All-In with Chamath, Jason, Sacks & Friedberg - E140: LK-99, Sclerotic establishments, Fitch downgrades US debt, Trump indicted... again

Episode Date: August 4, 2023

(0:00) Bestie intros! (0:53) LK-99 breakdown (24:39) Funding landscape for breakthrough science, sclerotic establishments, boomer incumbents (46:04) Fitch downgrades US debt rating (1:09:12) Trump's newest indictment Follow the besties: https://twitter.com/chamath https://linktr.ee/calacanis https://twitter.com/DavidSacks https://twitter.com/friedberg Follow the pod: https://twitter.com/theallinpod https://linktr.ee/allinpodcast Intro Music Credit: https://rb.gy/tppkzl https://twitter.com/yung_spielburg Intro Video Credit: https://twitter.com/TheZachEffect Referenced in the show: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2307/2307.12008.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/2307.12037.pdf https://manifold.markets/QuantumObserver/will-the-lk99-room-temp-ambient-pre?r=RWxpZXplcll1ZGtvd3NreQ https://twitter.com/667keos/status/1686490898480173056 https://twitter.com/iris_IGB/status/1685731177523449856 https://twitter.com/VCBrags/status/1684591950387716097 https://stanforddaily.com/2023/07/19/stanford-president-resigns-over-manipulated-research-will-retract-at-least-3-papers https://www.socialcapital.com/ideas/2021-annual-letter https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30418-9/fulltext https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-07-24/sam-altman-valley-vcs-bet-48-million-on-blood-testing-startup https://www.fitchratings.com/research/sovereigns/fitch-downgrades-united-states-long-term-ratings-to-aa-from-aaa-outlook-stable-01-08-2023 https://www.npr.org/2023/08/02/1178215888/fitch-downgrade-credit-rating-deficits-debt-economy https://twitter.com/BillAckman/status/1686906272937869312 https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy1670 https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/07/22/gop-social-security-trump-rivals-cuts https://www.commondreams.org/news/republicans-cut-social-security https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/RS22331.pdf https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MORTGAGE30US https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNRATE https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/JTSJOL https://apnews.com/trump-election-2020-indictment https://apnews.com/article/trump-indicted-jan-6-investigation-special-counsel-debb59bb7a4d9f93f7e2dace01feccdc https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-primary-r/2024/national https://www.reuters.com/world/us/new-defendant-added-trump-classified-documents-case-court-papers-2023-07-27 https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/03/briefing/trump-indictment.html https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1686843918317486081

Whoa, whoa, whoa, sax found the gel. Oh my guy at this guy. He's running for office If he shows up with the red tie next week, we're fucked. That's the end of the show He shows up with the red tie to blue shirt. Are you coming out of your law retirement? Are you gonna be an active lawyer defending Trump? So you look really good. I got to say with that with the job. That looks that's a really good Let's go the shower used to comb. Oh the weekly shower in shower in Italy good luck right. Yeah, it's not a bad look Did you use soap? Oh no, I didn't have time didn't have 90 seconds. Yeah, I didn't want to keep you guys waiting another two minutes Alright, everybody, welcome to another episode of the All in Podcast. It is August and we just might have had the most consequential week in terms of politics and science

in a long time. It could be the week of the year. Freeberg's been going nuts inside the group chat because everyone is trying to replicate this LK99 room temperature semi conductor experiment. Super conductor. Super conductor, yes. So, Superconductor. Superconductor, yes. So, God, I mean, this has been, what's it been like, 10 days?

And now everybody is on Twitter trying to recreate this. Maybe I should just let you queue this up, freebergs. Since this is the first time, perhaps the last, that we're gonna start the show with Science Corner. So Science Corner take over a week. Tell us, is this legit? Because you flip from this is a fraud to this is changing the world like every day you seem to have a new piece of evidence. Where are you today with this?

Is this the real deal? I mean, it's probably it's probably somewhere in the middle but it leads to a path that could get us to the Holy Grail which is room temperature, superconducting material, which we've talked about twice on the show before, and I encourage folks to go look at the episode we did a couple of ago after the original claim was made a few months ago that turned out to not be true. But the description in the paper that came out on how to make this material was chased by hundreds

of labs around the world over the last few days. Folks have been livestreaming it on these Chinese websites, Billy Billy and Twitter and Twitch. Everyone from Russian scientists to Chinese, to Korean, to American, to European, I will say one thing that I think is really profound, which it is, this is the first time in a very long time that I've seen so many people share a unified voice about optimism, about an abundant future, optimism about a big breakthrough, rather than get on social media to share a voice about fear and anger at someone or something.

And to hear everyone around the world get together and be excited about the potential of this discovery and its applications. It's really profound to see and it's really amazing and wonderful to see. Now, where we are, a bunch of labs took the described chemical structure of this material, LK99, which has lead and phosphorus, oxygen, and some copper in it, and put it into these modeling systems, these computer modeling systems to try and understand where do the electrons sit in this material, if this material is made the way it's described. And five different labs have now published papers that show that the way that this material is supposedly produced, it should create these pathways or these energy states with the electrons

that theoretically could enable superconductivity at a very high temperature. And so that's a very confirmatory signal that computer modeling of the electron clouds, because remember, electrons, even though they move around the nucleus of an atom, we only kind of have a probability statement of where they are. So if you look at all the probability statements of all the atoms stuck together and you try and figure out what's the aggregate probability of where electrons are,

it indicates that there are these pathways that theoretically could allow for electrons to move freely through the material and be completely void of any sort of resistance, which is superconductivity. And so that's what's really profound about the modeling outputs from five very separate independent labs. Just so we're clear, when electricity normally moves down

an electric wire or in computers and CPUs, GPUs, whatever, there's resistance. That resistance results in loss, it results in heat, and the only way we've been able to reduce that loss is by making it freezing cold, like significantly cold. Totally right. Yeah. So now, if we were to do this when we didn't have to make a cold, that means it, these superconducting experiments move from the laboratory where it's forced to be cold to the real world. Our desktop, you used an analogy and chat, that was really interesting of like a superconducting road

where, and then you don't lose energy. Right now, how much energy do we lose transporting it to our houses? Right, so, I would say on the order of 70% of energy we produce is loss to heat and friction. Think about moving a car down the road. When you move a car down the road, you're having to put energy into overcome the friction of the car hitting the road. So if the car

could hover above the road, the friction goes away and the energy needed to move the car goes way, way down. When you build a data center, the electrons that are moving through the copper and the semiconductors bump into other atoms. When they bump into the atoms and the material, they shake those atoms when atoms shake that is heat. So that's why copper wire heats up when you put electricity through it. You're moving electrons through it. Some of those electrons bump into the copper atoms, shakes the copper atoms, they get hot, and then some of the electrons make their way through. The rate at which electrons are bumping into other atoms is the resistance of the material.

And so all this energy is going into cooling down data centers and all this energy is lost in computing to heat and same in in electric motors could be reinvented semi-conductors integrated circuits would be reinvented and like I said if you had enough of this material you could put it in roads and because superconductors also reflect magnetic fields you could put magnets on the bottom of cars and float them above the ground and cruise around without any friction. And there's only a million things. This is true. This 70% loss of, and then all this energy put in cooling data centers, we could be looking at doubling or tripling the amount of energy available because we've built a certain

amount of energy infrastructure. So this would be all gains if we could figure out how to. Yeah, but ever just technology. Massive gains and massive abundance. It would lower the cost of electricity by 10%, 100%. I mean, look, assuming huge infrastructure investments, which would take probably decades to do, sure, you would get there. But in the near term,

there are these incredible applications. Quantum computers are built using little superconductors as the qubit, and so the superconductor holds the qubit state. So this idea that we could now have room temperature quantum computing is also very profound one, game changer, low cost, and the first thing that would be change is likely electronic components. So we would take electronic components and redesign them using superconducting material that would allow you to reduce heat loss and energy loss and that would have a big transformative effect on, for example, the big effort right now to make more AI chips, GPU chips to do matrix transformations. There is some precedent for this. People are now creating optical bridges between GPUs and

CPUs in order to reduce the heat. So they're using optics, basically, light to transfer the interconnects. Yeah. That's been the big lift right now from what I understand in GPUs and data centers is just moving the data. Yeah. I mean, we could go on for hours on that. But like, yes, I mean, this would just be a game changer electronic component trick. Photonic chips, right? Yeah. Photonic chips. But look, this is obviously a little bit separate. But here's where we are. So LK99, there's all these simulation models that show this thing could work. But there's two, two things I will say came out of this from some of the simulations. The first is remember, this is a crystal with mostly lead atoms. And these lead atoms,

some of them get replaced by copper. And when they get replaced by copper, it causes the crystal structure to change by 0.46 degrees is what the Koreans say. The angle changes by 0.46 degrees. And when that happens, that bending causes the electrons and all the atoms in the crystal to overlap slightly. And that overlapping effect causes this free flowing electron tunnel, that is the theory for why the superconduct. Now, what the simulation showed is that you have to replace only one of the lead atoms, not any of the other ones in order for this to work. And that could explain why everyone's having different results in the lab trying to reproduce this. Because when you bake this stuff in an oven, if the

copper gets into the wrong atom space in the crystal, it doesn't work. And so that's why some of these things might end up looking good and some of them don't look good. And some of them, there was a lab yesterday in China that published no resistance, but they had to cool it down to 100 degrees below freezing. And so it wasn't at room temperature, but it did superconductor, it did have no resistance. 170 Kelvin, because we're there, God. Yeah, so 100, 100 below zero. One 70 Kelvin. I think it's where they got it. Yeah, so 100, so 100 below zero. So another word, there is a key.

