All-In with Chamath, Jason, Sacks & Friedberg - E23: Radical DAs, breaking down FB/Google vs. Australia, sustained fear post-vaccine & fan questions!

Episode Date: February 20, 2021

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/MikeSylvan Referenced in the show: WSJ - Lake Tahoe Property Sells for $1.6 Million in Bitcoins https://www.wsj.com/articles/lake-tahoe-property-sells-for-1-6-million-in-bitcoins-1407534997 The Changing World Order by Ray Dalio Chapter 2: The Big Cycle of Money, Credit, Debt, and Economic Activity https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/money-credit-debt-ray-dalio/ Show Notes: 0:00 Reflecting on the controversial Robinhood interview, iterating on the show format, getting back to basics 10:52 Chesa Boudin cancelled on us, radical DAs & local prosecution in SF & LA, why criminal justice reform resonates 34:44 Breaking down the Facebook/Google situation in Australia, understanding fair use, potential saving grace for traditional media? 47:26 Vaccine update, conditioned fear sustaining post-vaccine 58:58 Fan Q&A: what the besties are investing in over the next decade, anti-portfolio, biggest current portfolio risks, what would you teach every 12-year old

J.K., are you gonna do your Trump impression? We're gonna do your Trump. Okay, yeah. Everybody, I'm getting my Twitter number back. Don't get them during, it's been syndrome right before we start the podcast. We wanna warm him up. You can't get Cruz.

This doesn't warm him up, I get some deranged. Get your show notes up, bitches! What? You're like your winner's ride. Rainman David's side. And it said we open source it to the fans and it just got very, very, very, another all in podcast with me today. Of course, the dictator, Chimoff Polyhopatia, the queen of King, wah, David Friedberg, and, of course, yeah,

definitely the rainman is here. David Sacks, who's an excellent driver in the driveway, yeah. Okay, boys, I guess we made it to episode 22. Your intro becomes one second longer for every episode we do. It's just so, people love it. And people love it. and people love it.

You know, they don't. They think it's so stupid. I am. You have to understand persuasion. What I'm doing is I do the same intro and it wants to be much easier. Oh, okay, see, we're still talking about the intro. Okay, let's just, I see everybody's obsessed about it. You proved my point.

All right, guys, are we going to address elephant in the room? The elephant in the room, or do we just move on to topics? I will say, after the last show, I fought very hard with the three of you to not post that episode. You wanted to, you wanted to spike the episode. I wanted to spike the episode, and I'll tell you why. I thought it was not good content. I don't think Vlad said anything new or remarkable or interesting. I don't think we had good analysis. And I think the whole thing kind of felt flat and felt like a PR stunt. And I felt that truly and honestly, and I, you know, I made the case to you guys that we should cancel. Obviously

I lost. And I think going forward, we should have a veto right. But, you know, we can talk about that offline. Did you quit the show or did you threaten to quit the show? I threatened to quit the show. And I'm gonna, after this, I'm gonna propose to you my rules, my ground rules for going forward. One of which I think should be no more PR bullshit from Jason's portfolio, but besides that, I think I'm like, I think I hear a Bestie Guestie,

is that calm.com at the door? I think no. No. And I don't think that we're journalists. I don't think that the journalism thing works for us. I think we're like analysts and commentators and we have opinions. To bring someone on and try and interview them with a 4 on 1 format, it just feels weird. It doesn't seem to work. It doesn't create an opportunity for discourse. And frankly, when you try and do journalism in this context, you either appear like you're softballing

or you appear like you're doing gacha journalism. And I think both are bad. And so I think it works really well when the four of us just kind of chat and analyze and shoot the shit and have opinions and talk and debate. And so my vote is to kind of avoid doing bestie guesties unless it's something pretty amazing and critical and we can all kind of build a dialogue with that person

around a topic. But yeah, so that's kind of where I'm sitting and how I feel about it. But we've had a lot of things obviously since the last episode about it. Can I build on what you're saying? This is like that really famous Teddy Roosevelt quote about the man in the arena with the dust on his face, right?

I feel like all four of us are in the grind doing things. And I think what makes the podcast good is it's almost like there's like in a basketball game of four quarters, there's a time out and you come off the floor and you can actually just take a second to observe what you're seeing. And then the ref blows the whistle and you go back into the game. And I think for me, what makes this thing so fun is I feel like every Friday for these two hours, you know, it's basically the ref calls a time out or the coach calls a time out and we can just kind of take a breath and just observe, all right, what's happened? Before we get back in the arena. And so, you know, just to your point, I don't think we're journalists and I don't think we should try to be because I

don't think that's the point of what this is. It should be forefriends talking about things that are important and then to the extent that it's important and interesting for other people, they'll listen or not listen. And I think these last few weeks, we got caught up a little too much in ratings, where is it ranking, how can we go higher? And it's that the gamification of people's reactions that I think caused us to do that. Whereas the episode before, I actually kind of liked because Dremond is legitimately

one of our really good friends. You know, we see him many, many times bestie. We see him many, many times. Obviously, less during basketball season, but a ton when he's outside, we play poker together, we all hang out together. So it's that to me, I think, is sort of in bounds. Last week, and then also, you know, last week, I think we were all supposed to be on point. I'll just tell you personally, for me, I had an extremely crushing two weeks of work, I was extremely tired. I ended up literally unplugging and not doing

anything for three days straight and sleeping. And so I didn't even do my best even just to be either supportive or, you know, argumentative with Vlad. So I don't think I got anything out of it myself. Okay, coming around the horn, Sacks, how do you feel? That episode stands on its own. Obviously, it's very polarizing. We got barbecued in the comments. We got barbecued on Reddit.

We got barbecued on social media. But then there were a large number of people who said they really liked it. My mom. A japline. David, Bob and PR. My portfolio manager. I mean, some people who liked it,

so quiet, that is excellent. Right. There's 12 people in the lunch. Fun. So, I give a sure-candid assessment, because you weren't as hard as these other two on it. Yeah, I wasn't as hard as these other two, and I do feel like that if they felt that we were soft on

Vlad, then they should have brought it harder. And they should have gone after Vlad and challenged him more. That being said, I completely understand and agree with what Freeberg is saying, that look, we're not journalists, we're not playing a game of gotcha. It's not our job to go after Vlad.

I think a lot of the comments on Twitter, that's what they wanted us to do, but that's not who we are, you know. It's difficult for business to sacs. I mean if you're attacking Vlad and then the next day we have to go into supporting founder mode. It's kind of a bad look, isn't it? Yeah, I mean, it's not what we do, right? I mean, we are, like Jim was saying, we are in the arena. We're doing things. We're not critics sitting on the sidelines, pointing out what the doers of deeds did wrong.

And so it's not our job to run an inquisition on Vlad. And so we're not really equipped to do that. I think Freeberg is right that it doesn't really make sense to have guests on the show if the job is to You know to get to the bottom of something as investigators, you know, we're not we're not investigators It was you know a big story Just to sort of put a cabinet from my perspective You know, I'm always supportive of my guys

I try to be supportive of whoever I invest in and I try to give them the benefit of doubt And this is a situation where you, people are upset. There were mistakes that were made. And so I think anything other than demolishing Vlad is considered by some constituency as a failure, right? And so what are we supposed to do here? I can't be trashy in my own company that I'm an investor and a supporter of and founders who I believe in. It just would be authentic either. Well, I think there was a moment, there was a moment in the pod, Jason, where I think actually, uh, so on the whole, I thought Vlad did a good job in accomplishing his objective on

our pod, which was the same objective he had in front of Congress, which was basically to run out the clock without saying very much, you know, and, uh, you know And he actually, whoever prepped him for Congress did a pretty good job because he testified for five hours and said nothing quotable, which is pretty much the best. Kind of the goal, right? Yeah. It's kind of the goal for him. Keep your head down.

Yeah, exactly. But there was a moment in the pod last week where I think Black got himself in a little bit of trouble. Freeberg did ask actually a pretty tough question about the guy in the street who had lost all of his life savings. How would Vlad respond to that? He made this claim, well, I saved that person money because I shut down trading at the high.

And then we pointed out, no, I mean, it was a high because you shut down trading. You have the causation backwards. And then you ran and said, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, you know, well, my guy was on the floor. I got to pick him up. I, what are you talking about? Call the timeout. I got in there. But let's, yeah, exactly. All right, let's move on. Let's do we talk about the insanely high profile guest that was planned for March 5th that just canceled on. No, no, we should, we should talk about it. Do we put it on the, because I, you know, I, this is the other thing about protocol,

I'll just say freeberg is, if we have a guest on, you cannot just spike the guest if they took the time to be on. That was my last. Unless you tell them before they come on, I may spiked it, I may spiked it, if it doesn't code there. If we don't like it.

