All-In with Chamath, Jason, Sacks & Friedberg - E131: 2024 Fantasy President picks, debt ceiling agreement, Dollar dominance & more

Starting point is 00:00:00 Freeberg punch you now. Get punchy opposites punch your hug. Salty freeberg reminds me of a story for this weekend. Okay, we're waiting in line to go to the encore beach club to see Kaigo. Oh, and Kaigo me and freeberg are at the back of the line. Everybody else has gotten through. All you guys are filtering into the booth. Kaigo is tight and freeberg has.

Starting point is 00:00:19 Can they say take out your clothes? So I put up my phone. That's all I have, my key card. We take the takes out of phone, his key card, and a small bag of the salt and vicar salt and pistachios. Oh, he travels with them. He won't leave home without them. So he has his little backup pistachios.

Starting point is 00:00:37 And they're like, go food in the club. The guy says, no food in the club. No, and he goes, what do you mean no food? This is in a bag. It's like, it's just pistachios. Just pistachios. They get it in an argument, back on work, back up forth. He's like, I'm gonna take a stand.

Starting point is 00:00:50 This is outrageous. I said, free work, come on, let's just go. So we go inside. This is where he takes a stand. And then he's like, could you believe it? They took my fucking pistachios. Like these were my pistachios. He's tilted.

Starting point is 00:00:59 That's tilted. He's a leak. And then, and then, and then, he's like, if I see that guy, he's these pist I see that guy This is a fucking curb your enthusiasm skit right here Where's my pistachios? He's salty about the pistachios. I was walking through the casino later eating the pistachios. I fell in love with freeberg this weekend

Starting point is 00:01:19 I had so much fun with this fucking. Oh my god. There is the club. He's such a great. He's such a... He was living his best life in the country. Nick, show the bigger picture. Nick just zoom out so you can see. Oh, there I am. Yeah, right next to him. There's me. Look at how huge my ass looks. God. That's a lot of... That's a lot of S. That is a lot of... No, show that ass. Look at that huge dumper. Wow. That's incredible. And what's going on with those...

Starting point is 00:01:40 Look at that guy. Are those underwear? Who's good as that, J. Kills? That's my gun. But I think it's just the T-shirt. I think it's just the t-shirt. You obviously stop the Asampic. Yeah, I'm still so so so I was 17. You put it right back on didn't you? Nope, nope. You stopped the Asampic and it came right back. Vegas was so fun. I gotta say I gotta shout out to those guys that run that to Lila joint. I think that's like the best new restaurant. That is a really great place. A little loud. I wish it would just go like one notch lower on the volume for the old people. We're all good seeing you.

Starting point is 00:02:09 A bunch of 50 all the Clemser tour. And it said we open source it to the fans and they just go crazy. Love you, Wes. I'm queen of Kenwa. I'm going down the lane with us again on the all in podcast. The architect himself crazy hair doesn't care. David Sacks. Friedberg is committing suicide in the bottom of a pool. Apparently, he just cannot take all the adulation and inside.

Starting point is 00:02:42 That's a leaving Las Vegas scene. Exactly. That's you leaving Vegas down 150 times, which you could have given to DeSantis like Saks did. And hot off of his wonderful weekend, the afterglow of Vegas, Chimath Polyhapetian. We went to Vegas to play cards. It was a wonderful weekend.

Starting point is 00:03:02 We had a great time. Everybody bonded. A lot of laughs were had. We had a great time. Everybody bonded. A lot of laughs were had. Wonderful time. Wonderful time. Wonderful time. I got into Crap's. I was never Crap's guy, but I had one of those like.

Starting point is 00:03:13 How great was Jay Cowling Crap's? Oh my God. I had a 40, I had a 40 die roll run. It was incredible. There's something about that game that is like super addicting to me. Oh. When you just go out of 40 di row. Oh, I think craps really is one of the best

Starting point is 00:03:31 Gambling games ever created so exciting. It's so exciting. It's so exciting It's like hitting the hard ways and then the feature bats the feature bats Feature absolutely leaky bats. No, but when they hit, they're just so far. And they hit, they just, all the dopamine gets released, loved it. I spiked ACEs for the max, but it was like, Oh, I saw that, you put 500 on it. Yeah, they only let me bet 500,

Starting point is 00:03:55 but I bet 31 to one on ACEs, they hit it. Hmm. Table went crazy, when that 15 dimes were pushed. I was being about pushing 150 dimes, it's actually been getting a lot of press for being the architect. I saw some stories. Let me ask you a question.

Starting point is 00:04:09 Tell about fake news. All fake news, we know that. Everybody's emailing me to try to get answers about you. I just see you on this, but the press has been trying to cover your role architecting the Ron DeSantis president. We talked about it last week. What's the cover?

Starting point is 00:04:24 Well, the press wants to know what 150 dime skis is. They can look it up in the urban dictionary. I think that would be easier. But let me ask you a question about your giving strategy, your donation strategy. I notice that you're donating to RFK for president and you're donating to Ron DeSantis. Are you donating to any other president

Starting point is 00:04:45 candidates? And why are you betting both sides of the aisle? This is confusing to me. I thought you wanted one side to win. I mean, I've already explained this on previous pods. I don't know the answer. What's the simplest way to understand my political giving is just to watch the all-in pod. And I always end up describing who I'm supporting and why and which causes on the pod first.

Starting point is 00:05:08 And then I back it up, I put my money where my mouth is. So there's no mystery, there's no like back room deals going on. It's just me writing checks and supportive things. I've almost always already talked about on the pod. Okay, so what about this question of betting both sides? So you're betting for both teams in a basketball series. Like I don't know, I don't understand that. Well, I've said that it's not competitive at this point.

Starting point is 00:05:32 I've said that I would support RSC Jr. for the Democratic party nomination. And I support the San Francisco and their Republican side because of the contradiction. I guess if they both made it to the general, then I'd have a real dilemma. But that's the face of they're both underdogs and they're a lane.

Starting point is 00:05:50 Okay. It'd be a high class problem to have if you know that being a DeSantis Kennedy race instead of a Biden Trump repeat. Well, I mean, I've played Blackjack with you and you do play multiple hands at once. So I guess this does track. It's not enough action for you to just play one hand.

Starting point is 00:06:05 I don't really see a contradiction there. Right now, there's a Trump desantis race going on and there's a Biden Kennedy race going on. OK. Now, you hold a lot of fun, research. Tomoth and I are actually doing an event for Bobby Kennedy soon in the next two weeks. Got it.

Starting point is 00:06:21 Let's go to you, Chema. Well, I think it's important to just acknowledge an uncomfortable truth and i come fatted from a person who's independent i'm not registered democrat or republican but i've donated millions of dollars to the democrats in the last couple of cycles but i'm concerned about joe biden's mental acuity. And recently, when you look at how the White House behaves, the thing that I'm worried

Starting point is 00:06:56 about is that there is almost like this sensation that there is a shadow government that's actually running the country. And we didn't elect any of those people. And this is nothing to say anything bad about Janet Yellen or Jeff Zients or anybody else. But I think it's very important to acknowledge that other presidents have typically seen turnover in the highest ranks of government every two years or so. And there's been incredible consistency. Now, one could say, well, that's a good thing.

Starting point is 00:07:29 The other side of it is, well, that's what allows more vibrancy in government and to make sure that the president remains always in charge. And so I think it's very important in this moment where we have a president who's 82-odd years old or however old he is, we need to have a chance the American public to re-underwrite his mental acuity. And I think that's a judgment that we should all be allowed to make. And I think the fairest way to do that is to feel the candidate who can be on the debate stage with him and who can actually just go toe-to-toe on the critical issues so that we as an American electorate can decide for ourselves, where does this issue land? Is he mentally super sharp and ready to go for another four years in which case a lot

Starting point is 00:08:16 of folks will support him? Or is this a moment where we actually need to be very responsible at the future of the country and not create some puppet government situation. I don't think it's funny that we have this weekend at Bernie's like meme that goes around about him. This is the president of the United States. It's the most important person in the world. We can't be in a situation where like that is a 30% probability that people joke about. So my support of Bobby Kennedy is in part because what I've heard from him, I find intriguing, but the more important thing is somebody needs to be

Starting point is 00:08:52 in the arena, on the democratic side, and put to test this mental acuity construct here and get us to an answer. Because otherwise I am worried that there's a bunch of folks that were not elected who are actually running the government and I'm not sure how much Biden actually knows or doesn't know. And I want to know the answer to that question. I think everybody wants to know the answer and feels like Democrats would like a different

Starting point is 00:09:15 candidate. That's what the polling is showing to be, you know, put on the field here. And there is the issue of he's had the fewest number of news conferences. We don't get to hear from him directly, which then fuels, I think, this perception, Friedberg, that he's incognitive decline. And perhaps the cognitive decline has increased. Republicans love to, and the right love to, you know, make these images of him confused on stage.

Starting point is 00:09:44 Who knows if he's actually confused or if those are being selectively edited, but it certainly doesn't look good when you don't put the person out there to face the music and to take hard questions. I can't imagine he would do very well in a town hall or in an extended number of debates. And so this is the thing that I find truly scary is,

Starting point is 00:10:05 if the guy can't make it through the debates and he can't debate RFK and 10 other people and he can't do news conferences and we haven't heard directly from him or had him face some really hard questioning. He did one thing on MSNBC or CNN and it was so pathetically sycophantic. And it looked like it was highly edited.

Starting point is 00:10:25 I kind of liked the host who did it. I'll pull up her name in a minute. I forgot her name right now. She's usually pretty good. She's kind of funny and she's kind of insightful. But she just threw softwaft to softwaft. Is there an age, a self-confident science, that we should have a cognitive test for, for office in your mind?

Starting point is 00:10:42 I don't have an opinion on that. You don't? On an age? I mean, yeah, like should we have a cognitive test? A cognitive test? Should we cognitively test the president of the United States for office? I think what Shamaat is saying is that when you hold debates and you do town halls and you do rallies, then that is a cognitive test. You'll see you'll be able to take the cognitive

Starting point is 00:11:05 measure by seeing how quick on their feet they are. But if Biden doesn't debate anybody, we won't see it. And right now they're saying they want debate Kennedy. So that tells you right there that they're afraid of something. I just want to reiterate this. This is the single most important person in the world, in the single most important job. If it breaks your brain in a moment like this to not be partisan and think, what would you do if it was the other side? I just think you're like an unpatriotic rube.

Starting point is 00:11:40 And you're going to get tricked. I'm not saying you Jason, I'm saying anybody that thinks that. I mean, you're a cap. I want to see him debate. Yeah. Especially if the Ukraine war is still going on because we're that close to being in a direct shooting war with Russia Which could lead to a nuclear war So you need somebody to be contained I'll be more worried about the relationship Contained I think it's escalating. I don't think it's contained. It's escalating and as of yesterday There seems to be some

Starting point is 00:12:03 Conflugation between Kosovo and Serbia that's kicking up so all of a sudden we're talking about a totally different European land war and we have Fiscal instability we're about to talk about it today, but The home market could implode in the United States the commercial real estate market has already imploded There's all this complexity and I think that the idea that you can't demand the most important person in the world to be on top of their game, I just think that that's outrageous.