There is a key here in the molecular structure that you have to just thread perfectly. You have to replace the right lead atom with the copper in order for this to work. And so that's a technically very, and what happened by the way, so that's a fidelity issue. That's a tool issue. Like you have to have the right tool to do it. Or is it luck or right now? So, so here's the crazy story. And I'll tell you as this, I don't know how real this is, but the guys claim, so remember, these two scientists, Lee and Kim supposedly saw this material

in a lab in 1999. That's why it's called LK, Lee and Kim, 99. And so in 99, they came across this, and they could not replicate it, and they had no idea how to make it again. And it disappeared and they didn't have the sample again. They then spent the next 20 years of their life. One was a college professor and the other one worked for LG for as a battery engineer. And they just had these random normal everyday lives.

It reminds me of Dennis Quaid in the movie The Rookie where he had like this amazing arm and he was going to go to the MLB. And then something happened and he spent the rest of his life as a high school PE teacher. And then 20 years later, he gets his arm back and he goes to the MLB and he plays an image-related baseball game. Because all of a sudden during COVID, these guys got some funding.

They set up a company, they went into a lab, and they rediscovered this material. And apparently this is the rumor, I don't know if this is real. The rumor is they were baking it in an oven in a vacuum sealed tube. And when the guy took it out of the oven, he accidentally bumped into a table in the tube cracked. And when the tube cracked, it did something to the material

and then they measured it and oh my God, it's room temperature superconductor. That's the current theory of what the rumor of what happened is a video. That's like Peter Parker being bitten by a radioactive spider. I mean, it doesn't get exact. It's not. Oh, here's the drama. This mean, that's not getting such stuff.

So here's the drama. This guy, Quan, got inserted to oversee them as like their CTO, the guy that gave the money to QCenter said he's got to oversee you. Quan apparently got fired from his job in March and he was kicked out of this company, was no longer affiliated. And the rumor is that Quan took all the lab data

and these guys, in 2020 during COVID, they discovered this. they started filing patents and working on the manufacturing process, trying to figure out how to replicate it and do it again. See, at all this data, but they weren't gonna publish it, they didn't want the world to know about it yet. And then all of a sudden, Kwan gathers all this data, probably disgruntled after getting fired,

puts it into a paper and puts it on the internet. So that's the first paper that came out. This is a quote because there's a website called R-A-R-X-I-V. Is there a pronunciation for this website? So this is where you can open source file scientific papers, right? Okay, so this is a place for dropping papers outside of the traditional journal. Yeah, the traditional journal process requires peer review

and there's editors at the journal that decide whether or not to publish your paper. So sometimes it keeps. Yeah, gatekeepers. And so if you don't wanna do that, you just wanna get a story out to the world right away. So during COVID, everyone was publishing on the site while their updates on research they were doing to help the world figure out what was going on with COVID.

So it's a great place to just hit the world with your data, hit the world with your findings. This is like acoustic raw papers, and it's called archive. AR-ac-c-i-view.org. If you wanna go see it, archive. So anyone can publish a PDF. No one knows if it's real or not,

it hasn't been peer reviewed, et cetera. So this guy, so Juan drops the paper with his name, Lee Kim and Juan on the paper. Only three people can win a Nobel Prize. So the theory is he did this to get his name out there to make sure he could lock in his name for the Nobel Prize. So the theory is he did this to get his name out there to make sure he could lock in his name for the Nobel Prize.

Wow. And then within a day, Lee and Kim, and four people they've been working with, including some folks in the US, publish another paper with better data, but it was also rushed out. And so both papers are pretty ugly. I got to be honest. They're like pretty messy. They don't have a great deal of clarity. There's errors in them. There's mistakes. There's redundancy. There's little basic chart editing errors, stupid stuff. Clearly this was a rushed job. But these guys rushed out and said, you know what? If this is going to be public, we now have to correct the story and say what happened. They put

this thing up. They wanted to get their claim in to get their noble piece prize, which would indicate that would lean towards a piece of evidence, as would people funding them 25 years later. That would indicate maybe there's of evidence as would people funding them 25 years later. That would indicate maybe there's something there. Two things worth noting on the simulation stuff. Number one, obviously you got to get the copper in the right place. The production way to do that, how do we actually engineer that to happen? It's not really clear, baking it in an oven, clearly is creating what's called heterogeneous

results, meaning everyone's getting different results around the world that have been doing this for the last couple days. And everyone's really confused, is this real, is it fake? I don't know. But that simulation explains why there's maybe lots of different results. Another comment, it turns out that one of the simulation teams said, hey, if you put gold instead of copper in the spot, it's a better superconductor. It could actually be a better material.

So it's opening up all these paths for exploration that we had never considered before, that there's this whole new approach to creating superconducting materials that was not on anyone's radar before. So this is opening up a whole new realm and I think this is gonna unfold over the next couple of years with more material discovery, more invention, coming off of this initial discovery and simulation model,

that then offers all these other opportunities for creating potentially new materials that maybe are easier to manufacture and better to produce. And the final thing I'll say is that there are some teams that are commenting that are saying that this thing may be superconducting, but only on one dimension, which means a long line of atoms or line of molecules in the material. So normal superconductors, think about them as like a 3D matrix, and the electrons can flow freely through any direction through the matrix, through the crystal. And in this case, they're saying the electrons can only flow freely across a line in this material.

And so now there's another question of wait, how do you manufacture lots of lines to run in parallel to make this thing truly superconducting at scale. So that's all the hard technical stuff that's emerging right now. Whether or not this actually does turn into a room temperature, superconducting material that can be industrialized and used in all these applications everyone's really excited about, I think it's probably months to years away from knowing. But at this point, there's a great set of indications that, oh my god, we might be onto something new. There's a whole new path of discovery, a whole new path of engineering and invention.

And it's amazing to just see everyone gather around this and get so excited about it, because it really will change so much about the world and create extraordinary abundance and prosperity for humanity if this proves to be real and industrializable and scalable. But can I ask a simple question here? When you say, if this proves to be real, if nobody has reproduced the result, why is there any belief that this is real? There are properties of this that, look, I think we have to take a step back. We have found superconductive materials in the past.

There are many ceramics that are superconductive, mercury is superconductive. There's all kinds of elements and materials and compounds in the physical world that we've already figured out have these properties. So this is not like a new thing that's never been found before. It's just this idea of trying to find it at a certain temperature where it could exist naturally in the normal world without all this expensive cooling. Okay, but there is a separate thing which is that we also have found a whole bunch of materials that look and behave like superconductors but are really not there, what's called, is diamagnetic. And I think right now what what people are trying to sort out is,

is this a clever diamagnet? Is this diamagnetism or is it superconductive? And these are huge differences that swing this from, yeah, it's kind of a cool thing. And yeah, whatever there's a bunch of other materials we found that are like this too. Wow, this is transformational. And right now we don't know any of that. And I think that all of the mystery around this is mostly because people can be on one side of the debate or the other literally by the second based on what new simulation or what new piece of research people are putting out there. But you have

to remember, like diamagnetism is like a property of matter. Superconductivity is a state of matter. It is totally different. All superconductors are diamagnetic, but all diamagnets are not superconductive. So we could just be extremely excited about not much of anything. Or this could really be a breakthrough. If what the Chinese guys said is that they were able to cool this thing down and get it to be superconductive,

then that does it. At once. It doesn't decay. It doesn't mean much in my opinion. Right. It's not room temperature, but it does indicate that this material can be super conductive. Look, there are many materials like this. There's a lot of forms of red matter that we've already found that at that temperature gradient, at that range of temperatures, can be super conductive. It's not practically useful at that point.

Yeah, that's right. I don't think you're gonna see like some massive revolution. So I'm a betting man, I make bets. I think I've talked about when there was this guy, Runga Diaz that had to try this stuff and he was sort of refuted in what he was working on.

But 18 months before that happened, I was trying to get a deal done with the University of Rochester to buy all that IP. So I've been grinding it in around this space for a couple of years. My intuition on this is that this is diamagnetic. And I think we're going to find that, you know, it was, it's like yet another material added to the list of materials and it's okay. But hopefully what it really does is it sparks an interest in a lot of other people putting more money behind this.

Nick, if you could pull up this manifold markets, there's a prediction market called manifold. Markets that people have been sharing a link from betting markets where people bet either side of this will LK 99 room temp ambient pressure serving conductivity pre print replicate before 2025 and you can see it's about 30% chance You what do you think of the prediction markets assessing this pre-burk? Yeah, I think it's probably that's probably a good handicap for where we are I'll say when you look at a Dymagnetic material and so what that means a diamagnet will Di-magnetic material and so what that means a die magnet will expel magnetic fields of both polarities a paramagnet will reflect the north or the frog floats. Technically, a frog is di-magnetic. But what happens typically with di-magnetic materials is they orient themselves

while they're freely floating into a particular direction. So there's going to be three things people are going to be looking for in terms of confirmatory proof on LK99. The first is does this material float like a superconductor over a magnetic field? Because remember, superconductors perfectly spell magnetic fields. They are diamagnets to the absolute degree. They perfectly reflect all magnetic fields. So if you put a superconducting material above a magnetic field, it should float freely and spin around and stuff. If it orients back to one position,

it probably means that there's something going on where it's maybe not a perfect superconductor. Now all these, the second thing you're going to look for is zero resistance. So can you actually pass an electric charge through it and have no resistance in the material? So you're seeing data coming out now that's indicating, we're seeing that, but we're seeing it at a low temperature. No one's yet replicated this at room temperature. And the third thing is a transition, which means that there's a point where it shifts,

because that's a classic characteristic of superconducting materials. If there's a transition temperature or transition phase where the material becomes superconducting or it's not superconducting. So those kind of generally, those three experimental proofpoints and what everyone's looking for, thus far the videos we've seen look like UFO or Bigfoot videos. They're friggin' grainy. They're like, you guys have seen some of these videos that have come out. They're like at a distance. It's like, wait, why didn't you do the whole angle?

