SPEAKER_00: Like, Jacob, could you get any closer to the camera? I mean, your face is like right up in it.

SPEAKER_01: We can see your bloodshot eyes. Oh, God.

SPEAKER_00: It's really unbelievable.

SPEAKER_01: 9 a.m. start time is a little rough on Jacob.

SPEAKER_03: A little rough on Jacob.

SPEAKER_02: That's true. I want my second cup of coffee already.

SPEAKER_04: This is a lifestyle choice we may regret.

SPEAKER_11: Hey, everybody.

SPEAKER_14: Hey, everybody. Welcome to another episode of the All In Podcast. It's Saturday morning. It's ridiculously early, but we're taping the show because one of the besties happens to have left. The Continent with us from an undisclosed location, Chamath Palihapitiya.

SPEAKER_16: Are you in a wine cellar or in catacombs?

SPEAKER_15: I am in. I am in. Look at it.

SPEAKER_17: Wait for it. Wait for it. Wow. Were you able to see that or no?

SPEAKER_24: No.

SPEAKER_17: What was that?

SPEAKER_22: Are you in the cathedral somewhere? You mean the ceiling of your room?

SPEAKER_28: It's incredible. You paid for the four walls, and now you can afford the roof. Fantastic. Okay, hold on.

SPEAKER_29: Hold on. Okay, hold on. I'll do a little.

SPEAKER_17: I'll do a little. Let's see if you can just see outside and get a sense of the view. Oh, you can't. Oh, no. It's hard. We can't. We can't. Just pause for a second. Oh, yeah. Oh, there it is. There it is. Oh.

SPEAKER_31: Whoa. Whoa. Bestie lifestyle happening there. Just got to hold it for a second, and then the light. Oh, no. That's my architect.

SPEAKER_33: Hold on. Look at this. Wow.

SPEAKER_34: Oh, gosh. Here. I love how the house is already built, and he's still paying the architect. Yeah. He's like, do me a favor.

SPEAKER_38: This came out great, but can you rip down these four rooms, and then just start over?

SPEAKER_14: All right. Well, we lost Bestie C as he walks around his castle in some European country.

SPEAKER_40: Welcome to Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous.

SPEAKER_44: What time is it there for you?

Chamath Palihapitiya: Well, it's six in the afternoon. Six in the evening. I was in London last week, and holy mackerel, the weather.

SPEAKER_45: If you want to see climate change, spend some time in Europe, because literally day over day, London on the first day I landed was, call it 24 degrees Celsius, so whatever that is, 80, 78, maybe. Beautiful. Literally the next day, it was 62 and raining, and it just kept bouncing back and forth. It is the weirdest thing. And if you're in Europe right now, you just see some of the craziest weather patterns literally day over day, massive thundershowers, then, you know, it's completely normal.

SPEAKER_48: I mean, no wonder everybody here takes climate change so seriously. You actually feel it every day.

SPEAKER_14: And with us as well, David Sachs is here, the rain man himself tearing up the Twitter. We've been off for two weeks, so there's a lot to cover. And of course, the queen of quinoa, chairman of the production board, David Friedberg. Right off the bat, I think we got to go science and get the Friedberg ratio up from the get. Biogen has an Alzheimer's drug that on Monday, the FDA approved. It's the first new treatment for Alzheimer's in almost two decades. And Biogen's drug is not a cure for Alzheimer's, and Friedberg will get into that. It does not reverse the disease's progression, but it does mitigate against it getting worse. Very strange moment in time. The FDA's advisory panel, three members of it, have quit because they didn't want to approve

SPEAKER_53: this drug because it had such a modest efficacy. Three quit, but unanimous vote against approval. Right. So unanimous vote against, then three quit.

SPEAKER_55: And this is, I think, out of 10 or 11 individuals. So this is truly significant. The drug is going to cost $55,000. It still requires brain scans and all this kind of stuff, but it's hope for people's suffering. And so the FDA approved it. Friedberg, tell us on a science basis what we're seeing here. Is what's happening in journalism and social media now happening in science? Or is this some other, you know, search for truth or some other issue?

SPEAKER_57: The Biogen drug that was approved this week is called aducanumab.

SPEAKER_58: Remember, any drug that ends with Mab, M-A-B, means monoclonal antibody. So it's an antibody. And antibodies, you know, as we've talked about in the past, are proteins that can be made by our immune system and proteins that bind to a specific target that then tells your immune system to clear that target out of your body. So that's what monoclonal antibodies do. And we have been using biological drugs, monoclonal antibody drugs for decades now to target specific cells or specific proteins in our body that we can then remove from our body. And that can reverse or change, you know, human health in very significant ways. So this is a, you know, a class of drugs that is very efficacious for having specific outcomes across many disease states. And so years ago, researchers at the University of Zurich were looking at people with Alzheimer's that were having slowly progressive dementia. And they looked at antibodies that they could find in their brain. And they found this antibody that they saw was binding to amyloid plaque. And amyloid plaque is one of the theorized mechanisms by which Alzheimer's progresses. That is, amyloid plaque builds up in your brain, you know, you start to have dysfunction and inflammation and the amyloid plaque kind of may be the driver of Alzheimer's, but that is not proven. So they then, you know, ultimately gave it to a company called NeurImmune who licensed it to Biogen and Biogen started testing it. And they took this antibody that they discovered and they turned it into a, you know, an antibody you can now get injected into your body, goes into your brain. The idea is it binds to amyloid plaque and removes it from your brain. And so theoretically, this should slow down or stop Alzheimer's. But it turns out that as they ran this test across thousands of patients, it didn't have as much of an effect. And in fact, the data across many, many patients showed that it didn't really off of a placebo baseline, meaning people that didn't get the drug versus people that did get the drug, that it wasn't really that different in terms of cognitive scores and tests and all this other stuff. So they abandoned it a few years ago, they kind of got this, they stopped the trial, they had this kind of negative outcome, and, you know, Biogen got beat up for it. And then all of a sudden, they refiled about nine months later with the FDA saying, well, look, when we look at the patients with the highest dosage of the drug, because they gave it in three different doses, so the people that got the most antibodies, this particular group of people had a 23% decline in the progression of their Alzheimer's, which is kind of one way of slicing the data. And, and as a result, they went back to the FDA, and people were like, well, you know, some of the tests don't really show that still, there was some cognitive test results that didn't show that that was the case. And they fought back against and some people were pushing back against it. And we're not sure, no one knows for sure how it all kind of came together at the end. But the FDA ultimately approved this drug. And here's what's challenging about this. You basically will go in, you'll get an injection of this, this antibody, just like you do with many other antibody based therapies, it costs roughly $5 to make antibody therapy, just to be clear. So when you make them five bucks, roughly is the cost, and they're charging $56,000 for this treatment. So that's problem one in the pharmaceutical kind of debate is should we be charging the, you know, the quality of life premium? And then number two, yeah, and then part, you know, the kind of second issue is, like, should this thing have been approved when it wasn't really that efficacious, and you could slice the data slightly. And now all payers, you know, meaning all people who are insured or the government or whoever it is that's responsible for insurance payments, is ultimately bearing the cost of everyone with Alzheimer's, and there's 15 million people in the United States with Alzheimer's, they're going to raise their hand and say, Oh, my God, anything that gives me any chance or any hope I want to get. But if it costs $56,000, is it really the responsibility of the insurance company and all the payers to give everyone a hope, even if the drug may not work? Now, the downside and the side effects is negligible. There's no risk to taking this drug. So it's all about the cost and the upside. And that that that is the big philosophical debate right now is like, first of all, should we approve drugs like this? Should we allow pharma companies to charge whatever they want, even when the efficacy is very low? And the cost is very low to make this stuff. And how do we ultimately decide what this is a classic risk reward?

SPEAKER_63: Chamath, how do you look at this on a financial basis?

Chamath Palihapitiya: Yeah, let me let me let me give you sort of like a market investing kind of view on this.

SPEAKER_45: Look, I've been taking biotech pretty seriously over the last 18 months, just trying to learn because I think basically, Freeberg in, you know, incepted me with this idea that you have to know it. So here's what's interesting in the setup for what I've learned and putting a little bit of my knowledge together, which is dangerous. But the setup for Alzheimer's is really scary.

SPEAKER_48: If you're black, you're 20% more likely to get it. If you look at the distribution of all

SPEAKER_45: patients, 60% and upwards of, you know, 64, 65% are women. So if you think about the distribution of this disease, it's it's the disease of minorities, and it's the disease of women. Now, that's problematic in and of itself, because if you want to have any form of equality, it seems like this is something that we have to tackle. The second interesting thing as a as a setup to this is every single Alzheimer's drug that's ever gone through the FDA has been rejected and has failed. And what's interesting and the the the more social science around this is, this is also where two of the more infamous insider trading events ever happened was around failed Alzheimer's drug. The first which is less known, but inside baseball is what happened at SAC, which was a huge hedge fund. But the second that's very well known as Martha Stewart, and why she went to jail was around the speculation and the insider trading of the phase three results of an Alzheimer's drug,

SPEAKER_47: which ultimately turned out to fail. It was almost the surest money on Wall Street, which is every time some one of these drugs came to market, you just bet against it, and it would turn out that

SPEAKER_45: these stocks would collapse. So there's the social and market setup. I am super torn. But I think there are some positive points to make on this thing. So but let me give you the negative case. The negative cases, what is the FDA doing approving a drug, where there's no clear evidence that at least the clinical benefits, and it could give families sense of false hope? What are you doing in terms of process, if you have a unanimous vote against approval? So why do you even bother having an FDA advisory committee of outside experts, if they're just going to do what you want, and it could set a precedent where companies can get drugs approved on limited evidence. Now, here's the positive point, which is they may be taking a long term view. And what they could be really doing is creating a market that ultimately incentivizes other folks to come in, where then ultimately, those people are the ones that find the solution, right? Because this biogen drug biogen came out and basically said, we think this is a hundred billion dollar market. So now all of a sudden, you must believe capitalism is going to take hold. And a lot of young startups will say, Well, shit, I should be going after this market as well. And so by going after that, after biogen, then maybe you actually do get to the solution. And just a kind of a little bit of trivia, it turns out that the acting FDA commissioner in 2016, this woman, Janet Woodcock, she was the one that approved a different form of drug in the exact same setup. That one was at 11%, which is basically for Duchenne muscular dystrophy. It had a negative panel vote. She basically said, No, we're going with this, the scientific community reacted similarly back then. But she basically took the view that, you know, you're doing no harm exactly what you

SPEAKER_74: said, Freebrook is a safety says, it's fine. You're doing no harm to the patients by approving this drug. And maybe it might turn out to work in the end. And in that specific case for Duchenne muscular dystrophy, what we see four years later is that now there are a lot more companies focused on finding a solution. And they're pouring a ton of money into R&D. And maybe one of those things will

SPEAKER_48: break through. So I think she could just be running the same playbook here in Alzheimer's, which is important enough that somebody needs to do something. You're saying the economic incentive could drive

SPEAKER_77: further innovation in this space that ultimately could benefit patients more truly than this current

SPEAKER_45: drug. I think so. And I think like, you know what, look, a lot of like, I think, drugs that that are

SPEAKER_74: potential solutions. In many ways, I think what the FDA is doing are two things, which I think are really positive. The first is that they're accelerating their approval timelines, right? So you can have breakthrough approval and innovations. And so you can get to market much, much faster.