Starting point is 00:12:34 You expect the best player in the NBA to be elite, right? Yes, of course. Yes, they have to get good sleep, they have to have good fitness. They're measuring every single dimension of an NBA player's life. They measure their sleep now, their diet, their shooting percentages, everything. And we're not doing that for the president of the United States. By the way, the MSNBC host who got the one interview I've seen with Biden in years was Stephanie Rool,

Starting point is 00:12:59 are you HLE from 11th hour? Well, they've given the questions. That's how she gets the interview. Have you seen that like Biden has these cute cards when he goes with the podium? And literally it's got the questions and it says who to call on. So they script the whole thing. That's a stack. Then there's a stack deck. But Trump did that as well. If you remember, you did have in favor of the question. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, I'm saying, I'm saying, he said a PR, the McAnany lady.

Starting point is 00:13:25 She had a huge binder and she would flip to the talk. My point is, that's okay. We never did the same thing with the Sans, what are you talking about? Didn't you pick the first five speakers? First five questions were people you knew. You said that. He didn't stack the deck, Jason, come on, stop.

Starting point is 00:13:39 We didn't have a script. You picked the first five speakers, my point. That is not a personal conference. That's an introductory event. That's someone announcing their campaign. Okay. Fine. Whatever. Same thing. You're giving no it's not. No, no, no, we're talking about a White House press conference. Okay. And he goes up to the podium. And secretly, when they zoom in on the camera, they're seeing that literally, he knows who to call on and what the question is going to be. So in other words, the media is cooperating with the Biden administration for access,

Starting point is 00:14:09 for access. And they're giving him the questions. All right. Anyway, let's, let's move on. I think it's very important to just acknowledge that you're trying to normalize it by comparing it to a completely different kind of event. I am saying that is something they never did that with Trump. They never give Trump the questions.

Starting point is 00:14:22 He's kidding. Loves to mix it up. I mean, that's why he's's winning that's how you know he's told mentally fit i mean a mentally unfit trump would be a scary proposition you may or may not like his personal your temperament but no one is accusing him of being no no he sure i think it's important to get on the record i don't think we are saying that he is unfit to be president i think at least what I'm saying is we have a right to

Starting point is 00:14:46 underwrite the president every four years and on this dimension this is the biggest issue that I see with Biden and I'm concerned in the lack of turnover in the White House and I want to know that he is actually in charge day to day in making the decisions versus a shadow government. That's all I want to know, and I want to see him live on the debate stage so that he can validate that he is firmly on the controls. 100% of Americans want this. The only people who don't want it is people who are in power,

Starting point is 00:15:27 who are part of his group. That's not 100%. Doesn't mean we can't percentage. Well, I know, I'm talking about Americans who vote. They all want to see him debate. I don't think, I don't know anybody who doesn't want to see a vibrant debate. So I think this is something the Democratic party needs. The Democratic party needs to rethink their stance

Starting point is 00:15:43 on this, put them out there, put them on the field, up or down, left or right. He has to debate at least three, four debates in the primaries, earn a slot. It'll do real damage to the Democrats if Bobby Kennedy gets a ton of steam and they ignore him. I'll give you a different example of how Bobby's being roadblocked, which is when you go to 538.com and you look at, you know, Nate does a great job of pulling up all of the polling that happens from all of the polling agencies. There are many instances where the democratic field won't even include him when they ask him questions.

Starting point is 00:16:18 And so there is definitely a concerted effort here. And I think it's not that I don't want Joe Biden to win. I think he's he could be fantastic. Again, I voted for him. And I think that if he's mentally sharp and his hands are on the floor, as you think he sharp. No, I'm saying I don't know. I know I want to know for myself. What do you think the chances are? I don't mean she was using logic here. I think they could be pretty good actually. You know, there's a lot of like if you look at Buffett, he's 92. He sharp is attacked. Munger's 96. He sharp is attack. I think that if be pretty good actually. You know, there's a lot of, like if you look at Buffett, he's 92, he's sharp as a tack, mongers 96,

Starting point is 00:16:46 he's sharp as a tack, I think that if you live reasonably well and Biden's got some great things working for him, he's been a T totaler his whole life. So all the things that would have caught up with you in your 80s, Biden has avoided. So from a health perspective, he has the best chance of being on top of his game. Can he be physically frail?

Starting point is 00:17:03 I don't care about that. You know, that happens to everybody. So I think it's important to disambiguate those two. And so it is very easy to tell when you're standing under debate stage, hell, you can sit on the debate stage. I don't care. But I want you to be able to explain what you think in a way that's cogent and coherent and you walk away thinking, oh, I feel safer with him with his hands on the controls here. So, what do you think? Is he? What do you think the chances are he's sharp as a tag? He's

Starting point is 00:17:40 not incognitive decline. He's not. I'm not sure. We know that. The question is whether he can serve it all. Should people have to take a cognitive test? You think that would be a good improvement? No, look, I think it debates the cognitive test. But what about for the Senate and stuff like that? Because it does seem like people are... The voters are the cognitive test. The problem is when the media is cooperating with the candidate by not asking them tough questions or even worth sharing the questions with them

Starting point is 00:18:00 to give voters a false impression of how strong they are. I mean, look, the media's job is to be fundamentally antagonistic with the people on power not to cooperate with them. Here's something super intriguing that happened this week. Jamie Diamond has hinted at running for office. Bill Ackman made a case for him to run for president in 2024. This is getting a lot of steam. Well, I've said people are talking about on CMBC and it's trending on Twitter. On Wednesday, JP Morgan, Chase CEO, Jamie Diamond

Starting point is 00:18:29 made some comments about potentially running for office in the future quote. I love my country. It may be one day I'll serve my country in one capacity or another. He's 67 years old. He didn't know that Bill Ackman tweeted his support for Diamond running as a dem against Biden. Ackman put out a number of compelling points. Diamond is one of the world's most respected business leaders. That's true. Pillically centrist, pro business, pro free enterprise, all true. Supportive of well-designed social programs and rational tax policies that can help the

Starting point is 00:19:00 less fortunate, smart, thoughtful, pragmatic. Notice how to bring opposing parties together, highly respected by right, left, and center. I think that's also true. Superbly managed AP Morgan through every crisis. Quote, no bullshit, straight talking, charismatic leader with an enormous grasp of the world's issues and how to address them. Tremoth, I'll just ask it to you plainly.

Starting point is 00:19:23 If you had three choices or four choices, Trump, DeSantis, Biden, and the Jedi, Jamie Diamond. Stack ranked those for us, rank them. Who do you got? Who do you vote for? Those are your four choices. Probably Jamie Diamond in one, okay? The sand is two, okay? And Trump and Biden, it's a bit of a time. A bit of a time. Garbage garbage, okay. Not garbage garbage, don't say that, but it's a bit of a time. I mean, it's two people that nobody wants to vote for, it seems, wants to run. I personally believe that the era of sectagenarians and octagenarians should come to an end in terms of their ability to run this country. I want that transition.

Starting point is 00:20:08 Now Jamie is 67, but he's still much younger than these two other guys. And again, I get back to years as a lot. It's a lot of vitality, energy, it matters. And I think that he is a very competent, economic, rational actor. So it would be interesting to see. I mean, look, the reality is, if I had to be really honest with you, I think that what

Starting point is 00:20:32 we should do is keep chipping away at the establishment and how they pick candidates. It's going to be a slow process. But I think in 10 or 15 years, the real thing that we should all do is if there's enough citizen journalism, that we should all do is if there's enough citizen journalism that we should really just change the Constitution so that we can allow people that have been here for 25 plus years that have paid all their taxes that have followed all the rules to run for president And then we could actually just we could vote Elon in and just have him clean it up the way he's cleaning up everything else

Starting point is 00:21:04 Honestly, why not just do that? I mean, who would not want that? Sax, let me ask you to stack rank and then we'll get to the change in the constitution issue, which is, that is a hell marry. How would you rank those four? I think that we have run out of topics to talk about if Bill Ackman's latest political brain fart is a major topic of conversation. A brain fart.

Starting point is 00:21:31 I think this is inspired. You guys put Trump in office. Did GOP put Trump in office? He's the outsider, his outsider, lunatic. And you can't even consider Jamie Dominic. You're laughing at that and you put Trump in office? You guys put Trump in office. and you're gonna do it again I mean you guys listen that do you okay?

Starting point is 00:21:48 Okay, look party here's the part about this conversation that sort of makes sense two thirds of the country says that they are Uninspired and in fact fatigued by the idea of having a repeat of the same choice that four years ago Everybody wants a different choice. So I get this like fantasy Basketball drafting thing that we're trying to do here. Okay, the reason why I call it a brain fart, and I look, Bill's a really smart guy, I'm not dragging him,

Starting point is 00:22:14 but in order to win the presidency, you have to get the nomination of a major party. And the problem with all this fantasy drafting is that you're trying to draft people who are anathema to the party that you're trying to draft people who are a nathema to the party that you're trying to get them the nomination from. And Trump was able to get the nomination of the Republican Party. Jamie Dye would have to get the nomination of the Democratic Party and that's not going

Starting point is 00:22:37 to happen. And it does remind me of Bloomberg. Remember, Bloomberg spent $100 million on his campaign. Came in late, yeah. He spent a lot of money and he made it to the first question of the first debate. And remember what happened? Elizabeth Warren said that this is a billionaire who

Starting point is 00:22:52 talks about. He didn't fight. He laid down. He rolled over. She ended him with one question, one debate. So my point is that you got to be able to get the nomination of a major party. And actually, I think neither party could nominate a banker right now.

Starting point is 00:23:07 I mean, if you saw what happened around the whole banking crisis that I think is still going on in slow motion, I mean, the amount of animosity both towards the banks that went under and the idea of potentially bailing them out and then also the animosity towards JP Morgan win it actually bought first republic. I mean, both parties have such a strong populist wing in them right now that I think you could never get. Yeah. The head of the number one bank in the US to be their candidate.

