All-In with Chamath, Jason, Sacks & Friedberg - Bernie Sanders: Stop All AI, China's EUV Breakthrough, Inflation Down, Golden Age in 2026?

Starting point is 00:00:00 All right, everybody, welcome back to your favorite podcast, the number one podcast, in fact, in the entire universe, the all-in podcast with your besties. We're all here. It's the original quartet. Everybody loves when the core four are here. And we have a docket for you today. Guys, we've got to start out with Bernie Sanders. I know this is becoming a bit repetitive, but AI is the topic.

Starting point is 00:00:25 We reached a new level of retardation this week that we cannot avoid. Bernie Sanders has a major decal pitch, a moratorium on new AI data centers. Here's his argument. Number one, the billionaires are pushing AI because they want more money and power. Number two, it's going to be massive unemployment. And he cates, Stario, Elon, saying that AI would replace most jobs. Number three, he has an interesting point, actually. AI is harmful to kids because it decreases social interaction. Actually, we kind of agree with that one, I think, across the board. But here's his pitch, Sacks. His pitch is, you want your kids using these chatbots? No, I've talked to my kids about it. And we'll get into it. We can get into it. But I've talked to them about it. Look, if you actually look at the data, if you look at what kids are doing, it's so much more interactive and engaging for them to talk to their friends on Snap or to watch videos on TikTok. Those things are. super engaging, whereas doing research on an AI chat bot is just, it's way less engaging. And you see this in the data. So I'm not saying there's not an issue there. You want to pay attention to the

Starting point is 00:01:37 way that these technologies are shaping the minds of young kids. But I think people get a little bit confused. What they're really talking about is social media. And then they attribute all the ills of social media over to these new AI chat apps. And they are a little different. You know, when I ask my kids, like, how much you use these things? Are they? addictive. They said, no, they're more just really useful. It's like Google. It's like I couldn't do school without it. Yeah, there's two pieces here. One, using AI to be smarter and to learn stuff and ask questions, absolutely fantastic, phenomenal. I think we'll all agree on that. There is, and I don't know if this is actually what he was referencing, but there's character AI in a long

Starting point is 00:02:19 tail of spicy chats where people, we talked about getting one-shoted and these parasocial relationships. That's, I think, what he's referring to, but maybe I'm reading it wrong. But let's get into it here. His pitch is that we need to slow down so that, quote, democracy can catch up and that Congress should put a moratorium on new data centers. That's his solution. He got roasted, obviously, on social media for this. It's the most absurd, I think, solution to, you know, what are valid concerns. Friend of the Padra, kind of who, represents Silicon Valley. He, I guess, supported it a bit. And then he replied to me and says, his concerns are not as acute and that he just wants to make sure we use renewable energy, which I guess is, you know, a fine position to have polymarket put up a little market here. AI data center moratorium passed before 2027. Yeah, we'll see if that comes true or not. But, hey, Sacks, you are our SGE. SACs, or SGE, this is your time to shine. You have framed the AI debate as we can't lose to China.

Starting point is 00:03:30 Bernie framed it as not letting the billionaire class get more power and money by eliminating American jobs. And last week on this very program, Tucker framed it as, what are Americans going to get out of this, right? That was the framing, you know, as of December of 2025. So here's your chance, sacks. Why should Americans who have some concerns about losing their jobs care about beating China? Why should they care about that sex? Why should they care about beating China? Because AI is a profound technology. It's going to have huge economic and national security implications. And the thing that Bernie gets wrong is that he can't

Starting point is 00:04:10 stop the progress. I mean, he can't stop China from making progress. We can stop progress in the U.S. But it's not going to stop China from advancing these technologies. A lot of this is just math. And just because we stopped doesn't mean China's going to stop. So this would be the biggest own goal ever if we took our leadership in the AI race and just handed it to China. But look, I appreciate Bernie's honesty in a way because he is actually telling the truth about what he wants. And I remember just a week ago when President Trump signed an executive order to advance a national AI framework, a lot of critics and a lot of Democrats were saying this was a violation of states' rights, and we need to support the states and regulating AI. And here Bernie is acknowledging that this is

Starting point is 00:04:51 not about state's rights because he's saying that there needs to be a moratorium on new data centers, even if the states want them. So he doesn't support state's rights either. He just wants all the progress to stop. And I think this is really the truth of the matter is that all this talk about states' rights or affordability, it's all a red hearing. And what's really going on is there's a large and growing contingent of people who just want all the progress to stop. But again, we can't stop China for making progress. So all they would be doing is seeding leadership at this AI race to China. What people like Bernie really want is they want the U.S. to become like Europe. You know, Europe has half the share of global GDP that they had 30 years ago. And that's because of their

Starting point is 00:05:35 hostility towards innovation and technological progress. And that's kind of where Bernie wants us to be, as he wants us to go down the path of Europe. And the reason he says is because, God forbid, someone gets rich. Well, look, capitalism sometimes results in the unequal distribution of wealth, but socialism always results in the equal distribution of poverty and misery. And if the U.S. stops developing AI, if we hand this leadership to other countries, it'll make the United States poor, it'll make the American people poor, and it will cede our leadership globally. We will not be the permanent power in the world anymore. Okay. So I'll stop there. It's great. Thank you, SGE, David Sachs, Friedberg. There seems to be a couple of conversations. Unfortunately, we weren't here last week, but we had a really nice visit from our pal Tucker. And we talked about this. He seemed to think there was a bit of a communication problem with selling to the public the value of these technologies. Do you agree with that? And what do you think is going on here in terms of the cross conversations? One group wants to desel, has some concerns, environmental, you know, job displacement, et cetera.

Starting point is 00:06:46 And then is there an issue where the China, beating China doesn't resonate with the American populace you've been harping on about the rise of socialism for four plus years on this very podcast. So from where you said, what's the actual disconnect in these multiple conversations that are going on concurrently and seemingly coming to a head here at the end of 2025? Well, if you ask any of the politicians that are making these proclamations about the, quote, tech barons and try and actually talk. to them about what is the AI technology delivering, what is it not delivering. You kind of typically hit a wall pretty quickly. It's very hard for folks to articulate what is actually happening. There's a tremendous amount of capital being put at risk against infrastructure to build out the capacity for many companies, the entire economy, the entire industry to deliver AI tools. There isn't an

Starting point is 00:07:37 aggregation at this stage of value creation with the exception of Nvidia, which has really got this $3 trillion market cap creation that's happened in the last couple of years. Peter Thiel said this best. He's like, look at all the money that's going into AI. There's really only one company that's making any money. And that's Nvidia. Like at this point, the jury's still out. We don't even know what AI is. It's sort of like when the internet was happening. You know, everyone thought these fiber optic switch companies were going to make all the money. Turns out that was wrong. It was the end applications that made all the money. And they competed in many different markets, It's from Google to Amazon to Uber.

Starting point is 00:08:11 You can go down the list of all the beneficiaries of the core infrastructure technology of the internet that was built out. So what is really going on? Well, AI is the new lightning rod for fear and for divisiveness that ultimately breeds compliance and control, which is where these politicians are trying to drive the populace and the voting conditions in the United States. And that's what's going on right now. There's a lot of fear about, oh, putting this data center in my town is going to

Starting point is 00:08:38 do X or Y or Z with no real conversation about the truth of that matter. There's a lot of fear about wealth creation being aggregated in the hand of a few when, as we saw with the internet, it benefited the many. And that fear mongering is a very similar tactic that we've seen in the prior generations where policies were misstated, fear was used and then voting control allowed folks to come to power that we're looking for power. So I think it's just the lightning rod at the moment. Okay, Chamoff, what's your take on this big picture of what's going on here? I think it's important to understand that politicians have an incredible sense of self-preservation. So the question is, why would Bernie Sanders think he would not look totally foolish in putting

Starting point is 00:09:23 that video out? And the reason it went viral is not because it sounded so crazy. It was that to some faction and percentage of people, it sounded rational and reasonable. And the problem that, highlights is that we have a huge perception issue in AI. We have a handful of companies. All the PR that you see from those handful of companies is a bunch of circular deal making, a bunch of capital that flows from one to the other. It causes these stocks to go up of which a small percentage of people benefit. And at the tail end of it, it's accompanied by a completely different set of articles that everybody also reads about this sort of Damocles that's about to fall on their head, whether it's electricity prices or whether it's their jobs or whether it's the jobs of their

Starting point is 00:10:13 children or the quality of their education. So we have a big perception problem. So the question at hand is how do we fix it? How do we get back to the place where a video talking about stopping all progress would seem as laughable as it should be? And I think you can, go back to the Gilded Age and you can ask the question, how did the industrialist leaders of that era respond through that 1880 to 1920 age of industrialization when you had all of this technological upheaval accompanied by a handful of people with incredible success? Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, Henry Ford, what did they do? And I think the lesson we can borrow from them is we now need to be on the forward foot as an industry. Enough of the stupid

Starting point is 00:11:05 haircuts, dumb watches, ugly clothes, ostentatious displays of wealth. We've all done it. I've been guilty of it. It has to stop. Absolutely stop. And instead, we need to start to use a percentage of the balance sheets of these companies in order to benefit as many Americans as possible. That is the absolute minimum. Andrew Carnegie built 2,500 libraries. The idea of was, as he built the railroads, you're going to scale GDP, you're going to scale education and knowledge, those libraries are artifacts that allowed people to feel a dividend from that industrial revolution. John D. Rockefeller took all of his wealth and invested in institutions and universities. Henry Ford specifically focused on wages. We need to self-organize better, and we need to be more

Starting point is 00:11:54 on the forward foot. We need to start doing things that are practically measurable by tens of millions of American citizens. And it starts to beat back the perception problem that we have. Because Sachs pointed out last week, the data does not support the misperception. But the problem is,

Starting point is 00:12:12 and Sachs and I were talking about this last week, the misperception is gaining steam. And so I think we need to use these tools that we have to provide some more practical benefits that every man, woman, and child can feel. Otherwise, this thing is going to build and you'll see crazier and crazier versions of this Bernie Sanders video.