SPEAKER_45: The best example is what we've seen in these vaccines. But the second thing is, if you have a

SPEAKER_74: well structured safety study that says that these things are not harmful to humans, then yeah, David, it's basically saying sell a $56,000 drug, there's a $10,000 copay. Now we should talk about that, because that shows how broken Medicare plan B is part B, sorry. But yeah, they're creating $100 billion

SPEAKER_58: market out of nothing. Yeah, but should that be the case, Chamath? Or should it be regulated? Because ultimately, if the regulators are approving the drug and enabling the commercial opportunity, shouldn't the regulators also say, you know what, you can have this commercial opportunity, but you can only charge x, because we're not going to have the taxpayer pay the y.

SPEAKER_87: Or hey, Freeberg, let me ask a really basic question here. Why is there no, you know,

SPEAKER_89: document put out by the FDA saying, here's how we came to this decision in plain English, or is there because I looked for that couldn't find it. In other words, you know, the same way there was a vote, they could say, Hey, listen, we understand the vote, we're overruling it for this reason. And why isn't there an interim step? The FDA is not the FDA is not your doctor,

SPEAKER_58: right? So I think the way things are set up is your doctor is meant to be informed about the panel's review of drugs. And they and there are labels that doctors need to be able to read and understand. And then the doctor's job is to make a decision on treatment for their patients, and make a recommendation to their patients. So ultimately, the FDA is not a consumer organization, the labels that get approved, what the pharmaceutical companies have to say about their drug, all of that stuff is overseen by the regulators of the FDA. And then that is then used by the doctors to make treatment decisions. And they couldn't kick this back and say, listen,

SPEAKER_91: Jason, but couldn't they kick it back and say, we want you to do one more trial or some bridge step

SPEAKER_58: here? Hey, you can do 10,000 people over the next three years. And by the way, and they are going to do continuing studies on aducanumab as it goes into market, they always do that. And they always ask for more data. And they do this continuous review, the FDA is a really strong body, and a really strong regulatory body. And we should all feel kind of pretty well, you know, safe and secure. But but the issue is really, I think the economic question on the other end, which is, they could approve 100 drugs tomorrow. And then what happens to the economics of healthcare, if everyone's allowed to charge any

SPEAKER_96: price they want for any care, if it has even the slightest range of efficacy, we're not going to be

SPEAKER_45: able to afford anything, you know, just to so this is where like, you know, regulatory bodies run, run into each other, because the effort. So Alzheimer's, Alzheimer's is a drug of the old, right? Healthcare expenses are covered by Medicare. And in Medicare, there's a section called Medicare Part B, which effectively is a way for these drugs to go to market. Just so you guys know, under a Medicare Part B plan, a physician gets a 6% kickback of the price of the drug. Your doctor gets 6% of that $57,000. That's a terrible incentive. It's a it's an incredibly bad incentive.

SPEAKER_53: And so $3,000 every time you put somebody on this. It's quite a spiff. It is. And so and so you know,

SPEAKER_74: Medicare Part B has been this mechanism that people have wanted to undo for a long time. Now, if you're sitting in the FDA, you can't change that because that's covered by CMS. Yeah, that's not your that's not your jurisdiction. I think it's like this weird intergovernmental agency warfare push and pull and trying to move the incentives. This all goes back to if Congress can't act, then all these folks have all of these other random tools, they just have to throw the

SPEAKER_103: spaghetti against the wall. And this is the kind of stuff that happens. Because Congress should actually be fixing this in a more substantive holistic way. And until they do it, this is what's gonna happen.

SPEAKER_58: This is no different than what we saw during the pandemic, where we had health regulators coming in, local health regulators, public health officials saying everything shut down, because their incentive is to save lives. Their incentive is not to balance the trade off between saving lives and protecting the people versus the economic damage and the fallout and the cost of it. And there are two different agencies. And ultimately, the synthesis of these decisions isn't being managed by a leader anywhere, or by leading organization anywhere. And that's where things inflate

SPEAKER_55: and get ugly and get nasty over time. Okay, Sachs, as a free as a free market monster, what do you think, Sachs? How would you approach releasing these drugs as a... No,

SPEAKER_14: but you're for less regulation. When you see this regulatory mess of spaghetti and, you know, costs and price gouging, you know, if we take the most cynical look at it. Because 15 million people times $55,000 a year, I'm no genius at math, but my SAT is telling me enough that that's

SPEAKER_110: gonna be... This drug's gonna make what, 10 billion a year, 20 billion a year, something in that range,

SPEAKER_113: if they just get a fraction of those people. So, I mean, I agree with Freeburg and Chamath, that we shouldn't give doctors an incentive to choose one treatment or another, right? I mean, that just seems totally warm. But going to the sort of larger issue of FDA approval, I would make it a little bit easier to get drugs approved. I mean, look, I think that, you know, double blind tests is the gold standard. If the drug clearly doesn't work, you don't approve it. But this is a case where the evidence is a little bit inconclusive. And in a situation like that, where it's a drug that might help people who are facing a deadly disease and, you know, Alzheimer's is one of the worst. It's not only, you know, event, the prognosis is terminal, but it also is deteriorative and it's devastating for patients and their families. These people have nothing to lose. And so, I would let the drug through, I think, and then watch how it performs over the next couple of years. They could always revoke the approval in two years. You know, in other words, almost consider the usage of the drug over the next couple of years as a stage four trial. You know, the one group who's not complaining about this are patients. I mean, Alzheimer's patients want the ability to test this. And generally speaking, I think we should give people who are facing again, a terminal prognosis, the ability to try these drugs.

SPEAKER_115: Yeah, and Freeberg, correct me if I'm wrong, the reason or maybe Chamath, you're better for this,

SPEAKER_55: but just looking at the economics of this taking care of somebody with Alzheimer's, and if you in the starts to hit people at 65, and people start living to 78, 85 years old, they need to have care, a person with Alzheimer's, the issue is not their ongoing maintenance in terms of their brain, it's their day to day life, they cannot be left alone. So they have to be either institutionalized or have home care. And then you're talking about 100,000 a year. And I think Medicare and some other people pay for that. So 55k, if the person can take care of themselves,

SPEAKER_58: That's how pricing is done, Jason. That's exactly right. Is that how they do it? So pricing is typically done based on the long term cost benefit of the, of the drug of the to the to the paying system. So you know, they'll take a look at like, hey, here's how much we're going to benefit people, or benefit the paying system. Therefore, we can charge x dollars for getting this drug. That's why today you can go get a car T therapy or something, you know, some sort of therapy that that that is going to be highly efficacious, and they'll charge you a million dollars or genetic. There's a few that are getting approved now, for genetic diseases. And that, you know, million dollar one time fee, because you get you get the treatment once it costs, you know, technically nothing, the COGS are zero to make this stuff,

SPEAKER_107: you get that treatment, they charge you a million dollars, because the long term care of the progression of that disease is so high, that they can economically rationalize that. And so

SPEAKER_113: is that ethical or moral on the pricing? Can I clarify one thing? So we're talking about it at 56 $6,000 a year, that is true. But it's basically $4,800 per shot, you get a shot once per month, and that costs $4,800. And so you multiply that by 12, and you get to 56,000 number. Now, is $4,800 to get this monthly shot an outrageous amount of money for what could be a breakthrough Alzheimer's treatment? I don't necessarily think so. I mean, that is the sticker price. That's not what

David Sacks: the patient is going to pay, right? The patient's going to pay the $10,000 copay, but divide that by 12, you're going to pay about $850 per month for what could be a breakthrough treatment. I mean, to me, the real issue is whether it works. And since it's, since there are some positive indications, but it's inconclusive, inconclusive, I would say tie goes to the runner here, meaning you can try it,

SPEAKER_123: and let's revisit it in two years and see if it works. But it wasn't a tie as far as scientists were concerned. So what is the disconnect there, Chamath? Because I think what they were looking for,

SPEAKER_45: no, but they were looking for a causal link. And the problem is, at some point along the way, over the last few years, we started with the hypothesis that amyloid plaque was causal of Alzheimer's. And then we moved to a place where there was some correlation. And then we moved to a place where we said, actually, it may not do much of anything. But I actually agree with Sachs,

SPEAKER_74: I think the FDA did something really novel here, which is that they applied an extremely aggressive free market approach to a market that has been completely bereft of solutions. And so if you can create $100 billion market overnight, I think it stands to reason that a lot of people will look at the increase in Biogen's market cap, and the profits that Biogen can make over the next 10 or 15 years and say, I will attack that and do that cheaper, faster, better, it happens in every other market. I think the point here is that it probably shouldn't have been the FDA's role to create competition. But for whatever reason, whether it's how the capital markets and biotechnology are

SPEAKER_45: structured, or the way that you know, Medicare Part B kind of works and creates these odd incentives, we are where we are. And so I tend to think that it's probably better that this drug was approved.

SPEAKER_74: I also agree with Sachs that, in general, I think as long as you have a reasonably defensible safety study, we should probably be in the business of getting more drugs approved faster.

SPEAKER_45: And the reason is that it allows smart, clever, hardworking people to connect the dots in ways

SPEAKER_74: that right now we don't know anything about like just like, you know, a random factoid to prove this point. Like when you look inside, for example, of who wins a Nobel Prize, right, particularly in the

SPEAKER_45: fields of biology and chemistry, etc. You have people that are in their 60s and 70s, that win awards for research done in their 20s and 30s. So clearly, people at some point, when they are somewhat less jaded, you know, and somewhat more naive, maybe have the ability to really transform the world for all

SPEAKER_74: of us. And if you can marry that to economic incentives, so folks that understand the markets can also be along for that ride, that in my mind, I think is generally better than a nanny state of babysitters.

