All-In with Chamath, Jason, Sacks & Friedberg - E137: Inflation cools, market rips, Ripple/MSFT beat regulators, NATO summit, cocktails of youth

Starting point is 00:00:00 We don't have a cold open. Well since you guys decided to go rogue and Agreed on a vacation week and then decided freeburg decided he would go rogue It gave me a little extra time when I was whitewater rafting hold on a second Freeberg did not decide to go rogue. You went rogue your two peers decided to go rogue I was taking the week off they both sent on the text stream. We wanted you to show this week And I said sure I'll do it. I mean yes, but I'll do it. You went wrong. You went wrong. Yeah. That's what I said. There was no vacation. I'd agree to. You don't even know your schedule. You're too busy writing 30 tweet storms about Hunter Biden. Why would all of a sudden there be a skip week in the middle of July? It's just

Starting point is 00:00:36 because you were off. No, we said, you said we go on the summer vacation. No, I also have to give my producers a week off now and again, because they work into the weekend editing the stuff. So you're an editor, but you're an editor. So you can just swap them out. I have two editors. Yes, I give everybody the week off. The point is that when one of the, if you have said, no, no, is off on a given week, the show goes on.

Starting point is 00:00:57 That's what you always say. And if you have said, but then when you have a need to go on vacation, no, then you know, it gets canceled. No, what would have happened was, what would have happened was, I would have put one of go on vacation. No. Then, you know, it gets canceled. No. What would have happened was, what would have happened was, I would have put one of my prodigers on for that. We're gonna have to give them the other one off. But because we all said we're gonna be off that week,

Starting point is 00:01:11 I gave everybody off that week because I said, let's take advantage of this. That's what actually happened. But that's fine. Because. We had to have the chance. We had to have the chance. I literally both said to you in the chat,

Starting point is 00:01:21 we're off this week, we're off this week, and we confirmed with your teams multiple times, we're off this week. It's no big deal. If you want to you in the chat. We're off the speak, we're off the speak, and we confirmed with your teams multiple times we're off the speak. It's no big deal. If you want to go kick it to a chair, we want to record this week. On Wednesday, on Wednesday, when everybody had already been given up,

Starting point is 00:01:33 I know that everybody who works here is a serve. You just went darn it, I didn't respond to us. I, Nick and I both responded, we're off the speak. Please, don't pretend like you're a great boss. We don't know what about. I know that you're a serve. I know that the serves who work for you do not get days off. But I treat the people who work for you

Starting point is 00:01:48 like part of your organization. Try to my organization. Let's see, I've just 10 year of one of your employees like six months in the lab. No, no, actually, it's more like four or five years right now. I mean, I have people for five to 10 years now. It's pretty impressive actually. You know what's interesting?

Starting point is 00:02:04 My 10 years actually by middle. It's either years and years and years and years or out the door I went to for months. Yes, that's the way it should be. Either you hit the notes or you don't and you should know quickly. There's nothing in the middle. Yeah, that's the way it should be actually.

Starting point is 00:02:18 I was sitting by the river. I went white water rafting on the Rogue River when Freeberg went rogue. Why the one one who went rogue because I don't like you That's the reason I'm not blaming the other two guys. I'm friends with them. It's obvious So Choking with these three p.m. Oh, when did I become pieta? All right, the big news this week is inflation as he used to 3% in June. We'll throw up a chart here. It's the slowest pace in more than two years.

Starting point is 00:03:03 So the feds increases have worked. And I guess the question now is, are we gonna have a sustained high interest rate, or is it gonna get cut slowly, Chimath and Freeberg, you've been talking to a number of people about this. I think all in, 2023 speaker Larry Summers has been pretty vocal

Starting point is 00:03:23 about this, what's your take, Freeberg? Yeah, I mean, I think Larry said publicly that he thinks that rates are going to need to be higher for longer than what the market is currently showing. We talked last week with Brad, obviously, about what the market is showing rates to be. And he's assuming some rate cuts will start to happen in December. And that's really what the market is saying. It's going to happen. And Brad's point was the market knows better than the forecasters. But Larry Summers has publicly shared that he thinks that that is actually not correct. And you know, again, diversity of views is important to understand that there are structural

Starting point is 00:03:58 things that are happening in the world right now, including a decoupling from China, which is inflationary because China provides cheap goods and cheap manufacturing for a lot of industries and many of those industries sell to consumers. So ultimately, those prices are going to show up in consumer costs. There's an increase in energy transition, expenditure and security globally, and some of this has pointed out that those are not free. They have to be funded.

Starting point is 00:04:26 And obviously taking on more funding means you're going to have to pay higher interest rates for investors to provide that capital to do that funding. So there are more structural longer term trends that some folks in the Summers camp have been arguing are going to be driving inflation higher and keep rates higher for much longer than with the market is currently showing. I think it's really worth noting that point of view, particularly given how quickly the market thinks rates are going to start getting cut. Shemoth, you've been talking about the interest rates and that you believe it will be persistent.

Starting point is 00:04:58 Higher for longer, you're sticking with higher for longer on the interest rates I assume? Yeah, I think the more important thing from that, J.K.L. is so what do we do about it? And I think the most important point of view that I'm trying to get to is, where do I think the equity market is going to go? And all roads, at least right now, look like the market is getting set to go materially higher. And the reason isn't whether you know, terminal rates are

Starting point is 00:05:26 a 2% or 3% or 3.5% I don't think that matters that much. What matters more are the trillions of dollars that are sitting on the sideline or in other defensive assets that need to then pivot around and get put back into growth assets once you know that the worst is behind us. And I think that's what a market always looks for before real sentiment changes. And what's important to note is that by the time most people figure out that the sentiment has changed, it's already actually too late. And so I think right now in the next sort of like 12 to 18 months is really when the bottom is put into the market. It's before the Fed starts cutting. It's when rates are still going to be relatively high,

Starting point is 00:06:10 but the really astute sharp in this market will get ahead of it and they will start to buy what they think will be an eventual rally. And then it's going to get supported be an eventual rally. And then it's going to get supported by the fact that if not enough people are also long, you get caught on the wrong side. You don't necessarily have to be short. You just aren't long enough. And what that does is put pressure on your business model. So if you're a mutual fund or if you're a hedge fund, and you've missed most of this rally, which most people have because it's really only been five or six companies. So I think that Larry is right. I think that I still believe what I've said for a while,

Starting point is 00:06:51 which is rates will be higher for longer. But what I didn't believe before was that the market was set to go up. I think we did a great job. I think literally that when I made that comment November of 21 about starting to sell, it was the absolute top of the market. Yeah, you know that one, you know that one nailed it. Yeah. And I think my commentary

Starting point is 00:07:11 now is that we're putting in the bottom. And I think the market is set to go materially higher, even if rates are persistently higher for a while. Just to challenge you on that second point, the bottom really was put in maybe last summer. You're really speaking to the psychology and the dynamics of capital allocation. There are people who were scared maybe and thought the bottom could get much worse and they didn't want to put money at play. There were some people who were brave enough

Starting point is 00:07:37 to put money in play in the last 12 months. Oh, I'll give myself a bottle in the back. I did JTrading starting last summer and I'm up whatever 25% something crazy like that because I picked all the big tech companies But you're saying now because that's but that's a good example just to pick on that the reason you did well Was mostly because they were oversold I mean that was my first action Yeah, if you look at those big tech companies and but that's not a sustainable thing if you're trying to own great companies

Starting point is 00:08:02 The reality is those seven companies One of them in video is actually firing on all cylinders. Everybody else just stopped acting like a fucking moron. That's not a sustainable business strategy, meaning burning billions and billions of dollars a quarter totally wastefully with all kinds of random free stuff to a bunch of entitled employees. Side projects, side quests, and then taking that away doesn't ensure long-term success for anybody. All it does is just turn to kids the bleeding, and so you have more material short-term

Starting point is 00:08:35 cash flow, and the markets are going to reward it, especially in a moment where the trade-off is against rates, short-term rates that are five or six percent. But from here, right, the real long-term value creation is still going to go to the companies that are building true product market fit and product value. Good question, Carson. And are really growing in a material way from adoption and usage, not from cost cutting. Because people see through that.

Starting point is 00:09:04 And when rates start to get cut, they'll see through it even faster. The only time class cutting gets rewarded is when short-term rates are this high because people love short-term cash flow. Yeah, and it was, the moment I started Zuckerberg and Airbnb, Uber, other places, just start, and obviously Google and Microsoft

Starting point is 00:09:23 start making cuts. You're like, okay, people are going to lower their costs. They're doing triage, as you're saying, to make the balance sheet, to make the earnings work in the final third of a bear market. Okay. But triage does not work in a bull market. You don't get rewarded for triage in a bull market. I totally get it.

Starting point is 00:09:39 You have to innovate. You have to build great products. So, Sachs, when you're looking at the overall market, I think we talked about the average recession or downturn is 6 quarters, plus or minus one or two. Historically, we are entering the seventh quarter of the downturn, at least in tech, started by tech in the first quarter of 2022. Here we are in the third quarter, starting in July of 2023. What's your take on what the next six quarters look like? Are we going to be sideways? Are we going to, as Shemaat's saying, hey, there's a take on what the next six quarters look like? Are we going to be sideways? Are we going to, as Shemaat's saying, hey, there's a lot of people who are trying

Starting point is 00:10:09 to pay catch up. They missed this bump. And now they're competing and they have to, at the end of the year, capital allocators are going to show in their yearly reports what they did this year. And now they're like, hey, we got to put some bets into some high growth companies. Is this the setup for another mania and maybe unhealthy behavior. So Jason, I don't think it's going to be a mania, but I do think that the market is ripping today because the market is basically pricing in the idea of a soft landing along with inflation being tamed. So you had a positive CPI report at 3%, you had a hot job support a week or two ago, and there's an interesting article on the Wall Street Journal today talking about the odds of a soft landing improving. And they have some data for that.