Yeah, I think that's right. None of us do this for profession. None of us are getting paid to the podcast. We don't have any advertisers. Like, I completely agree. We're not here to get PR machine for people. I mean, Vlad had his freaking PR woman sitting on the Zoom call while we were doing it last week.

You know, I like, I just don't think that's a little inside baseball that got interesting. I think explain what happened when, well, no, we don't need to go there, Jason. I just think, I just think what freeberg says is right. Like, we, we do this. We don't make any money from it. We do it because we like to talk. We, I think we I just think what freeberg says is right. Like we we do this. We don't make any money from it. We do it because we like to talk. We I think we all learned from it. I think other folks enjoy it.

They learn from it. But I do think that freeberg's right. We're not going to be used as a show. I think we're learning. I don't know if it just goes. I think we're we're learning what the ground rules should be just like any other business. Flads made mistakes. He's going to change. We've made some mistakes and we're iterating. And I think one positive iteration that Freeberg has proposed is if any one of us don't like an episode, because we think it's basically moving away

from our values, we should be able to spike it. And I support that. I support it generally, but I don't like the idea of inviting a guest on, and then it doesn't go well, and then telling, you know, from our perspective, it makes us look bad. And then we tell the guest, well, you came out good, and then telling, you know, from our perspective, it makes us look bad. And then we tell the guest, well, you came out good,

and we came out down there for we're killing the runners. I don't think that's the point. I think what Friedberg says is like, look, this is not for, to be a marketing thing. And so we're gonna ask things that are exposed, that are about having a real conversation where there's real honesty. And if you're gonna just be there and bat around as Saks said to run the clock out,

then we're just gonna spike it. Fair enough, fair enough. I think that's communicated ahead. I'm okay with it. By the way, come with your A game. And this is a great segue to talk about what actually we were a person that was gonna come on and realize that they probably were gonna get so pilloried

that they basically spiked themselves is. Yeah, they opted out. Chesa Budin, the district attorney of San Francisco, tell the guys what happened. So, well, we invited him to come on the podcast. No, no, we didn't invite him to come. He, an intermediary said that she could get him on the pod. Would we like to have him on the pod? We said, we discussed it.

We said, sure, have Chesa Budin on and then go from there, sex. We didn't like seek him out. He was, well, okay. That counts. So he, he, great. So he, but he agreed to be on the show. And then yes, you are scheduler, got an email out of the blue, like a day or two ago saying, sorry, he's not coming on the show. No explanation, right? Isn't that what happened? Yeah, that's basically it. I mean, so look, here's what I would say is, Chesa, Mr. District Attorney, you don't have to come on the show, but I will challenge you to a debate. Anytime, any place, any format on your policies in San Francisco.

If you have the wayvos to engage in a debate, I am ready. And I thought Chase was a guy who had a little bit of courage. I mean, there was that night where people were discussing the situation in San Francisco and on Clubhouse and he jumped into the room. So I thought this was a guy who had some co-honace. So Chase, if you have the co-honace, if you have the wayvman if you have the Cahunas if you have the wavevose

Let's debate let's talk about your policies And by the way, he's an expert. This is what he does You know for a living expert isn't he a defense attorney sex? You're gonna have it. He was a public defender. He should he should mop the floor with me I'm just some shallow tech bro. Yeah tech bro. Tech who doesn't know anything who he can easily demonize. So I would say come on. Let's go. Let's do a debate. I'll agree to whatever format you want, but we need to talk about what's happening in San Francisco because crime is out of control and it's his fault.

Trigger the young Spielberg Rainman song right about. Here we go. Drop it, boom. Baby, I'm the Rainman. With me cackling, good. Should we talk about it? Let's talk about it. We should talk about what's happening in San Francisco. Okay, so since the last pod, there was been another victim, Sharia Musyoka, who was a young man

originally from Kenya who he came to the United States for college, just like Hannah Abe, who was killed on New Year's Eve. He went to Dartmouth, all of his visors said he was brilliant, he had a young wife and a three-year-old baby. He was in San Francisco for 10 days, goes out running, and gets killed by another drugged out, hit and run driver, who had been named,

let's say, I think it was Jerry Oley, Adams or something like that. I don't have the guy's name, but he was arrested four or five times in the last year. And he was released every single time by Putin's office. It's just like the New Year's Eve story where you had this repeat offender, Troy McAllister hit. You know, he was, he had stolen a car.

He was fleeing another crime he had committed. He was on drugs and he killed Hannah Abe in Elizabeth Platt. And this was another case where he was caught five times over the past year. And every single time he was not charged by boot and he was just let go. And so we have this case. We have a district attorney who doesn't want to prosecute people. His agenda is decarceration. It's like a fire chief who doesn't believe in using water. Yeah. And he is part of the burn it all down party. Let me challenge you with the argument he might make, which I think I've heard

him make a few times, which is really a position on the criminal justice system, not necessarily on local prosecution, but really what he says is once, you know, once someone ends up in the criminal justice system in the United States, it causes the cycle of recurrence and the cycle of repeat that is very difficult to get out of it. It basically minimizes the opportunity for reform for an individual, for a criminal to reform themselves and to have a shot at being a successful member of society again in the future. And the objective is find other ways

to kind of accelerate reform and not using carceration as the only tool in the toolbox. What is the argument back to him when he makes that point? Because I've heard him make that point a number of times and how do you kind of move past that point with him? Yeah, so, so, I'm not saying that incarceration is the only answer, but Buddha's only answer is decarceration. He doesn't want to prosecute anyone, he doesn't want to lock anybody up, and we see the results immediately in this community.

You have these repeat offenders now killing people, they should have been locked up. It's, you know, Putin's always putting forth these elaborate theories. This is, you know, the Senator of Chronicle and Article about it, about why these crimes occur. And he never wants to put the fault on the people who are actually perpetrating the crimes. It's always economic desperation. He just put it for a theory that a decline in tourism is causing people to commit more home invasions. You know, he never wants to, yes, this was in the Service Go Chronicle article.

Here, I'll put it up on the screen. I mean, the other thing you left out, David, I'll say is, and this was really, you know, hits home to anybody with kids, is a food driver for DoorDash, not that it matters, which service, but was in San Francisco's Pacific Heights neighborhood, which is the safest and most elite neighborhood in the Beverly Hills or Bel Air of San Francisco.

And his car was Car Jacked with his four-year-old daughter and two-year-old boy inside. Now, of course, you should not be leaving two kids in the car, putting that aside, that mistake, which I'm sure this father is suffering over, but he needed to make deliveries obviously. He made a mistake leaving the kids in the car. But we all got an amber alert last week on our phones. I mean, this is the level of lawlessness.

It's turned into escape from New York, level, Gotham, city, level chaos. Absolutely. And the criminals know they will not be prosecuted. And this is the key criminal justice problem here. If you say you are not going to prosecute crime and you demonstrate to the hardest core faction of criminals that you don't prosecute, they're going to take advantage of that weakness. And that's what's happening. Let me take the counterpoint just for a second, just so we can construct what the other side of the argument looks like. The other side of the argument says, okay, these folks are largely engaged in an enormous

amount of petty crime to support their drug habit, right? I think that's probably the, and that, you know, underneath that is just an explosion of opioids and fentanyl and whatnot. Underneath that is sort of economic uncertainty that's been compounding and just basically cresting over. And so folks would say, okay, these guys are a victim of a much broader economic malaise that needs to get fixed. I'm just, you know, you're shaking your head Jason, but I'm just saying, I think that that's where

the trail of bread crumbs grows in the counter argument. So. Well, these are the types of arguments that Chesa makes in order to off-usgate and disguise that his real agenda is basically radical decarceration. You know, he's got this childhood background where his parents went to jail when he was just a baby and he grew up.