Why did you only take a picture? Why didn't you do the video? There's this woman in Russia who's sort of like this. We're now in UFO territory. People are jumping in. Yeah, look at this. I mean, it's super, like there's a little flake of, here's a video of a little flake of a material

that someone supposedly made in the lab, or it could be just. And they put it over the super, over a very strong magnet. And this is the video they got it super blurry. There's a woman in Russia, and she totally reinvented the manufacturing process. She's actually well known scientist, so she's not BS. And she said, I made this thing in my house using a furnace, I used a whole new process So she does this whole new process. She live streams the whole thing and then she puts out a video of the thing floating in a straw It's sorry a video photo and it's a blurry photo and people are like show us the video show it's real and she's refusing to So this whole thing is feeling a little like there's UFO big-foot type people out there that we're not really seeing clarity on Is this real and then obviously the resistance data, there's very credible academic universities coming out.

And I will also say there are a number of labs. There's one in China. And the one in China that measured the zero resistance at negative 100 degrees, they created 8,000 samples. So they found one that worked. There's another lab that did eight different pathways of manufacturing it in China, and they said, we can't find any of that work yet. So there's a lot of negative indications as well,

which is why the prediction markets are probably right. But I do think that the theoretical explanation that you have to get the copper atom to replace the correct lead atom in the crystal structure explains a lot of the heterogeneity and results and the reason why people may not be able to replicate this. And if someone could crack the code on how do we actually engineer this thing and produce it correctly based on the theory, maybe we'll see different, better results.

But again, that's also theoretical because no one seems to have nailed a manufacturing process here. So lots of data coming in every day. By next week, we could be clapping and cheering, or we could be on this very long grind, sort of like Russia, Ukraine, just a long grind. And it'll last years, and maybe someone will win, maybe someone won't, or maybe it just opens up a whole new set of explorations for new superconducting materials at room temperature that could change the world. I gotta say the thing I love most about this is like we have this Oppenheimer film comes

out and at the same time this happens. We got UFO testimonials, you know, in congratulatory hearings. All of this energy at the same time of people who are just really stoked to do material science to do basic science to figure out big problems. And I agree with you, the optimism around all this is, is, I mean, how fantastic. I mean, tell me something else in our lifetime, in the last decade or two, where we've seen the whole world

say in a positive way, something great could happen. Instead of something bad could happen and someone's to blame for something. I mean, it really is, in my mind, the first time I've really seen this happen in a very long time, maybe the internet was a, was a kind of great moment. Yeah, everybody being connected,

everybody being able to share information from all over the world, through information. Doing it on Twitter and Billy Billy and YouTube and like all sharing the stuff and saying, my gosh, we could have this breakthrough together as a, as a civil, as a species, not like a country, not a individual, not civil, as a species, not like a country,

not a individual, not a, who messed up, who did something wrong, who's to blame, who's on the other side. It's like, dude, if we all do, if this happens, we're all going to be like chilling on the beach. It's going to be amazing. Like this is awesome. We're going to have a, we're going to have a rash of VCs running into this next, and start funding the stuff. Material science. Yeah, I mean, my attitude is kind of like, wake me up when you know it's real. Mm-hmm.

Because, Frieberg, it's nice that if this is real, then it's great that there's all this positive energy around it, but that's like a big caveat. Until we know that there's something real here, I think it's premature for everybody to say that this is like some wonderful thing. Now, if we find out that the science is real and then this is to debate over commercialization of it,

then yeah, I agree. That would be like a really positive moment. I just love the fact that when something positive in the world happens or when something negative happens, we have this amazing platform for everybody, socialmediax.com, formerly Twitter, where everybody can get together around this campfire and just start discussing it and speculating. Now, some people don't like speculation.

Obviously, there's a school shooting or a tragedy, a building burns down, the fog of war as we've seen in the constant Ukraine coverage. You can have, it's very easy to make mistakes when you're catching this stuff in real time, but I love the real time nature of the world and the pace we're moving at. It's kind of delightful to me. I don't have a problem with the speculation and there is a fun element to it, but when you start talking about investing in it, like I said, wake me up when you know it's real,

there's a really funny meme that VC Braggs posted. And that you know, shout out VC. It's this is a famous meme of a kid round. Wow. The mom is playing with another kid and not paying attention to the drowning kid. The guy who's holding hands with his girlfriend but looking over his shoulder and whistling at the other woman and superconductors is the happy little kid. VCs is the mom and gender of AI is drowning, but then they show in the underwater. Yeah, somebody who's tied to a chair

with chains of skeleton. That's the last type cycle. Yeah. The last type cycle, creator, economy, crypto, have three. Yeah, it's pretty funny. It's pretty, it's pretty exact. I told you about this when we were in Italy last week, but when I was 13 years old, Jake Alchemy

funded me now, I did a science fair project on superconductors. Actually, I was doing it. I was 13 and I bought this superconductor from the back of popular science magazine, you know, this old E3 and barium copper oxide. That was the one that won the Nobel Prize. You could buy it for nothing. And I got a liquid nitrogen at UCLA and I did a demo at the science fair and I did a poster board and I had hypercard on a Macintosh LC and I showed everyone, this is the future. We're about to have room temperature superconductors. It's about to happen and we're going to have flying cars and we're going to have limitless energy and limitless battery storage for energy by the way, which is one of the big applications. And it's just on the break.

And this was when I was 13 years old, 1993. You know, here we are, 30 years old, 30 years later. And everyone feels like this moment might be upon us, but it has been this thing that's always been elusive. That everyone's always thought it's around the corner. Well, it sounds like cold fusion, you know. We've always been 10 years away for some breakthrough in cold fusion.

Self-driving cars, artificial general like cold fusion. We've always been 10 years away for some breakthrough in cold fusion. Self-driving cars, artificial general intelligence, yeah. Well, I think there's a difference between this physical world, material sciences type innovation and then software innovation. And one of Peter Tiel's critiques is that we've had tremendous innovation in software,

but in every other aspect of the economy, there's been little to no innovation. Plains, for example, are getting slower, not faster. Would you believe that position from him? I don't buy that position. Well, I mean, with the exception of what Elon has been doing with the genomic revolution. He misses life sciences entirely in that point.

I don't know. I mean, genomics is largely software based. But if you look at that, no, revolution driven by gene editing, oncology, the breakthroughs, I mean, look, it's all slowing down. I do agree with him. If you look at the number of approved drugs every year

and the cost per drug, cost per drug's going the wrong direction and the number of drugs per year is going in the wrong direction. So there is an argument to be made there, but there are arguably some quantum leaps in the types of medicine that we're applying. We didn't have biologics, you know, 40 years ago. We didn't have gene therapy 10 years ago. These are new modalities for therapies that didn't exist.

As we've engineered the molecular world to do amazing things in the biochemical application space. So I think there's elements of this that I disagree with, but I think the general trend lines as he points out is totally true. But with planes, I think we made a conscious decision. He always sites the plane issue, hey, we don't have the conquery, we're going backwards in terms of speed. I think that was a deliberate cost cutting measure because people aren't willing to pay to

go faster and burn more fuel. So they're not the innovation. The price gets cheaper. That's right. That's right. With electricity, electricity is getting more expensive, not cheaper. But if you look at the massive, if we wouldn't have the massive gains in artificial intelligence and machine learning, if it hadn't been for the revolution in GPU storage and data

centers and microprocessors and the actual. Yeah, but that's kind of the point is that we were promised flying cars and instead we got 280 characters. Not that Twitter slash X is bad, but that's just where all the innovation has been is an IT. That I agree with. So they figured out, they figured out

to put more circuits on a transistor or whatever and keep Moore's law going or. I don't know, I could show you. I could show you. I could make a different argument by showing you human lifespan and agricultural yields. I mean, agricultural yields continue to climb because of our ability to engineer

in a smarter and better way every generation there. There's a lot of counter-arguments to them. I would say what's valid about it is, go ahead, Chema. I was going to say the reason we don't see these kinds of innovations is because the ruling class has clogged up and sclerotically dominated all the places where you'd have this massive forms of innovation. Like regular drivers paper?

No, no, no, no, no, that's like a boogie man. So get the boogie man out. The regular drivers capture is there forever. Like, why was this paper published on Arxin? Because every other form of publishing mechanism is sporadic, it's establishment, it's hierarchical. It's about people basically dominating their own little forms of peyola, right?

And so nature, jamma, all of this stuff works this way. And so what happens? You don't get fundamental innovations that happen to labs. You have things that feed research proposals, that feed people who need to basically establish their supremacy. You saw the Stanford professor get booted out because of stuff that, you know, he... The president of Stanford. The president of Stanford.

So why is all this happening? Well Peter is right. The reason why this stuff is happening is that instead of places where true fundamental innovation can happen if you look at the no-but prize winners and you do distribution by age what do you find people went no bells in their sixties for work that they did in their twenties and thirties right and so you have a system now that rewards people staying in their positions I wrote this in one of my annual letters.

If you look at the average age of like leading people in schools, they're like 70 years old. If you look inside of Congress, so there's this all of this stuff that just kind of sclerotically prevents young naive people from basically going out and really pushing the boundaries in specifically this case of science, of fundamental science. And so for every innovation, I think the question to ask is, what other innovations are we missing? And if innovations are on a fundamentally well-established pathway that defends a bunch of work of senior people before it, it'll get supported. And I would say that genetics is a perfect example of that.

