Let’s talk about the sweaters. Okay. Let David, let’s start with you because I love it.
I love it, David. I love it. I decided to up my sweater game for Chamath. This is Tom Ford.
Love it. Tom Ford. Tom Ford. The buttons are made out of endangered rhino horn.
We just lost a third of the audience.
So my sweater is a very light Italian cashmere made by a company called Doriani. Doriani cashmere.
I thought we weren’t doing plugs for our startups.
We’re monetizing the all-in pod.
Here we go. Doriani cashmere just got a free.
This right here, this right here is a little young calf leather. Very soft, very soft.
And the buttons, like David’s, are made from shark fin.
And for those of you at home who would like to spend $150 and stay warm,
may I recommend the marine layer? You can find it on Union Street Jacket.
You can also find that jacket on Turk Street.
How tilted is Sweater Karen listening to this? Sweater Karen, if you’re listening,
I mean, you must never reveal.
Sweater Karen got back to me and she was like, oh my God, he’s so tilted.
I think I know who she is.
Sweater Karen can kiss my brown ass.
So Jade comes home last night. I kid you not. She’s like, I don’t like you in the t-shirts.
I got you some sweaters because we’re going to the mountains for the holiday.
And I was like, did you watch the podcast about the sweater?
She’s like, no, I don’t listen to your podcast.
I was like, okay, fair enough.
And I’m like, I’m looking at these things.
They’re all in these boxes.
And she’s got this bunch of sweaters.
I started, I was like, what did you spend on this?
She said $3,000.
I was like, I’m not comfortable spending $3,000 on a sweater.
That’s half a sweater.
Let alone eight of them.
But she was like, no, no, it’s $3,000 for all eight.
Yeah, Chamath is like, is that a sleeve?
That’s, he’s like, it’s $3,000 for all eight sweaters.
Four buttons and a waistband?
That might be a vest for Chamath.
I think that’s the box the sweater came in was $3,000.
So I got my three quarter zip and I’m feeling good.
I’m feeling really good.
I feel pretty sexy in it.
I’ll be honest.
I love you guys.
I love you guys.
Welcome to the All In podcast.
Breaking into the top 50 podcast week after week.
Because of you, the amazing audience telling your friends.
It’s been two weeks.
So it’s week and week.
That’s what I said.
Week after week.
A week and a week.
A week and a week.
For two weeks.
Hitting the top 40 podcast episodes in the world.
Thanks to the fans with me, of course.
The dictator himself in a amazing sweater.
Light, light cashmere gilet.
The sultan of science.
I found out from his mom.
She much prefers the sultan of science to queen of quinoa.
So that’s what we’re going with going forward.
David Friedberg, who had a great party up in Beep.
And I really enjoyed going.
And Sachs, who didn’t go to Beep’s party or to Friedberg’s party.
He stayed home and played chess on his iPhone.
The rain man himself, David Sachs.
Welcome to the pod, everybody.
You want my two New York stories?
My one true bestie, Jason Calacanis.
No, that’s not true.
I really wanted to come, but Nat’s breastfeeding.
And so I couldn’t come.
The helipad was shut down.
Chamath couldn’t land.
You were getting breastfed?
Was there a Curb Your Enthusiasm?
Oh, no, it was this great show called Afterlife from Ricky Gervais.
There’s literally a scene in it where a woman.
They work for a local newspaper that’s going out of business,
and they’re going to do local stories.
And the big story in town is a woman is making
pudding, incredibly delicious pudding, and it’s from her breast milk.
And they go and cover the story.
Anyway, I’ll just leave it at that.
It’s pretty amazing story.
Do you want to know my two New York stories or not?
Yeah, let’s hear it.
Well, you said you had a helicopter story.
A helicopter story.
Helicopter is also a New York story.
So I went to Deepdale to play golf with a certain well-known individual.
And we chop her back.
A finance individual?
Well-known political individual.
So this is not a rock and roller.
You do not want to step foot in a helicopter with a rock and roll star.
No, but so here’s my story, which is why I totally freaked out about helicopters.
This was eight years ago.
We played Deepdale, which is just outside New York.
The chopper lands in the middle of the thing.
I was like, okay, that’s fine.
And we’re going, and I’m already feeling kind of skittish.
I don’t like helicopters.
Get to the Eastside Heliport.
And the Eastside Heliport is basically right by the East River.
And so the helicopter descends.
And one of the skis doesn’t actually land on the fucking thing.
And so he does a little tilty poops.
And then the guy comes back up, and then he lands.
Honestly, like I have never been more scared in my life.
All right, that’s it.
And I was like, that’s it, never again.
I don’t want any besties.
It’s a bestie band for life.
We’re making a pact here.
Nobody in fucking South Africa.
So that’s why I’m on New York.
Last New York story was I was there two days ago.
Or for the last couple of days.
In the middle of this Omicron breakout.
By the way, had a beautiful dinner.
After the game, Draymond, Kevin, Dread, me, bunch of friends.
Did you go to the game?
No, we went to the private room at Carbone.
It was so brutal, though, I have to tell you.
I feel so disgusting with myself.
I had a work dinner.
And I have sushi at the work dinner.
And then, you know, Dray texts after the game.
He’s like, hey, we’re all having dinner at Carbone.
I said, okay, I’ll head through.
I went to the hotel.
I called Nat and I said, I’m brushing my teeth.
And she said, but you’re going out.
And I said, yes, but if I brush my teeth,
I’m not going to eat a second dinner.
And I thought, you know, and then,
but I made the key mistake, but I didn’t floss.
So I was unflossed, but I brushed my teeth.
I show up and fucking, I lose it.
And wine and dessert and bread and pasta, pasta, pasta.
Oh, rigatoni, alabaca, uh-oh.
It was really brutal.
And by 3 a.m., I stumble home.
And I felt so bad because I had to wake up at like, you know,
eight o’clock in the morning.
No, my first meeting was at 745.
Well, congratulations to Seth Curry, by the way.
No, he’s a shooter of all time.
He’s a virtuoso.
Anyways, that was my, that was my New York story.
I gained, you know, here’s my, here’s my, I gained one kilo,
I gained in two days.
Here’s my carbone story.
Hardest thing to the hardest reservation to get in New York.
Saks is like, Jake, I’ll need to help me a favor.
What’s the best place in New York to do a closing dinner?
I’m like, I got you.
I got my guy, get my guy on the horn.
My guy’s like, okay, I got you.
Carbone Friday, fucking night, eight o’clock.
Hardest ticket in New York.
You know what Saks does?
It goes dark.
Friday afternoon, 1pm.
He’s like, yeah, we’re not going to make it.
I’m like, my friend is like, J Kyle, your guy burned the carbone res.
That was the bird IPO.
I was going to take the founder out to dinner that night at carbone.
And then it turned into like the big group dinner with like 30 people.
So it moved over to,
well, by the way, the, the, the, the private room, which is like, you know,
not in the restaurant, but it’s like a little bit on the side.
It only fits like 15, 20 people.
So it’s not like you, you can, and that’s it.
That’s then it’s really tight.
How, what was Steph’s, uh, how did Steph feel?
No, Steph wasn’t there.
Draymond, Kevin, me, Benny Fowler, Morrell, but just a bunch of us.
You said Kevin, Kevin Durant?
Kevin Durant still, huh?
Friendly with, uh.
He’s honestly, he’s, he’s such a great guy.
I love Kevin.
He really, he is really, really, really great.
Wish he had stayed.
Super, super sensitive.
He’s friends again with, uh, he’s always, he’s always, he was always.
I think that when they had their blow up, it was more like their brothers.
And it was just a little bit like when you started talking like Joe Pesci.
Did, did Kevin Durant ever start talking like Joe Pesci?
It was an eventful week on Twitter.
We’re only one week into the new Twitter CEO’s reign.
Jack is gone.
And already David Sachs has been flagged.
It’s a guy.
It can’t be a coincidence that you were talking about them flagging accounts at the end of free
speech and then pull it up on the screen.
Investors should be spending their time finding good investments, not endlessly debating interest
rates, inflation and tax policy.
But that’s the uncertainty Washington has created.
It’s a great tweet.
I like that tweet, actually.
And then the flag, the conversation from Sachs has been flagged.
Some conversations can get heavy.
Don’t forget the human behind the screen.
Do you think that this is that’s machine learned?
Or do you think that that’s an editor that goes in there and actually manually flags
No, I think it’s a great question.
But what is, but what is in there that actually triggers debating?
Interest rates, tax policy, Washington.
I’m not sure.
I’m not sure that you could build.
Or maybe it’s the ratio.
I don’t know how you would build a function that would weight this in a way where this
could get flagged of all the things you could say with those words.
This is so benign.
Well, I think it’s the kind of it seems to be this thing’s kind of ward off bullying
attacks on Sachs, which I don’t think Sachs needs to be too worried about.
All right, because you’re telling this to people who would reply.
You’re saying it’s there to protect me.
It’s to protect you.
It’s one of those things where they’re like trying to get people to not insult you in
They’re talking about that.
Maybe you get a lot.
Do you get it?
Do you get a lot of insults and comments on your tweets?
But so it could just be a blanket.
This this tweets comments section was pretty benign.
It may not be about the tweet.
It might be about the replies.
So it might be that this wasn’t that hot.
This wasn’t that hot.
I think your mouth might be onto something.
You know, Michelle Tandler got the same label around the same day for a tweet that seemed
totally innocuous too.
