SPEAKER_00: i mean jason and sax look like two accountants who've just been fired from lehman brothers in

SPEAKER_01: 2008 absolutely absolutely we're carrying our boxes out to the street and getting a taxi

SPEAKER_04: sax does look appropriate for his setting how long are you in dc for sexy pill you in and out one day

SPEAKER_06: what are you doing yeah i'm flying back tonight for the fundraiser tomorrow morning oh who's the fundraiser with you want to tell everybody big boy yeah it's an april's joke i'm hosting a

SPEAKER_09: fundraiser for a democrat blue state he's trolling everybody with his blue state put your red tie on put your red you have a red tie with you sax i wore a blue tie to today really oh you're trolling full

SPEAKER_13: troll is on wow what a little what a little troll artist all right let's get started all right

SPEAKER_24: everybody welcome to another episode of the all in podcast with us back from his tahoe vacation you

SPEAKER_26: were certainly missed even though the episode was record setting the queen of quinoa himself he'll reboot your physique with his munique puts the mana in the kana and he's your pal from norcal the

SPEAKER_27: sultan of science david friedberg how are you doing brother shit you have a whole sequence of these

SPEAKER_31: things this is great you actually do work for this podcast you can keep this going every week it'll be

SPEAKER_33: amazing i mean i just felt like getting a plug in from unique and connor that was my if i could get

SPEAKER_35: two portfolio okay go hit sax and me let's go all right well you know he's back with us again the

SPEAKER_24: czar of arr the savant of sass he puts the ass in asperger's he's the sucker he's a sucker for tucker the rain melons david sacks that's so good all right next up the dictator agitator and our frequent collaborator he's back to back with the spax a trendsetter with his sweaters the future he can

SPEAKER_42: foresee a chamath palihapitiya we got you everybody it's not as good as david's i gotta say

SPEAKER_43: well there's a lot to go with asperger's tucker i mean he's the material for sax i could have done

SPEAKER_45: 20 minutes 20 minutes i could have done 20 minutes on sax sax you are of course in dc with some star chamber thing you bannon teal who's who what what star chamber bullshit are you doing in

SPEAKER_47: no i spoke at a foreign policy conference today called the name of it it's called up from chaos

SPEAKER_48: and sponsored by a group called the american moment and uh the american conservative what did you speak about well it's called up from chaos because our foreign policy has been chaos for the last 30 years the united states has been in seven wars we've how many trillions have we spent on nation

SPEAKER_47: building we've lost all of those wars name one war we've won look at all the lives that have been lost thousands and thousands of our soldiers and then you know millions of innocent people all over the world i've said it before this is what happens when the united states goes around the world stampeding like a raging elephant we need a more restrained foreign policy so that's what i've been articulating i don't know what what about that makes it either conservative or liberal but um you know what we need is is more restrained first of all it's too logical right yeah you know it's it's it's pretty much everyone in this town i mean there's no lobby for decreasing our involvement right because i mean the military industrial complex has gotten so big and so powerful i mean trump did not

SPEAKER_45: want to start worse it was a key piece of his platform uh and it did seem up until uh and we'll

SPEAKER_01: get into this obviously uh up until the gaff uh from biden 12 hours after i said you weren't giving him the benefit of the doubt he threw me right under the bus biden just declared a new world order i

SPEAKER_47: mean he is regime change with putin yeah and he said regime change i mean he's bought into this

SPEAKER_60: liberal interventionism um obama was much better i mean obama had all the right instincts he de-escalated things in ukraine we could have had the situation back in 2014 obama pulled the plug and he de-escalated in syria over the over the objections of his staff i mean the problem is if you the obama basically got

SPEAKER_61: played by the staff and the establishment because obama was there for eight years and he knew that you know it was all about doing the right thing and also about the legacy and the judgment that would

SPEAKER_63: look back on his decisions whereas everybody else is like well i'm here for this four-year grift and

SPEAKER_65: i'll be back for another four years later so you know the more chaos the better for a lot of those

SPEAKER_66: people he couldn't get us out of afghanistan why couldn't he get us out of afghanistan sack because

SPEAKER_48: he wanted to right he got played by the general so ben rhodes wrote a book ben rhodes was sort of one

SPEAKER_47: of obama's um right hand guys and he coined a term that stuck for called the blob which is the term for this sort of washington foreign policy establishment all the people in the state department and the think tanks and the sort of the the journalists who love being the drums of war i mean that whole establishment that just is addicted to war and um you know if you read that atlantic magazine interview called the obama doctrine where obama's interviewed he lays it out he says look there is a foreign policy playbook that presidents are expected to follow in response to any provocation any incident you're supposed to

SPEAKER_60: react in a highly militarized way and if you don't you get attacked and the generals he wanted to get out of afghanistan but the generals started leaking against him that it'd be a fiasco and then unfortunately obama didn't stick to his guns he didn't want to take those political hits it was

SPEAKER_27: unfortunate he really should well we'll get into ukraine at the end of the uh show but let's talk a little bit about markets up top here the u.s yield curve uh inversion is upon us maybe you could give us uh cp a little primer on what this means the inverted yield yield curve and why people are talking

SPEAKER_72: about it this week well i think people yeah we're talking about it the reason they were is that they

SPEAKER_74: believe that it uh predicts a recession and specifically what they look at is the interest

SPEAKER_63: rate on a two-year bond and an interest rate on a 10-year bond and you subtract one from the other and when it inverts what effectively what it means is that you know typically in a healthy economy you want rising interest rates over a long period of time and the reason you would want that is that you are guessing that the economy will be healthy there'll be a nominal amount of inflation so things will tenderly increase in price and as a result of that you need to get paid more for the future than today

SPEAKER_00: right so if you want me to take 10-year risk you need to pay me a little bit more than if you want me to take two-year risk and so things should go up into the right but when all that stuff 10 years out all of a sudden is trading for a lower yield than today what people think will happen is that um you

SPEAKER_72: know governments will cut interest rates massively they tend to do that in order to stimulate the

SPEAKER_63: economy right to get money back into the system and they tend to do that because of a recession and so people look at the the difference between the two-year bond and the 10-year bond and they try to guess what's going to happen here's the problem with all of this it turns out that it's not as

SPEAKER_72: correlated um as one thinks the and nick i posted this link so you you can just put it up there but a bunch of economists at the fed actually went and you know you have access to this data they back tested this and what they found was that there was actually a more predictive signal of recessions

SPEAKER_00: which is the difference between the three-month t-bill and the 18-month t-bill and if you look at the threes 18 spread they call that the forward spread at the at the fed uh that's actually not showing a recession at all in fact that shows a very healthy ascent

SPEAKER_74: largely taking into account the fact that the fed has told us that they're going to rip in a bunch of rate increases over the next year to 18 months so what are we to do with all of this well when

SPEAKER_72: there's been a recession it has typically been true that both the twos tens and the forward spread have collapsed to zero or gone negative that's this inversion it has never really been the case that twos tens inverts while the forward spread stays up and you have a recession in the past we've mentioned that when oil has these kinds of price spikes it typically forecasts a recession so if you put all of this data together it's a really murky picture um so what are you supposed to do it's not totally

SPEAKER_00: clear to me but i think that the general way that i think the market is reacting to this is probably inappropriate and i'll tell you why and the setup by the way because of this inappropriateness

SPEAKER_72: is actually quite interesting so why is the reaction inappropriate look if you think about where we were in november and where we are today almost april first right so it's been four months five months we've had massive uh exposition of inflation we've had massive disruptions to the supply chain

SPEAKER_00: we've had the beginning of a war whose end is somewhat indeterminate today that's causing a bunch of spikes in a bunch of really critical commodities the entire world needs we've had a federal reserve that went from hiking 50 or 75 basis points to hiking 200 to 250 basis points by the estimated

SPEAKER_88: average and so all of these things have happened yet the market is basically at an all-time high plus or minus five percent that really doesn't hang together at some really basic logical level right so so what's gonna happen well brad said this last week what has actually happened under the hood is a dispersion which means the crappy companies have gotten crushed and the good companies have gotten whacked but not crushed okay and then when they rally they rally disproportionately in favor

SPEAKER_00: of the good companies so what are we doing right now i think we are going to see this diversion of companies and we're about to go through earning season right we're at the end of q1 and i think

SPEAKER_88: what's going to happen is really interesting you're going to have a handful of companies who have a great handle on their business who actually project strength i know what i'm doing i know how i'm going to perform the levers are in my control i'm going to invest for the future i'm going to go and consolidate a market those companies will get rewarded and then anybody else who has a whiff of indecision

SPEAKER_00: or whose structural business is flawed and then they use all of these other issues as a reason to explain their flawed business will get completely whacked two examples over this last week and we had this debate you know uh the people were talking about restoration hardware and the ceo basically saying the sky is falling and there's a huge recession and you know my comment is well if you take the other side of the coin restoration hardware sells overpriced crappy furniture into a housing market that's basically shut down because refi rates are at five percent there's the other

SPEAKER_81: explanation for why his business is crappy it doesn't necessarily have to be a recession and and just

SPEAKER_45: to clearly define it a recession is two quarters or more of negative growth the the economy contracting

SPEAKER_27: and we've had about a dozen of these since world war ii we remember a couple of them in our lifetimes obviously the covid uh situation created a recession uh for a couple of quarters and then we

SPEAKER_26: had uh the great recession which lasted i think that was almost it was over a year right that was six quarters i think five quarters so these happen every 10 years or so uh so if we do have a recession and it it seems implausible to me that we would have negative growth for two quarters so well the other

SPEAKER_95: the other interesting company for example was uipath which uipath got whacked today 25 or 26 percent

SPEAKER_88: and what they actually reported was that they thought that they were going to increase um ar to you know 1.2 billion from like 900. that's a that's a huge at that scale to grow 35 40 percent

SPEAKER_00: in arr in a year is really quite incredible but their acv numbers and their revenue numbers were a little soft they got whacked and now they're trading you know like 11 times arr so you have some of these

SPEAKER_100: companies that are going to blame macro headwinds but they may actually just have a you know a flawed

SPEAKER_00: business model you'll have these other companies who actually over perform but may have been a little bit too highly valued who'll get valuation reset on any faint weakness and so you know it's going to