He says his earliest memories are visiting his parents in jail and it profoundly affected his political views. And now we have to suffer through this. We're suffering for all the- Through his childhood trauma. There's his childhood trauma. And so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, Tremoth, you're right about deeper causes, but it doesn't excuse the need to lock people up when they are dangerous to the community. And it's not just petty crime. I mean,

let's, let's go through that the actions he's taken as DA, okay? So, first week on the job, just about, he abolished the whole cash bail system, okay? Which voters in November just voted Okay, which voters in November just voted with Prop 25 to affirm. So voters of California want the cash bail system because it keeps criminals locked up. What Chase has said is that he would replace cash bail with an algorithm. Well, what exactly is that algorithm? He won't explain. Well, he wants to submit to third party audit. There is no algorithm. They're just letting people go. Okay, then the next thing

he did was fire seven veteran prosecutors in the DA's office who weren't on board with his agenda. These are people who have spent their whole lives prosecuting murders, rapes, I mean, hardcore crime. And it takes years of experience to learn how to be a prosecutor like that. So for him to just purge this office of these veteran prosecutors, is a disaster for the city. I've been talking to people who used to work in the DA's office,

and they tell me that the problem goes much deeper than that, that in addition to these seven veterans, he purged over 30 prosecutors, which is about a quarter of the whole office have left under his reign because they don't like working for him. So, you know, and he complains about being short staff. He says a lot that he can't, you know,

prosecute everyone. He's prosecuted. He's so short staff. The reason he's short staff is no one wants to work for him, you know, by the way I think it's worth highlighting. This guy was elected, right? So the city, the voters in the city, and runoff I understand, right? He won by something like 2000 votes. It was a tiny, tiny number of votes. Regardless, people voted him in on a platform that he very clearly articulated and is now realizing in office. So there was something about that platform

that I think is worth noting was and is appealing. And probably is to a large number of people, largely, for Princess, right? And- No, the part of it that's appealing, okay, is that is that we do believe that there are too many people in prison and a better way to deal with a drug addict

who commits, say, petty theft, is to send them to treatment, okay, as opposed to putting them in prison. Right, so I think we can all agree on that. But his agenda is so much more radical than that. He just doesn't want to lock people up take Take Troy McAllister. Okay. This is a dangerous person who He was he was facing trial for his third strike. Okay, he committed armed robbery. He robbed a store with a gun. Okay He was facing a third strike for that robbery and one of the first things Chase did when he came in was basically releasing for time served.

He basically pleaded that down. That was someone who's facing a life sentence. That is the reason why Hannah Abe and Elizabeth Platt are dead is because he didn't want to prosecute. That's a violent offender. So I'm not disagreeing, by the way. I think like what is interesting to me is that so many people have an eye on

and agree with the notion that criminal justice system needs reform. The problem is realizing that reform with a radical district attorney doesn't really resolve to a solution. It resolves to more problems on a local level. Here's what's in there. And even Chesa said this publicly, which is like, you can't just solve this problem

from the B.A.'s office. It is a much bigger and broader problem. And the radical action he's taking isn't solving any problems. It's creating far more. And I think it is worth noting, though, that there is should and likely will be, especially with Kamala Harris as vice

president, some attempts at reforming on a federal level, you know, how criminals are treated, how the system realizes opportunities for them to reform and come back into society as productive members. But to your point, you lose all sense of safety and security if you try and do it solely on the local level. Well, let me ask a question. Look, now we have basically political activism and judicial activism on not just the right, right?

People used to pillory Trump for putting in all these extremely conservative judges who felt they were going to just sort of like legislate their own point of view, Supreme Court nominees who were going to try to overturn Roe v. Wade, but it turns out it's happening on the left as well, I guess, just more at the local level. How pervasive is this, like, meaning the issues of San Francisco, are these the same issues of other cities and towns in America? Well, I mean, you've got gascone in LA who's running the exact same agenda as Chase of Boothin, he's not prosecuting third strikes. He was just sued by an organization of deputy DDAs and the judges now requiring him to uphold the law,

which is three strikes. He will not bring third strike charges on his own. He's also, this is both Gascone and Boothin, have prohibited prosecutors from attending the parole hearings of dangerous convicts, murderers, rapists, whatever. And victims groups are up in arms because they need a prosecutor to go there and explain to the parole board why this person does not deserve to be released. And so you now have recall movements forming,

by the way, they've also done stuff like take death penalty off the table, they've taken gang enhancements off the table. They're like voluntarily, they're unilaterally disarming their prosecution teams. They're taking away weapons at their disposal to lock people up. And this is why you're ready seeing recalls forming around guest going to an LA. There's now a recall of boot and forming in the service. David, David, go back to what Freeberg just said. They're probably not doing a bait and switch on their platform.

Let's just like, what do you think it is about what they are saying that resonates on the way in with the plurality of people? Yeah. Here's the thing that resonates. It's not that, again, it goes back to this idea that incarceration is definitely not the only answer. This is where I agree. The problem is, booting is on the other side of it where decarceration is his only answer,

we need to use multiple weapons or tools in our toolkit here. So hold on, so for example, okay, let's take the drug addict who commits a petty theft. We all agree that person should go to treatment, not to jail or prison, right? A nonviolent offender, okay. But how do you get that person to go to treatment? Because right now, there is no leverage whatsoever to get that person to go to treatment

because Boondon's just not bringing charges. He's not prosecuting. The choice should be given to that person. Listen, you can either go to jail or you can go to treatment. What's it going to be? That's right. Right now, we have all these social services. Guess what? Nobody uses them because a hardcore addict is not going to avail Themselves of those services. I would make the argument that we have a broader bigger problem with the criminal justice system as it operates And it is deep and it is complex and it is friggin' awful. There's a book from a few years ago

that this guy named Shane Bauer wrote, I'm just trying to remember the name. I think it's called American Prison. And the guy goes undercover and he goes and works in a penitentiary in Louisiana. And he reports on what the conditions are like. And these are these prisons that are run by private companies that are contracted by the state locally.

And what it's like to be an employee at one of these companies and what these employees do and how the prisoners are treated, there is no system for reform once you end up behind bars in most prisons in the United States. And that is, he makes the argument, others have made the argument that has a long history that dates all the way back to slavery in the United States. And in some cases, it's just about an aptitude. And in some cases, it's about unions, especially in California, where we have a huge cost for

corrections and for the healthcare and the pensions for corrections officers. And so there's a lot of complex competing interests in history that relates to why this criminal justice system doesn't largely work on a moral and ethical basis as we might all kind of, you know, wear our hearts and look at how things are working. And so the problem is everyone sees this. There are a lot of people who will see this. Voters will see this system, treating people poorly, being inept, being corrupt, being racist,

being racist, and they want to fix it. And the way they fix it is they see a guy who shows up and he's like, I'm a sledgehammer and I'm going to fix it. I'm going to take care of all these people. And the reality is when you try and take a shotgun and chew it inside of a room, it's going to cause more problems than good. And I think that's really what he is. He is a manifestation of the anger of voters and the anger of people that look at how

complex and racist the system is and how difficult it is to resolve these problems. And we're all looking for a simple big hammer answer and he's got the biggest mouth around and the biggest hammer answer. And that's why people vote for him. All right, Chimath and then we'll wrap it in. Absent a few words specifically racist. If you took that out, you could use that entire statement you said and describe Trump as

well. Meaning the left and the right are moving to these polls where it's all about authoritarian sort of strong men. At the federal, state, local level, folks to your point, David, that just want to go and take a sledgehammer to things. And depending on your political beliefs or depending on the biases or depending on your life lived, you're going to gravitate to these two polls. And what's crazy is over the next 20 or 30 years, these polarizing figures will become crisper, sharper, smarter.

You know, they'll find a way to ferment all of all of the support without any of the long tail shittiness that Trump figured out. Like Trump was, you know, he's like a beta test of an idea, right? He was like version 0.1. Wait till we see version 1.0 of the American strong man or strong woman. It's really going to be fucking scary. Well, yeah, I mean, this is a guy who was a fan of Hugo Chavez long after he revealed himself to be a strong man intent on ruling

for life. So yeah, he is very much in that mold. He is a sledgehammer to the system. But look, I think, and the problems are big and complicated, but look, we all have a role to play. The reformers have a role to play, public defenders and defense attorneys have a role to play, and the district attorneys and prosecutors have a role to play, public defenders and defense attorneys have a role to play, and the district attorneys and prosecutors have a role to play. And the problem we have right now, and the role of the district attorney is to prosecute.

I don't think that this, by the way, SACs, is a very difficult problem to solve. I think there are just so many misaligned incentives. It's very clear that we don't try to reform people when they go to prison and that there's a weird incentive when it's a for-profit they go to prison and that there is a weird incentive when it's a for-profit prison and the customers and the revenue is based on how many people you have in the prison. So if we just get rid of that,

there's no private prisons where people have an incentive to keep people in there. And then if we made treatment free for everybody and had overcapacity of treatment centers, and then we look at the drug schedule and say, these are the drugs that are not harmful, and these are the drugs that are really, really, really harmful. We're looking at a fentanyl issue, like it's a cannabis issue,

and that that's drugs. You know, cannabis versus fentanyl is like a nuclear bomb versus like a slingshot. There's no comparison between these two things. Right, but here's the thing, no one's going to treatment when they're not forced. Well, of course, right? But there's no treatment to go to.

