jason, to your point,

communities can get into a discord like today. If you said, Hey, guys, let’s go and analyze a

late stage investment in Stripe. What do you do? blather on about it and just talk at each other?

There are no disclosures. So now, yeah. So now are you supposed to are you supposed to enter

Carta or some other third party platform and buy it at 120 billion? How do you underwrite that?

Very simple, very simple. In the startup DAO concept we’re talking about here, you would do

exactly what angel investors do, which is say, Hey, okay, we had, let’s say this constitution

DAO was to invest in startups. Okay, 20,000 people put 200 in each, we have a $40 million pool.

Okay, we’re all going to submit ideas. And then we’re going to ask and invite those founders to

come pitch the DAO on a zoom. And we’ll all vote on which ones we like best. And instead of,

you know, a venture capital firm getting access to this. Now those 20,000 people could say,

you know what, we’re going to make 20 half million dollar bets, and then we’re going to pour the 30

million into the winners of that. And that is just what I do for a living or any other angel

investor early stage investor does you invite founders come and pitch you and you place an

intelligent bet, just like people bet on the Knicks or sadly on the Jets and lose their money

all the time. And I like David’s idea of saying, Hey, maybe for the next two years, we’ll have a

DAO exception where you can raise, you know, from 1000 up to 5000 people up to $10 million. And you

just have to file that you’re not a felon. And we have some basic framework to experiment with this

because you could buy, you know, a building that was going to be torn down, like some movie theater

for a community, you could do nonprofit stuff, there’s all kinds of beautiful things you could

do with this instant capital formation and government structure that is programmable.

Okay, well, it does relate to capital formation in the startup ecosystem.

Here’s what I’ll say. You made a great point about Uber and Lyft pushing the boundaries and

forcing the regulators to react. Yes. You know why that happened? It’s because Uber and Lyft

worked. Yes. And it was successful. And the value was not successful. And so maybe if it is,

there’s an on ramp, but I would say that the energy is better served in not focusing on a PR

lark. And probably just focusing on trying to improve the crowdfunding laws writ large,

which are already on the books and can be iterated upon versus an entire new body of regulation,

where nobody even has any idea what a starting point should be.

I think it’s gonna be I think it’d be very hard to get get those crowdfunding laws expanded

under the current regime. It’s sort of a minor miracle that they even got what they got

several years ago, right? Wasn’t that what happened under Obama when 2008? Yes,

the jobs I was in 2008. When the market crash, we said, nobody’s starting companies,

we’re screwed here, we need to get the economy going again. So we’re just going to allow more

capital formation. And so the 99 rule for LLCs went to 250. And they just kind of loosen things

a little bit. And now they’re, the mandate is the SEC has to have a certification test

for people to do private market investing. And also people who work at VC firms, right,

we have people who work for us who are not accredited, they don’t get to participate,

but they get an exception if they work at a venture firm, etc.

So it’s probably simultaneously true that this thing was massively overhyped, while also being

the case that it’s a worthwhile experiment that may lead to, you know, useful innovation in the

future. What I always look at when I see new technologies doing something is I just imagine

if a 10x and what that would look like, and if it worked, and then I just 10x it one more time.

So what we’re going to see, I predict is this $40 million Dow will turn into a 400 million one in

the next two years, and then a 4 billion one in the next 10. And people are going to do something

extraordinary. They’re going to do something so otherworldly changing. What if a million people

or 10 million people around the globe decided they were going to put money in to do a solar farm,

or something that would help society can already do that, Jay cow. I mean, that’s like,

like a manager can friction someone’s got to someone’s got to manage it.

Jay got fantasizing about how big is syndicates going to be? Yeah.

My syndicate is too large right now. I can’t accommodate everybody. And it’s also because

it could get bigger, right? Well, no, the problem is you can only have 250 people in it. That’s the

problem. We can’t get down to death. Yeah, come on. Yeah, we beat it to death. Anyway, I’m obsessed

with it. Fentanyl debts in the US are reaching a crisis point up. Is that really what we’re

talking about? I mean, we talked about it in the chat. This is trying to like avoid the biggest

news today of the biggest. I get it. We’re good. That’s just a weird transition. I’m just going

straight down through the docket. But if you want to jump the fence, okay. Well, not guilty of all

charges like it happened within half an hour of us beginning to record this podcast. I don’t know.

I’m trying to keep the Friedberg ratio up. We had a nice strong emotional moment from Friedberg. He

obviously is gonna have something to say about fentanyl and science, but okay, he’s gonna walk

off the show now to talk when you start talking. I’m not gonna walk up the show did last week,

you walked off, you walked off and when you got a beverage, you left for like, I had to go pee.

All right, fine. I mean, to be during politics, Kyle Rittenhouse. When I take my break. Yeah,

exactly. And a third of the audience, Kyle Rittenhouse found not guilty of all charges.

A 12 person jury in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial reached the decision. After over 26 hours of

deliberation. He shot three people. He killed two of them and he was found not guilty. He was 17 at

the time of the shooting was charged with killing the two men and a third during the protests in

Kenosha, Wisconsin in August of 2020. This was during the protests over the police shooting of

Jacob Blake. He claims he traveled from Illinois with an ar 15 style rifle to help protect

businesses and provide first aid. He didn’t. He did not cross state lines with the rifle. That’s

one of the many inaccuracies that have been reported by the media over and over again,

because his dad lived there. I guess he was in his dad lived in Kenosha. I think he went to

school in Kenosha. He worked in Kenosha. You got to understand like this is there are a few minutes

apart were from his mother’s house. And he never he never carried the gun across state lines.