SPEAKER_88: be really up to these ceos and these boards when they write their earnings releases to be very precise those that have a handle on their business i think are going to get really rewarded and those that don't

SPEAKER_00: need to blame the macro market and just get all the bad news out now because this is the quarter it

SPEAKER_66: doesn't get any better from here sacks best ways to fight a recession cut spending i'm sorry increase government spending uh cut taxes where are we at in terms of how many bullets we have left to do these kind of things we don't really have a uh you know ability to spend more money and i guess lowering interest rates is the other way to stimulate it do we even know we're going into a recession so do you think we're going into a recession if we are is there a way to reverse it through the the normal

SPEAKER_48: tactics we're definitely going into a slowdown and whether it becomes a recessions to be determined i

SPEAKER_47: think there's a very good chance because we already were headed for a slowdown because of interest rate increases because of inflation and now on top of it we've got all the supply chain disruptions from this war and we know that you know i'm plugging the 144 million russians in the russian economy we've basically unplugged that from the global economy so that's going to hit our economy if there's a little bit of delayed reaction there so these are all negative indicators and i think we're either gonna have a recession or something very close to it and they typically last 11 months right

SPEAKER_108: sex so how long would the recession be i think it's typically 11 months two quarters six quarters

SPEAKER_47: yeah normally it's like 18 months so you get back to where you're supposed to be or something like that um but you're right we have very limited tools to fight this because we've already spent i mean we've already broken the glass in case of emergency for covid we spent something like 10 trillion by the way that's what caused a lot of the problems is we flooded the zone with liquidity now we're trying to mop that up with interest rate increases that's slowing down the economy so there's nothing left to really spend you can't really drop interest rates uh much more and if you do you'll get much worse inflation so it seems to me that we don't have a lot of tools here and we could end up with something like a stag 1970s style stagflation where we continue to see inflation with the slowing economy

SPEAKER_45: let's unpack what that experience would be like economy's slowing there's less job openings people are

SPEAKER_113: spending less money while the prices of goods and services continue to go up that's why that's why

SPEAKER_115: they spend less money and that's why there's there's um recession like i mean you're paying six bucks

SPEAKER_117: for gas you have less money to go out for dinner every week right you pay uh you know twice as much for an airplane ticket you don't spend as much on the hotel i mean like you know the the rippling effects of the rate of inflation are decreased spending and there isn't enough time for you know the the new job uh creation engine to catch up and you know without a stimulus effect you're in trouble that's really the situation we're in and that's what you know can kind of cause these taxationary

SPEAKER_45: effects to to drag on almost every other time we've had a recession people couldn't find jobs and i can remember them qualitatively people saying hey i want to get a job i need more money i can't find one and now we're sitting here with more jobs than we can fill still over 10 million jobs

SPEAKER_56: available and and people are still resigning from jobs so how do we factor in the labor market jama

SPEAKER_123: well it's all this it's super confounding it's not like previous ones it is i actually think jason

SPEAKER_74: the explanation for all of this is um not necessarily about the supply demand dynamics of labor but our

SPEAKER_63: social policies related to our birth rate and immigration i posted this article link for you guys to read in the atlantic but basically our birth rate in 2021 absolutely fell off a cliff it was less than 300 000 net births in the entire country and net birth is defined as immigration plus births minus

SPEAKER_72: deaths and when you look under the covers you know we had two really discontinuously bad things one

SPEAKER_74: that was that has been building since trump and one that was acute the thing that was acute was that in 2021 after we had vaccines which is crazy thing to think about we had a million deaths basically right because of covet so that's a million people that largely exited the workforce plus or minus

SPEAKER_125: obviously some not not all of those people working but i think the overwhelming majority

SPEAKER_126: probably 50 we have 50 60 labor participation so more more i suspect i suspect some could have been

SPEAKER_74: retired right that's what i'm saying i think it's probably like 70 80 of the people that died were

SPEAKER_72: probably in the workforce in some way so you had you had all those people leave we have a you know

SPEAKER_74: troublesome issue with birth and birth rates um all western economies do basically as a standard of living goes up and as the equality between men and women go up birth rates go down without

SPEAKER_72: commenting on the the dynamics of that that's just that is just true and so you know we should celebrate that in the sense that like you know you want increasing equality you want people to have more choice etc all these things so how do you make up for the gap well you make up for the gap in immigration and the problem is that trump closed the door yeah and biden has not reopened the door and so you know we have had a meaningful fall off in immigration it doubly compounded because then because of covet we had border controls and we shut the borders completely so even if you know you were a student that would come here odds were maybe you'd get a master's or a phd and then stay here none of those people can so nobody can get in so that's the real problem that we have to solve jason which is that um you're not going to get you know families to all of a sudden have kids you know that that's a

SPEAKER_00: 18-year problem if you started that problem today to get them into the workforce or 25-year problem

SPEAKER_88: so immigration is really the only solution and we don't really have the sponsorship to do that at a

SPEAKER_137: domestic policy level well then you add to that the fact that labor participation which when we

SPEAKER_45: were coming up 67 68 of people in the country were work choosing to work uh and now we're we're down in the 60 percent maybe ticking up to yeah 62 it looks like uh on that fred website so we we need to greatly increase the number of people in the country and the people participating in the labor force if

SPEAKER_66: we're to avoid a recession right more people working we need more economic we need to boost it yeah i

SPEAKER_141: would encourage everybody to read this atlantic article because i think nick thompson does a very good job of just basically summarizing the issues that that we have freeberg what are your thoughts here

SPEAKER_26: is it getting more people to participate in the labor force importing more people both and then how do you how do you get that to actually happen sorry derek thompson not nick thompson look i'm i'm not an

SPEAKER_117: economist but i don't know if that really solves the acute runaway problem that we're experiencing

SPEAKER_149: right now one thing i'll say about inflation let's say you're running a company and you raise your prices

SPEAKER_150: you're not often going back dropping your prices again and um you know you have to have a catch-up effect for income and savings to make up for the increment in pricing and that's really you know a key driver

SPEAKER_149: right now that the rate at which prices are going up and you know sure gas and other commodities trade back

SPEAKER_117: down but consumables durables typically stay high after they inflate um you end up having you know kind of this persisting effect and it's really hard to kind of just grow your way out of that

SPEAKER_149: so um you know without stimulus and so you know i'm not sure that the labor solution is going to

SPEAKER_151: solve this kind of acute problem um that we're going to be facing that's that seems to be

SPEAKER_74: at this point for dragging on what do you think about the argument though that there's a

SPEAKER_72: substitutional effect meaning yeah when prices of goods rise people find cheaper goods uh and then separately what happens is you know part of a productive society is you make better and more interesting and more useful goods and services and you know incrementally especially if you use

SPEAKER_74: technology those things tend to be deflationary so they do get cheaper meaning you know you used to pay

SPEAKER_72: for photo storage dropbox comes along gives it away for free then google comes along and gives everything away for free yep so you have this deflationary natural deflationary effect where you tend to save money on the things you used to pay for because a lot of people find that they can build

SPEAKER_00: a different kind of business model to monetize giving it to you or subsidizing i think that's the

SPEAKER_45: key chamath is that if peep if prices go up then entrepreneurs are going to look and say you know what there's a better way to do this you want to go on vacation you want to stay somewhere for two weeks you can't afford the hotel okay let's try this new thing like this airbnb somebody rents you their apartment they move in with another person for the week you use their apartment and you can rent for 150

SPEAKER_26: a night instead of 350 at a hotel that that uh pricing uh when there's runaway pricing people come

SPEAKER_141: up with better solutions for people yeah i think i think that that's generally been true and by the

SPEAKER_74: way the if you think about the the biggest areas that have been sticky um which are energy policy and housing policy

SPEAKER_72: um the way that we'll have to unlock better pricing in those markets will be because we deregulate not not by increasing regulation but by massive deregulation you know we have massive nimbyism up and down the stack that prevents us from building the housing supply we need that has to get fixed

SPEAKER_74: right and we need to have better uh energy policy like for example you take a state like california you know it's the most populous state in the country it's the richest state in the country but it has an electricity prices that are three times higher than the national average

SPEAKER_88: that doesn't make any sense right and so you know how do you expect renewables to really compete when people are so incentivized to fire coal and not gas it doesn't make any sense whatsoever these prices cannot be this high they're high because of lobbying and because of lobbyists and special interests and so if you rip that stuff out by deregulation you actually allow as you said jason entrepreneurs to do the right thing and they will push prices back down sacks what's your question

SPEAKER_45: well i thought you might want to comment on what we're talking about entrepreneurs creating products and services that lower prices that then you know maybe create the the exit ramp here to inflation and stagflation some combination of that that's going to be upon us sure i mean there's a lot of

SPEAKER_48: entrepreneurial energy in the us it's strong there that technology does cause deflation it's deflationary but this is not going to help us get out of what's coming over the next year or two look the bottom line is that we had a massive government overreaction to covet in which we printed

SPEAKER_47: and spent way too much money something like 10 trillion plus and you know this is the classic hangover

SPEAKER_60: after the party you know they put the punch bowl out for way too long and now we're all gonna pay the price for it they spike the punch bowl they spike the punch bowl big time yeah and we're already seeing it think about like all the advice we're giving our portfolio companies to slow down their spending

SPEAKER_47: and extend their runway every board in america is going to be doing that so it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy but this yield curve inversion is you know fairly predictive i mean it's not perfect but you know cnbc had this report today historically it's meant when the yield curve inverts has been a better than two-thirds chance of recession at some point in the next year and greater than 98 chance of recession at some point in the next two years so it looks to me it needs to be inverted for at least 90

SPEAKER_72: days typically but again i think if you look at the the forward spread from the fed it's it's more accurate than the two cents but your point is the same something is happening that we need to take seriously and none of the outcomes here are growthy good outcomes and the policy wonks in washington really need to figure out what their position is going to be on this stuff and what they push next in terms of legislation because we're going to be going into the back half of the year in a midterm election where the economy is slowing interest rates are high prices are high this is a horrible

SPEAKER_48: setup for the day and let's think about what the priorities of the administration have been throughout all of this i mean one year ago they did that whole two trillion dollar american rescue

SPEAKER_47: plan they were warned by people like stanley druck and miller that retail was back the consumer was back and yet they still printed two trillion that caused a huge amount of inflation it totally backfired and that wasn't the end of it if they had their way we would have had four trillion more of spending