But if you look at the number of rare diseases that are still like unsolved or the lack of understanding of immunodease, it's just crazy, I just think that that's really what's happening. I think Peter's more right than he's wrong. The other issue here, SACS, is, and I'd like to get your feedback on this, is if you look at how venture capital works,

you got a 10 year window, you want to get returns for your LPs, you look at how venture capital works, you got a 10-year window. You want to get returns for your LPs. You look at how this fundamental research, we just said, this started in 1999, that's why it's called Dash in 1999. This thing took 25 years to get to this point. Is part of this issue that you have this big opportunity zone between, say, Ventures window, 10 years, and then Academia, which you put at like four decades there, to them up 20, you know, year olds getting their rewards in their 60s. How much of this has to do with we don't have a platform in between Venture and Academia?

No, that's not the problem. I mean, so it's true that VC funding, typically you want to go to the commercialization of an idea and that the underlying platform shift already exists and usually that comes from some sort of breakthrough that happened in academia. I mean, that's basically what happened with the internet. So yeah, you do not want VC funding, typically going to basic R&D, you know, fundamental science R&D.

It's just really expensive, takes too long, and too unknown. So you want that stuff kind of done more at the academic level. The question I have is how much of what's happening in academia is basically either irrelevant or fraudulent. So, Jamal, you brought the Stanford President. I think the story there is he had five papers about Alzheimer's research and related topics like that, where they found out that the papers are basically bogus and quasi-frogilent. So how much of the work that's being done in academia? How many of these papers are basically bogus? Well, the thing with peer review is like it's presented like it's a great, incredible solution

to the world's problems, but I think what it has inherently wrong with it. So the positive part of it is theoretically you have error correction, right? But here what you don't find is that that error correction actually even happened. And so it takes like some young 20-year-old kid at Stanford, who's a journalist, whose family or journalist, to basically figure that out. So instead, what were those, what were those papers doing? They were supporting a rising up and coming person because they thought that, you know,

he would support them at some point. This is like the whole corrupt Fauci system at the end of the eight. Friedberg, they're pro-Chemath and Sax are presenting academia as corrupt. Do you agree with that? I don't know if corrupt is the right term because I think that implies malintent. I think that the incentives are wrong. So in order to get funded, you have to show results. No one gets a grant to disprove someone else's work.

No one gets a grant to do confirmatory work on someone else's work. You get a grant. You get it. Yeah, I mean, that's the argument that some folks make. You get a grant to do breakthrough research and have breakthroughs. And if you have breakthroughs, you get more money. That's the way the system is set up. But this is why this guy, this is why, well, let me just...

I think it's corrupt. I think so. It's corrupt. There's no funny breakthroughs. Come on. Okay, whatever you want to define it as, the guy at Stanford, if you read some of the testimony from people in his labs, they said that he encouraged people to have big findings. And if you get big findings, you get to progress in the organization, you get more funding,

et cetera. So the incentive structure that he set up for people was not necessarily to go in and disprove stuff or try something and show that it didn't work. If you try something and show that it didn't work and publish a paper on that, it's going to be very hard for you to turn around and get a trophy or get some money or get a somebody did. There was like a bunch of error in the data that they went back and were like, Hey, this is, this was incorrect. And he's like, Oh, yeah, it was sloppy. I just didn't do a good job of reviewing it. So yeah. So what happened was if you read some of the testimony, the people that worked in his labs, the students and the graduate students and so on, they said that he basically encouraged people to get good results.

And in that process, and in that way, there was some fuzziness in the data, some tweaking of the data that he didn't double check for sure. But he was encouraging this sort of system of performance. And the system of performance says, you've got to show results, you can't show non-results. And if you show non-results, there's no money. And there you have, the reason they're doing that is marketing, they want to market and get more attention, so they get more donations. Yeah, exactly.

The problem with pure research is that you have to get funding to do your research. Where do you get your funding from? You get your funding from federal agencies, from nonprofits, from your donors. And so in order to get that money, you have to say, here's what I'm going to do, here's not what a, here's, you don't say I'm going to go not provehip to be a well respected professor to work through the hierarchy of a university. That's what's happening today.

And the reason why that stuff gets funded is that those are the same people that are in charge of the funding infrastructure and IH and all these other places. What we don't have is something that says go and write the most ambitious proposals and I'm going to go funding. I think both things are true. I'm sorry. There's no market mechanism. I'll just say both things are true because what you're saying, Chamok, is a point of failure. If you say I'm going to go try something crazy. Like do a search for a room temperature

superconductor using lead crystals. You're not going to get funding for that. It's too out there. I mean, you guys today are talking about how low probability stuff isn't that interesting. I'm not going to fund it until it's real. And so when things are real, you have some molecule that has some effect on cancer cells. Then you get funding to make that molecule go to the next phase or go to the next stage. That is more fundable than the outlandish crazy thing where the probability of it going to zero is 99%. You could throw Elizabeth Holmes into that, right? I mean, she came up with this absurd idea that you could do 200 tests on one drop of blood. And they would even see a research. That was just a statement about engineering that wasn't ready. And was it possible? So Jacob, another company just

got funded to do the same thing as Theranos promises going to do. Yeah. Do you see this? I did not see that. Yeah. I mean, some pretty good VCs invested in it, actually. And they especially said, we know this is the same ideas Theranos, but for that very reason,

we think it's very unlikely to be flawed because it's being held to such a high standard of scrutiny. I want you guys to think about this as VCs. An entrepreneur comes to you. And the entrepreneur, as she says, I've done this thing, I did this thing, I did this thing, I did this thing, I did this thing. Five different things, none of them work.

I want to have money to do this next thing. You're less likely to fund that person than the entrepreneur that shows up and says, the first thing I did work, the second thing I did work, the third startup I did worked, they weren't home runs, but they should have the opposite. And I had good results. That's basically what happens in, you know, the scientific research is you've got to get something that's fundable.

And often that means not doing something that's likely to go to zero. And that's where the incrementalism comes in, Shamaop. Is that orientation, I think? I hate to give my playbook, but one of the great successes I've had is finding people who got their asses kicked on the last two companies Talking to them about why they got their assets kicked and then how they're gonna avoid getting their assets handed to them with this third company Then if you look at Travis with Uber, he did scour got you know sued for a quarter trillion dollars. He did red swoosh He got like a 30 million dollar exit and then he did Uber, right?

His first two companies were very hard. Steve Jervitson and Future Ventures, he took his venture fund and he told the LPs, it's a 15 year term, not 10. So he specifically is trying to do a little bit of a longer window. I think that is actually a possible solution here. I think smart independent thinkers find ways to make money. I've been looking at this superconductor space for the last two years and so It's not like people are shy and have money and aren't willing to write the checks

I just don't think that's what it is the body of work that's coming out of academic institutions today for the amount of money That's put in is modest and I think that's the best way to describe it It's the Ferris way and the reason is modest is not because of the intellectual capacity of the people. It's because of the incentives and the hierarchy and the establishment, elitist politics that infuses how these organizations are on. And I think the only way to break that apart is to basically disrupt who is in charge of these institutions. Nick, just throw up this chart. These are people that for decades and decades are in a grind

and who are now in control. And so what is the incentive of these folks to explain the change? Yeah, what is this? This is a chart that I put together, which is just the generational distribution of academic leadership across all the leading research institutions in America. Okay. Okay.

Isn't Fauci a priming sample of this? This is the birth year. No, listen, you had the most important person, hold on a second, the most important person probably in the federal distribution of grants. In the medical field was Fauci, right? He literally was running the NIH since the 1980s. He's been there for 40-something years and the mass was peeled away during COVID and we saw how much power he wielded. Really, I think in a corrupt way. Jason used the word corrupt. You had that letter to the Lancet that he got a whole bunch of scientists to sign that claimed that COVID was not made in a lab. That was a conspiracy theory

that the only place it could have come from was the sort of the zoonotic leap naturally occurring from animals. We know that he used his power over grants to basically pressure those people into signing the letter, or they thought it would be in their interest to do so. Even though Faltchieter had already been updated by a bunch of scientists that it likely had come from a lab, they could just look under a microscope and see if you're in Cleveland sites, which are the telltale sign. So they knew that this thing likely came from a lab. There was no basis for calling it a conspiracy theory, certainly. And yet the whole thing got behind that. But Zach could you see that Slack messages where they were trying to manipulate the New

York Times science writer? I mean, they basically... But the question you have to ask is, why were all these scientists willing to go along with this and sign that left the land? Because these guys have been grinding for 40 or 50 years in a hierarchy. And so, to all of a sudden, put a pin in it and just say, you know what, I'm going to dispense with all of it. And now I'm going to dispense with all of it. And now I'm going to basically like be completely open-minded.

How likely was that the odds of that were very low. Look, look at the number of people who have basically grown up in one segment of society that are sporadically in charge of every single leading research university in the United States. That is why we don't have flying cars. This is why. Because after 40 years of working in a specific hierarchy being rewarded in a very specific way with a very specific set of incentives, when some young brash 22 year old naive person writes an extremely ambitious research proposal, you're like, no, you will not be a part of my lab to do that. But you can do this incremental thing that that further reinforces my leadership in society. That is what this charge shows. Yeah. It's also perverse inside of government. We didn't talk about it. I don't think

last week, but Mitch McConnell, I don't know how to say it, but I guess he froze while he was speaking and, you know, we got to have an upper eight. Oh, and the Diane finestein thing. Remember when she started. Oh, the Diane finestein at the speech. she started to find a speech. And their staff are whispering saying, just say I, you know, she starts going on that slide. I mean, filibuster. No, Jason, we have a slurotic political system run by oxygen to generions because the boomers are not relinquishing political power. Fucking retarded out relinquishing bureaucratic

power. Can we just pull up this Lancet letter for a second? They say here's a zoom in on this. The rapid open and transparent sharing of data on this outbreak is now being threatened by rumors and misinformation around his origins. We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin. How could they say that at that point in time?

