SPEAKER_00: hey everybody welcome back to the all in podcast with us again today yawning from milan

SPEAKER_02: your favorite the chairman dictator chamoff holly hapatia you look a little tired my friend how you

SPEAKER_05: doing over there buddy i left monday i flew to singapore i was on the ground for two days and i flew here i'm here for two days and then i go to london for five days i'm exhausted you are on a whirlwind tour i mean i'm based i'm flying around the world literally flying around the world moving

SPEAKER_14: west man right i'm tired and this is all in service i mean at our age you feel it people it hits

SPEAKER_00: differently when you when you pass 40. and i'm assuming this is 80 90 business you're out there selling you're selling you're selling grok you're selling 80 90 you're out there

SPEAKER_22: doing bd little selling little closing and then i'm speaking at the oxford union on wednesday

SPEAKER_24: okay okay well that sounds fancy checking the bucket list yeah okay there you have it and

SPEAKER_25: in his camo hat and in his election afterglow look at the glow he is in that afterglow he is post

SPEAKER_30: coitus here post-election anybody got a cigarette i need to i need to light up the cigarette

SPEAKER_32: that was a close one i didn't think i was gonna make it but you did do you like my

SPEAKER_35: jaykel this is this is a hat well it says trump you look like no more fun what does it say your hunting

David Sacks: lives no remember remember when uh tim waltz rolled out the camo yes and you said it was going to win the

SPEAKER_40: election for harris it might it might i thought that he might have a shot yes no i was wrong about

SPEAKER_43: that one be belly belly quiet we got all the camo guys they voted for us hunting wibbles nobody's

SPEAKER_23: gonna get this uh impersonation but it's very good it looks like is that elmer fudd that's elmer fudd be belly belly quiet we're hunting wibbles that sounds like mike tyson well i'm gonna mess up that

SPEAKER_50: jake paul how about i wear a different trump pad every week for the next four years absolutely

SPEAKER_51: fantastic i mean the ratings there's so many good ones i mean all i care about at this point i'm getting savage in any way possible all i care about is ratings now let's go you're fine maga get in the comments let's get these ratings up and with us of course the ceo of oh hello oh hello david freeberg

SPEAKER_54: how are you doing thanks for having me again jaco thank you all right well it's good to have you

SPEAKER_55: it's good to be here yeah how are you doing i'm chilling man you know just nice of the executive

SPEAKER_57: producer to have you on the show yes yeah i've been executive producing you here well it's uh you know

SPEAKER_23: always i'm always thinking about your best interest i was hearing a little i i heard you on a phone call before you said you had a perfect body what was that in reference to my wife makes me go

SPEAKER_63: yeah she makes me go to the dermatologist where they she examines your whole nude body to look

SPEAKER_65: for moles so this morning i went in early to the dermatologist she examined it she said perfect i said

SPEAKER_67: does she have to wear sunglasses because you're just so white like it just like it's blindingly

SPEAKER_69: white she's a woman does she get hazard pay the poor that poor dermatologist my god

SPEAKER_72: oh my god she's like she's like thank you for the experience but this is why we need to uh in

SPEAKER_74: all seriousness this is why sacks we have to legalize psychedelics this poor woman has ptsd after that

SPEAKER_65: we need to get out of here get out of here it was a wonderful examination she was thrilled

SPEAKER_76: i mean all right okay and uh of course i'm jason canis and uh you know there's been a lot of scuttlebutt sacks i don't know if you know this but uh comedy might still be legal here on the all in pockets but there's been a lot of scuttlebutt a lot of debate a lot of energy dare i say here we go are we going to break the rules today finally i don't know we'll

SPEAKER_79: see anything's possible people get a little sensitive sometimes with the car do i have to put my pronouns

SPEAKER_84: back in my zoom chat but you're so pronouns back in shabbat pauling happened to you douche back uh here

SPEAKER_76: we go you you might not know this but a lot of appointments are being made sacks did you know this are you aware that the appointments are being made i'm aware yeah it's happening you'll have seen you've seen the flow of them well i got a dump i'm not going to say who sent these to me but i actually got the next five or six announcement that trump's going to make i'm

SPEAKER_91: not going to say who gave it to me this is gonna this bit has the potential to be so good i'm so tired but you've got me awake okay i'm awake well i'm ready here's our first one here's

SPEAKER_95: our first one this is a very interesting one good yeah here it is this is a statement from donald

SPEAKER_21: j trump it is my great honor to announce that hunter biden of delaware will head a new department the

SPEAKER_02: bureau of founder mode procurement founder procurement you notice sacks dropped off he doesn't want to uh have a reaction shot here uh next one up this is interesting tony henchcliffe i don't know if you

SPEAKER_76: know him he has been appointed to a new role he's the ambassador to puerto rico he's that's a good one

SPEAKER_51: chamath actually uh your wish has come true you are now your sole duty is to ensure all executive branch knitwear is on point the sweater inspector general everybody's going to have perfect knitwear knitwear absolutely knitwear and uh by the way just so you know that's a that's a lower piano cashmere sweater in that picture apparently apparently i'm actually decided i would flip i've gone full maggie here i am i've been appointed as chief virtue signaler that i like that i like every time you're going

SPEAKER_50: to be a podcast you're going to uh you're going to have stiff competition from mark cuban for that

SPEAKER_107: for that post i know i beat him out i beat him out yeah yeah i went down to more he deleted all of

SPEAKER_108: his pro kamala tweets have you done the same uh no no i haven't yet you're going to have to work on

SPEAKER_111: that if you want to if you want to get this job look at the lusty eyes in this picture yeah i know it's pretty great i mean it really it really you you have there you have knocked on the virtue you

SPEAKER_02: didn't want to just burrow yourself absolutely not absolutely not hey friedberg you've been appointed here we go uh as bobby kennedy's whipping boy and you will be officially his little bitch uh anything any innovation you come up with is officially blocked and here he is my great honor

SPEAKER_118: to announce david sachs is now the chief retribution officer congratulations well done retribution must

SPEAKER_123: be had jay cal payback is a bitch there are a lot of people who are out of line just a little bit a little bit they deserve to get smacked around a little bit just all graham's gonna get his shoe

SPEAKER_135: shine box just on x a little bit just a little bit rain man there's been a lot of talk about a holiday

SPEAKER_138: party free bring you want to give us an update on the holiday party quick plug on the party so the

SPEAKER_63: party is coming up in three weeks the all-in holiday spectacular steve aoki andrea botez gary richards aka destructo are going to be djing several sections i'm doing a secret dj set uh i may it's actually a good idea we will have we will have chess challenges with alex botez several sections are sold out vip is sold out uh draymond's joining us draymond green from the warriors he's gonna come and do a little bit with us on stage it'd be great he's great so should be great get your tickets at allin.com events all right let's get into it everybody i just want to

SPEAKER_02: start with a little bit of uh finance here bitcoin and finance stocks way up since the trump win which was now 10 days ago uh bitcoin peaked at 92 000 unbelievable it's dropped down to 89 but obviously that's an all-time high and as we all know we talked about it on the show trump heavily heavily courted the crypto industry during his campaign in addition to the bitcoin news since early august a firm robin hood paypal coinbase all up double or 50 it's an extraordinary run in july trump headlined the bitcoin conference he laid out his plans number one he was going to fire sec chairman

SPEAKER_148: gary gensler here's the clip one day one i will fire gary gensler and appoint a new sec chairman

SPEAKER_162: gary gensler there it is okay enough with that technically president can't fire the sec chair but he

SPEAKER_166: can't appoint a new one when gary's term ends in 2026 or gary could resign and trump takes office that happens uh sometimes and uh folks are speculating gensler has already made that decision to step down

SPEAKER_76: he put out a press release with a quote in it that a number of people took note of where he said it's been a great honor to serve with them the people who work at the sec doing the people's work and

SPEAKER_02: ensuring our capital markets remain the best in the world trump also said the federal government will

SPEAKER_76: never sell never ever sell its bitcoin holdings uh which they own through criminal assets as you know

