Jake out. Do you have intros today? No, I don’t have time

for intros. Oh, come on. Alright, fine. He started as a

nerd with no followers on Twitter. Now, he’s a nerd that

gets recognized when leaving the shitter. He turned water into

wine. He just wants to please us. Now, he’s a mixture of

Kermit the Frog and a science nerd Jesus. He’s the man with

the stands, the queen of the Sultan of Science, the prince

of Prozac, the lord of Lexapro. He gets stops for selfies all

over town. My producer fee gave him a mental breakdown. The

Zoltan of Zoloft, Mr. David Rehberg. It’s true. It did give

me a breakdown. It’s true. But you’re over it now. You just

name dropped three SSRIs in that intro. It’s incredible.

Well, I talked to his, I talked to his psychiatrist. He said

he’s working on the cocktail. Yeah, save some for me. Oh, oh,

you? Speaking of you, he’s got very quick wit and impeccable

grammar. Known for building beautiful products that don’t

work. Oh my god. Like Colin and Yammer. He used to invest in

sass quite a lot. Now, he’s fighting a brigade of Ukraine

bots. He’s spending so much time in his bunker. It’s starting to

get smelly. We see him only three times a week. All in

Tucker and Megyn Kelly. He’d invest in your startup if you

had the knack. But right now, he needs that cash for his GOP

super pack. The world’s biggest asshole, the rain man himself,

Mr. David Sacks. That’s a repeat joke. That’s not. I know

but it kills every time. So, I’m gonna keep repeating it

until you stop laughing. His wardrobe cost so much, he can’t

get into a scuffle. He bought all his friends with his white

truffles. He scaled Facebook to a billy. That wine collection,

it’s just **** silly. He’s on the world tour meeting with

princes and kings. Is he talking luxury sweaters or maybe

bigger things? The dictator himself, Chamath Palihapitiya.

That was really nice actually. Wow, I mean, I appreciate you.

You were obviously trying to get invited to dinner tonight.

Exactly. I’m trying to get off the alternate list. He’s trying

to get off the alternate. The email was harsh. Nine was

alternate. I know you would troll me. I know I have a seat.

As for me, I’m the world’s greatest moderator who can’t

take a note. Compared to these guys, I’m just a millionaire

who’s broke. The all-in summit almost killed us but we came

back from death’s door. I knew we peaked when Freeberg took

over the dance floor. We love the fans but we love each other

more. Thanks for the first 100 fellas. Here’s to 100 more.

Really good. Wow. That’s really really good. Look at you

touching him. Surprisingly, you became prepared today. First

time. He fought after 100 episodes. He finally figured

out he has to prepare. So, that was the note. Just prepare. Just

do your job. Just do your job. Do your job. Do your job. Do

your unremunerated job. Do your job. Speaking of

unremunerated, we heard that somebody’s grifting off the pod.

Oh, yeah. So, good point. What we heard, Sax, is that you got

a big care package for Moncler. Yeah, that’s true. What? What I

think we’re all gonna declare today is that we all wanna wet

our beak and if Moncler sends each of us a care package, we

will all wear Moncler gear at episode 101. Moncler’s my brand.

Google your own brand. Yeah, we decided to. Jamas got Laura

Piano. I got Moncler. You go get like, you know, Izod or

something. I don’t know. Actually, I got Izod too. You

have to do this. I have Uniclo. I got Uniclo. We got Gap Kids

for J Cal. Sax, you didn’t you didn’t declare your Moncler

gift package by the way. No, I did. That was the discovery we

made this weekend. So, I wanna thank I wanna thank the folks

at there’s a company called and they sent me this gift.

Actually, this hoodie, this Moncler hoodie which I never

seen before. What is this plug you? They send you a hoodie for

$1200 and they get a $50,000 plug? There are several other

things that I’ll bring you guys each a shirt from Moncler. Oh,

we get the shirt. Yeah. These guys are getting hundreds of

thousands of dollars of revenue. Yeah. How bad is your

portfolio that you’re grifting? Did you put this Moncler stuff

onto like eBay after you got it? I was already wearing it and

they sent me more. So, I’m gonna wear this hoodie. It’s

pretty cool. What can I say? I’m not gonna. It’s three cents

and all of a sudden, you’re grifting. I just for everyone

listening, I’m looking for a wardrobe. Okay, just send my

package to my office. Let me tell you something. There’s no

upgrade that’s gonna help Freeberg. I think you’re ****

No, I’m gonna bring you guys Moncler shirts to the poker

game tonight. Gee, thanks, Sax. Appreciate that. How did how

did you guys even find out that he got this gift? We’re at his

Fleet Week party and there was a Blue Angels party and there’s

someone there who started telling me like, did you hear

that Sax got this whole thing? Oh, somebody. There’s a rat?

There was a rat. I’m not telling you. Oh, there’s a rat.

But someone told me. He’s got a mole. Yeah. We were talking

about the podcast. We were talking about Sax’s hat. 100%

it was Woolway. 100%. No, no, it wasn’t Woolway. No. 100%.

Was it Jeff? No, one of my one of my friends was in the man

cave and he saw this like care package from Moncler and he

really admired this like jacket. It was like a puffer

jacket but with like wool sleeves or something. Oh, so you

gave it to him? And I gave it to him. He liked it so much.

I’m like, here, you take it. He’s not even on the pod. He’s

not even on the pod. Give it to producer Nick. So, he was

walking around with it. He was really appreciative. So, maybe

he said something or or what? I can’t believe this. The grift

is crazy. Let’s just say there was a lot of conversations

going on about your care package, Sax. Well, and it

makes us wonder, Sax. Are there other care packages that have

come in and like. Or Chamath. Have you been promoting other

stuff on here? So, who makes the couch behind you? Magazines

that you wouldn’t want to read. Chamath, how much of your

Loro Piano have you actually paid for over the past year?

That’s. 100%. I would never, I would never accept it for free.

Oh. It’s it’s important. Look, wait, no, all joking aside.

It’s hard if you’re running a clothing business especially if

you’re like a small niche provider of stuff. So, you know,

you have a responsibility to pay for this stuff not to grift

and get it for free. No, I know. When I was at the Loro

Piano store on 57th Street in Manhattan, the 18,000 square

foot store, I was thinking the same thing. These poor people,

how do they survive? Well, Loro Piano. 270 dollars square foot

rent. How are they making it? I would. Purveyors Friedberg.

Exploiting poor baby goats. Well, whatever. I mean, the fact

is the market’s down. There’s gonna be a little grifting on

the margins. It’s understandable. Let your

winners ride. Rain Man David Saxon.

I’m going all in. Freeberg, he loves to produce every

seventeenth episode. He does a great job. Oh, no, I like to

prepare or at least know what the heck we’re gonna talk about

when we get together. And here are some prompts. He he got

these prompts because he’s not doing his job. Yeah. Go ahead.

Sorry. Oh god. Alright. So, first up on Freeberg’s

curiousness. This is Freeberg. This is how you’re gonna do it.

Let’s skip ahead to the next section. Come on. No, no, no.

Okay. So, go, go, go. Why do you think Chamath people love

the podcast? Why do you think they listen? Why do you think

they love it? What what is the the phenomenon? What what

lightning has been captured in this bottle? First is I think

that they appreciate our friendship. It’s kind of like

odd and quirky. And I think a lot of, you know, it maps to

like relationships that they have amongst their own friends.

So, that’s what makes it relatable. But the second is

that all of us uniquely have a point of view about stuff that

matters more and more in the world. I think that’s just the

basics of it. Like, it’s not like technology’s going away.

And it’s not like it’s impact in the world is going away. And

the more it becomes mainstream, the more it’s important for a

lot of folks to understand what’s happening. And I think

we provide a pretty unfiltered view of it. And we do it where

and this is a lot of credit to Sax more than anyone else on

this show, has to take a counterpoint and steel man, what

would otherwise be controversial views. And if he

didn’t have his three friends around him, that would make the

pod meaningfully worse, I think. Can you explain for people who

don’t know what steel manning is what that means? Well, just

it just means like to have intellectual honesty around a

point of view, and actually put your best foot forward and

trying to explain it even when it’s not orthodox, even when

it’s not what the mainstream would say is right. And so what

it actually does is it creates a contrast against every other

alternative that you have to learn about things, which you

find incrementally is biased. And I think that’s what we’ve

gotten right. We are for friends that have a reasonable point of

view rooted in some amount of success. And I think that that’s

important because it gives us credibility. And we take all

sides of issues. Yeah. And oftentimes, it is not the

obvious, simple, reductive answer. And I think that that’s

where it really shines. Just so people know about the steel man

arguments, want to make sure people credit. I think most

people refer to it as the act of presenting the other argument

in the strongest way possible to be intellectually honest, like

the opposite. Exactly. Because the way the way the debate

happens on Twitter, and so forth is it’s almost like the

intellectual debate is being attacked, using opposition

research tactics, like it were a political campaign. So in

other words, they go back through anything you might have

said or written, take the the thing that was most wrong, or

least justifiable, or the thing they can even just take out of

context. And then they’ll try to make it about that as opposed

to the argument you’re actually making. And we just see this

tactic over and over again. And it’s not an intellectually

rigorous way of having a debate about something, you don’t learn

anything. Right. And deep down inside, you know that it’s

contrived. And that is the in a nutshell. So it does. It almost

in many ways has less to do with how good we are. But frankly,

how bad all the alternatives are. So even if you wanted to

learn about tech, and you go up and you sign up for these

newsletters, or if you look at some of these tech sites,

they’re really terrible. And they have done an increasingly

terrible job over the last five years in telling the most

important things, the truth and everything in between. And so if

you can find a source for an hour a week, that is trying to

tell you how basically the world is going to come together in a

really integrated multifaceted way. It’s not like we’re right.