The gun was bought from by a friend who was 18 who could possess it and it was kept at his house,

which is in Kenosha. Got it. He was apparently in Kenosha earlier that day. And, you know,

cleaning up graffiti at the school and checking out the downtown. And then, you know, obviously,

when he went out that night, then he got the gun, but he didn’t transport it across state lines.

That’s, I think, one of the multiple

What is your most important insight into this case

and what it represents for American society and the justice system, sax?

Well, I think the case has become a little bit of a Rorschach test of how you see America. I mean,

there’s clearly a group of people in the I’d say the main dominated the mainstream media

announced percolated down to celebrities and figures from LeBron James to, to

I’m spacing, but there’s a lot of like celebrities who’ve come out putting forward this view that

America that this trial somehow is that that Cal were in the house of white supremacists and that

this not guilty verdict is an example of white supremacy in America. Somehow that became the

narrative. And so that I think it’s become I think there’s like a couple levels to it. One

is the trial itself and what you think about the legal case. I don’t think that is that complicated

or interesting. You have here that the state was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt

that Rittenhouse did not act reasonably in self-defense when three violent attackers came

charging towards him. That was, I think, a pretty tough case to make given

One of them had a gun, Paul, too. I mean, this was

Right. And so all of them had long criminal histories. The first one who attacked him

was daring him to said that he was going to kill Rittenhouse. The second one was bashing him over

the head with a skateboard. The third one was rushing towards him when Rittenhouse was on the

ground, had a gun trained on him, looked like he was going to bring it to his head kind of

execution style. I mean, all these, I think, cases, if you saw the video from the first time,

it seemed pretty clear that he had a strong claim of self-defense. So I don’t think the case itself

was that legally interesting. The question is why it got blown up into being this like huge thing.

And it’s really because the media wanted this so badly to be to feed into this narrative of somehow

that this is, you know, a white supremacist, violent attacker, who was a vigilante who

crossed state lines with this AR-15 to go seek out trouble, to confront people at the protests.

And, you know, that case that that narrative just completely fell apart at the trial.

You know, he didn’t cross state lines, you know, in that way. He didn’t, you know, with the gun.

When he went to this protest, he went there. It’s interesting. I mean, he was a cadet,

an EMT cadet. He was kind of in this like junior firefighter program. I’m not saying that he showed

good judgment. I think it was poor judgment for him to try and insert himself into that situation.

But I don’t think he went there to kill anyone or to get into a confrontation. He brought a

first aid kit for, you know, for better or worse, he thought he was going to help people.

And so any event that the story really is about the media constructing this narrative

that fell apart so quickly, as soon as all the facts came out.

Freiberg, Jamal?

Yeah, I think the I read that there was an analysis of the media

and how they tried to portray this. And that I think I’ll build on what David said, which is

was really concerning, like the there was, they really wanted this to be a white kid who killed

black people during a BLM protest, which was, as it turned out, the furthest from the truth.

I’ll just tell you my experience when I first saw it. That’s what I thought I had read.

And I’ll be really honest with you. Initially, I was incredibly biased. And my I had a violent

reaction inside me of anger towards this kid. Because my thought was my God, this white kid

showed up at a Black Lives Matter rally and killed, you know, three of my brothers, you know,

like, literally, that’s how I’m feeling. I was so angry, because they didn’t really give the facts.

There was an example where in Germany, it got so out of hand that the articles were written

that Kyle Rittenhouse had actually killed three black men or two black men. And I think that

that’s very dangerous, because we need to have the truth and the facts so we can really figure

out what’s going on, so that we can address what’s broken. We can hold people accountable.

And then we can move forward together and heal it. But this like is the opposite of healing,

it just froths people up to make a lot of judgments with misinformation. And I think

that that’s very unfair. I didn’t, to be honest with you, after I saw the facts,

I stopped paying attention to this case, because I literally exhaled.

I would have been much more hurt. And I would have probably paid more attention.

If this wasn’t white on white violence, quite honestly.

Right, right. And I think people, I think we’ve heard from a lot of people over when Rittenhouse

his testimony kind of went viral and started getting reported on, there were a lot of people

out there who were surprised to learn that all the victims were white, that this was an example

of white on white violence, because it had been portrayed by the media as some sort of racial

episode. And, and it wasn’t, and it shows how the media is fueling this polarization

and rage in our society by concocting these narratives, which aren’t true.

It’s really that that I think is the dangerous thing. I didn’t follow the case to know whether

this kid was right or wrong. But I do think if the media uses these opportunities to not

just tell the facts, and then race baits people on both the left and the right and

gets them frothed up, they’re doing a real disservice to America, because I think it

takes good people. And it puts them in a state, like me for a while at the beginning where I’m

I was really angry, and I didn’t know how I felt. And that’s and I’m a lucid person. You know,

99.999%. And so it just goes to show you how dangerous this stuff is when they can take a

narrative and run with it, and then there’s no accountability for it. And we really have to stop

and check ourselves. It just speaks to this ongoing fact pattern where the media is at a

point where they are at a very much a low point in their trustworthiness, their ability to fact

check their ability to stick to the truth. I think it’s been undone. Just this past week,

you know, I think Elon even tweeted out like, you know, he in exasperation, he said,

where can I find? Like thoughtful news, right? He was asking Twitter, like, what websites and,

and the question wasn’t that bad. But if you read the answers, it was really sad. Nobody had a good

answer. You know, one person was like, oh, there’s a browser extension that will show you how you

know, how much lying is happening inside the article. And I thought to myself, my god, like,

there are browser extensions, like a lie ometer, you know, like, this is insanity that,

that in 2021, that’s what we are faced with, which is very smart people, all of us,

everybody listening, normal people just, you know, out on the street, we can all come to the right

conclusion when given the facts, and we’re not given the facts anymore.