Starting point is 00:10:49 I don't particularly agree with the sub headline. The latest data suggests a lot of past inflation with transitory. That seems to be... Yeah, that I think is being too charitable to the fact, because when they use the word transitory, they were using as an excuse not to raise interest rates. And we just had the fastest rate tightening cycle ever over the past year. That's the reason why inflation has gone down. It was not transitory until they jacked up interest rates from zero to five percent.

Starting point is 00:11:17 So the Wall Street Journal, I think, is doing a little covering for the Fed there, but nonetheless, I think everybody is pleasantly surprised that ACPI is now down to 3% and B, you have not had a significant cooling of the jobs market. So certainly the odds now of a soft landing have gone up, and the thing that's sort of surprising about what Larry Summers is saying is that if you believe that inflation is going to come roaring back, that's certainly a contrarian bet. That's not what the market is saying right now.

Starting point is 00:11:50 What the market is predicting right now and the reason why stocks are rallying is what the market is thinking is, well, if inflation is down to 3%, and we can end the year at three or even lower, then the fact can start cutting next year. And so they're starting to price in rate cuts. But if inflation comes roaring back, you're not gonna get rate cuts, and so stock prices are gonna go down. I don't see how you can have a scenario

Starting point is 00:12:12 of even higher interest rates from here, along with higher stock prices. I think you need lower rates to get higher stock prices. And one of Brad's charts shows this, if you look at the software index, the median enterprise value divided by next 12 months revenue, what you see here is that the mean multiple is 7.7, excluding the COVID distortion, we're at 6.6 now. So there is room for the software index to run up pretty nicely here.

Starting point is 00:12:47 You could argue that it's undervalued or fairly valued. You see the 10 years at 3.8%. If you compare it to where we were before COVID when interest rates were in the mid-toes to around 3%. Yeah, we got to an 18x multiple. It was crazy. Yeah, so basically if interest rates go down, I think for sure, you'll see multiples go up. But I think if interest rates are going to keep going up from here, then you're not going to get that rally or I don't see why you would. Well, the thing to keep in mind is I think this chart is not that helpful because this

Starting point is 00:13:18 is all unprofitable software companies. So I think the more important thing is to look at the broad-based index. The thing with these companies is that even if rates are at 3% or 6% or 2% or 1%, that trick is over. These companies are not going to get out of this cul-de-sac until they figure out true product market fit, how to eliminate, turn, how to drive medium to long-term profitability. And most of them, unfortunately, don't have a clear path to that. And the problem is all of the old legacy software companies, X of Salesforce, have still not got to profitability.

Starting point is 00:13:55 So meaning the ones that went public in like the early teens are still sucking wind losing money. So the idea that software businesses generate long-term profits is so far unfortunately been a fallacy. So that chart, I think, will stay exactly the same way it is. I think the bloom is off the rose. But where the money can go? We change that, though, which we need to stop at this point to look at these SaaS companies because what would change that if they actually get to profitability and sucks what's the

Starting point is 00:14:21 chances they get to profitability? Because that would make them look more like Microsoft or the biggest problem that software as a service business has has is the same thing that it benefits from, which is cycle time. So the cycle time for a SaaS business to build a feature set to get product market fit and to get early revenue is very short. The problem with that is that is the equivalent amount of time it takes for a competitor or several competitors to compartmentalize and chop and slice and dice that feature set into a bunch of smaller sub-scale SaaS products that then go after it and cannibalize that revenue. So I think the issue that they have is they show contractually a lot of revenue expansion

Starting point is 00:15:01 that looks good on the service. But underneath these guys are in this constant hamster wheel of trying to build features and trying to keep their head above water. And all of that treading consumes enormous amounts of cash. And so from an op-ex perspective, these SaaS businesses, they just suck. They don't generate free cash flow, except for a few. Let me bring S into the sex. Do you think that these companies will get to having a PE ratio?

Starting point is 00:15:30 Because a lot of times you pull them up, and it's like price earnings ratio, not applicable for this company, because there are no earnings. And you've dedicated your price to us, and you built a billion dollar company. So give us the other side. The other side of it is that software businesses

Starting point is 00:15:42 have great gross margins. I mean, you spend all of your R&D creating the first instance of the product and they're after every additional instance of the product is basically almost free to provision on the margin. So these are super high margin businesses. Once you achieve dominance in your category, there's a bunch of different modes. You can create a platform. You have the largest sales and marketing operation. Everyone wants to go with the market leader.

Starting point is 00:16:08 So there's a bunch of different ways to lock in your advantage and not all those companies are losing money. A growing number of them are making money. I just think that's like a sweeping over generalization. So I still think software businesses are some of the best businesses. But why don't they get more of earnings? We're, we're off on a little bit of a tangent here, which is I could have shown you a slide of almost any basket of gross stocks.

Starting point is 00:16:33 And you would have had something similar, which is there's still trading below there's seven year mean on a multiple basis. And so my point was simply that if interest rates are coming down, there is room for these stocks to go on. Right, I'm right about that. Let me bring freeberg in the summer's camp and some other people's camp.

Starting point is 00:16:54 They believe interest rates have to go higher, despite the fact that inflation has plummeted and it feels like a for-powl that this is a mission accomplished moment. The reasons they believe that are the infrastructure and chips bill are going to pour money into the United States and we're going to have massive spending. We already have absurd 50 year low unemployment, which is insane. We still have close to 10 million job openings.

Starting point is 00:17:20 We have locked the borders. We now have Democrats and Republicans back to back saying we're not going to let people into the country. So I don't know who's going to work in all these factories if we don't have an immigration policy. So maybe you could tell us if you actually believe this sort of, let's call it the summer's doctrine here or the the contrarian summer's position, 67% interest rates are coming because we're going to have persistent inflation.

Starting point is 00:17:48 And if you believe that, contrary to it. I think there's a general statement that can be made that we are coming out of a zero interest rate environment into which lasted for a very long period of time into a very stimulatory environment because of government spending. And when you have government spending stimulating the economy, you have a natural market force of inflation coming from the additional capital being pumped into the economy and the purchasing and all that sort of stuff, like you pointed out, 50 year low in unemployment, and we're trying to create a bunch of new jobs.

Starting point is 00:18:33 And who's gonna fill those jobs? You're gonna have to pay people more to get them to take those jobs. So, you know, you're gonna see arising wages. And then you're gonna see- But wait, can I ask you a question? As a follow-up to that free book, you pay people more, but there's nobody looking for jobs. We're kind of, that's I think the conundrum we're in. People want to, you can boost the labor participation rate,

Starting point is 00:18:54 right? You can attract more people to the workforce. Yeah, and it drives wage growth, but ultimately, keep this in mind. So the lower wage workers, let's use a simple example, people that work in fast food, if their rates go from 8 bucks to 15 bucks to 25 bucks an hour, the cost of fast food goes up. So on the food price index, you'll see a rise in food prices. So right now, it seems like the Fed and the market are all acknowledging and reacting to these, I would kind of argue, acute conditions that are being resolved from coming out of the COVID stimulation. But there are in place, as the comments have

Starting point is 00:19:33 been made, increased spending to NATO because of global security concerns, increased defense spending globally, the current projection from the CDO showing what defense spending is going to be as a percentage of GDP or a percentage of government spending. There are some folks as you guys all know well, that you would speak to in DC who think that those numbers are BS because we're going to increase defense spending, not cut it because of global security concerns, particularly as we decouple from China and all of the energy transition stuff, the IRA, the CHIPS Act, which is a security thing.

Starting point is 00:20:05 These are all stimulatory. So the tides come in and out, but the sea levels are rising, and over time that translates into a way to manage the inflation, but also to raise the capital, which means you have to pay higher rates. And this is in the EU and the US, that it seems this is gonna be the case.

Starting point is 00:20:24 So, I feel like we've gone in a circle a little bit, which is good, I think, just to show how complex the issue is. And we're trying to predict the weather here, or at least understand the weather patterns. So let's talk about the driving force in this. In CPI, the first word is consumer. Chimath, Stimichek Summer last year, in the year before, before NFT crypto, you know, secure your bag summer I think it was the same sort of phenomenon and Unlimited, you know double or triple bonus unemployment plus deferring your student loans those four things

Starting point is 00:20:59 Were you know pretty much to find the last two years and all of them have come to a crashing halt You can't get unlimited unemployment. You gotta start paying your student loans in September from my understanding. And you're at rent. Oh yeah, wow, crazy concept. We should have no more, so we have five factors there. You have to pay your loan or you rent.

Starting point is 00:21:20 So let's talk about the consumer for a quick second here. Is this the last, harass summer? People consumers are gonna need to get back to work in September because it seems like the credit card debts going up We talked about that over the last year and if consumers aren't spending You know that's gonna be the driving force and that was the goal of raising the interest rates is to maybe get consumers to have a higher Car bill a higher mortgage bill and to get back to work. Yeah, I mean, I think that's very well summarized. I think that we are absorbing all the excess liquidity in the economy. That would otherwise have gone into really speculative things. The extra vacation, the extra pair of shoes on stock extra, whatever, the extra NFT, the extra vacation, the extra pair of shoes on stock extra, whatever, the extra NFT, the extra

Starting point is 00:22:08 this, the extra that, that's all out the window. A traditional home mortgage is probably doubled in terms of your monthly payments. Yeah, people will be forced to get back to work, they'll have to stay in jobs longer, they'll have to just do a much better job of managing their finances. But all of that doesn't necessarily mean that the US economy falls off a cliff. I think that the thing we have to remember is that, and I don't think we can explain it, actually, very well, because every time an economist has tried to do it, I don't think they've really figured this out, but we tend to have a very resilient level of consumer demand.

Starting point is 00:22:49 And when you look at the correlation between consumer demand and the underlying economy, even in periods of extreme shock. So even like the pandemic is one of those moments where yeah, the demand fell off the cliff, but that's because we were literally prevented from doing anything. We could not buy the things that we wanted to, right?