SPEAKER_60: in the whole build back better now biden just floated this new trial balloon over this unrealized gains tax so last year they floated the trial balloon about basically doing a wealth tax and everyone hated it and now they just proposed it again it was insane and even when they brought it out they leaked that they had mansion support behind it and then the next day mansion came out and disavowed it and said no no i don't support this i mean what is the administration thinking it makes no sense well i mean clearly foreign policy i mean i strongly believe we could have cut a deal on ukraine a year ago to diffuse this whole situation before it turned into a war now we got a war over

SPEAKER_45: there let's talk about what they should do i mean number one on the list for me is we should be getting every entrepreneur from around the world any really intelligent person who wants to go to

SPEAKER_66: graduate school here into this country we need to have like a manhattan project to just scoop up

SPEAKER_113: all these mutant geniuses from around the world and get them here and get them starting companies here

SPEAKER_88: you know you don't even need to do that it was working and don't fuck it up bush obama all you had to do was just leave it alone everybody who was any good at anything wanted to come to the united states including the three of us yep and all of a sudden it's like nah it's good yeah i pass

SPEAKER_188: okay i guess yeah well i mean if you set out that you hate entrepreneurs and you uh resent them for success be surprised if they want to stay in a country that but i don't i don't think that's what it was i think

SPEAKER_88: it was much crueler than that i think that we went to a posture that said okay you know what net new immigration was viewed as something that was displacing people wasn't a net value creator was you know in some cases viewed very xenophobically and that is really problematic because it's actually about a

SPEAKER_193: large population issue and it's about how you construct a healthy thriving population yeah

SPEAKER_56: this was trump's worst yeah worst approach he was best approach clearly not starting wars worst approach

SPEAKER_27: shutting the borders down for some populous reason when we actually need people in the country

SPEAKER_48: well hold on but see the way you just framed that is why i think there's a problem which is look

SPEAKER_47: obviously the immigration is a very fraught issue but the choice that's being presented to us by our political parties is either you're in favor of immigration you know like bringing in all these superstars like we have founders in silicon valley that makes sense or you're in favor of open borders i mean why are those the two choices that we either have h1bs or we have an open border i mean that makes no sense i mean what we should have is a sensible immigration first of all we should strip the border security issue out of it because whatever the number of immigrants everyone should be pro

SPEAKER_66: border security i mean we need a point-based system we need to be have a reasonable discussion between democrats and republicans about a point-based system there's a qualitative distance

SPEAKER_130: that for a long time and it works in canada and you're i think you're absolutely australia new

SPEAKER_66: zealand the uk they all have this it's like what what does our country need right now okay do we need people you know who are laborers or do we need people starting companies do we need you know scientists

SPEAKER_150: i don't know if you've noticed but to me this is very equivalent to the removal of sat and act scoring and admissions in college explain the notion of merit the notion of performance is not one

SPEAKER_149: that really matters in this country as much right now as much as the notion of equity and equity really has kind of become the mainstay of not just how we're making policy decisions on a local level but a lot of these kind of national issues are becoming about equity and it's about you know equitable consideration for wealth creation for existing citizens in the united states and the perception that a minority of people or some majority of people actually missed out on significant wealth creation over the past couple of decades as globalization and technology advances have accelerated growth in our economy and the share of that growth has been disproportionately assigned to a small percentage of people and i think it is that same notion that drives a lot of the the kind of sub decisions the local decisions that we're making as well as these important policy decisions and the point that i think

SPEAKER_117: is critical that's really hard to get across to everyone or anyone for that matter is that you

SPEAKER_149: know and i've talked about this a lot but progress brings everyone forward but it doesn't bring everyone forward symmetrically right progress brings everyone forward give an example freeberg so amazon's a great example i've used it a lot um with amazon we've all been given access to more goods and cheaper goods than we would have had before so we all benefit from that progress right everyone can get on an app and get a friggin inflatable swimming pool delivered to their home and the vitamins they need within 24 hours at half the price of what it would have cost them to go down to the local ace hardware store that's an incredible benefit for all of us so our share of wallet on that sort of goods has gone down therefore we can spend more get access to more stuff and we're all prospering and if you think back to what life was like 30 years ago 20 years ago to those of you who you know were spending money 20 years ago or whatever it's an incredibly different proposition than what we had back then and it really has changed the world and changed our all of us as consumers ability to consume more that's amazing the problem is jeff bezos is worth 160 billion dollars so everyone looks at that and they want to lambaste jeff bezos and they want to say this is unfair and equity becomes the discussion which is why is one guy worth 160 billion dollars the reality is he benefited everyone everyone got benefit from the value that he helped create in this world in this market and then the reaction is we got to stop this from happening we can't let people be worth 160 billion dollars without putting their eye on the point that you know what i'm spending three grand a year less because of this possible because of this technology that he brought to market and so there's a lot of these solutions that i would say are progressive they progress us all as a society everything from biotech to technology and software to any sort of business or services innovation that people are willing to pay money for that people are willing to embrace in an open and free market and then what happens is the spoils of that progress aggregate in a minor in a small way to a small number of people and that's the payoff in capitalism but when that happens over and over again for 250 years you fast forward and by the way a lot of those compound people wake up and they say i don't want that anymore and they miss the fact that progress is taken for granted and here we are we want to give up progress and we want to get equity and it's going to cause a real ripple effect that's going to last for decades and it's not the first time we've seen it right this has happened historically over cycles that last hundreds of years and it's happening now in the united states and in the entire western world um and i think it's going to be

SPEAKER_210: really unfortunate generally for progress um and all the ones you know all the advocates for equity

SPEAKER_211: are going to kind of what's the solution i think you're totally right what's the solution because that's it's just a really sad i've thought about this a lot and you know i look at what china did um

SPEAKER_149: and everyone's going to say i'm pro china but what was interesting about china recently is they ratchet up and they ratchet down that free market system so they allow progress and then they disallow progress when the equity meter goes the wrong way and so if you kind of think about an equity meter and a progress meter you have to balance those two over time because otherwise what happens is you spring back and then the springing back is when governments change revolutions happen you know democracy falls apart autocracies arise all those sorts of awful things and or really i would say those cyclical things that happen i don't want to characterize any of them as good or bad but the cyclical things that happen with society over time and so you know that is effectively what's happening guys like the ultra high tax rate the um the regulatory regime you know the government coming in and stopping facebook i mean these sorts of behaviors are almost like an attempt to mute and ratchet down both um inequity as well as the you know unfortunate side effect of progress um and i think you're basically punishing excellence

SPEAKER_210: and that is challenging for a long-term growth you're minimizing progress to improve the the the

SPEAKER_149: rate of equity of distribution of gains right and and it's it's very hard because by the way what you're also doing is you're relating a first derivative and a second derivative effect um and so you know first order and second order effect so it becomes a really difficult thing to and people don't really see it this way people see kind of the very you know myopic view of i got to redistribute wealth i got to help people that are out of jobs these guys have only seen their income go up by 10 while everyone else's income has gone up by 40 and so you know politicians you know legislators react to that circumstance but the zooming out is that circumstance erodes as we all made progress with respect to security with respect to health with respect to food availability with respect to consumables being cheaper etc etc all these great things that progress has given us um and you know there's a ratcheting effect the hope i have is that that ratcheting isn't um too binary it doesn't flip too far back the other way too fast in which case you have a socialist state arise a revolution arise you know all the things that we've seen

SPEAKER_56: kind of come out of are people just canceling ap math in california precisely precisely and then

SPEAKER_149: and then the the rippling effects of no more ap math and no more sats is you know roro like you

SPEAKER_126: know yeah fast forward 20 mit brought back the uh i don't know if you saw this week mit brought back

SPEAKER_27: sats as a qualifier uh after they paused it i think a lot of people are starting to realize this is a

SPEAKER_123: a road to nowhere sax what do you think is to chamal's point like is there a solution

SPEAKER_66: to get america behind excellence and pragmatic you know kind of solutions for immigration and if there is a way to do that how would you do it well i think like we're talking about you got to kind of

SPEAKER_48: unpack the issue so like we talked about strip border security out of it don't make that part of it then i think you gotta differentiate between high skill and low skill immigration like what you called the point system i mean if you look at who's founding companies in silicon valley something like 40 percent of startups have an immigrant co-founder so clearly immigrants bring a ton of

SPEAKER_47: entrepreneurial energy to the u.s but we also it's in our selfish interest to make sure that the

SPEAKER_48: immigrants we're letting in actually have the skills that make them potential founders so i think this would be smart for us to think that way and you can't even really have that conversation it seems like today to have more of a skills-based immigration system i mean who who's willing to say that

SPEAKER_164: well you could just say three buckets you know here's people who need amnesty right because

SPEAKER_27: they're being prosecute persecuted in their country and they're here because of humanitarian reasons here's a bucket for high performers who are going to add to our economy and create jobs and then

SPEAKER_45: here's another bucket which is a lottery and a lineup system hey you want to come here because you don't have skill but you want to come here because the country's so great okay you know each of

SPEAKER_26: those buckets is gonna have its own process and your your odds might be different in each bucket

SPEAKER_221: you know is that so hard for people to grok right but you gotta remember you know we're we're sitting

SPEAKER_48: for in the economy i mean it's very easy for us to say this because we are sitting in silicon valley and for us immigration is an economic good it's a benefit but if you are in a part of the country or a

SPEAKER_47: part of the economy where you're in a low wage job maybe you're a service employee or you're a union employee in the midwest the more immigrants that are let in that are low skill they compete with you and drive your wages down and that's why people are against it so that's basically the conundrum is as long as you're talking about immigration as being a single thing it's going to have a lot of

SPEAKER_62: political opposition that's why we need to you know bifurcate it between high skill and low skill

SPEAKER_72: people and exactly less low skill the least if you had to rank them from least controversial to most controversial i think letting in high skilled labor is probably the least controversial thing then and there is always controversy around this it's always on the you know the bucket of people for humanitarian grounds right some people agree some people disagree should these people be considered refugees should they not how many of your family members should you be able to sponsor how many not etc etc and that's somewhat controversial but i think we can all agree the most controversial bucket are folks that would otherwise come uh that would be considered lower skill um because they are