So what I wonder about is, you know, is this label to protect us or is it a way?
Is it sort of a passive aggressive way for snowflakes at Twitter to like label people
they don’t like and sort of suggest they’re vaguely disreputable?
I don’t think it’s that.
I don’t think it’s a right.
It’s a left wing.
It’s the it’s the libs going after the right sacks.
I haven’t seen any liberals getting.
I haven’t seen any left wing people.
There seems to be a blanket attempt at trying to kind of mute the tone a little bit across
the debating that happens in the comments that come across in the replies.
And I think they’re just trying to like get everyone to tone it down a bit before you
It’d be really interesting to know whether this was algorithmic or is editorial because
I think if it’s editorial, it does actually I don’t think it’s as extreme as what David
just said, but it skews more in the realm of like people with an axe to grind can flag
one thing over another or not.
But if it’s algorithmic, I think that that algorithm probably just needs a lot of tweaking
because it’s not.
Well, anyway, this doesn’t it say that there’s a person behind the tweet?
It’s like trying to get people to not say.
Something wrong with the warning.
The warning is charming.
The warning is charming.
It’s trying to get you to be nice to each other.
It’s like your mom inserting herself and being like, now, remember.
It’s it’s there to suggest that there might be something wrong with the content that’s
Well, you know, in other words, in other words, the content is so triggering that, you know,
it needs warning labels.
Do you guys think that paternalism has a role on social networks to try and
mullify the the kind of discourse being too acrimonious?
Like, I think we need some of the transparency that Jack Dorsey repeatedly promised at all
the congressional hearings.
Remember when he got hauled up there, he promised that they would give more transparency about
the way that their algorithms worked.
Where is that?
And it hasn’t been delivered up.
They promised it.
Now, Jack Dorsey’s skipped out of town and there’s a new guy in charge.
Well, we need to know how these algorithms work because they are pressing their thumb
on the scale, you know, of debate in the marketplace of ideas by suggesting that some
ideas are sketchier than others.
They should just put here.
This was algorithmically done based on they should explain it underneath or there should
be a little question mark over the question mark based on the words in the thread.
It feels like things are getting heated here.
We did this with an algorithm or.
Users reported this as a heated thread.
So we put this here or a human decided no, we decided Yeah,
but you want it to be an open marketplace of ideas.
But the fact is, it’s Twitter’s marketplace of ideas.
And Facebook’s is Facebook’s marketplace of ideas.
And at the end of the day, I don’t think you’re going to get away from any of these
centralized social networks, having anything but some degree of moderation to play a role
in a related thing.
They didn’t just target sacks.
Also, Chamath, you didn’t see this, but they flagged one of your tweets just this afternoon.
Pull it up.
As you can see here, it’s a slightly different one.
It says layers are for players.
This conversation will drift to $5,000 sweaters.
So a big warning for Chamath to just end for the people replying.
This must be that must be then that must have been human.
And this one came in for Prof G.
Another one came in for Prof G.
And in this case, I think they’re actually trying to think about the public good.
This guy is full of shit.
He thought JCPenney would beat Amazon.
How many hours of masterclass Adobe Photoshop did you take to get this?
I didn’t make these.
My meme team did.
I’m convinced that there’s two ways to raise your next fund in Silicon Valley.
One, have one of the top 50 podcasts in the world, or two, have a strong meme game.
And I’m going for both.
Sax now has a warning on his.
And they put it on your profile page.
This was crazy warning.
This person is interesting things to say.
If you if you’re too interesting, you get labeled now.
It’s really crazy.
No, I saw Jake.
I saw Jake having too much fun with this.
I’m like, I gotta get it on this.
You’re like, I need a meme team.
If anybody out there, I don’t care if you’re I need a comedian.
I’m willing to pay on a paper meme, a paper viral, whatever it takes.
Okay, in a related story, Democrats want racial equity audits at tech companies,
according to the Washington Free Beacon, which sacks correct me if I’m wrong.
That’s some sort of wacky right wing publication.
Never heard of it.
Okay, Washington Free Beacon, if instituted orders would have veto power over
every product or initiative.
That’s not an exaggeration is what the story says.
One proposal from House Democrats would fine companies 20,000 a day for not
completing by annual independent racial equity audits.
A left wing nonprofit called color of change is pushing for these audits.
Last week, their president called for independent auditors to vet new products
from tech companies before they’re released in front of Congress.
2018 color of change successfully pushed Facebook into completing an audit.
They call for more restrictions on Trump’s post.
Co change itself pushed for Trump to be permanently banned from the platform.
Just so you know, this is exactly the the rough version of what happened to Microsoft
in their DOJ settlement, their antitrust settlement was effectively an oversight
where lawyers at the DOJ were the product managers and had not effectively veto right,
but you had to approve product features before you could push them for 10 years.
You know, this is essentially what caused bombers rain.
Just be so you know, in ominous is like you couldn’t do anything because like you had you
had a plan to do something.
And you’d have to go to these random folks who didn’t really have the context to make a
One way or the other on feature.
So I mean, the idea that they would do this is a pretty it’s pretty crazy.
I need a point of clarification here.
I’ve heard the term racial audits or racial equity audits.
My understanding of those were to understand the composure of the company in terms of,
you know, the diversity in the company, but this is something different.
This is in the product to make sure the product isn’t racist.
Can products be racist?
What’s an example of a product being racist?
I don’t understand what they would find.
Let me unpack this for you.
Okay, what they are basically saying is that these big companies and the for example,
they’ve called on Google to conduct one of these audits.
They want all these big companies conduct these audits.
These so called auditors are actually political consultants who are members of the Democratic
Party who are friends of the senators are pushing for this.
They’re political activists.
It’s a grift.
And it’s partly a grift, but it’s more than that.
Because, you know, when you conduct an audit, let’s just take this word audit for a second,
You bring in a big five accounting firm, and they will check your numbers according to
generally accepted accounting principles gap and make sure that the numbers are what you
reported them to be.
That is the purpose of an audit.
And if the auditor ever says that you’ve done anything wrong, like you have to fix it, there’s
Or you can appeal to some other auditor and have them redo the work, okay, according to
these generally accepted principles.
With an equity audit, what exactly are the principles that are being enforced or checked
There is no generally accepted list of equity principles that must be enforced these companies.
Basically, you have to do whatever this political activist tells you to do.
I mean, it’s essentially like bringing in a party commissar to now take over the company
or at least be inside the company telling the executives and officer of the company
what to do.
It’s something that frankly, the CCP would do.
It does feel a little like, yeah, Stasi.
Like, didn’t we have all of the companies on their own from Twitter to Google to Facebook
release their own diversity stats years ago?
I think this is about diversity.
It’s about equity.
It’s about equity.
So let’s explain the difference in what that means.
This is somehow how the companies run like the day to day life of the employees.
They’re not just the composure and the breakdown of the employees.
Look, equity, equity means anything that progressives say it means.
We’ve seen on this program before how equity has dumped the shark.
There’s now there’s a provision in the infrastructure bill for tree equity.
So I mean, really, any disparity that occurs that progressives don’t like can now be called
a violation of equity.
And this gives them the authorization to come in there and start giving orders.
It’s very weird that I don’t understand how the product then review gets
stopped to throttle you from a leasing product as a punitive.
Let me give you an example.
So recently, you know, I wrote a piece called the no buy list where I basically you had
companies like PayPal and some of these other financial firms were starting to deny service
to customers to users based on their political affiliations.
And not just like people who are in, you know, well known hate groups that like everybody
sort of, you know, issues and wants to stay away from.
But these are people with relatively down the middle conservative, you know, conservative
groups, and they were being denied service by, you know, fintech firms.
So now I’m not saying that this is what this means.
But if this equity auditors tells you, well, look, I don’t think it’s equitable to allow
these conservative groups to, you know, be a user of your product.
Well, what’s the company going to do?
They’re gonna have to listen to that.
And that that is a plausible scenario, given that it’s already occurred.
We’ve all we’ve we’ve said this so many times on the pod, but I just want to say it again,
for because I guess a lot of folks are new and listening.
Whenever you hear equity used by a politician, it usually means there’s a power grab involved.
Yeah, because if you really want things to be fair, you want things to be equal,
meritocracy, you want equality.
But whenever you start throwing the word equity around and say we want racial equity,
it’s a bunch of, you know, a small number of people
who, you know, basically have and live by what I, you know, what’s often called luxury beliefs,
who want to judge other people who want to be morally absolutist, and then who want to
basically, like, you know, exercise a power grab.
And we have to push back on that stuff, because it’s just a slippery, slippery slope.
Well, this also seems like overbearing red tape for companies.
I mean, if the company has no problems, no complaints against it,
you know, releases their diversity numbers, like, what is the point of going?
Let’s use let’s use an example that builds on what David said, let’s take square,
okay, one of the one of the most incredible things that square did
was in a hackathon, essentially, build a cash app.
And one of the most incredible things that happened in the cash app was that it
really started to blow up in urban communities.
And it starts to normalize banking, opening up bank accounts, having more savings,
understanding, you know, an on ramp into crypto, you know, cash app has probably done more to get
black and brown people into crypto and to save money and to understand their cash than almost
anybody else as as like, almost explicit strategy.
And so if somebody’s supposed to go in there and just, you know, arbitrarily judge whether
there’s too many white people that work at square or not enough black people, and so
XYZ thing has to change, or such and such a feature doesn’t actually speak to folks,
so you can’t do it.