Jake, how do you think we’re missing something here? Because

you, you, I know, you thought that this whole written house thing was crazy, right? Which it

was, but I think, first off, violent protests, and violence is immoral. And all of these protests,

whether it’s BLM, on the left, on the right, they should all be non violent. There’s a reason why

Martin Luther King and Gandhi, you know, said, that’s the rules. If you want to come to the

protests, you have to be non violent. And then I think the rhetoric that was created during the

Trump era, and that he exacerbated and that he caused from a lot of his policies and the way he

spoke as the leader of the free world in our country, then polarize things, I blame him for a

lot of that. And if you put a bunch of people who are on the far extremes into a situation like this,

and then you insert guns, and you insert young people who have not developed their frontal lobes,

who do not have long term thinking, which is 17 year old does not your long term in

free bird will back me up on this in terms of science, long term thinking is something that

develops in humans into their early 20s. And so young people with guns in a violent situation

with Trump on TV during this time, both good people on both sides, whatever, you know, the

borders, all that stuff that he was stirring the pot on, all of that eventually resolves to

somebody’s gonna get killed, whether it’s on January 6, or it’s a BLM protest. And that is why

he had such a failure of leadership while he was so disgusting and horrible and lonesome,

because he was taking all of this heat and rhetoric up, up, up. And the person who winds

up suffering in this are these stupid kids. And they’re really dumb parents and mother who

allow them to go to a protest and she could have stopped him with a gun. Somebody needs to stop

these kids from going to a protest with a gun. And I think there’s a very difficult question here

that can be asked. And it probably is true. I think that it was an open and shut case, David,

that, I mean, I saw the video as well, Chamath, the guy puts a gun on him, what are you gonna do,

you’ve got a gun, this guy’s pointing a gun at you, whoever fires first survives, it is self

defense. And that’s kind of undeniable, I think. But I would hope that the number of people that

really focus on this case, look at the innumerable number of cases of black and brown people that

have been killed. The Ahmaud Arbery trial is going on right now. Yes, I’m sorry, but I’ve

seen one article in Ahmaud Arbery for every 50 about Kyle Rittenhouse. Yeah, I just really hope

Ahmaud Arbery gets his fair trial. And let me say again, Brianna Taylor, not a single thing has

still been done. Okay. So I’m not that sympathetic to all of this talk right now. Because there are

a lot of black and brown men and women who have been killed in this country, where none of you

guys care as much. Oh, I care. And that was exactly where I was about to get to the question

I was about to ask you, Chamath, is if Kyle Rittenhouse had been a black man, and he had

shot those three people, what would the outcome of this trial have been? Would it have been the

same justice system? And I don’t think that anybody can answer that question and say it would

have been fair justice. I don’t think it would have been I think the chance would be very low.

Just you saying it makes me want to cry. Okay. It would not I didn’t say for that reason. But

it is the truth. And I think that’s what you know, we in this country, race is something that is our

biggest weak point. And we need to get well, to work on this hypothetical injustice. We don’t

know because that’s a hypothetical that we can’t know the answer to right now. And you’re ignoring

the justice, the injustice that’s right in front of your face, which is that this was a political

prosecution from the beginning, fueled by a media narrative that was completely bogus.

This is why I think David is right. And we have to go to this root cause issue that we can all fix.

You know, we can’t we shouldn’t debate these hypotheticals because they’re hurtful. Like even

now, like you’ve seen me, I’m emotional. I can’t think straight. So let’s get the hypothetical off

the table. Because David, you’re right. It’s a hypothetical. I mean, this case probably should

never this case should never have been brought. I mean, as soon as you see the video, if you look

up the definition of self defense, okay, you just have to have a reasonable belief that your life is

in danger. And then you’re allowed to use force. And you know, Rittenhouse was running away.

These guys were attacking him. They were chasing after him. They had a gun trained on him. They were

bashing him on the head with a skateboard. I don’t know how any prosecutor looks at this and says,

we need to prosecute this. So the case should never have been brought. And then the media

fuels this thing. But this is what I’m saying. That’s the thing that we can all change, which

is our reaction to that media portrayal. The media can be held accountable for how they lie.

But how?

Well, people don’t trust them. And they’re tuning them out. And they’re going and finding their own

But I mean, this has been my point. Like, I think we all get tuned up to what the media

quote, unquote, is and isn’t saying. I think that’s like yesteryear’s news. I mean, those

those guys have lost credibility. You can see it in all the peer research and all the Gallup research

that what used to be called and it’s still by a lot of people called the mainstream media

is no longer mainstream. And it’s become kind of outskirt and where people are finding

their, their sources of information is direct from the source, from people that they know to

be reliable, trustworthy speakers of the truth and speakers of facts. And they’re getting them

direct through social media platforms and other systems of self publication. And that the idea

of having centralized media systems that get to have their own editorial and narrative over whatever

facts quote, they may be kind of gathering and presenting to us. That’s an old school way of

doing things. And I don’t think we have to worry about it too much anymore. Whether or not

individuals will resolve to truth seeking or emotion seeking is the big question for the

21st century. Because as we’ve seen the media that the things that we do click on are the

things that we already believe and that confirm our bias and that create an emotional incentive

versus the things that may be not what we believe and not what we want to hear,

but may actually be factual. And that’s the big kind of challenging question here. I think it’s

less about these evil media people. And it’s more about where individuals going to make choices.