SPEAKER_88: the ones that really put pressure uh in very practical measurable ways into the economy and we just have to to your point segregate and differentiate how we think about this problem uh because again if you take immigration the word away and actually just use immigration as an input to this equation on population stability we have population instability right now so unless we figure out something between live births

SPEAKER_72: and deaths which i don't think we're going to solve tomorrow oh it's going to create a very large imbalance

SPEAKER_45: that our economy in our country cannot really recover from you know what it's you spark my thinking there it really is a framing issue we should not call high skilled labor coming here as immigration we should be flipping that to talent acquisition we should be looking at it as america is trying to get more talent here so we can win the industries that matter

SPEAKER_66: and if we looked at it as this is talent acquisition has nothing to do with immigration this is us going out and sourcing the smartest people to come here so our companies win against other companies in the global economy to create more jobs for

SPEAKER_238: american talent acquisition could be something we could be investing in we should be thinking how do we win

SPEAKER_88: that all the problems that ail us the solution is in some hard-working group of men and women of which some will be entrepreneurs who want to be here you know we're trying to figure out how to actually build

SPEAKER_72: our own chips while there are semiconductor experts getting trained whether here or abroad who would want to be here to do that job on behalf of the united states right we want to figure out climate independence there are men and women being trained here and abroad who want to be here and solve that problem on behalf of the united states on and on and on and on and on and that's what it means to be and i'll use a sports analogy you know the la lakers right that's what it means to be you know the the new england patriots everybody wants to play for you and so when you're in that position and you have that branding tailwind you have to use it to your advantage to stack the deck in your favor so that you're constantly winning championships otherwise you're being really derelict in your

SPEAKER_88: duty and i think you know hopefully if people look at the broad population level issue that we just exposed because of covet there there is a stat in this article as an example in the county of los angeles um we are now in the last 20 years we've seen a 50 reduction in the birth rate in la from 150 000 births here to about a hundred and if you forecast that forward you know before the turn of the century the county of los angeles will have zero net births if you run if you run if you run the that's insane

SPEAKER_72: yeah so we we need to figure out how to solve this problem um because it's it's it's a it's a it really impacts gdp it impacts all these other issues that freebrook just talked about as well the sense of equality and fairness if we're not creating and growing we are going to fight over how to split a

SPEAKER_242: shrinking pie and that does tend to lead to revolution yeah that's when people it could get really

SPEAKER_56: gnarly we're not growing entrepreneurs are not coming here new jobs are not being created imagine

SPEAKER_81: if amazon wasn't created the historical implications for what freebrook said are really well defined in history if you go back thousands of years you look at every single time you know an empire goes through

SPEAKER_88: that period of decline when they have net negative growth economic growth and they have this sort of rising populism what they end up doing is they end up fighting and they have different ways of fighting right but they end up fighting over how to reallocate a shrinking pie and there are many of those outcomes when they fight that ends up in you know really turbulent moments in history

SPEAKER_72: and that's where this wealth tax yeah that's right that's where we have a responsibility to make sure you don't end up going through you know a russia scenario a china scenario you know uh and there there are more productive ways to to solve these problems oh that's where the wealth tax

SPEAKER_56: that was floated which seems let's doa already but this concept of everybody having who's over

SPEAKER_45: a hundred billion dollars having to assess all their worth and give 20 back minimum each year uh is that dividing of the pie and maybe they can allocate less money towards can we all agree that

SPEAKER_00: like you know on the margins when you make a lot of money you can and should pay more taxes i don't think that's a super controversial idea you know on the margins if you are a massive polluter you should

SPEAKER_88: pay some taxes to to compensate for the damage you're creating to the environment these are not controversial ideas the problem is that you know what sac said is true you take a sensible concept and then you pervert it because you have to contort it with all this language to make it political

SPEAKER_72: and it loses all of its value and it then so for example you know why does the administration have to write this law potential law or proposal in a way that so obviously violates the constitution

SPEAKER_88: of the united states are they that dumb i don't think they're that dumb but they do it to appease some political aspect of the democratic party and then as a result it becomes doa within eight minutes of it being announced mansion says this is dead what is the point of that theater it's

SPEAKER_253: virtual signaling yeah aren't you a donor you should know right what would they tell you i mean what's

SPEAKER_81: the democratic party saying i think what they would say off the record is that these were sacrificial totems to the progressive left meaning that they do it for window dressing to destroy like it's like

SPEAKER_149: throwing a cat a ball of yarn you know it seems like that that populist progressive left is becoming

SPEAKER_48: a bigger base than it was historically in the democratic party it is i'm not sure how big it is but in the the democratic party yeah look it's where all the energy is the democratic party it's where a lot

SPEAKER_47: of the donors are that yeah that is who's driving the agenda in the democratic party today that is why the democrats are going to get shellacked in november read roy to share his substack he is the democratic political consultant who wrote the emerging democratic majority predicting this is back in 2002 he wrote a book about how there would be a new democratic coalition of young voters and minorities and women and they would come together and that would create you know democratic majorities and democratic presidents forever and then obama wins in 2008 and it looks like two shares predictions

SPEAKER_60: coming true and he recently in the last two years has been warning that that something's happened that he could never have predicted which is that working class voters are now moving out of the democratic party not just whites but also hispanics and asians even uh black voters who are working class are all moving to the republican party so he believes the republican party is losing its natural majority why because progressives have taken over and on cultural and social issues they are much more liberal than the working class of this country so basically what's happened is the democrats have

SPEAKER_47: become a professional class party and the republicans are in the process of transforming into a working

David Sacks: class party and that's turning everything upside down but ultimately you know with youngkin winning in virginia last year and i think the republicans on generic ballot are up like what plus 10 plus 12 i mean they're going to have a huge i think wave in november you know you got to remember that professionals meaning college educated voters are only about a third of the electorate i think about 37 and then the other 63 are working class the working class does not like this extreme sociocultural progressive agenda they don't like seeing their statues ripped down they don't like this sort of what they see is kind of this this um antagonism towards american history and american icons they don't believe in um in socialism you know um and so on down the line and uh the democratic party is increasingly speaking only to itself i mean they are in an echo chamber and i think these progressives are gonna have to lose a few elections before they realize i mean the same thing happened to the democratic party back in the 1980s right you had ronald reagan and then george herbert walker bush win three landslide elections 1980 1984 88 and then and the democrats nominate these like horrible candidates jimmy carter walter mondale dukakis and then who comes along bill clinton

SPEAKER_262: easy on the greeks easy on the greeks dukakis was pretty great okay like we found the one fan we

David Sacks: found the one fan yeah who comes along in 1992 bill clinton and he has this whole new faction within the democratic party the dlc and his explicit mandate was to lead them back to the center and then he chooses al gore as his running mate to double down on that image i don't think al gore actually was that centrist i think is that but his image at that time was that he was pretty centrist he was so so you had yes i mean i think at that time so their democratic party had to lose for about 12 years before they nominated a candidate and put him at the leadership of the party who could drag them back to the center now listen i mean all we have right now are foreshadowings of this we have the youngkin victory last year we have the fact those three school board members san francisco got kicked out you know we'll see what happens to chase about dean on june 7th so we're getting these glimmers and i think november will be a big test but where i think this thing is headed is that the the working class voters of this country don't like this radical progressive shift in the democratic party and the democratic party is going to keep losing until they're willing to make changes well and

SPEAKER_56: immigration is just such an easy one and and courting the working person is what the democrats did

SPEAKER_108: forever so i don't know how they how they can screw this up well but remember working class voters

SPEAKER_60: don't working class voters are not in favor of immigration jacal they do not want unlimited number

SPEAKER_272: of immigrants coming they don't want unlimited but they would like to see their family members

SPEAKER_172: driving their wages down but they do want their family members to be allowed in so for the folks

David Sacks: who know you talk to you talk to hispanic voters who are citizens in america they are not in favor

SPEAKER_275: of unlimited immigration because it creates weight pressure for them reasonable i'm telling you that it's not

David Sacks: it's not like what you think the the more the higher you are economically in the social strata the more professional you are the more you like immigration because like for people like us we like immigrants because they found companies and we invest in them we see the economic vitality that they bring but if you are a working class okay you do not want that wage pressure you just don't so unless the democrats figure out a way to talk about it the way we're talking about it where we separate high skill and low skill they will lose with that message all right let's get into some other things

SPEAKER_27: happening in the market sec is proposing a new set of rules to regulate specs uh i wonder if anybody here can uh chime in on this who well i wrote who knows about it i wrote a i wrote an editorial in

SPEAKER_72: bloomberg basically a year ago spelling out a bunch of new regulations that i thought the sec should adopt they adopted a lot of them in this draft so i think that that's really good they missed a couple of key things and this is again tying back to this other thing when we're in this phase right now where we are really questioning how capitalism should work i think that there are two reactions that people can

SPEAKER_88: have one is you pass more regulation that entrenches existing advantages and the other is you pass regulation that either deregulates or democratizes the market and if i had to cast the half of my proposals that

SPEAKER_00: the sec adopted i would say it falls more into the first bucket than the second and jason you've spoken to the second bucket of laws that the sec could also change which is you know it's in their power

SPEAKER_100: to give people an on-ramp to prove that they are qualified and accredited so that they can participate in some of these really you know vibrant ways of making money beyond just investing in the s p 500 like investing in startups if you if you're educated and capable of doing the sec at the same time

SPEAKER_00: proposed a bunch of legislation around reporting requirements for esg and if you look at both of these two buckets of laws i think they're rooted in good ideas and i think that there are some good

SPEAKER_100: concepts in it but who really wins i think if you look at it the american bar association had a huge

SPEAKER_88: victory here because the amount of incremental regulation uh is going up which means you know what was a 300 page filing with the sec will now be 350 pages right i think that benefits lawyers i think it benefits consultants i think it benefits the accountant so i think it benefits the ecosystem people

SPEAKER_72: that participate it's not so clear how normal everyday folks benefit from a lot of this stuff so i think if you strip it all away what i would say is i think the sec is trying to do the right thing but i would really encourage them to do the second half of what they should be doing which is

David Friedberg: is making these on ramps um better built generally speaking what do you think happens in the spac space