Starting point is 00:12:31 All right. I think it's well said. And, you know, as I said last week, I think, beating China does not matter to the average American. It's below their line, Chamath, I think, in many ways. What they care about is jobs. They care about their kids getting jobs. And, yeah, they care about costs. They care about inflation.

Starting point is 00:12:50 They care about energy costs going up. Our industry has done a terrible job of explaining how this benefits the average American and they're seeing all these headlines about, as you mentioned, all the cross-deal booking and all these stocks going up. Half the country doesn't own stocks, so they're not participating in it. And they're not blind to seeing self-driving cars or seeing their kids having a hard time getting a job, and they're hearing everybody talk about job displacement. And that's a valid concern.

Starting point is 00:13:18 People are scared, and our industry is scaring them, I think, by not meeting where they are. And then beating China respectfully is important. SACs, super important. I can intellectually agree with you on that. But if you lose your job and your kids can't get a job, that's that's that's existential. Yes, it's not my child needs a job next year. They're graduating from school with $100,000 in debt.

Starting point is 00:13:43 And my energy bills going up and my grocery bills are going up and they haven't come down. That's what Americans are experiencing. And yeah, maybe giving, I think you also made an interesting point. there too about the libraries. The war with China is existential, because if we can keep it on the battlefield of AI and intellectual and economic prowess, we have a very good chance of winning. If it devolves and all of a sudden becomes a different kind of battle, that's bad for everybody, especially our children and our children's children. So we need to win the current game on the field. But in order to do that, we need to change these misperceptions. We need to start showing tactical

Starting point is 00:14:21 artifacts that show that this is a dividend that can benefit everybody. And we need to start now. I'm just putting it out there. We have so much cash on the balance sheets of these companies. Wall Street values it at zero. If you look at the enterprise value of any of these companies and you do as some of the parts, nobody cares about that cash. So we need to start using that cash more effectively. What's the equivalent of the library metaphor here for you, Jamath? Do you have any ideas? I'm not going to front run what's being worked on except to say, that the leaders of these companies have gotten the message. They are working on a whole host of solutions. And again, we're fighting misperception, which is a complicated battle, but it's winnable.

Starting point is 00:15:04 And I think you're going to start to see stuff in the new year. Yeah, I would say education is at the top of that list. Sacks, your thoughts here as we wrap on this first topic. I'm not sure whether to address the particular hoaxes or the fact that there are, there's a larger effort here to try and discredit AI and get AI development to stop entirely. Let's talk about some of these particular hoaxes. So on the job loss claim, I feel like I do this every week now, but there's a new study from Vanguard where they analyze job growth and wage growth in occupations that are highly exposed to AI automation versus all occupations.

Starting point is 00:15:44 And they find that both job growth and work. wage growth is higher, not lower, in the occupations that are exposed to AI. So if you look at job growth in occupations exposed to AI, it's 1.7% compared to 0.8% for other. For wage growth, it's 3.8% versus 0.7% for other. So what you see here is something maybe it's counterintuitive, but it makes sense to me, which is as you make workers more productive, the value of their labor increases, not decreases. and they end up getting paid more and you want to hire more of them. So this is a huge narrative violation.

Starting point is 00:16:24 Again, this is coming from Vanguard. And it's showing that AI productivity is good for workers. This follows on the heels of that study from Yale Budget Lab, which I talked about in a previous show, that it said there's no discernible disruption to the job market based on 33 months of data after the launch of chat GPT. Now, I understand that you can make. predictions as to the future that this state's going to change, that there will be AI job loss. But what I'm saying is that if you look at the data so far, there is no AI job loss,

Starting point is 00:16:58 quite the opposite. It's job growth and job gains. By the way, we have a 2% tailwind to GDP growth right now that's coming from this AI boom, this CAPEX boom that's happening. And so this is, I think, a very good thing for the U.S. economy. Now, why do people want to sabotage it? There's a interesting article in Semaphore recently that described how AI critics were funding journalism fellowships at major publications like NBC News, Bloomberg, Time, The Verge, L.A. Times, which, by the way, I mean, I track these things. They're relentlessly negative about AI. These fellowships were funded by Future of Life Institute, which is a Dumer group that thinks that AI is going to become sentient and replace humans.

Starting point is 00:17:49 And they were funded by a donation by Vitalik, Buterin, from Ethereum. It's an interesting story, actually. He donated his dog coins to future of life. They ended up being worth $600 million. Doge coins? Doge. And then you remember how there was like those other dog coins? Shiba Inu.

Starting point is 00:18:09 Oh, Shiba Inu. Oh, he had a collection of dog coins. Yeah, the collection of dog coins. It's apparently people like air dropped them to him as like a promotional thing. Got it. I don't think he wanted them. So he's like, how do I get rid of him? So he donates them to future of life and they end up being worth $600 million.

Starting point is 00:18:24 So by this almost like this accident, this Dumer Think Tank ends up with a $600 million war chest. And they've been funding these journalism fellowships. They've been funding grants for academics to study AI. Obviously, that's going to end up being very negative. and they are funding a lot of these NIMBY organizations that are opposing data centers because their goal is just to get to stop. That's their goal. They just want the development to stop.

Starting point is 00:18:51 And you can't, I don't think, underestimate how much of an impact this has had on the public discourse. But if you look at their actual claims, like, for example, the water use claims, it's a total hoax. I mean, these AI databases do not use a lot of water. Yeah, that was one of the things I wanted to get into because, yeah, compared to a golf course, They're not using that much or making walnuts and, you know, almonds in central California. So I think it is worth maybe just unpacking me. Jason, they're throwing a lot of spaghetti at the wall. Look, you have to remember who was Ida Tarbell?

Starting point is 00:19:22 Because it's quite interesting in the context of this. Ida Tarbell was this American writer. Again, in the Gilded Age, she was part of the muckrakers, which was a group of journalists that were doing investigative research around the abuses of the Industrial Revolution, labor abuses and the like. And she took on Sanadol, exactly. If you look at that example, I'm sure that the people in this current generation who have a Tarbell Fellowship, what they're living out is this desire to tell a story about exploitation

Starting point is 00:19:51 and wrong and misdoing. The problem is that these things don't factually hold together, but unfortunately, it adds to the perception problem that we have. And that has been growing. As Sack said, like so many of these things have been debunked, but it's playing whack-a-mole, Jason, because they'll throw the water thing out, it'll get debunked. Next week, we'll probably something about liquid cooling and all the P-FAS and forever chemicals. We'll have to debunk that.

Starting point is 00:20:19 Then we'll go to like ear cooling and how that's a problem. Then we'll go to something else. Eventually it'll be the upper land grouse, but they're not going to stop. Sacks, how do you, do you have a plan to reframe this to the American public? You're explaining how these bad things are happening and all the evil forces at work behind the scene and debunking all that. forces, but I don't think people understand the extent to which the discourse has been impacted by a few anti-AI tech billionaires. You brought it up every week and on your tax.

Starting point is 00:20:48 I brought it up, hold on. I brought it up on this show, and I tweeted about it way back in November. And I linked to a writer named Neerett Weisblatt, who has analyzed this whole Dumer Industrial Complex. And she has shown that there are hundreds of these front organizations, and they're all really just funded by a few big tech billionaires. is Dustin Moscovitz, Jan Tallin, and Vitalik Buteran. Well, when I first described this, people thought that this sounds kind of crazy, like

Starting point is 00:21:14 conspiracy theory. And then sure enough, Semaphore comes out with the article explaining that all these journalism jobs are being funded by Future of Life, which was the big donation by Vitalik Buteran. So my point is just you can't underestimate the extent to which a few billionaires who've donated over a billion dollars to this cause have distorted the public debate. and you really see this actually in the relative popularity of AI in the United States versus China. So there was recently a poll on they call it AI optimism where they ask people, do you believe that the benefits of AI will outweigh the harms? 83% of people in China believe the benefits will outweigh the harms or AI optimistic.

Starting point is 00:21:55 In the U.S. is only 39%. So again, the discourse has really been affected by a few of these institutions. Okay. So let's say that's all. all true. My question to you is, what's your plan to turn this around and explain to the American people why they should be optimistic about this? What's your plan, Davidson? Well, look, I mean, you're right that we have to flip the narrative around. And I do think that the tech companies have done a really bad job explaining the benefits. We talked about this with Tucker. I think he brought up some really good points. And you're right. Like the AI companies lean way too much into the whole

Starting point is 00:22:29 job loss narrative as a way to explain their value prop. And I think it's just either what Chimoth has said, this is about their next fundraising round, or it's a form of laziness because it's easier to describe job loss or job replacement than it is productivity, right? Like, multi-factor productivity is a difficult concept to explain. So I do think that they've played into this narrative, but I think that what we have to do here is just debunk these narratives. Again, no evidence of job loss yet, no evidence of the water problems. I think the electricity issues with data centers are addressable.