Starting point is 00:23:07 Or if you even go back to 2007, 2008 in the great financial crisis, the interesting thing about consumer demand is that it snaps back very quickly. So there's this weird dynamic where folks have a base level of spending and they use an amount of debt to basically subsidize that. And then they're willing to work in order to make sure that that doesn't change. And I think that that's what we're getting back to. We're going to get people off the sidelines into the labor market and I think it's all going. It's all psychology. Like if you're, I think people's spending is a function of their optimism and like maybe their last trade

Starting point is 00:23:47 or their last bank statement. So it's like, oh, my NFT tripled. Therefore, it's going to triple again next month. And hey, there's a chance it might go 10X. Oh, I invested in the startup. Oh, you know, I'm getting Stimichex. I'll get another Stimichex. And now if they get three or four moments in time

Starting point is 00:24:02 where, oh, my NFT is now 10%, I can't defer my student loans anymore. Oh, I'm a curing interest. Oh, no. The house I bought now has a 15% mortgage, and I was on variable. So what's your thoughts on the psychology of the consumer here? And is everybody just still spending but maybe downgrading a little bit?

Starting point is 00:24:21 Maybe they buy the Tesla Model 3 instead of the, you know, going for the Model S. If they take business class or economy plus, they do a staycation and drive somewhere. I've been surprised at how resilient the economy has been. I figured that after all the distortions we have in the economy, all the stimulus during COVID, we basically floored the accelerator and then slammed on the brakes with this incredibly rapid rate tightening cycle. I thought for sure that was going to basically crash the economy. I was in the drunken miller camp on this, but I think, again, what you're seeing over the last few weeks is just more and more evidence that it could be a soft landing that we may not have a recession and we might even get rate cuts next year. But I do think that right now the risks are probably as balanced as they've been.

Starting point is 00:25:08 So if you want to pull up, Nick, can you pull up that chart, the quadrants from the CO2 summit? I thought this was actually a pretty interesting chart that we saw at the CO2 summit as a useful framework for thinking about the scenarios for the economy. Sports casted for the audience listening. Yeah. So basically it's a two by two quadrant where on one axis you've got inflation and inflation can be either lower high based on 3% being the dividing line and then the economy can be either weaker strong with 4.5% unemployment being the dividing line. So if you believe that inflation is coming down below 3% and unemployment is going to stay below 4.5%. I think it's already at like 3.5% right now.

Starting point is 00:25:49 Then you're back in the sustained growth quadrant, in which case the S&P 500 is going to keep ripping. On the other hand, if inflation is above 3%, with low unemployment, you're back in the overheating quadrant, which is probably bad for stocks. Now you could have a situation in which inflation goes down and remains good, but unemployment goes way up, in which case that'd be the hard landing. And then the final quadrant is stackflation where you've got high inflation and high unemployment. So I think the quadrants right now are probably as balanced as they have been in quite some

Starting point is 00:26:22 time in terms of where we could end up in, let's say, a year. Yeah, I think that there are some early signals that you can look to get a sense of where this may be going. Disney World is empty. The lines are really short. I don't know if you guys have any friends that have been to Disney World lately or Disneyland. It was in the Wall Street Journal. The traffic has fallen off a cliff.

Starting point is 00:26:44 Yeah, and there's just, there's not there go broke company. That's a really interesting point is, do you think that Disney traffic has gone down because the conservative half of the country basically feels offended? And they're probably a lot of bloodlite. Or is it a larger consumer-spot problem?

Starting point is 00:27:02 Everybody everywhere else is still spending. Like even if you go to like, look at the World Series of Poker, main event this year had the historic number of entries. Everything is telling you that people are getting their last straw. So the fact that Disney has been decaying for the past year is more emblematic of the fact that they've gotten into this social culture war and half the population of America said we're not going to support your business like they did to buttlight.

Starting point is 00:27:27 And I'm not adjudicating the rightness or wrongness of either buttlight or Disney, but the answer is in the actual results. The people are not walking into the store. Just to show this, while we're on Disney. So here's a Disney chart for you, just to show you the times at the different parks over the years, it is in 2023,

Starting point is 00:27:45 meaningfully shorter than 2022 or pre-pandemic. So I don't know if that's a function of their technology that they've been deploying or if maybe conservatives are not going, but there's also another X-Factor, which is the previous head of Disney who got ousted and Bob Iger's back, was the guy who ran parks

Starting point is 00:28:03 and he just leaned into changing the pricing and it got absurdly expensive and they got rid of like the California pass and all that stuff. So I think the jury is out on this one, Bob Chapich. But there's a broader consumer spending question that I'm saying there may be some early signals. The most consumers rely on credit as you guys know interest rates are rising and that passes through to consumers, purchasing goods, but other folks look at the metric of consumer credit card balance as a percentage

Starting point is 00:28:28 of savings or percentage of earnings, which is actually a little bit lower given wage growth and savings that have accumulated. Regardless, there are other signals we can look to, so if you pull up this chart, this just shows a really important statistic. So 80% of new car purchases are financed, meaning you take out a loan to buy the car.

Starting point is 00:28:49 40% of used cars are financed. And interest rates on car loans, as you guys can see in this chart, in just the last year or so, interest rates have spiked from under 4%, called 3.7% to an average of 7% today. And that obviously translates into a doubling of the monthly payment needed to buy a car. And now if you go to the next image, so this is now playing through in terms of youth car demand and youth car prices.

Starting point is 00:29:19 In the last month, it was reported by Cox Automotive that the pricing for youth cars has declined by 4.2%. And so this starts to indicate that there may be a bit of a softness emerging. We can argue, yes, this is having a positive effect on the inflationary conditions, but it may also be an indication of consumer spending and that we're starting to get to a point where credit is so expensive and consumer's ability to flex credit is being decreased. And that's starting to translate through into what everyone's been worried about, which is the recessionary or declining effect on revenue, declining effect on profit of companies

Starting point is 00:29:51 that are selling goods and services. So that is obviously the challenge to sax's point on that two-by-two matrix. On it, you know, if you reduce cost and reduce demand too much, you can have a recessionary effect. And consumers are a big driver of this and so many consumers depend on credit. It's going to be a big condition to watch. Well, a study measures are going to happen. Here's the chart of quarterly revenue for Disney. Still doing great. I bought the stock and it's the one thing in my JTRADING portfolio. I've gotten crushed on that and one of my brothers brothers discovery. I made two entertainment bets on what I think are the two best companies. I also did Netflix, but one

Starting point is 00:30:27 out of three ain't good. All right, so some breaking news here that we'll try to dovetail together with this Lina Khan and the FTC losing their Activision case. Apparently, and it's breaking news, a partial win is what it looks like. Let me read this here. Judge gives Ripple partial win in SEC case over XRP currency. Ripple labs, Inc. violated federal securities law and it's sale of cryptocurrency XRP directly to sophisticated investors, but it sales on public exchanges did not involve securities. A US judge said in a ruling that sent the cryptocurrency soaring, XRP was up 25% after the ruling. SEC had accused the company and its current and former chief executive is conducting a $1.3 billion unregistered security offering by selling XRP, which Ripple's founder has created in 2012, US District Judge, who was based in New York on Thursday, said the

Starting point is 00:31:20 company's 728.9 million of XRP sales to hedge funds and other sophisticated buyers amounted to unregistered sales of securities. But Torres ruled XRP sales on public cryptocurrency exchanges were not offers of securities under the law because the purchases did not have a reasonable expectation of profit tied to Ripple's effort. Okay. Those sales were blind bid-ass transactions, she said, where the buyers could not have known if their payments are reading from Reuters here,

Starting point is 00:31:52 of money went to Ripple or any other seller of XRP. Interesting. So the buyer becomes the person who profits from it becomes the Fulcrum here, XRP sales on cryptocurrency platform. I mean, Jason, you're not gonna figure this out in real time. This is too complicated.

Starting point is 00:32:06 The bottom line is that the headline is. Well, I just want to make sure the audience gets it. Yeah. Look, the headline is, I mean, the tweet, ripple sales of XRP do not constitute offering investment contracts according to judge. They won. This is a huge vindication for them.

Starting point is 00:32:22 And XRP is ripping 35%. Yeah. And it really handcuffs the SEC. What are they going to do about Coinbase and every other exchange? I mean if they're not selling securities, I think Coinbase and everybody else has always maintained their selling tokens This was the this was the full-crime argument for the SEC and they just they just lost The whole crypto market is ripping right now. It's an interesting one. The confounding part of this is that the initial sale to accredited investors and hedge funds was done that they violated security's law there

Starting point is 00:32:53 when they were directly sophisticated investors. I'm just looking at it logically, you would think it was the reverse. But this is a fascinating turn of events. I just texted with Brad Garlinghouse and he says, yes, it does mean that they won. And he feels vindicated and really happy about the. Yeah, you feed Jacob.

Starting point is 00:33:15 Well, I feel like I'm going to lunch Jake coin and sell a token to back startups. I mean, if it's a free for all, I will tell you what he said. He said, yeah, yeah. No, I mean, I said, you were using these guys as security fraud for like last several years. They've been convicted of securities fraud here. So that's the two car judgment. Ripple violated federal securities law and its sale of cryptocurrency. The first line of the story that there's two judgments here.

Starting point is 00:33:40 They violated federal securities or its sale of cryptocurrency, actually be directly to sophisticated investors, but the sales on public exchanges did not involve securities. So what they're saying is, if you sold XRP to hedge funds, that was a security when they did the first offering. But when the public started trading it on public exchanges, they did not have, according to the Howey test, this belief. But that's where their vulnerability was. Because if you sell to a professional hedge fund, they're accredited.

Starting point is 00:34:09 That should not be an issue. You should be able to sell to a candidate. So what's the problem? This is an arrangement for them. The judge says they lost that. They said, pretty happy. And the market seems to be indicating that this is, I mean, would you say the price is up 35%.