And it’s not like we know better than other people. In fact,

many times, a lot of the criticism I get is, how dare you

talk about x, or how dare you talk about y? Because it makes

people who are experts in that field, you know, feel like, how

dare you come into my realm and even have an opinion on, you

know, what Russian politics was like in the 1980s. And those

things really annoy these folks, because they feel that those

opinions and that knowledge should be cordoned off and held

tightly as this secret that only they are allowed to talk about

into the world. And this is the point where with the internet,

all this knowledge is accessible. So the value of that

knowledge, in my opinion, is the least it’s ever been. It’s the

interpretation that’s valuable. And it’s the ability to actually

like think narratively around how all these things connect. And

this is where I give a lot of credit. I think you guys do an

incredible job. I think the way Freedbrook thinks is super

unique. I think the way that saxes thinks is unique. I think

J Cal, your courage to basically fight back is very special. All

of it together is a really unique recipe. It works. And

what I will tell you consistently is the number of

people that listen to this of import and influence. I am

constantly shocked. And if you are not sure of it, you need to

get out of this stupid little echo chamber of Silicon Valley,

go to New York, go around the world. And if you’re in the

right meetings, it’s incredible how folks are getting educated

using this pot. And I think that’s that’s really amazing.

Yeah, I think I think there’s like, been a tendency in, like

what we call media today, historically, kind of, you know,

communication amongst humans. It was very slow for a

communication cycle to go from beginning to end to close

because we had print and books and then telegraphs and

telephones and then television and radio. And the internet, I

think, has really changed the cycle, the loop cycle to the

point that, you know, a story iterates and proliferates very

quickly. And a lot of people talk about the news cycle being

very short nowadays. And what that means is that there is a

group think approach to resolving to a point of view on

what the news is. So the news comes out, everyone iterates on

it, they form their point of view, and all of a sudden,

everyone’s on the same point of view. And so there is no room

for dissent, or debate or discussion, because the cycle

closes so quickly, and everyone coalesces around the same point

of view. And nowadays, I think we see not just that unipolar

behavior, but we see this bipolar behavior, where everyone

coalesces on their point of view, and how their point of

view is, is the opposite of the other side. And everyone has

their own heuristic for what the other side is. There’s this

populism versus elitism siding, there’s this red versus blue

siding, there’s this us versus them siding, US versus China

siding, everything is now bipolar. And so you very quickly

coalesce around what your poll says, and what your poll is

instructing you to believe. And that is what is fundamentally

wrong with how the system is working today. And I think what

people find refreshing about a discourse that doesn’t succumb

to that bipolarity, as a standard, is that it provides

people the ability to have a real rational, out of sync point

of view, that maybe changes one’s point of view and changes

one’s mind in a meaningful way. And I think that’s what’s

really missing today. And I think maybe sometimes we do a

good job, and we touch on that. And so that’s what I would

strive to do is to always try and avoid that bipolarity on

everything. You know, the Zen Buddhists call it dualistic

thinking, you know, the human brain, and generally, the

universe seems to evolve into this kind of dualism on

everything. And it’s not really always the case that there are

shades of gray, that there is nuance, that there is a

complex dimensionality to things that I think people

really, if they take the time to understand, recognize that

maybe it’s not left and right. Maybe it’s not elite and

populism. Maybe it’s not all black and white. And that’s an

important, hopefully framing that maybe we can bring, bring

bring to light through through our diagnosis of what’s going on

in things right now. Yeah, I like to add to that. I think

there’s there’s a ton of great journalism going out there. We

see it. There’s a ton of great sub sacks out there. People go

deep, there’s other great podcasts out there. And right

now, it’s a tumultuous time for media journalism and getting

information and do what trust what sources do we actually

trust, who actually is thinking in a crisp way, and informing

people. And, you know, having been a former journalist, when

we were journalists, we knew that we would get 10 2030 40%

of a story, we would publish it, and we would try our best. But

journalism has changed dramatically in the last 20

years. And I can tell you journalism is dead. Sorry. Okay,

just I’m sorry. I’m sorry. There’s some great journalism

occurring. It’s on the margins. It’s irrelevant. And I’ll tell

you why. Because the facts are known instantaneously, on

Twitter, and through the internet, we don’t need people

to relay facts, we need people to wrap facts in context, and

allow us to come to our own conclusions. That’s why I think

journalism isn’t what it used to be. That’s why people who are

historically journalists struggle, because now they

actually have to create context and narrative and have an

opinion. But when you publish that into the Wall Street

Journal, or the New York Times, it becomes very confusing. They

don’t know that that’s what they were supposed to do. That’s not

what they used to do. That’s not how Pulitzer Prizes were

were historically given out. And that’s why everybody then, you

know, rants and rails kind of going is, you know, if you if

you look at it, as journalists, people don’t know this, but

journalists are being compensated, their little

salaries, in many cases are based on their follower

counts, they’re based on what audience they’re bringing to the

table. And you see this in Substack, Substack just said,

we’re going to hire the top journalists on who have the most

followers on Twitter.

But you have to change the word so that you change how people

think about it. These people are not journalists. These people

are opinion makers.

Okay, in some cases, they’re doing journalism. In some cases,

they’re not. No, no, there are some cases where they’re

actually doing real journalism. There are people doing

investigative reporting still, it’s not the majority of what

you see, but it still exists. It’s just a very much smaller

percentage. But putting that aside, if you think about but

wrap a virtuous blanket around every 1000 people because of the

acts of one, I’m not and I’m not I said, there’s a range here.

It’s a small percentage, but this there’s what do you think

that percentage of content creation, I put it at 5%. So

that’s one out of 20. I’m shocked. Yeah, I think it’s less

than 1%. But let me just finish this one thought here. You know,

if you are going to be hired, and compensated, and we talk

about systems here a lot. So just thinking from first

principles, if you’re a journalist, if you’re a writer,

opinion writer, whatever you produce content for Wall Street

Journal for podcasts, etc. Today, let this sink in your

follower count is what your book advances, it’s what your

compensation is. It’s who hires you. Now, if that’s the truth,

and it’s not all the time, but I think the majority of time

point at that your job is not to relay facts, we can get facts.

Exactly. Let me finish my thought here. And so then what

happens is how his follower account on Twitter actually

derived? How do you get that follower count by being tribal?

And so what’s happened is journalists have became tribal,

they get big followings, they give spicy takes, they pick

aside, and then their compensation follows it. And

that’s why New York Times said, Can we all stop on Twitter, and

they literally put an edict out. Then you look at this

podcast. I think people look at us as you know, in their

mixture, podcasting long form, taking the time week after week

to spend 90 minutes chopping these things up. I think that’s

what to the original question, Friedberg you had is what people

find so great. I, when people ask me, I say it’s really about

the fact that there’s a there’s a friendships here. And it’s

funny, but it’s also informative. And it’s insightful.

And at times, as you pointed out, Chamath, you know, random

acts of bravery and taking positions that are not popular.