It’s like also to your point, Saks is what, what are the, what do these people know?
Like, what is their qualification?
And what’s the goal?
And to build on Jamal’s point, if these senators, so I think Cory Booker was the one who proposed
If these senators want those specific policies implemented in the fortune 500, let them pass
a bill to do it and let all of our elected representatives vote on that bill.
And then we can see if it’ll really if it’s popular enough to pass, and whether it passes
constitutional muster, they won’t do that.
Because these bills, if they were directly concretized for
They don’t have legs.
Would be very unpopular.
So instead, what they do is tell you, well, we’re not going to do this directly, we’re
going to put pressure on these big companies to hire one of our political friends, again,
this like commissar like person, and empower them to tell these companies what to do.
So it’s really kind of insidious what they’re doing.
And they’re kind of covering it all up with these nice sounding names.
I mean, who could be against a racial equity audit?
Because this, yes, if you’re if you’re against it, you must be a racist, and you must not
believe in auditing companies.
You have to you just it’s a word game.
It’s it’s using words that are really loaded and mean a lot to a lot of us, right?
If I hear racism and race, my ears are triggering.
It’s not triggering, but my ears perk up.
And I have, I have a lot of inbuilt opinions on it that have been governed by 45 years
as living as a, as a brown man.
And so, okay, it stands to reason that I’m going to pay attention.
But on the surface, if you say racial equity audit, it also doesn’t seem actually all that
It seems like reasonably benign.
And that seems like an okay thing to do.
It’s just that most of us then stop at that point and move on.
But if you actually look at the rules, again, I would just say whenever political frameworks
use the word we need to create more equity, the outcomes are horrible.
For example, look in healthcare.
You know, if we have used this idea of healthcare equity, health equity, and we’ve misused it
to such a degree.
And all we see is that now the system is so perverted.
It also doesn’t work for the majority of people that have actually had the healthcare system
work for it, right?
Like at the top of the pecking order has always been white men have always gotten the best
And we’ve always measured our healthcare progress in America based on the longevity of men,
white men, you know, 78, 79, 80 years old, and then it started to degrade.
And people were curious what was happening.
And underneath it all was just a bunch of power grabs under the realm of equity.
We passed all these crazy laws, we basically didn’t do anything to really create more
accountability and a cost based system.
And here we are.
So at some point, when the citizenry hears that word, you’re going to have to put your
thinking cap on and actually take the opposite view, which is hold on, this is a really nice
It may not be what I think it is.
And I got to pay attention because more than if I didn’t hear the word at all,
anything you have on race, Friedberg, representing
fundamentally, I don’t think this is about race, Jake, I think this is about power,
It’s about it feels like a power grip.
Also, it feels like a little grip.
It feels like a little bit of a grift.
I know I had heard on the back channel that a lot of the people who are criticizing some
big tech companies who were getting, you know, I’m not gonna say who or under what
moniker sweater Karen, Karen, but there was a group of people who are like attacking
big Karen, if she has an opinion on sweater, she must have an opinion on racial equity.
Okay, leave sweater Karen has the issue is, they would complain and create these, you
know, basically, you know, Twitter mobs.
And then they’d say, Oh, yeah, and hire us for $20,000.
We’ll come in and fix the problem for you.
So they were creating the Twitter mob to come in and solve the problem.
That’s so it was like, Oh, wow, that is
That’s so brutal.
That’s so dirty.
No, I mean, these HR consultants who’ve written these books, like on the was it
D’Angelo or whatever on white fragility, and, you know, how to be an anti racist.
I mean, they’re all making a fortune in corporate fees, you know, charging
20 $30,000 per, per gig.
I mean, it is absolutely a racket.
I’m not a fan of equality of outcome.
I’m more a fan of equality of opportunity.
And I think many, many of these sorts of folks, I try and identify methods to drive equality
And it inhibits the competitive forces that cause the best person, the best idea, the
best business, the best market model to win.
And, you know, I think it’s easy to conflate the two when you don’t really think through
But it is certainly appropriate and reasonable to make sure that folks aren’t discriminated
against when they apply for a job.
I don’t think it’s appropriate to then apply considerations of race and other factors when
people are equally in the same job on who gets to have the chance at the bonus, it is
the best performer that should have the chance at the bonus.
And the same should be true in marketplaces and the same should be true at business.
And I think that what we’re really seeing is this fundamental effort to try and generate
equality and outcomes in lots of different manifestations.
And we’re seeing it more frequently and more severely than we’ve seen it historically.
But it’s not, I don’t think it’s the right model.
And it’s only going to lead to the demise of marketplace dynamics and the things that
cause forces for success and progress to win.
You know, we mentioned this a couple of times, I’ll just say it again.
But we are about to have probably the most significant movement and questioning of equity
Because I think in the next month, maybe in the next two months, we’re going to sort of
see a pretty strict opinion on affirmative action.
And if you talk to legal scholars, the overwhelming consensus is this is gone.
And, you know, we’re going to have to figure out how to rebuild, you know, what was a really
important system that tried to give folks at least, you know, getting to the starting
line in the same way.
But it’s not gonna it’s not really gonna exist in this in the same way shape or form.
Speaking of Karens, Elizabeth Warren was bashing Elon over taxes.
And Elon has a Twitter handle with some followers, and he responded.
Elizabeth Warren says, let’s change the rigged tax code.
So the person the year will actually pay taxes and stop freeloading off everyone else.
Unfortunately for Elizabeth Warren, Elon Musk is pretty good at Twitter, he replied.
And if you opened your eyes for two seconds, you would realize I pay more taxes than any
American in history this year, he paid, which is, I guess, true, he paid more in taxes now
than any American in history.
As a side note, Elizabeth Warren has a $12 million net worth, and I saw that she paid
no taxes on her equity holdings because she didn’t sell anything, which is how the tax
And Elon then responded.
Don’t spend it all at once.
Oh, wait, you already did.
And then, you know, after the warm up replies, Elon really, you know, got in the zone and
like Steph Curry, just started draining half court shots.
He ratioed her every single time.
Ratioed her with 50,000 replies.
Yeah, you remind me of when I was a kid, and my friend’s angry mom would just randomly
yell at everyone for no reason.
Please don’t call the manager on me, Senator Karen, you want also responded to Bernie Sanders
tweet today about climate change.
Bernie Sanders said, when future generations ask us, what do we do to stop the climate
How will they answer?
And Elon said, and so great tweets.
But to the bigger picture, did these people even know what’s going on in the world?
No, they woke up, they woke up on the wrong side of the tilt bed.
Because in like a 24 hour period, he was the time person of the year, the FT person of
And they just went into super mega tilt mode.
And the Build Back Better Act got shelved.
And he and then build back better got shelved and well, I mean, you know, I think we talked
about this last week, but that bill is dead now.
I mean, they pushed it to March to basically avoid a downvote.
Nothing’s gonna happen.
David, you’re right.
We said last week, wouldn’t it be hilarious if Elon said kill it, and then it got killed?
Well, I don’t I don’t think that that’s why the bill is dying.
I think the real reason is that we now see a Fed posture, which is actually pretty reasonable,
which actually says, Oh, wait, there’s way too much money in the system as it is.
You know, the Fed two days ago basically said, we’re going to see up to three rate hikes
next year, probably 50 basis points each.
So, you know, it’s basically acknowledging that these these last, you know, several years,
we have printed way too much money, and they’re trying to fix the problem that they created.
So that’s, I think, the real reason.
And then the CBO comes out and basically says the Congressional Budget Office and says,
this thing is a white albatross that’s going to cost way more than you guys think it will.
And so it puts Biden in this very awkward situation, which is, you know, on the one
hand, he supports Powell.
And, you know, he supports institutions or has historically like the CBO.
But he effectively then has to push back on both of them all in one fall swoop to try to
ram this bill down people’s throats.
And the support is, I think it’s crumbling.
And so, you know, to save face, they basically said, Well, we’ll put a pin on this, and we’ll
revisit it in March.
But you guys know what’s going to happen in the next three months, there’s going to be
some other crisis, most folks will forget, and it may just allow them to move on without
having to actually deal with the potential of this thing getting defeated, which would
just be, I think, cataclysmically bad for sex for Democrats,
you were on CNBC today, I thought you said something really important where you said,
Listen, maybe if we just calm things down for a year, we can, you know, get through
I’m not sure what the exact quote was, but maybe you could unpack that sentiment you
had on CNBC today, because I thought that was pretty important.
Yeah, well, I mean, I agree with what Chamath said, this, I mean, this, this BBB bill was
particularly anachronistic once the 6.8%, you know, inflation print came out.
In other words, we’re in a hyperinflationary environment.
And here comes this bill that the CBO says, if, you know, over 10 years would cost $5
trillion, that’s the last thing we need is more money printing when you know, we’ve got
this inflationary fire out of control.
So I think that is why the bill is being shelved, probably not to return.
I think that the larger problem that we have in the markets is that there’s a tremendous
amount of uncertainty being created right now by Washington, we’ve had tremendous uncertainty
over spending, over taxes, over interest rates.
And the conversations that I’m having with friends who are investors in really every
asset class, real estate, VC, crypto, the conversations are all the same, what’s interest
rates going to do?
What’s the macro picture going to be?
I’ve never seen investors who should be focused on, hey, do I invest this company or buy this
Those aren’t the conversations.
It’s all everyone’s a macroeconomist now.
And so we’re also distracted by this.