SPEAKER_193: we had 600 of them it's gonna it's gonna consolidate to the 10 of us that know what we're doing got

SPEAKER_72: it just like you know look the ipo rules are extremely sophisticated did it hurt morgan stanley or goldman sachs's ipo business no it just meant that the 95 small banks that did ipos went away and it consolidated to six and the league tables you know just churned between the six jp morgan

SPEAKER_88: one year is the top you know then it's morgan stanley then it's goldman sachs then it's b of a

SPEAKER_131: then it's credit suites similarly spax will consolidate around six or seven players and you know

SPEAKER_172: will do most of the business what do you think friedberg of this new sec uh announcement that

SPEAKER_45: they're considering climate disclosures for public traded companies this would basically not only what

SPEAKER_56: they're doing in terms of um consuming or you know uh allowing greenhouse gases and emissions but also

SPEAKER_45: this scope three concept your inputs what is your supply chain doing and what are your consumers doing so if you're making the iphone what happens to the iphone when the consumer gets rid of it or what did it take to get those minerals out of the ground to make the iphone what do you think is this a net benefit is it the lawyers win or does measuring all this actually mean we're going to see publicly traded

SPEAKER_291: companies manage it better a lot of opting into it already like google and apple are doing it on their own accord but what do you think generally of this regulation well i'll say let me just say something

SPEAKER_149: on the specs and i'll answer that question um you know if you read the comment that the the first sec

SPEAKER_150: proposed rule it was to amend the definition of a blank check company to make the liability safe harbor

SPEAKER_149: for forward-looking statements such as business forecasts unavailable in filings by specs so you know this was um you know i think one of the primary points of appeal over the past couple of years we've all been private market sophisticated private market investors when we take a pitch or hear a pitch from a company we all have the experience and the know-how not always correctly but at least we know what to look for what to ask and um over time have learned through our wounds and our failures to appropriately diligence forecast and understand what they mean and what they say and you know because the public markets historically through an ipo um are available to retail investors you know generally whatever the definition is of unqualified or you know um folks who may not have the level of sophistication that you know some regulatory body has deemed is needed to be able to do that level of diligence um the statements that are made in an ipo and an s1 need to be kind of factually referenced referenceable and that's not true when it comes to forecasts and that's why they're not included in s1s in an ipo but in a spec the appeal was you can tell your forward-looking forecast paint the rosy picture like you would for a startup and then theoretically the investor should make an assessment of the the risk and the upside and the objectives that the business is saying they're going to go shoot for and achieve and it's pretty evident and i think we all knew this you know coming out of last year that you know many investors made investments on the basis of those forecasts you know being to some degree reasonably achievable or likely achievable and it turns out that in many cases they were not and were not achieved um and that's the big motivation here so the real fundamental question with respect to chima's point about markets is how much do you want to have the government and a regulator play the role of deciding who is and who isn't sophisticated enough to make an assessment

SPEAKER_296: about a business's forward-looking prospects or should we simply keep all forward-looking prospects

SPEAKER_149: or you know forecasts like yes you know out of those documents and it's an important conversation to have because for years people have been saying i want to invest in private companies but i'm not a qualified investor therefore i'm only going to be able to invest in public companies and as we're seeing the problem with investing in private companies or speculative companies is that you're investing on the come and more often than not that doesn't end up happening and that's a really hard lesson to learn and specs have kind of forced them the retail market that have not historically invested in private companies to learn that lesson very fast this is why by the way in

SPEAKER_74: my what what i what i was asking the sec to do on top of the things that they already did was i said make us all invest our own money you know make the sponsor really monetarily at risk i've invested a minimum of a hundred million dollars in every single deal i've done as a spac sponsor that's a

SPEAKER_45: lot of money more skin in the game and disclosing that would be great and maybe even having a clearing

SPEAKER_299: house where you could see the percentage of cash to the ultimate raise that the promoter has

SPEAKER_94: that stuff were great all of that stuff jason is in the spirit of disclosure and transparency i just

SPEAKER_150: wish they would have done you think you still think it's important to have forward-looking

SPEAKER_149: statements in these um inspect i mean if that ends up becoming you know the the the cornerstone of this uh proposed regulation i don't think it's a i don't think it's a cornerstone i think what i

SPEAKER_74: think the thing is that there are really important businesses that need good stewards to help them get into the public markets to raise money to fund their business and there are some people who really

SPEAKER_88: understand that and there are many others who don't and the thing that that the sec should make a decision

SPEAKER_00: on is whether just having a bunch of middlemen serves a market better or having a combination of some middlemen and some principles all competing is better because remember what like what is capitalism really you have these trapped sources of money right when you buy an equity right or you buy a bond you're putting money into a trapped asset it's an unproductive asset it may yield some return

SPEAKER_88: but it's not really generating it it is dead money capitalism is about creating an incentive for you to take that money out of that dead asset that unproductive asset and put it directly into the hands of somebody who will make it productive i'm going to you know build some oil fields i'm going to make a battery factory battery factory i'm going to make shoes whatever it is right and so you know having more competition that creates the incentives for that process to happen to go from point a to point b should be the goal of the government because in the absence of that again going back to the previous conversation you're going to basically shrink the incentives of productivity and i don't think that's what anybody wants to have happen it's such an easy

SPEAKER_45: solution to all of this we have a test if you want to drive a car and if you want to drive a big car called the truck you have to get a different test you want to drive a motorcycle slide even take

SPEAKER_94: that by the way jason i just want to you brought up a really good point earlier and i just wanted to

SPEAKER_88: put a fine point on what you said let's just say all these companies let's all of our startups included will now when we go public have to create these disclosures around scope one scope

SPEAKER_72: two scope three emissions and there's this weird uh concept called materiality that exists in law

SPEAKER_88: which will now again have to get adjudicated let's say apple doesn't disclose what's actually happening in their factories somebody can now sue them because they will say that's a material disclosure that you didn't disclose well guess what will happen that'll wind its way and meander its way through the courts it'll take years there'll be tens and tens of millions of dollars spent on that litigation because apple will vehemently defend the right that it wasn't a material disclosure because the

SPEAKER_00: implications otherwise will be measured in the billions or tens of billions of dollars so who

SPEAKER_319: really wins consultants win yeah trial experts win the lawyers when lobbyists lobbyists i just i just i

SPEAKER_210: just want to frame this up for a second um because i think it's important for people to think about

SPEAKER_149: you know costs that are external uh to the business operation meaning costs that are born society by other um members of society not the business itself so let's say that you're a company that makes products with a lot of sugar and you know or cigarettes that you know we know when people consume a lot of sugar cancer goes up obesity goes up diabetes goes up the cost for cancer treatment the cost for diabetes treatment the cost for medical treatment associated with smoking or sugar or alcohol is born by a health system where the ultimate cost is shared by a large group of society by a all number of members whether that's a public health insurance program or a private one there's a group that shares that cost and so you as a consumer are not paying that cost today the question is should you be paying that cost and this is true for co2 emissions for carbon emissions you know you drive a gas guzzling car you purchase gasoline there is carbon that goes in the atmosphere you're not going to end up individually fixing the carbon out of the atmosphere later the

SPEAKER_117: rest of us are going to have to bear that cost as our homes burn down you know as floods cause you know houses to wash away as all the catastrophe that we're all predicting is going to happen starts to

SPEAKER_149: happen so the question is how do you account for those external costs and then the second question that will arise in a market-based system that we have is who's going to pay for those costs right now we all assume those costs and we don't charge anyone for them we don't just we don't charge anyone for the obesity epidemic we don't charge anyone for the cancer epidemic associated with cigarettes until we had that big legislation that that you know the doj knocked that off we don't charge anyone today for carbon emissions that we're all going to have to pay the cost for and so you know the first step is identifying and quantifying the external costs of the product or service that you're providing and deciding whether or not to tax the consumer of that product whether or not to tax the seller of that product and ultimately how to transition that capital back to the repair

SPEAKER_296: mechanism for pulling that the effects of that product back out of the system so in this analogy

SPEAKER_299: coca-cola uh if people drank too much of it and got fat would be responsible for their diabetes

SPEAKER_149: treatment well this goes back to the sugar tax point which is should we have a sugar tax because there's a quantifiable effect that too much sugar has on human health obesity diabetes cancer i mean so that's an argument right and so in order to do that the first step is disclose the risks disclose the associated conditions that arise from the product or service that you're offering and i think that's part of the intention and a lot of very smart progressive people in capital markets some good friends of mine we have been talked have been talking for years about the importance of

SPEAKER_327: this level of disclosure because it is the first step in truly accounting for climate you're talking

SPEAKER_264: about yes for climate yeah pretty controversial sacks you think we should charge p we should charge uh

SPEAKER_218: coca-cola for diabetes well go talk ask the question of should you charge for a carbon related product

SPEAKER_299: for okay i'll ask both carbon uh should corporations be responsible for the downstream carbon from their

SPEAKER_333: um customers and the upstream inputs at least disclose it and decide who's ultimately going to have to pay for

SPEAKER_72: that the answer to the former is yes the answer to the latter is um if you you know there's a there's a

SPEAKER_100: term shit in shit out yeah garbage in garbage out uh i've spent a lot of time in climate um i know

SPEAKER_141: what's measurable and what's not i've looked at the space a lot and i just think that there is no credible way to execute on david what you're saying you want all it's going to do is going to create a bunch of money that flows to consultants that create bs nonsensical reports is that true in your mind the downstream and the downstream implication of that will be lawsuit upon lawsuit that gets adjudicated by the courts on this concept of materiality you think we should

SPEAKER_220: be recording a free burger and i agree disagree or agree with jama no no i agree it should be recorded

SPEAKER_88: i'm saying it's not possible i'm saying the only winners in this will be the consultants you agree with

SPEAKER_149: that look i'll agree these carbon markets are absolute bs carbon sequestration mechanisms are absolute bs i mean none of this stuff is real right now it's all fraudulent markets it's all grifters it's all bs right yeah i'm not trying to be too disparaging with everyone there are good actors out there and good intentions for sure there is a tree but there's a lot of ways that you can kind of take this stuff apart and say you know what this doesn't actually add up and there's a good business to be out in the meantime and everyone feels good running that business simple example

SPEAKER_88: jason how will you know that a sensor that's on a flue of a manufacturing plant is accurate how