And to think that you and Friedberg almost blew this up

over a few 100k. I didn’t. Yeah, no, the two of you equally

should share. I wouldn’t classify it that way. By the

way, here we go. Now the bad feelings are ready getting

spicy. I’m more of an ethical framework. But yeah, that’s

fine. Go ahead. Oh, even worse. Look at Chamath stirring the

pot. Just to chime in on this point. I mean, I think I’m in

violent agreement with you guys, but I’d frame it a little

differently. I think the reason why people seek out our

podcasts and other podcasts and sub stacks is, and sort of this

kind of independent journalism and are willing to pay for it

is because the mainstream media has become totally

devoid of substance. It’s as partisan and ideology and

ideologize as it’s ever been. Reporters are extremely

ideological. You look at the New York Times, the Washington

Post, the, you know, major television networks, it’s all

kind of the same thing. And yeah, there is like, you know,

a little bit of an echo chamber problem in terms of the

partisan politics. But the mainstream media is the most

ideologize it’s ever been. I mean, just to give you one

small example that we talked about in the pod, the you know,

we had two quarters of negative GDP growth, which the media is

always considered to be the definition of recession. And

then all of a sudden, they said, No, we can’t know what a

recession is anymore, because they know that’d be a horrible

headline for Biden right before the midterm elections. That’s

more of a partisan version, I think on the, you know, a more

ideological version would be just around this Ukraine war. I

mean, it’s just incredible how biased the coverage is, they

don’t even present the other side of the story, like this

called the Mearsheimer take about how we got to this point

that we’re in. So the American people just aren’t being

informed at all. I, you know, we love to talk about how the

people of all these other countries are being

propagandized by their governments, we never talk about

how propagandized the American people are, the media does not

present the other side of the story at all, on how we got

into the Ukraine war, and how we’re now at the brink of what

Biden calls Armageddon. Yeah. So how are we gonna get out of

it? How are we gonna get out of it? Any topic, by the way, I

just said that was my punch. So many topics that we see, you

know, effectively short form and short form, meaning it can

be presented in a soundbite or on a tick tock clip, or in a

couple paragraphs, where someone’s attention span before

someone’s attention span lapses out, always misses the

dimensionality that got us to that point. And so there’s one

perspective, one point of view, on one dimension, and the

dimension like Saks is talking about, about the time and the

history of the dynamics of all the countries and all the

people and all the interactions that have happened for the past

couple of decades, that led up to this moment. But then this

moment is taken in its context alone, and reclassified as

being something that is good versus evil. It completely

misses the entire storyline of what happened. It’s like going

to the end of a fairy tale and saying, here’s this moment of

what happened. And all the buildup and all the things that

occurred are often missing and all the different sides of the

story are missing. And I think that that’s really what makes

it so difficult today to feel like you can trust authority,

and that you can trust the media that’s presented to you as a

consumer, not just in the US or in the West, but around the

world. Because there’s so much that’s left out and manipulated

and kept away. And what people are waking up to is the fact as

Chamath points out that so much of that information, the direct

information is available now. And so this investigation, this

ability to uncover the data, and the storylines and the

perspectives that are typically missing from one form of media

is making people realize that there’s so much that’s being

left out the live 100% 100%. And I think in this podcast,

that’s what’s really shocking to people nowadays. And I think

that’s what makes maybe to some degree, hold our conversations

a little more appealing. I’ll drop to you in a second there,

sex. But I did see this happen in three specific topics that we

discussed here. If you remember, we talked about abortion. And we

were on that topic very early. And no one wanted to talk. I

remember when we started talking about the number of weeks, maybe

how Europe looks at this. That wasn’t part of the popular

conversation. It was always just are you against choice? Are you

for killing babies? It was like a very two dimensional. Look at

it. immigration, same thing. Nobody would talk about the

numbers. Nobody talked about recruitment. Nobody talked about

the point systems used in other countries. It was almost like

those basic things were not allowed to be discussed. Why

can’t the media discuss those nuances and freedom of speech is

I think the biggest one, and the search for truth. You know,

nobody wants to talk about the fact that the ACLU used to

actually protect unpopular speech and unpopular speech is

you know, the hardest thing in the world to protect. But how

did that become something we can’t even talk about now?

Right? And just the snap silencing of any opinion,

whether it’s Chappelle, or, you know, pick a topic and freedom

of speech, Trump, etc. You know, who gets protection for freedom

of speech? And we’ll talk about it later on the news with Alex

Jones, obviously, a very controversial topic as well.

Go ahead, sex, you want to add something to it?

Well, I think just to take this Ukraine situation as an example,

I think the media’s biggest power is the power to define

when time begins on an issue. So well, like, right with

Ukraine, we’re part of an escalatory spiral that’s been

going on for well, more than eight or nine months. This

issue has been going on since 2000 decade. Yeah, he’s over a

decade. So in other words, if you come in, in like the seventh

inning, okay, so to Freeworks point, you come in at the end of

the story, and it’s been an escalatory spiral. But the media

just pretends like time begins on February 24. Of course,

you’re gonna have a certain kind of view on the subject. Whereas

if you know the history of the situation, if you know that back

in the 1990s, you had people like George Kennan, who was the

architect of our Cold War containment policy, you had

William J. Perry was Bill Clinton’s Defense Secretary, you

had Henry Kissinger, you had john Mearsheimer all warn that

bringing NATO right up to Russia’s front porch was

extremely provocative to them that they would see that as a

provocation, it would eventually lead to a moment of crisis.

When that moment of crisis finally came, you know, we’re

not told that this was predicted. We’re told that

anyone who says that this war has anything to do with NATO

expansion is basically a Putin apologist and is spouting Putin

talking points. All right, let’s not let’s not let’s save some of

that for the Ukraine talk we’re going to talk about. No, but I

get your point. You could agree or disagree with that take. But

the point is, the media doesn’t even portray it. They really

just pick a side. And they I think I like your analogy of

like just coming in for the last 15 minutes of the game. And

just describing that, you know, we need to have a deeper

discussion of how did we get here? How did we get here on

immigration? Why don’t we have a point system? Why do we look

at people suddenly coming from south of the border differently

than we did just 20 years ago? How did that become a

politicized issue? What’s the right solution here? Especially

if we can’t hire people for basic jobs in the United States?

Everybody wants to know this question, what’s your favorite

you have a favorite moment, or a least favorite moment, a great

moment in the show history. And then I guess we’ll move on

maybe to some audience questions here. But let’s let’s get this

one because an embarrassing moment, your favorite moment,

your least favorite moment of a moment now you look back on and

you’re particularly proud of tomorrow.

I love the cold opens. I think that they are unbelievably human

and funny and normalizing. They are by far the best part of the

pod in life. And yeah, that’s my that’s my absolute favorite

part by by like, miles and miles.

Ah, it’s actually got a favorite moment other than Ukraine.

Other than Ukraine. I know you got Ukraine on the brain.

Probably when you started talking like Joe Pesci.

The Joe Pesci voice.

I can’t do it on command. I’m not your monkey sacks. Don’t you

talk to me like that. I’ll get a fucking bad idea.

No, seriously, you have any other favorite moments?

Or things you’re particularly proud of things that people tell

you, you know, hey, I love what do you I love this part of the

show.

I’m also proud that we we were able to air our dirty laundry a

little bit in public and still get over ourselves and our own

egos. And we’re still here. I think that takes a lot of

courage and a little bit of a little bit of maturity that’s

that’s not in public visibility all the time. In the media.

I like I like that sentiment a lot. I think there’s a lot of

pressure. Yeah, they were uncomfortable about it. You know,

I I think there’s a lot of personal growth that’s going on

here for all of everybody involved. Yeah.

Freeberg, you got a favorite moment other, you know, I like

it when you and sex fight. That’s just that’s your least

favorite moment when we are literally turn I turn my

headphones off and I like do some emailing. It really is just

it really is just this political thing. But yeah, it does come

up. You know, I don’t like the fact the moments I’ve been

interrupted by you that like that just happened five seconds

ago. Like, you know, those are usually pretty tough. Go ahead.

I don’t know what I what I did enjoy. I did enjoy meeting

people at the summit who shared that this has been like a really

important thing for them to listen to. I think I was at a

Pete’s coffee in the city and some guy came up to me. This was

early after early when we were doing the podcast. And he was

like, listening to you guys has really helped me get through

COVID. And he was like locked in his apartment. And he didn’t

have a lot of friends. And he didn’t have a lot of people to

talk with. And just being able to hear through, you know, kind

of a good conversation around when’s this going to end? How’s

COVID gonna? You know, what’s going to change in the city and

hearing our friendship really made a big difference for him.

And it was actually really interesting. That was off the

show. But it made me realize that the show actually is

impactful, and helpful and made gave me kind of the energy to

keep going, even though I’ve had frustrations in the past. So I

don’t know. I like I like those moments a lot, to be honest.

That there’s real value here for people. I also I thought the

summit was a lot of fun. I mean, I had a good time.

But you know, it’s, I think we’re steering towards, I think

we’re steering towards summit 2023. That was me starting the

pot a little bit. Towards 2021. As far as I’m concerned, you do

it, you produce it or you hire a producer, I’ll show up. I’m, I

don’t need to make a producer fee, you can do it, you can take

the producer fee, whatever it is. All right, guys, I got a

couple of questions here from the audience. You guys see this

list? Yeah, we stand out for you guys. Well, you pick you pick.

So here’s a question. We got it over email from Nathan. And

Nathan said, we know the reasons. The reason you guys

started the pod, what is the motivation of each bestie to

continue doing it every week?

Now I ask myself that every week.

I’m thinking about taking a break, not because I don’t like

doing it, but it is time consuming. And I do want time to

get back to doing some business writing. I was on a pretty good

track to publish a book about SAS. Before we started doing the

pod, I had written a lot of business blogs. And this is

kind of taking a break. What? How many weeks? 10 weeks? What

are you thinking? Maybe like a month or something? Yeah. Oh,

four weeks. You can take that’s no big deal. Maybe I don’t know

for the time. I’ve got like a right now. It’s like doing

jumping jacks in his backyard and put me in the game. Well, we

could do that. I mean, I’ve got like five half written business

blogs in my hopper that I really want to finish. And so I

don’t know.

The show does take a lot of cognitive energy is what you’re

saying. It takes a lot of those

out of your time each week, sex.

I mean, as you guys know, the taping is only a couple hours,

but then it’s just keeping track of all the issues. And then,

you know, if I’m preparing takes for this pod, I also turn some

of those takes into articles. This is like for Newsweek, or

the American conservative, whatever. So I’m responding a

lot and responding, responding, and then I’m tweeting takes as

I’m coming up with them.

This is my point, which is, I think the, the load for sacks,

because he is the most heterodox is the heaviest. And this is

like poorly understood. It’s easy to just basically be on the

side of the current conventional wisdom, or to not have an

opinion and to talk about things that are orthogonal. But David

is consistently the one that wades into the middle of the

ocean. And it is, I can, I can understand why you find it

exhausting. No, because he gets dragged under. No, Jason, he has

to be more prepared than the rest of us.

Yes, because he is more open to the attacks from all of these

nitwits.

It’s true. I mean, you know, on every day on Twitter, I’m being

told these are these are like uninformed nitwits, you know,

they’re the cancer, the cancer of people who comment on Twitter

is the following. They suffer from the worst kind of cancer,

which is a lack of belief in themselves. And so what they do

is they point to other people and try to convince yet more

people to not believe in them. But that has nothing to do with

anything. It’s just misdirection from their core

problem, which is they don’t believe in themselves. And so,

you know, David has to fight all of that stuff off, but he has

to fight it off with logic, which must be exhausting. You

know, my approach has just been to turn off comments and to not

start. This is the single biggest problem, I think, with

social media is it’s at this heightened point, where it’s

this virulent strain of a lack of belief in oneself that

manifests in this hatred that you direct to anybody else that

believes in interesting, interesting theory.

Yeah, and I would just just to add to that, you know, it’s not

like I haven’t heard any of the arguments that they’re making.