And so now the Fed a couple of days ago finally gave us clarity.
I mean, what they basically said is they’re going to accelerate the taper, they’ll, they’ll
end quantitative easing at the end of Q1.
And then we’re basically going to get
explain what that means to people who don’t know what they’ve been purchasing and why.
Yeah, I mean, quantitative easing is kind of a weird term.
What it means is the Fed has been going into the bond market and buying bonds.
I think basically mortgage-backed securities and treasuries.
And they’ve been buying, I think, about $90 billion a month.
They’re going to cut that back to $60 billion a month.
And that’ll continue.
Just to explain it a little bit more, when you do that, what you’re doing is you’re giving
somebody that owns those bonds money.
So the Fed prints money.
The government prints $100, takes that $100, steps into the market, and takes something
from you, in this case, it’s a bond, and gives you that freshly printed $100.
What are you going to do?
Well, you’re probably going to go and spend that.
You’re going to buy other things.
And that’s the cycle of inflation that quantitative easing basically creates.
And so when you talk about tapering, what that means is slowing down the money printing
machine and slowing down you stepping in the market and buying assets with money that
you’ve created out of thin air.
And it’s up to other people to buy those assets.
If other people see value in them, you then are forced to find the real market clearing
Yeah, those bonds are now on the Fed’s balance sheet.
And so there’s a very interesting chart showing assets that are owned by the Fed.
And it went up by something like $3 trillion during COVID.
So that is the sort of monetary stimulus that’s been pumped into the market over the last
couple of years.
Separately, we’ve had something like six or $7 trillion of just spending by the government.
So, you know, tremendous amount of
$3 trillion is not thrown away.
So we’re clear, we’re going to get interest on that.
And people, some number will default, some of them will get paid back.
It’s a way of stimulating the economy.
But we now know after this stimmy checks, and all the stimulus we did during the pandemic,
we don’t need to put more fire or oxygen or kerosene on what we got going in this economy.
Yeah, I mean, we should show that chart about how much the Fed’s balance sheet has grown over
the last couple of years.
But, you know, the argument I think would be the reason why they buy these assets is if
they’re buying bonds, it basically means that it keeps the yield down, right?
Because if they weren’t the ones buying them, someone else would have to buy these bonds to
keep the government funded.
And they might demand a higher interest rate, a higher yield on the bonds.
So this by having the Fed come in and increase the demand for the government’s debt, it means
that the government can sell its debt more cheaply.
So when they stop doing that, I think you can expect that, you know, interest rates
are going to need to rise in order to make our debt attractive to, you know, to bond buyers.
The other thing, the other thing, by the way, that the Fed did when they did that was it
wasn’t just government bonds that they were buying.
They decided completely arbitrarily at one point to start buying certain corporate debt.
So they own like Ford debt, GM debt, United Airlines.
Commercial paper, that’s called, yeah.
No, no, no.
Well, I mean, commercial paper is sort of more very fast term, short term duration.
But like, how do you make a decision to start buying corporate bonds?
It’s like buying corporate equities.
Do you buy Google versus Facebook?
Do you have a view?
Who’s the capital allocator making that decision?
So more importantly, who’s setting the price?
Who’s setting the price?
So, you know, these guys have been off the reservation for a long time.
I think it’s fair to say that they were forced into action without a playbook in the middle of
a once in a lifetime, once a century pandemic.
And I think they actually did a pretty reasonable job.
But we just kept the tap on for so long.
And now we’re like dealing with this stuff, trying to figure out how do we actually compensate?
So the idea that we would add knowing all of this.
So it’s one thing, I think, if Biden passed the bill, five months ago, six months ago,
because we didn’t know any of this stuff.
But to do it now, knowing that, I think that it’s really hard.
And I bet you that it’s not just Manchin on the Democrats that are having a little bit
of heartburn and second thoughts.
It’s probably more because I suspect that they could have forced his hand, really,
if it was just up to him.
But I suspect there are other Democrats who are now teetering on the fence thinking,
I don’t want my legacy to be tied to this.
When we’re printing six, seven, 8% inflation, for me to basically keep the money printing
machine on because it’s, it’s insane.
This is like the Sopranos episode where he gave them like, he fronted the guy like 45
boxes of ziti.
And like, you wake up and this guy can’t pay the bill on the poker game.
Like, where can we even afford to pay this back at some point?
Yeah, look, I think when when March comes around, and this bill supposedly going to
be brought back off the table, we’re going to be into the election season in 2022.
And I don’t know that Democrats are gonna want to defend this.
I think there is a view on the democratic side that if they deliver enough goodies to
their base, then that will help them win elections.
But I think what helps you win elections more than delivering goodies to your special interest
is for the economy to be healthy.
And if they are sort of pressurizing this inflation situation, that is, I think, ultimately,
that could backfire.
I think that’s going to be worse for the economy.
Frankly, I think Manchin is doing Biden a favor, because if the economy does grow by
4% next year, as the Fed is predicting it is, and if inflation comes down, because you
stop printing money the way they’re doing, then, you know, I think the Democrats will
do better in the election if the economy is good.
I mean, one of the reasons why they did so poorly, you know, in the off year election
a month ago, is that there’s tremendous economic anxiety out there.
People are seeing the inflation at the gas tank when they go to buy food.
And, you know, if that continues, I think they’re going to do very poorly next year.
I wanted to like bring up this chart from Fred on total assets on the Fed balance sheet.
I think it is really interesting to look at this thing.
Because so the Fed had about a trillion of assets until 2008.
Okay, then we had the financial crisis, and they doubled it.
That’s when the quantitative easing began.
I went to 2 trillion.
But then from roughly 2009, to about 2020, before COVID, somehow the balance sheet grew
from 2 trillion to 4 trillion.
So and it had gone to four and a half, and they were starting to shed assets.
So they’re starting to get off drugs.
But it was still from two to 4 trillion between this like 2009 and 2020 period when supposedly
we weren’t in a crisis.
So, you know, they’ve continued this quantitative easing, then COVID hits.
And the amount grows from four to 7 trillion, just in 2020.
And since then, it’s gone from seven to a little under 9 trillion.
Just in the last, you know, well, they
How do we get these things off our books ever?
I mean, these are 20 year bonds.
Eventually, you got to sell them.
Well, either they’re gonna have to sell the assets.
Or they can’t do.
Well, what’s not like that they basically are the are the Fed is the one who bought
the government debt.
So they’re buying is call it a 10 year Treasury.
So yeah, I guess they could just wait till the bond gets paid off.
But but I guess they could do that.
But but now that Fed has an incentive not to let the assets get toxic, right?
So if you know, the assets would get toxic, if you know, if interest rates go up too high,
that drives bond prices down.
And now all the assets in their books are worth a lot less.
Yeah, this is this is like the point where we have to just call it and say,
Okay, you know what, let’s move on.
Meaning in the sense that, like, we have to go to these root causes, because the
money is more money is not going to fix what we’re dealing with.
So I just put something in the group chat.
And I just want to get your guys’s reaction to it.
Because when I saw it, it blew my mind.
There was a study, okay, that was just published a few days ago.
And it said the following thing.
Children born during the pandemic have experienced a catastrophic drop
in cognitive development of 22 IQ points.
And when you look at it, the people that were the most affected were
male children, and children of lower socioeconomic families.
But everybody was affected.
Yet you see the amount of money that we’re spending already.
So adding more money to something is not going to make it better.
If what we’re spending today is basically just getting flushed down the toilet.
And these are the kinds of things that really matter.
How do you allow an entire generation of kids to see to suffer?
By the way, what does that show?
That means that teachers actually are unbelievably important.
So number one, they should get paid a lot more.
Okay, let’s just put it out.
There should be more of them and smaller class sizes.
But if you if you have, you know, these completely screwed up incentives
between, you know, the organizations, the unions that represent these teachers,
and then the parents who have completely different incentives.
And they basically fight to never be in classroom and to not really teach.
This is the measurable outcome.
The IQ of our children.
I mean, we are pushing ability, their executive function, their scores are going down.
How do they recover from that?
It’d be a lot of tutoring.
It’s gonna be a lot of summer school.
Zoom’s not gonna do it.
I don’t think more Fortnite and Roblox fixes this problem.
No, definitely not.
And I feel terrible because like, you know, as a parent, that’s that was my solution.
I was struggling with the zooms, like every other parent.
And then in the evenings, I was just so burnt and just feeling so
beside myself in the middle of the pandemic.
Whereas I had a no iPad rule for my kids that I broke down.
You know, everybody did.
I mean, it’s like, you’re home with your kids all day long.
It’s not how it’s supposed to work.
And so the point is, like, this is where the government should step in and actually say,
Okay, here, let me take leadership on this topic.
And talk to the unions, fix whatever needs to be fixed,
amp up the money into charter schools, do whatever you need to do.
But please fix the problem.
But randomly spending money to try to buy votes.
I think people see through that.
It just doesn’t work.
And related to that Omicron is spreading like crazy.
New York City.
There is no N.
Yes, I’ll learn how to pronounce it when it’s gone.
Omicron is spreading like crazy.
In New York City, and in the UK, amongst other places, the NBA and the NFL are seeing surges.
I’ve had a ton of people I know test positive this week.
You guys had that?
It’s insane how many people are.
I know so many people.
And a lot of people that don’t have any symptoms.
So here’s the chart of cases, cases spiking, but hospitalizations and deaths.