SPEAKER_91: I agree with that point. I think I think that let me frame this to you in a question for you. Of those

SPEAKER_115: scientists on that board, who voted against this, if their parent or spouse, God forbid, were suffering from Alzheimer's, how many of them would take the drug out of this is my point is and it's a point I was

SPEAKER_131: going to make, which is everyone wants that lottery ticket, there's no downside and only upside,

SPEAKER_58: because you're not paying for the lottery ticket. And so the way the system works in terms of paying right now, as a patient, and as a doctor, I have no incentive to manage cost down, right? All I have is opportunity in front of me. And so as we add more opportunities, we give everyone the ability to have a lottery ticket that potentially could cure their disease or could or, you know, make them kind of live forever have a healthier state of being, you know, we are going to see this proliferation of approvals that end up costing all of us so much that the inflation that we've already experienced in terms of paying costs for healthcare continues to climb. So the challenge is like, you know, if we are going to continue to operate a socialized model of medicine, or even partially socialized, where the government's paying some amount of, of the of the premium or employers are paying part of the premium, where the individual that's getting the treatment doesn't bear the cost, you're going to end up seeing everything inflate because you're creating this incentive. Now, companies are going to rush in, they're going to try and get 10 things approved, everyone's going to be taking an Alzheimer's drug in a couple of years, because there's going to be so many available on the market. And none of them may actually be curing Alzheimer's, maybe 10% of people get cured 90% don't, but the cost is going to be millions of dollars, you know, per person for these treatments, and everyone pays it. I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing, you know, we need to have a proliferation of innovation. Certainly, the challenge is in the interim period, the inflation we've already experienced in healthcare, which is just extraordinary, will continue to climb. If you know, we don't regulate the actual market for pricing on these things. And on the other side, we pay all the bills, or there's some socialized pool to pay all the bills,

SPEAKER_118: you can't have it both ways.

SPEAKER_45: I'll give you the other side of the argument as well, which is the reason why this could be so valuable. Again, if you look back to what Jane Lockwood did, Was it muscular dystrophy? Yeah, in Duchenne muscular dystrophy, you know, for Janet Woodcock,

SPEAKER_74: sorry, pardon me, Janet Woodcock. But if you if you know anybody whose child has Duchenne muscular dystrophy, my gosh, what an incredibly debilitating disease, you would not want anybody in the world to have it. And again, by approving that drug, what she did, I think is something pretty incredible,

SPEAKER_45: because now there are the number of companies that have, again, come after that market opportunity, because she helped define a market, four of them are already public, just to give you a sense of it. And there, you know, and so the odds, at least numerically, are greater today than they were four years ago. And that was a, you know, potentially non efficacious drug that that frankly, though,

SPEAKER_136: had a had a legitimate safety study. To your guests, Chamath and Friedberg, 10 out of 10 of those

SPEAKER_137: people on the FDA board would have a spouse or a loved one take it because there's no downside. If you look at Biogen's market cap, just to wrap up here, they added $20 billion in market cap in the five days since you know, this announcement happened. So in terms of incentives, you got to

SPEAKER_55: think every other drug company is saying, hey, I've got something that kind of sort of works, and it's really expensive. Can I get a free ticket now? Can I do this compassion?

SPEAKER_139: Hopefully, it's just the former thing kind of sort of works. And then you know,

SPEAKER_55: yeah, they go from there. Alright, moving on to our next topic, Bezos has decided that he will be

SPEAKER_137: the first billionaire in space. Three people are going to be going to space in quotes, on an 11 minute flight on July 20 2021. Jeff Bezos in a promotional video on his Instagram, sprung this on his best friend, his bestie, his brother Mark, who agreed to go with him. And there's bidding of $3 million, I guess, to up to 4.8. Oh, my God, 4.8. Now on Blue Origin site. And just doing back of the envelope math, which I which I did last week when I heard this announcement, 600 people or so have gone to space, some of them have gone multiple times, Blue Origin's done 20

SPEAKER_145: some odd flights, two of which went south and probably would have resulted in death. So I think five to 10% of Blue Origin's fight flights would have killed. So if you have been on them, but obviously, they've made progress since then two of the 120 plus flights that SpaceX have done,

SPEAKER_137: but none in the last six years have had an accident. And obviously, Virgin Galactic had one tragic accident as well. So is this a wise idea? And where would we put the percentage risk of ruin slash

SPEAKER_148: fatality? I just I just want to I just want to do statistics for a second, Jason? Sure. Yeah.

SPEAKER_58: Just because there were Blue Origin accidents in the past doesn't necessarily mean that it has any bearing in predicting the future likelihood of there being an accident. Because the data from the past is from different machines and different techniques and different processes. So I don't think you know, to your tweet and the controversy with your tweet and, you know, your point now, I don't think you can

SPEAKER_107: necessarily look at the past. This is much more of a kind of deterministic conversation about like, hey, look, here are the things we have done with our systems. And here's why we have a high confidence in this thing, you know, kind of working, which is obviously why people don't go on the first

SPEAKER_152: 50 rockets or first 20 rockets, whatever it happens to be. But statistically, it's not zero. So I guess

SPEAKER_14: the question is, is this a wise move? And where would you actually put the odds at? But it could it

SPEAKER_155: could very well be zero now. Could Yeah, you don't know, right? We don't know how well their safety

SPEAKER_58: systems have been developed. And we don't know how you know that I don't know anything about this. But I'm pretty sure that if Bezos is go, he's a pretty smart guy, he's not going in anything

SPEAKER_107: that's going to have some high, some some even nominal likelihood of death, right? Like

SPEAKER_74: And he knows probabilities. And he's been there in the last 15 test flights, and he's seen the data,

SPEAKER_45: and he's probably seen a string of nominal flights. And at some point, you just feel like,

SPEAKER_158: you know, okay, this is this is really dialed in here.

SPEAKER_77: My prediction is Bezos is going to come back, and he's going to announce that he's going to be the CEO of Blue Origin. I think this is what he's going all in on Blue Origin.

SPEAKER_107: I think this is what he wants to do with the rest of his life. I think it's been pretty clear that this is such a passion for him. And like, you know, he's, he's got the world's greatest money machine ever. It's a flywheel, it'll run as a monopoly for decades, he can do whatever he wants to do now. And so when he takes a look at this, what's greater after you've conquered Earth, then leaving Earth and moving on. So to me, this seems to be so intellectually interesting to him. And and so kind of existentially interesting. My guess is he goes in full time on Blue Origin, now that he's kind of transitioned to the chairman role, and he's kind of been pretty public about it.

SPEAKER_55: 100%. 100%. David, you're conservative and typically very scared of anything dangerous.

SPEAKER_113: Well, I'll give Bezos credit for dogfooding his own product. But to me, I would take a contrarian view overall. You know, I think sometimes people get so rich and so powerful that there's nobody around them to tell them when they have a bad idea. And quite frankly, I think this is a brain fart that the

SPEAKER_167: people around him are telling him smells like perfume. And they should be telling him, dude,

SPEAKER_171: what are you thinking? You know, if, if J. Cowell said to me he was going up on a rocket, I'd be like, dude, you got at least 30 good years here. You know, Bezos.

SPEAKER_173: Don't screw up the podcast. We need the host.

SPEAKER_176: We need you down here. What are you thinking? Bezos has got like 170 billion after the divorce. He's still a young guy and he's going to risk it to go up in space for like three minutes.

David Sacks: I mean, now, yeah, they, this is the, they have sent the crash test dummy up there successfully 15 times, but this is the first manned flight, the first flight with humans on it. He's determined to be on

SPEAKER_176: it. If I were his advisor, I would say, put a GoPro on the head of the crash test dummy and experience

SPEAKER_179: it in virtual reality. Exactly. What are you thinking? Yeah. I mean, if this was a stunt that,

SPEAKER_14: you know, Richard Branson did early in his career, remember he did the ballooning things and he was trying to become a billionaire and trying to get excitement around his brand. But I think this is totally unnecessary and it is not, the risk of ruin here is not zero. It might be close to zero, but it's definitely not zero. I mean, well, now Branson's trying to beat Bezos into space.

SPEAKER_113: So he's announced he's going to go up too. And, you know, so these guys are both, um, being daredevil.

SPEAKER_57: Is he going up on the, um, uh, galactic, uh, Chamath? What's he, how's he going up to space?

SPEAKER_187: Is that a virgin galactic flight? What do you want me to tell you? Of course I'm here. I'm also chairman of the board. What do you want me to tell you? Wait a second, you have a company here on the

SPEAKER_131: board of that does space flight. I didn't know if it wasn't public. Is it, you're saying, sorry,

SPEAKER_74: did you say it was a public thing? Of course. No, I said it, Virgin Galactic is a public company of which I'm chairman of said board of directors. I'm not saying anything about anything. Branson is

David Sacks: trying to beat Bezos into space by going up before him. There is now a space race going on and you have to wonder. And then meanwhile, Elon, I wonder how much of this is because of Bezos's

SPEAKER_176: pride because Elon tweeted that Bezos couldn't get it up because his rocket, Bezos's rocket is only Doesn't go to actual space. Yeah. It goes to like suborbital, like low earth orbit, you know,

SPEAKER_197: SpaceX gets it halfway up. I think he's somewhere in the 50 to 70 range. I think if he had a little

SPEAKER_202: blue pill, blue origin, if he got the little blue origin pill, he might get to a hundred percent. How great is this space race? By the way, this is so frigging cool, right? I mean, like

SPEAKER_58: the government is pretty amazing. I mean, the government creates all these great contract incentives. This is, this is a good role for government, right? They come in, they create all these contract incentives. SpaceX been making all this money from the US government. And then they take that money and they invest in creating the space race, this industry that, you know, could absolutely transform humanity for the centuries to come. It really speaks to kind of like how semiconductors and computing came out of the space race of the mid 20th century. And we could see this not kind of like next industrial age arise for the space industrial age. Because of these incentives that have been created by the government, it seems to me like there's a good role here, the government's

SPEAKER_119: played and this is super, super cool. Isn't this in stark contrast to the government doing the space shuttle program, which if you look at the fatalities, there have been

SPEAKER_137: about 30 fatalities in going to space, 14 of which were on the two shuttles, one that tragically blew

SPEAKER_206: up on the way up and one that disintegrated on the way down in our childhoods in the eighties,

SPEAKER_113: I believe for most. And it was also incredibly expensive. Look, this is privatization for the win, right? Instead of having the government doing all the R and D and the government is good at some things, but R and D is not one of them. So you, you let the private sector do the R and D and then NASA's contracting with these private sector companies. The government is a phenomenal balance

SPEAKER_77: sheet. Yeah. Sachs, how do you feel about the government funding this work, right? Because

SPEAKER_58: they're not doing the work, but it's the taxpayers money that's going to SpaceX and others for contract services that ultimately fuels this innovation engine. Do you feel like this is a good role for

SPEAKER_113: government spending is to kind of the question, the question for government as a policy matter is whether we want to go to space. And then the question is, how do we get there? I definitely believe that if we believe it's important to have a space station, to get to space, to kind of advance the frontiers of, you know, humankind, then, then, then it's, it's a worthy program to fund. And then the question is, well, how do you get there? And I think, you know, funding SpaceX and these, or it's not funding, it's contracts with SpaceX to deliver the product is a much better idea than having the government trying to develop it itself.

SPEAKER_89: Right. Because those are milestone based with some level of competition, even if people might complain about the bidding process, et cetera, the contract is for a duration of time and for deliverables. If the deliverables are not met or the contract expires, then we start the whole process over again. And this, correct me if I'm wrong, is a must do for us because we cannot let the communists and authoritarians own space. We have no choice being the democratic west of owning space and getting there before them and dominating space.