Yeah, I mean, I’d say alternative media voices have never been more important. And, you know,

you can get a lot of them on sub stack people like Glenn Greenwald, Matt, Antonio Garcia,

Martinez, Colin, Colin, Colin, Barry Weiss. I mean, they all had very good coverage of this.

By the way, I couldn’t help notice that the same week that this Rittenhouse narrative collapsed,

the whole Steele dossier narrative collapsed. You had, and I don’t want to get too political

and drag it back to the Trump thing, but you had, you know, John Durham is a special prosecutor

unraveling this whole phony fake Steele dossier with multiple indictments. And you now have

retractions by the Washington Post and other major publications. And that whole narrative

that fueled like an entire year of media coverage is completely collapsing. And it’s just another

example of, you know, the media running with these narratives that turn out to be completely

I hate to use the word fake, but I mean, it is I mean, it’s things that were fake,

but Paul Manafort. Again, I would encourage everyone to stop using the term the media or

even the term mainstream media and just recognize that there are specific outlets that are on their

way down and dying. Yeah, these are content companies that need ratings. They used to be

the monopoly and they’re no longer. And you know, they’re like yesteryear’s news. And it’s just,

you know, it’s like complaining about, you know, whatever, pick any industry that’s been

disrupted, but they are and will be further disrupted by kind of direct to source

fact gathering. The big ultimate question is what are consumers going to choose?

And that’s the thing that scares me the most, to be honest, I think they can go either way,

you can either find better truth seeking, or you can find better emotion, more emotion seeking,

and that that’s going to cause more polarization and more ugly shit.

Well, look, it’s happening right now. You’re right that the let’s call it the corporate media,

the big media corporations, their prestige and esteem and the eyes American people have

and their credibility has never been lower. It’s gone.

New York Times and CNN.

Absolutely. I mean, just gone. And people should be questioning them and stop listening to them.

And you have to diversify your information diet. And you got to be subscribed to some

alternative journalists on places like Substack. But here’s the thing that concerns me. You know,

you’ve got the media narrative being dictated by MSNBC, and then it trickles down to LeBron

James and Chelsea Handler. Sorry, that was the name that I forgot earlier. They were perpetuating

this white supremacist narrative around Kyle Rittenhouse. By the way, they looked at his phone,

his text messages, everything. There is no connection. There’s no proof whatsoever of

a connection between him and white supremacy. It was completely made up by the media.

And yet these major figures in our culture who have this outsized impact,

we’re tweeting about this. And so the problem is, you know, like people like us diversify our

information diet, but there are large parts of the country that are just receiving this information.

And it gets basically passed down from the media to Hollywood to the culture.

Yeah.

And it’s…

From Tucker Carlson to Scott Baio to the pillow guy.

It is fueling tremendous divisiveness and polarization in our culture. And I would say

that, you know, JC brought up Trump, and he was a polarizing figure, but I don’t think he’s the

root cause of this polarization. I think he is a reaction to it. I think…

He is a manifestation of it.

He’s a manifestation of it. And ultimately, the root cause is the complete deterioration

and collapse of journalistic standards in the media, in the major mainstream corporate media.

I’ll disagree with you on that.

I think Trump’s responsible for his own behavior.

And I’ve made this point in the past, which is, Sax, I don’t know if it…

You make it sound and other people make it sound like in a directed editorial initiative

to take things in a direction. And I think that the reaction process is really about

what do consumers want to consume? What they choose to consume is what they sell

more of and what they produce more of. And that’s the cycle that’s driving this.

And, you know, that doesn’t mean that these folks are not complicit or not

making good kind of ethical decisions. That could actually be argued either way.

But at the end of the day, they’re businesses that are selling content.

And if consumers want content of one form, they’re going to choose that form.

Okay, look, I think you have a point that once a publication goes in a certain direction and

starts getting subscribers, there’s some positive reinforcement there that helps

them keep pushing in that direction. That being said, I don’t think this is commercial in nature,

primarily. I think what’s going on is fundamentally ideological. You saw,

for example, the New York Times, they ran out Barry Weiss.

I’ve seen it. I’ve seen it.

They’ve run out of multiple editors.

No, no, you’re wrong on this.

They did this because they wanted subscriptions.

No, no, you’re wrong, Sax. When the New York Times did this, they realized Fox picked a side,

MSNBC picked a side, and they benefited from that by picking a side in the Trump era.

So the New York Times picked a side, they went MSNBC side, and they got rid of the

right because the right people drove away the anti-Trump subscription.

So I think Freeberg’s right on this one. I will say another thing to build on what

you were saying before, Sax, about the media’s responsibility here.

We also have to think about the cable news media’s responsibility when they put these protests on

wall to wall, and they send people there. That then inspires people to go there.

When you do this wall to wall coverage across five networks, and you obsess over something,

people are going to obsess over it. They see people out there rioting,

and people model other people’s behavior. I think they need to think, how much coverage

do we exactly have to give this riot? Right. Even now, they’re bringing out

the National Guard in anticipation of possibly riots and protests in reaction to-

Which then could induce it. Well, in reaction, no, I don’t know if

it’s going to induce it, but in reaction to this verdict in the Rittenhouse trial,

they’re bringing out the troops to basically quell any, you know, riot before it gets started.

But why would that riot even happen? Because the people have been fed this narrative

that is completely bogus. And in that sense, the media has been incredibly irresponsible,

and they’re playing with fire. They really are. I’ll say it again,

and we’ve fallen into this same trap. Look how much time we’ve just been talking about

Cal Rittenhouse. I mentioned Ahmaud Arbery, and we’ve just glossed over it.