Are flat or going down in places where these outbreaks are occurring.
The UK charts are even starker.
There’s a lot of anecdotal evidence.
Everybody on TikTok and Instagram and Twitter.
Young people in New York who went to SantaCon are saying they all got it.
But if you look at this chart.
What is SantaCon?
SantaCon is the worst holiday of the year.
It’s a time when a bunch of young people dress as Santa Claus and get drunk.
And you have 10,000 people.
It’s a bar crawl.
You see this?
You see how Monty’s wearing his Santa outfit?
Oh, Monty Claus.
That’s what goes on.
Everyone wears their little Santa outfit and they go bar crawling.
So it’s not Sexy Santa?
Well, actually, I have a story about that.
I was in San Francisco when I first moved up here.
You were Sexy Santa?
No, I literally took my daughters out for pizza.
Tony’s in North Beach.
And, you know, I got my three daughters.
And there’s all these people walking around.
It’s Santa Claus.
Like a lot of them.
And so there’s 1,000 Santa Claus descend on North Beach.
And I turn around and I kid you not.
There are two old guys.
I’m talking 70 years old.
And they’re wearing a baseball, a Santa hat.
And nothing in between.
Literally buck naked on the street.
Bro, you’re so demented, okay?
You’re like this, like, unky perv.
Like, every time I get those text messages, I don’t know what to think.
Did you guys click on the Twitter link when Jason was like,
guys, search for the Folsom Street Fair on Twitter?
I can’t unsee what I saw.
I was like, why is Folsom Street trending?
I was like, I thought there was a terrorist attack.
Bro, that was so brutal.
You can’t send that shit around.
Like, it’s so brutal.
I was like, don’t click on Folsom.
I was like, oh, this is a Twitter link.
What is it about?
The Folsom Street Fair.
I’m going to go ahead and say, don’t search for that.
If you have kids around, it’s a little bit intense.
But anyway, the SantaCon was on Saturday, December 11th.
And so here we are five days later, you know, four or five days later, and the stuff
hitting, if that’s true, it almost perfectly mirrors the original outbreak
after St. Patty’s Day in March 2020.
And if you look on social media, all the city MD lines,
where people get tested are around the block.
And 30 NBA players have entered the COVID protocol in the last two weeks,
about 7% of the league.
And we had a big question mark of would this be less, more contagious?
It obviously is, check.
It apparently is.
Some studies show as much as 40 times more infectious than Delta.
Highly contagious, extreme, very much airborne.
It’s going everywhere.
Like I said last time, if it does end up having low severity and low
hospitalization rate and low death rate for vaccinated or vaccinated plus boosted populations,
this could end up being a massive immunizing event,
meaning like a lot of people will develop new antibodies and resistance.
And that could be a net good thing.
But it’s certainly the case that this is not a one strain, one shot and done pandemic.
This is an endemic kind of circumstance.
We’re going to be in this for a while.
And the circumstances are one that may require an adaptation in terms of
how we live and operate.
And especially as it relates to things that are so important,
like keeping businesses open in schools.
I think we’re going to use recent memory to guide future decision making,
or at least politicians and lawmakers will.
And they’ll say,
Hey, this is what we did last time this happened.
And we just saw this in California where they’re like,
last time, like we told everyone going to lockdown or wear masks indoors again,
and we’re seeing that behavior again.
Certainly, it may have an impact in terms of the spread,
but this is highly contagious, and it’s going to spread everywhere.
And I think there’s just some adaptation that maybe
is going to be needed here over the long run.
There’s no end, there’s no end in sight.
There’s no end in sight, but it is less deadly.
And so it could be mass immunizing.
And that has led people to think of this herd immunity,
potentially, if there’s not another variant,
sacks, if the NBA and the NFL are learning to live with COVID.
And obviously, when we were in Miami, there’s no COVID.
And Austin, there’s no COVID.
Yeah, is everybody now just go because it seems like the politicians now,
whether it’s in Europe, we’re seeing the protests.
And I think we’ll see them here in the United States.
If this keeps up, Australia, obviously having protests as well.
The public has decided, I think, we’re willing to have 1000 people die a day
or a certain number of people die today to get back to normal.
So what do you think the end game here is going into 2022?
I’ll make a prediction for 2022.
Okay, I will predict that even the blue areas of the country
are going to have fatigue with all these COVID restrictions.
And so even the blue state governors who are addicted to their state of emergencies
and their restrictions and lockdowns and closures and mask mandates,
even they are going to have to give them up in 2022
because the country is sick and tired of this.
Peter Pham had a really good tweet just the other day,
maybe you guys can dig it up, where he had a friend visit him from Texas.
And they’ve been living normally there since like July of 2020, roughly.
Kids in school, occasionally someone gets sick,
but they’ve been living normally, okay?
It’s a manageable problem.
And he couldn’t believe, Peter’s friend could not believe how they’re living in LA,
where still everyone’s living in fear.
We now have a new one-month indoor mask mandate,
thanks to Governor Newsom, who still is ruling the state of emergency.
What good is that going to do?
But I think that some of these blue areas, people are so petrified still of the virus.
And I think it’s just because of,
they’re the ones who have been ingesting all this fear porn coming from the media.
But I think it’s going to break.
I think finally this hysteria and panic will break,
it’ll crest over the blue parts of the country in 2022.
They’re already back to normal in the red parts.
And especially Omicron, you can’t stop this, okay?
I think that’s the salient point here.
You’re all going to get it.
Look, the little stupid vax card that you have to
show everywhere to get like popcorn at a movie theater, like in San Francisco,
it doesn’t do anything because vaccinated people can spread it too.
So that doesn’t do anything.
And the mask mandate doesn’t do anything.
You know, and so none of this stuff does anything except
getting a vaccine reduces the severity of the illness.
And losing weight.
And we can’t have that conversation.
Those consequences are mainly on the person who decides to do it.
That’s what we have to say is we have to tell everybody, you know, listen,
lose weight, get in shape, eat healthy, get vaccinated, get back to life.
That’s the best you can do.
I’m I believe everybody’s going to get it.
We’re starting to see like a real divergence in American life where and I think Omicron,
if we have lockdowns under Omicron, and really the big issue is school closures.
If we go back to school closures in blue states and have more of the learning loss
that Chamath was talking about, and I bet we do, whereas in red states,
they’re still out there learning normally and they’re dealing with it,
just like they deal with the outbreak of a flu season or cold season.
But they, you know, they’re just managing it.
We’re gonna there’s gonna be we’re gonna be living in two different Americas.
But I but I don’t believe this is sustainable.
I think eventually, these governors who are holding on to their power,
and their restrictions are going to lose in 2022.
The ones who haven’t given it up are gonna are gonna basically fall to a red wave in November
I think NUSA might be the only one left.
Any schools closed?
I see everybody’s cancelling their Christmas parties.
JP Morgan cancelled that.
Every Christmas party has been getting cancelled.
And I wonder if schools, I mean, teachers unions, they got to be having a meeting right now.
They don’t even the teachers don’t even acknowledge that learning loss exists.
I mean, this is why I decided to homeschool for the year of the pandemic.
And I kept my homeschool teacher for, you know, a couple of hours a day.
And my kids have done wonderfully.
And it’s great to have the ability to afford to be able to do that.
But not everybody can have an after school tutor.
Let me uplevel this for a second.
Okay, so I’m spilling the beans on one of my predictions.
I’ll make it the predictions episode we do.
But first, we had COVID.
Okay, then we had the overreaction to COVID, both politically and economically.
Economically, we pumped 10 trillion plus of spending and monetary and QE and all this sort
Politically, we had these restrictions, school closures, lockdowns, mandates.
Okay, I think we’re about to enter a new phase, which is the correction to the overreaction.
And I think we’re already in the correction.
So the market’s been correcting, gross stocks been correcting for the last five or six weeks.
I now think that there was a bit of a political correction with Youngkin winning in Virginia.
Remember, that state swung 10 points relative to a year ago.
And I think you’ll see a further correction, both political and economic in 2022.
So we may not be completely past COVID.
But I think we are going to be past this sort of overreaction to COVID.
What do you guys think about Succession?
Oh, no, I haven’t seen it.
Let’s talk about the Jeremy Strong thing.
Okay, Jeremy Strong is a weirdo, according to a New Yorker profile.
And there’s been a huge response to it.
This profile came out.
This is Kendall.
Kendall Roy on Succession.
Kendall Roy, who is woke, and dumb, and ineffective as an executive.
And obviously, the show is modeled after Rupert Murdoch and Fox and the kids there who are not
In the article, it hinted that most of Succession’s co workers dislike him due to his intensity
and method acting rituals.
He won’t rehearse with anybody.
He’s in character all the time, like Daniel Day-Lewis.
He won’t get makeup whenever anybody else does, because he doesn’t want to reduce the
energy and the buildup.
The article notes, there is a fine line that Strong walks between being a legendary method
actor and just a completely awesome networker.
Wait, can I tell you why this story was interesting to me and why I sent this to you guys?
Okay, so here’s a guy who, in many ways, is a virtuoso.
And the reason, I mean, he’s a really good actor, because I despise Kendall Roy on that
And I was wondering, like, is this guy just a terrible actor?
Or is he such a good actor that I hate them?
I hate him.
And that’s why I was attracted to this article and in it or after it.
So basically, what happens is, he’s a virtuoso, just and I’ll come back to it in a second.
These people at the New Yorker, who I guess are just jealous or want to write clickbait,
try to destroy this guy.