Maybe the weight for treatment is six feet. No, that's not true. That's not true. That's not true. We have a lot of social services that aren't being used. There is a lot of treatment available. People don't want to do it unless they really have to. Let me bring it back to where we were before.

Maybe the right thing is to actually have a bunch of these sledgehammer folks go off for the next 10 or 20 years. The Trumps and the Chesapeakeans, maybe they're all the same and maybe what we're all just saying is enough's enough. This system doesn't work, so let's just tear it down. Every single brick of it, brick by brick at the local state and federal level. All I'm saying is just, I just want to get your reaction to that statement, guys. Maybe, maybe that's what we're saying. Well, people are that is what boot and is doing is he is deconstructing the district attorney's

office from the inside. He is destroying it. He is not bringing charges against people. He's driving away all the veteran prosecutors. He's bringing in his own people, who all were public defenders and have that mindset. And people are dying. Look, we can see the results right now in the streets. Innocent people are dying. Hannah Abe, Elizabeth Platte, Sharia, Miss Caria.

It's an emergency, but at your match point, is there any validity, sex or freed bird to the burn it all down, cause chaos, and then people come in and say, you know what? That's not gonna, this needs to be fixed. Let's have a new discussion. We will, we will, we want to be added to this discussion, sex or freed bird.

We need to improve things incrementally, okay? You're not gonna make things better by dismantling the whole district attorney's office. I mean, come on. We need to improve things incrementally. Yeah, I mean, look, everything looks exponential until it cycles back. So, you know, you're only going to have so much evolution to Gotham in San Francisco until enough people put their hands in the air and say, okay, you know, time for a change. Let's go back and let's start fixing this. They are, they are saying that. Let's go back and let's start fixing this. They are. They are saying that.

That's why we're having that. I mean, there's a recall, Chesa boot and movement. Like saying a muscle and making it stronger, I think, you know, we're learning a lot about what approaches to criminal justice reform work and what approaches do not work. And it is clear that a local only non-prosication position is not going to work with respect to both criminal justice reform and the satisfaction of the society at large. And we're realizing that and I think we are inevitably, I mean there's so many people that are up in arms We are inevitably going to cycle back the other way at some point very soon here. Yeah, and honestly, I think you guys are over

Intellectualizing this a little bit, you know when when Cheria Die because he got hit by by that repeat offender. They asked his wife, who's responsible for this? She said, very clearly, the DA, that is who is responsible and she's right. Let's stop over intellectualizing this. I know the problems are big and complicated. Frankly, people like chase up prey on that because they can kind of obscure what they're doing with, you know, some nice sounding offuscations, nice sounding words, but the reality is he's not prosecuting the way he needs to. We got to stop this. Yeah, and it is possible to have nuance and to hold multiple ideas in your head at the same time, David. You could, there's a practical reality to people cannot murder people.

People cannot drive in cars and run red lights on Fentonal while saying the criminal justice system is incredibly biased and racist and people who are of color in Texas, you know, wind up in jail for five or ten years for selling a bag of weed and then we're investing in companies that are making weed gummies or people are buying stock in weed companies at the same time. You can't have one person who's a black teenager in Texas going to jail for decades for doing what somebody in California or Seattle or Canada is getting an IPO for. I mean, this is a fundamental injustice in the world.

And you're right. That's something that Chesapeas on. But there must be nuance here where we look at each individual situation and say, what are the ways to solve the problem surgically, not with a shotgun to David Freberg's point, but with maybe a scalpel and a sniper rifle. Do we want to move on to questions from our audience? Because they submitted hundreds of questions,

where do we want to move on to the Australia news and Facebook backing out of publishing news? If you're bad, then let's end with the Q&A, I think, sucks. What the fuck is going on with Facebook and Australia and climate change? This is insanity. Yeah, so I think what's going on in Australia is contemplating a law that would require Facebook and Google, and I think just those two companies to essentially pay royalties for hyperlinks to news publications. And I think this is mostly at the behest of some powerful newspaper magnates down there. I think like Rupert Murdoch and

looks like that. I love the way you say magnates. Well they are. I mean, you know, and so, but this issue is going to be very closely watched by Europe and maybe even the US. It's basically a wealth transfer from Google and Facebook to the traditional media and to traditional publishers. This is an issue where I actually side with Zuckerberg and Facebook on this. I kind of throw up a little bit in my mouth saying that, but no, but look, Tim Berners-Lee has come out and said that

it could really interfere with the open internet and the worldwide web if you start to tax hyperlinks. I mean, historically hyperlinks and the titles on hyperlinks were fair use. You could use those things without violating somebody else's copyright or need to pay them a royalty. And so I think that it's bizarre to me

that Facebook and Google wouldn't now be able to use hyperlinks, and I'm kind of worried about where that goes. And, you know, I... Well, Facebook said that they're not going to publish links now for Australian news. And then, but then they followed that up with they were also going to start dismantling any anti climate change content.

I don't know if that's just just an else. Well, there's labeling. So there's another thing going on, which is they've decided not to label any posts involving climate change, which is part of the whole censorship debate. And, um, and so, yeah, I mean, well, it's separate, but related in the sense that the traditional media is cheering on censorship, but then when Facebook essentially, sensors these links, because they don't want to pay royalties to the traditional media, then the traditional media is up in arms. And so they're very selective in how they view these issues. My principle is very consistent, which is I want an open internet.

I'm against censorship in all of its forms. And I'm worried that this new Australian law could really lead to some, lead to an overall reduction or shutdown. Here's what's really, I think, going on, is that with fair use, the doctrine of fair use, it's a four-part test, your lawyer obviously, you know all this acts, but to sort of educate people in the audience who don't,

there's no specific number of characters, no specific percentage of the original work that you can use to clear yourself of fair use. Fair use is a test when it goes before a judge. A judge who looks at this four-part test, the percentage of the work you used is the public confused. Is there some educational or criticism version of it? So if you were to use 10% of this podcast and you were to wrap it with, you know, put us in a picture window and you were 50% of it and there was no podcast and you were to wrap it with, you know, put us in a picture window and you were 50% of it.

And there was no confusion that you were commenting on this. That would be fair use. Or if you were to use it in educational system and if you were monetizing it. Now if you were to just clip our podcast like this one website, clip the podcast and made 60 clips of it, took our file and I sent them a season to assist action and said, hey, don't do this. We're doing it ourselves. They fought us and they said, we're fans.

And I said, I don't care if your fans are not. You're not linking back. You're not giving us credit. And you're doing 60 clips. If you want to do one or two clips and you want to comment on it, that's fine. But you can't take all 60 clips and make a 60 clip version of this. And so fairness is in the word fair use. The problem with Zuckerberg and with how Google has used journalist content is they are

clipping out specific sections of it and putting it in something called one box on Google. So many of you might have said how many people, you know, how many pounds are in, you know, whatever or what time is this TV show on. And then the content that was made by the ringer or the New York Times gets clipped and they put just that section, David, with an algorithm and they give you the answer. So you don't need to go visit that website. This is tipping over into what I would call unfair use because you're eliminating the person linking. Now let me finish. Yeah. If it was just the URL and you didn't pull the headline, you didn't pull the abstract and you didn't pull a photo,

that would be fine. There is a very easy solution to this, which is, if you wanna pull the link and the headline, you pay zero dollars. But if you wanna pull anything else, a hundred characters, et cetera, you need to get a license from that person unless you are doing actual criticism. So there's nothing to stop anybody in Australia right now from taking the screenshot of a

New York Times story or an Australian newspaper story and writing some commentary on it. You just can't wholesale take everything. And so what we're seeing here is a real-time negotiation between private parties into what is fair. And I think Google has a really rich history of sharing revenue. The App Store, they give 70% to app developers, YouTube, they give 55% to creators, and with AdSense, they let you put AdSense on your website and they give you $0.68 on the dollar or something in that range.