Is his trial being- It’s happening right now.

No, no, but is it on video? Because that is another major issue here, is when the trials

are on video- These trials, they should never do TV again

on these trials. Just never again. I mean- It really does create-

You can have reporters in the courtroom, but do not put it on TV.

Like, Varanos is not allowing video in the courtroom, and it’s not getting covered to

this extent. And I think the video in the courtroom does drive this-

It makes it a circus. Breaking news, Citadel CEO Ken Griffin

outbid a group of crypto investors for a copy of the US Constitution, according to the Wall

Street Journal. Oh, my God.

We knew somebody was trolling the crypto- He was a villain before this, but now-

Oh, my gosh. Remember for Payment for Order Flow?

Exactly. I mean, he was the central villain,

basically, in that whole Robin Hood fiasco for Payment for Order Flow. And now he outbid

the crypto crowd. He is going to be enemy number one.

Basically, there is no more sophisticated market participant than Ken Griffin.

And on a silver platter, this group of people, unfortunately-

Told him what they’re going to do.

Showed them their strategy, and showed them exactly how to become the-

He did the prices right. He put $1 on top of their bid.

You know what Ken Griffin knows? Ken Griffin knows that now this is an object of interest

that people are basically willing to pay anything for.

Bingo. He’s going to buy it now,

and in one year, he’ll sell it for twice as much. It’s a valuable asset.

By the way, I want to make a point on this.

I disagree, by the way. He’s a buyer. He is not a seller.

He’s going to hold. Okay. But look, markets don’t work with this much transparency. Markets only

work when people have different information than other people that are participating in the market.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

If everyone knew everything that everyone else was going to do-

Same data, but if everyone knew what everyone else-

Different opinions.

But if everyone knew everyone else’s opinion on what something is worth,

the market doesn’t work. And that’s the problem that happened here.

Yeah. So here’s what I value an asset at.

And now if you know that, you know how to play against me in the market.

And I will point out-

That’s what I said.

Yeah, exactly. And one thing I’ll take note of that I kind of realized yesterday when I

was thinking about this, which is this like transparency in markets leads to this inflationary

problem. Why do you think everything that the government buys inflates? Because everyone

already knows what the government is going to spend on that thing. When the government

enters into a market like healthcare or education or defense, the amount that they’re going to spend

is published in a bill. And then Congress says, here’s your authorized budget. Here’s how much

you’re going to spend. So there is no natural market force that says a bid and an ask, what

are you willing to pay? And is there a walkaway price? There is no walkaway price when the

government is told to go spend some amount of money. And as a result, the price of everything

inflates to that walkaway to that price to that budget.

Can I build on that? It’s-

And by the way, that’s, in my opinion, based on everything I’ve looked at,

the primary reason for the increase in education costs, because the government

funds all the student loans, the increase in healthcare, the increase in defense,

all of it is because the government is the customer and they tell the person that’s

servicing them upfront, they tell the market what they’re willing to pay. And so the market

just inflates to that amount. And it’s really the reason why the way that we budget things

and the government as opposed to saying, look, this is the ROI metric, or this is the IRR metric

you need to be shooting for with this government spending. It’s all based on a fixed dollar amount

of a budget that says here’s how much you should go spend.

Well, look, it’s as I said, it’s actually worse than that, because then the procurement process

is not is the furthest thing from a free market where you essentially have these licensed people

that are allowed to provide services. And so if you actually have the key critical input to making

something possible, you have to get bundled in through contractors and subcontractors and general

contractors who each take their five and 10%. And then that’s what you would that’s when you have

like, you know, and their hourly costs all balloon just a little bit, just a little bit,

just a little bit. And suddenly, the balloon cost of everything matches exactly the budget.

So the perfect example of this is the space program. There was a there was a there was a

rant by Bernie Sanders yesterday, basically saying, How could we have allowed Jeff Bezos,

Mr. Bezos, and Mr. Musk, to basically take over our national space program, we need to

buy a space program, we need to take it back. And then somebody, hold on. And then somebody,

and then somebody thought I’ll give me this round somebody thoughtfully went back and actually look

because again, as David said, everything is transparently published. They went back and

they actually counted how much money NASA spent in like the last seven or eight years,

and the number was 360 odd billion dollars. Yeah. And then they counted how much money

SpaceX had spent. And it was, you know, if you counted revenue between seven and 11 billion,

totally, totally. So you have this incredible disparity, which speaks to this.

After the space shuttle was retired, NASA didn’t even have a way to get to space until

SpaceX had the rockets. I mean, and think about how many people died on the space.

But Bernie is saying, which is what’s I think scary to me is if you take the difference between

360 billion and seven, so 300, and, you know, $53 billion, and divided by the number of people in

the United States, you’re basically talking about 1000 person $1,000 a person, would you and I

sit around a table and give Bernie Sanders $1,000 out of our own pocket? I don’t know

to go and basically implement of a half assed base program. No, I’d rather I’d rather give