Starting point is 00:23:03 you have to let the AI companies build their own power. They don't have to connect to the grid. In fact, that's what President Trump has called for for the last six months, is to let the AI companies build their own power so they're not drawing on the grid. So that problem is easily addressed as well. I'm talking about the affordability problem. But you're right. We have to get the message out how this technology will benefit Americans. And the bottom line is, look, I've always said I'm a techno-realist, not a techno-accelerationalist, because at the end of the day, we don't have a choice. I mean, China is going to develop the technology if we don't. Okay. So we don't really have a choice. I, you know, as I said last week, I think the three

Starting point is 00:23:38 most pressing issues, Chima, education, housing and health care. And our industry is in a unique position to use AI to impact all three of those. So why don't we as an industry collectively explain all the great things going on there? I gave a shout out to Daniel Eck, pre-novo, per-novo, rather, all these great companies analyzing our blood. There's so much going on in health care that could massively lower the cost, make people's lives better. Obviously, in construction, you could have incredible advances and certainly in education. But we haven't explained those three things. What's your point? Is there anything you can think of to add to that list? We have to understand the president and SACS, they're responsible for shepherding the GDP of America. And as SACS said,

Starting point is 00:24:22 half of American GDP over the next few years is forecasted to come from all of the capital that goes in to build out our capabilities in AI. We need this to happen. There's the existential reason why, but there's also a basic economic reason why. So Jason, the social license comes when off to the side, the private companies start to take

Starting point is 00:24:44 this perception problem more seriously. So to your point, are there things that they can do around housing? Yes. And again, not to front run. They're actively working on something that I think could be transformational. Separately.

Starting point is 00:24:57 Could they do something on health care? TBD, but we should look at it. Can you do something in education? TBD, but we should look at it. But the point is, if you can have the same companies that are on the forward foot building this revolution for us, recognize that we need to bring some more folks along, take some of their balance sheet capital and invest it to create this social license to operate, we will flip this perception on its head. Yeah, I think it's well said. And, you know, there was a really interesting, I don't know. You guys must remember this. The AT&T commercials, you will. Do you remember those? By the way, sorry, that's another great example, Jason. AT&T, at the turn of the century, what did they do?

Starting point is 00:25:36 They took their capital and they created Bell Labs. What did Bell Labs do? Bell Labs drove all of modern information theory. It was the precursor to the Internet. They did so much fundamental research. I want to be clear. I don't think that this is a five-alarm fire. This is very fixable right now. and the litmus test, quite honestly, is in three, four, five, six months, Jason, when you see the trickle of progress if we can get organized, does your perception change?

Starting point is 00:26:01 And does the language that you use and the tone that you've used over these last six months has a change. No, no, no, no. I'm actually thinking that you've actually been quite a good early warning system for what a certain percentage of Americans think. Yes, I predicted it perfectly, yes.

Starting point is 00:26:17 It's been extremely useful. But now we've got to act on it And you have to change your mind. Oh, no, no, no, my mind has been very crystal clear. I won't let you, you know, tell me what I'm saying is. My opinion has been job displacements. No, Jason, let me be clear. We have to earn you changing your mind publicly on this show.

Starting point is 00:26:33 If we do that, we're back in a good place. Yeah, no, I think that you're saying that in a very condescending way. No, I'm not. I have brought up. Okay, an intention. Here, let me try to say it again. Sorry, let me try this again. We have.

Starting point is 00:26:45 You're saying as if I'm misguided. No, no, no. You have a perception. which is, what do you think my perception is? That on the balance, it's a coin flip about whether AI is going to be all good for all people or very good for a small subset of people. That's what I would roughly summarize. I would say that's accurate.

Starting point is 00:27:04 Job displacement is I have to start on. I understand. So let me finish. So if we can execute this plan, again, meaning marry all the stuff we're doing on the forward foot within investing, with some of the stuff that we also need to do to bring a broader swath of the American population along, you will have a different perception if we are successful. And what I'm saying is you've had this one perception,

Starting point is 00:27:29 and our goal would be to shift you and people like you. Okay. Is that fair? I think it's completely fair. Yeah, I have been trying to bring up that as an industry, we have not recognized people's valid concerns about job displacement. That's all I've brought up on this program. I'm not saying I think it's going to be cataclysmic,

Starting point is 00:27:48 or we can't handle it. But I think if we constantly talk about, hey, winning the AI race in China, that's abstract for people. And if we deny the fact that robotaxis and human robotics are coming and intelligent people like Elon or other leaders are saying, yeah, we're planning on replacing those jobs. We're doing a terrible job communicating this. And I do think part of this is communication and part of it is, hey, these are valid concerns. So I think great resolution. Yeah, sure, I'll be the litmus. Do you guys know what? the Mott and Bailey fallacy is? No, explain it to the audience.

Starting point is 00:28:21 I mean, I think I've heard of it, but... The Mott and Bailey Castle is an early medieval fortification where there's like a very protected area, the keep or the Mott. And then the Bailey is kind of this looser area that's hard to defend, right? So what happens is if they need to retreat, they'll go into the Mott. Okay. Yeah, Lord of the Rings. Right.

Starting point is 00:28:42 So this has become known as a debating trick or fallacy where people will make a really outrageous claim, which is they'll basically run to the Bailey. And then when you prove that it's false, they'll run back into the Mott and say something very unobjectionable. So in the context of like the AI job loss fallacy, the Bailey is people will say, this is causing massive job loss, massive disruption. It's already here. You can see it.

Starting point is 00:29:11 And then what I point out, well, actually, if you look at the Yale Budget Lab study or you look now at the Vanguard study, there is no job. loss, then they'll retreat into the Mott. And they'll say, no, no, no, I'm talking about what's going to happen in the future, which is a position that's fundamentally irrefutable. And then when I point that out, well, wait, you just totally change what you're saying. You're like, no, no, no, I was only talking about the future. And then as soon as we sort of seem to have agreement, then the people in the Mott will race out to the Bailey and basically saying, well, look at what's happening with Uber drivers or what have you. So there is this Mott and Bailey thing happening all the time on this

Starting point is 00:29:45 job loss question. And I just want people to be straight about or honest about it, which is, look, if your claim is that this will cause job loss in the future, it's true. I can't refute that because none of us can prove what's going to happen in the future. But be honest about what's happening today. And in the first three years after the launch of AI chat bots, there's been no discernible disruption to the labor market. And the early studies and data are showing wage increases and actually job increases, and there's definitely job increases in blue collars because of the construction boom.

Starting point is 00:30:20 This has been our first debate club corner. Every week, we're going to teach you how to debate better here. No, it's, you know, I appreciate that. I have really tried to say here, like, I'm not a dumerist at all. You know, the statistics I look at it, you know, I talk to D. I have, actually, sincerely. That's why I don't use, I use displacement. You know, I really use a fine language.

Starting point is 00:30:41 I do. I do. And when I talk to D'R. he told me in areas where robotaxies like Waymo are occurring, what they did specifically to deal with this issue was they stopped trying to hire drivers in Los Angeles and in San Francisco because there are so many Waymoes, they don't want them to have a bad experience. So, you know, wherever in the castle we're talking about this,

Starting point is 00:31:07 I don't have a horse in this race. I'm not part of this cabal of, you know, Destin Maston Mast. I just know from talking to Uber and Waymo and these other companies and, you know, other companies that are building software where they're trying to eliminate jobs. And so I'm just bringing that up as a really interesting example. Uber and Waymo, Elon with Tesla, they are actually making plans right now to deal with this displacement of drivers. And they're coming up with new products and services for those drivers. So one of the things they're doing is data labeling at Uber. They bought a data labeling company and they're taking the drivers and saying,

Starting point is 00:31:43 hey, you want to do some data labeling over here and actually creating AI jobs for them. So this is, you know, something that the whole industry is working on. Look, there's going to be a spectrum, right? Some jobs are going to change. Some jobs will be eliminated. The question is, with respect to job eliminations, will that be more than offset by the net new job creations? If you're looking at things like Uber drivers and we go to full self-driving, then obviously there's going to be some category of job loss there.

Starting point is 00:32:09 So I'm not claiming that there's not going to be any elimination of certain types jobs, but I believe that on the whole, what we're seeing is that when you improve the productivity of workers, their wages go up and there's more demand for their labor, not less. That's what the data is showing so far. And I just don't think you get that from the media right now because they are promoting this dumer narrative. And a lot of that is astroofed by these enormously depocketed organizations that have been funded by a few effective altruists. All right. Topic number two. Economic numbers are out. It's a mixed bag. unemployment rate is up and government payrolls are down, inflation, somewhere in between.

Starting point is 00:32:49 Let's get into the numbers here, fund with numbers. Unemployment rate rose to 4.6% from 4.4% in September and 4% in January of 2025 when President Trump took over. U.S. economy added 64,000 jobs in new jobs in November, October, saw about 104,000 job losses, but 162,000 of those job losses came from the federal government. You remember the Doge buybacks, a friend of the pod, Elon Musk was involved in. Those all took effect at the end of September. So there was a little bit of a balloon payment that occurred. An analyst from Moody says, quote, it's a frozen job market. There's not much hiring. There's not much firing happen. That tracked with what I'm seeing on the ground. Meanwhile, inflation came in better than expected at 2.7 percent, beating the 3.1 percent expectation,

Starting point is 00:33:40 but still far away from the 2% target for the Fed, Trump gave an 18-minute, very loud, emphatic address to the nation last night. And it was not that we're invading Venezuela. It was mostly him talking about his accomplishments in terms of prices and affordability and a little bit of admonishing Biden. Here's a 20-second clip. The last administration and their allies in Congress looted our treasury for trillions of dollars, driving up prices and everything at levels never seen before.