SPEAKER_166: and number three he said he would create a bitcoin and crypto presidential advisory council where trump said quote the rules will be written by people who love your industry not heat your industry and he also advocated that all future bitcoins would be minted in america i don't know that he gets to

SPEAKER_51: make that choice but uh they have it freeberg any thoughts here on the crypto market and this

SPEAKER_172: incredible bull run here we've seen in the last you know 10 days and then before that couple yeah

SPEAKER_63: i mean i think like you said it's not limited to crypto crypto is one market of several that have been

SPEAKER_65: significantly affected by the outlook based on trump's election i think that trump's election has a couple of key features that are changing market dynamics one is folks kind of view some of his

SPEAKER_175: policies to be obviously stimulatory with lower tax rates and more deregulation this is you know theoretically going to drive up investment and economic growth the deregulatory nature on its own benefits markets that have been encumbered by regulatory oversight and regulatory challenges like crypto finance and fintech so those types of businesses are clearly going to benefit or expected to benefit significantly by being able to launch products more quickly and have features and ways that they can generate revenue that they might be challenged to do under the current regulatory schemas and then there's also this element of kind of things being inflationary the the feature of tariffs if we don't get spending cut fast enough there's an effect on market so you know we're still seeing 10-year treasury sit at about four and a half percent up from three and a half percent which is where we were right around the rate cut beginning in september and remember since those rate cuts began in september we've cut 75 basis points and and we're still seeing the kind of 10-year treasury hold high which in kind of implies that there's expected to be persistent inflation in fact the october inflation number accelerated again so it's back up not going down it's i think it went up to 2.6 percent up from 2.3 percent the month prior these general kind of effects that are predicted from the trump policy plans is having an effect in different markets obviously in equities we're seeing more kind of risk-seeking risk-taking and then in the bond markets because of the four and a half percent treasury yield there's a really interesting dynamic and and i kind of sent this this link out yesterday but if you look at the spread on yields between u.s treasuries which have historically been kind of considered and talked about and are deemed the the risk-free rate and the yield that corporates have to pay to borrow money we haven't seen a spread this low in 26 years so it's a 17-year low for the spread between the yield that companies that issue junk bonds have to pay from treasuries and it's a 26-year low for credit grade bonds so this means the market is either more risk-seeking meaning they're looking for more yield and they're going into corporates because they feel like there is a higher probability that these companies are going to be successful in the future they're not going to have higher default rates etc so the market is becoming much more risk-seeking or the alternative is that parts of the market are reassessing the risk-free nature of treasuries themselves if spending doesn't get under control the treasury market appetite is decreasing so there's this kind of spread that's shrunk in the last couple of months so we're seeing capital flooding into the markets for risk-seeking assets and this is obviously affecting crypto equities and and bond markets all across the

SPEAKER_177: board and we'll talk a little bit about ipo and m a later great chamath your thoughts aside from yum yum

SPEAKER_179: i mean yum yum you could say it it's a it's gonna be just saying no i mean look what did i say at the

SPEAKER_93: beginning of the year was going to be the biggest risk asset winning trade yeah it's great bitcoin's

SPEAKER_40: great lord i haven't seen you this half generally what made you more happy getting to milan and spending time with your white truffle dealer or watching bitcoin break 90k which one was more exciting for

SPEAKER_188: you personally you know honestly you know what i think about i actually think about all the bitcoin i

SPEAKER_67: sold yeah you know i had bitcoin i had a bunch of bitcoin in my funds when i managed outside capital you know that's a i don't know a three or four billion dollar mistake in growing now because my partners at the time capitulated and i wanted to be a good team member and we distributed and it was profitable but obviously i shouldn't have sold it would have made them a lot more money and then i think about like i bought some land i remember tahoe it was in the wall street journal i'm sure you can find it but yeah how much is that worth now probably a couple hundred million dollars

SPEAKER_195: maybe more rough trade rough trade but you you do have bitcoin holding can i ask you a question

SPEAKER_175: why do you say sold bitcoin as opposed to converted bitcoin into dollars like when you think about bitcoin just as a participant do you think about bitcoin as a dollar denominated asset that you go and buy bitcoin and then you're eventually going to sell it turn it back into dollars and use the dollars or are you like what do you think about the purest kind of idea that bitcoin should be the de facto currency and store of value in the future and the dollar doesn't matter

SPEAKER_197: and we shouldn't necessarily be talking about the value of bitcoin in dollar denominated terms as

SPEAKER_67: something i'm going to eventually turn it back into it hasn't happened yet and so until it happens i think you have to view it as like a very good gold proxy but it's a largely dollar denominated asset

SPEAKER_196: now why do you see it going the other way like so a lot of folks thought that as a safe haven

SPEAKER_175: it should do well when there's a negative economic outlook but it has traded the last couple of years

SPEAKER_05: kind of no it's totally correlated no it's totally it's a totally correlated asset i mean yeah there

Chamath Palihapitiya: will be a point and it's probably in our lifetime where it is an independent asset and a non-speculative store of value there will be that day but that day is not now and i think it's very important to see the conditions on the field as they are versus what you wish it to be and and the reason is that it allows you to risk manage more appropriately because if you don't see it then when something happens to the dollar complex good or bad or when something happens to rates good or bad or when something stimulative happens good or bad you're not going to react properly if you're in the business of managing it as a risk asset so if you're in the set it and forget it bucket and there are some people i think it's great none of these conversations matter but like most people you're probably going to be motivated to do something and i think if you're motivated to do something or you have fomo that stimulates you to do something whatever the psychology is that leads you to action it's probably important to just view things as they really are versus how you wish them to be

SPEAKER_207: and so i think the purists may eventually be right i think they will be right at some point in my lifetime but they're not right now and that's why these things are correlated and you should act

Chamath Palihapitiya: properly the other the other thing i'll say just broadly about the market is i think that there's a tremendous amount of optimism about the economy i think that's why you see risk spreads get crushed definitely yeah and i think that as long as we see the kind of prognostications that the trump administration is putting out i think people are going to be mostly bullish i think the way that this trade turns around is when something actually breaks in terms of the inflation picture or in terms of the deficit picture and if those things look like going into 2025 that president trump's actions are not going to be able to course correct it then i think you're going to see people go massively risk off which i think will not be great for markets obviously but right now we're

SPEAKER_175: not in that point and you don't think that tenure reflects that already at four and a half percent i mean that's showing some degree of inflation and concern about the deficit

SPEAKER_222: right it's like i think i think the tenure could be at seven percent yeah what does four and a half

Chamath Palihapitiya: percent mean i mean if you're if you're going to run eight percent of gdp level deficits for the next four or five or six years yeah you're going to have the tenure at seven to eight percent that's just

SPEAKER_166: mathematical right sax your thoughts on uh crypto before we get into ipos and mna if and yeah just on

SPEAKER_230: crypto the house republicans already passed a framework for crypto regulation earlier this year it

SPEAKER_232: actually got 71 democrats to to join it it was called the financial innovation and technology for the 21st century act or fit 21 and it would classify digital assets like crypto as commodities regulated by the

SPEAKER_108: cftc if the blockchain they run on is is quote functional and decentralized that's the key requirement if their blockchain is functional but not decentralized then they would be considered securities and fall under the purview of the sec i think the the crypto industry basically wants a really clear line for knowing when they're a commodity and they want commodities to be governed governed like all other commodities by the cftc so that's what the republican bill would do i think with the republicans now winning the senate the prospects for that bill to get enacted are now greatly improved especially because sherrod brown who used to run the banking committee just lost to bernie

SPEAKER_232: moreno this was a seat in ohio elizabeth warren is still going to object to this legislation but she's just going to have way less influence and like you said it's not clear that gary gensler's

SPEAKER_108: going to be sticking around very long at the sec so look the bottom line here is that i think that we are close to having clear rules of the road codified by congress which is what the crypto industry has been asking for and the days of gensler terrorizing crypto companies by issuing wells

SPEAKER_232: notices without clarifying what the rules are that he's in prosecuting those days are about to be over so i