Elon Musk 10 cents, which are one cent, which is the equivalent alternative, or this raises

a really serious issue, which is who is the better capital allocator of society, private markets,

or the government. And let me give you an example. So today, the house is voting out that

reconciliation bill, they’ve got it, they’re spending 2.1 trillion. This is one example,

does one example that caught my eye is they’ve got $2.5 billion going to tree equity, whatever

that is. I’m sorry, tree, tree, equity, tree, equity, this is like tree equity, I think it

might mean that like some communities, I think it means that some, some communities have more

trees and others, they got to rectify that. I don’t know. I mean, this is like the jump the

shark moment for the word equity, because I think now everything is equity. But, but you know,

what struck me about this $2.5 billion number, okay, is that like craft ventures, which I’ve been

doing for the last four years, we’ve raised and we’ll be deploying a total of about 2 billion

over call it five years into hundreds of startups that you know, will pave the way for the next

generation of the economy. So 2 billion versus two and a half billion as one line item. That’s

just a footnote. That’s an asterisk in this bill. I mean, what is the better capital allocation

decision and what people have to understand is, you know, all this money that gets spent gets

sucked out of the private economy, somehow, it either, you know, comes from taxes, or gets added

to the national debt. But either way, it comes out of the private economy and resources that

could be allocated to the next generation of innovative companies, squandering the money

like that on all these programs that nobody even knows what they do, when we’re almost 30 trillion

in debt is just unbelievable. Okay, the 1% are going to be going to space and taking away the

moon from the other 99%. Here, roll the clip. Unbelievably, this bill would provide and

authorize some $10 billion in taxpayer money to Jeff Bezos, the second wealthiest person in America,

for his space race with Elon Musk, the wealthiest person in America. This is beyond laughable,

and I will be introducing an amendment to strike this provision. Frankly, it is not acceptable.

It’s not an issue that we have discussed terribly much, but it is not acceptable that the two

wealthiest people in this country, Mr. Musk and Mr. Bezos, take control of our space efforts

to return to the moon, and maybe even the extraordinary accomplishment of getting to the

moon. This is not something for two billionaires to be directing. This is something for the American

people to be determining. Yeah, all the people have to be able to go to the moon before two

people can go to the moon. Is that the idea? Yeah, if there was a go to the moon Dow, it would get

more funding. Good callback. Look at you in the callbacks, Freiburg. You’re learning how to entertain the audience.

People would just plow money into a go to the moon Dow and give it all to Elon Musk.

More people would do that than would vote to support the Senate bill.

Additionally, I would like to report that Starlink does not work at my lake house,

and Amazon Prime takes three to four days at my beach house on the Cape,

and that these two companies are oppressing the three percent of the top three percent,

which I am not part of the one percent. And some people don’t have enough trees.

And in my community, there’s only small trees and we want the redwoods from San Francisco.

Why do they or the hippies get the redwoods that are much taller?

Do you guys remember? One of our very earliest pods, I made a statement, which is equity is

this danger word that the progressive left uses to steal power. Yes, that we should feel unsafe.

We should always want equality, but not equity because equity is zero sum, right? You know,

cap table, once you give somebody else equity, it’s dilutive to everybody else. But equality

is infinite. You can have unbounded equality. Yes. And when I hear these guys talk about this

stuff, it’s so scary. The second thing is, I’m a little confused by what Bernie saying,

because on the one hand, he wants to cancel the American government’s effective, you know,

support of these programs. On the other hand, he wants us to take back the responsibility for it.

But I think he must realize that it would cost 50 times more, or 100 times more.

He’s he’s not he’s not he’s not spending sensitive in case you haven’t noticed.

I also think this is like virtue signaling, like, he was attacking Bezos about like minimum wage,

and then Bezos came over the top and like doubled it and then gave people college education. That

was Bernie Sanders platform for president was like, give people free college and give people

like a better $15 minimum wage. Bezos has done more for Bernie’s platform than anybody. He’s

should be thanking. He should be telling people, all companies should be also like Amazon.

No, no, but also actually, to your point, can I build on that? Yeah, Amazon is now doing more

to actually unwind duopolies and monopolies in markets than the government and the FTC is,

you know, see this thing that Amazon is now doing in the UK with visa, where they basically shut

visa off. And people are speculating now that it’s a step in this direction of Amazon, you know,

in Amazon domestically in the United States, they just did this big deal with a firm. And so they

are looking at and they there’s a rumor that they may switch the Amazon credit card off of visa

rails and put them on MasterCard rails. But there’s this another example, Jason, to your point

of like, you know, Bernie and the left progressive left would probably rail against the duopoly

practices of visa and MasterCard. They can’t get anything done. Jeff Bezos has actually done more

presses a button and has done more now. Here’s another one to build on yours. Who’s doing I mean,

Bernie Sanders cares about global warming. It’s like one of his key issues who’s donated more to

global warming than Jeff Bezos. Nobody nobody who’s doing 100,000 electric vehicles for his

delivery fleet. Jeff Bezos Jeff Bezos took Bernie Sanders platform that he failed to get into office

on and he made it Amazon’s platform. Here’s a third example, Nick, you tweeted this out, Nick,

or you can find this thing that I tweeted out, but it was a little mean. And it was it was,

it was basically Toby Maguire and Kristen Dunst, right? There’s a meme upside down quit.

No, they’re looking at each other. And basically, the joke is like, you know,

every time you protested at, you know, to shut down a nuclear plant, the resulting effect 40

years later was another 100 megatons of co2 was put into the air. And it just goes to yet again,

another example of we virtue signal nuclear reactors and nuclear power, we go and we get

them all shut down. It turned out that we ingested or we we put out as a result, an enormous amount

of more co2 than had to be put. And then and now who’s helping to step in and solve it. Another

private citizen Bill Gates. Look, if it weren’t for these private companies, we couldn’t even

get astronauts to space anymore. Impossible. I mean, like the government has actually lost

the capacity to do that. Impossible. It would have been impossible. And who are we up against

for space? I mean, China, China, just China. It’s such a dichotomy between and this is like

a recurring theme of the show between what the private sector and specifically and not like

the fortune 500. Not those old stodgy companies are in the process of being disrupted, but

what the sort of entrepreneurial economy is able to accomplish versus like how stultified and

calcified and incompetent the government’s become.