Starting point is 00:23:38 You're completely wrong, I think, in this case, respectfully. I mean, he could run as an independent as well. And although, you know, you like to think, or it seems like you're proposing that things are going to be as they always were, Trump shows a wild card, and then people forget Ross Perot, you know, he got 19 percent of the popular vote. He hit 20 million votes to Bush's 40 million and Clinton's 44. It is not unprecedented. And we are in a really struggling time. You started the soft by saying the Democrats should draft Jamie diamond. Now you're saying that. I'm fine. I'm fine. I'm not saying. I don't know why he runs independent. There's

Starting point is 00:24:15 no movement to draft the top banker in the country. Like, where do you see this reality? Starlight Trump in. Okay. That was the wild card of all wild cards. He ran in one of the two major parties and he hit a nerve. I know that's my point. So that's what you got to do. Tell me about Ross Perot. Tell me about Ross Perot and how did he hit 20 million votes? And isn't the world much different right now because of media, because of people going

Starting point is 00:24:39 direct, we're talking, I mean, Shemoff just proposed Elon. If you're proposing Elon, you're saying people are proposing a constitutional amendment so that competent people sure who are not foreign in the country Now if you've lived here for 25 years or 30 years you've created hundreds of thousands of jobs and paid tens of billions of taxes The idea that you are less fit than half these politicians to run for president is insane Okay, that's a different question. What do you think about that? That I guess. Do you think we should change the Constitution

Starting point is 00:25:08 to allow non-nationalists to run for president? Don't stop saying non-nationalists. That's cruel. It's like, well, you know, it's people that weren't necessarily born here, but if you lived your whole life, you're the majority of your life, and you've built value for America and helped it win. All of a sudden, you're less capable of being president.

Starting point is 00:25:26 That's absolutely not true. Oh, I didn't say it was. I'm describing what the Constitution says. Somebody who's not born. This was called the Schwarzenegger Amendment because when he was governor of California, there were people who wanted him to run for president. But look, it's too hard to change the Constitution. It's a very difficult process.

Starting point is 00:25:43 So do I think that's gonna happen now? Would you be in favor of that? And under what circumstances? Do you think that, if you're not saying we should change that, he's emphatic, we should change it in fact. So what do you think? Do you have-

Starting point is 00:25:54 It's not a pressing issue for me. I'd rather have a balanced budget amendment. I'd rather that the president have a line item veto to control spending. If you wanna blow up the government and cut it down to size and Impose the ideals of liberalism true liberalism free speech Well controlled borders, but good immigration, etc. etc. I feel like there are lots of people who could do that

Starting point is 00:26:19 and The only difference is they were accidentally not born here except they've created more value in America than most Americans that were born here. That's crazy. That would actually be foreign born national would be the most accurate term. Right. What are the natural now that they were born for? Whatever dumb term you want to use. I'm just using the ones in the Constitution, the government is a sorry Chimoff for using accurate terms.

Starting point is 00:26:40 I'll try to use less accurate terms in the future. So back to Jamie Diamond. Nobody here is questioning whether he is a supremely competent executive. It's completely grant that he's done an amazing job taking JP Morgan. It was already the biggest. He's made it even bigger.

Starting point is 00:27:00 How is that possible? Whether that's the good thing. In the face of them say, we got to stop the bags from getting bigger. He's still getting bigger. Yeah, whether that's a good thing for the country ultimately is a different question. No one questions his competence and his expertise, but again, I see no groundswell for him in either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party or even as an independent because again, it doesn't fit the populist mood of the country right now.

Starting point is 00:27:22 Agreed. So that's your pragmatic path to victory. But let me ask you about competence then, because maybe I can frame the question and get a better answer out of you. That's what I thought I was answering when you said, who do you have more confident questions? Well, you guys interpret my questions,

Starting point is 00:27:36 have you like you interpret it in terms of competence, sax interpret the question, pragmatic ability, to getting into all of them. But let's ask sax the question, and I'll ask you pragmatic, then I'll ask sax, the question of pragmaticality, to getting it to all of them. But let's ask SACS the question, and I'll ask you, pragmaticality and the SACS, the question of competence. In terms of competence, I gave you like four people. Is he the most competent person to run the country right now?

Starting point is 00:27:54 No, you think DeSantis is more competent than him. I think that of all the major candidates who actually have a realistic shot, DeSantis is the most supremely competent as an executive. He's run the state of Florida. He did it during COVID, which was a major crisis. We all saw what happened. All of our friends were leaving California because California had locked down. Schools were closed. We had the worst learning loss of any state. Small businesses were going under. Our toddlers

Starting point is 00:28:21 had to wear these stupid pointless cloth masks to school when they finally re-open hold on. So, Santa kept Florida open. Santa's kept Florida open. They had a great economy. It's number one in job creation investment. People moving there. He bought the speech. He bought the budget and that's why he was able to grow his majority from under one person when he first got elected to 20 points. So you believe he would be more qualified than Jamie Dime? At your mouth. Yeah, because he's actually been tested in a political realm.

Starting point is 00:28:52 God, you think that is the better test? I disagree. And I think probably the number one thing you have to do to be effective politically is to be able to understand when the media, the mainstream media, and all their fake experts are wrong. Because that's why the country is such a mess. We keep listening to all these fake experts who are wrong about everything, including COVID. Do you trump do a good job as president in your mind?

Starting point is 00:29:13 He listened to the fake experts. He had Fauci in there. So you don't think Trump did a good job as president? On COVID, he listened to Fauci too much. But okay, because Trump is an outsider and you seem to think he did a good job as president and a lot of Republicans do. So that's my point. He was an outsider. You love putting words in our mouth and characterizing it. I'm asking I'm doing a good job right now. In ways that I never quite said. Okay. I'm just asking you. I think I think that Trump did a number of good things in office For example, he kept us out of foreign wars Great. And I think the economy was pretty good until COVID

Starting point is 00:29:42 But yeah, he had no political. But I would say they were like two big Achilles heels. One was we had huge deficits and debt during Trump. And the other was once COVID happened, he listened to Fauci. And Fauci was driving the train during COVID. And hold on, gave us the lockdowns. And then Trump never fired Fauci and on Trump's last day in office. He's in the metal.

Starting point is 00:30:05 He gave him a f***** metal. Inseid. Inseid. And just so everybody remembers, June 16th, 2015, Ben Carson and businessman Donald Trump tied in fourth place with 5%. So things can change. And now Trump is swinging wildly at DeSantis saying that DeSantis was worth than Cuomo on COVID, which is a lot more.

Starting point is 00:30:27 I really do not want to relitigate. That's the last thing I want to relitigate is COVID. Man, we got bigger fish to fry. DeSantis, I think, has been doing really well over the last week because Trump has been making all these wild attacks on him. And DeSantis has been responding. That's going to be a lot of money. DeSantis is going to be responding.

Starting point is 00:30:41 So now, like, they're really punching at each other. It's really interesting. Let's pivot to the debt ceiling real quick here. The House wrote it overwhelmingly to pass the debt ceiling agreement 314 to 117. So in the hands of the Senate, it could be passed by the time you're listening to this. Some Republicans think the spending didn't go far enough.

Starting point is 00:30:57 No shocker there. But Speaker McCarthy called it a first step projected the bill would reduce budget deficits by 1.5 trillion over the next decade. Some highlights, non-defense, spending, flat in 2024 at 704 billion. Only increases 1% in 2025. And a total of the federal budget growth to 1% for the next six years. Presence 30 billion in unspent COVID relief money, that seems logical, fully funds medical care for veterans. That seems like a good idea. Reallocates 20 billion from the IRS over the next two years to put towards non-defense programs. That's that crazy idea to hire 80,000

Starting point is 00:31:41 or something IRS agents. Pauces on student loan repayments will now end in August. We've talked about that on the show. Biden student loan for your plan will be settled in the Supreme Court. Some stats on US debt, put up two charts here and then I'll get freeberks position because he's very passionate about this. US annual surplus for deficits through end of year 2022. See those great years, I think those are the democratic dot com Clinton years. You did ran it up. Well done Clinton. US national debt end of year 2022. My lord 32 getting close to 32 trillion US annual federal spending up and around well breaking 6 trillion a year and tax revenue by deficit here. We have it. Go to that the red chart. This is our national debt. This is a upside-down

Starting point is 00:32:35 hockey stick. So this is what's concerning about it is we're going exponential on this thing. The problem with this just to reframe it once again for the hundred thousand time. Wait a second, wait, this red chart isn't this freeberg's losses in Vegas this weekend? I think that's freeberg. Oh no, that's our collective losses in Vegas this weekend. I think we did the math. This group was accounted for 10 bits. 10 bits of Vegas's blackjack revenue for the year.

Starting point is 00:33:02 So good job everyone. Good job. People, everybody in Vegas is now completed their Q3 quarter and targets early. So the problem obviously with mounting debt is the interest payments on the debt cause you to take out more debt. And there's a tipping point where it becomes insurmountable. And there are many people sounding the alarm

Starting point is 00:33:23 that we may be entering that point that in order to fund the interest obligations on the debt, we need to take out more debt. And then there's more interest payments. And therefore, there's more debt and it just keeps getting bigger and bigger. And so this chart I'm sharing here is actually from the federal government's GAO, the government accountability office, which acts almost like an independent accounting and forecasting body, trying to provide some outlook on the fiscal condition of the federal government. And this is an analysis I think they put out a few weeks ago showing that as of the fiscal

Starting point is 00:33:57 year 22, 8% of the overall federal budget was going towards interest spending. By fiscal year 25, it'll be 26% and then net interest spending will need to grow to half of the budget. But if you go to the other chart, I should say that. Why don't you say the years? Because it's important to note what years they're talking about. 2021, 2096 is what they're showing. This is a long window.

Starting point is 00:34:21 Yeah. I get it, but let me show you this chart. Just pull out the first chart. So this is our federal government's interest payments per year. And so this is how much the government pays on interest for the debt. By the way, most of the debt is getting refinanced now at the higher interest rates because a lot of this debt was sitting in Zerr era since 2008. But as the debt has to get refinanced and more debt is taken on to fund the interest payment

Starting point is 00:34:47 obligations, the interest payment actually starts to mount more significantly, and that's what we've seen in the last two fiscal years in particular. Now when you take this chart and you overlay how much we spend on defense, so here's a defense spending. We are, I think as of this month or last month, now spending more, the federal government is spending more on interest payments on the federal debt than they are on national defense. Whether we believe we are spending money on national defense in a smart way or in an accountable way or whether these are good strategic priorities and good strategic decisions,

Starting point is 00:35:20 the fact remains that at some point here here our ability to actually fund the programs that we want to fund, whether they're social security, Medicare or defense, the major cost outlays for the federal government, it's going to get further hindered and continually more hindered by the fact that these interest payments are climbing so significantly. And if you go to the third chart, I think it kind of provides the final point, which is social security. And we're very quickly seeing interest payments mount to the point of where social security spending lays. And when that happens, obviously, as you guys know, everyone talks about that as being the golden program, the right and the left, the Democrats and the Republicans simply will

Starting point is 00:35:58 not touch social security from a policy perspective, from a getting elected perspective, but the economic and arithmetic reality is running up against them, which is that the interest payments on the debt are starting to threaten our ability to fund social security and Medicare. There's many more charts we could pull up to highlight this. The Republicans in announcing the debt deal this week made a lot of proclamations about it being a win and showed how we were able to reduce spending by $2 trillion.