SPEAKER_346: do you know that it's not been doctored how do you know just to say just a very very simple question

SPEAKER_26: just that well when it came to volkswagen a leak or leak the information and that's and the press

SPEAKER_225: got on it and that's how it was regulated it was it was in the review mirror that's how volkswagen

SPEAKER_141: got busted so that's how we're gonna we're gonna fix a bunch of whistleblowers i mean that's what

SPEAKER_225: happened also within rjo nabisco and the the cigarettes as well and what changed as a result of that

SPEAKER_291: nothing uh no in the cigarette industry um that led to the largest fines in the history of corporate america i think up until that time we still don't have a tax we still don't have a pool they don't

SPEAKER_352: have a we have a big tax on tech on cigarettes yeah but to lower consumption yeah yeah but we don't you

SPEAKER_141: know we don't force these companies to basically subsidize a portion of our healthcare costs every time somebody shows up with lung cancer it's not like we say you know what that's going to be half

David Friedberg: borne by rgr nabisco yeah so i mean this i the measurement can't be bad but i guess it's what you're

SPEAKER_88: saying no no i'm saying the concept is good the measurement is literally so terrible as to be

SPEAKER_123: worthless and so wouldn't there be a bunch of new companies that come up though that then create the

SPEAKER_66: auditing trail so you say hey we're going to put the you have to have one of these companies

SPEAKER_45: put the sensors on your uh factory and ernst and young have to audit it yeah it's a small oddity of

SPEAKER_141: you know again there's a lot of companies for example this is where silicon valley i think gets a little you know caught up in their own nonsense there's a lot of companies in silicon valley that

SPEAKER_88: have made a lot of money measuring bits right analytics companies because the exhaust of a tech company is sitting in some log file somewhere that's just a matter of being parsed right do some etl do some transformations put it in some beautiful table run some query on top of it lo and behold you can know everything about your company when you're measuring atoms it's just a little bit more complicated and i think that people underestimate that complexity so while the desire of this is good i think the whole point is that you know if you draft this language the wrong way again my own i want to be very precise what i'm saying what i think it will do instead of actually causing more conformity and have people emitting less carbon it'll create a shadow industry of measurement and consulting around this industry while people debate materiality when they get caught got it

SPEAKER_138: that is not the point of this but when you draft laws like this you have to think about these

SPEAKER_172: implications so is there is there an easy answer here or just no easy answers

SPEAKER_45: in terms of if we want companies to be somewhat more knowledgeable and responsible in their carbon

SPEAKER_63: emissions well i think that the responsibility ultimately comes from the end consumer buyer customer

SPEAKER_72: of a product because if they have an alternative that offers them those trade-offs whether it's at a higher price or a lower price or the same price and they adopt it then these companies really pay

SPEAKER_141: attention right because ultimately what they really care about is their downstream profitability otherwise i worry that a lot of what's happening in corporate america today is basically some form of greenwashing

SPEAKER_00: technology you know so for example like we joke but it's true when you look at these carbon offset markets these indirect offset markets what are they a company spews all kinds of gnarly stuff into the

SPEAKER_88: environment they hire a consulting firm i just want to explain to you how it works today they hire a consulting firm who uses an excel spreadsheet to guesstimate how badly they have polluted the environment okay it's a fundamental guess then they go to another company that says well can you buy me some equal and offsetting amount of credits and that company then will go and plant some trees or buy some trees claim the trees exist measure and impute again in a different excel spreadsheet how much you know carbon capture is happening by those trees do we know that those trees aren't getting sold 10 times over to 10 other companies we don't know that so my point is the the we have a lot of work to do to solve these problems i would rather see again raw capitalism solve this problem and i think in in in climate change the most productive thing we could do is lower the barriers for trapped unproductive capital to get into the hands of really amazing scientists and entrepreneurs who are building things that can

SPEAKER_26: measurably remove carbon from the environment and there's really two easy ways to do it one is have

SPEAKER_27: a test and the other is on the roads we have a speed limit so if you are a non-affluent person already but you want to dabble in this it's a very simple way to do it jamad i propose have a written

SPEAKER_26: test just like you have a handgun or a car test a driving test and then how about you can deploy 10

SPEAKER_364: it's so incredible you just said this you can allow an 18 year old person to buy an ar give me the name

SPEAKER_319: of the gun ar 15 and a car and go speeding down the highway but they're not allowed to invest in go

SPEAKER_26: puff yeah no they're too not sophisticated you can shoot the bullets in the air while you're going down the road what is going on it's well i mean there's no path to it that's the frustrating part like in some places it's hard to get a gun you got to take a eight hour test other places you can just

SPEAKER_141: buy them on the wherever you allow 18 year olds you can allow an 18 year old to take psychedelics and marijuana legally yes open in a market by again but they are not allowed by secondary shares of stripe

SPEAKER_355: no they're just yes and so this is the stupidity of it well here and here's the other thing you can have two different things you have the test so now you know the person's educated but you could also say

SPEAKER_26: hey listen whatever's on your tax return for the last two years you can invest 10 of that a year in you know private companies so if you made i don't know 150 000 in the last two years you made 75 000 a

SPEAKER_355: year okay you can put 15 000 of it let me give you another one you will allow the speed people

SPEAKER_100: to go and work for startups to help build the enterprise value of a startup let's pick our

SPEAKER_141: favorite startup like an uber but not invest in their equity before they go public right you're not

SPEAKER_374: sophisticated you're sophisticated enough to build it you'll you're sophisticated enough to drive for them for years to help them build a 50 billion dollar company but not buy a piece of that company along

SPEAKER_26: the way yeah that doesn't seem right either but you could pull over and buy scratch-off tickets and lottery tickets till the cows come home but you can't buy a scratch-off ticket in a start makes no

SPEAKER_225: sense all right sacks you've been quiet in all of this i know that you hate the environment and

SPEAKER_259: regulation what's your thoughts i'm not i'm just not deep in this topic so i don't want to weigh in

SPEAKER_225: all right well here's one you are deep in facebook hired a gop lobbying firm to smear tick tock

SPEAKER_384: according to the washington post taylor around what do you say what do you say to sex you say

SPEAKER_385: here's something you're deep in it's a gop no no before that you said you said he's like into destroying the environment or something yeah no he doesn't care about the environment so i mean

SPEAKER_35: sax is never going to go into the forest and even go near a tree he doesn't go outside

SPEAKER_390: sealed bedroom absolutely he closed the curtains he's like oh beautiful view of the sky

SPEAKER_393: oh nature like the pope his car has one of these things he doesn't even have to sit down it's just enclosed he stands up it's bulletproof glass you know he just waves as he goes by

SPEAKER_48: i go outside sometimes i much prefer going to an outdoor shooting range than an outdoor shooting range

SPEAKER_56: so when you're going shooting you send an outdoor one so this is a really crazy story teller runs broke it uh facebook paid the gop lobbying your friend yeah actually i had her on the show here is the

SPEAKER_45: excerpted uh from the internal targeted victory email obtained by the washington post quote get the message out that while meta facebook is currently uh a punching bag tick tock is the real threat especially as a foreign-owned app that is number one in sharing data that young teens are using bonus point if we can fit this into a broader message that current bills proposals aren't where state attorney generals or member of congress should be focused uh so what do we think i mean we've talked here many times about reciprocity we can't have our social networks in china why should

SPEAKER_48: tick tock be here i think we all agree it sounds like they want to do a pr initiative around the

SPEAKER_188: points that you've always made on this pod exactly no i mean that's the that's the they could be right about this but doing a dirty tactic yeah i think it's a dirty trick in a way for them to

SPEAKER_48: deflect attention from the cells onto some other company's problems so there's something distasteful

SPEAKER_47: about that but the point that they're making is kind of true i mean we should not allow i mean

SPEAKER_411: i'm not saying we shouldn't allow them but i think whatever you know you think tick tock should be

SPEAKER_60: allowed in the united states really i don't know about that but i i just think that what do you think about it whatever problems people have with facebook they should have them like 10x with tick

SPEAKER_188: tock that's kind of my point a thousand percent in agreement on this tick tock is run by a country

SPEAKER_66: that we wondered do they care about the data and then they literally passed a law if you want to run your company the government has to have the data i have fallen into a tick tock

SPEAKER_81: rabbit hole and i would like to come clean uh with you guys there's something there's something on tick

SPEAKER_72: tock called sandwich bros what are these guys these guys are guys that make sandwiches oh and then they

Chamath Palihapitiya: cut the sandwich and then they open it up so that you can see what's in the inside of it gooey cheese yeah i mean no some of these sandwiches these guys are making sammy dude i have watched an hour

SPEAKER_393: straight of sandwich talk wow wait here's the best part so then there is this uh woman who i thought was going to be incredible she's like you know i'm tired of these sandwich bros i'm going to be the first woman that really breaks through making sandwiches i was like you go get it and she made a

Chamath Palihapitiya: vegan sandwich god damn it and i was like where's the meat i wanted to be i wanted to be deep into it

SPEAKER_426: but like you know chicken uh roast chicken oh my god yeah bacon avocado bacon bacon maybe some pickles

SPEAKER_355: in there get a little yeah i mean this is the thing that i find so chicken tikka masala burrito

SPEAKER_393: that's probably my favorite one and the guy made it from scratch like everything from scratch i love

SPEAKER_66: that here's the problem it's such a compelling product you feel so terrible using it so you love it at something and then you feel very vapid for having used and you have regret and then the chinese are running it and they're programming our children and have all their data and locations um you know

SPEAKER_56: it's a lot of conflicted feelings what do you think they're trying to program in me with all the

SPEAKER_430: sandwich stuff maybe you're too thin and you need to eat a sandwich maybe they were trying to be vegan

SPEAKER_81: but i that sandwich yuck it looked horrible i think this is ugc they're trying to program

SPEAKER_45: offense to get fat but yuck that's what they want they want you to get fat what are you seeing on your tick tock feed right now friedberg since you're so obsessed with your phone and should

SPEAKER_26: should tick tock be banned should the chinese be allowed to program our children with their

SPEAKER_48: algorithm yes or no freeberg that's what you're looking at well just mentioning the product makes you want to use it so it's so addicting what is so addicting about a freeberg tell me the best