Starting point is 00:34:21 Well, I mean, the problem is like, it's up to 37% right now. Crypto trades, I wouldn't necessarily put too much on it. I would look at the the actual judgment here, but we all know people trade headlines. So let's let's see where it's at in five days, but a bunch of the all coins are ripping right now. Well, but here we go. It's a judgment that seems to indicate for a lot of folks that these are not going to be treated as securities. I think that this is a really important, just think about how amazing the United States is that the government agencies, the administration in power,

Starting point is 00:34:51 can come after corporations. And then we have a court system that can adjudicate and make decisions that follow the rule of law. I know we're gonna talk about Lena Khan and her agency's efforts at litigation, but I'm really encouraged at the fact that the court system in the United States doesn't just cow-tow to whatever administration is in power at that moment, that they do adjudicate by the law and ultimately provide greater clarity

Starting point is 00:35:18 for business, for individuals to operate going forward. There is a better sense now for the market. There's a better sense now for individuals on the other side of the industry. Is it a program? Have they always been- Well, to check in balance, right? It's a check in balance. And I think that's what's so great

Starting point is 00:35:32 is that there's now clarity because the courts provided that. Yeah. Has this trend changed? I thought America always did that. Yeah, I think it's great. I think it's, look, because you obviously have a very zealous administration and a very zealous

Starting point is 00:35:46 agency leader who is testing the boundaries. And, you know, Lena Conn's agency is pushing the limits on what constitutes antitrust. And in the effort to try and push those boundaries, there is a pushback from the courts. No, but in some jokes, Ben Gensler and the SEC. And it's been Gensler and the SEC. Sorry, yeah, we're talking about, but both agencies, right? And so it's good to see that there's clarity emerging and that the courts do their job and that the administration's come in.

Starting point is 00:36:11 And I think the lead thing is very different. I think this was a nuanced argument that the SEC made that required a highly sophisticated interpretation of securities law. And you're supposed to go to the courts for that. I think what the FTC has been doing is basically just emotionally reactive lawsuit filing. All right, so let me just pivot over to Lena Kahn's losing streak here. On Tuesday morning, a federal judge denied the FTC's attempt to delay Microsoft's $70 billion acquisition of Activision Blizzard, and the FTC's argument is basically

Starting point is 00:36:45 Microsoft should not be allowed to acquire Activision because it would make Activision's core assets, which is basically Call of Duty, one of the greatest franchises in the history of franchises, movies or television shows or video games, and that it would be exclusive to the Xbox, Satya Nadella and Xbox had a Spencer both set under oath. They could not make COD an exclusive and they wouldn't and not only that they said they would allow it made no sense I mean they also said they would put it on Nintendo which chorus because Sony because Nintendo and Sony are the other number one and number two players in this market and Sony alone is basically 50% of the market so I think like the crazy thing about all of this is if you look at the legal strategy of the FTC,

Starting point is 00:37:34 it's basically that they view themselves as a hammer and every deal, particularly if it's done by big tech, is a nail. And so, you know, Amazon Rumba, lawsuit, Facebook, some Randall Little Company, lawsuit, Microsoft Activision, lawsuit, and it's that emotional reactivity that takes away faith and trust that this organization is intelligent and sober and well-run.

Starting point is 00:38:05 And that's the shame of it. Because if you actually look across all of the deals and tech that have happened recently, this deal was frankly, deal away from the start from a regulatory blocking perspective because of what I just said. The number three player, a distant third, buying an asset, why would you take an asset that you pay $70 billion

Starting point is 00:38:25 for and immediately turn it off from 50% of all consoles? Nobody would do that. Hey, SACs, when we look at this and let's widen this aperture to the faith in institutions because we have the Gary Gensler, hey, do we actually believe that they're acting in good faith or are they trying to protect Fiat currency

Starting point is 00:38:44 and not let an alternative currency take some control and sort of be a backstop against their behavior in the money printing machine, which is crypto's big sort of, let's call it the biology position. And then in this case, Lena Khan was selected, hand picked as a 32-year-old wonder kid who had this incredible thesis that she could predict who would compete in the future. She was like a minority report freecon. She alone could decide, you know, how these competitions would emerge and she keeps losing. So these two institutions now being used for political purposes by the Biden administration, or do you think that they're just poorly executing?

Starting point is 00:39:26 What's your take? Well, I think clearly the legal strategy that Lena Khan has been pursuing is not having much success in the courts. I mean, she just lost this big decision on the Microsoft acquisition of Activision. But that being said, I'm almost starting to feel bad for her because although some of her legal theories move flawed, I do think that these big tech companies like Google and Microsoft do need to check on their power. And so what I would urge is that Lena Condon needs to regroup, maybe figure out a different

Starting point is 00:39:56 legal strategy, figure out a different way to take on big tech because someone does need to cut these big tech companies down to size. They are giant monopolies and they do need to be restrained and controlled or they will basically consolidate the whole tech ecosystem and abuse their market power. So I think it's actually pretty vital that we have a regulator who is energetic in wanting to check the power of big tech. I think maybe trying to put a damper on M&A was the wrong way to do it. We've talked about this before.

Starting point is 00:40:26 It needs to be more surgical, right? There's so few ways to have a good exit in the tech industry that when you take away M&A, it puts a damper on all risk-taking and the deployment of risk-capital into the ecosystem. So I think it was having too big of a chilling effect. So I think she needs to move away from these M&A cases, unless it's a very, very clear case. But I think where she can be more aggressive is on restraining anti-competitive tactics, and also maybe busting up these companies. You know, I'm thinking more and more about this Google case that she has where she wants to basically break

Starting point is 00:41:01 up the company because they've got this monopoly, not just in search, but also in advertising. Maybe that's a good thing. And maybe Amazon should have to spend out AWS. Maybe Google should have to spend out YouTube. Because I do think they are abusive in the way they exercise their authority. As a small example over the past week, YouTube just banned a video of Jordan Peterson interviewing RFK Jr. Why?

Starting point is 00:41:31 What gives them the power to interfere in our democracy that way where they just decide for their own reasons that the public can't watch a video of Jordan Peterson interviewing RFK? Well, I wouldn't be counting on you, be it. Didn't the Supreme Court just say Beats? That is sure. Didn't the Supreme Court just say private companies can serve customers however they want? If you want a gay cake, a baker doesn't have to make it, isn't the same analogy? No, I don't think it's the same principle.

Starting point is 00:41:54 These are huge monopolies that have tremendous market power that are years boring. So, small companies can choose their customers and products, but the big company has more of a responsibility to be an open plethora than you're in mind. Yeah, that's the common carrier argument. But my point is just they have tremendous market power that they abuse in arbitrary ways. You have to admit, Saks, her lawsuit strategy is Gattershund. It's a little bit of a spray and prey. In fairness to her, she said she was going to do that.

Starting point is 00:42:19 For example, like, but where is the, I agree, like, where's the lawsuit on Adobe Figma? That seems like a more obvious one. You have the number one and the number two, right? There's a clear number one monopoly buying the number two. And so that could be more market consolidation than a number three player buying a game company. Nobody, the public doesn't know those names.

Starting point is 00:42:38 And Biden put her in there to be anti-tack, but to be anti-well-credits. This is a, but no, I just want to tell you, her position has also been driven by wealth inequality, be anti-tack, but to be anti-wealth-prester answer. This is a heart, but no, it's not totally. Her position has also been driven by wealth inequality, which is not the mandate of the FTC. I think that's why she's the worst modern day FTC head. I'll say it again.

Starting point is 00:42:54 I'm not sure if I'm like, because she should be looking at tactics. The tactics she should do is the app store on iOS should be open to other app stores. Amazon is open to third-party sellers. They should be looking at the bundling of Microsoft of Teams and say, because you have a monopoly position, you can't add things to the bundle without charging for them. If you want to include Microsoft Teams, you've got to put a price on it. The price has to be a fair market price because you're doing product dumping. You're dumping into the market of free product with your market position. Instead, when they launch that, the settlement should be,

Starting point is 00:43:30 Microsoft Teams should be plus $8 per month per person, plus $4, but it shouldn't be allowed to dump products onto the market. I think the tactical stuff might be much better. I think that's the answer to that. I don't understand what I'm going to do. That got a response. Okay, freeberg first, Chamath's axe.

Starting point is 00:43:43 Freeberg? Well, I'm just asking why. Like, why wouldn't it be okay for Microsoft to put a cheap product out if someone makes an alternative to teams that is a better product with more features than they charge for it and people are willing to pay for it. They'll win in the market. Because of bundling, bundling and product dumping is illegal according to the the laws in the United States. Well, I'm asking you, you think think that's the way I agree with that? Yeah.

Starting point is 00:44:06 It's a form of a button. You've got to make that argument, but yes, I agree with that. I agree with that too. But look, the way I judge these things is what is good for the ultimate health of the startup ecosystem, because entrepreneurship is a thing that we should be optimizing for, not the power or wealth of big companies, but the vibrancy and dynamism of the star-bico-system as a whole. I think that long-term, that's what leads to the creation of new big companies. That's what's good for America.

Starting point is 00:44:31 At COSAN. Yes. So, with FTC, I think Lena Khan hasn't gotten the formula right. I think she's challenging some of the wrong M&A deals. But, like I said, I like to see her regroup and figure out how to take on these big companies because I do think they have to be restrained. On the other hand, what's happening with SEC and Operation Chokepoint is I think they would have basically put the cabosh on the whole crypto ecosystem. I mean, if you basically come out and say that there's no such thing as a token that every single

Starting point is 00:45:01 token is basically a security, then that's the end of crypto as a potential center of innovation. Now, we can argue about what the utility of it is, we can argue about whether it's long term going to be anything there. I don't really know for sure, but I would like the United States to be the place where we figured this out, not driving it overseas. So I'm happy that the judge found in favor of Ripple without knowing anything specifically about what Ripple did And I'm not endorsing their behavior or tactics or whatever

Starting point is 00:45:29 But I'm happy that there is now a precedent that says that you can have a token like XRP that is not a security Because that is going to enable more innovation in the ecosystem because it was really going the other way before and My critique of what the SEC was doing is they were basically seizing power that they did not have. I mean, basically, Gensler unilaterally was telling Americans that they could not hold or buy or trade crypto because when you say that every token is a security and they can't operate on exchanges, you're basically saying that Americans don't have the right to engage in crypto. And I think that was basically a bridge too far.