Starting point is 00:36:29 I think the statement they made, the deal cuts $2.1 trillion in spending over the six year life of the bill and one and a half trillion dollars in such a totally mandated savings over the next two years. $2.1 trillion over six years, remember we're talking about a $7 trillion per year budget. So that's $42 trillion over those six years. Remember, we're talking about a seven million, seven trillion dollar per year budget. So that's 42 trillion dollars over those six years.

Starting point is 00:36:49 We're cutting two trillion of 42. So it's a 5% impact to start. It's a start, but what leverage do they have now? And I think that it isn't that I'm not that much. Census freeberg that they actually did decide to make cuts. And that feels to me and we did protect you that they would get this done. That's felt to me like this is some amount of progress, right? I mean, do you feel good about it or indifferent, freeberg?

Starting point is 00:37:13 I think you guys know, I think that there's, we have to tackle the structural problem of revenue spending interest rates. Those are like very big numbers that are challenging each other. Chipping away at the spending doesn't quite get us there. And it doesn't seem like there's a clear path here. Even the argument that RFK made when he came on our show, RFK Jr. made when he came on our show,

Starting point is 00:37:43 that cutting military spending would have an impact. I mean, you guys see, military spending is already starting to get overtaken by the interest payment spending. So does that really move the needle? I think it's gonna be an economic reality that all programs are gonna need to be cut back in order to fund the debt obligations

Starting point is 00:38:00 or we're gonna see massive inflation. But you feel, I guess you, my question was you feel like this was a good step or a good signal that maybe the government is and our representatives are getting the message that they need to make some cuts at some point. I don't think that there's any way to provide the necessary fiscal security for the federal government without bipartisan unitary support around the objective, which is to get to a balanced budget and to reduce the overall debt and interest payment obligations.

Starting point is 00:38:35 And if you can't start from that point, it's this push and pull over what programs get cut, but I want more money being spent. I want to have a pipeline. So you're not super enthused by this. I thought it was a positive step to me. You have talked about refinancing the debt, putting the $100,000,000 coin or whatever we wind up doing refinancing this on a long arc, 50 year, 100 year arc. What does this debt ceiling reconciliation or whatever we're going to call it? That they came to some sort of agreement here, signal to you., that they came to some sort of agreement

Starting point is 00:39:05 here, signal to you. You predicted they would get through this pretty easily. So, yeah, boring, nothing burger, nothing burger move on. Okay. Satya, would you buy 100-year bond from the federal government? If I was a foreign government, yes. What interest would you need to get paid on that to take that on? Probably one to two percent. One to two percent for a hundred years? Yeah, so it would be downside protection. You just feel like this is a secure place to put some mountain money.

Starting point is 00:39:35 This is how any country with a turbulent currency would make this decision and you could actually get close to zero. I think that when we had ZERP, you probably could have charged a negative interest rate because you would have effectively been charging countries, third world developing countries, even first world countries that just wanted a protective mechanism against their currency volatility. They would have probably paid you, just like today you can getJ. debt. That's negative yielding. So it's no longer negative, but it's still probably in the realm of one, one and a half percent. It's nothing. If you just do the math, it's nothing.

Starting point is 00:40:12 And there's a way to understand why everybody just gets their underwear in a bunch here. Okay. Non-gender underpants. Put the red chart up there. It's nothing. It's nothing. It's nothing. It's nothing. It's nothing. It's a. It's nothing. It's nothing. It's a hockey stick, nothing.

Starting point is 00:40:28 It means nothing. I think you guys, I think what you see here is an accelerating problem. Yeah. Cut revenue. The debt is getting bigger and bigger at the same time that foreign governments and investors in general don't want to fund our debt. So therefore, interest rates will rise. Our interest cost will keep going. That's not why interest rates are going up. Well, if they're going up because the Fed is raising rates because of inflation, but at the same time that's happening, foreign governments are not as interested in having dollar reserves and US treasuries. Said who?

Starting point is 00:40:57 Does demonstrated by what? You look at the foreign reserves of these countries, of these sovereigns. They are much less interested in holding US treasuries. Foreign reserves are China, starting with China and all the BRICS countries. Foreign reserves are up. These guys are banking US dollars like nobody's business. I don't think so. I think it's been going down since 2008. I'll find you at chart. Yeah, maybe from 2008, I don't know, from the great financial crisis at the absolute depths, but what I'm saying is that in general, the anchor currency for governments and central banks has been will likely be in the future, the United States dollar. And we get back to the circular argument, which is, I don't think it's possible for politicians to cut expenses. So I am just an advocate for cutting revenue,

Starting point is 00:41:43 because I do think it's the simplest way to force people. Because the next time they go through these machinations and all this theater around a dead ceiling, they'll just have less revenue to play with, and it'll just become a harder and harder and harder problem. Meanwhile, I do think that you have to take the ball where it lies and take these $24, $30 trillion and refinance it well out into the future and make a bet on US exceptionalism in US GDP.

Starting point is 00:42:09 And if you don't want to believe it, don't fucking be here. Move to some other country where you think it's so much better and go do it there. But, Tomah, what if the market's not there? What if the buyers are not there on your own? Sure. I mean, you know what? An asteroid could hit the Earth in the next day. We could talk about all kinds of long-tail consequences, but there is, you have to be able to probably

Starting point is 00:42:28 wait these things and then spend your time thinking about the things that are more probabilistic and be able to compartmentalize the anxiety of the less probabilistic things. So I think that could there be a scenario where there is no interest? Is there one? No, because you see every day the government is in the market doing auctions and there is a robust demand for United States government debt. And until there isn't this argument is species. And all I would tell you is just keep trying, put out more, try a 45-year-old bond and see

Starting point is 00:43:00 how it feels like. Try a 50-year. You don't have to do 100 if it makes you too anxious. That's fine. Let me just ask you, at some point, if the market isn't there, the buyers are not there. Then, I can't. But let's just go through the analysis,

Starting point is 00:43:12 because I know that you think it's a zero chance, but if it's as low probability, do you agree that the severity is high, that the significance of that being the case? I don't, again, I am not going to give an Iota a breath to a long tail five sigma outcome. It is a waste of time. It's okay. Because it occupies, I don't tell you why I don't do it.

Starting point is 00:43:32 It occupies my mind share which takes away from me figuring out how to make money and win on the field today. So I have, let's go. Let's go. I wake in a 24 hour day, just to give you a sense of it. I sleep for eight. You know, I'm eating for another one or two all this bullshit I have four or five hours a day of useful thinking time and I try to think of The belly of the probable and I try to compartmentalize these dumb long tail sigma events because it distracts me from making money and winning

Starting point is 00:44:04 I actually try to think about long-tailed sigma events that could make me money. This isn't one of them. So I just don't spend time thinking about it. And I could be totally wrong. Can we pull up this chart? Can we pull up this chart? But it's worked for me so far and I'm going to stick to what works. Guys, the axe has been on Google for five minutes.

Starting point is 00:44:21 He's got something for you, Jamar. Go ahead. You stick to the investing strategy that works for you. I'd like to talk about the status of US treasuries. So if you look here, this is total foreign treasury holdings as percent of marketable treasury securities. So it's gone down from the mid 50s to the low 30s since 2008, 2009. As a percentage. So they're holding other things. Foreign governments don't want our treasuries as much as they used to starting with China.

Starting point is 00:44:49 They are diversifying into other currencies and gold. And there are a bunch of good reasons for that. By the way, this comes from a blog, which is really interesting. It's a crypto guy named Arthur Hayes. And this is actually a pretty interesting piece called Exit Liquidity. Hayes writes interesting pieces on actually a pretty interesting piece called Exit liquidity. Hayes writes interesting pieces on the banking system and D dollarization.

Starting point is 00:45:09 He's got a little bit of a doomer thesis with respect to the US dollar. You know, obviously he's pro Bitcoin. His views are sort of similar to topologies. But hey, man, I think one of the points he makes that's really interesting is that if you're to zoom out 30,000 feet and think about the regime that we had during, let's call it the unipolar moment, where China and the United States were strong trading partners and we had this close relationship with them. The way the global economy worked is that China would sell goods to the United States, they

Starting point is 00:45:41 would have huge trade surples, and then they would take those dollars, and they'd use some of them to buy raw materials, like energy, that was called the petro dollar, and then they would take other dollars, their surplus, and instead of repatriating it at home, they would have to then convert that money into R&B and brought it home. They didn't do that. That actually would have increased the value of their currency, thereby making their export less attractive. This is why they are accused of currency manipulation. They took their surplus dollars and bought US assets, mainly US treasuries. So we had this trading relationship with China. I think everyone understands the physical world side of that

Starting point is 00:46:18 trading relationship where you had US manufacturing jobs got exports to China. They basically made everything. A lot of cheap goods came into the US, they had a trade surplus. What I think people don't understand is that a huge part of that trade surplus was used to finance US deficits in debt. And so you had this like cozy relationship between US elites, US politicians and China, where they got to rack up these huge deficits, the government got to spend a lot of money and China would fund it very cheaply. But now that's all ended, that's stopped because we're basically starting to decouple from China. So China doesn't want to do its business in dollars if they don't have to.

Starting point is 00:46:56 Obviously for the products they sell in the US, they'll take dollars. But they're already trying to do as many transactions as they can, buying oil, for example, or energy in R&B. I don't want to dispute this chart because this chart is true, but it's a small part of how the entire puzzle works. And so this is a Bitcoin maximalist who cherry picks a few data points to try to make a point. But if you look at the IMF data and I put it to you in the group chat, you can't just look at US Treasury securities. You have to look at actual absolute dollar reserves.

Starting point is 00:47:27 And when you look at that over time, it hasn't fluctuated that much. And so for all the dopes that don't understand how this shit works, it's not just securities. It's actually also money. And the actual amount of US dollar money hasn't changed that much. And between 60 and 70% is 99 and so. I just find this argument, again, one of these long sigma arguments that are anxiety riddled and I just don't want to waste my time thinking about it because it will distract me from winning on the field today.

Starting point is 00:47:55 You've got to be able to block things out if you want to be a capital I would get her I agree, but an interesting discussion nonetheless. I don't think these things are just noise. I think you're seeing a trend. I mean, look how many headlines there are about the BRICS countries getting together and starting to transact in currencies other than dollars. Yeah, you know what?

Starting point is 00:48:14 Those are very cherry-picked as well. And you said before you don't trust the press. So you trust the press on these headlines all of a sudden? I don't think that that's actually... I don't think anyone's disputing the fact that China and Saudi Arabia and China and Brazil are doing energy transactions and R&B. I think it's very tiny. They are doing, putting all their money at venture capital in the West, private equity

Starting point is 00:48:33 and the rest, real estate in the West. The Middle East. That's where they're, that's where they're focusing on energy. There's a different issue. Look, no one is disputing the fact that China and the BRICS countries more generally are trying to create a trading block that is not dependent on the US dollar. I think it's the same. And they are gradually the same. They're rattling. It's like, I think they're trying to just let the US know, like,

Starting point is 00:48:55 hey, we have other options here. And I think it's China just trying to. It's China on their heels, trying to make deals with other folks. China pursuing their self interest, which is not to be dependent on a dollar that's been weaponized and controlled by the US politically. You can be sure that Saudi UAE and the entire voting block in the Middle East are shipping their money west, not east. I think you have a very accurate assessment of what China wants, but it doesn't mean it's going to happen.