Starting point is 00:34:19 I am bringing those high prices down and bringing them down very fast. Sachs, your thoughts on the economic data? Well, you're painting it as, you're painting the economic data as mixed. I don't know how you have an economic report that's better than what we just had today. So first of all, we saw that CPI came in at 2.7%, like you said, but the expectation were 3.1%. That's why the market is rallying today in a big way. Core inflation is down to 2.6%. These are significant beats, and this puts poor CPI inflation in the U.S. at its lowest level since March of 2021. So since the whole COVID thing. And if you listen to Kevin Hassett,

Starting point is 00:34:58 he said that over the past three months, core inflation's been running at 1.6%. So the trend line is going down even further. So it looks to me like inflation's rolling over, and that's just about a solved problem, which is really good news for what it implies for interest rates, because it implies that interest rates are coming down. And that's going to bring down things like mortgage costs and the costs of financing a car payment and things like that. Now, you talk about unemployment. I think the unemployment news is very, very good. So if you look at the data from September to November, the overall employment is down 41,000. But why was that? Private employment was up 121,000, but government employment in the last two months has declined by 162,000. So this is what the

Starting point is 00:35:44 media was focused on, is they're trying to claim that unemployment was up, but actually, it's just that the government jobs decreased. Why did the government jobs decrease? Well, you remember that when Doge went in and made their cuts at the beginning of the year, they offered people a buyout as of October 1st. Now, some people took the buyout right away, but a lot more weighted until the last possible day, which was October 1st. And that's why you saw this big spy. in October unemployment, but those are government jobs that are being cut. And moreover, there are people who voluntarily wanted to take the buyout and they took that deal. So again, I think the employment picture is looking actually quite good. And if you believe what we believe,

Starting point is 00:36:25 you don't want an excessive number of government jobs. And President Trump has presided over, I think, the first decrease in the federal workforce in decades. We've seen a 10.7% decrease in federal workers in 2025, basically the number's gone from 2.4 million to 2.15 million. I know that'll make Freiburg very happy. But look, what we had during the Biden years is we had 9% inflation. We had a very weak economy. We did have a recession. It was that two-quarter shallow recession. And the media even tried to start redefining what a recession was to avoid those headlines. But what the Biden administration did in response to that is they went hog wild with government hiring. And what we're seeing now is inflation is now coming back down and we're seeing the number of

Starting point is 00:37:13 government workers come down to a more reasonable level. And the private economy is making up for it. We still have a relatively historically low unemployment rate. So those numbers look good. Then you look at the deficit. We've reduced the deficit year over year by $600 billion. That will help bring interest rates down. And then on prices, you got the lowest gas prices in five years below $3.

Starting point is 00:37:36 nationally. And then finally on wages, real wages are up by over $1,000 on average. And it's $1,300 for factory workers, $1,800 for construction workers. And again, that's a big change from the buying years where you saw that in real terms, wages went down by about $3,000 on average per worker. So look, I mean, it seems to me like we're on the cusp of a golden age here. I don't see how the numbers could really be better. And then on top of it, again, you've got this AI tailwind, which I think is a huge positive, not a negative, which is adding roughly 2% GDP growth every year because of huge cap-x investment with so far no job loss associated with that. So I would just say, sit back and enjoy this. I think we're headed for a gangbusters, 2026. Rates are coming down.

Starting point is 00:38:28 Inflation's coming down. And you're also getting tax cuts going into effect next year, because of the big beautiful bill. No tax on tips, no tax on overtime, no tax on social security, plus the standard deductions being beefed up. So people haven't even felt the benefit of those tax cuts that's coming in in April. I don't see how things could be much better. Okay. Freeberg, any thoughts here on the data as it's come in or Chamaa? I'll go to either one of you. Directionally, I think it's really positive. You want to see private sector jobs growing and the shrinkage of government sector jobs has profound impacts, not just on the budget, but it starts to create obvious air pockets where you get a little bit more rational regulation.

Starting point is 00:39:14 You can deregulate in the appropriate places. You can shift the burden and the responsibility to private industry. So it's more than just what's in the numbers that I think is positive. I've told you this story before, Jason, to do some of the things that I've wanted to do, I'll give you an example. When we started a battery business five years ago, when we filed with the DOE, the Department of Energy, these are 700-page reports. You spend millions of dollars and you hire teams of 50 and 100 people and what are we trying to do?

Starting point is 00:39:44 We're trying to build a battery business in the United States so that we can de-lever from the Chinese. To the extent that we could do that a little bit simpler and a little bit easier because there's fewer folks. And so the burden goes to state and local regulators, which we all already have to deal with. These are just generally good things for productivity. They're generally good things for GDP. It allows us to invest more aggressively in the things that help America. So it's trending in the right direction. By the way, Sachs didn't mention this explicitly, but I'll say it.

Starting point is 00:40:12 The other thing in 26 is you get a bunch of tax cuts that kick in. No tax on tips, no tax on overtime, the deductibility of the cost of interest for things like car loans. these are big stimulative actions accelerated depreciation. You have big stimulative actions for the United States economy. Yeah, I think what you guys are missing respectfully is that

Starting point is 00:40:36 you know, Trump promised something completely different. He said, starting on day one, we will end inflation and make America affordable again to bring down the prices of all goods. And when he was running for election, he promised the Americans that he would reduce prices. Now, what's happened is prices have not come down.

Starting point is 00:40:56 They've gone up 2.5 to 3.1%. But what really matters, and I think you guys are doing a great job, you know, pro-administration, part of the administration. What you're missing is the American people don't believe you. And the American people are experiencing something different. And when you look at the approval rating, Trump's approval rating, is at its historic lows. And specifically on inflation, pull up the silver bullet and matter analysis there, this is the disconnect. And this is why it seemed tone-deaf, last. Last night, when Trump was telling everybody it's great, and when you say it's the golden age,

Starting point is 00:41:27 Americans aren't experiencing that. That's just not what they experience. They are experiencing grocery prices that have continued to go up. And they are experiencing unemployment that's gone up 15%. Whether it's the federal employees, whether it's a private sector, and you debate the numbers, or there's a golden age coming because of no tax on tips. These are all talking points. What the American people remember is the Trump administration said prices would go down,

Starting point is 00:41:52 prices have gone up. That jobs and manufacturing, there be all these incredible manufacturing things, obviously that's going to take years. That has not happened yet. So I hope for the best. I hope inflation goes down to two, and I hope they turn this around. But the American people don't believe the Trump administration. And it's a big difference between promising stuff in 2024 and delivering it. And here we are on the first year. And the delivery that's come in from the Trump administration on inflation and on the economy is not good. If you're, are in the bottom half of society that doesn't own equities, period, full stop. So first of all, prices have come down.

Starting point is 00:42:29 You look at gas prices are the lowest in five years. They're below $3 nationally. Now, I don't know how you want a new administration to come in and literally affect every single change on day one. How do you do that? Oh, no, that's just what he said. No, what the president says, they would start working on it. They would start working on it.

Starting point is 00:42:45 I'm not saying it's possible. That's what he said. Now, you said he started working on it on day one. And so he did. and look at the results. Inflation's now down to 2.7% way below expectations. I don't know how you want a better report than this. Unemployment is very low.

Starting point is 00:43:02 The only reason... I do remember the economic target was 3-3-3-3-GDP growth, 3% deficit to GDP and 3% inflation. They're below 3% inflation. They're above 3% GDP growth, and the deficit to GDP is not where it needs to be. So cutting is still ahead. but I looked at the budget for 2026 for a number of the departments in the cabinet over the last

Starting point is 00:43:27 couple days, and they do have big cuts that they're trying to implement across the federal government. We're going to be interviewing Scott Bessent tomorrow morning. That'll come out shortly after this episode airs. But this is the catch-up conversation with Scott on how's the 33-3 plan going. But on two of the three metrics, J-Cal, it does appear like things are good. I'm not trying to be a spokesperson for the Trump administration. But I'd say if you look at this just from the the raw economic data and the goals of the administration, following that, there should be a flow through in terms of job growth, a flow through in terms of affordability in terms of wage growth, all those other sort of economic indicators that actually affect people on Main Street

Starting point is 00:44:03 every day. That's also TBD in the narrative is still to be written. But those high-level economic goals are still, you know, are starting to kind of fall within the framework of what they set out to do, which is generally good, right? Yeah, I'm just pointing out the disconnect. Again, this is the You're looking at the American people. I mean. No, I'm looking at year one. Just year one. We're here at the end of year one.

Starting point is 00:44:24 It takes time to implement an agenda. I totally agree. I'm just telling you the American people, don't believe the Trump administration right now. There's more work to do. That's the disconnect. The data that came out today is looking awesome. By the way, that Vanguard report that I mentioned that also exposes the AI job loss hoax, it also has a new economic assessment for next year.

Starting point is 00:44:46 is projecting 3% growth for next year, which I think is conservative, and an improved labor market outlook for 2026. And it says the most robust improvement will come in the second half of the year. So Vanguard is saying that 2026 is looking very good. And by the way, that's when the fight for Congress will unfold this next year. So the thing about polls is it's obviously just a snapshot in time, and it doesn't tell you what things are going to look like six months from now or a year from now. I think they're going to look very good. Yeah, I mean, maybe he turns it around. I think it's already been turned around.

Starting point is 00:45:20 It just takes time to kick in. Yeah, I mean, the public's perception, it hasn't turned around, and inflation was supposed to go down, and it stayed high. It has. No, it stayed at, it's still way above the 2% target. It's been 1.6% for the last three months. No, it has not. That's what it has to say.

Starting point is 00:45:37 2.7. No, that's the, that's the problem, I think, with the administration and you're part of it. Like, you guys cherry pick numbers, and it's not matching the numbers on the field. So when you cherry-picking. This is CPI. This is CPI report. No, no. The number. Open the cover of the Wall Street Journal. 2.7. Hold on. 2.7% CPI. 2.6% core. 1.6% for for last three months. Okay. What is hard to understand about this. No, no. Obviously, the last three months are going to tell you what the trajectory is. Okay. The fact is you're looking for every excuse you can. No, no, no, no. No. No. By the way. Is.

Starting point is 00:46:16 An awesome report and just look at the stock market, which is ripping today, because this is way below expectations. You're the only one who's not happy about this news, Jacob. No, no, no. The country's not happy about it. I'm not, I don't have a horseen's race. I'm doing fantastic. I own equities. I'm doing better than I ever have in my life.