Starting point is 00:46:08 Tremoff, do you want to get in on that? Well, I just think that part of the thing that I think maybe the FDC suffers from is that Nenicon is a very young academic. And maybe what we need to have a little bit more of a higher batting average or slugging percentage here is just to actually have somebody that understands how business works because I think this scattershot approach doesn't do much and I think it just wastes taxpayer money by funding these frivolous lawsuits that then sophisticated organizations like Microsoft and Meta just win. And so where does

Starting point is 00:46:43 it leave us? It weakens the institution. It makes the laws, frankly, not enforced where they need to be. And the whole point is not a marketing exercise or a PR exercise to go after companies you dislike, but to actually enforce the laws of capitalism and market dynamism. And so to not do that, I think, is very egotistical. I think it's emotional and I think it sets the US back because the things that should get stopped don't. And then all this other stuff is just a red herring

Starting point is 00:47:13 and a waste of time and taxpayer money. Yeah, I think you're absolutely now that there, I think both of you know that, Sachsha and Chimothair, I think she needs to focus on product dumping. You can pull up the screenshot here. Predatorial below cost pricing is well within the FTC's mandate. You can go look up, just type in Predator

Starting point is 00:47:29 below cost pricing, FTC, and you can read all about it. It's absolutely clear that you cannot put products out there at a lower price. And so you have to have a granular discussion is teams, Microsoft Teams, a product, or a feature. I think we all know it's a product. And so that's an easy win for her. Interoperability should Android people

Starting point is 00:47:49 be not allowed to use iMessage? Should people on iOS not be able to use the place or buy digital assets from Amazon? Obviously Apple should be stopped there. So interoperability. And then there's one that's such a clear easy layup for her. And, you know, we'd all like to see her succeed. But I think she is absolutely doing Biden's bidding with an anti-tack, anti-wealth creation, anti-capitalism, frankly, pro-union punishment. I think this

Starting point is 00:48:17 is punishment for tech being too successful. I don't think it's logical. And if you really want to get them, go after dark patterns. And if you don't know what dark patterns are, that's when you subscribe for the Wall Street fucking journal online, and then you have to call them to unsubscribe. And there are so many dark patterns, and I think Amazon's getting in trouble for this for prime, one of the most loved products of all time, obviously. But dark patterns could be stopped by the FTC, and that's where they can really, really do damage.

Starting point is 00:48:43 I heard today that they're investigating chat, GPT for giving out wrong answers. It says right on it, it's going to loosen and give you a wrong example. So this is an experiment. Another example of the FTC going after, you know, the wrong thing. So just, I think she needs a sniper rifle, not a shotgun. She's got it. She needs to get a kill shot. Where's the kill shot coming from? Let's kill Google Well, that was pretty controversial when you said blow it up I mean, I would love to you for you to say more on that. Yeah, well, I paraphrased a line from RFK, Jr Who is paraphrasing a line from JFK which is he went to shout out the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter to the wins

Starting point is 00:49:21 I said that after they banned the Jordan Peterson RFK interview that we should shout out Google into a thousand pieces and scatter to the winds. I said that after they banned the Jordan Peterson RFK interview that we should shatter Google into a thousand pieces and scatter to the winds and that thing went massively viral. There's a big part of this country that has really passed at Google in the way they're exercising their arbitrary power. How many did they get 12,000 likes? I just think that the people running that company, I don't understand how they make these decisions, just make some sense. Well, Freeberg, you worked there. What are your thoughts on breaking up Google and how running that company, I don't understand how they make these decisions. Just make some sense. Well, FreeBarg, you worked there. What are your thoughts on breaking up Google and how they make decisions?

Starting point is 00:49:49 Look, I'm a free market guy, as you guys know, I think that consumers vote with their dollars and their eyeballs in their time. And ultimately, as we see with Disneyland, and Disney World, if people don't like the behavior of a business, they're gonna stop giving their time and their money to that business. By the way, Fieberg, were you shocked at the fall off in traffic? I did not. I actually immediately thought

Starting point is 00:50:15 I'm gonna take my kids to Disneyland. Yeah, wait times down on it. It's awesome. Please, Republicans stay home. Disney hates you. You guys know how expensive VIT or... Yeah, I'm like a VIP tour. expensive it's so expensive and I'm like man if I could Too much stopping so cheap number one problem we have with you is that you're driving a 12 year old Audi that gets six miles to the gallon when you could Over to great car. I love the Audi RS 7

Starting point is 00:50:40 It's garbage in your mouth. A hole in the ozone you hypocrite And you're a hypocrite because you deserve that. You deserve that. What is it? $10,000 for the day to bring your kids to Disneyland VIP? Or you can do a tax doesn't. It just tires somebody in a wheelchair. It's ridiculous. The cost, but yeah, you get to cut all the lines and everything.

Starting point is 00:51:01 I think it's anything else. I generally don't love the crowds. So if it's going gonna be less crowded, I'm more interested in taking my kids there. It's already hard enough to deal with it, you know. So speaking of, you know, Fribert made this point about the administration being overzealous.

Starting point is 00:51:13 Did you guys see this article on the glut of electric cars that are piling up now? Yeah. On dealers' lots? Yeah. We shift gears to this. By the way, I think this is a big part of what I said earlier about interest rates on car loans. Well, no, this is a big part of what I said earlier about interest rates on car loans

Starting point is 00:51:25 No, this is a this big thing is more because of the bureaucracy of the government not allowing these credits to beg basically work across all different kinds of cars This this should not exist for the reason. This is not a demand issue This is a shit is here to the car's democracy. Yeah government intervention and market dynamics. Is that the driver? Oh, yeah, so Axio. So it says here, the legacy auto industry is beginning to crank out more EVs to challenge Tesla, but there's one big problem, not enough buyers. There's a growing mismatch between EV supply and demand. Even though consumers are showing more interest in EVs,

Starting point is 00:51:59 they're still worried about purchasing one because of either price or charging concerns. Range. Hanging Z. Yeah, a lot of these new companies that are, purchasing one because of either price or charging concerns. Range anxiety. Yeah, a lot of these new companies that are, they're not new companies, but they're new to EVs don't have charging networks. Yep.

Starting point is 00:52:14 That's an issue. And then also if you've never owned an EV and you don't live in a city because now we're going down the curve of people who live outside of cities and you see 200 mile range, you remember your trip where you drove 300 miles or 400 miles and you're like, well,

Starting point is 00:52:29 then I can't have this car. If you have a test that you obviously can, but then Tesla also made the chest move of lowering their prices and having record sales, so they are margin went down, but their sales went up, and everybody can wait a year. Like, that's, I think, that people don't realize about cars. You can always get another year out of your current car. So according to this article, the nationwide supply of EVs and stock

Starting point is 00:52:51 has grown nearly 350% this year to more than 92,000 units, which is a 92-day supply of EVs, whereas my comparison dealers have 54 days worth of gasoline powered cars in inventory. So even though interest is growing in EVs, they're simply too much supply. Too much supply? It's because all these other companies like Ford and GE are now producing tons of EVs, but they don't have the charging networks and they they're new to the EV game, and they don't really produce great cars, great EVs. Tesla does not have this problem by the way. And what I come back to is just the administration's industrial policy. I mean, the administration just gave all these subsidies and credits to big companies like Ford and GE to make EVs, but no one wants those cars. Yep.

Starting point is 00:53:45 By the other problem. They're actually interfering in a free market where Tesla is the big winner because they took a huge risk and created a product people wanted. Now you've got these big, stagio companies trying to catch up, but no one wants their cars. The administration, which is pro-union, is anti-tessa because they don't have a union. And so they put the thumb on the scale and give them the credits instead of giving the credits to Tesla, although Tesla lowered the prices and I think they now qualify. But the prices are so low for Tesla and the cars are so sophisticated, listen, not to talk up our guy's book. But I think the other

Starting point is 00:54:20 big issue here that's not mentioned in the story is interest rates. I mean, if you could give these things away at 2%, 3%, 4% interest rates, that's a big difference, isn't it? In terms of monthly car payment. 80% of new cars are financed. So that's the beginning and end of this probably. I mean, it's three factors going on here. And interest rates are not all loans have doubled like the charter showed.

Starting point is 00:54:43 So it's a huge impact on demand overall. And it's not, you know, if you know the adoption curve of technology, I think we're getting into the big middle, the fat middle, and then going to the lagers. And the lagers want an F-150 or a cyber truck. And until lows emerge or a suburban, that's electric, you know, three rows with a lot of storage. Those don't exist yet. All right. So Jay, let me ask you a question. Okay. So you've got an administration that is overzealous, as Friedberg said, on industrial policy, basically subsidizing these like old Stodgy-Broken companies like Ford at the expense of innovators like Tesla. They are bringing a bunch of anti-MNA, FTC lawsuits that you don't like.

Starting point is 00:55:25 They are cracking down on crypto, which you may like, but in an overly aggressive way, the course is throwing that out. How am I going to have the rules fair? I'm just finishing this up. Keep going, yeah. We've just gotten off of a one to two-year spike in inflation, caused by runaway deficit spending and overstimulus. So, my question to you is, is the economy doing so well because of or in spite of this

Starting point is 00:55:52 administration? I think it's innovators and consumers drive the economy. I think I voted for Biden and over Trump because I think Trump would have stolen the election and as a treasonous, felonious, horrible human being. And I thought it was existential crisis for America. Now, if you could put up a Republican candidate like Chris Christie, who I just, uh, Mooch, Scar Moochie just put me in touch with Chris Christie, he's coming on the show. So, Nikki Hallyne, Chris Christie, you're coming on the show.