Starting point is 00:49:21 And I think you have to make a bet. Do you think it's going to happen or not? China is not going to happen. And I've said this to make a bet. What do you think it's going to happen or not? I'm not going to happen. And I think the reason I said this before is China is in a demographic time bomb. And that will dominate everything else. That is a country that is imploding. And there's anti capitalists, Jamal. They're anti capitalism. No, no, no, I'm going to say that they are a capitalist. I don't know how I'm going to make these judgments, but I'm going to tell you practically speaking is they are demographically imploding. They do not have enough people. The country will be halved by the death rate and the lack of birth rate by 20, 300.

Starting point is 00:49:52 Okay. So in another 70 odd years, that is a problem that is going away. And that is just mathematical. And if you just again, you just have to take a deep breath, look at the data and just extrapolate and you see. This is not a problem. China is not a problem. China has real problems. There's no question about it. They've got demographic problems. They've got problems in the banking system. They've got a real estate bubble.

Starting point is 00:50:15 Stardom problems. There are questions about whether the leadership now is turning away from the capitalism that got them to this point. They are. So there's no question that China has problems, but you wanna talk about trends. There is a major trend in the world right now where, again, the BRICS countries, Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa,

Starting point is 00:50:35 and you can put South of your ABA in that bucket and a lot of other countries, they are looking to diversify off of the dollar. I'm not saying that the dollar is gonna stop being the world's reserve currency because I agree with you that there's no ready replacement at hand, but they are trying to do as many transactions as they can off of the dollar and they do not want to hold treasuries like they did 10 or 15 years ago. I don't see data that confirms. They're trying to do as many transactions off the dollar. That's a very loaded statement. I don't think that's true.

Starting point is 00:51:04 I don't know if that statement's true. What are you talking about? This was like major. No, they tried to do one trade. China and Saudi and China and no, South. They talked about it and they didn't do it. They talked about. Yeah, I would like to see data on that, not just a couple of headlines, because I think everybody wants to know what he's talking about. The Brazil thing happened, but I think it was a small trade, David. Yeah.

Starting point is 00:51:25 Yeah, that's exactly what you're first to say it didn't happen. And now you're saying that it was small. No, I'm saying the Saudi Arabia, China thing did not happen. Your statement was they're trying to talk many transactions as possible off the dollar. I don't think they're trying to do as many transactions off the dollar.

Starting point is 00:51:39 I don't have never seen any actual data point. You don't know. You're just making shit up. No, you're saying we want to get off the dollar. Of course, they want to get off the dollar if they can. in any actual data point. You don't know. Supports that. You're just making shit up. No, you're forcing, you're going to get off the dollar. Of course, you want to get off the dollar if they can't. No, no, I think Jason's saying you're right, what they want to do, but what they are doing. Jason is what he's debating.

Starting point is 00:51:54 They're totally. They're sending their money west. I don't think they're trying to send it east. I don't know. Hold on a second. You're right that Saudi Arabia is investing in the US. They're, I'd say, highly diversified. That's a little different than what China is doing.

Starting point is 00:52:10 Yes, we're in agreement. China wants to get people off the US dollar. China's in decline. China's got big issues. We all agree on that. The Middle East has a lot of cash. I think if they're going to decide what to do with it, they'll appease China to have a solid relationship

Starting point is 00:52:24 to ship oil there. But I think China's the more customer now. China's the more customer are in the West. That's where they're going to change. There's been a giant little realignment. How much you noticed? I think the realignment is the Chinese just negotiated. The Middle East becoming Westernized and being accepted in the West and moving towards an investor in the West in technology.

Starting point is 00:52:42 That's actually the trend. The Chinese just negotiated a reproach mob between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Did you notice that? That's a fine idea. But I'm just talking about where they're putting their chips. If these things are all connected. Where are they putting their chips? I think what you've explained and I think we're in agreement, they'll sell their oil to China. Then what do they do with the bag? They take that same

Starting point is 00:53:02 bag and they want to put it towards the West. No, it's even worse. Again, the thing is, even if you settle a trade in the Yuan, I think you guys keep forgetting this key thing, which is the Yuan is pegged to the US dollar. So it is a proxy dollar. So if you really want to decouple, you first have to let this currency free float. They have no desire to let them do that, especially in a moment where they're economically imploding internally. So again, you go back to the circular argument where everything goes back to the dollar. So yes, they're saber rattling, sacks, I acknowledge what you're saying.

Starting point is 00:53:32 I think you're totally right that they would love a free floating currency. The Chinese would love Chinese and they want that free floating currency to not be pegged to the dollar. But right now they have kept it pegged to the dollar. So I just do that and it says not. It says like it's pegged. It's do is you on pegged USD and it says the Chinese you on is not pegged to the US dollar was pegged from 94 to 2005 but in 2005 China made its currency of floating exchange currency.

Starting point is 00:53:57 It is not a floating currency. And then do you trust the, you know, who's highly manipulated. Yes. But I don't think it's pegged. It's not a floating currency It is not a free floating currency China controls the exchange rate between themselves and the US dollar. Let's move on I think we've covered this It'd be actually one thing that might be interesting. You're just in trial of reality. You have no basis for declaring that

Starting point is 00:54:20 Things like the moves that China is making with Brazil and Saudi Arabia, you're just declaring that to be fake news. Nobody's saying fake news. We're saying it's happening, but it's probably minor, and it's probably more described as a problem. What's your basis for believing that? Because we have no evidence to prove that it's occurring. We just have a couple of headlines and some small,

Starting point is 00:54:39 I mean, where is it? I mean, all we're seeing is the money in Saudi Arabia is they're selling oil to China correct, they're doing deals there. Then they're taking that money and then they wanna invest it in the West. Who are you talking about? The other thing to keep in mind is that the Saudi Rial

Starting point is 00:54:54 was pegged as well to the US dollar. And that's been there since I think the mid 80s. So China is a very opaque manipulated currency market where they keep the dollar you want spread quite fixed. On the other side, Saudi has kept the same peg 3.75 to the dollar since the mid-80s. So again, it all just goes back to the US dollar. It's all proxies for the dollar. So there's some symbolic value, I suppose, in trading in you want. But everything goes back to the dollar because that's what it's measured in.

Starting point is 00:55:23 It's not symbolic. It's not symbolic. It's not symbolic. What's happening is deeply geopolitical. You've got a couple of things going on. One is that the US has now instituted sanctions on over 40 countries. Moreover, the whole world saw that in the case of Russia, we froze their foreign reserves and basically seized the property of their oligarch. So if you're an oligarch in the Middle East,

Starting point is 00:55:45 do you think you want to keep all of your money on all of your reserves and dollars? You understand that the dollar's been weaponized in a suppolable instrument in the United States. That's just a fact. So you're going to look to diversify. You're going to look to put your money in gold. You're going to look to put your money in other currencies.

Starting point is 00:55:59 Is there, like I said, a currency in a hand that's ready to be a replacement for the US dollar no? And it can't be the yuan. they don't have an open capital. Who would you be? Where would you diversify if you were the CIO? Where would you diversify? Well, what I would do if I were the secretary of the Treasury of China is I would say that okay, for the exports of the US we're going to keep getting dollars and we'll do something with those dollars, but for everybody else, we're going to try and do as many transactions as an R and B as possible. But what about the sellers of oil to China? What would they do? They get R and B. So you would tell them exactly the trades that we're talking about. You tell them to hold

Starting point is 00:56:36 R and B over US and Euro. China is seeking to pay salary. We understand. If you don't understand it, let me explain. Let me explain it. But I don't understand it. I do understand it. Let me explain it. I'm asking you. Let me ask you a question. Would you ask CIO of Saudi or UAE? Would you want to keep RIMM and B? Would you want to keep your O's or US dollars? Where would you want to keep your money?

Starting point is 00:56:57 And the question is, if they sell that, would they want to keep it in RIMM and B? I don't think they want to keep the one. Honestly, to answer your question, I want to put it in gold. That's where I put it. I would't think they want to keep the one. Honestly, to answer your question, I want to put it in gold. That's right. I put it in gold. I would. I put it in gold. Okay. Here is what China is proposing. Okay. They're saying to Saudi Arabia and Brazil, we're going to pay you for your oil in R&B. And then you are going to take that R&B and you can buy our products because again, we make everything, we're the factory of the world. And if you still have a surplus after that, you can settle that surplus in gold because Beijing has a very liquid gold exchange market.

Starting point is 00:57:33 That's what they're proposing. That's what they're proposing. Here's your gift cards. Spend in our cards. Two data points on the socks that I just read. It's in this barons article that I included Nick. You may just want to link to it in the show notes, which I thought was pretty good.

Starting point is 00:57:46 Swift, which is sort of like the international payments backbone, the share of Yuan transactions briefly rose above 3% in 2022. That was the peak and it's now off 26% down to about 2.2%. So actually the share of Yuan transactions has actually been shrinking in the last year. And then the second is that what this article states, which is interesting is that all the belt and road loans that China gave into all these developing countries in

Starting point is 00:58:12 Africa, the Africans were like, we don't want this you want. And so they just dollar swapped. And so now the BRI loans are all serviced in US dollars as well. So all the trillions of dollars China spent. I'm just saying that again, I'm not. They're on alternative Swift. I mean just saying that, again, I'm not judging. Well, they're all an alternative Swift. I mean, again, we weaponized Swift as well. So, yeah, but Swift is still 98% of the world of how it works. All I'm saying is, I just like to keep things simple. I think the US dollars here for a while, I think that debt suck.

Starting point is 00:58:38 I would love to have no deficits, but I also think these numbers are roughly like, we're playing plus or minus on the margin two to three hundred basis points We talked about that last week and so I want to keep my brain open to the simple obvious things like You know selling That's what it's come to is CPG for you. Tremoff. You're like it's a down-board big CPG guy now Yeah, that's where Tremoff's focused once you've pulled freeberg into this debate? I have one more point to make. That's what I was about to do. I doctor do.

Starting point is 00:59:07 Go ahead, doctor. I think I'm seeing Dr. Dume. I'm just Dr. Reality or at least I try to be. I don't know, like there was a deal, you know, China had a big visit with Brazil in March. We talked about it briefly. I shared a couple of these articles that covered the transactions.

Starting point is 00:59:20 They signed $10 billion of trade agreements and cooperative agreements, all of which were meant to settle in Yuan. Brazil has kind of made the statement that they're going to start to settle in local currency. And you know, they're doing this multilateral trade program globally with partners where they're going to trade and transact in local currencies. They're not set to the dollar, they're not fixed to the dollar. And I think that's just part of a general movement.