SPEAKER_18: think this is why the crypto markets are rallying and so to your point if it's centralized or partially centralized you're going to be a security if you're decentralized anybody can join the network no one person controls the network and i guess most people would consider that bitcoin versus say ripple which is partially decentralized but largely centralized and that's going to be i guess the new rules of the

SPEAKER_238: road in addition to that there are new rules that are being enforced that hopefully trump assuming 21

SPEAKER_108: passes right this bill is called fit 21 but i think much much higher likelihood that it or something

SPEAKER_242: like it now can get through the congress it makes sense yeah and then there's also legislation that's

SPEAKER_18: already been enacted that's there's multiple ways and multiple paths but accredited investors there's going to be a path to becoming an accredited investor with a test so that is something that is also on the docket we'll see if it happens let's talk about ipos and m a yum yum boys

SPEAKER_51: just a level set here with the audience here's the number of ipos per year and as you can see the last

SPEAKER_18: three years have been some of the lowest since 2008 and 2009 the great recession for those of you who are

SPEAKER_166: old enough to remember it and if you look at vc the number of distributions have been absolutely on the floor for the past three years in fact if you look at the distributions from 2022 through 2024 those three years combined it's been around 200 billion which is less than 2019 in total and uh with this year projected to be about 100 billion in distributions that's about 14 of the peak zerp era when in 2021 we

SPEAKER_76: had 710 billion dollars in distribution here so the back room buzz is that donnie from queens is going to make m a great again a couple of reasons there sacks the wrath of lena khan's coming to an end

SPEAKER_18: mag 7 sitting on massive amounts of cash and that cash is growing as people have laid people off and they're focused on getting fit obviously we all know the fed did another quarter point cut last week although some people maybe don't know that because it seems to have gotten lost in the election news and psychologically i think everybody's feeling very optimistic so maybe these ipos are back on the menu chamath i don't know if you saw it but clarna just filed for their ipo that's a swedish fintech

SPEAKER_51: company they were kind of the pioneers in buy now pay later what are the other ipos we could see file in 2025 databricks stripe wiz canva plaid rippling and air table there's a long shot that people have been buzzing about i don't have any inside information but people have been speculating spacex could ipo starlink their starlink unit and if you want to get really crazy chamath maybe there's a

SPEAKER_166: long shot that sam altman jumps the fence and decides he's going to take open ai public during

SPEAKER_237: this window that people expect to be opening what do you think chamath what's going to happen here in terms of m a and ipos in 2025 i think it's going to still be pretty sub dude so i don't okay i

SPEAKER_90: don't i don't think that you're going to see these crazy m a deals that i think everybody is expecting i also don't anticipate a lot of these big companies going public at least in the first half of the year and the only reason i say that is i just think that like this year and the first half

Chamath Palihapitiya: of next year what's the difference the ipo market is what the ipo market is and if the 10 year is back to you know four and a half five percent that's not a compelling strategy for some sas company or some internet business that didn't take an opportunity to go public when rates were at zero so if you just look mathematically at what the actual fair value of these companies should be i don't know it's not like such a great ipo market then on the m a side if all you're doing is waiting for lina khan to not be there to me i think that that betrays what m a is supposed to be which is you're supposed to underwrite some industrial logic from first principles where things are very accretive and very accretive things should not hang by a thread on the emotional regulation or dysregulation of the ftc commissioner so i kind of think that you would have seen some of this stuff already as well if if the industrial logic was so high and again when rates are non

SPEAKER_207: trivially high i just think that it's not the easiest thing in the world to pull off like a really big m a event nor is it a really easy thing to pull off to pull off a huge ipo when yeah again

Chamath Palihapitiya: there's a reason why warren buffett has 325 billion dollars sitting in t-bills making four and a half percent a year he owns more t-bills than the united states government he's making about 15 billion dollars a year in interest when you can do that with absolutely no risk again relative to stocks at

SPEAKER_90: least yeah what is this ipo going to give you chima's right like the 10 years at four and a half

SPEAKER_63: percent you're basically paying 20 times cash flow to own a risk-free bond the u.s treasury bond or you

SPEAKER_188: can pay 23 times to own a totally risky asset yeah it's 30 times to own the s p 500 right now it's so

SPEAKER_63: yeah it's but but there is a lot of risk-seeking shifting happening chamath right so i mean we

SPEAKER_175: talked about like some of the crypto stuff some of the fintech stuff deregulation that the pe might seem high today but if you forecast out 10 years for some of these businesses in a deregulated de-taxed environment or reduced tax reduced regulation environment that the earnings should accelerate in a way that outpaces the the multiple you're getting today right so i mean this is part of why some of the fintech companies are ripping right now why some of the finance companies are ripping right now if under trump and the republican control of the house and senate laws don't pass and regulations get reduced theoretically earnings are going to rip and you should pay a higher multiple today because you're actually buying these things at eight to ten times earnings five years from now so there seems to be some risk appetite there but i do agree with chamath on the m a point if you think about what's gone on over the last couple of years hold on a second can i ask you

SPEAKER_207: question do you think that regulation is the reason why these sas companies have never made a dollar a

SPEAKER_197: profit no no i'm not talking about sas i'm not talking about sas i'm talking i guess you're talking then you're talking about industrial companies no the fintech market right so we were talking about fintech and some of these assets earlier some of these equities that have been really it's a very

SPEAKER_207: narrow part of the economy right like if you look at broad like on a broad-based basis the tens and tens of trillions of dollars of market cap that exist i do agree with you that deregulation benefits a bunch of those companies but it benefits sort of the non-tech businesses more than the tech businesses

Chamath Palihapitiya: the tech businesses right now are relatively lightly regulated yeah i would think that it benefits pharma businesses it benefits ag businesses it benefits real estate companies it benefits a whole a whole swath of the economy but we've started to see that re-rating and maybe we'll see a lot more so maybe jason the more nuanced answer to your question is the kind of m&a that i think you want to see that i mean let's face it that we all want to see here because we all have yeah the vested interest which is really specifically tech m&a i don't think that any of this deregulation particularly accelerates that but maybe a more nuanced take on this would be that these other more regulated parts of the economy could do well and catch up to some of the earnings potential or the forward pricing of the tech businesses but again now you get into this weird trade where you can buy steady cash flowing businesses that can grow in valuation as fast as a as a fast growing but money losing tech business but then you trade both of those two things off and it has effectively the same yield as a tenure what do you do

SPEAKER_76: yeah yeah yeah i you know i i think there's a lot of backed up inventory where venture capitalists boards and founders people who control and make these decisions uh on m a if they would sell the company to a larger company i think there's a lot of exhaustion in the market and that will drive the capitulation on valuation what do you think the valuations will be yeah exactly yeah why would

SPEAKER_06: yeah i mean i'm watching it right now i mean you think warren buffett's going to take 325 billion of

SPEAKER_277: cash no no but i do he don't even buy his own stock so i think he's going to pay in terms of a

David Friedberg: multiple i think it'll be more like salesforce or microsoft or google or amazon getting off the

SPEAKER_18: sidelines because they've looked at and said you know what the juice ain't worth the squeeze we might as well put our efforts and our capital into buying big hardware and building new products and services but if they think hey i got a chance of pulling this through i'm sitting on all this cash what if i hit another youtube and instagram you know really great acquisitions that were transformative for those two companies meta would not be where it is right now facebook you know that well if they hadn't gotten instagram and certainly you know friedberg as an alumni of google if they didn't get youtube it would be a completely different picture for that company right now i think there's a lot of those type of acquisitions hold on i think there's a lot of those acquisitions that have been sitting there waiting and i'm watching the secondary markets to your question what's the discount going to be the discount was last year i kid you not 70 80 90 off the last round

SPEAKER_51: for sas companies and this year it's 20 or 30. i'm seeing this when i'm getting offers to buy our