SPEAKER_217: Nobody can own space, but I think the United States is an incredible balance sheet.

SPEAKER_89: Nobody can own space. I mean, are you kidding me? What if somebody gets up there who decides to put nuclear missiles up there and decides anybody else who puts satellites up there, we're going to just nuke them and laser them. You're not going to own it.

David Sacks: You don't even need a nuke. Quite frankly, you could drop a tungsten rod from space. Okay. Just

SPEAKER_113: like a giant steel rod. And by the time it hits the ground, it's going so fast that it basically can blow up or assassinate anybody. I mean, what the hell are the two of you? I mean, have the two

SPEAKER_226: of you become? No, this is real. Like the two of you are like that, like B Arthur and the Golden

SPEAKER_228: Girls. Jesus Christ. We're like the guys in the Muppets on the balcony. Ru McClan and B Arthur here blathering on. No, the military applications of space are very important. Have you not seen the

SPEAKER_110: South China Seas? Have you not seen the Chinese putting rockets over Taiwan in military exercises?

SPEAKER_101: These people are not playing games. Jason, I understand. Nobody, all I'm saying is,

SPEAKER_45: there's no owning it. Okay. It's too vast. It's effectively infinite. You can't own it. Okay.

David Friedberg: You can have certain areas. You can dominate it. Of course you can dominate space.

SPEAKER_235: And they don't play by the rules. I mean, did you guys not see what happened with Hitler and

SPEAKER_74: Europe? He dominated Europe for a number of years. Jason, listen, of all parts of space that you can

SPEAKER_123: dominate, maybe the one planet is Uranus. Other than that, there's nothing. You guys are so naive about the intentions of Russia and China. It is phenomenal. They have 100 year plans to dominate

SPEAKER_89: humanity. And they are willing to put millions of people into concentration camps. They have no problem going to space and deciding we're going to own the satellites, and we're going to knock

SPEAKER_148: other satellites out of the sky. I can't believe you were so anti-Trump.

SPEAKER_192: It's unbelievable. You're so funny. Can I just say one thing? I think back to what we said before,

SPEAKER_45: the US is an incredible balance sheet. And what Friedberg said is so true, which is like coming out of the Apollo program, we really created so much technological innovation, it propelled the US forward. We unfortunately gave a lot of it up. But hopefully this time around, we can do it again. And by the way, just last week, I guess it was, I guess it was last week, or a month ago, you know, where we got that chips act in play, which is a quarter trillion dollars, you know, for semiconductors and other things. So we're slowly getting there. But this is where the US

SPEAKER_47: can do a lot of good, which is just to act as a funding source, and then let private markets kind

SPEAKER_58: of take over the restaurant. By the way, we've talked about this on the past couple of podcasts, but there is, I think $90 billion earmarked in this new bill for enabling American manufacturing progress. And so it will be through a similar sort of funding mechanism, it looks like,

SPEAKER_107: as what we're seeing here, it could be a fantastic boon for innovation and infrastructure.

SPEAKER_247: Yeah, I was trying to say, what other categories should we model this after SAC? Should we do this for nuclear? Should we do it for education, for housing?

SPEAKER_113: Before we move on, I mean, look, Jake, I want to come to your defense on this point, because I think it's, it's, because I think it's just wrong to say that there aren't, like, vast and important military applications of space. The fact of the matter is,

David Sacks: you look at the history of warfare, it's critical to have the high ground. Whoever has the high

SPEAKER_113: ground ultimately wins the war. This is why the first thing we do, oh, the Greeks, the Greeks had

SPEAKER_252: the high ground. Yeah, we always have the high ground, not Olympics. Says the guy that's five foot three. Says the guy that's five foot three.

SPEAKER_255: No, you should see me with a spear. You haven't seen me with a spear and a shield or a mace.

SPEAKER_113: Let me finish the point. The first thing we do in a war or a conflict is establish total air

David Sacks: superiority. It's the reason why our infantry doesn't take massive losses. Um, it's, you know, we want to establish, you know, artillery, um, that, that sort of protects the infantry. Look, the future artillery is going to be from space. It is the ultimate high ground. Uh, it is, I agree with Jake. It's naive to think that the other side, that the other powers are not pursuing military

SPEAKER_113: applications. We have to have the ability to defend ourselves against space-based attacks and to have those, those abilities ourselves, those capabilities. And so that is part of what's

SPEAKER_259: factoring in here with the space. I get it. I get it. I know what you guys want. A giant laser.

SPEAKER_262: You want a giant laser in space? I don't, I don't think it has to be a laser. I think it can be low tech, you know? Well, I mean, just, if you just literally shot ball bearings at other satellites,

SPEAKER_91: it would rip through them, right? I mean, the tungsten rock program is an actual program,

SPEAKER_148: right? Yeah. Yeah. It's a funded military program. Oh my God. By the time you, if you drop something

SPEAKER_223: from space, it hits the ground at like Mach 35. Phil Helmuth has invaded our podcast and taken the

SPEAKER_14: body of David. No, but in all seriousness, this, um, program that we're seeing great success with inspiring the greatest, you know, entrepreneurs of our time to go after big prizes like this. Could we not do this with nuclear energy, housing and education? Or is that kind of out of the

SPEAKER_58: question? What do you think? Let me just point out, by the way, the things you just pointed out are the things that are now most regulated. And it's the regulatory burden, which ultimately stifles innovation. Whereas in this case, we're enabling innovation without putting a lot of regulatory burden on space at this stage, right? And so as soon as I tar, which is one of these regulatory bodies starts to step in and maybe we start to limit things that can be done in space and so on and so forth, you may see things kind of get damaged like nuclear energy got damaged because the fear of the downside ends up, um, you know, kind of, uh, counterbalancing the opportunity of the upside. And it's something we've seen time and time again with every innovation cycle in every industry. Um, and it, you know, you're right, right now we're in this opportunistic moment in the space race, but as soon as kind of the regulatory burden becomes heavy, you're, you're going to see the same thing that happened with housing, the same thing that happened with nuclear energy and all the

SPEAKER_107: other kind of innovation cycles that, that, that kind of got stifled, uh, not just in the US, but

SPEAKER_278: globally. Yeah. So we don't think for nuclear, we'll see this happening anytime soon, man, that would

SPEAKER_279: be an incredible, uh, nobody, nobody wants nuclear. If there's a huge NIMBY problem with nuclear, right?

SPEAKER_113: Which is who really wants a nuclear power plant in their backyard. I mean, not going to happen. I don't think it's realistic. It's, it's one of these ideas that, you know, sounds great in theory, but then in practice, no one's willing to raise their hand and say, I want that in my city.

SPEAKER_63: I have a really easy solution for that. Why don't you just make anybody who has to live within X zone of a nuclear power plant have a tax credit of a million dollars a year.

SPEAKER_113: They still don't want it. Look, I think the future of alternative energy is solar. Um, it's, it's an inexhaustible supply. The cost of solar panels keeps going down exponentially.

David Sacks: The cost curve is going down exponentially and look, ultimately all life on this planet is solar

SPEAKER_113: powered, right? Because fossil fuels come from the remains of dead dinosaurs who were eight plants and plants are solar powered. So ultimately the sun is the ultimate source of energy, not wind, not nuclear, not windmills. Well, geothermal, it's going to be solar. Geothermal capacity is still

SPEAKER_107: like 100 billion years based on our current consumption rate. But there's limited research

SPEAKER_108: relative to the opportunity in general thermal. But yeah, totally agree with you, Sachs.

SPEAKER_152: In a microcosm of, you know, the reopening of the pandemic, we've been at record low caseloads,

SPEAKER_137: and deaths are so low now from COVID-19 in the low hundreds, that it's probably hard to know, Friedberg, you tell me if I'm wrong or right, if people are of those three or 400 people dying a day, that's with COVID from COVID, etc. But anybody, I think it's intellectually correct to say that anybody who over the age of 12 who wants a vaccine could get it and anybody who's in a high risk group, certainly now has had over six months to get a vaccine. So we're basically done. And now the question becomes, what happens to society? Are we going to go back to work? Apple employees wrote a letter about Apple's demand, using air quotes here, that people come back to work three days a week. Amazon just adjusted their return to work policy, backing off their claim of in March that they're going to return to an office centric culture, they announced that employees can do two days remote three days in the office that seems to be the three for two. Google has a similar policy, they're expecting people to return to the office three days a week in September, Twitter said you can work from home forever, because Jack is an introvert and doesn't want to come back to work, I guess. Facebook employees either need approval to continue work from home full time, or they will need to be back in the office 50% of the time. But Zuckerberg personally said that he is embracing remote work. Here's the quote, I found that working remotely has given me more space for long term thinking and helped me spend more time with my family, which has made me happier and more productive at work, which I guess is either devastating for real estate or this is a great negotiation that's going on. You had some choice quotes about Apple employees doing three

SPEAKER_284: letters slash petitions in three weeks.

SPEAKER_167: Yeah, so look, I don't have a problem with the work from home policy. My problem is with the fact

SPEAKER_113: that the Apple employees keep doing what they do, which is sign these petitions. And of course, it's all the snowflake language around, we're not being listened to, we're not being heard, you know, and then they want to dictate to management, the way that the company should work. And so they've circulated petitions to get other employees fired. They circulated petitions to make Tim Cook take a

David Sacks: stance against Israel. Now they're circulating petition on work from home. And of course, that is what Apple employees do. And Apple management is doing what it seems to do, which is cave to these petitions every time. And so they're in an infinite loop where the employees have realized they can run the company by forming these sort of boycotts and petition mobs. And it's working. Now, again, my objection is not to work from home. Most of my portfolio companies are now working from home or fully distributed. They're hiring employees everywhere. It's been very liberating for them to be able to hire talent anywhere in the world. And so I think the work from home question, the reason why these big companies are struggling with it, I think, quite frankly, is this because it's about their ability to supervise their employees. I think that work from home makes the best employees better, but it allows the worst employees to hide.

SPEAKER_176: And I think what this really comes down to is a fear on the part of Apple and Google and Facebook. They've got thousands of employees who aren't really working and are going to be able to completely hide. And I think that's what this policy comes down to.

SPEAKER_290: So that's a failure of management or just the nature of work from home?

David Sacks: It is the nature of these gigantic companies where they've got so many employees that they're trying to figure out how to supervise them all and make sure they're actually doing work. There's this funny tweet that's going around. I don't know if it's true or not, but it got retweeted about somebody saying that I've gotten six jobs during the pandemic. They're all work from home and I'm waiting to get fired from them for, you know, people realizing I'm not doing anything. And so I think this work from home controversy

SPEAKER_113: ultimately is about the ability of these large companies to supervise a workforce that they don't know what they're doing, if anything.

SPEAKER_293: Oh my God, what a brilliant idea.

SPEAKER_97: The big on-star problem in the pandemic with respect to work from home is how do you onboard new people?