Starting point is 00:59:45 I don't think it's about, hey, we got to get off the dollar as soon as possible, but I think it's about, we could diversify. And there are other stable economies around the world. They might be having demographic issues or various economic issues, but gosh, man, don't we all? Europe, China, the US, everyone's got debt problems, demographic problems, over leverage problems,

Starting point is 01:00:04 growth problems, and fundamentally, over leverage problems, growth problems. And fundamentally, I don't think that there's as safe a haven as there has been historically. And as a result, I mean, a lot of these governments and a lot of the business leaders in these countries are very much open to doing transactions in multiple currencies. And that's the beginning of the end.

Starting point is 01:00:19 It's the beginning of a set of transactions that isn't about, hey, we're all getting against the dollar. It's over, let's crush the dollar. It's like, we're just going to do trades in other currencies. No big deal. But beginning of the end, Dr. Doe. All right. Shout out. It's the end of the dominance, right? It's the end of every trade. You're talking about the end of the dominance and China imploded during that same time period. So I forgive me. I still believe in American exceptional.

Starting point is 01:00:44 Here's another article from American exceptionalism wins. There's another article from Bloomberg. This is from April 24th. All of a sudden this guy loves the main show. Rick draws membership bits from 19 Hs4 summit. Listen, Jake, I'm fine. If you want to say this is fake news, go for it. Are you saying it's fake news?

Starting point is 01:00:59 It just funny. I did not think. Believe it's fake news. No, I need information about the world. When they write an article about me, that's completely made up. I'm going to call it fake news. Why are you treating like every press article is the same? It makes no sense.

Starting point is 01:01:15 By the way, it does make sense for the bricks to expand, right, Saks? Because if NATO was purely an economic organization, that's probably what bricks evolves into over time. And it makes a ton of sense for them to do it. They're creating a competing China setting up an alternative to the IMF. They've got this alternative to the IMF that they're setting up that's not dollar denominated and they've got seven nations in this thing now. It's, you know, and by the way, Jason, when I say the beginning of the end, I don't mean

Starting point is 01:01:40 the end of the world or the end of the US, the US will continue to be the innovation hub of the world. The US will continue to be the innovation hub of the world. The US will continue to have freedom and civil rights that no other country can parallel. The US is an incredible place to live better than anywhere else on earth. But the economic status of the US, given how we have spent money and how we continue to operate our federal government

Starting point is 01:01:59 with this extraordinary deficit and debt spiral problem, means that other people have to be protective of their currencies and their assets in a way that's thoughtful. It doesn't necessarily mean it's all over and everything, but the dominance you said at the beginning of this has had economically. You can already see this in all the trade barriers and tariffs that are going up, the decoupling that's going on. Look, the United States set up a system of global free trade, basically in 1945. And we had a bipolar world with, we had the Soviets and America,

Starting point is 01:02:30 but the Soviets basically opted out because they were communist. They had their own system, but it wasn't compelling for the world economy. Then we had the unipolar world. So basically for over half a century, we had this completely open system where there were no trade

Starting point is 01:02:45 blocks in the world. Now we are seeing the rise of trade blocks with multi polarity. Yes. The US is pursuing a contradictory policy because on the one hand, hold on, here's the contradiction. On the one hand, we run these massive deficits and debts. So we are a debt or nation who needs to make its debt attractive to debt holders or our interest rates are going to keep going up. Okay. So that's on the one hand. On the other hand, we are doing things like weaponizing the dollar and weaponizing swift and imposing sanctions and engaging in geopolitical fights that are highly antagonistic to the nations that are, are, would be holders of our debt. So one of those two things has got to give.

Starting point is 01:03:35 Either we reduce our debt and our deficits and then need, we're, remember, we're not, this is not a stable situation. We continue to issue, what is it? Somewhere between one and two trillion a year as new government debt. So we have to constantly find more and more money out in the world to support our debt. At the same time that we're weaponizing the dollar and the financial system

Starting point is 01:03:58 so that these sources of global capital don't want to participate. And I agree with SACS. This is why I think the disappointment to me is that there isn't bipartisan recognition of this being as severe as a war. It is the sort of thing that the government that both parties need to get behind and say, let's figure out a path to solving this problem. This is the objective.

Starting point is 01:04:18 We've got to get our fiscal affairs in order. And then all the other stuff, the social stuff, the policy stuff, we can fight about, we can argue that later. But we have to put some gas in the tank. We have to be able to drive where we want to go. And we can't drive right now. Here's what I'll say to you, Friedberg. Since you said the beginning of the end, now maybe it's a poor choice of words, it's not the end. You said, don't hold on. Let me just get rise. Don't, don't miss. You just have to be able to get by the end. Yeah, but, but don't miss. Carry on to what end of the end of the dollar dominance in global trade.

Starting point is 01:04:48 Okay. I disagree with you. I think dollar dominance will continue for some time. Jake, are you disputing that the world's becoming more multi-polar? Do you think we're still living in unipolarity? No. And nor do we need to live in unipolarity for America to still be the champions. We still aren't winning.

Starting point is 01:05:03 How to pace that nobody else is. Space winning energy, cars, AI, we're probably going to win chips and we're going to probably win material, science and batteries and we're obviously going to win biotech. We're winning in every one of these categories. We're the clear winner. The only thing we're not the clear winner in is factories and mass producing shlokki stuff that's on the Amazon. China is completely imploded and the Middle East is taking their last 20 or 30 years of capital and they're investing it in the West in space energy cars, AI, chips, basic materials, batteries, all the stuff that's happening here on our shores. We are in the most winning position we've probably ever been in as a country.

Starting point is 01:05:43 We took a bad beat, we spent too much money. We got a dysfunctional government. We got culture wars. We got a lot of bad stuff distracting us. But the truth is, when you look at breast hacks, when you look at innovation, we're winning on almost every dimension. We're just a little caught up in the fog of culture wars and, you know, thinking that we're going to be dominant and perfect in terms of our budget. We do have to fix our budget, we all agree on that. But we are winning and China is currently stalled out. And it's because of freedom.

Starting point is 01:06:13 It's because we support our commerce because of the basic human freedoms we have. You two guys are Dr. Doom. This is so stupid, I'm hoppin' off, I'm done with this. You just strike my shit out of this episode, I'm done. You can strike whatever you want. Is there anything else you wanna talk about today? Cause I'm done. This is gonna stupid. I'm hop enough. I'm done with this. Just strike my shit out of this episode I'm trying to be one. Is there anything else you want to talk about today because I'm done? I Love want to talk about Nvidia, but I don't know if you guys I'm sick of being characterized as Dr.

Starting point is 01:06:33 Doom J. Cal it's fucking stupid We want to have a real conversation about Instead of What I said I'm not being fucking extreme. I'm not, I'm trying to have like an actual discipline conversation about where things are going. It's not black and white. It's not about, oh my God, the US is gonna win. Everyone else is gonna lose.

Starting point is 01:06:52 It's not a win-lose situation. We cannot afford to continue to spend the way we're spending with our federal government. That's it. I agree with that. But I think we're still winning on a little bit of their dimensions. So why are we winning?

Starting point is 01:07:02 That's not the conversation. Why is the federal government is different from US innovation? There's a difference. The federal government is where voters elect to tax and spend and voters elect people to create a system that can legally go in and take assets and spend assets and borrow money. And we've done it in an extent now that is becoming almost a runaway train. It is a problem. We saw the negative red chart that SACs had you pull up several times. That has nothing to do with US dominance and fucking electronics and chips and biotech

Starting point is 01:07:34 and all this other sort of stuff. We have a problem with how we spend money at the federal level. I agree with them. I agree with them. But I believe that the dominance that we have in entrepreneurship and every one of these categories is what we'll pull us out of this. The free enterprise system is a wonderful system that produces a lot of good prosperity

Starting point is 01:07:51 for America. Okay, that's great. I agree with that. And it remains to be seen if China can sustain its remarkable economic growth that's had over the last few decades. So that remains to be seen. However, the United States is behaving like a late-stage empire, and that is separate from the system that got us here.

Starting point is 01:08:13 We have unsustainable fiscal deficits. We spend way too much money that we don't have. We have a uncontrolled southern border. Our cities are in decline. We've got hundreds of thousands of people living on the streets. Have you seen it? We look like a third world country. It's three or four countries. Four or four cities, that's the same thing.

Starting point is 01:08:32 We are all, we are meddling in countries all over the world engaging in wars or proxy wars. We are behaving like a late stage empire. So, Jake Cal, it's true that the United States has a wonderful system and that's what God is here. It got us to unipolarity. We were the world's only superpower, but now we're in a world in which other countries are rising to. It's more multipolar. Agreed.

Starting point is 01:08:54 And whether we continue, our dominance will depend on whether we make the right decisions right now. And right now we are not making the right decisions. Adding two trillion to the debt in peacetime a year makes no sense. Yeah. You're a little ran. It's like Wiley, Coyote, going off the cliff and pretending like if you just doesn't look down, there's nothing to worry about.

Starting point is 01:09:16 I have said from the beginning we need to get spending on the control. But I am also incredibly enthusiastic about how we're performing in innovation and capitalism right now. It is off the charts how well this country is doing on those dimensions. Tomat, do you have any thoughts while we wrap up the thing? No, I think we ended up conflating a bunch of issues into one. I'll just say what I've said before, which is that the United States is kind of the simplest safest bet and that these decisions are made on a relative basis. China, unfortunately,

Starting point is 01:09:48 for them, has a huge demographic problem that will diminish them economically. And you're already starting to see it, but it's going to get really exacerbated in the next 10 or 15 years. That's just the mathematical reality for a country that has literally zero immigration and no solution. Europe is not in a very great situation and the only place that's really firing in all cylinders is India, but it has a long way to go to build the infrastructure that can really scale and make it as predictable as the United States. Could it do it? I think so, but it's going to take a long time, that 50, 60, 100 years of investment. I don't know. I just kind of try to simplify for myself. I think the US will be fine. I think the dollar will be fine. I don't think it's right to spend this much, but I think that politicians

Starting point is 01:10:34 are incapable of cutting expenses. I would like to cut their revenues. That's it. It's a great discussion, free burger. I don't think you are. Respect for you. I don't think you understand what the audience actually wants to hear. This is actually the core of the debate that we just had. Well, just do what free burger asked you, which is just to play his clip and his words. And that's enough.

Starting point is 01:10:56 I have it right here. I think that the Saudi China trade, if this happens, and oil is sold in one, is the beginning of, I think, the end of the assumption that the US dollar is a global reserve. That's all. Yeah, that's what you said. That was your prediction. That you said in the beginning of the end. You said it twice. So if you don't believe it's the beginning of the end, it's fine. Of the US dollar as a global reserve. Yeah, you believe that it's the US dollar will not be the global reserve. You said it twice. Yeah, and I disagree. I think it will be, well, we remain the global reserve

Starting point is 01:11:28 for all lifetime. That's all. It's a fundamental difference. Let's move on. Yes, I'm reticent to bring up the culture wars, but these have become prominent. So maybe we could have a meta discussion about these. There are three things going on.