Starting point is 00:46:33 I'm talking about how the bottom half of America perceives it. This is the blind spot of the Trump administration. You've proved my point by not addressing it. Let's go to the next time. No, I haven't, what? No, no, I guess your point is. My point is that... The American people expected that inflation would go down and prices would go down.

Starting point is 00:46:53 Prices have continued to go up. The Fed has a 2% target. It's a little bit unrealistic to say that. You want to have a negative inflation rate? Trump said prices will go down. They have not. That's what the American people feel. Unemployment has gone up.

Starting point is 00:47:09 They expected to go down. So this idea that we're in the golden age is not tracking with the bottom half of Americans. That's just facts, David. It's just facts. You have work to do. Trump has work to do. You're saying that anything less in deflation, anything less than deflation in your view is not. I did not say that.

Starting point is 00:47:26 You keep telling you what I'm reporting in terms of facts. Then you tell me I said something different. I didn't say that. The American people are very disappointed in the Trump administration's first year when it comes to inflation and the economy. I don't understand how the numbers could be any better. We just blew past expectations here, 2.7% versus 3%. I don't know whose expectations.

Starting point is 00:47:48 I don't know whose pulse you think you have the finger of, but the economists who put together these expectations, we're expecting 3%. And we blew it away. One more time for me. Just pull up the chart for me so I can just explain that this isn't bias on my part. I'm just putting the fact on the fields. No, it is not.

Starting point is 00:48:08 This is. These are numbers that you can look at and see that Trump's two worst categories right now are the economy and inflation. The American people thought he would do better. These are snapshots in time, and they're going to be completely different next year. In the snapshot in time from February goes down. That's the snapshot time. Every month, you have 12 months there to look at it.

Starting point is 00:48:27 Let me explain. I don't know what's so hard about it. This is a really partisan point that you're making. You're basically saying, look, the U.S. economy is like a giant super tanker. I'm independent. I'm not partisan. Can I finish my point? Sure.

Starting point is 00:48:39 I mean, you must know this. And I think you're pretending not to. The U.S. economy is like a giant super tanker. It takes time to turn around. It takes time to implement your economic agenda. It took the president the first six months of administration to implement the big, beautiful bill, which is his economic program, but it doesn't even go into effect until January 1st. So the tax cuts have not gone into effect.

Starting point is 00:48:58 The inflation reductions have happened. We've gone from 9% under Biden to now 2.6% core, 1.6% the last three months. I don't know what more you could want. Interest rates have come down. They're projected to come down even more because inflation's coming down. this is, again, a huge ship that's in the process of turning around, and I predict that by next year, the numbers are going to be even better. Let me remind you of what happened in the early 1980s on Iran Reagan. When Reagan took over, okay, the misery index was like 20 percent. Reagan implemented

Starting point is 00:49:28 his economic agenda, but it took a couple of years to actually implement it. By 1983, we actually had a very severe recession because Volker had raised interest rates so much to tame inflation. We're lucky we don't have that issue today. In any event, it took like three years. years for Reagan to implement his economic agenda. And his popularity was very low by 1983, but by 1984, the program had worked, and it was morning in America again, and he won the biggest landslide election, I think, in American history. So you've got to give it time for the president's agenda to play out and work. And it certainly looks like after 10 months, that is performing extremely well. And we are just beginning to see the impact of it. I think the core issue is

Starting point is 00:50:14 Trump overpromised and under-delivering year one, and it's not the golden age for the bottom half of Americans, and they don't feel it's the golden age. And I think just tackling that head on and saying, yeah, we have more work to do. And I actually think that's what the address last night was about. I suspect somebody, maybe Susie or the chief of staff or somebody said, hey, we got to start communicating better about the cost of living and our promises during the election so that we turn this around. That's actually what I think is happening. But I don't have a horse in this race. I'm doing fabulous because I own equities. I'm happy. I'm concerned, sure, that the bottom half of society needs to do a little bit better. That's all. All right. But, you know, listen,

Starting point is 00:50:57 I'm never going to win with you, Sacks, because you're the captain of the debate club. You'll win every debate. You're incredible. Well, look, I mean, like the president, the president made the right point last night, which is he inherited a giant mess. Again, under the Biden years, we had a $3,000 reduction in real wages by American workers. That's already gone up by $1,000 under President Trump in the first year. But yeah, if you're a worker and you're just looking at your situation, you're underwater 2,000 relative to where you were five years ago. So obviously you're going to be salty about that.

Starting point is 00:51:27 But that's the situation that President Trump inherited. I don't know how much more progress you could make in 10 months, but give it another year and then we'll really see. All right. I am rooting for you guys. I hope you turn it around in year two. Okay. Freeberg, we got an important story here we have to get to.

Starting point is 00:51:44 Do you guys want to hear a crazy personal story for two minutes as a pallet cleanser? Oh, three, too. Oh, yes. This is an palac cleanser. Okay, this is an amused bouge. A little pomew. A little pomp la-moose sorbet. All right.

Starting point is 00:51:56 This is the craziest story in my life right now. Okay. Pull up the photo, Nick. The first photo. You guys remember my dog, Monty? Yeah, this is the virtue signal dog. No, this is the best dog. This is the only one.

Starting point is 00:52:09 This is the only one. This is the only one. Monty was my dog for 10 years. I got him 10 years ago in January and he died suddenly in May. He turns out he had a tumor on his heart and his heart burst open in front of me and he died. It was the worst thing. He was with me every second of every day that I wasn't at work. He slept on my bed.

Starting point is 00:52:28 He was in my office all day. You guys have seen him a million times in the background during the All In Pod. My best friend in the world, the greatest thing I've ever come across in the world, come across in my life. So he died suddenly. It was very brutal, very hard. So I'm at my house the other day. My next door neighbor walks in and he's got this dog on his leash.

Starting point is 00:52:49 Pull up this photo. This is this dog. So my next door neighbor finds this dog at Rocket Dog Rescue. It was pulled out of a kill shelter. The vet estimates this dog is like a decade old. Today, I live probably 40 miles away from where we got Monty. He was found wandering the streets of the middle. district in San Francisco. This random dog here was found at some random kill shelter somewhere in

Starting point is 00:53:12 California, pulled out of the kill shelter a few days ago, put into a rocket dog and rescued by my next door neighbor, brings him over. He's walking him in the street. I'm like, oh my God, that dog Monty. We ran a DNA test. This dog is Monty's brother. This dog is Monty's brother. It is the craziest shit. There's like a billion dogs on planet Earth. And of the billion dogs, some random dog from some random litter from some street pup in the mission district from a decade ago, found its way into a shelter, into another rescue center, into my next door neighbor's arms, and brought back to my house months after Monty died. How crazy is that? What is his personality then? I'm going to hang out with him this afternoon. I got to go see. But how crazy is this?

Starting point is 00:53:56 It's Monty's actual brother from the same litter. It doesn't look like Monty in fairness. The angles are off. Step brother? Monty's more robust. Yeah, well, Monty was well fed. This lived in a freaking kill shelter. Monty was a cacton. Take 10, take 12 pounds off Monty. Wait, where's the other? DNA tests, don't lie.

Starting point is 00:54:14 Where's the dog that was being tortured by Revlon? That dog's still there. That dog's gotten robust, too. Yeah. Was it Rev. Who was torturing your current? She, she, Daisy, has a thousand siblings, not just one. And they are.

Starting point is 00:54:29 Daisy, Daisy, I'm fine with. It's Mitchell, it's Mitchell, it's Mitchell Freebrook. Marshall Freebro. I hate Marshall Freebro. I got to hang out. He ate the pistachios last Christmas. He was like a little eight-pound down. Monty's father must have really gotten around San Francisco.

Starting point is 00:54:43 He had a great ride on Church Street. What are the odds of this? Same mother, same father. It's not a half-brother. This is the same father. What? Are you saying Monty's dad was a friend? Same litter.

Starting point is 00:54:52 Same dog. Wow. Same mother, same father. Same litter on the streets of San Francisco a decade ago. And they all find their way in different parts of California and come to, and Monty's buried in my backyard. And this dog, his brother. I think that makes up the samples.

Starting point is 00:55:05 What is the summer of love? Was it the summer? You would say no way, but you got to see better shots of it. I'll put more photos next time. Yeah. This doesn't make sense. I know. It's the craziest shit ever.

Starting point is 00:55:17 And by the way, like... Yeah, it doesn't look like they're related. I'll be honest with you. Got to find you a proper photo of Monty. What's going on, Chimap with Okie and Joker? How old are these dogs now? Oh my God. From your lips to God's yours, bro.

Starting point is 00:55:29 Aki is 14 and a half. She turns 15 in July. She's so precious. Joker's heat or nine. So touch with their golden retrievers don't really live to 15, but my God, she's good. You got a lot of good years. I was just on the, I was on the floor last Thursday snuggling with her, and it was so precious. Well, you know what we did?

Starting point is 00:55:48 I think the best thing that we did was we got much more disciplined about diet for hockey when she turned about 13. A little bit calorie restricted. It's not nearly as much. She lost a few kilos. It just helped her a lot walking. and she's a little deaf, unfortunately, but she can see.

Starting point is 00:56:07 Dogs are the best. Here's my other photo of the dog that Chimov hates. Pull it up just so you can see what Marshall. Listen, last Christmas at Nat's birthday dinner on the 26th, which is her birthday, Marshall Freeberg jumped on the table, started eating all of the pistachios and the nuts.

Starting point is 00:56:26 Ruined all of them, slobbered everywhere. Horrible dog. David Freeberg was like, oh, look at that. Allison Freeberg was like, Marshall Freeberg, they have no control over what's going on in there. Here, pull this photo up, Nick.