They never actually disclose the exact percentage, but that's what I'm told it is. Facebook has given zero dollars to Instagram users You use a zero dollar to what's out. You use a zero dollars to Facebook. Folks, they're too greedy. And what Facebook needs to do is either not use the content or come up with some reasonable payment and come to an agreement with these folks who are now banding together. And they're realizing the traffic we get from Facebook and Google is not worth what they're taking away from us, which is all that revenue that they earned in the free market. And so this is a free market debate. And I think the government should stay out of it to a certain extent and let the free

market work, which is all publishers should get together in the United States and confront Facebook and say, pay us unless you use anything more than the headline. But Jason, I think these things are interconnected though, right? On the one hand, if you're, if you have an economic stake in distribution of content, but then you're also then going to decide under, you know, an opaque definition, what is truth or not truth, you, all of a sudden just become, I mean, the purest form definition of a publisher, right?

And I think it just becomes a very treacherous place for both Facebook and Google to end up in. So it's almost like... Well, Google is paying the bell, by the way. Yeah, no, you're right. Google is paying for it Facebook, because it's not too, but Facebook, they said something like only 4% of their posts involve this kind of content. So it's just not a big deal for them, the way it is for Google. Well, I think it is a big deal for Facebook.

They're just trying to make a point here because Zuckerberg's... Yeah, and they're being overly heavy-handed in their response. There's no question about it. They're throwing their weight around. It doesn't look good, but I'm not defending Facebook. I'm defending the principle. I mean, look, if this Australian principle were used, you wouldn't have the drug report. You wouldn't be able to create a side of news links.

No, you could if it was commentary. You could put the link and write commentary. It's when you just ripped the links, people are objecting to ripping the links without any commentary. Judge report rewrites the headline, puts his own spin on it, and then links, he would never get caught into this.

And there is no publication that would ever object. What they're objecting to is taking the photo, taking the first paragraph, and the synapsis is 30 or 40% of the value. And so Facebook is a better, and Twitter with their algorithms are better front pages than the New York Times front page. Well, why isn't the supply to Twitter then?

I think it will, ultimately. They'll go there as well. I think this will become the test case, which is if you want to take more than just the headline, and like, you know, basically that's it, or the URL, if you want to have that little snippet, pay us. Pay us something. It doesn't have to be a lot, but this could actually solve

if these networks that are making tens to hundreds of millions of billions of dollars, if they just said, you know what? One percent to the news organizations to keep them viable, just like anybody else would pay in the licensing fee for terrestrial media. Why is the Australian government setting the price? And why are they only applying this to Google and Facebook? Well, I think they're going to go right down the line. I think it's just a starting point. But to my point, I said earlier, as I don't think the government needs to do this, I think the news organizations on mass should get together and put their foot down and say, no. And if they did, they would get paid.

Well, it sounds like what the government should do is clarify what fair use entails. Just the land. Maybe it's a link plus a title. I mean, look, it's never just a link, right? It's a hyperlink plus the, like plus the work. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. So, it's a snippet issue. Right. So fine. So the government should clarify what fair use is. And then if Google and Facebook are ever want more, they got to go negotiate for it. Exactly. But, but Australia is doing more than that. They're setting the price. And they're limiting their overreaching policy just to Google on Facebook because they know that if they apply it to everybody, we do that.

By the way, we do that. We already do this in the United States, David, with local carriage of news organizations on terrestrial TV. So we already have, we already mix it up with the FTC doing this with licenses and the public good. So it's the extent. I think the other thing that, you know, is going to happen with all of this is on the other side of this, the actual media organizations themselves that theoretically could benefit from this are frankly just going out of business anyways. There's a Wall Street Journal alert for the owner of the LA Times who's about to sell the Times.

It's very likely that the Times in four or five years doesn't even exist. So I don't really know where all of this goes, except that everybody's just gonna be an individual person blogging and tweeting whatever opinion they want. So there'd be no money to pay anybody, because it won't really matter. But what will be left is then these rules

on arbitration, a fact, and fiction. And I think that that's where we're gonna end up. But what will be left is then these rules on arbitration, a fact, and fiction. And I think that that's where we're going to end up. That's going to be a crazy place. Because then those folks, those folks then really are the puppet masters. Yeah, I agree that these traditional publications have like a fundamental business model problem. And it's not going to be salt. Like I think there's there's a misplaced blame on Facebook and Google. I mean, the fundamental problem with all these publications are you go search for a news article on something and there's like 10 versions of the same thing or more, 100 versions. And you know, when newspapers, we saw thousands of newspapers all across the country and they

had a local geographic monopoly. But once it all got digitized and moved online, you realize how much redundancy there was. You have thousands of reporters creating the exact same thing, and there needs to be consolidation. It doesn't make sense to have 100 articles. Not only that, but a point we made last time, which is, you know, facts have largely commoditized, or most facts. Like, you know, remember, we used to open the newspaper and look at what the stock market prices were. We opened the newspaper and looked at the sports scores. We looked at what happened in this place and this place.

Facts about events, facts about the prices of things, facts about sports scores. That's all completely commoditized. I mean, that's like 90% of the content of what people used to read the newspaper for has gone online. And so as we talked about last time, newspapers and publications of the like have largely moved into, you know, different sorts of narratives and you know, it's created a Marketplace that has a lot more competition because anyone can write that as we were seeing with substack and medium and as We're seeing with our own podcast and we're seeing with our own podcast and I think that's

This feels to me like, you know, I went to a media conference back in 2008 and there was this huge battle between Google and Viacom. And I was at the conference and I think Larry Page was on stage or someone, or Eric Schmidt was on stage and the Viacom CEO got up and he's like, when are you gonna start paying us for our content? And I think that that, and he really screamed at him in a room of like 800 people. And I feel like that same kind of point of view has persisted until there's finally some

legislation that they feel kind of gets them justice. Meanwhile, the world has passed them by. And you know, I think this, this will be kind of some transitory legislation that ultimately the content is going to democratize anyway. And the content creation is gonna democratize. Last topic for me, because I really want Friedberg's answer to this because I also just saw an alert

how the federal government is opening up a vaccination site in Miami-Dade County. I actually saw Francis Suarez retweet it. What the hell is going on with vaccinations? Are we gonna get vaccinated soon? I said it in December and I tweeted about, and I've repeated it multiple times since, that the US has enough supply to vaccinate pretty much anyone that wants to get vaccinated because we are producing and delivering three to four million doses per day in the US

right now. And there is just a fundamental issue, especially like, I mean, look at California, you know, they haven't opened up quote unquote, vaccination to people outside of tier or what they're called tier one A. And so this is much more of a kind of policy issue than an administrative issue than a supply and demand issue. There's enough people that want the vaccine and there's enough vaccine. So just let people get fucking vaccinated. And so I feel like the market forces are now kind of converging with policy a little bit more than they were a month ago. And the policymakers are no longer fighting and complaining about supply and complaining about constraints. You know, we've got mass vac sites now in California. The amount

of money that's being wasted by the way in this process makes me want to vomit every time I read about it That's a whole another separate issue, but it feels to me like we're probably May, June when enough people are vaccinated that we can have You know a circumstance where people are gonna fly without masks and be comfortable doing so, but I'm sure there will be these over You know constraining rules around what people can and can't do in public for a very long time like I mentioned what happened I do want to say one thing that I've noticed. We played some poker the other night, and we were with a friend who got vaccinated. And I was like, he said, this is my first time playing poker

with people, and I was like, well, you got vaccinated. He's like, well, I don't know if other strains are going to get me, or if this thing's evolving, and other people are going to get sick. And if you think about what's happened over the last year, people have been conditioned to be afraid. And so even though we're getting vaccinated, even though this thing is moving and working, I'm concerned that we're not going to end up in a more civil state. Schools aren't opening. People aren't flying. People aren't doing stuff. Even after

vaccinations and science and data shows that these things are okay. Texas and Florida. Maybe there's some cases of it, but what I'm saying is like, you know, the human subconscious gets trained first, and then our conscious mind rationalizes what we feel. We've all now been trained over the past year to be very afraid. And then we all come up with these rational excuses

about why I can't do X, Y and Z. And it's like, but you've been fucking vaccinated. You're fine. Like all the data, all the science says, go do whatever you want to do. Go into a nightclub sweaty, next to people. Throbbing beads.

Go, Zabab. And tell us about the Throbbing Nightclub. Yeah, it's like that scene from so animated. It's like that scene from Goodville London. Remember when we talked to this psychology, it's like tell us about your brave stories, tell us about your rave stories again. Activate. 90s. Or yeah,

dropping rave. Give all Satan, whole, Satan, lobbying music. bodies and did the Molly just kick in Friedberg? Did you drop a Molly at the start of the pod? But my point is like, people are really afraid. And I think I just got the best idea for an episode. The biggest concern I have is frankly less about, are we going to get vaccinated?