All the evidence suggested it was made in a lab. Now, certainly, I think you could take the other side of that, but to condemn the lably theory as a conspiracy theory, that was corrupt. I'm not sure that that's corrupt. You know what's corrupt is not retracting that in apologizing. That's where the real corruption. We have not gotten our post-partumans thatet was organized. It was organized. This is just like the 51 spies who lied claiming that the Hunter Biden laptop was disinformation. This is the establishment willing to use its credentials and Respectability and expertise to sign a letter. They know is false to perpetrate a fraud

on the American people in order to protect the people in charge. That's the motivation here because Fauci had funded Gaina Function Research in the Wuhan lab. I think the same rot that is in some of these leading research institutions and leading academic institutions and politics, they all share the same commonality which is we are schlurotic. share the same commonality, which is we are sclerotic. We are in desperate need of a generational shift to power. And right now, there is no incentive, because at the same time, the people that are 70 and 80 are thinking to themselves, well, I'm probably going to live to 100. What should I do for the next 20 years? Being in power is pretty good. Right? So we're in this weird clash. I was thinking a lot about the fiscal spending problem in the US, and we should talk about

the fixed rating downgrade that happened this week. I've got some data I'd like to share. One thing I was thinking about was how tied the age of Congress is to our fiscal spending problem. If you think about someone who's young, they're going to want to invest for their future and think about the future. If you're someone who's old, you live for the day, and you don't think about the future. And I worry so much that the aging of the establishment that makes the decisions about how money is spent creates a cycle of a particular area.

Yeah. The positioning that's all about giving away all the money today instead of making the right decision to make sure that we have a prosperous tomorrow. And that's why I think so many of these things kind of slipped through. If you put a 20-year-old in charge that was well informed in charge of some of the fiscal policy, environmental policy, energy policy, decisions, defense policy, it would be a very different set of decision making than someone who's in their 80s. Inherited stacks. Yeah.

Yeah. I mean, anyway, we should talk about, you want to talk about the Fitch downgrade because I think it's a really important story this week. Fitch the rating agency downgraded the US's long term debt by one notch from AAA to AA plus. Only nine countries have AAA ratings from the top three rating agencies, S&P Global, Fitch, and Moody's. Those are Germany, Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Singapore, and Australia. What you can take from that is you got to have a good balance sheet and you have to have high functioning

governments. The most highest functioning governments in the world are the Nordics. That's why you see Denmark, Melan, Sweden, Norway there. Quarantine PR, the negative reaction hasn't been as strong as a 2011. That was the first time the US was downgraded from AAA to a plus by the S&P. That also had to do with the debt ceiling. The markets kind of shrugged off. Largest shrugged off, the Fitch downgrade.

Main reasons for the downgrade is obviously higher interest rates aging population, the debt to GDP ratio, which we've talked about here. But government kept coming up over and over again and how dysfunctional our government is. And the debt ceiling is one of the key manifestations of that. Your thoughts on this. For the first half of the show,

freeberg, you're an optimist, but are you now going to switch to the clientist? I wouldn't say the clientist. Are you going to switch to the clientist mode now? Or are you still an optimist mode? I mean, in J.K.L.'s view, unless you're a cheerleader for every stupid government policy, you're a clientist. I know. J.K's view, unless you're a cheerleader for every stupid government policy, you're a declineist.

I know, it's a, J. Cal, listen, it, I wanna be honest, I don't think so. I think he, like, and I concur. I think you can highlight that there are concerns with US fiscal policy that are putting us into decline in our spending spiral with the US currency reserves, which there are now diversification efforts underway. And I'll talk about this in one second. And that doesn't mean that the

US isn't the most exceptional place to do engineering and entrepreneurism and have freedom of speech and thought and so on. But there are elements of the US that put things at risk. So let me just point out these two charts. If you guys pull the first one up, this is a pretty striking chart. And I think I showed this before, this is federal government interest payments that are being made. We're now up to, you know, a trillion dollars. The chart, as you can see, a year has spiked. And by the way, that number is spiking further. And we'll talk about this in one second. As a result of rising interest rates and increased fiscal spending. So this is now becoming a pretty sizable part of our budget. And as of now, paying the interest on our debt is a larger capital outlay for the federal

government than defense spending. The second chart shows what happened in the last week, which is that 30-year treasuries have been sold off. And as that's happened, treasurry yields have climbed. So there's been about a 10% decline in pricing and a concurrent nearly 10% increase. And Bill Akman basically said today that he's shorting 30-year treasuries, he thinks we're going to go to 5.5% long-term rates, currently the 30-year treasuries sitting at 4.3. And remember, I told you guys this after this thing,

I went to a few weeks ago, that there were two prominent economists who shared that they think we're going to be facing long-term rates in the five to seven percent range, very long-term rates for a very long period of time, that it is a new fiscal regime. And then if you pull up the last link I sent Nick, this is a report made by the Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee of the Treasury Department. And I just want to read a couple of quotes from this report. This just came out today. and it was published, it was sent over to the Secretary of the Treasury yesterday. And it said, since the advisory committee convened in May, two year treasury yields are about 100 basis points higher,

while 10 year treasuries have increased by about 40 basis points, the bank holdings of non-mortgage back government securities, mainly treasuries, have actually declined by 146 billion so far this year. So that means banks are selling off their treasuries. The committee goes on to say at the same time, Treasury investors have noted the Treasury supply will need to increase to address the rise

in public deficits as tax revenues have come in weaker and government spending has increased. Issue and needs will be additionally impacted by the timing of the recession, so on. Then they said, based on the marketable borrowing estimates published on July 31st, Treasury, this is crazy. Treasury currently expects privately held net borrowing of $1.007 trillion in this quarter with an assumed end of September cash balance of $6.50. And then they said we expect another $2 billion dollars of borrowing next quarter.

That means treasury is going to try and issue and sell $2 trillion worth of treasury bonds in the next two quarters. That's $2 trillion of new borrowing by the federal government to pay our bills. At the start of the year, they were estimating 1.6 trillion for the year, which was an insane number. Now, we're talking about 2 trillion and just 2 quarters. So rates are climbing. As a result, we need to borrow more.

And this is a perfect manifestation of the debt spiral problem that we've talked about multiple times. Our fiscal spending outlay and the rising interest rates combine to create an insurmountable debt spiral that is now manifesting in the fact that we need to sell $2 trillion of treasuries. And here's the crazy statistic that they said in reviewing recent demand for U.S. treasuries in auctions. The committee noted that an increasing percentage of supplies being absorbed by investment funds

while foreign participation has remained range bound. That means as we're trying to sell more treasuries, governments, foreign governments are buying fewer of them, which means that the US currency as a reserve is no longer the place that everyone wants to plow their money as much as it used to be, it is in decline. Now, the other thing I want to share, which I think is absolutely critical, is how do we address this gap? Well, the one way is these entitlement programs, and so several Republican presidential candidates, Nikki Haley, Ron DeSantis and Mike Pence, have all publicly stated on the campaign trail

that they're promoting programs to cut social security benefits for people that are 30 and 40 years old. And here's the response to that. So they've gone out and they've started saying that. A poll was done. And on that poll, 82% of voters oppose the push to cut social security for Americans under 50, 82%.

So, where is this going to take us? This is what is so scary to me, J. Cal. I'm not an American declineist. I believe in the American system. It benefited me and my family. But I do worry that we find ourselves in a whirlpool that it's very hard to get out of because the populace says we don't want to make

the cuts that are necessary in order for us to save ourselves. That's what's so scary to me. And I said it before, I think it's worth saying again. That's it. I'm done. It's not a problem with populism. I mean, the elites are saying it too.

There's no appetite in the DNC to cut over forms of security you kidding? It's very unpopular. How do you get elected so I don't know why those are public. How do you get elected saying? I hadn't seen that article. I would advise all those campaigns not to touch that rail. They're going to electrocute themselves. I think Trump has the right political instincts on this point, which is you cannot touch the security as a single party effort. It has to be bipartisan. And there is no bipartisan will to do anything. So I think you're right about the larger point.

Jamoth, your thoughts? On Friedberg's manifesto that 80% of the public does not want to cut spending. They're in favor of social security for people under 50 years old. And we have a trillion dollars in debt payments and we're in a Death spiral because we're borrowing trillion in 180 days we're borrowing an extra two trillion

That's the real point. The end of the end of the fiscal end of days for at the start at the start of the year The the expectation was there. We're only going to borrow 1.6 trillion for the year Now we're borrowing two trillion and just eat two quarters. Let me just state what I think about the Dongray. It's irrelevant. The S&P did it 13 years ago, which is a marginal credit rating agency. They're at a minimum 13 years late, at a maximum. They're just anxiety-like. Other people are receiving the sky's true. So that's my first point.

The second point and the more important one is that I none of you who are always freaking out about this understand this conversation about relativism. All of these conversations are relatively and deal with them in absolutes. On a relative basis, Japan's debt to GDP is 270% in growing. On a relative basis, our debt to GDP is half of that. We are the most important economic force in the world. It is going to continue to be the most economic force in the world. And all I see actually on every single monetary basis is every other country struggling more than we are. So my question to all of the chicken littles is, what do you do if you're a central government where you have to have foreign reserves?