SPEAKER_45: In my opinion, like if you have an established company with established people where everybody knows each other, it seems like all positive to be able to work from home because there's trust, there's decorum, there's social norms, there's all these things that were established together.

Chamath Palihapitiya: But what happens when all of a sudden you introduce 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 500 new people into the mix?

SPEAKER_45: How do you onboard these folks? How do you get? And I think that's not a solved problem. And until you do that, I'm not sure that work from home will be as effective as it can be because I think you'll just get a lot of people that, that languish a little bit as they switch jobs. Now, maybe what that means is they'll switch jobs less because they'll just say, actually, this is net better. My crappy job got a little bit better. So there's no reason to move. On your point of commercial real estate, Jake, I actually think it just brings the utilization down, but I'm not sure it destroys it because I think people need the physical plant. Now, maybe over time, they'll get much smarter about getting smaller spaces and having flex spaces. So like things like we work do better. Because then you use that for

SPEAKER_97: overflow space, or that's how you how you actually have a primary outfit. But yeah, those are my

SPEAKER_131: thoughts. Freberg any thoughts? I think it's gonna be hard to what I'm hearing. I don't know if you guys have talked to a lot of CEOs, but I just hear it's kind of a little bit tough right now to find the

SPEAKER_58: balance of the rules around when to be in work because people have meetings in the office, they'll have a meeting 80% of the people will show up to the meeting 20% will be remote. And then it's a huge headache for everyone to be like, Okay, we're all in the room. We're all having a conversation. Now we got to zoom the people in that aren't here. And this person decided not to show up today. And it's kind of become a little bit of a weird photo or what's the right word? So pop to come into like, Fox po right to not come into work while everyone else is meeting in person. And it's just becoming a little bit of a conflict across the organization right now. There's gonna it's gonna be sticky for a while. I'm not sure there's gonna be a great solution. And it's gonna vary by company. Also,

SPEAKER_78: it's very different. As you guys know, when you know, when I was single in my early 20s working at

SPEAKER_131: Google, Oh, here it comes. Oh, well, no, it was like it was it was going to work was like, it's cool. Here's like, No, it was like, it was cool. Like it was a it was great to go to campus every day.

SPEAKER_58: Now that I'm married with kids, you know, like being with being around your kids more often, you got obligations at home, it's very different, right? Your priorities change. And so when you have a diversity in the workforce of people with different home lives, and so on,

Chamath Palihapitiya: what if you're married, but you don't know and you have kids, but you can't remember their names, David Overdue sucks.

SPEAKER_55: I mean, but at that moment in time, correct me if I'm wrong, Friedberg, you know, Google was taking

SPEAKER_137: people out of Stanford, Harvard, MIT, whatever. And they were basically giving them another four

SPEAKER_131: years in college with this like college campus experience. It was fun. A friggin barista made your coffees. Anytime you want a coffee, you walk over to a counter. And there's a barista and he makes you whatever you want. You get all these amazing snacks and you go, you go down the slide to your

SPEAKER_167: meeting. When you say it was great experience, do you mean that it was like fun for the employees? Like it was like a fun life experience? Or do you mean they actually got good work experience?

SPEAKER_318: Fun life experience. Yeah, yeah.

SPEAKER_167: It was like useless. It was useless from like a skills or like resume, like from a from building your career. It was useless, right?

SPEAKER_58: Well, the work itself was useful, at least for me, at least at that era at Google, when it was a private company. I love that work. It was an incredible experience for me. I made a lot of

SPEAKER_107: friends and built incredible career experience working at Google when it was a private company.

David Sacks: But what about now? I mean, Google has this reputation that there's thousands of employees not doing anything. It was satirized by the employees sitting on the roof of the show, Silicon Valley, Hulu. Yeah, exactly.

SPEAKER_167: Hulu. Yeah. So look, I mean, instead of sitting on the roof, they're going to be sitting on their couch at home. You know, I guess it's an improvement. But I think that's really what

David Sacks: it comes down to. What Facebook said in its statement was kind of interesting. There was a part in there where they kind of implied that work from home would be like a perk, you know, and that high performers would get it. Right. And then low performers would have to come into the office more. And that probably is the right approach because in order to let people work from home, you have to trust them to be much more self-motivated to get their work done. And quite frankly, the employees who want to hide,

SPEAKER_176: you got to make those people come into the office. You can supervise them.

SPEAKER_324: It's like in jail where the good inmates get their own self.

SPEAKER_202: Totally. Yeah, exactly. Absolutely. If you get time in the yard, you get visits, conjugal visits.

SPEAKER_58: If you're running a 500 to 1000 employee SaaS company based in Silicon Valley with offices around the country or whatever, what would you do right now? What would your work from home policy be today?

SPEAKER_113: Well, most of my companies that are in that position are going fully remote, fully distributed. And it is, and there are going to be some challenges to be sure, but I just think it's inevitable. Now, some of them, I do think there is a strong cultural advantage. We've talked about

David Sacks: this before. Chamath has made this point around having everyone in the same office or at least having hubs. So I am a fan of developing hubs. You might have like an engineering hub somewhere that, you know, and then you've got some remote engineers. You might have like a customer service hub. I do think that like call centers, for example, you're much better off having everybody work from the same call center. Totally. Because that is like a total productivity job where it's about like how many units of work can you do within a certain amount of time? It's way easier to measure and manage that work when it's all happening in one place. And those call centers tend to be in locations that aren't as expensive as the Bay Area. At Metro Mile, we have a big

SPEAKER_58: customer service and claim center in Tempe, Arizona. And we have gone fully remote since the pandemic and productivity per unit per employees gone up since going distributed because it turns out that, you know, I'm not, I'm not going to pine too deeply on this. But, you know, the throughput increases when people are kind of maybe not being distracted in the office or something. So you can actually track it and that's a very measurable job, right? So the throughput and

SPEAKER_107: everything can be measured. So I would kind of make a counterpoint there that maybe we're seeing

David Sacks: something different. Yeah. I mean, look, you may be, you may be right about that. I mean, it all comes down to do you have the ability, do you have systems that can manage the sort of sprawl? And if you do, I mean, and you can really measure the output, and you can ensure the employees are delivering results. That's a win win.

SPEAKER_333: I created a super lightweight version of this, um, where since Slack is so dominant,

SPEAKER_137: I just tell people you need to have a start and end to the day so you can like get on with your personal life. Just at the start of the day, do an SOD, uh, in Slack and the general channel, you just say two or three bullet points of what you're working on today. And then at the end of the day, reply to that same one with your EOD, just what you got done today, and then inform your employees, and then you don't need to be managed. So if you can do that for five minutes at the

SPEAKER_145: start of the day, and just five minutes into the day, and then on Friday, before you leave for the and close up the week, give me an EOW of what you got done this week. And then on Saturdays, like today, when we're taping this, I go through, have a cup of coffee, read all the EOWs and I get feedback. And it has made it so clear who's a contributor in the company and who's not. And when I, I instituted this pre pandemic, and I had two people quit because they were like, I don't want to do it. And it turned out that those people were the lowest performers. I think you should call it a TPS report. It, you know, I would, you could frame it as such like micromanaging. And I said, you can either frame this as micromanaging, or you're setting an intention of what you're going to do in your workout. And then you record what you did in your workout. Since I started using the tonal system. And since I started using hydro, I'm not advertising them here, but they both have measurements. And I, I did 6500 pounds on the tonal. And I'm like, I want to break that record this weekend, I want to do 7000 pounds, I want to do five exercises. And I went from doing three exercises, three reps to five exercises, four reps, and if I want to measure it,

SPEAKER_237: if I if I do slash apple slices into slack, do I get apple slices?

SPEAKER_201: Absolutely, we will bring you, you can also pick milk or chocolate milk or strawberry milk.

SPEAKER_45: What do you what did you guys think of that's press release that Salesforce sent out, which said something to the effect of like, they are becoming an entirely slack centric company, they're going to

SPEAKER_47: rebuild, I guess, the entire architecture of SFDC around or Salesforce around,

SPEAKER_341: Of course, we predicted that on the show, slack is going to be the re they're going to rename

SPEAKER_47: Salesforce slack. No, but I don't really understand what that meant, other than the actual headline of the statement. I'm wondering if you guys understand what it means?

SPEAKER_113: Well, I think I understand what Benioff is getting at, which I saw an interview that he did recently, where he talked about their quarterly results, which I guess were their best ever, it was like a fabulous quarter for them. What he talked about Benioff is very good at connecting his products to larger societal trends. And the big trend that he's kind of hooking on to is this distributed work trend. And the way he described it is is, you know, basically, this is the future companies are trying to figure it out. But they need a saddle. Because I guess this this is a trend that could sort of buck them off the horse. And he's trying to say that slack is going to be the thing that anchors your company now for this new era of remote distributed work. I think it's kind of brilliant

SPEAKER_343: marketing. Brilliant. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, they're brilliant. They're there.

SPEAKER_45: He's absolutely brilliant. He has built such an incredible organization. I mean,

SPEAKER_158: the scale of Salesforce. Over these last 20 years, my gosh, he is he is a star star of stars.

SPEAKER_348: I mean, in I sent you guys in the slack the or I sent you guys in the chat, this socket site.com,

SPEAKER_137: which is a cool real estate site for San Francisco that's been around for two decades. I think it's hilarious. They calculate how much open office space by how many Salesforce towers are empty in and it's 16 million of square feet of vacant office space now spread across San Francisco. This seems to me at the same time, we're having a crazy housing crisis. I don't know if you're

SPEAKER_145: monitoring this. But it turns out that banks and hedge funds and now Redfin and, you know, Opendoor and all these companies are buying homes, homes are getting bid up at the same time mortgage

SPEAKER_137: mortgages are an all time low, and people are moving around and we're not constructing. So I think we had a 60 or 70% decline in new housing being released into the market. And now we've got a

SPEAKER_45: full blown housing crisis in the country. I'm going to go back out of a limb and put up my 10 year break even I think this whole inflation thing is a head fake. And I think that the right now we're in this weird position where the home builders are not necessarily sure whether they're going to rip in the capital necessary to build a bunch of homes. The reason they would slow down is if they think that inflation is coming rates go up mortgage rates go up, and then demand falls off. But if it turns out to be a head fake, the builders will then actually build what's necessary, and they have the capital capacity to do it. But I don't think that they've had the economic justification and the courage to do it. And in fairness to them, it's because the 10 year break even has gone straight up since the depths of the pandemic, which is essentially, again, just to, you know, get everybody up to speed. It's how the market thinks about the future forward inflation rate. Anyways, over the last three or four months or three or four weeks, sorry, since we talked about it, it's kind of steadily started to fall off. And I think there's a prevailing sentiment that, you know, we're going to see some short term spikes we saw this past week in CPI energy went bananas, right? The cost of energy, the cost of certain things. But then we're going to get back to normal. And when we get back to normal, inflation will be okay. And I think Jason, that's probably a solution because it gets, you know, if that if that boogeyman is actually not real, and we put it away, then the builders will be back in size, and they'll green light a lot of projects. And I think you'll see housing supply kick back up really aggressively. That'll be good for us.