SPEAKER_95: vegan sandwich you ever had like the best one like is there one that's sawdust quinoa quinoa

SPEAKER_210: cucumbers there's a there's a great um sandwich shop in berkeley you guys none of you i don't think

SPEAKER_296: ever go to berkeley but i live in palo alto it's too yeah berkeley is i'll get one i'll actually get

SPEAKER_257: one ubered over to you well what is it what's on avocado sprouts yeah sprouts i don't like there's one i like that's got the the feta cheese like the really good sharp salty feta cheese yeah okay

SPEAKER_210: it's actually voted one of the best sandwich shops in california i think

SPEAKER_117: yeah yeah really good no i made myself a tempeh avocado sandwich for lunch today oh yeah that's yeah

SPEAKER_27: oh that's fantastic you know what i was going to do that myself but instead i just decided to slam my hand

SPEAKER_448: with a hammer because it's more enjoyable i just like smashed my hand bang oh i had uh crab ravioli

SPEAKER_168: oh wonderful wonderful this is absolutely great you murdered those crabs delicious okay but let's

SPEAKER_66: just go around the horn should yes or no tick tock be banned should a chinese company be allowed to

SPEAKER_45: have a social network at scale in the united states yes or no friedberg no yes i don't think that we

SPEAKER_454: should be restricting the products and services that people choose to use even from a communist

SPEAKER_188: country that is likely spying on them okay got it we know where you stand sex well i'd i'd want to

SPEAKER_455: know that they're not that it's not spyware right so yeah if it's fine sure that's illegal if it's

SPEAKER_68: illegal stop it but like okay so you're saying you trust you trust the chinese government no i don't

SPEAKER_48: trust them it would be a serious it would be an issue i'd seriously look at i might come out on the india side of things but i'd like to understand a little better like what the india side of things

SPEAKER_215: being that india has a band yeah they've been there they're smart indians are smart i would

SPEAKER_210: pragmatic i just think it's a slippery slope because then you end up seeing china ban iphones

SPEAKER_184: and i mean you know the whole thing kind of we're already banned they already banned twitter facebook

SPEAKER_454: and instagram in their country there's still a lot there's a big consumer market in china for us goods and services and it just seems like a slippery slope where do you say i think you guys nailed it

SPEAKER_74: which is that i think these things have to be quid pro quo it doesn't make any sense

SPEAKER_72: in my opinion for us to allow um a non-american company to thrive where in that same end market our products are not allowed to compete absolutely so i think there are two things that matter to me which is that you know if we're going to allow tick tock to thrive here it seems like there needs to be some version of a deal that says facebook google you know these core products and services just need to have a chance where linked consumers can vote that's one thing and i do think separately what

SPEAKER_393: david said is really importantly true and i don't think it applies to just tick tock but whenever a product gets to a certain level of scale and we can define what that threshold is but it's probably in

SPEAKER_72: the half a billion to a billion mal kind of range monthly active users range um you do have to away of like you know going through the source and making sure there's no crazy spyware in there

SPEAKER_393: and i don't know exactly how to do that um but i think that that that should just be a general expectation uh for any product because look let's let's be honest and and and we've had this

SPEAKER_72: conversation before you don't think the odds are high that at some point some very talented

SPEAKER_393: knowledge worker that is on an immigrant visa inside of one of these large tech companies isn't actually working on behalf of a foreign oh they have twitter had it they had two people from the kingdom right there so so my point is i think that that these things are probably true right like in the tens of thousands of employees that work in big tech there's probably at least five or ten of these people that work on behalf of foreign government so we don't know what they may or may not have introduced in certain elements of the code so it's not unreasonable to fund a you know an organization that can audit this code base but i think that i would rather let them stay

SPEAKER_00: in order to open up that end market for our products all right we have to wrap on this uh free

SPEAKER_56: bro a couple weeks ago you outlined the possible the potential of famines caused by putin's insane ex you know war in ukraine that's not what i said but sure okay i'm framing it and

SPEAKER_473: frame it the way i want but you commented on the possible famine caused by putin's insane war again not what i said but sure yeah well let's go to famine before sax loses his mind about uh biden's

SPEAKER_43: quote of regime change which i'll let you end on so actually get your victory lap

SPEAKER_45: but um somebody came for you and said hey listen freeberg basically doesn't know what he's talking about because commodity markets are showing that india and other folks are going to step up and there's

SPEAKER_454: not going to be a problem with famine so can you unpack that for us i will tell you that um we are

SPEAKER_117: already seeing a lot of scrambling happening um for a redundancy in these commodity supply chains and there's a couple of issues um which i highlighted before i'll highlight again number one is just the

SPEAKER_149: ability to export so while there may be product commodity products sitting in these markets getting them on ships out of russia out of ukraine even if sanctions and trade restrictions are lifted and make them available is very difficult because a lot of the carriers are concerned about insurance and liability as they would be forced to go into a port and do a transaction with an entity that they're supposed to not do transactions with so there's a lot of reasons why these ships are not going to port not picking a product and not bringing it to where it needs to go critical risk in africa in the near term so this is an acute problem with respect to transport the next problem is with respect to planting as of this week i'm going to put a couple of links in here and these links um uh nick are not in order with respect to what i'll say um but i'll uh you know i'll kind of put a bunch of these things out here but there is an expectation that we could see up to an 80 percent decline in planted acres in the ukraine and there's a bunch of really good anecdotes in this particular story about how farmers are scared about going out and planting because groans might blow them up and i mean look you're in the middle of a war zone you're not in a rush to go out and plant and so there's a lot of planting that needs to happen in order for us to have you know the expectation of the supply coming out of the field in about six months so that's kind of the second stage of the problem is a large export market for goods coming out of ukraine and russia might be don't you know might we might have a kind of

SPEAKER_296: significant reduction in inventory as the number of acres that are planted goes down and then the third thing that i highlighted before which is absolutely still very true and i have put some data in here that you can all look at is related to the price of fertilizer so fertilizer prices through the roof because nat gas has gone up so ammonia prices have gone up potash exports are prohibited from russia so potash has gone up and so as a result we're seeing fertilizer prices shoot up and in a lot of

SPEAKER_149: countries what i what i've included here uh in this uh particular uh link in the chat and nick on the youtube you can kind of put this on the screen but there's a guy named gary schnicky gary is the ag economist he's like the number one ag economist in the world he's at university illinois everyone reads all his stuff in the industry um this guy breaks everything down uh to unit economics numbers helps people make decisions about what to plant when what the economics are and he highlights the current economics for planting in illinois illinois is the you know largest corn producing state in the u.s and a critical supplier uh of uh of our you know national kind of uh food supply and he points out that you know as of right now um you would have to invest in illinois uh about 810 to have a 243 return on corn because the price of fertilizer has gone so high so you invest 810 you expect to make a little over a thousand and these um uh you know these uh these these are not assuming rent the problem is when you factor in the cost of rent the average rent in illinois 227 so a lot of farmers in illinois rent their land about half two and so for a lot of farmers it's actually uneconomical not just in illinois but around the world now where the cost of the inputs the cost of rent the cost of production exceeds the expected profit coming out of the farm and so farmers are not going to plant and so you know we're seeing kind of a major issue with um with these farmers around the world kind of making planting decisions right now that are informed by upside down economics this is being monitored you know fortunately in the us the usda reported today that it looks like the price of corn is such that a lot of farmers are going to go back and plant soybeans and um we're seeing uh basically a historic planting a survey coming out today that says farmers are in fact going to go out in the field they are in fact going to plant um but this is not true everywhere we don't we haven't done the calculus on it yet but there is a ton of anecdotal support and a ton of survey data that's coming out showing that farmers aren't going to plant the acres that they normally would plant because costs are so high that means there's going to be less production over the next year that means famine hits us in a year um that's a big problem

SPEAKER_137: um sax wants to know why they don't just use doordash or uber eats he's to just order more food if they

SPEAKER_130: can't get this is not what's going through david's mind right now david's mind is david is honing in he's like lebron in the fourth quarter yes there's there's you know a minute left he's like everybody get out of the way give me just iso ball he's gonna do his iso he's about to play clear out clear

SPEAKER_43: out all right here we go one david go all right here we go so uh right as we got off air and i was

SPEAKER_45: defending hey listen you're you're mind reading biden he's never said regime change you got to give him some credit here you're you're taking madman putin's uh you know uh version of events over our own presidents and then 12 hours later i'm on the ski lift and crazy grandpa decides to say for god's sake this man uh referring to putin uh cannot remain in power of course the white house

SPEAKER_26: walk this back but uh go ahead and take your uh victory lap sacks oh my god am i getting an apology

SPEAKER_492: here from jcal too it's not an apology i you know i at the time i was right but you said i was it was

SPEAKER_493: basically pro-putin because of what i said and now you're admitting that i was telling the truth

SPEAKER_45: no i admit that uh biden crazy grandpa said something he shouldn't have said and that maybe

SPEAKER_493: that reflects truly how he feels uh and right that's called so in washington they call that a kinsley

SPEAKER_60: gaff after the new republic editor michael kinsley who said a gaff in washington is when a politician accidentally tells the truth that's what biden did he accidentally told the truth about what the administration policy has been yes and you know you can see this in the fact that look who's playing peacemaker right now in these peace conversations it's been macron from france it's been naftali bender from israel it's been erdogan from turkey it has not been anyone from the united states we've been strangely absent and to the extent we said anything about the peace process it always seems to be us throwing cold water on it so there's been a lot of people you know prominent commentators like neil ferguson who i quoted before and others who have speculated that the united states's goal here is not a rapid resolution to the conflict but rather to protract it in order to make russia bleed in order to destabilize and topple the russian regime i think it was actually quite and the problem with that is this is very dangerous i mean just look at what freeberg just said about the food insecurity that's causing it is very dangerous for us to protract this conflict so that you know famine could be worse the war could spread it could degenerate we could we could get drawn into it somehow we want this thing to be over as quickly as possible and i think it was actually the the biden gaff net net was a very positive thing because they had to walk it back so quickly and and severely and severely that it basically it showed the whole world and you know the media and administration no we really need to end this quickly we can't be dragging this thing out so i think by stating what their clandestine policy was so clearly it forced them to have to disavow it and the only people who were upset at the end of the day were these like neocons like no no no what