Do you all of a sudden double down on the euro? Do you double down in the yuan, which is basically a proxy for doubling down in the US dollar? What are you supposed to do? And I never get a good answer because on a relative basis, the US will still continue to do well. I think that debt to GDP is a red hearing for a lot of people. And I think that the way that people run their personal lives, which should take income to debt into consideration, I don't think applies as much to governments. And I think these things are going to march forward as a group. There's not going to be a single G8 country that all

of a sudden moves away and starts printing surpluses. It happened almost as an accident and an aberration during the Clinton administration. It will never happen again. And I think that we shouldn't worry so much because I just don't see an alternative. So give me, instead of telling me how bad this is because you think about your own life and how it would be bad if you had debt to GDP of a, I get it. As a country, give me the alternative country. But just start with that. Can you answer that question? What is the alternative country?

Yeah, where would you put your, your wealth, if not the dollar? Well, let me paint a scenario that's not as dire as a collapse of the US dollars world's reserve currency. Okay. So on this Fitch rate. That's not what I think happens, right? I think this is just purchasing power goes down. That's it.

But go ahead, Sucks. Relative to who? He's really good at anyone. What does that mean relative to anyone? Let me paint like a non catastrophic scenario or non-apocalyptic scenario, which is what you saw in this Fitch ratings downgrade is that the bond market did move at the margins. There was a sell-off in the 10-year, and as a result, the 10-year bond yield moved up to 4.2%. So it wasn't a case of everybody shedding all of their US treasuries. It's just that there were market

actors at the margins who adjusted their portfolios. Okay, now, Freeberg is saying that the Treasury is going to have to do another $2 trillion bond offering, and we have $3 trillion plus deficits as far as I can see. And we've got entitlement liabilities on the horizon, and then a political unwillingness to do anything about it. So the deficit is only going to get bigger and bigger. Now what does that do? It's supply and demand. When the US Treasury needs to keep issuing more and

more bonds, at some point, the demand for those things gets incrementally saturated, and they have to offer a higher yield. So what happens? Well, the bond rates go up, and so the tenure goes up, like Freeberg was saying, from 4.2 to somewhere in the 5 to 7 percent range. And that doesn't mean that US dollars is not the world's reserve currency. It just means that it gets incrementally harder and more expensive to keep financing our debt. Now what is the result of that?

Well, if I as an investor could theoretically get 7% from the US treasury as the risk-free rate, why would I want to take equity risk and put it in the stock market Which historically as yield is somewhere in the 5 to 7 percent range? So if I can get my 5 to 7 percent From a risk-free US government bond of course I'm going to do that So the discount rate on equities will go up that means that the stock market relatively on a relative basis will go down Risk capital will go down. There will be less risk capital. We'll go down and there'll be way less risk capital available for things like venture

capital and private equity, just risk taking of all kinds. And so the economy will just grow slower. It's not like there'll be a collapse. It'll just be this huge albatross around the neck of the private sector. And this is called crowding out. We know. I'll give a counter here. I think if you look at the amount of sovereign wealth funds and the investment coming from around the world into US venture capital, that will keep the venture

machine cranking here in America. But three charts to just look at here. Nick, pull up the first one that 30-year Fed said, counter this argument. Really, the aberration has been 2010 to 2020 when we had, you know, low single digit mortgages, 3% 4%. The majority of our lifetime, it was between five and 10. And if it sticks up in the five to 10 basis, that's what we experience for most of our life. And then the second chart, this is the lowest unemployment we've had in our lifetimes. If you look at the unemployment rate in the United States, 3.6 is unbelievable. And then combined with it, something we've talked about here

for two years that we can't understand is when do all these jobs burn off? We peaked, you know, during the post-COVID era at about 11 million job openings. And then, you know, we're still over nine. So for, there's two or three job openings for every American who wants to work. And we've shut down the borders largely, even though we have some illegal immigration coming in. It is basically shut down the United States to immigration. It's about a third of what it was before Trump and by the time they shut things down. I don't think we're looking at the same video that I'm seeing. Yeah, if you're looking at videos, those are very distracting.

I would encourage you to look at the numbers of the actual migration into the country It's a third of what it was to see what's happening in New York City They got a lot of your got caught up in clips on from the border I would just look at the raw numbers sacks and the run numbers Yeah, because we count them and we can't we can't the Well, they're the estimate them because they're illegal, but they got seven million I would much rather than numbers and the actual statistics than anecdotal videos, because both sides will manipulate the hack out of them for their own purposes.

But the fact is, America is just crushing it in terms of employment, and that's why we didn't have this crash landing. And I think the soft landing is because of employment, and I'll just end there. And if we can keep ourselves employed, and everybody from the Middle East to Japan, to high network individuals in Europe are pouring their money into the US venture ecosystem, I think the setup here is we got a control spending, as you've said, correctly, free-break. We get a little bit of control on spending, hopefully.

And then we are going to have to slowly burn off some of this debt. We can't deal with these kind of debt payments. Here's a little data for you. This is from Congressional Research Service off of Fed data. So foreign holdings of US treasuries have declined from 40% to 30% of total treasuries. 70% of treasuries today are held by domestic investors. This is the data that was being described in the Treasury Advisory Committee, the borrowing advisory committee letter that I just said is that they're seeing less demand

from foreign buyers of treasuries. Now, I can argue, we can argue theoretically about what also they're going to buy and what else are they doing with their money. I don't know. But the data is showing a decline in purchasing intention by foreign buyers of US treasuries, and we're having to pick up the slack through investment funds held by the US. Mostly pension, mostly retirement funds, I would guess, that are buying these treasuries. That is not what this chart shows. The chart shows the effect of quantitative easing. That's what this chart shows, because when you're buying treasuries from the market and retiring them, of course the percentage of foreign and domestic holdings of publicly held debt is going to go down. So this last period, explain this ex of QE, explain it.

Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying. This is a measurement of the amount of people that own treasuries, is that right? Domestic versus foreign. Yeah, so who owns, so as of December 22, there was 24,000. I'm going to assume, because this chart is fucking worthless if this if it doesn't assume that the domestic holding the gray bar that adds up to a hundred doesn't include the fed which it must and that is because the fed has been buying treasuries from the market. Okay, so just look let me just give you the numbers for a second and then we can take out

the chart. I'm just looking at the chart. The chart is a great bar that's as domestic holdings. I'm gonna give you, there's an orange bar that's as foreign holdings. You've had 10 years of the Fed buying treasuries. I'm gonna give you the numbers. They're $24 trillion of treasuries, publicly held treasuries outstanding. 7.4 trillion held in foreign hands.

The foreign holding of publicly held debt between December of 18 and December 22, increased from 6.3 trillion to 7.4 trillion. While other investors increased from 16 trillion to probably 23 trillion. So, you know, we're having to pick up the Slack, investment funds, private investors are having to pick up the Slack because the foreign demand for treasuries lagging at this point. That's the point of it, Chuck.

I don't know what I don't know what to tell you. I think what this chart tells me is that the balance sheet of domestic holdings grows grows because the fed has been buying treasuries and in a in a world of QT. I suspect that this bar chart will change in the next 10 years. If you look at the histogram 10 years from now, if you assume the Qt sticks around. So I don't know. You can interpret whatever you want to feed your anxiety. It doesn't change that there's a relative problem at hand, which is you cannot sell one thing without buying another. That's just the way it works in financial markets for the central markets. Here's the numbers. The federal reserve during that same time period increased their treasury holdings. Here's the exact numbers. From 3.7 trillion to 9.7 trillion.

So they bought 6 trillion of that debt. I think the fact that we're gonna go from quantitative easing to quantitative tightening over the next decades and other overhang. But you know what I'm saying? Because not only does the US government need to sell another 2 trillion of bonds every year to finance its deficit,

which is basically the addition to the debt. You've got the Fed now shedding what, like, eight trillion bonds. They're not sheds, they're not. They're just not, they're letting them roll off. They're letting them roll off and they're not re-issuing them, but you actually said the right thing earlier, which is that the risk premium has been shrunk so massively

between equities and bonds. These two trillion of bonds that these guys will issue that between the strip will trade from 5% all the way down to, there'll be a line out the door. I guarantee you. And the reason why is exactly what you said before, David, which is like why not own 5% paper from the US government versus having to like all of a sudden speculate

on the S&B 500 or something else. It's a no-brainer and I totally agree with you. But this last two trillion, that'll be the easiest two trillion to sell. There will be a line out the door. Guarantee. Well, there's a line out the door at some price. So my point is that the yield will have to go up to attract those incremental buyers. And as the supply of T-bills becomes a glut,

obviously they're going to have to make the yield more attractive in order to keep attracting that marginal buyer. It's just that simple. So yeah, at some price, they'll be able to find a buyer. But that yield will have to get higher and higher over time, and then that crowds eye-proven investment. Because why in the world would you invest in a risky stock when you get 7% risk-free?

What's your alternative? Because again, what do you get 7% risk for what's your alternative because again Like what do you think the spread to JGB is gonna be if that's true if if US Treasuries Okay, if 30 or treasuries are all of a sudden in five and a half of Bill Actments, right? Which you can very well be the other part of what he's not saying is what a JGB? So like what are European bonds of like you know what they're gonna be they're gonna be Trading at 300 to 500 basis points above that It is cat at close make for the entire world economy. And so we all move in unison.