SPEAKER_18: shares in some private sas companies some private fintech companies and then i also think if you're a ceo and you watch robin hood uber reddit doordash and instacart those five have actually after getting a little bit of a ass kicking when they first went out they have all rebounded massively and for the people who held on to their reddit shares robin hood shares uber shares they have been rewarded massively massively for having faith in you know through this storm so i think those two things the capitulation of all these boards and founders are gonna say you know what let's take the haircut let's go public and let's tell our story and and see if we can make it work as a public company and then the people who feel one step weaker than that i think they want to cash their chips and they've been in some of these investments to month it's year 11 12 13 14 for some of these private companies there is capitulation on those boards people are exhausted so that i just i'm gonna i'm gonna take the other side of the argument on this one i'll kind of play along so i think

SPEAKER_177: and i'll disagree a little bit for a couple different reasons these big tech companies the ones that

SPEAKER_175: have had you know media businesses or because remember there's tech that's tech right nvidia does not have a media business but there's been a conversation over the last couple of years where we need to break up big tech has been kind of part of the conversation with the dems and now the republicans are coming in and they're saying the same thing we got to break up big tech so there i think are a few of these companies google being one of them that are very much handicapped right now with respect to what kind of mna they can do without dealing with the regulatory sledgehammer coming down on them so i don't think that those guys are buyers jacal i don't think that google's in a place right now where they can go out and make a bunch of acquisitions they're going to do everything they can to avoid the regulatory sledgehammer that's coming their way first it was coming from the dems now it's coming from the new administration there's a bunch of other companies you know that don't really fit that bill like microsoft probably doesn't fit that bill nvidia adobe maybe they'll make

SPEAKER_63: some acquisitions but i don't think it's as simple as well we'll sell at a low price we'll buy at a low price i'm just not sure they really come to do that right i agree with you i completely agree i i think

SPEAKER_67: that these big tech companies will need to pay a pound of flesh for the de-platforming and the

SPEAKER_166: censorship that they did and this is a perfect time if we're going to go to the political angle to bring you in sax what are the vibes my perception is trump likes to win and trump wants to

SPEAKER_76: see the economy soar that is his platform he's a business guy i think he wants to see fluidity i know jd has been not a fan of like the googles etc so maybe you could help us navigate this who's right here what's the possibility of m a becoming more vibrant in a trump uh administration well there's no question

SPEAKER_108: that in general president trump wants to have the most vibrant economy we can have and i think to

SPEAKER_232: that end you're going to see the end of this era of deceleration of regulatory capture and lawfare i think all those things are are over i think that equities that have been straining or tamped down

SPEAKER_108: under the weight of these abuses you see them ripping now for example tesla it's gone from roughly 250 to 320 a share just since the election and you could call that the lawfare discount i mean that basically is the discount on tesla stock because the market was pricing in the risk of retaliation if the republicans lost there's a widespread belief that the democrats would go after elon and his company so you can actually measure the lawfare discount based on regulation right because there's a lot of

SPEAKER_18: regulations around self-driving rocket ship launches all those things he's involved in there's a lot of

SPEAKER_232: regulations yeah there's this crazy thing where they they made some regulator made him put a headset

SPEAKER_108: on a seal did you see this to test the effect on the sound of loud noises the sonic sonic booms

SPEAKER_294: yeah this poor seal do you see this poor seal had like a headset honestly i don't don't do that to

SPEAKER_296: freeberg you don't know don't put it on the screen put it in post don't put it on the screen don't

David Sacks: put it on the screen freeberg it's gonna anyway so they subjected this poor seal to exactly the thing that they were worried would harm seals in any event the the seals seemed totally fine it didn't

SPEAKER_301: they tortured sales to make a point i got it yeah anyway it's really crazy so yeah look it is crazy

SPEAKER_76: this crazy what about this jd help us navigate i know jd is the vp and then you have trump is the ceo chamoc pointed out maybe there's a little on the gop anger resentment residual because of the you know banning of trump from youtube and and some of these other platforms do you think that makes its way

SPEAKER_63: into m a or not i guess sax like let me be specific to jcal's question not all tech companies are the

SPEAKER_175: same in that point of view right thank you for pushing it up yeah tech m a generally is a thing but specifically the companies that have had social media platforms may be kind of in a different lens

SPEAKER_108: from a regulatory perspective is that fair yeah i mean look i think that not everything lena khan did was bad in fact she definitely has some fans among the populist republicans and yeah you know some of them who have spoken out on her behalf in various areas have been jd vance matt gates as well she did do some good things specifically she was willing to take on the big tech companies i mean companies like amazon apple google frankly they just had a free ride for the last couple of decades where they were allowed to do anything and she came in and said there's a new sheriff in town and she was actually willing to apply pressure on them to not engage in anti-competitive tactics so i think she deserves credit for that i think she did change the conversation i think that we've talked about on previous pods that perhaps there was not as targeted and surgical an approach was used and as a result of that it did have a chilling effect on m a and so it hurt the you know the small tech environment and so i think that we need to fix that part of it but i hope that whoever replaces lena khan will continue to apply

SPEAKER_313: pressure to big tech because they are monopolies and they will abuse their power if they're allowed to

Chamath Palihapitiya: and they need to be controlled sax if you had to handicap the probability of a lawsuit or some kind

SPEAKER_90: of attempt to dismantle google and facebook would those be the two companies at the top of your list

SPEAKER_108: and how would you handicap that so my view is that google should be broken up there's abundant reasons for that there's at least three monopolies in that company there's the search business the advertising business in youtube i think they should be busted up what are the odds that that happens it's hard to say but what are the odds that that is pursued in the next administration in some capacity or at least investigated i'd say hi i'd say facebook or meta less so i don't see the compelling need to to bust them up but quite frankly i think the issue that met is going to face is just there were a lot of abuses in terms of censoring the free speech rights of americans now i don't think that was all the company's idea i think a lot of pressure was put on the company by the bide administration i think they wanted to do the right thing and just didn't show enough backbone i think zuckerberg's been clear that

SPEAKER_319: he regrets it yeah and he's bent the knee now he's like listen i'm not going to do it again yeah he

SPEAKER_108: published a letter and maybe it was done to some degree to inoculate himself against the result of this election but i'd say to his credit it wasn't clear at all who was going to win the election when he put out that letter and he basically said that he regretted the fact that meta had gone along with the censorship request by the biden administration and he specifically referred to that whole hunter biden story that got censored in 2020 that was election interference it was a completely true story by the new york post it got censored by big tech at the request of these 51 former intelligence officials who were lying through their teeth claiming it was russian disinformation so he clearly regrets going along with that in any event i think there are better ways of handling the speech issue on social networks than busting up facebook but i i do think though that congress should investigate or continue investigating what went wrong there and what exactly is the involvement of the intelligence community and the deep state in the censorship requests that we saw exposed by the twitter files remember

Chamath Palihapitiya: can i bring up something maybe tangential and you can react to this just speaking of kind of like censorship and then just the the media complex that we have i saw today that trump filed like a 10 or 15 billion lawsuit against the broadcast networks and maybe this is old news but i may and maybe i just

SPEAKER_324: saw the news i saw a headline go by on x i don't i don't yeah i saw it as well uh yeah and then separately

Chamath Palihapitiya: with bobby kennedy's nomination to hhs one of the things that he has said that he wants to put an end to is the advertising that pharma does on these broadcast stations if you put these two things together where you deprive these folks of their largest revenue source and at the same time they have to sort of like answer for censorship or manipulating content it does do you think that that changes the landscape of how all these companies behave in the future or how do you think that that plays up yeah i mean absolutely

SPEAKER_232: so all right let's take each one of those so on the the broadcasters and we've talked about this before

SPEAKER_108: the big broadcast networks and their affiliates receive free spectrum licenses from the fcc and they get some of the most valuable spectrum there is through those licenses in exchange for certain requirements that their broadcast are in the public interest namely they have to follow a fairness doctrine which is supposed to mean that you give equal time to both candidates well in the final weeks of this campaign we saw some really egregious abuses nbc brought on kamala harris but not donald trump for a very favorable segment on saturday night live the week before the election separately

David Sacks: you saw 60 minutes deceptively edit in an interview with kamala harris where they actually took one of