SPEAKER_123: biden said is true we should try and topple putin yeah theoretically he should go but not right right now

SPEAKER_60: it's like everybody had to disavow it and that was actually very clarifying for u.s policy because

SPEAKER_95: regime change should not be our goal i think i think the i think the the administration said something the effect of he was speaking as a man as a president i mean let's i mean look can we be

SPEAKER_66: honest about biden i mean they they don't know what he's gonna say next i mean he's his co i i mean i don't mean to you know speak ill of anybody but cognitively this is a huge gap it's a huge mistake we're we're trying to resolve this thing and then you give putin exactly the ammunition he wants oh look it's regime change see and i think what we may have here is two crazy grandpas one that wants to put the ussr back together and one that wants to be the person who ousts putin neither of those is

SPEAKER_168: what the world wants it's a real bummer that we are kind of um on the second stage here just idling

SPEAKER_72: around looking around while these other countries are sort of creating a you know almost like this new

SPEAKER_60: world order around us that's it's about yeah we played our hands right we played our hand very badly because we keep intervening in all these countries where there's no upside i mean i keep talking about it all these wars where we spent trillions and we got nothing out of it you're a peacenik we like it i'm just uh i don't see the pieces i'm a realist first of all i do like peace better than war um but i don't understand the point of going to war when there's no vital american interest that's been jeopardized our security is not jeopardized our economy is not jeopardized in fact us protracting the war is going to jeopardize those things so well i don't get what american policy is designed to achieve or has been designed to achieve for the last 20 years we've just been stumbling around the world making all these like virtue signaling statements about values and then meanwhile we end up like bombing the hell out of these countries well the middle east was for clearly for oil and energy afghanistan let's be honest those were about oil

SPEAKER_48: that was our vital what were we doing they're trying to build a new state a new new sort of

SPEAKER_527: democracy in afghanistan they were it was revenge for 9-11 yeah yeah that was legitimate that was a

SPEAKER_60: legitimate reason to go there which was to get basama bin laden that was the just cause whack but you know what once and and you know what we should have got him at torah bor instead of outsourcing absolute to the locals that was a total screw up huge mistake once that job was done we

SPEAKER_56: should have been out of there absolutely absolutely what a what a misadventure uh what do we have any do you have any thoughts sax on like the end game here because it does seem like putin is getting exhausted and maybe he he gets the win i think we know what the end game is gonna is gonna be it's

SPEAKER_54: it's basically ukraine's gonna be neutral they can't be part of nato they get some security guarantees

SPEAKER_60: from the western exchange for that krimia is part of russia it that's a fait accompli it happened in 2014 and then the last part is what they're really fighting over which is this donbass region where you've got russian ethnic speakers going up against ukrainian far-right nationalists how close and they can't agree well both those sides are willing to fight so that's the issue and look the truth of the matter is but i think it's going to result in some form of independence

David Sacks: for these disputed territories of donetsk and luhansk right i mean and but the reality is the united states of america doesn't have a vital interest 37 days into this is it going to end is it going to

SPEAKER_74: end in under 60. sacks suggested the right approach i think a month ago which is let all of those

SPEAKER_88: people vote just have a plebiscite have a referendum create a create a referendum let them vote let them

SPEAKER_539: be self-deterministic and um that may be the most reasonable middle ground for both sides to say okay

SPEAKER_542: let's give this a shot but yeah if you're right if you could achieve a ceasefire if you could get a ceasefire here worst terrible end this yeah if you could get a ceasefire have the u.n observers come

SPEAKER_60: in administer an election crimea there's no doubt which way crimea would go i don't know what would happen in lujan skirt to nets i think they probably would go independent so let's just do a vote it'll

SPEAKER_520: be about self-determination not appeasement and let's find out that's what we should be pushing for

SPEAKER_545: yeah people getting to vote on their future wow crazy idea i mean it's got to end i mean it's got

SPEAKER_26: to end a month too this is becoming super damaging for putin right i mean these economic sanctions

SPEAKER_54: plus what you see there's a story um that was on msn it's like day 37. do you realize it's going on

SPEAKER_60: putin's approval rating in russia is 83 percent so his approval ratings have gone up we thought not you could say it's fake or whatever but apparently this is a reasonably decent polling operation um this is a poll by levada center an independent pollster in moscow apparently his polling his poll numbers were 69 in january they've gone up look russians will rally around the flag just like what about

SPEAKER_549: the resources and they're suffering in that country and they are suffering but the russians are very

SPEAKER_520: good at suffering jacal this is their national pastime you ever read duskoyevsky yeah no no i don't like to

SPEAKER_553: read war and peace no i don't actually i would much rather watch the next marvel movie or a kurosawa

SPEAKER_60: film i am not interested in yeah listen my whole speech was about the fact that american diplomacy could have prevented this situation last year that's not to say that we caused it it was putin's decision to invade it's his war the bloodshed is on him however more effective diplomacy could have diffused the situation a year ago and we totally blew it we just totally blew it and this is going to hurt us this i mean look this is one of those things that the administration thinks doesn't affect them but you know what when our economy goes into a recession because this is a straw that

SPEAKER_62: breaks the camel's back it voters are going to take it into consideration you know we do we do hire

SPEAKER_141: people in many many industries to do their job and the people that are hired to be diplomats

SPEAKER_148: their job is to be diplomatic and to find compromises all right everybody it's uh time to wrap here uh

SPEAKER_56: some exciting news on the conference front palmer lucky of andrew technologies building weapons and

SPEAKER_45: systems and defensive systems is going to come to the event he's not uh he's a fan of the pod apparently he's a big fan of david sax's so we're going to talk about the military and just as a

SPEAKER_66: general concept um i have a theme i was just going to float by y'all i think a lot of the talks and a lot of the the zeitgeist is around the problem i want to solve so i'd like you all to think about that i think this will be a celebration of people who are trying to solve important problems in the

SPEAKER_45: world so what are you solving for is going to be the i think the theme of the event what are you trying to solve for and so freeberg if you can give uh maybe a little talk chamath david i would be great if the four besties gave a little 15 minute solo talk we're gonna have a lot of these solo talks position hey here's what i'm solving for and then conversations about what we're solving

SPEAKER_141: freeberg do you know dalio you should get dalio i think he'd be great i don't know and captain

SPEAKER_60: what looks like i think kathy wood's coming too but by the way there's a new video that dalio just put out which is like the 45 minute animated documentary version of his book and really good i watched it i watched it too i watched it and i thought it was really great it's all about how empires rise and fall and it's pretty clear that he thinks we're a late stage empire and he talks about a lot of the things that we're talking about on the show and i watched it this week i thought it was

SPEAKER_567: exceptional and then i ordered the book yeah i thought it was really i'm listening i'm halfway

SPEAKER_566: through oh look at you guys coming around you're gonna listen to me you're like you have to watch

SPEAKER_567: it on youtube because his animations are excellent very nice yeah the whole thing is just super it's

SPEAKER_94: very accessible i mean it's incredibly incredibly good highly recommend yeah i mean look i i

SPEAKER_569: agree with you i agree one of you guys get dalio on the thing let's get him yeah so dalia reach out

SPEAKER_27: i know we know you're listening so i think the question to ask dalio is i think he is actually

SPEAKER_60: i think it's fan of the show i think the question to ask dalio is how do you revitalize a late stage

SPEAKER_26: empire that's right that's a good that is the question question can it be done well can it no

SPEAKER_123: can it be done i think it's the real question all in some it may 15 16 17. can is too theoretical i

SPEAKER_162: think it's more how would you do it yeah yeah if it's possible what would the path be

SPEAKER_45: it's gotta be something about building the pie not shrinking it that's for sure uh may 15 16 17 the conference is the 16th and 17 625 of 700 tickets allocated if you'd like to apply for a

SPEAKER_160: scholarship go ahead and do that it's not going to be a bro down the ratio has congrats to you jason for

SPEAKER_94: really pushing uh the diversity and yeah getting a lot of scholarships and women and people of color

SPEAKER_56: it's good thank you really really really um great to see so many people applying if you didn't get a response back for your application you'll get it by april 15th that's going to be when we tell

SPEAKER_45: everybody if they're officially in or out but we have been increasing the ratio it was organically 90 95 percent male female and now it's uh 65 35 so we're really making progress on that front so it's not going to be a bro down sorry sacks it's not going to be a bro down it's going to be

SPEAKER_197: diversity here diversity equals power sacks i hope there's diversity of ideas too yeah okay well there

SPEAKER_26: you have it folks uh for the rain man david sax sultan of science can't wait to see one one-third

SPEAKER_192: of my besties tonight thanks a lot guys yeah i'm showing up i mean you gotta see you're the one over

SPEAKER_580: three well i mean these guys you gotta remember you can these guys would have to you get their drivers

SPEAKER_581: translator well these guys would have to have their drivers nick beep the name yeah these guys would

SPEAKER_26: have to have their drivers drive them 30 minutes and then wait for them outside and then drive them

SPEAKER_225: home after they've drank in five thousand dollars worth of your wine it's it's a little bit overbearing

SPEAKER_72: what are you gonna pour tonight tomorrow uh it'll be some really good stuff uh probably some like

SPEAKER_570: older sasakaya i'm thinking 85s oh but freebird um if you come i can also make some tempeh tempeh it's gonna be the best tempeh and sprout gravioli you've ever had for you it's good for the

SPEAKER_589: family it's good for the planet it's good for the animal what is tempeh it's soybean fermented soybeans

SPEAKER_393: it's delicious you know what can i can i tell you what i what i think yuck oh yuck yeah but i mean

SPEAKER_45: in fairness your chef always makes something exceptional for freebird when it comes to dinner

SPEAKER_469: yeah so it's always you you're always a generous host and your chef is always

SPEAKER_483: so get in a get your get sax's driver and come down send the heli up the marin to grab me

SPEAKER_595: free burgers come come come just get a driver sax when do you land uh late late tonight um

SPEAKER_600: go on tilt come on tilt well um no no no it'll be like 3 a.m or something oh 3 a.m my god

SPEAKER_602: the game's over by then all right see you later besties love you guys bye bye bye bye bye bye

SPEAKER_608: rain man david sacks open source it to the fake love you guys i'm queen of

SPEAKER_618: get merch i'm doing it