I feel like the convergence between market forces and government nonsense is now going to allow us to all get vaccinated. But the issue is really going to be like, how do you break through these rules and the fear that basically become? I want, but I don't understand. Where are the max vaccination sites in California? And who's eligible?

Like, why aren't we just making this thing like a drive-through? We should, this is where we can absolutely, we can make it right now. We just want to get ridiculous. You got it. I think we all have absolute violent agreement that California is so messed up with respect to how we're vaccinating.

We have so much supply. We're sitting on half our friggin supply right now in California. 30 million vaccines sitting on shelves. We are now at 75% deployed, 80%. California has got like four, five million vaccines sitting in storage. It should be a drive-through and you just get in line

and you go and it's said what we're doing is, you know, but what we're doing now is you got a schedule and you wait. Oh, yes, scheduling's bullshit. Because first you got to qualify, then you got to schedule an appointment and then the clinic or whatever is only open from nine to five. And so like how many doses they really administer

when you got to make an appointment, probably one every half hour. So maybe they get through 16 people a day or something like that. And through three qualifications. Yeah, and they get fined a million dollars and lose their medical license if they inject the wrong person.

So I mean, you're talking about 16 people per day at a site when they could be doing a couple of hundred. I mean, it's crazy. Well, Johnson and Johnson is coming and that's refrigerators stable, right, Freeberg. So we now have bought 1.2 billion packages. But let me go back to Freeberg's point about when we'll life get back to normal.

I'm not as pessimistic as you are, Dave, about this idea that life won't get back to normal. And part of the reason why is I'm seeing so much outrage about school closures right now. California is one of the only states in the country that still completely closed all the schools and people are absolutely up in arms. I'd say it's as big an issue as this exploding crime issue.

Crime is a big issue in the cities and school closures is the big issue in the suburbs. And if these two things don't turn around, I think Gavin Newsom's gonna get recalled. I mean, people are just on fire about this. Yeah. But I mean, my point was like our our wealthy conservative, you know, friend that lives in Florida was afraid to go do stuff even after he's been vaccinated. Yeah. And I think that's what permeated everywhere. It's like a shark freeberg. It's like a shark

attack. You know, if this is shark attack, you know, at half moon bay, whatever, people don't swim there for a couple of weeks. And then somebody swims in the like, oh, the water's great. People will jump back in. I think it's April, David, to your point of when this goes back to normal, because if you look now, people have been saying, freeberg, correct me if I'm wrong. Would you put a 5x multiplier on the confirmed COVID cases, a 4x multiplier? 5x, 5x, I think is the right median. So if you have 30 million people who've had the vaccine,

had COVID, you're looking at five times that is 150. Now you have 60 million people who have been vaccinated where at 210, there were 330 million Americans, 70 million are under our kids. So, you know, we're basically getting to herd immunity. And if you look at the slopes right now, what is causing the drop in cases this massively, David? Is it herd immunity, vaccine, or are people suddenly wearing masks? What is it?

There's complexity because everyone assumes that there's one thing that affects the whole population. But remember, the way viruses work is they're hyper local. And so the local population dynamics looked at on a scale is where you see the statistical results of the scale. And so, you know, we saw this in North Dakota. A bunch of people got really sick. They got to herd immunity in communities and then all of a sudden it dropped off the curve. When you zoom out and that's happening, combined with behavioral changes, combined with vaccines, then you start to see the statistical things happen at scale. So it's not a simple answer, but the answer generally can be,

we are coming down the slope, we are getting to a point of, you know, general like low case counts, low death counts, low fatality, and we should be living a normal life, allowing our economy to kind of progress again, and we're still caught up in this kind of fear cycle. Picking date, let's just do this end on this. Pick a date when you think all four besties

are vaccinated. I'm going to say April 1st. June. June? Okay. What do you got free, Brett? I say April 1st, where we're all going to be vaccinated. It's literally a choice. I mean, any one of us could go get vaccinated in the next month. I mean, how? What? None of us are over 30 PMI. I mean, Saks was for a minute. California is opening 1D, a lot of the other states are opening broadly. If any of you wanted to get on a plane

and go get vaccinated somewhere else, you could. I mean, there's enough places now that have open Vax or will in the next 30 days, you can go get vaccinated. Okay, so you say 30 days, which would be March 15th or so. Yeah, I think that's a choice for the four of us. If you guys want to hop on a plane, we can go get vaccinated. Does anybody have access to a plane? Sorry, but doesn't that count?

You're saying in an open Vax state, anybody can show up without proof of right. Now I haven't even tried. I haven't seen any. I've looked into this. There have been different ways that this has played out, but generally speaking, there are market forces that play where, you know, where there's a will, there's a way not saying that you're cutting line and screwing people over, but there are vaccinations that are happening all over the country now with people that want to get vaccinated. Ah, in, by the way, in California next week, tier 1B opens up.

So anyone- What does that mean? What does tier 1B? It's a total BS definition. It is absolutely ridiculous. I absolutely think this is the biggest waste of time and money ever. But tier 1B definition in California is healthcare workers. So anyone that's a teacher or works with children-

If kids- If you're nanny or your daycare people want to too, they could go in and get vaccinated. Oh, wait, are nanny can get vaccinated? Starting next Wednesday in California. Oh my god. And so all you need to do is go get to a vac site with vaccines. And by the way, a lot of them have vaccination supply now,

or they will this weekend, there's apparently big shipment going out. And also all food and agriculture workers loosely defined, so people that work in grocery stores, restaurants, farm workers. If you have a chef, they can get vaccinated. No, no, no, no. I think two people out of four on here might have chefs. I think two of us definitely don't.

So, if you take care of your own kids and cook your own food, you can't get vaccinated, but if you do that for somebody else, you can. So wait, you're saying if you have a chef and you have nannies, you get vaccinated. No, you don't. You don't. I'm saying is, is you, yeah, if you're a chef and a rnanny for someone else, you can go get vaccinated next week. Right, but, but, but, David, what do you want for dinner? I'm coming over right now to make a review on.

I'll watch your kids this weekend, David. Get me a shot. It's so insane. We have all these ridiculous job categories and distinctions. It's just like with the lockdown policy, they had 10 pages of exceptions for essential workers. Listen, if you've got a policy with 10 pages of exceptions, the policy doesn't make any sense.

Yeah. Like all the, like, and this caused all the controversy in LA, like anyone that works in the movie business is an essential worker But people that work that people that work in restaurants and bars are not Let's see this for what it is it is pay off to do soaps political supporters The politicians are using they use essential worker exceptions and now they're using vaccines as political capital They dole them out to their supporters

so that in exchange for votes down the road. Also, the member of the exception, David, if you serve more than seven courses in your prefix, you can get a vaccine. So that is the French laundry. If you add an amuse booze and an intermezzo, you qualify for the vaccine. There are people going to states renting houses and getting drivers licenses

and getting vaccines. I know about that. That's called vaccine tourism. By the way, think about it this way. In six weeks, I think a lot of those restrictions are going to fall by the wayside because the supply is going to completely outstrip the nonsensical restrictions and prioritization methods we put in place. And hopefully God willing, these idiots who have the ability to vaccinate people open up their sites 24, seven and drop all the bullshit questionnaires and registration requirements, let people drive in, get a shot, wait 15 minutes and leave and have just some basic principle people on site

that can take care of people if they have an adverse allergic reaction and get shots in arms. We have the shots, we have the supply, we're going to be over-supplied by May. We are going to have far more shots and there will be demand. And so, you know, we just need to get this kind of nonsense thrown out in the window. Straight to Q&A, this is from Videsh. He says, where are you investing your money over the next 10 years? So, Friedberg, you want to start and then we'll go to Saxon and then... I talked about this pretty largely on the podcast. I mean, two areas that are super interesting to me that I'm spending a lot of time on is

obviously bio-manufacturing. So, the idea that we can kind of move away from traditional animal-based agriculture and systems of production to systems where we use genetically engineered microbial organisms to produce molecules and materials and food and that that system of production can have a radical impact on the environment, on the opportunity for jobs, on the cost of goods and things that humans want and consume. And that's a primary area of interest for me. And I think it's a multi-decade.