Starting point is 01:11:43 One, we touched on the book banning. I'm using air quotes there. And there's been a lot of feedback that's come in since then, just to follow up briefly on it. Books are not exactly being banned. It's a much more granular and nuanced issue. There was a bill 1467 that happened that Ron DeSantis did sign.

Starting point is 01:12:06 This said that parents reasonably should get to see what's being put into classrooms. And as you might suspect, this is being done on a very local level. When you put all that control at the local level, you will have different constituents, band books, that maybe shouldn't be. Some of them are obvious ones that were too graphic. I think most parents would agree shouldn't be in a school library. Other ones were horror books or young adult books. You can look at all this stuff, just search for pen, band books report, pen America. And if you, there are instances of books that shouldn't be banned, being banned

Starting point is 01:12:47 and instances of books that we'd all agree on, but it is not exactly book banning, it's letting each of the school districts make their own decisions, and they're not gonna make perfect decisions when you put them out in the edges, so just to make that super clear. I think you're right to focus on the terminology here

Starting point is 01:13:02 because this is a question of what is put in the school library. That's it. So that's not a ban. Right. A ban would be if you couldn't purchase the book for yourself, for your kids, any parent can buy any book they want in Florida. We do have an issue, I think, with the curriculum where really important classic books are being removed from the curriculum for political reasons, mainly in California. Books like, to kill a mockingbird or a huck-fade. And that was weird.

Starting point is 01:13:32 They're being removed because they're being accused of being racist, even though the whole point of those books is to, I think. Call it out. Call it out and teach kids about racism. So there's a lot of stupid things happening from the left in terms of removing books from the curriculum, which I think is a much bigger deal than removing

Starting point is 01:13:49 books from a school library. There's also things happening with like Ian Fleming's James Bond books being rewritten, like posthumously because... Two sexes. ...and me accuses sexism. Bond girls. Or raw dolls books are being posthumously edited. So like books are literally being rewritten in a way that their authors never intended. That is positively or well-earned. That really is, really wrong. That's really wrong.

Starting point is 01:14:15 That's really wrong. That's really wrong. Now on this, on this DeSantis thing, I mean, look, this is, this is going to the level now of being a hoax. One of the stories going around is that there was this book of poetry, this totally innocuous book of poetry that was being banned in Florida. And I want to put it on this. Yeah. Yeah. So I wanted to find out the truth of it.

Starting point is 01:14:36 Well, as it turns out, like you said, Jay, Cal, this is a Miami-Dade school district. A decision was made, this is not by DeSantis. this is made at the level of individual schools, okay? Which are voted on and their parents on these school boards, so it's going to just follow the demographics and whatever that local community is. Right. So basically what happened is this, this book of poetry was literally moved from the elementary school library

Starting point is 01:14:58 to the middle school library. That's what happened. But all of a sudden, this was spun on social media. And by the mainstream media as if the Santos had banned this book of poetry. To the point where Miami-Dade school district had to put out a tweet correcting this. So never banned or removed. It was just moved from one library to another for the Ellen.

Starting point is 01:15:18 Well, I think this is a super interesting point, David, where you and I are in agreement. You and I are both for freedom of speech and for big advocates of that. And then there are decisions, and you could reasonably make this decision, hey, let the parents decide. Great. When you let the parents decide, you have to take into account that these school boards

Starting point is 01:15:37 could be hijacked by different groups of people or they could be very small, monocultures of, you know, little towns or cities. Here's the list, by the way, if anybody wants to look at this, you can actually look at the very granular list, Pen America keeps an index of all these, I put the thing in the chat here, and you'll see things in left, right?

Starting point is 01:15:54 Everybody in between, some places are banning all the LGBTQ books, some are banning the critical race books or books by people of color, other ones are banning the James Bond novels, etc. So it's a free for all of parents executing their rights at a very local level. And, you know, I guess if you want parents to have a say in their schools, it's going to be slightly imperfect and variable. But it's not like some censorship going up. There is censorship going on. I guess in some ways. The political question is, do you allow government bureaucrats to dictate to parents what their

Starting point is 01:16:32 kids are going to see or have access to? And I don't think that's viable. I mean, look, parents could take their kids out of the school and homeschool them if they wanted. Yes. So at the end of the day. So they have that right. So why would you deny parents the right to determine what's in the school library? And it does seem like all of this goes back to.

Starting point is 01:16:52 And by the way, some of these books that have been removed are actually really fashionable. Yeah, Lord of the Flies will probably get removed because they don't like somebody being labeled fat. Piggy. No. Oh, I just lost the weight. Take it easy. No, no, I'm saying, right?

Starting point is 01:17:07 Like, there are some great books that were written in an age where, you know, you just say things in a certain way that aren't meant to be offensive, but these books are very powerful. And I don't know about you guys, but I had a bunch of books that I read when I was younger that had a huge impact on me. And then the other way. I don't want those books to get removed from the curriculum. You're right, Lord of the Flies. Lord of impact on me. And then the audience. I don't want those books getting removed from the curriculum. You're right, Lord of the Flies,

Starting point is 01:17:27 how fair. Lord of the Flies, and incredible. To kill a mockingbird, those are all important books that I read as part of the curriculum. But all we're talking about, I think, is this even, this very minor issue of what's in the library. Obviously, the parents should get to this side. And some of the things that have been removed from the library

Starting point is 01:17:40 are pretty out there. Like, for example, there was one book that was educating kids on how to get a grinder date, which they're not supposed to be able to do, right? Grinders for 18 and up. There are other topics that, like suicide and harm, and other ones, when do you introduce that to a child? Is that something that's third grade or a suicide discussion? When should that reasonably occur? This is a crazy question, but I'll ask it to you guys

Starting point is 01:18:06 I would rather Lord of the flies be removed From a library than edited because then at least there's a different place where you can get your original book Oh for sure the idea of editing a book is so insane. It's so mind control. Yeah, it's really bad that idea is very very bad because you're reading something thinking that this is what the author intended and all of a sudden it's manipulated by some Brando false expert under some guise that you had no decision making in. That's really bad. What's really, I think, important of this discussion is, how the press frame something, how politicians frame them, and then how they're actually executed on the ground can be very different.

Starting point is 01:18:48 So this has become a Roshak test for what cause you back. And when you actually look at this list, you'll see people in California, people in Colorado, banning, quote unquote, banning, or just not including certain books and libraries. Its parents having age-old debates about when do you introduce certain topics to your kids? That's your job as a parent. What happens in the library is going to be variable. All right, Nvidia is going for verbal integration. They unveiled their GPU CPU superchip called Grace Hopper after the Navy Admiral, obviously.

Starting point is 01:19:18 Nvidia Grace GPU uses 72-arm, newer version V2 CPU cores, whatever that means, you see you can deliver up to 370 square on a spec crate 2017 in base, whatever that means. I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with all the benchmark testing. I thought is the peak of humor on the show. Listen, we're talking about Pentium chips. I could have kept up here, but I had kept up this since the 90s. We're talking about the Intel inside Pentium chips. Yes, I did keep up with chips.

Starting point is 01:19:47 I'm sorry. I'll tell you about the chip architecture. Yeah. No, I mean, when we got past Gigabit, I stopped. I think what's really interesting here is this is a really important moment. We're like that design, that Grace Hopper design, which is basically a massive system on chip. It's an entire rig. It's a GPU and

Starting point is 01:20:05 CPU and memory and interconnects. This is like them going for the jugular. This is what's crazy in a moment like this. Like that is basically them trying to create an absolute monopoly because if you have these rigs and these rigs are the most capable for learning and you have their SDK CUDA which is becoming the de facto software learning, and you have their SDK Kuda, which is becoming the de facto software layer now that you use to write to their H100s or Grace Hopper when it's available, and the A100s. That could create a level of lock-in that I think people should be thinking about. So if you're the hyperscalers like Amazon and Google and Microsoft, what is your reaction

Starting point is 01:20:42 to this? If you're Facebook, what is your reaction to this? And I think it's really important because if these guys continue to innovate at this scale, you're not going to have any alternatives. And it comes, it goes back to like what Intel looked like back in the day, which is an absolute straight up monopoly except the differences that even when you wrote something to Intel CPUs, you could actually run it on an AMD processor and it would work with no changes. But that's not necessarily the same. So if you go from an A100 to something else, an FPGA or some other silicon, you have to translate the model.

Starting point is 01:21:19 And so it's very important to understand that there's no extensibility here. So like if Nvidia continues to drive this quickly and continues to execute like this, it's a one-and-done, one company monopoly in AI at the hardware layer. And I think that that people are probably thinking about how to blunt that competitive outcome, but that's what I took away from that, from that announcement from them, which is like, they are ready to go for the juggler here in what looks like the most important market. That's immersion like the valuation to mouth trading at 200 times or 50 times even.

Starting point is 01:21:54 I think your camp the simple thing about price equity ratios is if you take the price equity ratio and you invert it. That's your implied yield price earnings price earnings price earnings right and you invert it that's's your implied yield. Price earnings. Price earnings. And you invert it. That's your yield, right? And so, Nvidia is yielding at these prices, I think it's somewhere like 2 to 2.5%, which is less than, and it's almost half of a typical 2-year bond. And so, when you have a yield that that's low, you have to see it just grow absolutely massively. But there's this principle in capitalism, which is in order to grow like that, you're generating so much profit.

Starting point is 01:22:33 That competitors look at it and say, hold on, you don't deserve that much profit. I'm gonna take some of that. Your profit is my opportunity, your margins my opportunity. I think that your margin is my opportunity is exactly what happens. So I think what I'm waiting for free, Brooke I can the next two quarters if AMD, Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Amazon don't announce something substantive. There's a very good chance that Nvidia runs away with this. And I think that that's a very problematic, but in that case, that price is cheap. My bet though, it's a different version of your bet,

Starting point is 01:23:09 but we get to the same outcome, is that I don't think that that's going to happen because it's just too important. And so I think that everybody other than Nvidia wants vendor diversity, right? You don't want to get locked into one person. Where do I set a hardware? Or one club? You know, one SDK. You don't want that.