No, I guarantee you, they have not heard the arguments I’m

making. But I’ve heard all the arguments are 100% I’m totally

familiar with 1938, Munich, Neville Chamberlain, all this

kind of stuff. I just don’t think that is the correct

understanding of what’s happening right now. I think the

correct historical analogy is either 1914 with World War One

and the blank check guarantee, or is 1962, the Cuban Missile

Crisis, the people on the other side, generally don’t

understand that they are just kind of part of this, like

Twitter mob, who’s buying into the current thing and whatever

they’re told by the media. So it is it is a little bit

exhausting. I think that that’s what people don’t realize is,

you know, you when this thing got very popular, the two or

three days after an episode comes out becomes your texts,

your email, your DMS, and your replies become filled,

especially again, I would I would encourage you to keep

doing this thing. And just to turn off comments and don’t

look back. Yeah, it’s hard for them. It’s hard for the first

few weeks. And then you realize 99% of people who comment have

nothing important or useful or interesting to say, like zero,

like negative zero. And you forget that there’s like 99.999%

of the world that just reads your content, and couldn’t even

care about their comments. Yeah, and I would just I would

focus on what you have to say is the point and ignore and

ignore all these other Twitter agree that would make it less

exhausting, but it would still be time consuming. There is a

bunch of business blogs I want to get done. So I mean, I said

you take two weeks off, you come back and see how you feel. I

mean, you can do it week by week to I mean, just take one

week off and see it. See, I think you’ll I think you’ll I

think he’ll be back. He’ll be back. Great. Great. Great

question from Nathan. Thank you for your participation. Yes,

Nathan. Next question. I actually like this one. I’m

going to pull it out. It’s an email question from Juan T.

Oh, hey, want to want to build girly recently put out a piece

explaining how this might be as good a time as in a decade to

build a company. How are you guys seeing your own portfolio

companies trying to take advantage of the situation? And

I guess I’ll add Do you guys agree? And how do you think

about this as a moment for company building?

I could take that one. I am seeing a lot of the companies

that were you had done a great job racing around seed round

series a never got product market fit now wrap it up,

right? They’re shutting down. They’re doing the wind down

process. And then we’re seeing lists of very talented people.

And I’ve talked about this before on the show, the

consolidation of talent behind the winning ideas, the

experiments that actually worked products that got some

traction are now having an easier time hiring talent. And

so to Bill’s point, he’s got a lot more experience in this than

the four of us put together is absolutely right when you build

in this down market. Yeah, it’s harder to raise money, of

course. But talent is what makes great products and products

that delight customers get the flywheel going. And if you

survive through this, and you have that talent, you’re not

going to face 20 copycats. And there’s not 50 new products

coming out a day, people have more time to actually engage and

try a product, which they’ve been burnt out on and the

peanut butter spreading, you know, we have this thin layer of

peanut butter talent. Now it’s getting consolidated in the

winter. So absolutely a great time for five CEOs and founders

or, you know, 10 founders across five companies to

consolidate down to two, do those tuck in acquisitions and

get focused and build really good teams and cut the weakest

people on the teams. There’s a lot of weak talent that have

been overpaid, and aren’t actually contributing to these

teams, and they need to get cut. And then you pull in the

all stars. It’s a fantastic time. He’s 100% right.

All of the if you look back in history, since 2000, all of the

best performing funds of all times were the ones that were

formed right in the middle of the downturns. Oh 3080 909.

These are the vintages that have always been the best. And what

that means it’s a proxy for investing, which is, it’s the

hardest time right now. It’s when you have the shakiest hand

when you’re writing the check. But it’ll probably be where

all of the real money is made or the real generational wealth

both for the entrepreneurs who have the courage to start, and

the investors who have the courage to invest. There was a

story that I heard in New York, I was talking to a really well

known hedge fund, or family office. And they were talking

about how they were meeting with a CEO of a fintech unicorn,

very well known fintech unicorn. And they said they left

the meeting and they said, this person had an unbelievable

disrespect for money. And it was the most arrogant interaction

that they had ever heard and they said under no circumstances

would we invest in this guy in this company at any price. And

you know, lo and behold, a year later, that company is now

visibly going through a bunch of hiccups. And it just reminds

me that Jason we’ve always had two problems when times are

good. Problem number one is that there’s never been a check

and balance on that kind of behavior, a lack of respect for

capital, and a almost a disregard for business models,

which is just inexcusable. And I think it’s partly the fault of

a very young entrepreneur, but it’s also partly the fault of a

board who doesn’t know how to direct that person enablement

Israel. Yeah. But then the second, the second thing is

we’ve always had this, you know, this big tech put on the table

where every time you would try to really hone in on running a

lean, highly efficient organization, the alternative

would be to go work at, you know, Google, Facebook, Apple,

Amazon, Microsoft, where the terms are just completely

different to what the experience was, you know, at a

startup. And the bigger the gap, the harder it was for you to be

able to hire and retain good people without just copying

them. And now that that’s also coming off the table, that is a

key moment. So Gurley is 100% right. There is no longer the

big tech put those are the generals that are about to get

shot over the next eight to 12 months, in my opinion, in the

public markets, in terms of market cap and employment and

perks. And then second is that these really thoughtful

investors who felt pretty deeply disrespected, will now be able

to call the shots. And these founders will have to come back

hat in hand and either apologize or just completely find a

different religion. And I think in that you’ll have a lot of

amazing opportunities to build companies.

I think it’s well said tax. What are you saying?

Yeah, I think that’s right. I mean, look, when times are as

frothy as they were, a lot of bad ideas get funded, and

there’s a lot of bad behavior that occurs. I don’t think all

of it’s intentional. Some of it is just the lack of discipline

that when capital is so freely available, people are building

their businesses in ways that were optimizing solely for one

variable, which was top line growth, they just weren’t

paying enough attention to gross margins or burn. And when

you then have a downturn, and capital is not so available,

you have to build your business in a much more capital

efficient way. And you can’t create fake businesses where

you’re buying growth. That’s not economically justified, you

know, where you’ve got negative unit economics around the

growth. So I think that this downturn is going to create a

shakeout, it’s gonna weed out bad ideas, bad practices, and,

and a lack of focus, bad boards, and

or, or no boards,

one trick ponies, you know, there’s just a lot of one trick

ponies out there who’ve optimized growth, but don’t have

a real business. And it’s going to require, it’s going to

require entrepreneurs to, to play sort of more like

multivariable calculus or math, not just single variable,

it is extremely difficult to convert TVPI to DPI. You know,

the value of paper values into actual distributions, and that

takes a skilled hand. And I think that a lot of young folks

were hired into venture that fundamentally did not know what

they were doing. They’ve neither ever built a company or

helped build a company or actually learned how to

generate returns. But they became very good at buying, you

know, free call options on companies. You know, I remember

like a lot of people, the way that you, these young people, I

remember I heard a story that you would sell against girly,

right? So let’s just say you were trying to do a deal and

Bill gives you a term sheet from benchmark and you get, you

know, somebody else, the young folks were like, Oh, Bill’s too

negative, and he doesn’t get it. And they would try to

convince these entrepreneurs that, you know, these rainy days

don’t happen. My experience with girly is he is the most

sophisticated investor of our generation. And what I mean by

that is, you know, he was trained as an equity analyst

that really understood business models and cost of capital. And

so in a moment like this, the way that girly would help you on

a board is meaningfully more important than how some, you

know, middling VP at some random startup who’s now a, you

know, junior partner at a venture firm, because that

person has literally no clue. And so these companies are going

to go through a very difficult moment, which again, is the

reason why a good steady hand who knows what they’re doing

will make a ton of money in this next cycle. And for people

who don’t know TV pi, let me just give you a quick

definition. This is the total value divided by the paid in

capital. So total value is distributions, like, hey, here’s

your Robin Hood stock, here’s your Uber stock, here’s cash,

plus the net asset value, what’s that fancy word for the value of

the shares of the companies that haven’t had an exit. And so you

divide those two numbers, you get a ratio 1.5 1.2, etc. But to

Schmott’s point, net asset value is debatable in some of these

right and distributions are what matter, you can’t you can’t eat

the the IRR, you got to you got to eat the stuff that’s been

distributed. Yeah.

All right, let’s keep going. I’ll do one more. I’m going to

skip over. Well, I’ll just the question on Twitter that got the

most votes was what’s the exact net worth of each bestie, I

would make the case that that’s probably not the best way to

measure oneself. And, you know, I don’t think we’re gonna do it.