I think by 2050, we should see most of our goods that are manufactured, rather than being made in the traditional sense, which is basically old technology scaled up, which is what the Industrial Revolution did, but really shift to a new model of manufacturing where we use a smarter machine, which is a biologic organism to make stuff. So that's my at-crisks. Zach. Yeah, so I'm focused on the area of bottom-up SaaS, which is basically business software that can go viral very much in the mold of Yammer,

which is a company I found it and sold back a dozen years ago. It was a free cursor to Slack, let's be honest. Right. It could have been 27 billion, but you did not ride your winner. You took the quick belly. And that was not a mistake because it let you invest in the other 20 unicorns, correct? Kind of. I mean, so, so, so you do have a chip on your shoulder about selling too early. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, so so oh you do have a chip on your shoulder about selling too early. No, no, no, it's not a chip

I would say that around the time that PayPal hit a 200 billion dollar market cap and slack had a 27 billion dollar outcome. I started realizing you know if I just stuck with my ideas longer, you know, I probably would do better and I'm like you know, I don't really need to come up with a new thesis or a new idea. I really came up with the idea 12 years ago, which is to make business software viral. I'm just going to keep investing in that thesis. So it's not that original or new for me, but, but it is, you know, bottom up has become the, I would say almost the dominant mode now of a process. Explain that to somebody who doesn't understand what you mean. Bottom up. Yeah. So bottom up means that the entry point for the software is any employee in the company.

They can just start using it. They go to your website. They start using it. They spread to their co-workers as opposed to top down. Top down is like the Oracle sales guy who carries a bag. It goes to meet with the CIO and sells them a big expensive implementation. That's traditionally what business offer used to be is a big top down IT sale.

Bottom up is, is this going in through the rank and fall employees? All right, Chimath Polyhapatiyya, for the next 10 years, where are you putting your money? Two areas, in a quality, well, it's not even 10, I would say for the next, for the rest of my life. So it's, I think these arcs are multi decade, but inequality and climate change.

And so, you know, the inequality side, what does that mean? It's any, by the way, the second you said inequality and climate change, sacs left. He's going to throw up. He's like, what? He's like, what? He's not in a thread. He's not in a thread. He's not in a thread. He's going to throw up. Yeah, he's like, what? Yeah, he was not in the throw up. He's just red. He went to throw up.

He's like, oh God, here we go. There he's back now. He's back. Sacks, did you throw up when Chimab said it's holiday in my country? And Chimab said it's holiday in my country. And he said his woke nonsense. Did you just go throw up?

No, I'm not going to say. I'm not going to say. You threw up. You have to polish his glove. No. Just call this eternity detail. No, I'm not. You threw up. Get the polish of the glove. But he just called the security deal. He went and he kissed his gold bricks that he keeps it as I was. I'm in my mind.

No, inequality basically means anything that evens the starting line. So if that's healthcare software that solves a chronic condition or if that's financial software that drives inclusion. And then climate change is pretty obvious, but the panoply of things that we need to do to basically, you know, slow the warming of the earth. Those are the two areas. Huge opportunity. And for Vadaesh, if you even care, I take a remora-like approach. If you don't know what a remora is, you ever see a big shark, and then there's a bunch of things stuck to it, and it's following

the shark, and it just eats whatever. So basically, what I do is I'm getting behind these three guys, and I just draft on these three sharks, and just try to weasel my way onto their cap tables. It's a living, basically. I should go to the poker game and try to... No, in all sincerity. I am st- I am vertical, agnostic, because I think the great companies make the verticals.

They create the categories and the categories don't exist. Right, your stage particularly. What's that? Your stage particularly. Yeah, and so what I do in the early stages, I am focused on the process and the process I'm trying to master here is what I do at lessindicate.com, which is find great companies and share it with now 7,000 accredited investors and let them decide, you know, how much they want to invest in each deal. And just to give people an idea, we are on a $60 million run rate this year of deploy capital via the

syndicate. In other words, it'll be four times five times what my fund will do. The fund has access to 100% of deals, but the syndicate has access to 60% roughly. Another we've broken our no advertising role. No, I mean, we're all talking our book here. Let's take another question. And Angel is available for Harper Collins business. What? Oh, here's a good one.

What the way to save money on car insurance, MetroMild.com. Sorry, go ahead. Absolutely fantastic. What's the thing? You've got to save money on car insurance, metromild.com. Sorry, go ahead. Absolutely fantastic. Also, the ticker symbol. What's the biggest investment venture miss? You had early starting out that would have been a ridiculous return. What is our anti portfolio? Looking like, Friedberg will start with you, then go to Mothengosax.

Friedberg. I was with Jack Dorsey in, at this conference and he went around and did a pass to the hat on who wanted to invest in his new startup called Square. Oh, that's my story. What is that? Is that a $50 million myth? Yeah, I'm not gonna say.

It would have been bad. I mean, you know, 50K in at 10 million. But I mean, the problem, here's, by the way, an interesting thing going back to the point Sacks made earlier and that we've said in the past, you know, when Square went public,

there was a lot of questions and trepidation around its valuation. Big fund managers were poo-pooing the company. And what's the market cap of Square today? Sacks, you might know. 100 and 120. 120 billion? Wow.

I mean, 125 billion today. That's incredible, right? Because when they went public, people were kind of poo-pooing and saying this thing is a sub billion dollar company. It shouldn't be worth anything more than a billion dollars and look at it just a few years later. Anyway, I missed that one on the seed round. And I've just watched with all of what

I do the continue to innovate to develop this. As a public company, it troughed it, a four billion dollar valuation. It did, right? It did like five years ago. And so within five years, it's gone from four billion to a hundred and 24 billion. I was in a venture capital fund that invested in it.

They distributed the shares I sold half, and I was like, I'll just keep half. I like Jack. I sold half at 72, and now I said 276. And so ride your winners, folks. Sacks, anti-portfolio, which one is the most painful? Honestly, I haven't missed that much to speak. Perfect break.

There you go. Jesus Christ. Unbelievable. What a douche. What a douche. What a douche. Well, actually, I analyzed my chess game with Peter Tio and actually my castle, Queen's Eye Castle,

was actually a brilliant move if he hadn't pinned my... No, I mean, look, I tend... Look, I don't overthink these things too much. I mean, that's why I'm in like 27 unicorns. If the company looks good, I invest. Is this a fill, it's filled, help you, if you're unbelievable, you come from, while you're like, I'm like, 16th ring.

But time 129 of the last 30 sessions. No, what would you say your total like multiple is on all your angel investing? Like, do you have a set of other. That's not the question. Sacks, answer the question. Come on. The audience asks, what you missed, can you just be humble enough to say something?

Yeah, no, no, no, I'll tell you. I'll tell you. So this was a sort of a semi-miss, is that? Oh my God, it's not even a miss. Have I missed? No, no, no, no. Well, here's how I made up for it. No, no, no, no, no.

I don't believe it. But in half my normal amount. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, let me tell you what happened. I did miss it. So back in 2007, I thought Twitter was going to take off. But in half my normal amount. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, because I think Chris Sock, for Chris Sock, basically, I don't know if you remember. Sock, I had set up like some second or a half. Secondary thing, yeah. So yeah, the fact that, you know, I wasn't able to complete that transaction probably cost

me, you know, a couple hundred million bucks. A trimoth? And I portfolio, what's the concept? Well, I have a huge Airbnb. And I portfolio. Huge. Robin Hood? You know, I have a huge Airbnb. And I portfolio, huge Robinhood, you know, Airbnb at a billion, obviously,

I actually did invest, I agreed to invest, but then I got into a huge public snafu with Chesky because he was taking a bunch of money off the table and then we ended up not even finalizing the investment. And your letter was published, your email, the lead sentence. My email was leaked, yeah. It was leaked.

So I was really pissed when they did that. But anyways, that was a decade ago, not much has changed, I guess. There is one thing that above all others, which is sadly also in my portfolio. So my portfolio, my anti-portfolio is the same thing you can guess what it is, but that's Bitcoin at one point.

You know, we controlled low single digits, mid single digits of the entire float. And had I held on to that, that's talking about a mid-deca billion dollar position. So my anti-portfolio in the unrealized gains or losses, if you will, on Bitcoin, is in the many tens of billions of dollars. Yep. Mine is clearly Bitcoin as well, because I was reporting on it when it was $0.10, and I was one of the first journalists to write about it and talk about it on my podcast. And I had like maybe 10 of these bitcoins in a wallet of, that was a Mt. Gox and it got

hacked and it all went away. And then my wife bought it at under 200. And so now we have a joint house that my wife is going to because of her incredible trade because she saw it as well. Return more on her. It's conceivable. She'll return more than my entire investing career. So shout out to Jade for getting that one. Actually, I made that mistake too.