SPEAKER_279: Yeah, two points there. I think one it so I hope Chamath is right about the long term inflation

SPEAKER_113: prognosis. It's been, you know, it's very important for investment in growth companies, growth stocks, and high tech companies that the inflation, the long term interest rate remains low. So I hope you're right. I think that ultimately, what's happening is there's a battle going on between sort of fiscal monetary policy coming out of Washington, which is highly inflationary, and then technological deflation. So for the last 25 years, because we've had this explosion of productivity around technology, it's driven down the prices of pretty much everything that's not where the prices aren't set by the government. So healthcare, universities, things like that, the prices have gone up because the government's paying for it, everything else, the prices come down massively. So we've, we were kind of in this battle between sort of government inflation and technological deflation. I don't know which one's going to win. I do think that the sort of the, the policies we're seeing, creating a lot of government debt, and the Fed continuing on this never ending QE are pretty scary. But in any event, I hope you're right about where this ends up. I think on the, the other point was, um, was sorry, we were on, we're talking about the housing and yeah, the housing. So this is a really interesting sort of populist narrative that's evolving where you've got, I mean, it's, I think both the left and the right can agree that it's a pretty scary thing that

David Sacks: you now have major hedge funds buying up huge stocks of housing in the U S driving up prices. So first time home buyers can't buy a home. I mean, that is a very, uh, scary. It's a nightmare. It's a nightmare trend. And I think you're seeing a reaction to it on the left that California now proposed some new policy where they want the state of California to pay for 50% of first time home buyers houses, which just seems insane to me, but you know, and then on the, on the right, um, Tucker just did a segment coming down, attacking, uh, black rock and these big hedge funds for, for basically for, for, for driving up the prices. So I think you're going to see a unanimity on the populist left and right in reaction to these hedge funds. But the thing that no one's really talking

SPEAKER_176: about that they need to be talking about is the NIMBYism. I mean, Jason, you mentioned it. The reason why we don't have enough housing is because it's too hard to build. And Chamath is right that the builders could get the capital for it, but it is too hard to get these projects approved. That is the thing we've got to, uh, that, that is the change we've got to make to build on that.

SPEAKER_357: I think what's happening now becomes the catalyst to break the NIMBYism. If you all these black rocks

SPEAKER_145: are buying up all the homes, if young people and young families can't buy a home, despite mortgage rates being ridiculously low, and despite them having the money to do it and the desire to do it, then that's going to create a massive societal upheaval, I believe. And then that's going to either drive people to other states, like Texas is benefiting because they're pro development, it's going to catalyze the massive movement of people out of New York, out of California, whatever states are, are giving too much red tape, it's going to drive people to those states, because that's

SPEAKER_137: where the housing people is going to be built, or those states are going to crack under the pressure and say, you know what, we're going to let you build in Sacramento. And you know, you guys know, I'm, I have a housing company in my portfolio. And they are, they are getting absolutely deluge with people

SPEAKER_145: begging them to do affordable housing in different locations. And the biggest problem they're having is sorting through all the projects. And what are we going to do? But the great news is technology

SPEAKER_137: exists now, to build modular homes in factories like Tesla does cars, and ship them to site and take six months to a year out of the construction process. So then it just becomes a matter of regulations and which state decides that they're going to let people buy a home for the first time.

SPEAKER_119: And if California doesn't let people buy a home for a first time, who's going to pay taxes here? Where's the growth going to come from? This is going to be a stall moment, I think

SPEAKER_45: just just, you know, then the other the other really terrible thing about home ownership is that it is where the preponderance of wealth creation for average Americans comes from. And so when you lock people out of home ownership, you're essentially ripping away 60 to 70% of how they're ever going to make real wealth. And so yet again, you exacerbate Jason to your point, the inequality that we have where a few folks make all the money, and then everybody else, they're kind of shut up from the equity market, they're shut up from private investing, and then they're shut up from owning a

SPEAKER_47: home. And no wonder people are pissed, because it's like you throw your hands in the air,

SPEAKER_364: you're literally creating a revolution, you pulled up three ladders at once, you can't invest,

SPEAKER_74: you can tell me how I can tell me how I can just earn some money so that I can pay for my kids to go to college, take a vacation and have a nice life one hour. Tell me how to do it then.

SPEAKER_145: Yeah, because look, just to summarize, government doesn't have a good answer. We're pulling up the ladder of home ownership, we've pulled up the ladder with accredited innovation, you can't invest in private companies, we've made higher education far too expensive, we pulled up that ladder. I mean, what's left for the average citizen to grow their wealth?

David Sacks: This is a crazy thing, we pull up the ladder, and then in response, government creates a program

SPEAKER_113: to subsidize people and bail them out at the end. I mean, it doesn't make any sense. I mean, Mike Solana had a really funny tweet about the California program, which was, it's amazing the lengths to which people will go to avoid building new housing, new supply.

David Sacks: It's like we subsidize home buyers for this artificial price increase we've caused by

SPEAKER_369: limiting the supply. This is like eliminating people's student loans. Just allow supply and demand. Yeah, just make more colleges and make them cheaper.

Chamath Palihapitiya: What do you guys think about this whole ProPublica? Speaking of wealth inequality,

SPEAKER_47: this ProPublica leak of tax records, somebody inside the IRS, or it was hacked, we don't know.

SPEAKER_45: Yeah, this is clearly got a hold of basically 3000. The tax records, many going back many years of 3000 of the wealthiest Americans, and ProPublica has slowly started to digest and, and issue news reports about them. And it shows that you know, in some years, guys like Bezos paid no tax whatsoever, were able to take huge deductions. You know, at one point, actually Bezos in a year where we made, you know, kind of like billion dollars was able to essentially didn't claim he made nothing and then made so little or made negative dollars that he got a $4,000 tax credit that's typically reserved for people. You know, people, people who are your kids. Yeah, it's not meant for billionaires,

SPEAKER_137: essentially. But you know, they, this was a lot that I think the big story here is the leak more than capital gains, how capital gains works. We all know how capital gains work ProPublica has got an agenda. Obviously, this is a left leaning investigative journalism funded by the left and donations. And they do a great job with investigations. But in this case, they're just telling everybody what we already know, which is if you have giant holdings, you can get a loan against them, whether it's you own a home and you can get a mortgage against it or equity line, or if you own a bunch of stock, you can get a margin loan. I mean, it's not really news. I think this is like stirring the pot. And the big news is who released this data. And then you know, there are some countries, I believe Sweden is one of them where tax records are published top level. Yeah, they have to be published. And so I think the way the United States is going is we're going to force people to publish their tax records. And we're going to force some sort of minimum for people with

SPEAKER_55: holdings, aka a wealth tax. And I'm not saying I agree with either of those. But I think that this is the way it's going. And somebody posted to our I'd be in favor of publishing more IRS agents are

SPEAKER_97: coming online. I'd be in favor of publishing tax returns. I have no I think that that's a really good

SPEAKER_45: idea. As a flex mostly. I think it's a really smart thing to do. I think like you would see a lot less shady behavior if you had to publish this stuff. When you publish your tax return,

SPEAKER_78: Chamath, would you do a shirtless holding up your tax return in a mirror and take a selfie and then

SPEAKER_379: that's how you would publish it or listening and sweat more like more like a one tier one tier

SPEAKER_380: rolling down my chin. It should just be a picture of you with a wheelbarrow of cash,

SPEAKER_58: just you dumping it into a furnace. I think I think one thing I'll say is I think these stories have highlighted just an incredible ability to shift the narrative and create a different kind of dialogue around taxation. Because as we all know, the principle of taxation in the United States is that you are taxed on income and income is a recognized gain, meaning when you sell an asset for cash or for some other asset. Then you do a job. Or you do a job and then you get paid, you get that cash that you can now go use to go buy something or to do whatever you want to do with. That is the transaction moment that you get taxed on. And everyone's saying, Well, this guy's a billionaire. He has these billions of dollars. He paid no taxes. He didn't necessarily make billions of dollars of income that year. His stock value may have gone up billions of dollars. But if we all taxed each other when our stock values went up each year, and we didn't get a rebate when our stocks went down, people would feel pretty upset. The average American, the average person would probably feel pretty upset if they got taxed every time their stock portfolio went up. And then they didn't get to have a rebate when their stock portfolio went down. So the principle of taxation is such that when you sell those shares, and you ultimately generate income, that's when you get taxed. But the narrative is very quickly shifting where people are like, Oh, this guy's a billionaire, stated, you know, he didn't pay taxes, they don't say anything about how much income he actually made. And a lot of these guys don't need income, because they have a dollar salary, they pick like, you know, well, they effectively have a credit card. One way to think about it is wealthy people have a credit card, as Chamath pointed out, because they can buy everything on loan, they can buy everything they want on credit, because down the road, everyone knows you guys

SPEAKER_376: have billions of dollars when consumption taxes on those. So if they do take the billion dollar loan,

SPEAKER_324: and you buy houses, you're paying consumption, to be honest with you, it's even more,

SPEAKER_45: it's actually even more perverted. So if you take a loan, and then you use that loan to actually invest, the United States tax law says that all that interest you pay is deductible as well. And so the arbitrage that you find yourself in is if you have a person, yeah, it's like you have these assets, you go to a bank, they'll, they'll lend it against because they want to, you know, what is the bank's job, a bank's job is to generate interest, right? So, you know, they want you to pick fish as customers, right? And so and then and then part of the tax code is that it's tax deductible. And so it's one of these things that I think structurally gets people very confused about what's

SPEAKER_48: right or wrong, but it happens and it happens. Is there any common sense solution sacks?

SPEAKER_113: Well, it's gonna say just keep in mind that when somebody lives on a credit card, like one day that credit card comes to you. And it's not a problem for Bezos, because Amazon stocks just keeps going up and up and up. But you will occasionally hear about some rich person going broke. And the reason

David Sacks: is always that they took on too much debt, and then their stock price went down. And all of a sudden, they owe more than the value of the collateral, and then they're just done. And so yeah, exactly. So you do take a big risk. When you live on margin, you are taking a big risk. Most people don't do that. Most people who have gains will eventually cash out, they'll do that by selling their company, or they'll sell a piece of their stock, they'll have a stock selling plan, and then they pay tax.

SPEAKER_131: Exactly. And I feel I feel like it's really unfair how I look, I don't want to say it's unfair,

SPEAKER_58: because people get really riled up when rich people aren't paying taxes. But it's interesting to me how the narrative has been kind of very quickly reframed without the specificity of the income that was generated by these individuals. And they're just saying, Look, this person has all this wealth, they didn't pay any taxes, without actually recognizing that this person may have had an income generating event earlier in their life, which they did pay taxes on, or they will have an income generating event later in their life, which they will pay taxes on. And so the truth is a little bit more nuanced than I think, you know, the very quick kind of sound by the press stories kind of indicate. And it's, it's just really, it's been it's been really interesting to watch how many people get so riled up and frothy about this moment. And I get that we all you know, everyone kind of dislikes wealthy people. You know, I certainly did when when you know, I was, I had no money,

SPEAKER_131: and I felt like I was getting screwed by this. You certainly did when we started this podcast.