I also would argue that we’re probably all exposed to a lot of

fuzzy math with private assets that we own. And in terms of

companies, we’re in Paris, like, how does that correlate with

happiness in life? It doesn’t, right? So it doesn’t really

question. And I don’t think it’s a big focus in terms of

objectives. I’ll say the next one that got a lot of votes,

which I really like, it’s a lagging indicator and a

byproduct of what we do. There are moments when what we do

reflects in value that frankly, where we are over earning. And

then there are periods where what we do is under reflected,

and we are under earning. And so the through line has to be

that you need to survive in both good times and bad times,

which means you got to like what you’re doing. And if you get

caught up in a numerical number, there’s all kinds of math you

can do to make it look a lot bigger than it is. But it’s all

meaningless. Yeah, I would argue you’re as long as you’re

actively developing yourself, over time, the weighing machine

will do its job. Somebody told me in my 20s. When I was at AOL,

he said, you know, if you’re good, because at the time, I,

you know, I grew up on welfare, I thought the goal was to make

money. I didn’t know any better. I’ve learned later that there’s

a lot more leading indicators of happiness and things that

actually cashier, create happiness, white truffles,

white truffles. I was gonna say friendship, my family, but yeah,

friendship and family laughs. I define it as laughs and

friendships, you know, friendships. But uh, but but he

said to me, you know, your goal should be to just be in the

upper few percent of your age bracket. And just enjoy what

you’re doing. And he said, let time take care of everything

else. Because as long as you find something you’re, you know,

you decently enjoy and are good at, you’ll just get better and

better at that thing. And then at some point, you know, you

will lose track of what the, you know, measurement of that is

because you’re just too caught up in how much you enjoy doing

the thing. And I thought that he had no idea what he was talking

about. And now 25 years later, I can tell you he was totally

right. Totally right. Yeah. By the way, this, this was a

question I was trying to skip over. So no, but it led to a

good fork. Yeah. Okay. What is happiness? Yeah. Yeah. I think

after, you know, observing outcomes for 25 years in tech,

what I would say is that if you’re smart, hardworking, don’t

have behaviors that sabotage yourself, and you know, take

intelligent risks, you will be successful in this business. I

mean, technology is such a wind at your backs. It’s such an

engine of wealth creation, how can you not do well, but the

exact magnitude of how well you do, I think is ultimately it is

substantially affected by timing. And, you know, like if

you were employee, whatever number x at Google, you’re

going to do better than most founders, even of a unicorn

company. And when you found your company, and then when you

exit what the market is doing, those things have a huge impact

on the act on the magnitude. So, you know, whether you end up

being, you know, a billionaire, a centimillionaire, you know, a

decamillionaire, whatever you want, those things are very

affected by timing and chance, but not whether you’re going to

be successful at a substantial level. And so it just, you

know, be smart, be hardworking, don’t sabotage yourself, you

know, get into tech, and you will do well.

Trust the process, trust the exact amount of how well you do

will be dependent on some, you know, stochastic factors, but

not the fact that you’re going to do well, we are enormous

beneficiaries of having been born when we were, because we

were a bunch of late 40 and early 50 somethings, that in the

prime of our career in tech, the Federal Reserve took rates to

zero. And we had no idea a priori how important that would

be in all of our outcomes. But they were, and even more

importantly, PCs, internet and mobile happened, all of that

hard work was done beforehand by an entire court of people

that had to fight much stronger headwinds than we had to fight.

So, you know, David, I just want to build on that, like we

were extraordinarily lucky. And so don’t get caught up in that

because there’s all these factors you don’t you cannot

control. I’ll say one more thing that I think is the most

important observation I’ve made, in terms of whatever it

is building wealth over time is to make sure you’re building

equity in yourself. If you’re in a services business, and every

day, and whether that’s serving the clients of the company you

work for, or just serving clients on behalf of yourself,

and everything you do is a transaction. And that

transaction doesn’t build on itself doesn’t compound value in

some way, then you’re missing out on an opportunity every year

that goes by that you’re earning income, where you’re not

building equity is is a non compounding year. And it’s

compounding equity value that I think ultimately pays off for

you as an individual. And I can give a lot of examples of this.

But if you’re in a, let’s say a brokerage business, and you just

do deals, and you might make have a good year, you might have

a bad year, the real question you need to ask yourself is,

what is compounding? Are you growing a client base? Are you

growing your skill set? Are you next year able to do more

things or have more options than you had this year? And if the

number of options you have is declining or static every year,

then you’re limiting your equity value. And that ultimately will

translate into limited wealth creation.

Can I chime in on that point around equity? So yeah, when I

discovered what equity was, this was when I was in law school.

And actually, the guy who explained to me was Antonio

Gracias. A light bulb really went off for me because my dad

is a doctor, and I was on a path to becoming a lawyer. And in

both those cases, you’re a professional, the way you get

paid is you more or less charge an hourly rate. And so the

amount of money you can make is capped, right? Just take the

number of hours in the day and in the week, multiply it by your

rate, and that’s the most money you can make in a year. And the

difference between that and equity is with equity, you own a

piece of a business. And that business could be ultimately

worth, you know, any amount. And so your equity could

therefore be worth virtually any amount. And so you’re uncapped.

And so just, you know, if you want to have outside success,

you have to have equity in something. I think that is

exactly right. If you’re just basically working for wages, you

even if you are the best at what you do, and you get paid an

insane hourly rate, you again, you can be successful, but

you’re not going to be uncapped. And so that is the beauty.

That’s the beauty of Silicon Valley is all these companies

offer equity to everybody.

And it’s not just shares in something, you can actually get

equity and create leverage in your life. In this era, more

than any human has ever had in any era prior, because of

software and computing and automation, you can create a

website that prints cash for you every day, if you want it to,

you can create a service that you get leverage out of. And

there’s equity value in that. And I think that’s really key,

because then you can go build another one, another one, and

you’re building value over time. And that’s just the most

simplistic example of how technology today provides

leverage that can really allow anyone to pursue a path of

equity.

And I think you made a good point about what are you getting

leverage off of? Yeah, so there’s, there’s a bunch of

different things.

It used to be labor, right?

So the old way was leverage off labor. And I guess if you were

to own like a consulting firm, that or like some sort of

factory, then the more people you have working, the more

money you’d make. The other way would be like, you can get

leverage off capital, like a fund manager, or you can get

leverage off of technology, because software can basically

create these super scaled outcomes. So you need to figure

out like, what is it you’re getting leverage off of?

Yeah, I’ll go. So I’ll do the last one, which I thought was a

really good question. And it got a lot of votes from Marcos

Ortiz. If you had to start from scratch, no money, no

connections, only the knowledge you have right now, and 100

bucks, what would you build in 2022?

I would build something in energy transition or in life

sciences with $100.

Yeah, I would build a startup incubator, venture fund of some

type, a way to fund entrepreneurs and just be a

capital allocator much earlier in my career.

I would create a b2b software company that actually, I’m

already creating it. So I haven’t unveiled it yet. But

there’s something I’m incubating right now.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait,

your beak. What is going on here? I haven’t gotten the I

haven’t gotten the subscription. Have you raised

money? I’m not raised money yet. When I got my subscription

documents, sir, it’s you can think of this idea as Yammer

2.0. So Jacob, you’re not in because you criticize Yammer.

But it was a joke. I gave you the I let you win TechCrunch

50. I put the fucking fix it for you, David, just to put my

pitch in. I ran aim and ICQ help Facebook was an investor

in Yammer was the series A investor in slack. So I’m ready

for you. Yeah, you were there. You were there for us. And we

needed you back at Yammer days. Unlike J Cal.

What are you talking about? Your wife came to my mind.

They’re like, okay, you’re all in. Saks has to win TechCrunch

50. Let me in. Let me do the round. You guys are in. Let me

lead it. Let us do the pre round. We want to do the pre

round. Pre round. Pre round. Thank you. Did you just agree

on TV? Yes. Well, assuming on there’s one thing you have to

do, which is you’ve got to rip out slack and use this instead.

Yes. 100% 100% I will just say, you know, but I’m gonna be very

honest with you. The day I left Facebook, I stopped using it.

The day we sold we distributed slack stopped using it. So don’t

worry about me. I am right. I am 100% aligned with you. I’m all

in. I’m all in. Absolutely. All right. Let’s do the show. Let’s

do the show. freeberg. You didn’t answer that question.

What would you do? Well, actually, I would get some water

vaporizers and then I would get some molecule. So and I would

make a new super protein that was made out of guts. Sorry.

Keep going. I like it. I think it’d be something with the

protein slurry. You’d make some kind of steak that tastes

better than a slurry. It’s something I would definitely

build a business again. I think the you know, the challenge is

as you move past that stage in your career where you know, you

have the willingness and the time to be 120% building one

product every day. It’s, it’s really hard to go back to that.

And I think if I was in a position again, where I had no

money and had no. I think that’s the key part of the

question, not the $100 part. Yeah, I think I would go back to

building something. I do think the intersection of life

sciences with software creates this era of opportunity. It

would probably be something in the realm of AI ML meets life

sciences, where you can actually work in a leveraged way with

software to drive outcomes in these important markets. So I

would actually create free and I could have been we can get

started something. Maybe we can still. Oh, not too late. The

co founders,

sacks will let you in the pre round if you let us in your

pre round. Okay, sounds good. All right. You want to take us

forward? Should we go forward? Okay, let’s see what’s on the

docket. We’ve got Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. You had

Biden last week saying we’re facing the risk of Armageddon.

How is that not the top story? Go taxi poop. Go take it. All

right, here we go. Let me just queue it up for sacks by last

week. So we’re facing risk Armageddon. That’s your tip.

Okay, we got and then and then Leon Panetta just let’s teed

up Jake out. We don’t need everyone knows what’s going on.

Then you Leon Panetta just who was the former Secretary of

Defense and Director of Central Intelligence wrote an op ed for

Politico saying that intelligence analysts have now

raised the probability of a use of a tactical nuclear weapon in

Ukraine from one to 5% at the beginning of the war to 20 to

25%. Now is what he says. So and I don’t think he’d be saying

that. If this wasn’t pretty much conventional wisdom in

Washington. Now, I mean, Panetta is sort of a very

respectable figure in the beltway. So you said it right

for the first time, I said that we’re facing the most dangerous

situation and the highest risk of nuclear war since the Cuban

Missile Crisis. He called it the risk of Armageddon. The

problem is that nobody is willing to say what we should be

doing differently to avoid this situation. So you know, people

are always attacking us for having a point of view on foreign

policy. First of all, this affects us. I don’t know why

we’re not allowed to have a point of view. But you know, in

our business thinking where there’s an existential issue,

you have the attitude of drop everything and figure this out.