I mean, to your point, Freiburg, I think Sam Altman led this, the fusion energy startup

helium like $500 million round. I mean, by the time these nitwits, you know, in these political

office, figure these things out, we’re gonna have fusion reactors, aren’t we? Is that real science?

Is that coming close? What do you think, Rupert?

I mean, Bill Gates just did this. What is it called TerraPower announcement this week.

He’s got a company that he’s been funding for years, and they’re building a 500 megawatt

fusion plant in Wyoming, I think. Yeah.

In Wyoming, yes.

In Wyoming, and he got 2 billion from the government and 2 billion that was funded by

the company and its shareholders, which I think is majority owned by Bill Gates.

But it certainly feels and seems to me, I mean, look, this one, like we’ve said,

a lot of these infrastructure deals, these big infrastructure deals for things like

power and next gen manufacturing and whatnot, you know, could benefit from the boost of,

you know, government subsidies or, you know, government shared costs to get these things

off the ground. Over time, as you get scale and reproducibility of them, the cost per unit comes

way, way, way, way down. And so, you know, it seems to be the case that there are enough of

these programs, I think, I know of at least half a dozen nuclear power companies that are,

you know, in advanced stages of doing, you know, first installation design right now.

And so, it seems like this is going to be a reality. I think it would be an incredible

boom to clean energy in the United States and globally, if we can get more of these built.

I mean, what was the stat? China’s building 150 nuclear power plants.

They’ve commissioned 150 nuclear power plants. I mean, it’s a no brainer

that that’s what we need. In the 21st century, it’s the best renewable source,

very small footprint, very reliable can run 24 seven doesn’t depend on some, you know,

sun or wind or what have you. So you can plug it into a grid.

And so the government literally does not need to get involved in this,

aside from writing a check and chopping it up 5050 split the pot with

Bill Gates an important role that the government can and should play here, which is, you know,

if we want to talk about what infrastructure this country needs, I’ve said it on the last

couple of shows, we don’t need yesteryear’s infrastructure. We don’t need last century’s

infrastructure, new bridges, and, you know, toll bridges, or whatever nonsense is, you know,

going to get inflated as a result of this recent infrastructure bill, what we need is next gen

infrastructure, and not charging stations, because the free markets already they’re doing that.

And, you know, not internet, because the free markets already they’re giving everyone internet,

we see 1000 examples of that, what we need is the stuff that the free market cannot afford to fund

and stand up, like next gen nuclear power stations, like biomanufacturing, like large

scale on demand 3d printing systems. These are the sorts of infrastructure programs that the

United States and our workforce could benefit from government subsidies to help the private force the

private markets get stood up. And as these things get stood up, and the flywheel gets going and cash

starts getting generated, they can sell fund and they can grow and they can install more of these

and the costs come down for the next one. The things where the government is the only customer,

the only person buying the cost will only go up on over time, whereas the things that the private

market is building, the cost will go down over time. And in some of these cases where there’s a

big kind of hurdle to get over the first build, or the first build cycle, you know, the government

has an important role to play, I think. And so you know, look, I mean, it’s clearly not going

to happen with this current infrastructure bill, there’s a few nuggets in there that might be

useful and helpful. But generally speaking, you’re right. I mean, over time, we want the cost of

things to come down, not go up. And so we need the private market to play a critical role in being

the majority driver. You know, of these kind of systems. All right, seems like a good place to

end. Pete Davidson is now dating Kim Kardashian. How jealous are you to mop? I’m not jealous.

I’m talking about a great, great. I am. I am shocked that Pete Davidson has dated some of

the most incredibly famous, popular women. So you are jealous? Okay. Well, I’m a little curious. I

gotta say I’m a little curious. I mean, if you put a picture of Pete day, I mean, there’s got

to be something happening there. Let’s just put it out there. He’s got the cover. I’m going to

send you a link to an article. I don’t know what it is. I’m googling that from Seinfeld, where

Kramer was like, you know, dating all these beautiful women. And it’s because he explained

he had the cover. He’s got a better finishing move. Yeah, this is an article that went viral

this week. Emily Ratajkowski, how do you pronounce her name? Yeah, breaks down breaks down why women

find Pete Davidson so attractive. And so this was like, you know, I saw it all over Twitter this

week. But it was all about, you know, and what is the answer? Just give me the headlines. I don’t

know. It’s something he’s got. super charming. He’s vulnerable. He’s lovely. His fingernail

polish is awesome. He looks good. He has a good relationship with his mom. I mean, I just think

he comes across as a good guy might be the appeal. Also, they want to take care of him, I think

because he’s got like his guys are missing a more subtle nod off. I don’t know what you’re talking

about. Do explain maybe you could expand. I’m just a family show tomorrow. It’s a family show.

Oh my god. No, I think I want to take care of them. That’s what I heard for a woman said they

want to like, David’s. Yeah, I mean, also Kim Kardashian, I think, you know, she just got the

Gen Z. I think she was probably going the way of Paris Hilton, like maybe aging out of her,

you know, celebrity. And now she went Kanye, kind of Gen X, right. And now she’s going down

to Gen Z. She’s got a whole new. I hate to be cynical about it. But I also, you know,

I’m going to take so much flack for saying this, but I was a little short Donda. But I’ve listened

to Donda now a couple times. And my god, is it good. It’s pretty fucking good. I mean,

Kanye West is one of legitimately one of the most incredible artists of all time. I mean,

the way I grew up, the music, the beats, it’s outrageous. I think if you give Donda like,

two or three shots, it’s really registration college dropout and 808 and heartbreaks.