SPEAKER_108: her answers from one question and put it as the answer to another question i mean really deceptive so you have a couple of examples with both cbs and mbc which were violating the equal time requirement were were clearly working on behalf of the kamala harris campaign and when you look at the coverage itself this election was the most unequal in terms of favorable coverage it was something like a 60 point difference so something like kamala kamala harris received 87 percent favorable coverage and trump received something like 85 negative coverage so it there's no way who's that according to you know yeah there's a it's a report by brent bazell's uh media watchdog group it's been around forever and it's been recording this stuff in every election for the last 30 years in any event i think that there's a very strong argument that the broadcasters have not been fair that's a violation of their license requirements and we should be reevaluating their spectrum especially because it's not the

SPEAKER_166: highest best use of the great irony of this though sax is that they have already been demolished i

SPEAKER_18: don't know if you saw but a bunch of the anchors at cnn are not renewing because their advertising is so far off that like chris wallace i think was making eight million a year nine million a year and he just said i'm gonna go do podcasts because i think they lowballed his offer and if they oh yeah well there's a bunch of advertising from pharma which i think in some of these networks is a third or half and that's all networks that's from fox to cnn and every msnbc everybody combined if they lose advertising from pharma it's over like these those news networks are going to lose half their revenue

SPEAKER_237: overnight that would be a that would be a death blow jamoth to your question yeah well let me let

SPEAKER_108: me get back to that so so just on cnn and msnbc you're absolutely right that they're announcing a

David Sacks: bunch of layoffs their ratings are destroyed i think they're down msnbc ratings are down like 50 since the election what that tells me is that their own audience wait sorry since the election since the election percent yeah and what that god what that tells me is that their captive viewer base who's been tuning in for years to all of this tds have has now realized that they were deceived by msnbc and they've lost credibility even with their most fervent supporters so there's no question that cnn

SPEAKER_108: msnbc they're hurting now jcal just to make one small modification they do not receive they do not have spectrum licenses from the fcc right because cable network so they're in kind of a different bucket they don't have to abide by the fairness doctrine that cbs and mbc do right but they have different problems and to your point about pharma there's absolutely no reason to be allowing pharma advertisements on these tv networks the fact of the matter is the people who are viewing those networks can't buy you can't buy pharmaceuticals without a prescription right it's up to doctors to write you the prescription and this is why most countries most western countries prohibit pharma advertising on the networks and i think bobby kennedy has a very strong argument that it would serve the

SPEAKER_340: public interest not to allow this we don't allow advertisements for tobacco right so i guess the thing

SPEAKER_76: that doesn't make sense to me sax is you're so such a first amendment absolutist and free speech

SPEAKER_18: absolutist isn't it and i'm not saying this is my opinion but you know my my challenge to you would be is tell me about freedom of speech and expression in relation to being able to do advertising for these products well i mean aren't aren't consumers smart enough to figure it out the point

SPEAKER_108: of the advertising is i think is not at the end of the day to influence consumers because consumers can't buy pharmaceuticals they have to go that's what they say in it ask your doctor about the purpose of the advertising is to buy favorable coverage that's the point and there are many examples okay explain that well there are many examples of people who've worked in these networks saying that they had a story that was negative about pharma companies and that story got spiked because the pharma companies are the biggest advertisers in fact i think it was there's a story about fox news and who um

SPEAKER_02: who's the guy roger ales well there's been a number of stories i know what you're talking about

SPEAKER_76: there's been stories about anderson cooper who's the the the guy who does international coverage on the weekends gps is the name of his show i'm drawing i can't remember right now read zakaria

SPEAKER_18: thank you farid zakaria yes um i think a bunch of those shows were like literally brought to you by pfizer brought to you by these things and so those shows potentially would just go away and then there were there was reporting on the number of times they would report on those companies and it showed they didn't so what do you think freeberg of should pharma companies be allowed to

SPEAKER_355: advertise to consumers to ask their doctors to ask them about viagra what's your take he's thinking

SPEAKER_336: for those of you at home listening he's giving a deep thought while he's thinking jake let me just

SPEAKER_108: say yeah i think i think there is there is a free speech issue that has to be weighed okay so i don't want to be totally dismissive of that however i think that the viagra example is a is on the like far end of the spectrum of a drug that by you know by advertising it you could actually get consumers to request it from their doctor i don't think most drugs are like that and i think my contention would be that the real reason they're paying all this massive advertising is not to influence consumers but to influence the coverage that they get and there is something very corrupt about that and i think that bobby kennedy has a really strong point that if you were to remove that incentive that many people inside the industry have admitted exists then you would get much fairer coverage of these pharma companies and we would actually get to be a healthier country because you wouldn't allow them to basically manipulate the public debate so that that's the argument

SPEAKER_63: freeberg you want to chime in on it or no i i mean i feel like there's some market correction that takes place here which we're already seeing which is the consumers are moving away we just

SPEAKER_175: talked about moving away from cable news moving away from legacy media they don't trust it the trust is at an all-time low i don't know if it's necessarily the government's job to determine who advertises what where how and why i don't like the government having that sort of degree of authority generally speaking because it can then lead into the government having overreach and oversight to control entities that maybe are competitive with the government in different ways i do believe that the the beef with big tech is a result of big text influence over the population where big government wants to have that degree of influence over the population so it's actually a battle between government and private entities over who can influence the population and who has the ability to control the narrative and i think that the general concept that the government should be determining who advertises where what how and why is not a great one and i don't think that consumers are dumb i think that consumers are showing their proclivity for independent media and independent news sources because they don't trust the influence that's been kind of imparted upon these other channels and these other sources and they're moving away from it so i don't know if it's as much kind of a regulatory question and big pharma needs to be affected i i think that the market to some degree does its job i don't think the consumers are dumb i will also just kind of counter one of saxe's points i i think that there are drugs like multiple sclerosis is a good example there was a drug introduced a couple years ago called aquavus and it was a new therapy for for multiple sclerosis that is extremely effective it's a it's a really a big step change in biological therapies and a lot of people that were on ms and have had ms for decades take kind of old school mall old school drugs that maybe aren't that effective so to create awareness and they're not regularly seeing their doctors they may not go in and see their doctor every year like they're supposed to so the the pharma companies are creating awareness that there's this new modality and this new product that could help them to get them to go into the doctor's office i you know so i don't want to say that these are all like evil you know trying to control and influence like there are good drugs that come to market they're beneficial to people and people don't know about them how else are they supposed to get that word out if they're not able to advertise so i don't think that it's all like negative and all malicious you know kind of behavior and manipulation of media people we all have the resources we all have the capacity and we are all likely very frequently going to doctors most people don't and so most people that have chronic disease or have health issues there there has to be a mechanism for you know making them aware of new options new alternatives new products that are coming to market so i'm not super like putting my foot down saying pharma companies shouldn't be able to advertise shouldn't be able to buy media out there and put ads up and tell people about stuff that they've discovered or that they've invented that's been regulated that's been tested that's been approved and that works and can help save lives i think they should have the freedom and ability to do that so i think there's a there's

SPEAKER_262: a bit of a nuance here to how this gets handled is my point yeah i mean look i i'm not saying that

SPEAKER_232: there's no benefit at all to letting pharma companies advertise some products i think the question you have to ask is why is so much money going from pharma to these news outlets because most of the products

SPEAKER_367: you know that you generally can't buy them i'll tell you the reason the reason is that the pharma

SPEAKER_175: companies make so much money off of government funded insurance programs let me just state that again if we only had private insurance or if consumers had to pay for their drugs and their therapies themselves the cost of drugs would go way down the reason the cost of drugs has gone way up is because so much of the government insurance programs don't negotiate drug prices and there are all these middlemen and all these people that sit in between that have been regulated through regulatory capture into the system that has allowed an incredible inflation in the cost of drug prices therefore there is a lot of money to kind of continue the capture of the system i don't think that it is right and i think that the free market generally or having a less regulatory captured market will allow an appropriate kind of pricing of therapies an appropriate kind of adjustment in the market which doesn't exist today so so much money to kind of keep the market the way it is needs to kind of keep flowing that's my sense of this it's i don't think it's about bad drugs need to kind of stay in play as much as it is this market's been allowed to inflate and the cost of health care and the cost of drugs has inflated in a way that's simply untenable and it doesn't make sense and i think that