Starting point is 00:56:39 This is a medical issue Marshall Friedberg's been dealing with. He wakes up with irrecoverable erections. So he can't walk. What? Pull this up. Recoverable. Oh, my God. So, Nick, you got to blur this out when you put it.

Starting point is 00:56:54 Whoa. Dude's packing. So this little guy, he weighs like a cow. How do you get rid of that erections? He has these erections. And will the doctors say, like, you just got away to definitive. ends up staying for too long. There's going to be a surgery.

Starting point is 00:57:06 But, like, right now he's okay. But he can't move when he gets them and he's stuck. And he'll just stay there. Unable to move for like 20 minutes. Like with his little erection. Same thing happened. I gave Chmotsamom, some of my rose sparks. And he had a similar thing happened.

Starting point is 00:57:18 He was frozen. There's a Brian Johnson joke in here, but that is a problem. Yeah. How's Moose doing, Jekal? Here he is a special guy. Oh. Is that your dog, Zuck? This is the moose.

Starting point is 00:57:32 The moose is loose. Trying to keep a old buddy, oh, buddy. This is my buddy. What's your dog? What are you doing? What are you chewing? What's he chewing? What's he chewing?

Starting point is 00:57:41 Yeah, what's he got to pop. Get that out of your mouth. Come on. Get that out of your mouth. He is such a little love, buddy. Shaita little love bug. It's like a gremlin. He loves him.

Starting point is 00:57:57 It's great to see you so in control. Cones. Jason. You're such a natural dog guy, Jason. What that's cyrofoam, buddy? Disciplinarian. This dog loves food. And he loves to wrestle.

Starting point is 00:58:11 You're like a modern, you're like a modern season. He's a lot. Does he headbutt you? The dog was for a little. Moose, take it easy, buddy. I know. He loves to wrestle this dog.

Starting point is 00:58:23 He's heavy, right? He's... Well, he added about four or five pounds, because he wasn't eating all that much when we got him, and then we realized he needs a little bit of extra food. So we gave him a little more food, and he became a little more food. little less grumpy.

Starting point is 00:58:36 And then he just, we take him for like maybe three, one mile walks a day on the ranch. Totally fine. If he misses a walk, dog's got way too much energy. So he's not, he's a ranch dog, not a city dog. Yeah, no, I know. I told you. Yeah, he needs to run. When he doesn't run, you got a problem.

Starting point is 00:58:53 All right, let's keep going through the docket here. That's dog corner. That's K9 Corner. What do you guys think? That's a good corner. It's a good catch-o. K9 Corner is the best corner. But how crazy is that one, like one in a billion?

Starting point is 00:59:04 got to be that this dog lands up next to me. It's just the craziest thing. Anyway. Yeah. And, yeah, there's no cat corner here. Cats are horrible. Shout out to our friends at Waymo for eliminating the cat problem in San Francisco. I mean, that's just, that was the greatest update to their software ever. They can eliminate more cats. What's that, what's their paradox that the AI has? It's like, do I hit the trolley car problem? It's like the cat problem. It's like the cat problem. Go for the cat. It's just go for the cat. Absolutely. You could get somebody there on time or you could

Starting point is 00:59:34 get them there 30 seconds late and take out a cat, take out the cat. Less stray cats. That's a horrible. Shout out to our cat ladies listening to the pod. I don't know how many cat ladies listen to this pot? Zero. Oh, there are a few. Are there a few?

Starting point is 00:59:48 Yeah. They're on blue sky talking about, oh God, I had a joke. I'm not going to do it. All right. According to a Reuters report, Freiburg, China has built a prototype of ASML's E-SMLs EUV machine. Hey, if this is true, this report, it could have a profound impact on the AI race that we talked about. For those of you who don't know, ASML is the Dutch company worth $400 billion, $202nd largest market cap in the world. And they are the only company that makes

Starting point is 01:00:22 EUV machines, also called lithography. That stands for extreme ultraviolet. That's how you make H-100s. Here's a photo of one of these giant machines. They cost $200. $50 million to make, and they take six months to make, filled with all kinds of important parts, Karl Zeiss lenses, et cetera. Since 2018, these machines have been limited for sale by the Dutch. Why? Why can't China buy these machines? Well, in 2018, Trump's Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, put pressure on the Dutch to implose export controls on China, and later that same year, they did. So, according to Reuters in this new story, Freiburg, China used former ASML engineers, allegedly, to reverse engineer the machines. Reuters has pointed out that the machine in China

Starting point is 01:01:17 has not yet produced any working chips. It's a prototype. The CCP is targeting 2028 for working chips. Some sorts of say maybe 2030 is more likely. You've been talking about China lithography on the show, we can play the chariots of fire music that Freiburg insists we play when he does his victory lap, Chimoth. Here's his victory lap, episode 224. Last year, China announced and began a $37 billion investment in developing their own three-nanometer chip technology. China made a claim that this investment they had made was starting to pay off, and they had developed their own EUV system. And their big semiconductor companies called the semiconductor manufacturing international corporation or SMIC in China, they launched a seven nanometer chip with Huawei

Starting point is 01:02:06 in their mate 60 Pro, which is sort of like their iPhone competitor in China. And so they're proclaiming that they've already got this EUV technology from what I understand in Sachs would know better than I. It sounds like there was a lot of reverse engineering and workaround of existing technology in order to deliver that system. Who do you think has the best chance of challenging Nvidia? My early prediction for 2026 is Huawei, where I think that there's lithography technology that exists in China that is not publicly discussed, that is going to be deployed in Huawei and all these fabs that they're building in mainland, China.

Starting point is 01:02:42 So announcements, 2026, Impact 27? Probably fair. Do you have it first? First on All In, Freeberg, congratulations on your weekly victory lap. I honestly don't think that the Reuter story is necessarily news, because I think it's a little bit of a narrow scope in front of describe what happened, which is that they, quote, stole ASML technology because scientists are working on it. That's not really the full scope of what's been going on in China for a number of years. And it really understates the technological progress that China's

Starting point is 01:03:11 independently made in using other systems to try and achieve lithography parity. So if you go back a number of years, the current kind of investment vehicle is actually Chinese banks put capital into a fund that's roughly $48 billion U.S. dollars, which is actually what's called the National Integrated Circuit Industry Investment Fund Phase 3. So there was Phase 1, which started in 2014, which focused on manufacturing, so developing fabs with groups like SMIC. Phase 2 was stood up in 2019, which focused primarily on design and materials.

Starting point is 01:03:48 And then this Phase 3 fund was established in 2024. explicitly to pivot to what they call choke points or bottlenecks in the manufacturing process. And state media has confirmed the existence of this Phase 3 fund and the intentionality of the Phase 3 fund to try and replicate lithography technology. A couple of months ago, if you pull up the link, Nick, here's a publication on this paper. So this is the leading research group out of China that's been backing into lithography technology using AI-driven systems. They published this paper, which was,

Starting point is 01:04:23 a very good summary of where they are in July. Was this in Nature, no, it's in light science and applications? And this paper is called advancements and challenges in inverse lithography technology or review of artificial intelligence-based approaches. If you read into the paper and then you read the other publications from this particular research team at Singhua University, they have made a number of breakthroughs in using AI to try and reestablish alternative systems and the traditional Zeissau. optics and other control systems that are used in the ASML platform.

Starting point is 01:04:57 And the way that they've done it, I won't spend too much time on it, but there's a bunch of neural networks that they've used, trained, and have made discoveries from, including doing things like working with suboptimal optics, meaning you can have optics that have a degree of diffusion, and then how do you actually recreate three nanometer printing techniques or three nanometer masks by having shadowy effects accounted for in the AI? So you almost assume that the shadowy effects are going to come out and you print differently than you otherwise. Well, you don't need the degree of precision that you need and you don't necessarily need to go get the Zyce optics. There was another paper that was published early this year by another Chinese

Starting point is 01:05:33 research team that actually demonstrated how they did use AI to discover a novel method for doing optics. So there is a very broad and well-funded effort that's been underway for over a decade. But just in the last couple of years, with artificial intelligence-based approaches, they've made a series of breakthroughs. It is very likely the case. that Huawei already has a lithography system that they'll be putting into production, and this is why I kind of talked about it when we were in Vegas

Starting point is 01:05:59 and pointed it out earlier this year. But again, I think Reuters just sort of of maybe caught on to some narrow segment, but this is a bigger story and a bigger set of progress that's been made over quite some time. Rambification sacks here and what you're thinking. Obviously, you've talked a bunch about,

Starting point is 01:06:16 hey, let's sell our stack in there, and they're clearly working on their own stack. what's the ramification of this if it's true? Well, I've never supported selling EV lithography to China. It is probably selling the stack of H1, whatever the previous Nvidia stack was, yeah. EUV lithography, these machines that are made by ASML is probably our single biggest advantage in the AI race

Starting point is 01:06:39 because they're the only machines that are capable of creating, say, two to three nanometer chips, semiconductors. And it's sort of the perfect export control because there's only one company that makes these machines. Like you showed, they're gigantic, they're expensive. So if you think about trying to put an expert control on a commodity, there'd be a lot of ways to circumvent it because there's a lot of sources for a commodity. But in this case, there's literally only one company that makes these machines. So it's been a tremendous advantage, I'd say for the West that we have UV lithography.

Starting point is 01:07:11 I'm not surprised that China is trying to reverse engineer it. It's kind of the obvious thing to do. No advantages forever. It does seem likely that at some point, they'd be able to figure out how to do it. So I think that this article is not altogether a surprise in that sense. I mean, I'm sure that China is trying really, really hard to reverse engineer this. In the meantime, however, they've also made substantial progress with DUV lithography. So the previous generation of lithography before EUV was DUV.