Amazing. My dark twisted fantasy was probably one of the best albums ever created. Well,

see, that’s the thing is, I think with his later work, like I didn’t get into my beautiful dark

twisted fantasy until I had listened to it 10 times. And then I was like, Okay, I get amazing.

Yeah. And I feel like I’m so accessible, like, so accessible registration. But Donda is pretty

incredible. I mean, it’s right now David Sachs is like, What are you guys talking about? I haven’t

listened to any of this. David, do you know? He’s like, Is that like Paul Anka?

Dan is like, Yeah, wow.

Sachs, do you listen to music? Actually, this is what’s your favorite artist? What’s your

favorite? Like, if we found like, if we listened, like you’re like your workout tracks. So like on

like on on Barry Manilow, like I Apple, like what are you listening to? Like Spotify? Like,

what do you Tucker Carlson? No music. I don’t listen to music when I work out.

The only time I really listen to music is when I’m like in a car on a plane or whatever.

But do you have music, for example, like downloaded on your phone? Like if he said,

Yeah, your phone? Huh? Yeah, I do. Give a couple names here. Yeah. Top three. Yeah.

Honestly, it’s gonna be recent hits because I just download what my kids told me to download.

I understand. Just give me a couple albums that you’ve downloaded. Okay, so where’s

recently added? Okay, so it looks to me like I recently added Khalid. Yes. Okay.

There’s a Gaga song. Kid LAROI and Miley Cyrus. Okay. Kid LAROI and Justin Bieber.

Great. Doja Cat. My kids love Doja Cat. She’s great. She’s great. TikTok queen.

See, my kids keep me current. You know, you think I’m like, she’s great.

Here’s what I’m doing for my kids. This is my new parenting strategy.

I was let they love listening to the 80s playlist on Spotify. But now I was like,

what, who are like great seminal artists. So I have them doing Tom Petty, David Bowie,

talking heads and Bob Marley, and I get the whole greatest hits album. And I explained to them every

song and they’re like, totally getting into it. So basically, actually know what great music is,

you’re being self indulgent, you’re focused on yourself, and you’re trying to make them a loser.

No, I’m trying to get them to understand what actually you want your kids to walk into school.

And when somebody else like, Hey, do you like Doja Cat? They’re like, No, but have you listened

to Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers? I’ve been I’ve been doing I’ve been playing my kids my

favorite artists and they and he’s become their favorite artist. Apex twin. You guys don’t know

who he is. Yeah. Apex twin. Yeah. Apex. What about what about I’m called the Chemical Brothers

album. Richard D. James album is probably one of the best albums of all time. And I play and my

kids go friggin nuts for it now. And they asked for it nonstop. And I’m like, Oh my god, I love

you. You’re my kids. It’s the best. I try to get my kids into my favorite movies. And that’s just

too hard. Because movies were everybody they were so too slow. But yeah, just to watch movies is

hard. They want to watch hard. Yeah. No, they can’t watch movies. They’re too slow. They can’t

watch movies. I watch a Marvel movie. They can’t even watch the original Star Wars or Raiders of

Lost Ark. Anything where the scene doesn’t cut every one and a half seconds. They can’t watch.

It’s like Raiders of Lost Ark. You’re gonna love this. So like, this is so boring. I’m like,

Raiders of the Lost Ark. Tell them are boring. Crazy. Terrible. But I remember watching like

character development. They want to cut the first act. Have you guys watched and watch

jaws would be like unwatchable. But I remember as a kid watching you loved it. Did you guys ever

watch like AMC and you watch the old school movies of the 30s and 40s? They are impossible

to watch. Like they are so it’s like watching a play. You know, it’s like gotten more and more

kind of short form as we’ve kind of aged. But you know, that’s like, Oh, no, what happened?

Oh, okay. Sadiq. Aki. Aki. Aki just came and took it from me. Aki, not good Aki. You don’t take it

a biscuit. Aki, you eat dog food. You don’t eat it a biscuit. Bad Aki. You know, those biscuits

are cashmere. They’re really expensive. All right, I’m gonna I’m gonna get my booster shot.

I’ll see you guys later. All right, everybody. This has been another exciting, amazing episode

of the all in podcast for for the dictator. Hi, Nat. And the Sultan of Science, David

Freeberg. We’ll see you all next time. sexy boo. Have a wonderful time with Suarez. He came by

last night. I’m hosting Miami Mayor Francis Suarez tonight. We’re doing a cocktail reception

fundraiser for him. And we got huge turnout. I mean, I tweeted this thing. And we’re gonna have,

I think at least 60 people at the reception, at least 20 people for dinner.

You’re letting randos in your house from Twitter security. Oh, they have to pay five dimes.

Yeah, they’re gonna have to pay but also like we kind of check everybody out. One of your enemies

one of your enemies will pay five dimes just to get in your house. I think basically like BuzzFeed

paid to get in there. I’d be careful. We have to we have to know who they are. We’ve got the

background. There’s a lot of people I mean, look, if we want to let everybody in there are at least

100 people who replied to my tweet saying I can’t DM you but I want to go and open your dams for a

day. Oh, you can do that. Yeah. Francis came by yesterday with his team. He was in top form. He

looks great. He’s excited about the next term. All right. We’ll see you all next time. Bye bye.

Love you.

You’re a beast.