But what they didn’t factor is that when they publish this article, all these other actors
would come to his defense and do it really publicly.
Anne Hathaway, Jessica Chastain, Aaron Sorkin wrote a letter.
That Jessica Chastain published to Twitter, because Aaron Sorkin doesn’t have access to
social media by design.
And in all of it, they said, this is the most incredible person we’ve seen.
Aaron Sorkin says this guy is as good as Dustin Hoffman, which is like, this is…
As good as it gets.
So why was it interesting to me?
You have these people who are grinding and trying to perfect their craft, be a virtuoso.
You talked about Steph Curry grinding, try to perfect his craft.
Just a little Steph Curry story as a tangent.
He brought in this team where they basically started to map out all of the circumferences
of the ring, of the net.
And he practiced this summer, literally trying to get it perfectly in to create this very
specific kind of swish.
And he just kept shooting and shooting and shooting and shooting, not all the time, but
every day for some number of shots, trying to get the ball perfectly into the basket.
That is a level of perfectionism.
And that’s being a virtuoso that none of us can really appreciate, but you see the output
and we all love it.
He’s already the GOAT and he’s trying to outdo himself.
Here’s a different guy in a completely different theater, in this case, acting, trying to also
be really legendary and putting himself through all kinds of stuff and still not lose himself
So much so that all of these other people will really appreciate how amazing he is.
And to me, what I don’t like is that then these critics who don’t do anything, who’ve
never accomplished anything at all in their lives, feel so triggered that they have to
It’s one thing to not have that skill.
I’ll never be as good of an actor as Jeremy Strong.
I’ll never be as good of a basketball player as Steph, but I don’t hate these people for
I’m so happy that people like this exist, but there’s a strain of people that exist.
And then you also have a, and then you also have a platform.
I was about to connect the dots for you is like, look at, yeah.
Look at how the politicians feel the same way about private market.
Politicians, social media.
Who decide to try to destroy people.
So instead what these people do is they take a shortcut.
They’re the critics.
They’re not in the arena.
The folks in the arena are booking wins and losses constantly.
But you have this, you have this strain of impotent critic that doesn’t actually know
how to do for themselves.
And they somehow have a platform.
And then what they end up doing is cutting corners.
And then some subset of those start to cheat.
Well, yeah, it’s a story that Congress back in 2012 passed a bill called the stock act
to prohibit members of Congress from trading on their insider knowledge based on, you know,
based on legislative actions are about to take.
And it’s been widely flouted by dozens of, you know, representatives and senators.
And the problem is there’s no punishment.
It’s something like a $200 fine or something like that, that gets waived in most of these
So it’s completely hypocritical because these are the, these politicians like Senator Karen,
they’re constantly demonizing and attacking other people to make themselves look better.
And then here they are, they’ve got dirty hands.
And they asked Pelosi, they said to Pelosi, well, don’t you think that members of Congress
should be prohibited from trading stocks, right?
Because their actions have such a huge consequence on them.
And Pelosi said, no, it’s a free market.
It’s a free market.
We should be free to do that.
It’s like, huh?
You know, I don’t remember that being a defense.
Every time you’ve wanted to regulate some, you know, industry that doesn’t the president
have to divest when they take the presidential office?
Isn’t that a divest?
Or they put they put their assets in a blind trust.
Yeah, so they’re blind.
So why would senators, Congress, totally people be any different?
It’s absurd that elected officials should be able to engage in insider trading.
It makes no sense.
The Fed actually had this issue as well.
Two folks on the Federal Reserve Board resigned.
And then Powell issued a whole bunch of, I think, new laws or regulations inside the Fed
to try to fix it.
And the same issue occurs with federal judges.
And there are federal judges that are consistently trading
in the equities of the companies that are in front of them.
And so how can you adjudicate a case?
There was one judge that had 130 plus conflicts, trading conflicts.
130 plus, and he is the one that’s there where AT&T or Facebook or Google has an issue.
I mean, how can you actually assume that these folks are being impartial if that’s the case?
And there are no consequences for this.
And yet, you know, if you’re again, going back to where we started,
somebody in the arena trying to do something, you just got to think yourself like you have
critics that are bashing you, you have folks that are basically flouting the law because
And then you put these two together.
And it’s like, this is so it’s kind of depressing, to be honest with you, you start to lose a
little bit of faith.
Let’s be honest.
I mean, this, these politicians are grifters.
And full stop.
I mean, they’re just grifting.
And I mean, except for apparently, except for Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren,
they should just buy the companies they hate.
Why aren’t they buying Amazon and Tesla, they would be total proponents of Jeff Bezos and
Elon Musk if they did.
Yeah, in fairness to Warren, I’ve seen her tweet that she supports the banning of the
insider trading by congressional representatives.
But I don’t exactly see her fighting for it.
You know, as hard as she’s denouncing people like Elon.
So, look, I mean, it’s characteristic of elected officials that they, what is it they see the
splinter, you know, in somebody, you know, in somebody else’s eye, but not the log in
their own or something like that.
Isn’t that the expression?
But you know, who’s taking advantage of this issue is Blake Masters, who’s running for
Senate in Arizona just tweeted about that this would be the first thing he would fix
if he gets elected, which is to ban insider trading by elected officials.
And I think it’s remarkable that, you know, politicians as shrewd as Nancy Pelosi are
just ceding this issue to Republicans.
I mean, I don’t know why Republicans wouldn’t make this a major plank of their platform
Nancy Pelosi is, I think, the third or fourth richest person in Congress.
Her husband is a very sophisticated private equity investor.
There are these meme stocks that follow Nancy Pelosi’s stock trading account or pretend
to that were, you know, recently, by the way, banned by Twitter, right?
Protecting her effectively.
So, you know, she has an incentive to not.
Her seat of power is not necessarily the salary that she earns by being house leader, but
it’s by translating that in a bunch of different ways.
And one way, apparently, it turns out is being an active equity investor in the market.
I don’t know how this isn’t just like an A plus fantastic issue for Republicans.
They should make it an absolute plank of their platform.
Here we go.
Florida Republican Brian Mast was late in disclosing purchase of up to 100,000 in stock
at an aerospace company, which had just testified before our committee.
He said Kentucky Republican Rand Paul was 16 months late disclosing that he bought
his wife bought stock in a pharma company that manufactures an antiviral COVID-19 treatment.
Nevada Democrat Susie Lee failed to probably disclose more than 200 trades.
Yeah, just as much as three million.
I mean, this is just to be clear.
The violations have been on both sides of the aisle.
I’m not at all trying to say that Republicans are better on this than Democrats.
However, this is good bipartisan cooperation.
Yeah, yeah, exactly.
I mean, it’s ridiculous.
This is the political class in Washington engaging in bad behavior.
But the difference is this, which is that Pelosi, the only leader of a party I’ve heard
defend this is Pelosi.
And I think this is a fantastic issue for outsider candidates, really on both sides
to run on.
This is also something that Biden can take because Biden has never tried to do this stuff.
Oh, my God.
Biden’s got so many shady dealings and concepts.
Are you talking about his kid?
Selling paintings to China?
There’s a lot of rich Bidens out there.
Apparently, he’s got a rich brother.
He’s got a hunter who’s been paid a lot of money.
No, maybe that’s true.
But Joe Biden has been really down the middle.
Come on, be fair.
I mean, he’s selling paintings.
Yeah, but why are they buying Hunter Biden paintings for five hundred thousand dollars?
Well, I mean, he’s a great artist.
I mean, why do people buy?
I don’t know if you saw Melania’s coming out with NFTs today.
So she’s a lot of security.
Everybody’s securing the bag now.
I mean, and by the way, the presidential grift is always the best.
Just as a case in point, Trump’s SPAC is worth over two billion.
And BuzzFeed, which makes three hundred sixty million a year,
and I think has one hundred, two hundred million in cash.
Yeah, but he’s not in office.
He’s not in office.
That’s misstated, Jason.
Trump’s SPAC, his shares that he’s going to be receiving are worth close to 20 billion.
But he’s not in office anymore.
So I’m not sure.
The shares that he’s going to receive.
Oh, in the future.
Yeah, what you’re counting is the market cap of the cash and trust
the value of the shares that are already public in the SPAC.
The Trump, the value of the Trump entity is going to be closer to 20 billion.
Oh, is that right?
That’s even crazier with no revenue.
These poor media people.
Well, the SEC, apparently the DOJ sent a bunch of inquiries on this asking
for background on the transaction because there’s no business,
there’s no contracts, there’s no employees.
It’s just a whole idea.
But by the way, just to make sure that everybody understands this,
this is a bipartisan thing as well.
The ultimate bag secures, the Obamas got, I think, 50 million plus each for their book deals.
And they got supposedly high eight figures like 50, 60, 70, $80 million from Netflix.
Sorry, hold on a second.
Hold on a second.
When you said when you call them bag secures, I was really triggered there for a second.
So am I supposed to take that offensively that you’re saying Michelle Obama and
Barack Obama secured the bag?
Secured the bag is a term for getting the money.
The Obamas are doing it, the Clintons did it.
It’s a thing.
Trump’s doing it.
It’s a thing.
Secure the bag.
But Jason, we’re not against everybody not being able to make money.
The issue is trading on your office in a way that where you are trading on your insider
information that your office has given you.
Sure, but I mean, here-
Or if you’re selling influence.
If you sell a book, hold on a second, if you sell a book when you’re out of office,
is that really a problem?