Starting point is 01:07:44 E is extreme, D is deep. In any event, DUV was supposed to sort of top out at, say, 14 nanometer chips, and China was able to push the technology to get to 7 nanometer and now to 5. So they've been able to get a lot further using DUV lithography than anyone thought possible. And that is why the Huawei chips, the Ascent chips are, they're not as good as our chips, but they're serviceable. and they've been able to use their prowess and networking to string more of them together.

Starting point is 01:08:15 You have the Cloud Matrix 384 technology where Huawei will string together 384 of their Huawei as sent chips into a rack, and that will perform comparable to an Nvidia rack, but using a lot more power. So the bottom line is China's been able to create a lot of these workarounds to our restrictions, But if they figured out how to reverse EUV, that would be, I'd say, a blow because it is a real advantage for us. But I'm not convinced that this Reuter's story is the full picture. I think it's just a data point. If you want a very short summary of how the last generation of chips work, the best way to think about this is that the most profitable and valuable chips to date have taken a very compute-centric approach.

Starting point is 01:09:03 that's why we've needed these ultra-advanced process nodes. But the reality is that in a world of infinite inference, let's say, the next generation of silicon will not take the same compute-heavy approach and will probably rely on a much more memory-centric architecture that uses a lot of S-RAM. The value of that is that you can produce these things, as SACS said, at 14 nanometer, at 7, 5, all of these process nodes that are much less advanced, that I actually think is the future.

Starting point is 01:09:34 So in a weird way, if they steal this, which I think we should assume they've already stolen, quite honestly, and they figured it out, the question is how bad is it? That's the really important question. And the thing about a more memory-centric approach

Starting point is 01:09:50 for AI inference or these next generation forms of silicon, it demands a lot more of compilers. It demands a lot more of the software. I still think that's where we are light years ahead. So I don't think it's the end of the world. and we're still in a very good place. But it is bad.

Starting point is 01:10:07 Freiburg, weren't we supposed to start onshoreing with the Chips Act and maybe get trending towards having this production ability in America? And obviously, that's been really hard to do. And China and the relationship of Taiwan seems to be, and the possibility that they actually take over Taiwan in a military fashion has been this existential concern or even sure. term concern. Maybe it's a better way to say it. I think the biggest security implication to consider at this moment is that both the U.S.

Starting point is 01:10:41 and mainland China are onshore manufacturing, and that makes Taiwan less of a strategic point of interest for the United States and for United States industry. Maybe one of the ways to think about the positive aspect of what is going on, which is maybe call it the balkanization of generally manufacturing, but specifically semiconductor manufacturing in this case is reduced security concerns. So there's no longer this flashpoint, perhaps, in Taiwan. If China did invade Taiwan and the U.S. had fab manufacturing, we're less likely to want to defend Taiwan. And frankly, if China has fabs on mainland, do they really need to invade Taiwan? What's the economic interest in doing? So, that's so hard. I don't know where I was going

Starting point is 01:11:19 with it. But if they also wanted to jumpstart, Friedberg, they could just go to Taiwan and take the machine. It's like, is that actually the plan? Like, I don't know what the CCP is. these planets, I think that's a pretty simple statement to make. I think just going to Taiwan is probably a lot more complicated than... Of course it is. My point is, if this was super existential to get those chips for China and they go to Taiwan and then they've reverse engineered the machines by default. We need to recognize we keep using the term reverse engineering as if ASML is the only way to do this. And it is not. If you read their papers and you read what's coming out, There are alternative production manufacturing methods and systems that are being developed in China

Starting point is 01:11:59 that not only maybe provide parity to ASML, but get ahead of ASML. And I think this is really important to understand. China is not just in a catch-up race. They're in a primacy race. And they are trying to develop primacy in lithography technology, which will give them primacy in manufacturing, which will give them primacy in AI, which will give them economic leverage over the planet. And that is very critical for us to understand. This is not about stealing data from ASML.

Starting point is 01:12:23 Like, no one gives this shit if you're sitting in. In China, you're thinking about I've got the world's best scientists or some of the world's best scientists, and I'm giving them the resources and I'm giving them the mandate to go solve this problem. The government, as I mentioned last year, put $40 billion against this problem and said, go figure it out. And these guys at Tsinghua are publishing some groundbreaking research on how to do it. It's easier to catch up or to copy than to innovate. So if you're China, the first thing you'd want to do is just copy EUV and get that technology for yourself. Well, let me ask you this. What would you do? So you're the AI czar. You're sitting in the United States and China's got this lithography technology. Is your goal to steal their technology? Or is your goal to get your best scientists and say, let's get ahead of their technology? If I'm China? Neither. I think it would be to solve the United States. It's to solve the problem. What is the actual economic commercial problem we're saying?

Starting point is 01:13:12 And so if you can figure out a way to do manufacturing better, cheaper, faster than the way that China does it, you would obviously take that path. You're not trying to get to parity with China if you view yourself to be supreme to China. But you have to understand. Even with these EUV machines. And the same is true in the other side. At two or even sub two nanometer scale, you have these incredible laws of physics that you are pushing to the boundaries of, which caused these chips to have pretty low yield. You have a lot of systems that actually aren't that efficient and highly utilized as a result. So these systems are brittle.

Starting point is 01:13:44 The second thing is that when you have these compute-centric architectures, you end up making design decisions like HBM. They'll have to go and steal all the HBM, which is the high bandwidth memory business that S.K. Hynix and Samsung have. But again, that's where Nvidia and then Google have an effective monopoly. Let me ask you a question, Sachs. I mean, what's your strategic response if China next year goes into manufacturing with a sub two nanometer system that's got higher yields is faster, it's cheaper than anything that we're seeing anywhere else in the world? Well, I don't think that's going to happen. Let's talk about that if it actually

Starting point is 01:14:17 happens. I don't think it's going to. But what would I be focused on right now? I would say we want to get more of the leading-edge manufacturing in the United States. TSM has already opened a big fab in Arizona, and they're planning on increasing the size of that, and that's really important. And we should get all these restrictions out of the way. They're facing all sorts of permitting restrictions. I mean, all the stuff that Bernie is talking about where he wants to slow down. I mean, he's talking about data centers, but not ship manufacturing, but the concepts are

Starting point is 01:14:50 the same. Yeah. Rocana, Elizabeth Warren. This is exactly wrong. I mean, we should be- anti-tech progress people saying, let's stop all this stuff. Meanwhile, China is not just racing to catch up, but they're likely going to get ahead of the United States. And if we're caught flat-footed,

Starting point is 01:15:04 because we've got a moratorium on development, a moratorium on production, it's going to be extraordinarily damaging. Right. Well, look, this is where I agree with you, is that if this Reuters report is accurate, it does speed up the timeline on China closing the chip gap from, you know, a decades or a few years. You can go read the Singhua papers.

Starting point is 01:15:24 You'll see that these guys are so advanced. If they care about being ahead, why are they publishing that paper? So by the way, this is a really important point. And I've picked up on this from a number of different disciplines in scientific research. So what's been going on is scientists in China, they're very smart people. There's very great scientists there. And like all scientists, they don't think necessarily in terms of nationalism first. They think in terms of science.

Starting point is 01:15:48 they want to publish their research, they want to be known, they want to be the discoverers of these new frontiers. And so they publish. And what we've seen in several instances is that the scientific research groups will publish and they'll publish slightly ahead. And once they get ahead of the market or they get ahead of the world, suddenly they stop publishing. And it's almost like the CCP comes in and it's like, okay, you guys are now, you know, going too far. We don't want to tip our hat too far, and the stuff starts to recede. And I think there was this one paper on optics that is designed to replace the Zeiss monopoly in optics that suddenly disappeared, and that research team stopped publishing. I got to find this paper. This came out last year.

Starting point is 01:16:29 But there are a number of these disciplines where there's publications that go to a certain extent and then they stop publishing. So I think that there's a little bit of a mechanism. It's because of the funding cycle in China. You have every single local government that's given capital to invest in businesses. And so they compete and compete until it gets to the state level and you have one or two national champions. But if this was so important, Freiburg, would there also be an argument to publish things that would send, that would be misinformation or send people down a wrong direction? No, because you have to, again, the funding cycle is you get as a policy person in Shanghai, you get promoted because you make a good bet. Yeah.

Starting point is 01:17:12 So by the time it becomes one national, to Freebrook's point, when's the last time? you saw B-Y-D or C-A-T-L publish anything meaningful. But when they were not the national champion, they were probably publishing very aggressively. But at that time, there was 50 different companies competing to be the national champion. So I suspect what's happening here is there's 50 different semi-startups all over China.

Starting point is 01:17:36 Everybody's trying to support their own local version, and eventually when there's one, they disappear. Okay. Interesting. I mean, one of the things we see is China does, give money to these research institutions on frontier science and then there's an industrialization. It's something the U.S. isn't quite as good at. And I think it's, again, we've talked about the co-opting of our universities as research institutions over the last couple of decades. They've become these sort of employment centers, if you will, and they've become these sort of weird

Starting point is 01:18:05 social engineering systems. They've kind of gotten away from some of the core research, or that's been kind of co-opted. In China, there are these sort of dedicated research centers. And then there are universities where there's very clear, independent research that goes on on university campuses, they typically get quite a bit of funding. And the way this worked, if you look into the details of this China National Integrated Circuit Industry Investment Fund, and there were three funds, one, two, and three, the funds get bigger and bigger as the research teams make progress. It's a very smart way of doing things from a central planning perspective. And then in phase three, they're now targeting these specific unlocks that then will enable industrialization.