SPEAKER_113: But I think Freeberg raises a great point, which is that with Bezos take for example, and look, by the way, maybe he should be paying more tax in other ways. But with respect to his Amazon stock, he built this machine called Amazon is this machine that makes all of our lives better. For the most part, in terms of the delivery of goods and services, you know, you press a button,

David Sacks: somebody shows up the next day. So he builds this incredible machine, he owns a piece of it. He's merely holding on to his ownership in that machine. But the way that the public market is valuing that machine keeps going up and up and up. But to Freeberg's point, he hasn't recognized more income, he doesn't have more cash in his bank account. And so should he be paying taxes?

SPEAKER_145: And here's the thing, if you change that, if you change the rule, Chamath, correct me if I'm wrong here, and you said, you have to pay on the gain, then somebody who bought a house in 1980, and it appreciated 100 x in California, by the time they were 70, and they bought it in their 30s, they wouldn't get caught up in this wealth tax or paying for it as they go. The appreciation

SPEAKER_45: this mechanism exists now Jason, you said a key thing this mechanism exists at all parts of the tax code. So yes, a billionaire can basically go to JP Morgan or Goldman Sachs or Morgan Stanley,

SPEAKER_47: you know, get a margin loan on their stock and live their life. But individual folks who are not billionaires can do that via a HELOC on their home. And a lot of people do that as well. They take home equity lines of credit, and they use that to forward finance things as well. The difference

SPEAKER_45: is that because the quantums are so much bigger, you have this ability for rich people to accelerate their wealth creation in a way that normal folks don't. So I'll give you another example. So one example that I just spoke about is you basically take a loan instead of selling things, right? You use that to make investments, all of that interest is tax deductible, number one. Number two is, even if you don't need to do that, you can just take a loan on a small percentage of your capital, reinvest that, again, pay the interest, and now you're running implicitly a little bit of leverage. And just to give you a sense of it, there's a really great study by a QR, I think is the name of the hedge fund. And they reverse engineered Buffett's returns. And what they saw was that Buffett ran about 20 to 30% levered his entire career. And the way he did that was synthetically by the float of Geico. The point I'm trying to make is even the best investors in the world prove that a small amount of margin and leverage is the key between being average and being the best in the world. And if that if he needed that, let's be honest, we all need that. And again, we all can't have that. It's only available to a few. And so I'm not saying that the rules are wrong, but the rules do stifle the ability to basically move up and move down that curve. It's clear how often people move down. People get stopped out, they get margined out happens all the time. It's very hard to see examples of people moving up. It's because it's harder and harder to get that first little bit of capital that then you can go and run with.

SPEAKER_137: Yeah, and see, I think the great the great reconciliation is what we need to work on as a society. And if you look at what the great reconciliation would be, it's can I get a great

SPEAKER_145: education? Can I get great healthcare? And can I have a nice home? And if you just said, we're gonna have healthcare for everybody in the United States, very easy to pay. And if you just said we're going to allow the building of single family homes, two or three bedroom homes, and you cannot stop them and any state that tries to stop them is not going to get whatever amount of federal funding. And then finally, we said all trade schools are free. Those are three very simple

SPEAKER_361: things. That's a great idea. By the way, this what a fabulous idea, Jason, I love it.

SPEAKER_182: I reconcile it and charter schools and charter schools and school choice for everybody. Yeah, because that is the number one thing to create a quality of opportunity. The great reconciliation. Those are incredible ideas, guys. And safe communities, because the number one thing kids need is a great education and a safe household. And you cannot have that when and healthcare, you can't have that when gun violence

David Sacks: is exploding across the country. Our communities are no longer safe. We have to fix that problem.

SPEAKER_341: All right, listen, we're at 75 minutes. Do we want to talk about toxic Bitcoin

SPEAKER_45: insanity in Miami? Yeah, what the hell is going on over there? What are these guys doing?

SPEAKER_137: All right, so very simple. There was a Bitcoin conference in Miami. If you go to that conference,

SPEAKER_145: you have to agree to not mention other cryptocurrencies. There is a we all have heard of Bitcoin maximalization, or being a Bitcoin maximalist. This means you believe that Bitcoin is the one true cryptocurrency, all other cryptocurrencies do not exist. This conference has codified that to the point at which people are jumping on stage like maniacs, ripping off their clothes to reveal Dogecoin shirts. And then people are saying, Bitcoin maximalism now has evolved into Bitcoin

SPEAKER_137: toxicity, which is a subset of the Bitcoin movement. What Bitcoin toxicity says is in order for Bitcoin to become the one true currency, and the reserve currency, we must attack anybody who attacks

SPEAKER_145: it. In other words, cult like behavior, either accept Muhammad, Jesus, Moses, whoever, Hindi, Hindu God, Zeus, for the Greeks, you have to accept our God, or else we're going to attack you. So you can actually see this in practice. I tweeted, if a if Bitcoin was replaced by technology, what would that look like? And you get massively ratioed on Twitter, which means more comments than likes. I'll take I'll take the other side of this if you want. Yeah, go ahead. Well, so Bitcoin toxicity is now a thing. And it's actually I believe, making the movement toxic to people and people are not going to want to participate. So it's actually collapsing the project. People do not want to be involved in toxicity. And people think that there's many ways to win in crypto. There are. So the crypto community because of the recent loss of 50%, I think now is in a debt spiral of toxicity go

SPEAKER_344: sacks. Well, I think this is a fake moral panic on your part. Look, if toxicity means that you think

David Sacks: that all these cryptocurrencies are a scam, then Jason, you are guilty of toxicity too, because you

SPEAKER_176: think I believe in Bitcoin. I believe in Bitcoin, I own seven figures worth. Nobody has been on Twitter more saying that all these cryptocurrencies are a scam. The only disagreement that you and the Bitcoin maximalists have is with respect to Bitcoin. But you both agree,

SPEAKER_171: both sides agree that you and the maximalists believe that all these other cryptocurrencies

SPEAKER_268: are a scam. No, I believe it's a real technology. I do believe that there are scammers in it,

SPEAKER_176: to be clear. You've contributed, you've contributed to the toxicity by basically. Absolutely not. I

SPEAKER_87: did not. By constantly denouncing every crypto as a scam. I denounce ICOs and scams. I believe technology, it's a real technology. But anyway, it's just gross. And I think it's. I think that in general,

SPEAKER_45: if I had to summarize what I see, I see like there's a vein of young men, basically, who are super, super frustrated. And incels. And well, I don't know if they're incels or not. But like, you know, I think that they, they basically, I think, like, ran the race the way they were told. They checked all the boxes, they went to the schools, they got the jobs, they did the thing, they did that. And it's kind of not working. And so whenever they find a thing that's new, I think they find acceptance in a community. And then man, do they get really rigid about it. And they, in some ways, just stop thinking for themselves. And that's a shame called the cult.

SPEAKER_113: Yeah, can I quote something? We've all been raised on television to believe that one day we'd all be millionaires and movie gods and rock stars, but we won't. And we're slowly learning that fact. And we're very, very pissed off. Is that Fight Club? That's Fight Club. Of course, it's Fight Club.

SPEAKER_421: That's a great quote. It's so true. So true. It's so true. That basically summarizes Twitter.

SPEAKER_131: I feel like it summarizes Twitter. It's Instagram. Instagram made it 100 times worse. You could see everyday people suddenly becoming rich and famous, or at least the

SPEAKER_439: perception that they were rich and famous. Or using filters to look better.

SPEAKER_58: And then everyone feels like they're being left out or everyone feels like they want something that they don't have. And then you're left in this constant state of want and desire and this constant state of unhappiness. So this isn't new, by the way, you know, these are Buddhist principles. That DACA, this source of unhappiness is really about desire. And if you can let go of,

SPEAKER_78: and we create more desire. And comparing yourself to others.

SPEAKER_113: Yeah. I think there's a different answer to the Fight Club nihilism than just sort of giving up all desire. I understand the sort of Buddhist approach. I actually wrote in 1999, when I joined PayPal, I wrote an article called Silicon Valley's Fight Clubs, in which I basically said that startups were the answer

David Sacks: to this sort of, you got, remember Fight Club came out in 1999. And so you had this sort of nihilism associated with this empty materialism. People wanted all these materialistic things, but it didn't really make them happy. But I think that creating something great and being part of creating something great is the answer to this. And it's about, it's about creation. It's about purpose, having meaning, mastery, mastery. And we are robbing people of having that experience when we do stuff like universal basic income or tell them they don't need to work, you know, we should be encouraging them to have these great experiences. And this is why I kind of react to these like apple snowflakes who don't want to come into their billion dollar spaceship campus. It's like, you know, they're just punching a time clock, you know, they're not really getting any meaning out of their work. And that's the

SPEAKER_167: thing I sort of react to that's so it's you'd rather than find another place where they can

SPEAKER_217: actually find purpose and mastery rather than be at Apple be mad, right? Contribute, contribute,

SPEAKER_45: the iPhone have been created by a remote team. It could, let's be clear, the iPhone would never have

SPEAKER_444: happened had it not been for Steve Jobs. Okay, period. End of story. You need to have the founder.

SPEAKER_442: Yeah, you need to know, you just needed to have him. I mean, he could have been anybody,

SPEAKER_341: but he himself if him with a remote team, could they have made the iPhone?

SPEAKER_158: No, I think so. I don't know. I mean, I think I think Apple will probably be a different company

SPEAKER_137: if Steve were still here, who knows, which is why I think they want people to come back. And I think what's happening here. I mean, I hate to be super cynical is I think a lot of people left the Bay Area didn't tell Apple because you're supposed to tell them if you relocate. And they're just trying to extend their tenure at Apple because there is no way to come in three days a week if you're living, you know, in Tahoe or further out. I mean, what are you supposed to do? Get a hotel for two nights a week and then drive back to Tahoe or Phoenix? I mean, these people have left.

SPEAKER_167: If Steve were still around, those Apple employees would be racing back to the office because they'd be so excited about what they're working on. They'd be working on new products.

SPEAKER_185: And if they didn't, if they didn't have that passion, Steve would have weeded them out in two seconds.

SPEAKER_373: At the end of the day, all you have is snowflake, by the way, you mentioned snowflake, although you said Apple snowflakes, but the founder of snowflake said

SPEAKER_137: in a CNBC episode, essentially, we care about diversity, but we care first and foremost about being a high performing organization. I'm paraphrasing that services our customers and our shareholders. And so while diversity is important, we're going to fill a role with the best person we can find. And so now, the grand debate that has started is and I think it's related to what happened at Coinbase and Shopify with, you know, no more political speech at work is meritocracy and can meritocracy live alongside equity and equality and diversification or diversity. So diversity and meritocracy in the same organization, which wins?