Is that the same thing?
I wanted to point out the Netflix one.
What was Netflix’s existential crisis for the eight years Obama was in office?
Could they get, would they have to pay Verizon?
What was the Obamas position on net neutrality?
They were for net neutrality.
Netflix stock went up 40, 50x under Obama.
It could all be a coincidence.
I’m just saying.
What the fuck?
So you’re saying it’s a disguised lobbying payment to Obama?
I think it’s like, are you serious?
I think it’s like-
You are out of your mind.
I mean, listen, the Clintons were doing speaking gigs for Goldman Sachs at half a million dollars.
This is kind of my cue to go to dinner now.
Okay, here’s the MRA.
You know, the main way that Winston Churchill supported himself was writing books.
I think it’s okay for politicians to write books and if, because ultimately the public
buys them and that’s how they make money.
What about when the book is 50 million and the normal price would be 10?
That’s the problem.
Well, I mean, I guess you might have a point.
If the advance was so in excess of the expected sales that it raises a question of what the
real motive is for the payment.
But I don’t know.
But is that what happened?
Nobody gets paid a 50 million dollar advance.
Nobody gets an eight-figure deal who’s never made a documentary before.
I mean, if this book sold 5 million copies, it still wouldn’t be worth it.
Let’s move on to MRNA so we keep our Friedberg factor high.
I’m so ready to go to dinner.
Rick Thompson gave me a wonderful bottle of wine, by the way.
I’m going to go drink it tonight.
I’m so super tilted that you like, it’s like, I mean, I criticize the Obamas.
I can’t deal with it.
You can’t deal with it.
No fly zone for you.
I’m super tilted.
I mean, this is worse than sweater care.
Well, what about the Clintons?
Can I, can I go after their 500 days speaking gigs from Goldman Sachs?
Yeah, that’s okay.
Just don’t touch the Obamas.
But I mean, Jason, are you, are you doing exactly what Senator Karen did to Elon,
which is by virtue of the fact that they’re making money that you are now imputing evil
motives to it?
No, it’s just a disproportionate to what they should get by your assessment.
Their assessment’s the same about Elon.
I’d pay a lot of money for Michelle Obama to do much of any.
I think she’s just a figure for somebody who’s never made a film on for Netflix.
I don’t think it makes sense.
You said the same thing about Rivian.
I don’t know, man.
You’re projecting a little bit.
I totally agree.
This is on the second floor.
I jump out the window right now.
Let winners be winners.
I think we should differentiate between insider trading.
Bad and should not be allowed.
Bad should not be allowed.
And somebody out of office making money.
Monetizing their influence?
Well, no, no, no, not monetizing their influence.
And if they did that, that’s a problem.
Getting paid for services is fine.
Getting paid to sell tickets or books.
That’s if that’s what it is, that’s fine.
Unless it’s disproportionate to the reality.
Let’s put it in, put it in, put it in, put it in, MRNA.
No, no, no, no.
Jason, say you like the Obamas.
I would vote Obama in for a third term.
Didn’t you get paid a $50,000 speaking fee recently to speak at a conference?
I get paid all the time, but not worth that.
Overpaid, overpaid, overpaid.
You’re worth $8.50 in a fucking Subway sandwich.
You’re worth like $2,500.
I just got paid $15,000 to do a 15-minute speaking gig.
Who are you trying to influence?
Who are they paying you to influence, J. Cal?
I mean, honestly, J. Cal.
I have no influence.
Jason, Jason, you’re worth like 30% less than a high-end escort.
Okay, no offense.
Oh, man, that’s expensive.
I don’t know.
There’s a, what’s 30% more than 50?
He’s saying it’s like 80 grand.
I don’t know, 60, 70 grand.
I didn’t realize that.
Talk to us about the MRNA news for cancer, Freiberg.
That came out this past week.
So I think the article that you guys sent around was one related to
an oncology treatment that uses MRNA tech, but I think it’s what I wanted to kind of,
what I thought would be interesting to talk about for a second is just zooming out
on MRNA technology as a whole, which has been theorized for…
The potential of it has been talked about for 50 years.
If we talk about, real quick, what RNA is…
Remember, your DNA, your genetic code defines the printing of proteins in your cells.
And so, every three letters of DNA is an amino acid, a bunch of amino acids in a row,
form a protein, and that protein has some function in your body.
The way that the DNA gets translated into protein is through these MRNA snippets.
So, a little snippet of RNA is a copy of DNA, which floats over from the DNA strand,
and it floats into what’s called the ribosome.
And the ribosome is the protein printer in the cell.
And there’s lots of ribosomes, and there’s lots of RNA floating around all the time,
and it’s being copied over.
So, some chemical triggers the expression of that gene, of that sequence of DNA into RNA
that then turns into protein.
And so, a chemical induces the protein.
Then the protein does something interesting.
And the protein has a function in your body.
And some of those proteins in human body can do bad things and some of them can do good things.
And so, the idea has always been that we can actually use proteins as a way to modulate
our health and modulate disease.
For example, creating a protein that can attach to cancer cells and signal immune
cells to come and kill those cancer cells, as an example.
And some people have genetic problems where their DNA prints the wrong protein.
And then that protein is malformed or causes some harm to your health.
And so, the idea for RNA technology has always been that instead of
having DNA be the source of truth for the proteins that get expressed in your body,
can we stick RNA directly into cells and use that RNA to trigger the production of
proteins that can do specific things in your body?
And remember, the biggest segment of the pharma market or a huge segment of the pharma market
is what’s called biologic drugs, which are largely antibodies, which are a type of protein
that have some specific function.
But very many of these proteins are hard to get into the body and get them into the right
place and get them to do the things we want them to do.
So, it’d be a lot easier if we could get RNA into the right cells to get those cells to
make the right protein to do that thing that we want them to do.
So, everything from cancer treatment to genetic diseases and there’s RNA interference and
there’s RNA or what are called oligonucleotides that can be used to block specific bad proteins
from being produced in your cells or it’s kind of another kind of course of treatment.
So, making proteins that we think are therapeutic and blocking the production of bad proteins
are kind of the mainstay of this idea behind RNA technology.
And Moderna was started to pursue this effort at a flagship pioneering, which is an incubation
shop in Boston.
And they really kind of struggled for years to find the right footing of what’s the right
business model and the right product and the FDA kind of struggled with approving this
And then boom, COVID hit.
And when COVID hit, it was like, holy crap, let’s accelerate this RNA technology, use
it for vaccines, which had been in development for years.
And the protein that’s being produced is the same protein you find on the SARS-CoV-2 virus,
which triggers an immune response and builds up your immunity to that virus.
And now, the floodgates are open.
And this is incredible because the frontiers in RNA over the next decade could change the
course of how we treat disease and change the course of outcomes for many diseases from
genetic diseases all the way through to cancers.
And so, we’re starting to see those floodgates open.
I think there’s now a few, a handful of these, you know, RNA interference products that have
been approved by the FDA.
And we’re now starting to see many more of these cancer and immunotherapy drugs start
to get approved as RNA therapies.
But it really, I think, was lit by the breakthrough with COVID and everyone kind of seeing the
benefit of this and the lack of side effects.
And we’ve now got, I think, a validation in the market and acceptance from consumers that
this technology could transform the industry in the same way that Genentech transformed
the pharma industry with biologic drugs in the 80s and 90s.
So, it’s super exciting.
And, you know, we can do updates regularly on our show if you guys want to talk about
more of the cool stuff that’s coming out.
But man, this is going to transform how medicine is delivered and the potential of things that
we can kind of treat.
Let me ask you a question.
Would the, if we looked at the total number of deaths from COVID, and then the potential
death, you know, deaths avoided or early deaths or more life days added, however you want
to do it, from mRNA and the impact on cancer over the next, say, 30 or 40 years, in other
words, the impact it would have on the people living today who live through COVID, do you
think net net, we’ll see that the prevention of cancers through this new technology could
actually make, you know, basically the silver lining to what happened during COVID?
It’s a good question.
Let me give you the counterpoint.
In the late 90s, there was a gene editing clinical trial that took place.
And they tried to, and a patient and they delivered the gene editing technology via
And so, the virus goes in, it spreads around and it has this molecule that would edit the
gene and it was for genetic disease.
And a patient that they gave it to, a young guy, got this virus and he actually died from
And they shut down all clinical trials for years.
And it was like, boom, that’s the end.
So, there are a lot of scientists, a lot of doctors have argued for years that that particular
case caused so many lives to be lost because we lost years of progress in being able to
run clinical trials during that time and get drugs to market that could treat people.
And you’re right, maybe the opposite has happened here.
That while these clinical trials may have taken years and years and years to get through
in a normal setting, perhaps the pandemic was the accelerant we needed to get more of
these to market faster and millions of people whose lives would have been lost or would
be lost otherwise to cancer and other genetic diseases and so on over the years to come
will be saved because these therapies will get to market faster.
And so, yeah, it’s a great point.
And maybe I don’t know what the calculus is between the lives lost in the pandemic versus
the lives gained via these treatments coming to market faster, but it’s certainly a good
way to think about it.
The way to look at it, we can look at the days of life lost, right?
And if we actually could actually predict how long someone’s gonna live.
And that, you know, extension of life, I think we can come out of this ahead.
Finally, on our docket, London Bree calls for better policing in San Francisco after
this insane surge in crime.
Here’s the video.