Starting point is 00:56:21 You couldn't deliver, you couldn't deliver to Santa's for the show. So I will deliver Chris Christie and Shemal is going to deliver Nikki Hale and Chris Christie are coming on the show. You couldn't deliver, you couldn't deliver to Santa's for the show. So I will deliver Chris Christie and Chimada is going to deliver Nikki Hale. I'm going to vote, I'm giving my announcement now. If Chris, I'm going to vote for Chris Christie, I think. I think Chris Christie, I think you changed the subject. I wasn't asking you about. No, I mean, I, I, I, I was asking you about whether you think the administration is helping the economy or hurting the economy.

Starting point is 00:56:48 I think the runaway spending to Freeberg's point last year is made me a single issue voter. And I think that they're spending disqualifies them from you voting for them. I need somebody who's gonna balance the budget or get this spending to sell. I love you now, oh my God. No, I mean, I can agree with you on some things. I'm like, Han Solo, you're like C3PL.

Starting point is 00:57:04 I need you to navigate an asteroid field, but I need you to also just shut the fuck up when I'm doing it, okay? So just let me cook as the world's greatest moderator. Ha, ha, ha. Now I do agree with you on this. You're absolutely correct. If we don't get the balance sheet right,

Starting point is 00:57:17 nothing else matters. And I don't think Trump's crazy spending and Biden's crazy spending is not gonna get us out of this. We need somebody to control spending, a period full stop. I don't know how you guys feel about the election at this point. I guess we can put that in. I just want to look at the deficit myth. Okay.

Starting point is 00:57:34 That book is the problem. It's that we can always just issue money because we are the currency that everyone wants to hold. Okay. And the flawed logic is that we are at the currency that everyone wants to hold. And the flawed logic is that we are at the currency that everyone wants to hold until we issued too much debt. Yeah, we've rehashed this.

Starting point is 00:57:51 I mean, the interest payments, I think, are the backstop trim off. When we start hitting those interest payments, people are gonna start going, we're paying more in interest, just like people with their home mortgages are like, you know, I should have bought a smaller house because I'm paying so much in interest.

Starting point is 00:58:04 I should have bought a Model 3 instead of a Model X. I overspent. So is that going to be the backstopper the United States itself? Is there any path of controlling spending? Is there any candidate who will get spending under control? Or is it just too unpopular? RFK. RFK. You think?

Starting point is 00:58:20 And the reason is because he's so against the military industrial complex and he wants to pass an executive order that bands pharmaceutical advertising those things would have a pretty large ripple effect in the economy and In spending and in entitlements So be interesting to let it play out All right, so you really care about yeah, those things would be pretty meaningful changes things would be pretty meaningful changes. Sax, anything from you on any theory on how we could control spending in this country?

Starting point is 00:58:48 If there's any back stock, i.e. my theory, when we start paying huge interest payments, maybe we get our act together? Is there any candidate? At the end of the day, the market is probably going to impose discipline on us. That's sort of my point, yeah. Yeah, you're right. The cost of borrowing will become so painful. That is the argument that Larry Summers, another contrarian economist, contrarian to the

Starting point is 00:59:09 administration's policy, have been making, I'm sorry, I don't want to put that in his mouth, but that the cost of borrowing is going to be high as long as spending remains high. And so when you see security and climate transition type and simulator spending going on chips act IRA all this sort of stuff It's not cost-free you have to pay more to the buyers of your debt Yeah, I mean, Tramoth can speak to this The big you know, it's always if you place a lot of bats the big doesn't go down it goes up when the debt goes up So anyway just on the market imposing Discipline on the federal government.

Starting point is 00:59:46 And one of the things we've talked about is whether there could ever be an alternative reserve currency. And the theory was that as problematic as the US fiscal situation is there's no real alternative to the US dollar. The BRICS countries are about to introduce an alternative currency that's based on gold. So it seems like what the BR countries would like to do is use gold, gold certificates as an alternative. That's basically what we're talking about. So it's announced that they're going to be rolling this out. We haven't yet seen how or what the details are going to be.

Starting point is 01:00:21 But that's the... That's scarcity built into it. That would be the alternative as you go back to a gold standard, and the BRICS countries move to that. Now, I know a lot of people may not think that's much of a threat, but I was reading actually some really interesting articles about how big the BRICS countries are now, and if you look at them on a purchasing power parity basis, the BRICS countries just surpassed the G7 in terms of GDP. So if you measure the size of their economies based on exchange rates, then the G7 is still

Starting point is 01:00:55 bigger. But if you look at in terms of PPP, actually the BRICS are now bigger than the G7. And growing faster. Just for people who are catching up, Brazil, Russia, India, China, and other, what are considered emerging markets, but are quickly becoming. Brazil, Russia, India, China. Bricks. And there's a bunch more who want to join.

Starting point is 01:01:17 With this ripple ruling, I think this becomes a boon for people to say, well, the scarcity of Bitcoin and Bitcoin's stability, I think, where it's trading right around 30K between the 10K previous average and the 60K peak, maybe that becomes the gold standard in the future. And if people can feel a little bit more secure in it, now we're going to see like 10 counter lawsuits and everybody is just going to sue the SEC and stand up for themselves, I think that's what's going to happen now. If Ripple wins this or if this Ripple thing does work out appeals, whatever, then for

Starting point is 01:01:52 sure. The standard operating procedures, they're not fighting. No settlements. I think that's what M&A is going to happen. All M&A, it's like, well, now the settlement is off the table. We're going to fight. You know what? You can afford a lot of lawyers if you sold a lot of tokens or you're a big money printing machine.

Starting point is 01:02:09 Quick plug for the summit go. Yeah. Well, we have, at this point, the ability to announce a bunch of our speakers for the summit, which is super exciting. That put in like some tip in here. So we have Toby from Shopify, Stephen Wolfram of Wolfram Alpha, Mathematica, obviously Mr. Beast, everyone knows Mr. Beast. Mr. Beast is coming.

Starting point is 01:02:32 Mr. Beast is coming. Can we take a, in the green room, can I ask him to take a picture of my dodge? You can do it. Is that a line? Yeah, I can. Okay, cool. I'm here. I think it'll be interesting to ask Toby.

Starting point is 01:02:43 I treated this out, this whole thing that he did where he canceled everybody's meetings and that forced people to reset it with a little calculator that shows how much money that meeting costs in terms of greater than a total of 10. It's in the Google calendar, too. It's like this meeting costs $3,000.

Starting point is 01:02:58 And then he just launched AI. He launched this AI thing called the Sidekick. It's awesome. It replaces all board meetings. Yeah. If you're like, basically, it also tells you how to do basic stuff that you need to do to get your business stood up.

Starting point is 01:03:12 It's fantastic. We'll reconfigure a website in real time to increase sales. It'll tell you why sales are falling off a cliff. It's like your little, you know, and he said like, every superhero needs a site kick and Robin, boom. So we got Rob Henderson, you know, and he said like a every superhero needs a psychic and Robin boom So we got Rob Henderson Nikki Paul Vinod Kostler Bob mom guard from Commonwealth fusion. Jenny just Ryan Armstrong

Starting point is 01:03:34 Alexandra Botes of the Botes sisters famous chest dreamers we have the fifth bestie bride Gerson her her Summers, and a few others that we can't announce just yet will announce closer to the summit or at the summit. We reserved 100 general admission tickets for after we announced speakers, so we're going to update the website with these speakers, and we're reopening GA ticket sales until those 100 final tickets are sold out. So if interested in joining us, it's gonna be a fantastic event.

Starting point is 01:04:06 Jason organizing amazing parties all three nights, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday night. Can't wait to find out about them. And I was a great content, great speaker. Yeah, so first, first night's party, and then this subject to change, is the bestie who loved me. Casino Royale, James Bondi,

Starting point is 01:04:21 where your best James Bond, Tuxedo, Play, Roulette out whatever white vote ties. He has exactly Second night party is gonna be bestie club like the breakfast club 80s big 80s Like white club where people get Bestie Bestie club. Okay, okay, and then the last night the raise and we're gonna go late I don't know how late but we're gonna go late. I don't know how late, but we're gonna go late. We're gonna have a ray that's gonna be bestie runner.

Starting point is 01:04:48 A blade runner, cyberpunk send up. Where your best blade runner, cyberpunk, ray of outfit, Sacks is gonna dress like the fifth element. Red meat for Sacks. Yeah, and for Jake, I'll do a certain extent. There are no winners and more. NATO has brought Sweden, and obviously Finland came in right before them because of Putin's invasion of Ukraine.

Starting point is 01:05:10 And here we go, Zelensky denounced the NATO Alliance's administration policy as absurd and disrespectful. First sentence of Sax's very long tweet storm to spite Biden's best efforts to put a happy face on it. Villanias will be remembered as the NATO summit where tensions boiled over. Obviously, this photo has become a bit of a meme thrown up on the screen right here. Zelensky literally, not figuratively, having NATO turn his back on him on stage from being the cause of the lab last year to everybody.

Starting point is 01:05:43 I, you know, and again, it's just a picture. They was a press conference with Biden who said Zelensky was stock with the US and I'll let SACs take it from there. These NATO meetings are supposed to be symbols of unity and harmony and the alliance coming together to show how on the same page they are. And this meeting, it sort of ended up there, but it's not the way it started. Zelensky had been told, the Ukrainians have been told before the summit that there would not be a timetable for their admission to NATO on the agenda.