If somebody told you that there’s a 25% chance of your

company blowing up, maybe in the next few weeks, you would drop

everything and focus on that problem. But it’s like, you

know, after the Armageddon comments, it’s like, the media

just passed over it. It’s like, oh, this is like, crazy Biden

or whatever it was minimized, it was contextualized, the White

House walked it back. Nobody’s really focusing on this and what

we should be doing differently. And in fact, what Panetta

recommends, and Petraeus said the same thing, is that if Russia

uses attack nuke in Ukraine, then we should respond by

attacking Russia directly. Now, if we do that, we are literally

in World War Three. And remember, at the beginning of

the war, Biden was really clear that we weren’t going to get

directly involved. He vetoed the idea correctly of the no fly

zone, which would have required us to shoot down Russian planes.

Biden, remember, he was asked in the press conference at the

beginning of the war by Lester Holt, he said, Holt said, you

know, Mr. President, what if Americans are trapped behind

enemy lines in Ukraine, would you send in American troops to

go get them? Biden said no, I think very properly said no,

because he said, listen, we do not want to risk World War Three.

But now because of mission creep and a slippery slope, and

we’ve all gotten more involved in this war, we’ve gotten more

emotionally committed, you now have Panetta and Petraeus

calling for us to directly attack Russia and get in World

War Three, the Russians almost certainly would respond with

nuclear because that’s all they’ve got. They don’t have the

conventional forces to stand up to us. So look at how close we

have now gotten to the brink of a nuclear showdown. And has

anybody reassessed? Is anyone calling for us to reevaluate?

Because that’s the conversation which we’re having right now.

And Freeberg, this brings up two points that I think you can

comment on Naval, actually, the founder of angel list angel

investor, and just public thinker, I would say public

intellectual, he came on to call him with the two of you. And he,

you know, outlined, like, who does get to have an opinion on

Ukraine and other issues, which has dovetailed with this, like

who gets to be an expert in the world today. And of course, at

the same time, not only sacks has been commenting on, hey,

what’s the off ramp here? Elon has been talking about, hey, you

know, how do we get out of this? Do we have some votes? You know,

by these regions that have been annexed or that are in dispute?

AOC now is getting criticized on investor people shouting her

down at a public event today or yesterday, that she’s a

warmonger, and she won’t speak out against war. How do you

frame the public dialogue about this freeberg? And then do you

see a potential off ramp here other than Putin leaves Russia,

which is I think the public stance by a lot of folks, you

know, Putin can end this, he just has to leave Ukraine in

order for this to end. So two questions there for you,

Freiberg, it’s very hard to have good dialogue about any

situation where an argument could be made on the grounds of

morality, in an absolute sense, making it really difficult to

have a discourse around what the right thing to do is,

because you don’t agree fundamentally on the objective

you’re shooting for. One side says the objective is to

preserve the integrity of democracy, and the freedom of

people. And the other side says the objective should be to

secure the interests of the West and the United States and

preserve the world from nuclear holocaust. I think that’s what

makes this a challenging conversation. The objective can

be reframed. And then from that objective, each side can make

their own case without being forced to take in the point of

view of the other side. And it’s why we’re at a bit of a

standstill. And it’s also why it’s so easy to get swept up in

a mass point of view, a coalesce point of view of the

masses that makes one feel good about what may end up being a

very bad situation. It feels good to say I’m doing this for

freedom of the people, I’m doing this to save lives. And

the end of the day, it may cause a nuclear war. And it’s

okay, because I feel good going into this debate, that this is

the right thing. It’s the morally superior thing to do.

What’s very hard is that we can’t actually say, as a group,

our objective should be to preserve the integrity of

democracies around the world, to an extent, and that’s a

nuanced point of view, to an extent means I’m willing to

preserve the democracies through certain actions, but I’m not

willing to cross a certain line. And absolutism doesn’t need to

come into play. That’s what I think is making this such a very

difficult conversation. And it’s why it’s so hard to actually

have a conversation around it. And it’s really, I would argue,

the most poignant and the most dramatic moment in what we

talked about earlier, which is this deep seated kind of, you

know, bipolarity. And once you’re sitting on your pole, you

don’t want to come off and you don’t realize that so much of

the dialogue is in this middle. And we have to come to some

point of view that maybe this isn’t about an absolute outcome.

It’s not absolutely going to be nuclear war. And it’s not

absolutely going to be the end of democracy. There’s some

conversation in the middle that’s very difficult to have.

And people that work somewhere in the world, hopefully,

ambassadors, foreign policy people, State Department people,

hopefully are having the more nuanced critical conversation

about how do we resolve to the maximal outcome that doesn’t

necessarily take us to an absolute end.

Chamath to that point, it’s going to be an imperfect outcome

here. I think this is much, much simpler than all of this.

Leon Panetta is a senior counselor to this defense

contracting agency called beacon global strategies who works on

behalf of Raytheon. I found that out while Friedberg was

talking in a two second Google search. I suspect that if you

looked for Petraeus is conflicts of interest, you would find

that through some Byzantine set of, you know, strategic

consulting organizations and whatnot. He also works on behalf

of the defense industry. So you have these people who will

generate more revenue and more profit if there is a massive

war. And those people have been trying to push us into a land

war in Europe since this whole thing started. And so this is

just yet another attempt. It’s just the most final way of doing

it. So I would just encourage people whenever you see all

these folks clamoring for war, it’s just to keep in mind that

they are riddled with conflict and that you can find it out.

Again, this information is sitting in plain sight on the

internet, and you can figure out whether this person is is

really advocating a truth that makes sense or they’re getting

paid to shill a revenue generating mechanism for some

part of the military industrial sex, how much of this is people

talking their book, their book being the military industrial

complex in your mind?

I think that’s a big part of it. I think all these Washington

think tanks are funded by defense contractors. I think

it’s short sighted, obviously, because if it leads to a nuclear

war, there’s no defense industry, there won’t be

anything left. So but look, I think that I think that

Washington is wired for war in part, because there’s a huge

lobby for it for all these defense contractors. And what’s

the lobby for peace? I mean, there’s no one really arguing

for peace.

Speaking of this, Elon,

I’ll tell you what’s lobbying for peace. And I’m going to

connect what may seem to disparate ideas together. But

the single biggest thing I think that will prevent nuclear war

is the inflation that we’re feeling. And the reason is

because it allows the Fed, in my opinion, for the first time,

really, in the last 15 years, to act properly. And if they

hold the line, and they take interest rates to four or 5%,

I think one non obvious outcome of all of that is it becomes

extremely expensive, next to impossible to finance military

adventurism abroad. And that’s a practical economic outcrop of

really, you know, meaningfully high rates greater than zero.

And so I actually think the reality is that for a lot of

these governments, the more that inflation sticks around, the

stickier it is, the higher rates are in general, the bigger the

problems at home are, and the less prone they’re going to be

likely, I actually think that explains that explains the

escalation of this rhetoric, because people want to try to

make this issue and put it on the table. But you understand

that, you know, these folks don’t say it’s a 90% likelihood,

they go from 1% to 25%, which if you understand probabilities

is effectively a left tail risk that’s effectively the same. And

the reason they’re trying to do it is they’re trying to get it

back, David, as you say, to timestamp it, to get it in front

of people’s perspectives to make it important, in a moment where

everybody increasingly, not just in the United States, but in the

UK, in Europe, are looking internally, and trying to figure

out how to keep their economies in a reasonably functioning way,

and how to make sure that their financial and other

infrastructure keeps working. So you’re saying and that is not

necessarily a priority when rates are zero, but when rates

are 4%, I mean, just by the way, if you guys saw what happened

today, it was the competing of two narratives this week, there

was the financial narrative of the UK having to bail out their

pension system, right, of all of a sudden, the pensions being

forced sellers of those four sellers now, you know, spilling

into the United States debt markets around CLOs, and

collateralized loan obligations and junk debt, which then could

theoretically spill as a contagion to other parts of the

market, that was narrative one. And, and all of that, by the way,

is a result of hiding inflation, and the, you know, Fed moving up

rates, and, you know, other countries being forced to attack

inflation with higher rates and creating all these dislocations,

narrative one, versus narrative two, which is, hey, all of a

sudden, we have to put the nuclear risk on the table. And

if you actually saw the print that was spilled, the

disproportionate amount of the rhetoric actually focused on the

former narrative and not the latter. And so I think that

that’s why the these folks are escalating the rhetoric, in

order to kind of create an equality so that they get enough

print, they want that version of the outcome, what you’re saying

is, you have the world saying, we can’t afford to have this

conflict, we are broke, we’ve got too many chaotic issues,

the world is saying, we are increasingly under enormous

domestic pressure. And as a result, we cannot spend on

things abroad, we can’t afford this. And then the other side

saying, well, we need you to afford this. So nuclear is going

to happen, there’s going to be a nuclear annihilation, there’s a

small strain attention to this, there’s a small strain of folks

who would economically benefit. Yes, we’re now ratcheting up

their rhetoric so that that second path interesting more and

more on the table. What do you think of this? Freeberg this

analysis that Schmott has these two polar, these these two

groups vying for the attention and or budget of the world?

The military industrial complex?

Versus Yeah, citizens saying our country can’t afford this, we

need to focus inward, not citizens, the central banks.

Okay, but I think the central banks influenced by citizens,

right? Like this is a whole system here we’re talking about

people are, you know, watching their pensions go away, they’re

watching jobs get cut.

If I was a betting man, I spent the I would guess that the next

half a trillion to $1 trillion that is spent in Western world

economies will be to subsidize something that’s broken

internally inside of one of our countries, whether it’s the UK

pension system, or whether it’s the high yield credit markets,

and it will not be to finance military adventurism in Russia,

just to just hold on that point. So there’s an article today in

the Washington Post about how the US government’s debt service

is going to be around 570 billion this year, which is a 45%

increase. Biden’s budget for 2023 is only 1.6 trillion. So

you’re talking about something like over a third now of the

official budget is already going to debt service,

because it’s not a variable, right? It’s a variable, right?