Starting point is 01:18:43 So they're funding some of this core research. The core research has these breakthroughs and then it gets industrialized. It's during that research phase where we see a lot of publications happening. And this is happening in life sciences as well and in physics and in material science. And as soon as they start to get a little bit ahead of the curve, then it gets industrialized and the publications kind of stop. So I don't know if it's necessarily the CCP stepping in and saying, hey, stop publishing. You're going to let the world know too much of what we're having versus, okay, the handoff is now

Starting point is 01:19:08 happening and industrialization begins. Yeah, look, I would just say that to me, the take. way here is that the timeline on China closing the gap with us is being sped up, whether it's the fact that they're copying what we're doing, whether EUV is being reverse engineered, or maybe their scientists are figuring out a way to leapfrog. We are in a pretty close race with China, and that's why I think it's really important that we don't listen to Bernie and others who just want to stop the progress, because the progress is not going to stop. Is this going to happen in China? and that will be a big problem for the United States.

Starting point is 01:19:43 All right. Speaking of socialism slash communism, are you guys thinking about coming to Austin, my neck of the woods? I've been pulling up these photos in Austin of these homes. You know, I'm doing it, right?

Starting point is 01:19:55 Welcome to Texas, boss! Like, on the lake. Sacks already bought a house. Sacks already bought a house. It's incredible. He hooked me up with the agent. What does she got you looking at? I'm not sure yet.

Starting point is 01:20:05 We're just going to do a call. Because you guys are bidding against each other, assholes. You can have my sloppy seconds. You have the high ground, so you can negotiate hard. There is so much inventory. But only like 20% of the inventory is on the MLS. 80% here because it's a no reporting state is off market. So it's completely different than any other market, certainly California.

Starting point is 01:20:27 I want to be on the lake. You don't. You don't want to be on the water. Oh, really? I don't want the lake. I mean, if you're, here's the challenge with the lake. People are going to come up to your house and take pictures. and hang out like two feet off your house and starting at 7 a.m.

Starting point is 01:20:43 They already do that at Texas House in San Francisco. Everybody's zipping around the lake and motorboats starting at 7 a.m. It's beautiful. I love the motorboat. It's great, but just understand it's going to get loud. There's nothing a good motorboating doesn't. Who doesn't love a good motorboat? Jake, I heard you're like an hour away.

Starting point is 01:21:04 You're not even in Austin. I'm in the hill country on my ranch, but we're getting a place closer to the actually. So we're 30 minutes outside the city. 30 minutes. My God. I heard you're an hour. I heard you're in the sticks. No, not that far. Not that far. No, he's in the suburbs of the suburbs.

Starting point is 01:21:20 No, if you want to have like, you know, dozens of acres, you can't do that in the city. When I was growing up in Memphis, they called that Bumble, F, Egypt. BFE. Bumble. I mean, if you want a ranch and you want like dozens of acres, you can't do that. You can get an acre to three acres. inside of the city. I found an acre in Terrytown.

Starting point is 01:21:42 No problem. An acre is doable. Two acres is possible. You know what's so sad? Even if this bill doesn't get on the books, which I think... Everyone's leaving. There's a decent chance. It ripped the band-aid off.

Starting point is 01:21:54 The revenues of California are going to plummet. Plum it. Man, it is... Yeah, I mean, we saw the writing on the wall. Socialism is coming, and, you know, this is one of the great things about having a United States of America. states can optimize for different things. That one bill, this proposed billionaire tax, has single-handedly changed the trajectory of the

Starting point is 01:22:19 California economy by $100 to $200 billion over the next five to 10 years. It's an enormous cell phone. People were here willing to pay the money. And now- Yeah, people were willing to put up with a lot in this state. People were- As soon as you tell people, hey, we're doing property seizures, property seizures or their threat of property seizures or the fact that people didn't come out against property seizures is enough

Starting point is 01:22:45 for everyone to be like, see ya. See you later. The fact that all the politicians didn't in uniform stand up and say, this is ridiculous, we're never going to let this happen. They let this happen. By not defending the property rights that are endowed in this country, they lost everything. They have to defend it. What do you think happens to the state budget over the next four or five years as a result of this?

Starting point is 01:23:07 You're right. It's trashed. And by the way, and that's what drives the socialists. spiral because then they try and do more property seizures and they try and get the money back. Who are they going to tax? Everybody's going to be gone, though. And here's the other crazy statistic that we never talk about. I was going to try and put some data together and get it as a topic, but we should save it for the new year. But the California pension fund system is underfunded by roughly a trillion dollars. So these folks in the California pension fund system are sitting

Starting point is 01:23:31 around waiting for money to come to them every year for the next 30, 40, 50 years, and the money isn't there. They're guaranteed that money from this pension fund system. and it's not there. What are they going to do? It's a trillion dollars short. That's a state obligation. Why would anybody hear something like that and think giving politicians more money is a good idea?

Starting point is 01:23:53 These people are so fiscally irresponsible. They're fiscally illiterate. There is that. It's pretty clear to me that in New York and California, it'll be 60 plus percent taxes. And, you know, if you were, living in a perfect society that appreciated it and you had this incredible safety. You had extraordinary schools and the roads and the public transit. Everything works. Yeah, like Japan. You'd pay 60%

Starting point is 01:24:25 and be ecstatic. Yeah, you'd be like, okay, it's a lot, but hey, this is a pretty great place to live. If you're paying that and people are breaking into your home and there's nine overdoses a day, you're like, wait a second. And then on top of that, by the way, and they're seizing your private property now. Seizing your property. They're seizing your property. And by the way, they don't care about you.

Starting point is 01:24:47 When you look at the laws, I was just talking to some law enforcement people. Citi's using your money to give homeless people vodka. It's just. Well, I mean, if it was tequila, I mean, I have a good tequila brand. We could give to the homeless. Maybe we can make a deal.

Starting point is 01:25:02 Shout out to all a tequila coming to you. delivery is happening right now. In all seriousness, I was talking to some security folks and was talking to my security guy in California. And in California, not only do they not have the castle doctrine, they've replaced the castle doctrine where you can defend your home if somebody comes into it with your gun and protect your family and your property. now you have to have this duty to flee.

Starting point is 01:25:37 So you have to be able to run out of your home with your family as opposed to defend your family. So they literally are telling the criminals, hey, listen, if you break into somebody's home in California, don't worry about getting shot. They're going to have to run out or else they're in the wrong. Like, this is deranged. The inmates have literally taken over the asylum. They have taken over the asylum. I realized this two years ago, and I pulled the ripcord. Some Elon realized it six years ago when he tried to build a factory.

Starting point is 01:26:07 He pulled the ripcord. You guys are realizing it now. Everybody's realizing this, New York, the hedge fund guys in New York and in Jersey and Connecticut, they realized it, what, three years ago? LA, Hollywood guys. I know a bunch of Hollywood guys leaving. Yeah. I literally, this producer, one of the major producers who has produced billions of dollars

Starting point is 01:26:24 worth of films, came here last year. I met him out of football game. He said, tell me everything. I told him everything. He moved here. He moved here. He's going to start making movies here, and he is one of the top top.

Starting point is 01:26:35 I wouldn't say who he is, but you know his films because his partner, who is an incredibly high profile comedian, like amongst the highest profile in history, would they make films together? He moved here. Why?

Starting point is 01:26:47 He doesn't want to live in L.A. and risk his family's life to a home invasion and the house burning down because they don't fill water in the reservoir. I mean, guys, hopefully not everyone realizes it, because I need to sell my house to someone.

Starting point is 01:27:02 Good luck. You'll be okay. You'll be okay. There's a Chinese billionaire looking to. Actually, you know who you'll be able to sell your house to? There's no billionaires left in California. It's whoever the politicians are that are able to aggregate power and money in the socialist. Gavin will buy your house and turn it into a homeless shelter.

Starting point is 01:27:18 Gavin's gone. You guys are going to look back on Gavin and realize he was the most moderate. Upstanding moderate governor that California. had in modern era, and suddenly we're going to be like, what the fuck? And I think that's a great place to stop it, boys. We will be doing a couple of episodes between now and the end of the year. And, yeah, no weeks off.

Starting point is 01:27:41 Hopefully we get to see each other over the holidays. I'll see you, Sacks, and you as well, Jamath and Friedberg shortly. Oh, by the way, the president just signed an executive order reclassifying marijuana from Schedule 1 to Schedule 3. Schedule 1 to Schedule 3. Okay. That's something Obama wanted to do in the second term and never did. I mean, it's a good thing.

Starting point is 01:28:04 I mean, Schedule 1 is like heroin. You know, it's never made sense to treat it the same as heroin. You know, I know a lot of people aren't thrilled about marijuana. It's not great when people are smoking in the streets. I don't like marijuana, but I agree with this decision. But it's not heroin. It's not heroin. I mean, it would be on, I think most people intellectually would put it on the same level as alcohol.

Starting point is 01:28:22 Right. I just wanted studied so that we can have toxicity labels. That's the big thing. that I want because like if these kids that's the most important thing is just put a talks label on these things so you know what you're taking it's the the strength of these

Starting point is 01:28:37 things over the last 50 years has changed dramatically and there are yeah there there there are these shards they create of this like incredibly intense THC that will make you like go psychotic like it's really dangerous so

Starting point is 01:28:52 the smoking a joint from our youth is very different than smoking the like resins and stuff that they've created, apparently that are like a hundred times the potency, 200 times the posing. And they can put you in a psychotic state, really dangerous folks. Well, that's where like the FDA should regulate it.

Starting point is 01:29:07 More like alcohol or something. 100%. 100%. Much better process, especially since kids are getting access and stuff. All right, everybody, another amazing episode of your favorite podcast. Love you, boys. Love you, boys. Happy holidays, everybody.

Starting point is 01:29:20 Merry Christmas. Happy Hanukkah. Merry Christmas. Happy Hanukkah. Every Christmas. Festivist, whatever. you're into.

All-In with Chamath, Jason, Sacks & Friedberg - Bernie Sanders: Stop All AI, China's EUV Breakthrough, Inflation Down, Golden Age in 2026?

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.