SPEAKER_262: it's because of regulatory capture and i think that that needs to change and i'm hopeful that that it

SPEAKER_232: does that's the second reason then to get the this pharma money out of advertising because you're basically explaining it as like a self-looking ice cream cone but again there's another

SPEAKER_108: reason as well i think that explains the sheer magnitude which is its influence buying its influence

SPEAKER_377: power to your point sax that was what i was about to bring up you know there it's very subtle you're

SPEAKER_166: not going to have somebody at nbc or cnn or fox come down and tell tucker caulson or rachel maddow

SPEAKER_18: or anderson cooper hey you can't cover the story but there is a bunch of self-censorship that occurs i believe where people just don't select certain stories to be on the docket and they just shape

SPEAKER_76: the coverage so they might not say something positive or negative about pfizer or johnson and johnson whoever it is they'll just avoid that story and because these anchors are getting paid or have been previously paid 10 10 million 25 million a year do you think they're going to like

SPEAKER_18: really go hard at pfizer or somebody like that no they're just not going to i've been inside the machine they just avoid those stories okay let's keep going through the docket here i think it was pretty good conversation i know by the way i just wanted to say to the trump administration if you want the economy to rip let m a rip but my one caveat is there's a really simple way to do this if you're

SPEAKER_237: under a trillion dollar valuation let those companies buy and sell each other because then we could go from a mag 7 to a mag 70 that's where i think actually it makes the most sense if you

SPEAKER_51: actually are concerned about the consolidation of power in the top seven let them sit out acquiring

SPEAKER_237: more great companies and let the people under that who are the mid market cap companies let them do the buying and selling because then you might have a mag 8 9 and 10 show up that's not talking my book

SPEAKER_51: it would be better for me friedberg to let the mag 7 participate because they can pay higher prices they're not price sensitive but i do think the mid market companies buying and selling would make a

SPEAKER_63: healthier environment for competition so you think it sorry you think it creates more competition which will that'll benefit consumers and grow the economy well look at it this way if somebody wants to buy let's

SPEAKER_166: say waymo gets spun out somebody wants to buy it if amazon can't buy it and tesla can't buy it and

SPEAKER_18: amazon can't buy it but they could merge with uber lyft doordash you know all those mid airbnb if those companies could consolidate can you imagine what would happen if amazon couldn't buy those companies but you could see waymo spin out and then partner with doordash and partner with airbnb and you had that as one company now you got a 400 billion dollar company that is nipping on the

SPEAKER_76: heels that is aggressively competing with amazon that's what you want in the market is more competition for the mag seven you don't want the magnificent seven to run away with it and we could create the eighth ninth and ten so just imagine that freeberg if there was a another trillion dollar company like i actually i think tesla just became a trillion dollar company again so now that they're up in those ranks great don't let tesla don't let amazon etc nvidia buy more companies let those that mergers and acquisitions and that strength happen under the trillion dollar mark what do you think of that general concept freeberg yeah i generally think competition is

SPEAKER_175: good i generally think free markets should be allowed to operate and i've shared my point of view i think bigger is going to drive more innovation than lots of little so okay again waymo wouldn't exist if not for google plowing billions and billions and i don't know about you guys i took waymo around the city yesterday pretty sick like it is legit i don't go to the city yeah

SPEAKER_63: yeah it's pretty legit and um because it's a toxic cesspool and by the way i will say my other

SPEAKER_175: comment is i think san francisco has gotten 10x better now that i've been working downtown the

SPEAKER_91: last week or two 10x better from a toxic cesspool just means it's a cesspool i think part of the

SPEAKER_257: fact part of the reason is all of walgreens is gone there's no there's no walgreens left you can't buy

SPEAKER_388: deodorant problem solved there's no way to do crime anymore how do you buy toiletries that doesn't

SPEAKER_392: exist in san francisco how do you do that you gotta ask jason jason how is it get an amazon package

SPEAKER_396: delivered yeah i don't hey man i'm in texas you can do whatever you want here jason gets his supplies

SPEAKER_399: airdropped in once a month what are you talking about i'm bullish on the san francisco turnaround

SPEAKER_108: because i think daniel lurry getting elected mayor was huge and this doesn't get really as much

SPEAKER_402: attention but it's very important the board shifted the radicals got voted off the supervisors

SPEAKER_63: so the board of supervisors are less progressive daniel's in the mayoral office it is i think i

SPEAKER_175: think the city's already like turning around i've been super blown away the last couple weeks i've been downtown i'm like why am i not working downtown every day it's actually really nice it feels like san francisco 20 years ago let's see i'm pretty bullish yeah i mean safety is the number one thing if they can and this budget under control san francisco spends one and a half x per capita of what new york city spends and that's something that daniel and his team have kind of said they're gonna address sort of like their own doge and there's a team going in there

SPEAKER_407: to address this so i'm really bullish on what's going to happen with the city it's just such a great

SPEAKER_18: place it seems like the power resides in the supervisors and they seem to have flipped two or three of the really lunatic ones right sacks they got rid of dopey dean preston who was the other guy

SPEAKER_411: peskin peskin he was an idiot and they those guys are done so that's progress do you want to talk about

SPEAKER_18: the trump uh candidates jaco yeah let's get to that in a second but before we get to that fbi raided the home of polymarket ceo shane copeland he was on the election night stream he was raided on wednesday november 13th eight days after the election they say polymarket is bloomberg says polymarket is being investigated for allegedly accepting trades from us-based users here's the back story in 2022 poly market paid 1.4 million to settle a case with the cftc for offering option contracts without proper designation the commodity futures trading commission also ordered the company to prevent u.s traders

SPEAKER_166: from making bets they recently said polymarket that is that they had taken additional measures to block americans from trading at the same time calci and robin hood were able to offer

SPEAKER_18: presidential prediction markets because calci it seems like they won their lawsuit against the cftc last month so that allowed some betting markets to happen but polymarket is still banned from the u.s because of that settlement in 2022 here's the polymarket claim they claim the raid was obviously political retribution by the outgoing administration against polymarket for providing a market that correctly called the 2024 presidential election and shane posted on x discouraging

SPEAKER_166: that the current administration would seek a last-ditch effort to go after companies they deem to be

SPEAKER_18: associated with political opponents a bunch of conspiracy theories flying around peter thiel and founder fund have made an investment into the company and nate silver is an advisor

SPEAKER_346: i guess i'll just point out two things they're much more accurate they're much more accurate than

SPEAKER_313: they totally accurate yeah so how manipulated can it be if they've got everything right yeah i mean

SPEAKER_377: that's literally the point i was about to make and um i'll just end with this and then give it to you

SPEAKER_18: sacks for red meat americans are not allowed to participate in a lot of different markets and these kind of actions have been taken many many many times as we all know poker crypto real estate and prediction markets have all had actions like this taken against them and they typically are

SPEAKER_166: a sorry did they rate the offices too or just his house just his house according to the information we

SPEAKER_374: have right now they bust into his house at 6 a.m and they took his phone by the way shout out to like

SPEAKER_18: like if you're breaking the law why wouldn't they all that tvd yeah it's a great great speculation and important to note this action came after the election is resolved so it's obvious the fbi knew that doing this beforehand would be seen as political and doing it after i don't know what i'm saying the decision no i know what you're saying i'm adding something else which is they obviously knew this would be political sacks and so they did it after they knew if they did it before that would be look like you know really bad that the prediction mark that's predicting trump a trump win was raided so they did it after what do you think sex what's going on okay i think it's political or

SPEAKER_232: not i guess we don't know what was driving this it's certainly an extreme action to bust into

SPEAKER_108: someone's home at 6 00 a.m with the fbi and take take your phone so it's very curious i think there's three theories that i've heard that i think could explain this and i want to just be very clear that