When we suffer, we will suffer less in other countries. And when we win, we will generally win more than other countries. That has typically been true. I suspect it will typically be true. And I don't see anything changing that. Well, hold on, let's assume that you're right. And what happens is that the, let's call it the Western world and all these governments are basically mired in debts with a few exceptions. I guess Australia is good, Switzerland's good, but the rest

have massive debts of GDP as well. So their bonds have to move up with ours. And so their risk premium has to go up as well. So you're right, in lockstep with the U.S. But now why wouldn't global growth just slow down across this whole Western dollar complex? Coupled with inflation, coupled with inflation, which is inevitable. That's basically what's happened in Japan, right? Is that they have like a 200% debt to GDP and they've been very active in yield curve control. And so they've controlled the interest rates, but the price of that's been total, I guess that's population, which is the population.

They have demographic problems as well, but. That's the main issue there. I see young people there, there's just not a lot of young people there. I mean, their housing is crazy. If you just look at it, and I think the United States has a lot of innovation. So we will innovate our way out of it is my belief,

which is kind of what we always do. You know what I'm saying? Exciting guys, we can have this conversation with Larry summers himself at the summer. Remember we have Ray dolly of course we have Ray dolly of yeah are they gonna be on a panel together we really want to discuss the topic with the two of them maybe over look at the schedule everyone unfortunately all our speakers are entitled schedules on when they're in and out which is why I need Jake out to respond to my speakers are in tight schedules on when they're in and out, which is why I need J-Cal to respond to my, I am to him about finalizing some of our other speakers. But,

Hey, Jimmy texted me because I, probably he's in London or he has to go to London. He got to figure out how to get him back. Yeah, yeah. He said he'd fly out, but we got to figure out how to do that. But yeah, we can have this conversation in LA, September 10 through 12th.

Oh, well, it's sold out. So, way to frustrate everybody, I'm getting like all kinds of like LPs and giant folks are like, can I buy a VIP ticket? And I'm like, listen, it's sold out. You had two months to do that. So in other news, the GOPs lead candidate for the 2024 race Donald Trump has been indicted for trying to overturn the 2020 election and stop the peaceful transfer of power. The indictment has four counts and is the third criminal case for those of you playing

along at home. Four counts include conspiracy to defraud the US conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding obstruction of an attempt to obstruct an official proceeding conspiracy against rights. Trump campaign not shockingly called it fake news. The indictment feels like it's got him dead to rights. And this is on top of the oath keepers founder of Stuart Rhodes getting 18 years and a bunch of other cases. In addition to that, the DOGA prosecutors also accused Trump of ordering employees to

delete security videos, in the classified documents case, the cover-up of course being worse than the crime. Looks like they got him dead to rights on that one as well. All of this against the backdrop of DeSantis spending tens of millions of dollars and falling in his percentage. Sacks explain to the audience why this is Hunter Biden's fault and that's a deep-sweet conspiracy. I kid. What are your thoughts on this? When you say they have them debt to rights, like what do you mean by that?

What's your basis for saying that? Exactly. That's rights on what charge? Yeah. So in this indictment, the 45 pages, if you read it, you will see that they put up fake electrodes and they knew that it wasn't going to work and they did it anyway after losing 60 cases. So that's the belief of why this is such a serious case. And then also the cover up,

obstructing justice and it looks like some of these maintenance workers are potentially flipping and Mark Meadows, they claim has flipped as well. But you know, he listened everybody. The Mark Meas case is sort of separate. I mean, I think we should have stick to this. Well, we got you guys from what do you think of the fact that he tried this allegation that he tried to delete the videos? Do you think it's real? Or do you think it's made up? I don't know. That's a detail about a piece of evidence in that case tried this allegation that he tried to delete the videos. Do you think it's real? Or do you think it's made up on the story? I don't know. That's a detail about a piece of evidence in that case.

I do think the documents case is on a sounder legal footing than the January 6th case. More dangerous to him, you're saying. More dangerous, too. It doesn't involve as many novel legal theories. Now, is it really dangerous? I think the American people think that at the end of the day, that documents case is sort of a paperwork case. And there are many other people who violated the classified requirements rules like Sandy Burger or like David Petrae

as Hillary Clinton never prosecuted. So I think if they have him dead to rights on any of the cases, is the documents case. But I also think that in the minds of the American people, that in the minds of the American people feels like DC inside baseball. Now, I think on this January 6 case, about the documents case, what do you personally think? I think if you're going to prosecute Trump for that, you need to prosecute all these other people who violated classified documents rules. What do you

think about him? Sandy Berger, who worked for Clinton, was a national security advisor, stuffed his pants with classified documents from one of those lean rooms and got away with a slap on the wrist. So now I'm trying to overturn the election. Well, look. Do you think he tried to overturn the election? I mean, just a basic fact.

Let me state right away that I think that what Trump did in the wake of the 2020 election was indefensible. I said so at the time. I said that. I did say it. What I said is that once the Supreme Court, once the courts in general throughout his case and once the Supreme Court denied Sir Shiori, it was time for him to stop. And he kept going. Yeah. It was time for him to stop and he did it. And so I think that his actions were indefensible. However, when you're talking about criminal prosecutions, they can't just be an expression of condemnation. You actually have to prove that somebody engaged your criminal behavior. And the issue here

with this January 6 case is that it relies on novel legal theories. There's actually a really good article in the New York Times, Valplaces, explaining this. Do you think there was a possibility that he, if he could have, he would have turned over the election if Penn's had gone along with it? No, you're getting into a bunch of hypotheticals here. The question is whether these charges will actually stand up to scrutiny. Let me read you what David Lee and Art from the New York Times reported, because I actually think when Art from the New York Times reported because I actually think when you have the New York Times saying that the case is weak, I think it's really indicative.

So what the New York Times says, or Lee and Art says, is shocking as it was, Trump's behavior on January 6 did not violate any laws in obvious ways. He never directly told those that January 6 rally to attack Congress during his speech that day he even said he knew that protesters would behave peacefully and patriotically. It was part of a long-standing Trump pattern in which, as my colleague Maggie Haverman puts it, quote, he is often both all over the place and yet somewhat careful not to cross certain lines and quote, as for Trump's broader effort to overturn the election result, no federal law specifically bars politicians from attempting to do so. Without such a law Smith has relied on a novel approach. She has charged Trump with committing criminal fraud,

violating conspiracy laws that were not written to prevent the overturning of election result. And then he says that you keep part of these laws. They revolve around a person's intent and tend to score to the notion of fraud only if someone is knowingly trying to deceive others can he be committing a fraud? And he says, that's why the case seems likely to evolve around Trump's state of mind. So the problem with this is they have to knowly prove that what Trump did in the wake of the election

was indefensible and outrageous and all the things that you believe. They have to prove that Trump knew that he lost the election and knowingly perpetrated a fraud. And I don't think you'll be able to ever prove that, beyond a reasonable doubt. But even though, yes, there are statements that they point to. Yeah, they got all those statements.

And then Bill Barr, Mark Meadows, everybody's flipped on and Pence has flipped on them. They're all flipped on them now. Same as most people. Yes, but Trump also had this whack pack of lawyers. So you had Giuliani and you had Sydney Powell and Johnny Eastman and Michael Indell, the pillow guy. They were all in the White House telling Trump that, listen, you won the election. You've been robbed and there are valuable legal grounds for you to contest

this. And Trump for years has been maintaining the stolen election narrative. Even when his advisors have told him, this is not good for you. The guy has stolen an election on the brain. Okay, every interview, he's brought this up even when it's manifestly harmful to himself and the Republican party. So this idea that you can prove that he doesn't really believe the election was stolen. The one thing I believe about Trump is that he really does believe the election was stolen. And I think you will never be able to prove, be on a reasonable doubt, that he is knowingly lying about that. And as a result of this, you can never prove this case. Now, it also relies on this novel theory. They are turning the civil rights line to a pretzel to try and figure out a way to indict Trump or prosecute him under this

novel legal theory of committing, quote, fraud against the American people. Okay, this a novel legal theory that's never been tried before. And by the way, if you're going to create as a precedent, I hope we're going to go after those, the signers of the Lancelotter we talked about, because they committed a fraud against American people. I hope that we will prosecute the 51 spies who lied, because they perpetrated fraud against American people. I hope, I hope that we will prosecute the 51 spies who lied because they perpetrated a fraud against American people. I hope, Haussain, I hope we will go after the authors of that steel dossier because they perpetrated a fraud of the American people.

There's a lot of people in Washington who've perpetrated a fraud in the American people. I hope we're going to go after all of them. But my point is this, it's not the job of a prosecutor to be creative with the law ever. I mean, they are supposed to apply the law strictly as written. They're supposed to bring cases that are open and shut. And what Jack Smith is doing here is going for this bank shot where he wants to charge Trump with incitement, but he knows he can't win that case.

So he's going for this back door, a civil rights law to sidestep the first amendment problem. And it might be this is an abuse of prosecutorial power. And once you let prosecutors get creative like this, you're on a slippery slope to show me the man I'll show you the crime as installance Russia. So listen, I believe that again, Trump's actions were illegitimate and outrageous. But again, the purpose of criminal law is not to express disapproval. You have to prove these cases in an open and shut way without

novel the Gil Therese. I just want to say I need to give I need to give Sats a 10 out of 10 for this last piece. That was absolutely. Jason, here's a question I asked you. Go ahead. Do you believe that Trump was guilty of inciting an insurrection? Absolutely. Yeah. When he told those people to, yeah, when he told those people to go down, why hasn't Jack Smith indicted Trump? They've indicted Trump on all these different charges with over 500 years of jail time. And they have not indicted him for a sight. They might. They could always add to the charges.