Starting point is 01:06:20 Stoltenberg had said it weeks ago, Biden had said it weeks ago. This controversy had played out already in the pages of the New York Times and other publications. So he knew that it would not be on the agenda. And yet he went into the meeting demanding that they put it on the agenda, trying to muscle his way into admission and to NATO, which Biden, I think to his credit, has resisted because Biden understands that this is an escalation that could lead to a war three. As Biden explained, the members of NATO

Starting point is 01:06:50 have an article five commitment to defend each other's territory. So if Ukraine is emitted to NATO, then we would end up being directly involved in the swore, or at least that's the risk. And so Biden's position is that the alliance will emit Ukraine at some point in the future when the conditions have been met.

Starting point is 01:07:11 And that wasn't good enough for Zelensky, and he basically threw a diplomatic tantrum. Why? Well, I mean, do you want to explain from his point of view? I mean, I think from here... Yeah, I'm curious what you would think, his... Why would he do something like that, as I guess my question, yeah? I think there's a couple of different reasons. Okay. So I think the less positive explanation is that his sentiment title meant has reached incredible proportions that you had here the entire

Starting point is 01:07:36 West and especially the Western media has been falling over him for a year. The West has given over a hundred billion dollars. for a year, the West has given over $100 billion, and he just feels entitled to more and more aid. And I think that really rubbed the attendees the wrong way. You had Ben Wallace, who's the Secretary of Defense for the UK, basically cast ties Zolinsky for his ingratitude. And just so you understand, I mean, Ben Wallace is a super hawk. He is super pro Ukraine. And if he had his way, we might even be directly involved in the fighting by actually vetoed Ben Wallace becoming the new head of NATO. That's why Stolenberg on another year. So you probably got one of the most hawkish members of this club, reprimanding Zelensky for, again, this lack of gratitude, basically to the Alliance. Now I think from Zelensky's standpoint, his view is that, hey, we had a peace deal, he

Starting point is 01:08:31 didn't say this, but this is my reading between the lines, that we had a peace deal at Istanbul. We could have ended this war, and you sent Boris Johnson to tell me, we don't want to make a deal, we want a pressure Putin, and we're going to give you the weapon systems to win this war. That was the deal that he thought he was making, and now it turns out that the US doesn't have enough ammunition to give him. I'm talking about the key type of ammunition in this war, which is artillery shells. The US has basically run out of 155 millimeter artillery shells, which are the key type of ammunition that's using these howitzers and these tanks and so forth. And artillery is the main weapon being used in this war.

Starting point is 01:09:11 It's what's creating most of the casualties. So it must have come as a rude awakening to Zelensky to find out that his partners don't have enough ammunition to give him. And I'm still stunned that we spend over 800 billion a year on defense, and we could run out of ammunition. I mean, how does that happen? I mean, how royally screwed is the American taxpayer when we spend 800 billion a year, and we are out of ammunition ready? It is mind boggling to me. Now the prop is mind boggling, right? I mean, how incompetent has our military industrial complex become that this could even happen?

Starting point is 01:09:47 We need more competition startup shout out Palmer Lucky, friend of the pot. But I mean, I know he hates you, but I do think that the solution is 10 more Palmer Lucky's. I mean, I think the Silicon Valley's anti-supporting the military is a crazy position that needs to change and we should make more weapons and have VC back companies making weapon systems that are more affordable and you know more advanced obviously. This is actually not a case of needing some smart bomb or some super sophisticated technology. No, this is walking in tech. This is basically just classic industrial production and we've hollowed out so much for our industrial production that we don't have the capability to scale up

Starting point is 01:10:29 the manufacturing of these artillery shells. It's going to take us, according to the Pentagon, they started the war at 14,000 shells being produced a month, mainly for training purposes. They've scaled that to somewhere between 20 and 30,000 a month now, and they're saying that they will get to about 90,000 in somewhere between 2025 and 2028. We have three percent unemployment.

Starting point is 01:10:50 We talked about earlier. We're talking about multiple years. It's going to work in these factories. It's going to take multiple years to sculpt these factories. But who's going to work in these factories? We're at 3% unemployment. Like we don't have factory workers in this country. We have to let them in.

Starting point is 01:11:03 We're going to need more immigrants. That's not the limiting factor here. But if you're wondering why did the US give cluster bombs to Ukraine, it's because we're out of ammo to give, and it's all we've got left are these stockpiles of cluster munitions. That is why the United States is violating international law, a treaty that we haven't signed, but 120

Starting point is 01:11:25 other countries have signed, not to use cluster munitions, and yet we are giving them to Ukraine because, according to both Biden and Jake Sullivan, we are out. You think we shouldn't give them the cluster bombs, that's your position? Well, I wouldn't have put ourselves in this position. I mean, we're in a cluster of positions. But no, I think it's degrading to America's moral authority to be violating international law, to be using and endorsing custom munitions, but we put ourselves in this situation. The counter to that, of course, is Russia's using them on Ukraine soil. This

Starting point is 01:11:58 is Ukraine soil. Don't they have the right to defend themselves and use the same weapons that the invader is using? That's disputed. It's known. Yeah, it is. If the Russians were using them, would you think it would be fair for the Ukraine? Since they're being invaded? The thing that I find curious about these accusations is that when people talk about these examples or the Russians using cluster munitions, they talk about an example here or an example there. There are these isolated cases, which doesn't sound right to me. It seems to me that if you're going to use cluster munitions, why wouldn't you just use them at scale? That is what the Ukrainians are going to be doing now because again, it's all we've got left to give them. Now what the Russians have said is that in retaliation, they're going to start using cluster munitions at scale. So regardless of the truth of those

Starting point is 01:12:41 allegations, Jason. Yeah. It's an estimated now escalating this war. Yes. And the reason why you created Ukraine. So just a real why start in 120 countries, sign an agreement, not to use cluster munitions, it's because they linger. Yeah, it's terrible.

Starting point is 01:12:57 On the battlefield long after, and you have kids walking on them, civilians, it's good. We're still cleaning them up in many locations around the world. They should be banned forever. I agree. Let me get your take on on this, Saks, as we wrap up here on the Saks Red Meat section and then go to Science Corner. Putin did what NATO couldn't do for decades, which is get Finland and Sweden who are famously independent, like a lot of the Nordics,

Starting point is 01:13:19 to join NATO. They both joined because of his invasion of Ukraine. And he's been very serious that if Finland were to join or if Sweden were to join, that this would be a trigger for him. If military contingents and military infrastructure were deployed there, we would be obliged to respond symmetrically and raise the same threats to those territories where threats have arisen for us. He's done nothing. Do you think that Sweden and Finland are a huge elf for him and do you think he'll have any kind of response to it?

Starting point is 01:13:51 Do you think they should have been allowed in? Tuneo. I think it's an elf for everybody. I mean, we used to have an understanding that we'd have a buffer zone between Russia and the West. And that was good for everybody. Finland was neutral. And I think it was good for Finland. I mean, during the entire Cold War, they were at much greater risk facing the Soviet Union on their border,

Starting point is 01:14:13 which was a much more powerful, a much more expansionist country than Putin's Russia has been. Even if you don't like Putin's Russia, the Soviet Union was the evil empire. It was much worse in every dimension. And Finland managed to survive the Cold War remaining neutral. And so now you're right that I think disinversion of Ukraine has ultimately caused Finland and Sweden to join NATO. But we are now directly NATO is going to be directly on their border, staring eyeball to eyeball, with nuclear weapons.

Starting point is 01:14:46 The Russians have now moved nuclear weapons into Belarus. So this is a ratching up of tensions that I think is not good for anybody. Who should get to decide, Friedberg? Who joins NATO? NATO? The countries that want to join? Or Russia? What do you mean?

Starting point is 01:15:01 NATO. What are our... It's a pretty basic question. Right now, it's Russia saying Ukraine cannot join NATO. It's a line in the sand. Obviously Finland and Sweden just joined this year. So I'm curious to take on the NATO alliance, and if it's good for humanity. I think, look, obviously this is a different, difficult calculus if you...

Starting point is 01:15:22 That's why I'm asking the question. If NATO wants to escalate tensions with Russia by accepting Ukraine, it's obviously going to require a significant influx of capital by some estimates up to $2 trillion to increase the security capacity of NATO given the instigation that would arise from accepting Ukraine in NATO with Russia. So that is one path. The other path is to not accept Ukraine in NATO and minimize the investment needed, reduce the escalatory cycle with Russia at some degree for some period of time, see where things go with Ukraine and the conflict between Russia and Ukraine.

Starting point is 01:16:05 Well said. But not get actively involved. So it's a difficult calculus. I think everyone wants to jump to some decision about what should be done here, but this is a very hard decision, very hard decision. What do you think about Finland and Sweden joining? Is it a major win for NATO in the West?

Starting point is 01:16:19 Is it a major alpha Russia somewhere in between? I don't really know. Yeah. I think that's as honest as you can get. Yeah. Like I said, I think it's just sort of bad for everybody. But in the United States, among the foreign policy establishment, they tend to think that any country joining NATO is an asset for us.

Starting point is 01:16:38 And I would argue that it's liability because it requires the U.S. to defend these countries. Again, if Sweden or Finland gets in a war, we are making a guarantee to send American boys and girls to go defend that country. Now, they also make a guarantee to defend us, but realistically, are we gonna benefit, does our security benefit by having Sweden or Finland? We don't know how I use gonna defend us?

Starting point is 01:17:01 No. So every time you add a country to NATO, you're making a commitment for Americans to have to go defend that country. And I would argue that's a liability, not an asset for America. Now, you know, it's an asset for, is a military industrial complex because all these countries when they join NATO, because we're ready to spend 2% of their GDP on defense. And they can only spend that money on defense contractors who are interoperable with the NATO platform, which is basically these approved Western contractors.

Starting point is 01:17:32 So the defense industry loves NATO expansion, the military, industrial complex. They're locked into vendor lockers. Absolutely. Oh, I didn't know there was vendor lock. And that's like when you rent like a you know a union hotel or something They're like you got to use Wolfgang puck and it's a $800 a person for coffee one of the requirements for a country to join NATO And Ukraine already had been on this path for the last three years is called interoperability

Starting point is 01:17:58 You have to make your military interoperable with NATO's which means that you use Weapons as well as tactics and strategies, but weapons that are on the approved NATO list. And if you looked at the summit, we just had it in Vilnius. When all the planes came into the airport, you had these anti-aircraft batteries and howitzers and all these tanks and all these weapons were being shown off by our defense contractors at the NATO summit. It was like a confab for the MIC.