And it’s time that the reign of criminals who are destroying our city, it is time for
it to come to an end.
And it comes to an end when we take the steps to be more aggressive with law enforcement,
more aggressive with the changes in our policies and less tolerant of all the bullshit that
has destroyed our city.
We are going to turn this around.
This is a city that has a population of less than 1 million people with an over $12 billion
The residents of this city have been extremely generous in providing us with the resources
we need to make a difference.
And now the priorities we need to make must be to protect them, must be to turn things
around in their neighborhoods.
When you are in a room full of people, I would say probably anywhere between 90 and
95 percent of folks could raise their hand and say that either their car has been breaking
into broken into or they’ve been a victim in some capacity or another.
That is not OK.
That is not acceptable.
Saks, I thought crime was down and that everything was great and that we were going to defund
What is happening here?
What’s the big turnaround?
Well, it’s exactly what I was saying, that first of all, I loved it.
I love what she said.
It’s exactly what I’ve been saying for the last year.
And it’s really great to hear her say the same types of things.
I started this campaign back in January after New Year’s Eve.
You had those two women get killed by a repeat offender who was released by Chase Boudin.
And then as I dug into it, I saw that he was doing this all the time as part of his agenda
So and, you know, a year later, like we’ve talked about throughout this whole time, the
city is totally degenerated into some sort of dystopian Gotham-like city.
This did feel like the beginning of a Batman movie.
I mean, it was a strong statement.
I thought it was great.
This is just the beginning of what needs to be done.
I predict that London Breed is going to eventually butt heads with Chase Boudin.
There is no way that he will support this agenda of fixing the city.
She wants to increase the police presence.
So like you said, she is going to refund the police, not defund the police.
Chase Boudin is, I mean, the only people he’s passionate about prosecuting are police officers.
So we have a huge problem that the police department is actually, we have too few of
We take that job.
It’s not just because of budget.
It’s also because they’re demoralized and they’ve got, you know, they’ve got this prosecutor.
By the way, there was a case just recently where a repeat offender bashed a vodka ball
over the head of a cop.
And Chase just announced that he’s getting sent to mental health diversion instead of
I want to post this.
You can attack a cop and not go to jail in the city of San Francisco?
This is why the cops are demoralized.
So in order for London Breed to fix the problem, she is going, and I think she’s on the right
He’s got to go.
So here’s my prediction.
On February 15th, they are having the recall election for the education board.
And I predict that that board, at least two of the three are going to be recalled.
The parents are sick and tired of it.
They are going to be out.
I think that’s going to embolden London Breed to then support the recall of Jason Boudin
in the June election.
And, and I think between that,
And she gets to pick as a replacement.
So that’s what she’s doing.
She basically flipped.
She was quiet up until this point.
And now the progressive left are slowly eating themselves.
Yeah, I mean, I think this is self preservation, right?
I mean, if she didn’t make a change here, she’s going to be out of office, too.
She’ll get recalled.
It’s not self preservation.
They’re realizing that these policies don’t work.
Moral absolutism didn’t work on the left or the right.
These guys have tried in a small scale to do what a certain fraction of the Democratic
Party has been trying to do at a national level.
It doesn’t work.
Overspending, under policing, under educating.
It doesn’t do anything there.
I think there’s going to be a schism.
I think it started after the young convictory in Virginia.
And I think it’s going to accelerate throughout for the next year.
And especially after the red wave in November 2022, there’s going to be a schism between
liberal pragmatists and these extreme radical progressives.
I think London Breed represents.
She’s obviously very liberal, but I think she’s pragmatic.
I think she wants to find solutions that work.
Whereas Chasen Boudin is a radical ideologue who will never change, no matter how much
evidence is presented to him, those policies don’t work and are backfiring.
I think there’s a simple formula.
The person who gets you into the mess is likely not the right person to get you out of the
And she talks about San Francisco having a $12 billion a year budget.
Can you guys imagine if she was the CEO of a tech company that had $12 billion a year
in OPEX, and she ran the business into the ground, would the board say, go ahead, turn
The board would step in.
And in this case, the board is the citizens of San Francisco.
And they would say, let’s find the right person to turn this thing around.
And while she stood up and said the right things, and maybe it would echo.
And I think even if it echoes within David Sachs’s heart, I’m sure it’s echoing in a
lot of hearts of more liberal San Franciscans.
But I think that the apathy, being asleep at the wheel, and allowing the disorganization
across the departments within that city is ultimately her responsibility.
And I don’t think that any amount of, you know, verbiage or action she might take at
this point justifies the damage she has caused while being the leader of that city.
And I think that you’ll…
And by the way, I think you’ll see to Sachs’s point earlier, I think you’ll see the same
response across the nation, where folks feel like the leaders that got them into the mess
that they’re in locally, in cities and elsewhere around this country, are going to vote those
folks out of office, because they want to change.
And it’s the same reason we saw folks vote Trump into office and the same reason we saw
folks vote Trump out of office.
The more you want to see a change, the more you’re going to make a change with your political
Friedberg is so, so right.
There is a phenomenal Twitter account.
His name is Rob Henderson.
And he’s like a PhD student right now.
I think he’s in Europe on scholarship.
You know, this guy has an incredible background, which you can talk about later.
But Rob Henderson has this thing, which I love, which is that, you know, a lot of this
stuff is born out of what he calls luxury beliefs, right?
Like defunding the police is a luxury belief.
If you’re like this rich, middle class, cloistered person that can sit behind a gate, have armed
security, yada, yada, yada, because you’re not living in the ghetto where the byproducts
of the byproduct of defunding the police are born out or decarceration are born out.
Or, you know, if you send your kid to a private school, you can completely be for all these
crazy radical ideas like defunding, you know, advanced placement, defunding the gifted program,
because if your kid’s smart, you’ll just pay for a tutor and you can do whatever you want.
Those luxury beliefs exist more in the progressive left in such a small cohort of people than in any
other political class that we have in America.
And when they get a hold of power, they’ve now had the right to show whether those luxury
beliefs can actually work.
The data says it doesn’t.
Okay, with competence.
I mean, how about that?
Like, just keep people safe and make the education luxury beliefs belong in
sociology textbooks in anthropological articles.
They they they’re they’re better off and like we’re beat Nick smoke pot and talk about it
over a glass of wine.
Let me clean up something.
Just so look, I have no special desire to defend London breed.
I’m sure there are many.
I’m sure there are many better people.
Are you wearing a London breed brand sweater?
Is that London breed?
Look, I’m sure there are better mayors.
But just I think I think we have to sort of temper what you said based on the realities
of politics in San Francisco, which are which are this.
We actually have a weak mayor.
The mayor can’t do anything without the vote of the board of supervisors.
And the suits are controlled right now by a bunch of crazies who are basically allies,
Dean Preston and Matt Haney, Hillary Rodin, who are who are allies of Chesa Boudin.
So London breed, I think, wants to do some good things.
I think that she is more pragmatic than these ideologues.
I think that she could have been more aggressive and more outspoken about standing up to them.
But I think she is now doing the right thing in terms of the speech she just gave,
basically calling for refunding the police.
And we’re sick of the bullshit and we’re going to take action.
Those are the right things to be saying right now.
She did the right thing in terms of supporting the recall of the school board.
And what I’m saying is, let’s give her a chance to see if she does come out
of the recall of Chesa Boudin, because I think that’s where it’s headed.
And if she gets on board with that, and she shows she’s pragmatic,
she may actually survive.
You said fundraiser.
If she gets out, it’s happening all around the country, right?
We saw Bill de Blasio, who was the first real progressive leftist elected to a major city
company, completely ran New York City into the ground.
Now, Eric Adams is going to go clean it up, right?
We had Glenn Young, who basically ran a centrist campaign, take over Virginia.
It’s over, Johnny.
Let’s call it.
Centrism, pragmatism, enough of these extreme polar opposites.
Let let Antifa and the Proud Boys go and make love to each other in some deserted island.
I heard somebody said to me, like Proud Boys.
And what’s the other group?
Oath Keepers or something?
This woman who’s gay.
She’s like, Oh, you know, it was Rachel Maddow.
She’s like, I think these are like gay activist groups, aren’t they?
Like Proud Boys?
It sounds like a gay activist group.
I think we’re seeing the the correction of the overreaction, the pandemic cause what
Neil Ferguson calls pandemic politics that we that the pandemic bred a strain of radical
politics that we saw all over the country.
And I think on both sides, and I think the country is going to come out of that.
Did you see these idiots go to Cheesecake Factory and do a sit in without their masks
And that’s their form of protest is like, we’re going to go into the Cheesecake Factory.
Who are you talking about?
It was a Cheesecake Factory protest.
And now it’s going national with people who are anti mask, anti vax.
They’re don’t want to have to show their cards or wear a mask when they walk to their
So they’re literally doing sit ins at Cheesecake Factory.
I would protest going to a Cheesecake Factory.
I’m not going to protest in a Cheesecake Factory.
Well, some people aren’t on a diet like you, Jake, and they enjoy cheesecake.
Ah, well, where are you at?
What’s the number?
Just give us the number.
What’s your weight?
So I’m right.
I’m coming right up behind you.
You hear the steps.
I’m going to tell you, bro.
I love your sweater.
I’m going to drive to the city, come to the mausoleum and make love to you with that
Oh, my God.
All right, everybody.
We’ll see you next week on the podcast.
Love you, besties.
Love you, Saks.
Love you, Saks.
Back at you.