Exactly. Because so much of it is, is, it’s not locked in a

long term rate. So because interest rates have gone up so

much, the debt service gone up, and interest rates are still

going up. And so, you know, Druckenmiller had those points

around how the debt services within a decade is going to eat

up practically the whole federal budget. So Chamath is

right that we’ve never really had to choose between guns and

butter before in the past. It was just let’s just do both. And

we’ll rack up more national debt, I do think there will be

more and more pressure to question this type of spending

and why we’ve already given Ukraine $80 billion in

handouts, when we can’t afford to basically pay for, you know,

major entitlements at home. So I think there’ll be more

pressure. Now, I think I don’t know if that pressure is going

to come in time, though, to de escalate this, you know, it’s

not and that’s what concerns me. And just to just to cut to the

chase on this, I think where the rubber meets the road on

Ukraine is Crimea. It’s and why because the Russians have a

major naval base there at Sevastopol, it’s the home of

the Black Sea fleet. And they will never give that up. They

are willing to use nukes, I believe, to basically protect

that asset. It’s a vital interest of theirs. Hold on. 80%

of the population of Crimea, they’re Russian, and three

quarters of them, according to polling that was done by Gallup

and by a German polling firm, so not Russian polls, indicated

that they see themselves as Russian and want to be part of

Russia. So if we supported self determination, we’d be fine

with Crimea being part of Russia. But here’s the rub.

Ukrainian nationalism demands that every square inch of

Crimea goes back to Ukraine. And it is State Department policy

right now that we will never recognize Crimea as being

Russian will never recognize the annexation, which happened

back in 2014. So something’s got to give here something’s got to

give either we have to sit down Zelensky and say to him, listen,

you’re not getting back Crimea, we’re going to make that part of

a peace deal, or we are going to back the Ukrainians in their

military effort to retake Crimea, with the result that I

think is quite likely that the Russians will be willing to use

a tactical nuke to prevent their total defeat. So at some

point, we’re gonna have to choose here, which these

outcomes do you want? Do you want to basically go for a

negotiated settlement, which means telling the Ukrainians

they cannot have everything they want? Or do you really want

to risk a nuclear war to take back Crimea, which is Russian

and the people there see themselves as Russian. So we

need to make a choice here.

Yeah, so Ilan put out a tweet for and got savage for it. And

he outlined sort of what you’re saying here. So do you think his

plan he said, redo elections of annexed regions under UN

supervision, Russia leaves, if that is the will of the people.

And then he says, Crimea, formerly part of Russia, as

it’s been since 1783, water supply to Crimea, a short as

you’re saying, Ukraine remains neutral. Should the West force

Ukraine to accept these type of terms, essentially, elections,

and I don’t know why Crimea wouldn’t be part of that

election process. Do you think UN supervised elections in those

regions should occur, and we should force the landscape to

do that. So he who pays the piper calls the tune, of course,

we need to have a point of view on how this war should be

resolved. We force him to do that. Listen, it’s not about

force, they can fight on and do whatever they want, as long as

they want. Hold on with our American weapons, American

weapons. So you think he should do that? We should hold the

American weapons if he doesn’t, if Zelensky wants our weapons

and support, which appear to be infinite, we should not give

him a blank check guarantee. The blank check is what started

World War One, the German Kaiser gave Austria blank check

guarantee and it led to World War One. That is how great

powers get pulled into the wars of minor powers. And we

absolutely have to have a point of view on how we do not get

pulled into this. And I think our one of our lines should be

that we are not going to fund the Ukrainians in retaking

Crimea. Got it. So just to put a to clear this, so we can move

on to the next topic. You’re in support of removing are not

giving further weapons support to the Ukraine. Unless they

negotiate this, it’s not going to come to that we need to have

a point of view on how you are in support of all stopping our

support if they don’t sit down and negotiate a settlement here.

That’s what you would do. America needs to have a point of

view of what is in its own interest. What is in our

interest is for this to get resolved diplomatically at some

point through negotiated settlement, not for to escalate

into a nuclear war that we could get pulled into. The only way

that’s going to happen, okay, is if Crimea goes back to Russia,

I’m telling you, they will be willing to pull out all the

stops. And by the way, they could even use tech nukes before

Crimea. But you answer the question, though, that I asked

three times, would you remove American support in weapons if

they don’t accept that if Ukraine doesn’t accept that

would you be comfortable taking away our support in well, I

don’t think it’s going to come to that. But yes, we should be

willing to threaten that. Okay, that’s it. I’m just trying to

get you to answer that one. Hold on a second. They are a

client state of the US. They do not call the shots. We’re

America. We call the shots. We’re the big dog here. All

right. That’s the bottom line. And you really want to get

pulled into a nuclear war because I do not. I just wanted

you to answer that one question. We should pull our

weapons if they don’t. Let’s get real. Okay, this is about

our future. You know, we are American nationalists. At least

I am. I’m not a Ukrainian nationalist. I support self

rule. I think we accomplished something by preventing Kiev

from getting toppled. But I want to support self rule for

the people of Korea. It’s time for a settlement in Saxony. I

think the most important thing that we can all be thankful for

which I think will prevent a lot of wars in the next 10 or 20

years is inflation, and non zero interest rates, it’s just

going to be really tough. Like, you know, the UK cannot do

anything right now other than make sure that they have

foreign currency reserves to back up the pound, which they

don’t really have that much. They’re going to need money to

bail out their pension system. Whoever thought it was a good

idea to allow pensions to run levered risk was it’s obviously

insane. Could you imagine if it turned out that the teacher’s

pensions and the firefighters pensions in America were running

levered long? I mean, oh, they are. They’re not. They’re just

having to get resolved now. I mean, it’s just we’re at a

breaking point. Yeah, it’s clear. You know what a pension

is. I know. I’m not trying to sound fancy. Yeah, it’s just a

dead instrument. I’m saying that’s all it is. I’m saying

don’t use some fancy intellectual argument. I’m

saying practically speaking, the treasurer is not allowed to

call Goldman Sachs and say, I’m going to run two turns of

leverage on this money. That is not allowed to happen in the

United States. Okay. I get in some fancy way. It could be

thought of as levered long with, you know, all kinds of

indirection, but that is not how the world works today.

Practically speaking, it is how the UK works. A treasurer in a

UK pension system is allowed to call an investment bank and

actually run levered. That is insane. Okay. So my point is

when rates are non zero, all of that jig is up. Governments are

forced to batten down the hatches and you know, husband

cash for god knows what will break in the system and I think

that that is and and and as disruptive as that is, it may

actually be the bulwark against war. The jig is up, folks. I

mean, I think that’s what we should take away from this is

we can’t afford this and the United States is funding it. We

have to force a settlement here and it will be a profile and

that may be the silver lining of inflation. Okay, Andy

Jassy’s had an all hands meeting. Amazon is freezing

hiring for corporate roles in its retail business. Almost 90

VPs or higher level execs have left Amazon since 2021. Early

this week, there was an all hands presentation. The slides

were leaked to business insider. Some of them constraints

breed resourcefulness, self sufficiency and innovation.

There are no extra points for growing headcount, budget size

or fixed expense. The slide instructed employees to

accomplish more with less sounds familiar sounds like

something the US needs to do and foreign policy needs to do.

Amazon leadership team urged employees to double down on

frugality. Jassy also spoke in the meeting, just a couple of

quotes, and then I’ll get your thoughts. Chamath. It’s on a lot

of people’s minds. And of course, none of us know for sure

what’s going to happen. But there are a lot of signs that

point to this being a difficult and rough economy ahead of us.

And I don’t know how long that’ll last. But I think it’s

one of the things that we are thinking about. And we decided

that we’re going to be more streamlined in how we expand in

2023. Good companies that last a long period of time who are

thinking about the long term always have this push and pull.

Chamath, what do you read into this?

I’ll say three quick things. One is that today, Thursday,

October 13, we had an inflation print, which was worse than

expected. And the markets are materially higher, right? So you

know, strange why? Well, I you know, we talked about this a few

weeks ago, but you know, my thought then and same is, it’s

the same that I think now is that we’ve effectively seen the

near term bottom and we’re now consolidating. And so every

opportunity people have to justify that most of the news is

behind them, they take and they use that as a reason to buy.

Okay, so that’s number one, which is that we are sort of

near the end. The second, however, is that if we do see

another leg down, there’s really only one cohort of company that

hasn’t been really whacked. And I’ll summarize it very quickly

by saying it’s Microsoft, Amazon, Apple and Google, that’s

it. Even Facebook has now been sort of put into the bucket of

everybody else, where you know, we’ve been crushed 60 70 80% in

those companies. So, so, so what does that mean? Well, those

four companies are now being identified for what they may be,

which in capitalism is called over earning. Okay, they are

making more money than we think is appropriate. This letter from

Andy Jassy is his way of effectively telling his major

shareholders that he is now moving the business to become

more of a cash cow business. Tim Cook made this incredible

decision in 2016 1718 that effectively did the same thing.

That’s when Buffett came in. That’s when he established a huge

ownership in the stock. That’s when the stock absolutely ripped

because it moved into a different bucket in people’s

minds. It became growth at a pretty reasonable price. And I

think Andy is making the case that Amazon is going to become

one of these GARP stocks growth at a reasonable price. He’s

going to generate a ton of cash flow. He’s going to keep

expenses nominal. He’s going to return a ton of cash to

shareholders with buybacks. That’s the reading in between

the lines of that letter. I think it’s a really profound

statement and a very smart move because you haven’t seen that

letter or a version of that letter yet from Microsoft and

you started to see hints of that letter from Sundar where

he said, you know, it’s it’s and he’s not he’s saber rattling.