Starting point is 01:18:28 So you have to understand that NATO is a business. And the more countries that join NATO, the more money our defense contractors make. But the price of that for the average American is that our sons and daughters one day might have to go defend these countries. And it reduces the risk of Russia going into another country. It would be the other steel man of it, but let's go on to science corner. Everybody's favorite part of the show is science corner. Sax you can go use the bathroom and Chimoff and I will be absolutely engaged in Freeberg's science corner. Let's go.

Starting point is 01:19:08 We were talking about what to talk about. As you guys know, I said, hey, we can talk about the C-Surfids temperatures in the Atlantic that's likely going to drive the biggest hurricane season we've ever seen this coming season. Super compelling, good topic. We were going to talk about this minimal cell. But then just yesterday, this paper was published, which I think deserves a lot of attention. And we've talked about Yamannaka factors and reprogramming cells, you know, adjusting the epigenetics of a cell to make it youthful, basically reversing aging. And, you know, a couple episodes ago I talked about how there's great proof and evidence now that aging

Starting point is 01:19:43 is a result of degradation or changes in the epigenome, the little molecules that stick on top of the DNA in a cell that decide what proteins are expressed that make that cell different from all the other cells, the difference between an eye cell and a muscle cell in a skin cell is the epigenetics of that cell, even though they all have the same DNA in the nucleus. And so the Yamannaka factors, these four chemicals that allowed the expression of these four specific genes cause cells to become stem cells that can turn into any other cell. The problem with applying Yamannaka factors to reverse aging is that it turns the cells into cancer cells if you apply too much.

Starting point is 01:20:20 So then there were all these efforts on doing short bursts of Yamanocha factors and more recently There's been an effort to do gene Insertions through viral vectors you basically get a virus to deliver a gene into a cell that causes that cell to express Some of the Yamanocha factors that makes that cell more youthful and there's actually clinical trials underway right now to apply this as a medicine for Vision loss, where you can make the retinal cells actually youthful. Yeah, really incredible. So the problem right now is that we don't really know how to target the cells, how to provide

Starting point is 01:20:54 the right amount of Yamannaka factor stuff, and how to get it there, is that these gene expressing viruses or what do we do. But this paper that was just published yesterday shows that you can use small molecules. Basically small molecules are like Advil or Tylenol or you know there's about 1800 molecules in a certain reference library that's used in medicine. And what this research team at Harvard medical and some other facilities, MIT and other places in collaboration were able to do, is they basically did a screen, a combinatorial screen. So they took all these different molecules

Starting point is 01:21:32 that are known to be used in medicine, and they combined them together and created different cocktails. They then took those cocktails, and they applied them to the cells to see if they could reverse aging. And in fact, they found six different cocktails of small molecules that were able to have the same effect as we see

Starting point is 01:21:49 with the Yamanaka factors in short bursts to cause these cells to actually reverse their aging and become youthful again. I cannot overstate how important this is. This is probably the most important trajectory of what's underway in biology since the discovery of DNA. This ability to actually make cells youthful again,

Starting point is 01:22:07 it can, in fact, ultimately result in a pill or a series of pills that can reverse aging. That is why it is so exciting right now. And we're seeing this data coming out from this research team, and I have heard separately about data that has not yet been published by other research teams following the same track to do the same thing. That it turns out it may in fact be possible to create pills with small molecules in

Starting point is 01:22:31 it, things that your body can absorb and end up in your bloodstream and go into different cells that actually rejuvenate the cells, fix the epigenetic data loss that happens in those cells, causes them to become more youthful. You could see a cring that you could apply to your skin that takes away wrinkles. Ultimately, you could take something that makes your heart healthier, your liver healthier, and actually reverses aging in the individual cells by the absorption of these small molecules into those cells that ultimately cause the expression of these genes and change all the transcriptome as it's called in the cell and makes it more youthful. It is unbelievable work. Everyone should be, I think, fascinated by this and where it's headed. It is unbelievable work. Everyone should be, I think, fascinated

Starting point is 01:23:06 by this and where it's headed. It is so exciting that there are multiple teams that are having breakthroughs on this work that could ultimately translate into clinical trials and products that could be used by people. The obvious question, can we get this to Biden before the debate? Ooh. Hey, O. Jamath, you're, you're, you're in a joke please. Chimath, sorry, I need to step on you range. I'm so tired.

Starting point is 01:23:27 I had such a big night last night. Man, he's like, I can't even get a U-ray to his joke up. I drank so much wine. I am fucking gassed today. When you say drink so much wine, how many bottles were opened? And how many glasses did you have? Be honest, I'm gonna put the over under at six glasses. There was six of us. 5.5 glasses. 5.5.

Starting point is 01:23:51 There were six of us. There's probably seven or eight bottles. Oh! But it's just like, it was just so delicious and then I don't like to eat a lot when I'm drinking really, really good wine. And then, oh man. Wow. Oh, that's okay. And then, oh man, wow. Oh, that's okay, that's all right.

Starting point is 01:24:06 5.5, you got the over or the under sacks? 5.5 glasses, I got the over. I drank so much, I had the night sweats. Oh, a couple of things. Oh, nothing much, so hot. I get the night sweats, I need too much meat. So you were drinking red wine. You were not drinking white wine.

Starting point is 01:24:18 No, I don't know white. No white. White the whole night? Yeah. Champagne. Oh, the champagne, I'll get you. Champagne, I'll get you. Champagne, I'll get you. That champagne, get champagne. Oh, the champagne. champagne. What is the worst hangar? Is it red wine, champagne or white?

Starting point is 01:24:31 What gets you? It's like the sweeter it is, the higher the alcohol content, the more it really just fucks with me personally. Producer Nick coming in hot, $7 pitches are sangria all night. He says sangria. That's because they pour sugar in it, dude. Sangria. The more sugar, it's just it's just the sugar bomb. It's too. Well, you know, what I got to do. I'm going to be in Italy. So maybe we could catch up and have dinner. Chimata. I don't know where you'll be about. I'll try. We shortly. I will look you up when I'm in Italy. Maybe I don't know if anybody busiers are going to be in Italy any time over the summer. I may go to Italy. I may be able to. I may be able to. I'm maybe able to. I'm maybe able to.

Starting point is 01:25:02 I'm maybe able to. I'm maybe able to. I'm maybe able to. I'm maybe able to. I'm maybe able summer. I may go to the end of the week. I may go to the end of the week. I may go to the end of the week. I may go to the end of the week. I may go to the end of the week. I may go to the end of the week. I may go to the end of the week. I may go to the end of the week. I may go to the end of the week. I may go to the end of the week. I may go to the end of the week.

Starting point is 01:25:12 I may go to the end of the week. I may go to the end of the week. I may go to the end of the week. I may go to the end of the week. I may go to the end of the week. I may go to the end of the week. I may go to the end of the week. I may go to the end of the week.

Starting point is 01:25:20 I may go to the end of the week. I may go to the end of the week. I may go to the end of the week. I may go to the end of the week. I may go to the end of the week. I may go to the end of the week. I may go to the end of the week. I may go to the end of the week.

Starting point is 01:25:28 I may go to the end of the week. I may go to the end of the week. I may go to the end of the week. I may go to the end of the week. I may go to the end of the week. I may go to the end of the week. I may go to the end of the week. I may go to the end of the week course I did. I need to have two factor. When you hacked it, I was like, who is trying to log in? And then I was like, don't worry about it. Don't worry about it, Jake. I'm gonna get your phone next time. I'm gonna take your phone. It's a quick hacker. You know, while you're in the bathroom, I'm gonna run into your house

Starting point is 01:25:36 and take your phone. Thanks. Thanks. You running into my house? Well, Jake, I will say, I'll tell you my honest opinion. I'm gonna miss you last week. I think that the show is better with you. I think that you bring a character and a personality that I miss when you're not around.

Starting point is 01:25:52 And as much as we fight, like brothers that truly hate each other, I really do respect and appreciate what you do on the show. And I honestly felt it was a big hole last week. So despite all of our issues, I think it's great to be doing the show with you. I wanna like you know. It's not a thank you, that's free. That's very heart-felt and kind.

Starting point is 01:26:10 Who wrote it? Who wrote that free? Is that Alicina? That's not a thank you. Chachi PT. That was a chev- How do I make Jekyll feel better? How do I express emotion to a friend?

Starting point is 01:26:20 How do I behave like a loyal friend? Yes, the YouTube channel and publisher, oh, God, that's not how you do it. All right, listen, for the drunken hungover dictator, C3P freedberg, the sultan of science, the prince of panic attacks, the queen of king, why? And crazy hair, don't care. The architect architect Steve Bannon with a high IQ His name is David Sachs. I am the world's obviously greatest moderator after the shit show last week and This has been Best episode of any podcast ever recorded and we'll see you all next week

Starting point is 01:27:00 Chin down maybe We'll grab some pasta. I Love you besties. Love you guys. Bye bye. I'm going to be West, I'm going to be Queen of Canoas I'm going to be West, I'm going to be Queen of Canoas I'm going to be West, I'm going to be Queen of Canoas Besties are gone Besties are gone Besties are gone Besties are gone Besties are gone Besties are gone Besties are gone Besties are gone

Starting point is 01:27:40 Besties are gone Besties are gone Besties are gone Besties are gone Besties are gone Besties are gone Besties are gone Besties are gone I just have one big huger because they're all just like this like sexual tension, but we just need to release them out I'm doing all it.

All-In with Chamath, Jason, Sacks & Friedberg - E137: Inflation cools, market rips, Ripple/MSFT beat regulators, NATO summit, cocktails of youth

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