SPEAKER_45: You know, Mike Moritz wrote this pretty fabulous essay, I think it was in the Financial Times a couple of years ago, he got in a little bit of heat for doing it. But essentially, what he said was, you know, while we're all talking about the things that we think are important, there's an entire cadre of engineer in China that are coding 24 seven, I think he actually said like

SPEAKER_374: 996 exactly 9am to 9pm six days a week, and they use the same tea bag three times. And he used that

SPEAKER_137: to illustrate, he no, he used it to illustrate their commitment to excellence and what he used to see in Silicon Valley where people on the weekends, the parking lots were full. Keep going,

SPEAKER_375: Jamal. But I just bring this up because it's like, we've lost the ability to have both things be

SPEAKER_45: true. Meaning it's it's maybe like at the end of the day, Frank Slootman is a representative and a spokesperson for the values of a company that's $100 billion company that's came out of nowhere and built something fabulous for people in a matter of a few years. I doubt that he speaks for himself only.

SPEAKER_454: No, he specifically said in this comment. So if this is for other people who were too scared to

SPEAKER_45: talk about it. Okay, but I'm saying he but I'm saying he also he's but he's I don't care about other companies, he speaks for Snowflake. So to the extent he says that as the CEO of Snowflake, why can't we respect that an entire company has decided to do something? For example, you know, the other opposite end of this Do you remember this bakery? I think it was in Colorado that like, you know, refuse to make a cake? Yeah, refuse to make a cake for a lesbian couple, it went all the way to the Supreme Court. And they said that they this guy had the right to deny that them making the cake. To me, it makes my blood boil. But at least I live in a country where he has the right to have that opinion. And it's in within a legal boundary of reasonableness, I guess. Now, I learned from that. And I say, Okay, that's a legal bound of reasonableness. And until that law is overturned, that's what it is. This is so much less than that. And we can't, you know, let this guy actually just go about his day without an issuing an apology. Yeah, that's not the America where engineers that are working 996 in China eating our lunch every day. Yeah, I mean, in America today, you have to,

SPEAKER_368: you have to agree. I'll give you another example. I'll give you another example. You have to capitulate and agree to the diversity. Jason, let me give you let me give you another example. There is a massive

SPEAKER_45: play right now going on in the uranium market. It was brought to my attention. I was like, let me just go look at this. I don't know anything about this. But I just was curious about what's going on. And effectively what it is, there is a fund that was trying to basically corner uranium and drive the price up. And the entire thing about uranium, which was interesting is, okay, what is it used for? It's used for nuclear reactors. Well, then you spend a little time understanding nuclear reactors. And I was shocked to learn how clean, how safe, yep, how reliable, how repeatable. I had all these stupid cobwebs in my head based on a random couple of press releases, Three Mile Island, Fukushima, etc. So when I cleared all of that bias away, and I learned about it, then I'm like, why aren't nuclear reactors everywhere? Because it is the fastest way for us to get to carbon neutral. And then I find out the same people who want carbon neutral, i.e. Greenpeace is the one of the largest advocates against nuclear. And I thought, how do we not, again, be in a position to actually hold two thoughts that are slightly divergent at the same time, we want nuclear energy, because it

SPEAKER_74: actually supports something that's even more important to the sustainable ecosystem that Greenpeace is there to protect in the first place. And you can't have it. And to me, I find, so I find all of this stuff, again, ad nauseum in this list of while we're all naval gazing on this

SPEAKER_474: bullshit, China's progress, China's 996. Right, we have to have forward progress. And by the way,

SPEAKER_137: Slotman, he put out a release comments I made during a media review of last week, may have led some to infer that I believe that diversity and merit are mutually exclusive when it comes to recruitment, hiring and promotion. I do not believe this. And I want to personally apologize to anyone who may have been hurt or offended by my comments. Slotman said in a

SPEAKER_333: statement posted Monday, I've accepted full personal responsibility for the lack of clarity in my comments.

SPEAKER_167: I think Slotman's apology actually only buttresses the original point he was making, which is that CEOs are afraid to say what they really think.

David Sacks: Yes, he came out, he had the bravery encouraged to say what he really thought. He then got piled on on Twitter, and now he's apologizing for and walking it back. It's really kind of a shame to Chamas point. How can we have honest conversations when people are just afraid

SPEAKER_226: to say what they think? Whether I agree with Frank Slotman or not is not the point. The point is that

SPEAKER_45: if his entire company and his employees and his executive team have made a specific decision that they view merit as incredibly important and then they layer diversity in as a result, who am I to cherry pick those words? And all of a sudden, I have a wording issue with that because I don't even understand the hiring criteria. It's not as if he published those stuff. So it's not like anybody on the outside had

SPEAKER_113: any shred of ability to know the details. Right. And I agree. And here's my problem with all the people who

David Sacks: attacked Frank on Twitter is, you know, have any of those people said one word about school choice or charter schools, the need to release the stranglehold that the education unions have on our kids? They're running these schools for the benefit of the unions, not for the benefit of the kids.

SPEAKER_176: They're abolishing advanced math. And how many of the people attacking Frank have said one word about that? Because if we want to achieve, if we want to achieve a quality of opportunity in our society, we have to fix the schools. And so it's so easy to attack Frank, but they're unwilling to say one word

SPEAKER_480: about school choice, because the unions are a political ally and it's inconvenient for them

SPEAKER_74: to do so. What about again, going and actually understanding the cleanliness and safety of nuclear

SPEAKER_45: and, you know, being able to tell folks on the environmental left that actually, this is a path to sustainable energy and a better ecology and biodiversity in the shortest path possible.

SPEAKER_113: They just want to shut down the conversation. They don't want there to be any real conversation or debate.

SPEAKER_45: But we're shutting down, to be really honest with you, words, and we're shutting down rather superficial conversations. And nobody ends up addressing the root cause issues of anything. That's the shame. I just think that we are screaming at each other about things that none of us really

SPEAKER_47: understand without taking the time to understand each other. Meanwhile, China is 996. I just can't

SPEAKER_483: say. Which is why we need to, now you agree, Chamath, we have to win space.

SPEAKER_74: Meanwhile, China is 996.

SPEAKER_45: The 996 and then we're going to win space and put rods up there. You put 1.2 billion people that are born in a collectivist system against, against holistically defined goals over multi-decade period of time. They're the only, by the way, the going back to where we started just to end maybe the podcast. Biotech is the last bastion where America is completely dominant. Yeah, software too. Not really. There are incredible advances that it's, it's been American biotechnological ingenuity through and through. And the question there is going to be, how do we make sure we wrap our arms around this category and continue to do great things? Because in the absence of it, and if we get, again, if you lose the script, some other country is going to 996 that market from us

Chamath Palihapitiya: as well.

SPEAKER_113: Yeah, I think, you know, what you're pointing out is we're in this generational competition, sort of, sort of Cold War type conflict with, with China. I think our foreign policy is starting to realign around that. You're seeing both Democrats, Republicans really get on the same page now about the, the threat that China represents, but our domestic policy is not realigned around

David Sacks: that. If we really want to win this Cold War against China, we have to be competitive and we

SPEAKER_113: keep doing things to our schools, our kids, and other parts of our system and our economy that are anti-competitive.

SPEAKER_491: We need more Freedbergs, you know, and if you get rid of like the advanced programs,

SPEAKER_137: we have no Freedbergs. We need to clone Freedberg. Freedberg, what's the chances we could just clone you and have like 2000 more Freedbergs to solve this biotech problem? Would you be open to that? Can we, can we start the clone wars with you?

SPEAKER_78: Do you guys think you would get along with your clone or would you want to destroy your clone? Destroy it. That's, that's mimetic.

SPEAKER_495: Oh my God, I want 10 clones of myself. Are you kidding me? Can you imagine the round table?

SPEAKER_45: You know, Rene Girard wrote about this very eloquently many, many decades ago. This goes in one place, which is what would, you know, it goes, it goes into, it goes into a capital murder.

SPEAKER_375: I want a clone army of myself.

SPEAKER_497: Zach, would you like to just sit down and play chess with your clone all day?

SPEAKER_499: Not chess, but he'd like to do something else.

SPEAKER_500: Oh no. Oh no. That's not an image I wanted. Oh no. You're going to have a threesome with yourself, Zach?

SPEAKER_260: No, nothing sexual. No, no, no, no. Stop. That's sort of what you're saying. I'd be cool with clones. I'd, I'd create a bunch of clones myself.

SPEAKER_504: You'd wrestle with your own clone?

David Sacks: I feel like there's all these different things I want to do in my life that, you know, different careers or whatever. And I could send one sacks out to be an architect. Different lifestyles perhaps?

SPEAKER_121: One sacks could be an architect and one could be a director and one could be whatever. I'd want to be a lawyer. I'd want to be a lawyer.

SPEAKER_509: Do you guys want to have your mind blown for a second? Yes, please.

SPEAKER_78: Okay. So there's a concept, a capability called induced pluripotent stem cells,

SPEAKER_58: where you could basically take any cell in your body and apply a bunch of chemicals to it and effectively get that cell to convert into a stem cell. Once it converts into a, and so the, the, the copy of the cell becomes a stem cell. And this was, uh, these guys, Yamanaka factors, they, they won the Nobel prize for this. Now you could take that stem cell and turn it into an ova cell, turn it into a, um, effectively,

SPEAKER_78: uh, um, uh, an egg cell. A fetus.

SPEAKER_58: And then you could induce that fetus to start dividing based on a discovery that was made recently, which hasn't been done in mammals yet, but effectively get it to start dividing without being fertilized and grow up and it would effectively grow a clone. So this has been done in plants. It has not been done in animals. So in theory, in the next decade or two, we could take any, any hair cell from our own body converted into a stem cell. This is totally sci-fi, by the way, it's not proven. There's no site. There's a bunch of, there's a bunch of discoveries that have been made research that's been done that points to this trajectory that you could then take that stem cell from, take a cell from your

SPEAKER_131: body, turn it into a stem cell, turn it into a egg cell, induce it to start growing and turn it into effectively a clone of yourself.

SPEAKER_192: I just want to say, as you've been saying this, I've been shaking my head. Jason has no reaction. Sax is grinning from interior to here.

SPEAKER_513: I mean, he can outweigh. Sign me up. I'm going to be like Saddam Hussein with like 12 clones of myself.

SPEAKER_515: You're going to have all these mansions with clones of yourself in them. Oh my God.

SPEAKER_123: Just think of the possibilities. I love you guys. I love you guys. I love you besties for the Queen of Kinoa, Rain Man himself, and the dictator. I'm Jake Al, and this has been a double episode of the All In Podcast.

SPEAKER_519: We'll see you all next time. Bye-bye.