He’s not there yet. He’s in the appetizer part. You know, he’s

in the amuse bouche where he’s like, oh, you know, guys, you

gotta work harder. Hey, guys, let’s create some fancy

acronyms but Sundar’s got courage. No, no, no, but he’s

got courage. He is going to rip the bandaid off too and so I

think what it means is these three and maybe these four

companies are going to draw a hard line in the sand and say

we are not over earning. Do not abandon this stock. That again

will help put in a bottom in the stock market. What do you

think Freeberg? You worked at this company and you know, the

principles across the board, the saber rattling will turn

into saber swinging in Q4 Q1 you think Google Apple cuts

coming? Amazon is affected in a different way because they

operate this physical supply chain business. They’re

delivering goods to people’s homes that people are buying.

So they’re, they’re, they really have to change their

trajectory very quickly. It was incredible. You guys remember

when COVID hit, you try to place an order on Amazon, it was like

three weeks to deliver because the infrastructure wasn’t there

to do it. So they actually were seeing more orders than their

system had predicted. And they did massive build out, they

hired what a million people or something in their network to

meet demand. And then over the next year, earnings went through

the roof, their infrastructure and employee headcount went

through the roof. And now we’re obviously coming back down the

other side of a mountain. And they’re having to shift strategy

and shift their operating model. Yet again, there’s a broader

set. And that’s because they’re in the direct commerce

business. Microsoft, Google, and other kind of software

companies, some of which benefit from advertising, which is

almost like a first derivative on the consumer market, or a

first derivative on the spending of companies that sell to

consumers have a little bit of a different calculus. They’re a

much higher margin business 30% EBITDA kind of business with

EBITDA margin business with a very distinct kind of set of

challenges on how advertising revenue is going to be affected

over the next couple of quarters, and balancing that

against their cloud platform, which is sold to enterprises,

and their media consumption platform, which is generally

like YouTube, at Google’s case, which is less affected. So it’s

not as much of a direct calculus, I will say what’s

happened over the past decade, which we’re now seeing change,

is these companies have had extraordinary growth, hiring

people to no end, there’s always been, you know, kind of this

extended expense on capital on human capital. And that expense

on human capital has driven the average cost per employee

through the roof. And it’s not just the salaries, it’s the cost

of the RSUs, it’s the cost of the facilities and the free

ice cream and the gyms and all the other stuff that’s gone on

to compete. That’s now changing. And so it really is creating a

different model for operating that hasn’t existed for the last

decade, where everything has been, you know, how many more

things can we throw in the kitchen, you know, throw like

the kitchen sink at this problem to get all the human capital

here. And I think that’s really, you know, what’s what’s going to

kind of structurally change in the valley. It’s not as acute as

what Amazon is dealing with.

It does feel like that is those are the last

cities to falter off.

They are the ones they are the ones that take the index to 3200.

If we’re going to try to do it, there’s only one place to look

you’ve whacked everybody else, everything is down, you know,

50 to 90% in some cases.

So and then finally, you know, and by the way, sorry, just just

at the end of last year, a quarter of every s&p dollar was

crowded in those names a quarter. So you got to go there.

Yeah, I mean, and also they’re automatically bought, right?

They’re automatically bought by these index funds. And so who’s

at the wheel saying, we’re not we’re going to take the money

out of them, right? Who who in their right mind is taking money

out of Apple, Amazon, and Microsoft? Where do you put it?

I guess is everybody’s question, right? Your mouth like if you

take it out of there, where do you put it?

Well, no, I think I think it’s just that when, when you have

patterns of selling, typically, as I’ve seen it, my experience

is that initially, it’s the algorithms that really start to

push a market in a direction, then you have, you know, the

more traditional fund complexes, that’s the hedge funds and the

long only they follow suit. And then the last group tends to be

retail. And it works in reverse the other way as well. And so,

you know, obviously, there’s exceptions to all of these, but

as a general rule, so if retail starts bailing on Amazon, and

they are right now and Apple, yeah, they’re, they are sellers

now, but again, time to buy it. But again, this is this is where

sort of organized capital now is finding a bottom again, like,

when you start to shake, just think about the psychology of

like, being delivered bad news after bad news, you go through

the cycles, right? There’s denial, there’s anger, there’s

depression, there’s bargaining, but then at some point, there’s

acceptance. And in that acceptance phase, you’re like,

Yeah, you’re right, things are bad. But when you see a market

rally into a print like this, it’s a it’s really, really

interesting, psychological turning point.

As a proof point to what you’re saying, sacks, Chamath and

sacks, I want to get your comment on this venture capital

firms, like Sequoia, Excel, and others that have now changed

their status as you know, just private companies, but also

dabbling in public are buying public equities, which basically

means they see more opportunity in public, underpriced tech

stocks, growth stocks, etc, than they do in late stage, private

companies, correct. And you saw the Wall Street Journal story,

I’m assuming sacks.

I saw that.

What is what do you read what you read into that? And they is

it overblown? Or is it indicative of something?

I think it’s probably overblown, because Sequoia created that

fund that is a hedge fund, and Andreessen Horowitz became a

registered investment advisor, so they could buy public

securities. So look, I don’t think most venture funds are all

of a sudden investing in public markets. We aren’t even allowed

to do that, as far as I know, nor would we ever try to. So I

think probably it’s exactly

You have to give up sacks, your VC exemption, but you could do

it. Yeah, yeah, I mean, we wouldn’t want to, but it’s kind

of the point. But look, I can’t explain why the market did what

it did today. It could have, like Jamal said, it could have

been some sort of algorithmic, you know, buying or selling. But

I just think that the overall news today was the economic

news was just another really bad report. I mean, just look at

these headlines from the New York Times today. Okay, I’m

going to read you the headlines on a single sort of scrolling

page here. Number one, inflation came in much faster than

expected. Bad news for the Fed. Takeaways from another painful

inflation report. Three, disappointing inflation data

keeps Democrats on defense at a midterm elections for food

prices climb again, weighing on household budgets. Five, rent

inflation remain tepid, a troubling sign. Six, used car

prices aren’t declining as much as the Congress of the House.

Slow down, slow down. Give Freeberg a chance to take some

Xanax. Take his Xanax, Freeberg. Gas prices fall slightly, but

overall energy costs are soon expected to rise. And eight,

retirees are getting an 8.7% social security cost of living

rates, the biggest in decades. I guess that one is sort of

positive, but it’s like literally negative headline

after headline in the New York Times. But can I reinterpret

that for you? I think I think the way to think about it is

this gives the Fed the resolve it needs. It’s going to go by

75. It’s probably going to go another 75. We’re going to have

rates by four to 450 to 5% probably within Q1, which means

if you’re trying to figure out where the bottom is, it’s

roughly now ish. And so that’s why you see smart money David

shaking this thing off and starting to enter the market.

And so again, and the other version interpretation is, when

rates are four or 5%, the cost of servicing United States debt

is so meaningful as a percentage of their budget, the

incremental spend that they would need to make to enter a

new war is too much. I think I love this point. I love this

point where we’re weaving all these things together. Do we

want to look at you? So right, so on the economics page of the

New York Times, you it’s just disastrous headline after

disasterous headline, then you turn to the foreign policy

page, you got Tom Friedman, writing a column here, saying

we are suddenly taking on China and Russia at the same time.

And Tom Friedman historically has been a huge hawk. And he

is even saying he’s saying pump the brakes on the brakes,

never fight Russia and China at the same time. So he says we

are in uncharted waters. I just hope these are not our new

forever wars. It’s like, whoa. So basically, look, our

economic base, our economy is crumbling at home, at the same

time that we are doing unprecedented saber rattling

abroad. This does not compute we need to take a time out my

prediction. But my prediction is that we will not enter a new

war with rates flexing up as aggressively as they are.

I love it. I love weaving these two stories together. I think

it makes a lot of sense. We didn’t have time for Alex Jones.

But we’ll save that for another episode. Gentlemen, I think it’s

our best episode ever. It’s an honor and a privilege to spend

this hour or so with you every week. I love you like brothers.

And it’s been a great 100 episodes. I look forward to 100

more sacks if you need a mental health break. Dr. Friedberg

Psychiatrist got him David, David, David will be back next

Friday. I just want to say replies, David, don’t read your

replies. Get off of that. I just want to say how much I love

you guys. And I’m really proud of what we’ve created. And I’m

really excited to get to the next 100. And I’ll see you guys

tonight. I’ll break out the white. So we’re all you want to

keep going. That’s the news today.

I’m in for a hundy. I’m in for a hundy. I love you. I will say

that Jake house moderation has been a lot better since he got

brigaded. That is his way of saying he’ll be he’ll see you

next Friday.

I love you. I love you, Friedberg. Let’s see if we can

get sacks to do it. It’s been 100 episodes. He hasn’t said it

yet. But I love you, David. Are you coming tonight? Are you

coming? Yeah, I’ll come. You’re coming. Oh, wait, wait, wait.

Let me check. I’ll get back to you offline. Jesus Christ. God.

Jesus. Hold on a second. Hold on a second. sacks. I love you.

Let’s see if we can just say it. Okay, I love you. Back at you.

That’s to go around the horn. Can you say I love you? Can you

say I see you? I see you. I love you. Freeberg. I love you.

Appreciate you. I appreciate you. You guys. That’s 100. We’ll

see you. Episode two. I love you too much. I’ll see you

tonight. Bye bye.

Oh, man.

We should all just get a room and just have one big huge

orgy because they’re all just useless. It’s like this like

sexual tension that they just need to release somehow.

you