And so I suspect when they start flipping people, they will. But you know, it's kind of meaningless to have this discussion. You want to move on to the next one? No, no, no, hold on. Hold on. This is the question. Here's the thing. Hold on. Let me finish this question.

Here's the thing. You know what? 30% of people in the Republican Party about 30% of this country have Trump's Stockholm syndrome. They cannot let go of Trump. And so there's no reason to debate it with the GOP. They have TSS. And you're going to defend him to the dying day. You're going to do what about isms. The Republican Party will never accept the fact that this person's a criminal. He corrupt and he's a horrible human being and he hit it is not fit to serve and you're going to serve him up as your candidate it's disgraceful the GOP is a disaster for actually supporting him.

Guy has no morality and he would have overturned the government if he had the chance and he will do it again. I respond to this. I mean a couple of points here. I just want to make as many points as you want. There are people who are absolutely fixated on January 6th. And it's the people who've been trying to whip this up and make it into a crime and event all these novel legal charges

and haven't stopped talking about it for the last two and a half years. I'm so sick of talking about this, old January 6th thing. I don't want this to be our politics, okay? The people who've made it our politics include the mainstream media. It's all the people on CNN and MSNBC won't stop talking about it. Part of the reason why I think Trump likely will be the nominee is because they are creating a backlash in the GOP where people basically think that he's being unfairly prosecuted

and persecuted. To my question, why aren't they charging him with incitement? That is the crime that the media says he has committed for the last two and a half years, so why aren't they charging him? Because the DOJ looked at that, at the beginning of 2021, Merrick Arland's DOJ looked at that and they did a report and found that they could not win that case. And when that came out, the media didn't even bite in themselves so that Merrick Garland was basically being a wimp and should be tougher.

And so that's when they appointed Jack Smith to be the special counsel to go find someone of the way of prosecuting him. And so that's why they've invented this novel legal theory. Now I think the reason why we should care about this, that has nothing to do with wanting to defend Trump or make him the nominee, is that I don't think our political system should be weaponized this way, because when they can start inventing novel legal theories to get somebody, that's what they've done here, Jason.

It's showing me the man, I'll show you the bride. No he tried to do that by putting up a fake slate and he tried to convince Pence to go along with it. Pence is an honorable person who wouldn't go along with it. And everybody in his cabinet said, this is a bridge too far. His supporters from bar to Pence, tomatoes, all told him, please stop. What you're doing is illegal.

You cannot overturn the government the election results But are you saying this and you're saying that and I think this is an expression of condemnation against Trump or you saying that I think Trump broke a law. I think it will be proven that he broke a lot of the proven in the documents case that he also tried to cover it up But that's just my opinion. I believe that is a criminal. I believe he will be held accountable I think he should be held accountable for trying to overthrow the election. Try to overturn the election. That is the most treasonous thing you can do. You can come up with all of your defense of it.

The charge him within excitement. The charge him within excitement. I think they are. I think they are. I think they are. They have invented this novel. They have invented this novel. They have invented this novel.

They have invented this novel. They have invented this novel. They have invented this novel. They have invented this novel. They have invented this novel. They have invented this novel. He's a very smart guy when it comes to avoiding accountability. And I think that his clock is running out for him. You know what, Jake, how do you not think that it's a little surprising that all of these charges are hitting years after this event took place in the months leading up to the Republican primary.

No, I think it's, that's the weirdest thing to me is like, why would it take so many years to prosecute someone? All those guys that went into capital, the capital building, they all got charged with crimes years ago, you know, two years ago. Why is he just falling on Trump today? It's like they because Trump and Jerry in the case, yeah, and they take time to build is because I will say it does feel like it is interrupting a political process that if there were criminal charges to be filed I would have liked to have seen them filed two years ago. So this could all get adjudicated ahead of a political cycle Now that it's in the middle of a political cycle

It makes me as a US citizen nervous about the fact that there are agencies interfering in the political cycle You're so right. He could have given the documents back when they asked for them And he could have said don't delete the tape I'm talking about both. Yeah, and it takes it takes a subject to the case that talking about Both cases I'm talking about both cases concurrently we're talking about the The doctorate case I will say the documents that is more solid but less important okay I should read art says this in the New York Times, but you asked me a question

I think it takes time to build a case properly and it took them a long time to get to the 400 people who attacked the Capitol and brought tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition to the Capitol and put it in three hotels, which is why the Oathkeepers got 18 years, 400 people have gotten sentenced in that for good reason. They beat cops. They beat. They broke down their way into the capital and they brought Dozens of AR 15's and they bought tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition and placed them in hotels around the capital These are dangerous domestic They would have shot a handful of that that's not what he's been indicted for no they I'm talking about who they they already got those Oathkeepers on 18 years. I just want to read this one sentence from Leonhard just to wrap this up.

This is the New York Times. This is the New York Times. He says, you can think of the new charges being both more important and less solid than Trump's previous federal indictment. Yeah, I'm listening. Everybody's going to have different opinions on this. I get that. I just hope he has his day in court, and I think he's guilty.

I think it will be proven that he's guilty and that it's time to start moving this towards a pardon and figuring out how to get him out of political life and give him a pardon for all these crimes he's committed and let him off the hook, but get him out. And so that your party can feel the good candidate. That's what I hope happens. I think one of the really tragic side effects of these prosecutions where they're inventing novel legal theories clearly to get this man for what he did, even though it was outrageous, but I don't think criminal in the way you wanted to be Jason. But the really tragic thing about this.

I would rather he didn't do this criminal activity. Yeah, I get it. I get it. I don't want it to be criminal. I've already denounced it. I'm not defending his actions. I'm defending the integrity of our legal system. Really, the tragic thing about this, the tragic thing about this is that I want the 2024

election to be about issues. It's not. It's going to be a referendum on what happened in 2020. And there is no way to convince either side of the American people that they're wrong about that. The MSNBC, CNN crowd are going to believe that Trump is guilty of a crime no matter where this case comes out. And by the way, I think Trump's actually going to win this case, maybe not in the DC jury

pool, but I think he'll win it on appeal. Because I just... This Supreme Court? Yeah. I think if you have to say it's from where he's going to win it, because there's a novel legal theory. By the way, Jack Smith took a case against the Virginia governor to the Supreme Court, got a overturning on appeal in 9-0 because of an outrageous legal theory there.

So that same thing could happen here, I think it probably will. But those people who believe in this will never be convinced, and by the same token, Trump supporters, the other half of the country will never be convinced that this was not a political persecution. It's tedious. So this will tear the country apart. And to Freeberg's point, it's two and a half years later, we could have just moved on.

There's plenty of other things. They already have the documents case. So this is a political prosecution by Biden's own... Do you have any way to get out of this? What's your solution to get out of this? We should have just moved on. Oh, not to our gym. Yeah.

Listen, the proper forum to deal with this was the impeachment hearing. The second impeachment was expressly on the correct charge was was whether Trump incited insurrection. They already had this trial. The proper forum was that impeachment trial. He made it through and it's up to voters to take this. Mr. Donald actually said the proper one was to go criminal. So it was interesting. Yeah. In peach was the wrong way to do it.

They should just do the criminal. So here we are doing the criminal thing. The country should move forward. And instead we're going to turn the part on it. And this is what 2024 is not going to be about. What do you think, Ferryberg? What do you think is a good path forward? I kind of align with the fact that this is a little bit too late.

It's in the middle of an election cycle and the damage that it will cause in terms of how our country views the intersection between the justice system and the electoral process can be more damaging than the benefit we would gain from bringing an individual to justice for breaking the law in this case. Unfortunately, the timing is just off and I think it's really scary. All right, Jason, you have to ask, what is actually going to strengthen our democracy and what is the wisdom of bringing these charges?

I think this case shows a lack of wisdom. I don't think it's going to strengthen our democracy. I think it's going to undermine it. It's going to make this country more polarized and hyperpartisan, and it's not going to help us move past this era of our politics. And I believe that. Is that a question towards me.

I think Trump is responsible for part of that polarization, but I think Biden now is playing into it from the other side. I don't think we've had a president seek to indict his leading political opponent who's likely to be a top-send involved in this. This is the Justice Department. He's not driving it. Wait a second. That is not true. Okay. Yeah. He's not driving it. Wait a second, that is not true.

Okay. Yeah, he's not involved in it. No, there's an article in which Biden said that when Merrick Garland refused the incitement charges that he thought that it was weak in that, Biden thought that Trump deserved he prosecuted. And that was a public article in the New York Times and I'll provide the note. Okay, I'll provide the citation. What's your question for me? You have a a question you said you want to ask me a question well no i didn't say a question i just think i'll respond uh but my

my point is i now think that binders crossed a line year and just remember this is not an independent prosecutor jack smith works for merrick garland who works for joe biden this is banana republic type stuff this is one president's doj seeking to prosecute his main political opponent works for Joe Biden. This is Banana Republic type stuff. This is one president's DOJ. Seeking to prosecute his main political opponent. Who put Merrick Garland in Biden appointed him. So this has been the All in Podcast. Chimak had to bounce. For a brick congratulations on OK99. I hope it happens. Sacks are about congratulations to you too. Congratulations to you too,

sex. If it's proven to be real, we will all benefit. So it's great. Yeah. Right. And we'll see you all next time. Bye bye. Bye bye. Rainman David's actions And it said we open source it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with I'm you west. I'm queen of kin. I'm going Besties are That's my dog taking it away. She's right We should all just get a room and just have one big huge or two because they're all It's like this like sexual tension, but. We need to get mercy. I'm doing all this. I'm doing all this. I'm doing all this.