Starting point is 01:23:26 Nobody wants that except Nvidia and Nvidia shareholders. So my bet is in the next two quarters, you start to see some real action so that folks start to have to balance their forecasts where it's not just 100% Nvidia, but it's Nvidia plus plus plus. And that's sort of what I would bet because it just seems like logical and right. Because I otherwise it would be pretty derelict of these hyperscalers to just throw their hands in the air and just give the whole market to them. And it would be derelict of AMD. The other thing that's happening is, and AMD is a great memory solution, but they

Starting point is 01:24:02 really don't have a deterministic AI chip. And I think that Lisa Sue needs to get, needs to act decisively here and build something, announce something, buy something, but she needs to be really aggressive here. If you look at the language models, a lot of them are taking less and less CPU, GPU, to actually build them. So this has been like a bit of a race or a competition on a hugging face. I showed the leaderboard on another episode, maybe two episodes ago, but I've been talking to some of the people who are doing these language models to mouth. And they said there's massive inefficiency. And so, yeah. And by the way, the other thing that we are. They are. They are. They are. They are.

Starting point is 01:24:38 They are. They are. They are. They are. They are. They are. They are. They are. They are. They are. They are. They are. talked about the atomization of these models is happening even faster than when you first brought that up. Yeah, so what took two or three million dollars last year is now taking two hundred

Starting point is 01:24:50 thousand dollars just through software improvements and code improvements. Crazy. And now they're thinking a number of the other thing people are coming to is because of so much what's the term hallucinations that people are using because of the halluc, people are making narrower models that are deeper in legal or just stack overflow, just core or just a vertical in core. They take less GPU, but they get better results because they've constrained the data set and that's resulting in better outcome. So, I think this could also be where maybe people don't need as much GPU or CPU at the same time, so many people are going after after it so that could flip where the demand could actually decrease because of

Starting point is 01:25:29 software efficiencies or hitting some benchmark that's reasonable enough. What do you think, Friedberg? Look, I think as performance improves, as cost declines, like any economic model, there's a pretty nonlinear relationship with demand. So we'll find new ways to apply this technology. I think the demand's only going to go nonlinear. Everything that's happening is people are starting to build, like Mosaic ML, they're building cloud independent models.

Starting point is 01:25:59 So you can take the same model, build it on your own proprietary, personal cloud, not educate, chat chat GPT4, not educate Bard, but do it with your own model, and then you can leave it from Azure. For an introduction and fine tuning, seems to like get to the point that we can run these things on small machines, cheaply, quickly, and it'll change the applications.

Starting point is 01:26:25 You're saying run inference cheaper, not run training. Run inference. That's right. Oh no, this is not good. Biden just had a big fall on stage at the US Air Force Academy graduation. Oh no. I think he'll be okay. But whoa. It's not like he fell off the stage. He just tried to. No, no.

Starting point is 01:26:44 It doesn't look good, but it could have broke something. Well, hopefully it's okay. I hope he's okay. Yeah. I mean, we just had this whole talk about it. Yeah, I mean, it's just like physical, like these kinds of physical things are normal. And I think people need to be much more empathetic

Starting point is 01:26:57 about that kind of stuff. I mean, he was riding a bike over the summer last year. I remember. And he looked great. Yeah, I mean, FDR was in a wheelchair. So I don't care about that. I'll like care about his mental acuity. Yeah.

Starting point is 01:27:10 Me too. He's okay. By the way, I want him to be well enough to run because I'm scared of some of the other Democratic candidates they might put up. Same. You know, like, I don't want to get a president new some or a president Harris.

Starting point is 01:27:24 I mean, I don't think Biden is very good, but I think he's better than Harris or Newson. Biden drops out who's the lead candidate in your mind. RFK. Really? I would prefer RFK to Biden, but I think what will happen if Biden drops out is we'll get a flood of establishment, Democrat candidates in the race. Newson, maybe JB Pritzker, Harris for sure. There's a lot of differences between the left and the right,

Starting point is 01:27:48 but the one similarity is that there's a large amount of voters in both of those blocks who don't fundamentally like these establishment candidates. And I think that that sentiment is exactly the same. And so, you know, you can have a pro-Trump wave on the right just like you could have a pro-RFK wave on the left. And they are solidified by the same idea, which is, I think you're going to see more and more outsiders have a chance through the nomination process to get in.

Starting point is 01:28:13 And then the door of our party will stop it. I mean, they should have already sanders. Remember that? Yeah. Where it was sanders against Hillary Clinton. And they shipped them. They rigged the primary against them. They shipped them. I'll have to use that word. Oh, they just labeled our I just labeled the episode. No, but look, I mean the the the establishment has in the Democratic Party has a huge influence

Starting point is 01:28:40 over the outcome because it control the super delegates, right? They'll never. So wouldn't Newson supercharged the Republican base? I mean, being like a coastal elite and what's happened with San Francisco and LA, I think that just drives out the Trump voters in a massive way that- I said like over a year ago, I thought that the, Wow.

Starting point is 01:28:59 that 2024 would be a Newson, DeSantis race. I still think there's like a 10, 20% chance in that. Wow, that would be wild. It would be wild. It could be 10%. What about Joe Manchin? What's the story there? Anybody have any insights on Joe Manchin?

Starting point is 01:29:15 We had a phenomenal dinner in my house last week. He is so charming. Okay. So what do you notice? What are you talking about? I don't know if you publicly disclose it or not. Well, it's already happened. We had a fabulous dinner and he met a lot of people here and he's amazing.

Starting point is 01:29:32 Did Saks come to that? And Heather's amazing, Heather's amazing too. His daughter, who she ran, I think it was my land, pharmaceutical, incredible executive. Joe Manchin would jump in, yeah. You think Trama? Manchin's fabulous. If Biden wasn't in, Joe Manchin would jump in, yeah. You think Truma, Mattens Faddles, if Biden wasn't in, Joe Manchin would jump in, you think? I don't know. I don't know. I don't want to speculate any on anything like that. But I think he's, I think he's an amazing American patriot.

Starting point is 01:29:56 Is that your guy, Freberg? Would you go Joe Manchin? Because he wants to control spending? I don't know. I don't know. All right. I'll tell you one of the reasons why I like RFK Jr. is that I mean, there's so many issues that he is deviating from Democratic party orthodoxies in favor of free speech and against censorship.

Starting point is 01:30:15 He's in favor of civil liberties and against this like massive surveillance state that we've created. And on foreign policy, he wants to end all the crazy wars. And I would say that of all the candidates I've heard he understands the situation Ukraine the most deeply Now both Trump and Decentists have called for a ceasefire and that's good and I think RFK would Work towards a ceasefire too, but RFK junior goes deeper and explains how the whole situation Ukraine came about And so he understands it very deeply.

Starting point is 01:30:46 All right, folks, do you have it? Another episode of the online podcast, for the dictator, the architect David Sacks, and I won't call him. No, he's a kingmaker. I was thinking of David Sackman. I like architect David Sackman.

Starting point is 01:30:59 I like architect David Sackman. I can't make her, sure. Kingmaker. I like that architect. You like architect or king? It's crazy. The whole thing was just like made up. No, but I know, but that architect news. You like architect or king. It's crazy. The whole thing was just like made up. No, but I know, but as a nickname, which

Starting point is 01:31:08 was a nickname, what do you prefer? Architecture, do you prefer? Or king? What do the articles say, King maker? Or I got a king maker. I said architect. I think architect is more spend knowledge. The article is about a call that never happened.

Starting point is 01:31:20 Ignus with the person you don't know with the person I don't know. Right. Okay. That aside, what's what nickname would you like us to use going forward? Kingmaker. Putting aside that the whole article was made up. Yes, putting that aside. Architect. Can I go with Kingmaker? I like Kingmaker. I like Architect. But it's like silly. Mr. Secretary, please tell us which one. Yeah, Secretary of State. Look, I'm a mid-level donor, mid at best. You're mid at best. Some reddits are going crazy right now. Let's act in mid at best. And then influencer, I'm mid at best.

Starting point is 01:31:56 So I'm a mid. Can you be Secretary of State? I'm mid-mid. However, it's true that there are very few poll casters who probably don't need anything. You could be. Yeah. Henry Kissinger, a metal and all, right?

Starting point is 01:32:07 Highest ranking foreign citizens to lead. I think that you would be an secretary of state. I think you would be an secretary of state. I'm just going to put that in. So you could be secretary of state. I remember. I think you would be secretary of state. Because you have the intellectual firepower to actually not get bamboozled on this stuff.

Starting point is 01:32:22 You'd hold your ground. You do? Actually, I think was pretty good on foreign policy, doesn't know what your credit was, was Jared Kushner. I was listening to an interview with him and this happened like eight months ago and he was describing the whole situation in Ukraine and he says very clearly that he and Trump understood

Starting point is 01:32:41 that bringing Ukraine into NATO was a red line for the Russians and they never went there. So they armed Ukraine but they were very careful He and Trump understood that bringing Ukraine into NATO was a red line for the Russians, and they never went there. So they armed Ukraine, but they were very careful to not make any statements about Ukraine coming into NATO. He understood that that was a serious provocation. I'll post the interview in the chat, but it was with, I think, Gerard Baker from the Wall Street Journal.

Starting point is 01:33:02 So Gerard understood the situation better than most of these foreign policy elite establishment types who don't understand how their actions could be perceived as provocative by the other side. Well, he sure secured the bag after getting out of that gig, two billion. And he got the Abraham record done. And now, Biden's just flushed it down the toilet because he's alienated the Saudis so much they've gone to the the Chinese I mean the fact that there's flights between Israel and the Middle East nations now and they seem to have a common It's pretty enemy and I don't think you understand how much Biden has alienated the Saudis Bynes shake the man's hand. What was the point of that?

Starting point is 01:33:46 I'm not in favor of Biden. Oh yeah, what was that? Like a fist bump or something? That's a pre-negotiated fist bump. Yeah, it's a little. How insulting is that? The one thing I loved about Trump was he was willing to meet with anybody.

Starting point is 01:33:58 My idea for our policy is meet with as many people as possible, as often as possible, and not go to war. I would meet with Kim Jong Un, Putin, Xi Jinping on the regular. Every country we should be meeting with because that's how progress gets me. Not meeting with him is, yeah, I mean, it's not a reward. I think there's a part of this military industrial complex that believes a meeting with the president is a reward or an endorsement of The worst things anybody's ever done. It's not it's a meeting to try to make the world safer

Starting point is 01:34:31 Or to try to build common ground and so that is not me or Jim Kramer or however you want to Try to frame it It's intelligent and I'm for intelligent foreign policy which is talking to people Let's talk about some people who said yes to come to all in summit let's just do a quick speaker i gotta go to i gotta go to lunch i love you guys i love you bassy yeah fuck this i'm done with this shit like a soft free brick i love you thank you thank you thank you Let your winners ride Rainman David And it said we open source it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with Besties are gone, go for it! That's my dog, take a video, I wish you a drive away! Sit down!

Starting point is 01:35:26 Oh man, I'm in the ass, you're a meaty ass, what is it? We should all just get a room and just have one big hug or something because they're all just like this like sexual tension that we just need to release some time. What, you're the beef! What, you're the beer of beef! Beef, what? We need to get merch these aren't now.

All-In with Chamath, Jason, Sacks & Friedberg - E131: 2024 Fantasy President picks, debt ceiling agreement, Dollar dominance & more

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