SPEAKER_232: there's no proof on any of this it's just a speculation yeah it's a speculation everything's

SPEAKER_108: a legend yeah but by the way just before i get into it i think shane copeland had one of the funniest

SPEAKER_123: tweets i've ever seen new phone who does yeah new phone who dis nick you should show them i mean that was like ballsy the fbi bust in your house takes your phone and that's the first thing this is a that

SPEAKER_18: means that this is probably not a serious situation but anyway go ahead well who knows but yeah or he's

SPEAKER_108: confident is what i would say yeah yeah okay so theory number one is that what the feds are looking for is whether any domestic whales were illegally wagering on the election outcome because theoretically the money is all supposed to be offshore because domestic wagering on the election was illegal however a court ruled just days before the election that domestic wagering was legal so that so theory number one doesn't really make a lot of sense because the fbi would be enforcing a rule or a law that the courts had just overruled just days before the election so but that's theory number one theory number two and this theory was raised by fortune magazine is that this that polly market was rife with what's called wash trading which is a form of market manipulation where shares are bought and sold often simultaneously and repeatedly by the same people to create a false impression of volume and activity of liquidity this is illegal in the us and it does occur in crypto markets so they could have been going after

SPEAKER_442: that but again it does seem like a very extreme thing to bust into his house why don't you just ask

SPEAKER_63: shame what authority what authority would the us government have if it's all offshore in that

SPEAKER_108: context i don't know i'm just saying i'm laying out possible theories but fortune magazine did did raise that theory but again if that's what your claim is just subpoena poly market during business hours i don't know why you need to raid the the guy's home or raid the office that's where the files are right now let me let me lay out theory number three okay which is going to be a little bit

David Sacks: more controversial here we go but uh get the chip well if if somebody was manipulating these sites okay

SPEAKER_108: then on whose behalf were they doing it and what you'd have to say is that they were doing it on behalf of the kamala campaign because in the last few days of the election there was a weird blip where

David Sacks: polymarket and and calci especially calci even more than polymarket all of a sudden flipped to kamala and you could see this particularly in pennsylvania where all of a sudden there was a big flip at the end away from trump towards kamala that turned out to be totally fake and trump won pennsylvania

SPEAKER_108: pretty pretty handily and so you gotta wonder well wait a second was a kamala supporter maybe trying to push the narrative that there was a last minute surge to kamala because that's what the action seemed to imply and remember that at the same time this was happening there was a big

David Sacks: there was like a media push to create a narrative by her supporters in the media that there was a late break for harris yes by independence and so you have to kind of wonder was somebody trying to push the

SPEAKER_108: prediction markets at the last minute to feed a media narrative that they were trying to create look i have no evidence for this whatsoever but the the action in the betting markets and the narrative

David Sacks: they're trying to create in the media do line up so if somebody was going to investigate election manipulation this is what they should look into tamath you have any thoughts here no zero thoughts i mean

SPEAKER_76: yeah you know my thoughts on an error i i don't see him ever doing anything risky or illegal so it makes no

SPEAKER_18: sense to me i'm guessing that somebody made him aware pure speculation of something in the system and that probably was on his phone and they probably wanted to get that and it's probably like a speeding ticket ticky tacky thing and you just have the law still working its way through the system because they sacks were under in order to not take us but cal she had gotten the mark the law changed with their successful lawsuit or they had defended their their case so i would say it's all allegedly folks and so

SPEAKER_237: wait for more information there's always a good idea all right trump is building his team

SPEAKER_51: and uh it's a long list we've got i guess dozens of names right now so let's start with the four

SPEAKER_237: who's your favorite jaco well my opinion probably doesn't matter all that much but let me go with the

SPEAKER_51: four that uh are creating the most buzz let's let's create the let's go with the four that are having the most buzz and then i'll let you each tell me what you think there's one that you you love the one

SPEAKER_463: i yeah there is one actually i love but let's i'll say who's that i'm curious actually i'm genuinely

SPEAKER_76: curious the fake and elon doing doge is my absolute favorite yes anything else that i am i am fascinated by bobby kennedy going in and trying to make the country healthier and the country is the most sick country i think of uh all of the western countries and i think our food system has

SPEAKER_166: massive problems so i'm very excited to see what he does inside of the health and human services department i think it's a little bit controversial obviously but i don't see how it could be any worse

SPEAKER_469: than what we currently have how do you feel about that who's your favorite i guess we can just go

SPEAKER_108: with people's favorites if you want to go that way the way i interpret his cabinet picks is that he's creating a coalition so i view it more as like a package deal j cal i'm not going to pick out one or two although i do have my favorites the person who i think very astutely understands what trump is trying to do is charlie kirk who's a major influencer on the republican side and he says that that what maha which is make america healthy again they get rfk bobby kennedy hhs obviously the libertarians get tulsi at dni i would add to that that they also get elon vivek at doge the base the populist base gets matt gates they get hexeth at dod they get homan and then the peace through projecting strength crowd which is kind of a nice name for neocon gets rubio as secretary of state and stefanik at the u.n so i think that trump is basically trying to have his cabinet reflect the diversity of views within the republican party he's not decisively choosing one side over another what this means is that during his presidency he's going to get all the views and all the options okay so that's the

SPEAKER_166: collective view that's an interesting way about it let's go point by point to the most controversial ones matt gates is obviously the most controversial they're all young though that's what they are all young that's another trend yeah and he has uh been put up as attorney general he has to be confirmed by the senate obviously he's the house rep from florida sacks how qualified is he for this job on a scale of

SPEAKER_108: one to ten i think that matt gates would be a breath of fresh air at that doj i mean look here's why is that the doj has been involved for the last eight or nine years in a completely fabricated effort to portray donald trump as an agent of the russians it started with the steel dossier they then opened an investigation based on that phony piece of opposition research funded by the hillary campaign they lied to the fisa court to spy on donald trump's campaign they then worked with the various intelligence services and with the media to create this like hoax that went on for years and years there's been no accountability for that furthermore in the 2020 election you also had that effort to essentially cover up the hunter biden hard drive that the fbi and doj were sitting on that for roughly a year they created a phony story that it was russian disinformation when it turned out to be completely

SPEAKER_478: authentic so you think there's a lot to clean up there how qualified on a scale of one to ten

David Sacks: what the president what the president ran on was that the doj needed to be de-weaponized that it

SPEAKER_108: had been turned into a partisan political apparatus for the democrats i don't think anyone can argue with that at this point i think the american people clearly bought into that argument now in order to clean it up you're gonna have to bring in a total outsider who's willing to break some eggs and shake things up is matt gates the only person who could do that no there are other people who could do it but matt gates is definitely qualified for that role he was one of the most outspoken critics in congress of this weaponization of the fbi he was never fooled by the russia gate hoax most of the establishment was any concern anybody anybody who bought into the russia gate hoax is not qualified to run the doj at this point okay any concerns well there's a bunch of unproven smears and accusations have been

SPEAKER_481: made against him we'll put inside that any other concerns excuse me aside from the the investigations

SPEAKER_108: and whatever and the smears a bunch of unproven yeah smears and accusations have been made against him and my own view on that is that if there was really something there i think merrick garland's doj would have acted on it two or three years ago so i personally discount all these smears without there being any evidence whatsoever and i think it's very predictable that what we're seeing with both matt gates and with tulsi is that the worst accusations get made without any evidence in the media when the blob or the establishment wants to stop a true populist reformer from cleaning up their backyard freeberg

SPEAKER_376: your thoughts on matt gates and that seems to be the most controversial one any concerns you think

SPEAKER_486: he's the most suited guy for the job i i don't want to comment on matt gates but i'd like to talk about

SPEAKER_63: why not because i'd like to talk about a broader point of view on it okay so i think there's this kind of thing that happens in biology called evolution and a lot of people think evolution

SPEAKER_175: is this continuous process but it's not evolution is this process by which there is some significant growth for a period of time and then there is an extinction event or an external force that causes what ultimately becomes what's called punctuated equilibrium so the whole kind of system resets and then the healthier stronger species survive and they grow and they persist and if you look at the first chart nick that i pulled up this will just show you guys past extinction events large amounts of biomass over the past half billion years get wiped out when these extinction events occur and then evolution occurs because the species that can survive the extinction event persist in the environment and they grow and that's how evolution kind of actually takes place is there's an external force that changes what survives and what doesn't it's kind of a testing force if you look

SPEAKER_63: at federal spending and this is a crazy link but here's federal spending over the last couple of decades and i would argue that many of the agencies much of the bureaucracy many of the jobs created many of the spending programs many of the operating models many of the behaviors can kind of be viewed as a

SPEAKER_175: species or species within this ecosystem that have kind of grown a lot over the last few decades and i think what trump's mandate was by the people and people don't want to hear this and they don't like it but his mandate was to be kind of the extinction event and whatever agencies whatever operating processes whatever individuals whatever bureaucratic systems exist within the federal government that can withstand the scrutiny of the individuals that trump is going to put in charge of each of these agencies that they can survive and they can come out the other end there is certainly some degree of strength and resilience and hardiness this is not about right or wrong you say they deserve to exist if they can say this is going to bring in this is going to bring in the most disruptive force that federal agencies have ever seen and the intention with trump isn't to find some person to keep running things the way they have been run in the past his mandate from the people who elected him based on the message he put out there is to do the opposite which is to go in and be as disruptive and damaging and destructive as possible and whatever comes out the other side will be stronger will be hardier and theoretically will be you know more resilient and i think that that's the event that's underway now the people who are getting exactly what they want in trump's candidacies are the democrats they were saying trump is going to put a bunch of crazy lunatics in office and he's going to make them the cabinet and they're good and they're and now they're able to kind of clap their hands and say we told you so we told you so and i'm not sure that if they're really getting the message which is that the intention here isn't to keep things running the way they have been running but to really fundamentally test the systems and test the systems with the most challenging oppositional forces the systems have ever been tested by which is the candidates or the individuals that he's putting in charge of each of these agencies so i i'm not saying it's right or wrong one way or the other but i'm making an observation that this is going to be kind of an extinction level event that trump's decisions on who he's putting in place i think are going to drive an outcome on the other end that's going to make the government look very different and i you know i'm not going to sit around and say this person's good this person's bad because i don't think the point is to find someone that's quote qualified to do the job the intention is actually quite different and the outcome may actually be positive for america if you fast forward a couple of years in some cases and there's some cases where things could get really messed up and people could suffer and jobs will be lost and all sorts of bad things will happen but we cannot continue the way we have been with respect to federal spending with respect to federal spending bureaucracy and inefficiency in the federal government and so something has to happen and if this is the path by which this gets resolved in the limited window that's in front of this this particular administration which is probably two

SPEAKER_18: years maybe four maybe this is what has to happen shabbat where do you stand on freeberg's interesting metaphor here that we're sending meteors into each of these departments to blow them up and see if they survive an extinction level event i saw you nodding do you think this is uh an interesting framing great

David Friedberg: take i have nothing to add to freeberg's take got it who's your favorite yeah you asked me the question i answered who's your favorite well i think let's take elon and vivek off the table because that's an

SPEAKER_79: obvious one that we've all been behind since the beginning yeah and we know and we all support the

SPEAKER_00: idea who's not against more efficiency i mean you have to be an idiot to be against efficiency it's

Chamath Palihapitiya: the easiest one to say you love i think the highest beta pick so far has been bobby kennedy i think the second highest beta pick is matt gates explain highest beta pick in this context please i think the third is tulsi gabbard that there is the potential for an enormously positive two or three sigma outcome

SPEAKER_188: but there's also the chance that it can really not work that was exactly why i picked bobby kennedy because he's going to shake it up right peter teal just did this podcast with barry weiss and it was

Chamath Palihapitiya: fantastic by the way highly recommend highly recommend he's awesome yeah the one of the great things he said is that he was talking about science but i think the example works here as well which is that we didn't have enough skepticism and we had too much dogma he was talking about sort of like the the death of science and i think that that idea applies here as well which is that the federal bureaucracy has not really been challenged and vivek put out a very compelling post on x where he basically said like look when you on the one hand there's going to be radical transparency but on the other hand there's a lot of case law that we can use to kind of try to really dismantle the government apparatus and they're putting themselves on a shot clock to do it by 2026 for the 250th anniversary so i think i'm really predisposed to this idea that it'll force the government to be very resilient at

SPEAKER_207: the end of this process and i think that's a good thing and it'll probably be very different than what

David Friedberg: it is on the way in and i think that that can be very positive all right so we got chamath and myself

SPEAKER_18: actually giving some specific names that we thought were interesting i'll go back to you sax maybe i'll phrase it as to chamath's phrasing which one do you think has the greatest chance of creating a massive potential change that could be positive but also has some possibility of a destructive downside in other

SPEAKER_237: words it could go either way but man if it goes the right way it could be brilliant and amazing and great for all americans who would be your number one number two in that regard well you have to

SPEAKER_232: identify what the potential downside is i think the single biggest risk in a second trump term is that somehow the united states gets into an unnecessary war a war that we don't need another forever war i it's certainly not what president trump wants he's been abundantly clear on the campaign trail that he wants to avoid wars he wants to avoid world war three it's clearly where all of his

SPEAKER_108: instincts are but the fact of the matter is we have a very fraud and difficult international situation right now the middle east is on fire we have a proxy war going on with russia so there is the chance that things could always spiral out of control and you need i think within the cabinet not just hawkish voices but also dovish voices so that the president has the full range of options at his disposal and so in that sense i would say that you know tulsi is being one of the more dovish voices is incredibly critical just to balance out some of the other voices who are more hawkish and so in that sense i think you know just making sure that the president gets to hear from a wide spectrum of views i think

SPEAKER_500: that that part's very important so that would be tulsi tulsi would be your pick for like yeah just because

SPEAKER_108: like tulsi could literally make the difference between whether we get in a unnecessary forever war or not i would also just say that with respect to the other picks there's obviously a lot of hysteria going on a lot of hyperbole about the downsides i don't think it's going to be like a meteor hitting the earth i don't think it's that destructive i think that it's more like will some eggs be broken up to make an omelet right that's that's the analogy i would use rather than the meteor and the thing i would just say is that we all agree the united states is currently on an unsustainable fiscal path we know that we're spending too much money we know that the bureaucracy is too big what's the downside of shaking it up there's just way more upside than downside in terms of shaking

SPEAKER_437: up this bureaucracy because the current path is bankruptcy exactly so why do we have to act like

David Sacks: that it's so risky to bring in outsiders and populists and reformers into these agencies we know there's going to be huge resistance to them the biggest risk frankly is inertia taking over and the reformers aren't able to do enough and we all doing nothing is not an option yeah and then we

SPEAKER_76: go bankrupt that's the big risk why is tulsi getting attacked what's the rushing connection people are

SPEAKER_506: saying like i don't i don't know any of the history here so tell me it's obvious it's because washington

SPEAKER_108: is a very hawkish place it's basically run by the war machine there's there's no money going to washington to lobby for peace all the money in washington is coming from the military industrial complex so by definition it's extremely hawkish and it's geared towards war and told is there some

SPEAKER_453: history with tulsi in russia yeah just to finish my point yeah tulsi has been one of the few consistent

SPEAKER_108: voices advocating for peace so of course the establishment wants to basically get her nomination vetoed but again i think you have to see the cabinet as a package deal i think it's very important

SPEAKER_511: to have tulsi as one voice for peace within a larger cabinet that already has many hawkish voices

SPEAKER_513: got it okay all right everybody for your sultan of science from ohalo

SPEAKER_51: david freeberg the chairman dictator chamoff by hot potato from 80 90 and david sacks from craft ventures i am jason calacanis your host here at the all in podcast and this week in startups we'll see you next time on the all in podcast bye bye back at you chief retribution officer

SPEAKER_530: and source it to the fans