That's from off made of not huddling enough long enough. So that is. Did you guys see this article? I fished this article up. Actually, I made that mistake too, that's from off made of not hoodling enough, long enough. So that is, that is. Did you guys see, did you see this article? I, I fished this article up, but in 2014, I was buying a, a, a landed, modest camp in Lake Tahoe. And I told the sales guy there, Jeff Hall, I said, Hey, listen, I'll buy this lot. If you let me buy it in Bitcoin, because I wanted to promote Bitcoin as a transactional

infrastructure. So we went to a company called BitPay. They wired it up and I bought it for $1.6 million in Bitcoin. That was 2,800 coins, which right now is with $140 or $150 million. What are you going to build on that lot? I don't even own that lot. You should make it a grave plot. You should just do. Well, my my ex-wife owns a lot. I hope I have, you know, she enjoys it, but I'm saying. You literally could have bought the next Lakers and the Warriors and been the majority owner

in each. All right, let's take another question. What's the number one macro uncertainty or risk you guys the most worried about for your investment portfolios? There is only one and I think it's inflation, but I think it's important to understand where inflation is coming from. The single biggest risk to all of us is what's going to happen in the following order of operations.

So I think all of this sort of at the, coming out of the pandemic, basically what you're going to have is like four or five major trading blocks in the world, right? You have China as a standalone. You have Europe as a standalone. You have America slash North America under Biden. I think it can be more North America as a standalone.

And then you have these sort of what I would call random, you know, friends with benefits, Africa, South America, Japan, Korea. Okay. But those are all bit players to these three huge trading blocks. Everybody was going to go and they're going to go and get vertically integrated. So it sort of builds a little bit on what David said. Like you're not going to have, you know, one central place where you get this thing, basically i.e. China that you ship on a boat to get over here for a whole host of reasons, national security, carbon, etc.

So you're going to have all these vertically integrated supply chains and resilient economies. You know what that does when you have to try to build that stuff? Prices go screaming higher because instead of having one factory in China making nine billion iPhone cases, you have now 50 factories all around the world, each with their own infrastructures and costs and whatever. And so I think you're gonna reflate the world. I don't know when it happens,

but that's sort of the biggest risk to all of what we do is that all of a sudden, you know, real rates go to like six of what we do is that all of a sudden, real rates go to like six or seven percent. And then all of a sudden, you're not going to look at a company trading at 50 times earnings and say, you're going to question that. So I think that's the biggest risk that I've ever had. Friedberg, what's your risk? What's your risk?

It's actually you go ahead. Yeah. So actually mine is pretty similar to Jamas, which is I think we're accruing these unpayable deficits and debts and obligations. And all this money has to be paid back at some point, that the US government is incurring. I mean, there's a California version of this where we've accrued a trillion dollars of pension obligations that we have no ability to pay. So yeah, I mean, I think that eventually it translates into inflation, but I think it

translates into something even worse, which is at some point people become skeptical about loaning money to the US government, and because they don't want the US to be able to just print dollars to pay back these loans, and the US dollar stops becoming the world's reserve currency. I think the reason why we're seeing Bitcoin go to the moon right now is people are starting to speculate on the idea that this might be the future world reserve currency because it's not subject to manipulation by, you know, by central banks. And let's think like that world looks, if you think about like a world in which the US dollars not the world's reserve of currency anymore

and which the government is basically broke, I mean, that is, it's pretty scary to think about. There's a Ray Dalio who's a famous and prominent hedge fund founder of Bridgewater Associates wrote an essay if anyone's interested, called the big cycle of money, credit, debt, and economic activity. You can find it online. He published it last year, highly recommended reading. He has a few chapters that proceed and follow that talks about the grand macroeconomic cycle of governments and societies.

And it's really worth the read. I think one really basic, principled economic point is that governments operate in such a way that their people ask for goods and ask for services. The government spends on those services by borrowing more than they're making in income in that year. And that is, I think the premise for a lot of how governments operate around the world, the only way that that works over time is if your future shows that that borrowing allows you to grow your revenue more,

and therefore you can underwrite taking on debt to pay in the future. So you force growth. And I've said this a couple of times before, but it is the most basic principle, but it is also the most scary and shocking principle, which is the only way you can afford debt as if you have growth. And that forces you to find growth. And when you're forced to find growth, you get all of these unnatural perturbations in terms of economic activity and market forces. It is not necessarily the

case that things should and would always grow. And we force things to always grow because of the mechanism by which we fund our services at a government level. And that is what's basically going to ultimately lead to a lot of different types of crises, both kind of financial crises, but also societal crises in terms of revolution and pushes for socialism and all the other things that are typically associated with things like inflation. And so it is the big crisis of the 21st century. We underwrote growth in the 20th century. And there's a lot of forces that may bring that all to bear this century. I see one that's maybe a little less acute and a little bit more picture, which is the

number of people living in democracies in the world as a percentage of population, which has been going down, which if you asked anybody, they would be pretty shocked to hear, but just looking at the percentage of humans on the planet, not the percentage of countries, because the percentage of countries that are democracies or flawed democracies is right now at 45% and we have 55% of regimes are authoritarian or hybrid. And the population of people living in those is growing. So we have countries that are authoritarian, that are growing, countries that are democracies like in Europe or in the West and the US, Canada are declining or not keeping up pace in terms

of population growth. And that is a, I think, going to be the major issue, which is does China win capitalism plus authoritarianism, or does democracy plus capitalism work? The next question I think is super fascinating, which is, what would each of you wish you could teach every 12-year-old right now? What a great question, Chimoff, you want to go first? Do you have something that comes to mind? Or do you need a minute to think about it? Well, it's such a fabulous question. It's a great question. Chimoff, you want to go first? Do you have something that comes to mind? Do you need a minute to think about it? Well, it's such a fabulous question. It's a great question.

There's so many answers. There's so many answers there. Well, let's workshop it. Anybody can have a thought. This is very tactical. Okay, so I'm sure there's like grander things, but just the two things we're not really teaching are coding and financial literacy. Those are like the two big, I think, omissions in the curriculum right now and would be very helpful for people to learn. Oh, I mean, on that theme, I would also then add like better eating habits and mental health exercises. Freeberg, you got any? They come to mind, things you want, you're 12-year-old or everybody's 12-year-old to learn? I think the principles of biology and how we, I mean, again, I feel like we underestimate and we don't talk enough about the opportunity and the reality that is about to hit us like a title wave of bioengineering.

You know, everything in medicine is moving towards this notion of using biological machines to fix our bodies, like not just a molecule, which is the historical way of doing medicine, where you find a molecule does something in the body, you stick it in, you turn into a drug. But we are actually on the precipice of creating machines, biologically engineered or designed cells, and proteins that can go into your body and do specific things and enhance your life and improve your health and solve disease. Similarly, like I talked about earlier, biomanufacturing to make all the materials and food in a more sustainable way and a lower cost way. And so I think teaching the principles of DNA, how DNA causes protein, how protein causes function, and how cells operate, and how that is basically being softwareized, and you can basically think about biology now as being software. I think that is the trend of science and engineering. I think computing created a great foundation, but I think that's really,

if I were to tell my 12 year old daughter in eight years, what she should consider doing, or spending her time studying its bioengineering and what the opportunities are that are gonna arise from that. All great answers. I think for me, again, move it up a level since you guys took some of my answers.

A financial literacy was definitely gonna be in there for me. But I would say radical self-reliance and entrepreneurialism and resiliency. I think a lot of young people right now don't believe that they have agency in their lives in the world, that they can create stuff, that they cannot be stopped if they go and do something. And there's a victim mentality and culture that the system is rigged against you and that you cannot rise above, which I understand why people feel that way. But I actually think it's less true than ever. And so we have to basically really remind people that if you are radically self-reliant, you can live the American dream, you can create anything you want. There is absolutely nobody who can stop you.

And all the knowledge you want to learn is out there. And so the in radical self-reliance for me is this concept of the ability to learn. And the ability to learn how to learn and having faith that you can learn any skill, even 60, 70%, very quickly, is what I see results in people being successful in life, this ability to take on any new topic with a zeal and an understanding that you can master it, or even 60 or 70% mastery means something, going around the horn, we're going to plan a besty trip, and we might even allow besties to come for the first live Bestie show. What is your vote? I want everybody to type it into the chat room.

I, everybody's gonna type in where they most wanna have a Bestie show. Oh right, I like it. Okay, so Jamoth and I both wanna go to New York, Sacks wants to go to Miami to see Keith Roboi and Peter Tio, his Besties. Those are his alternate universe besties by the way. They won't do a podcast together.

Oh my God, how great would that podcast be? I think you call that the righties. The righties. You've got the besties, you've got the leesties, you've got the righties. I'm starting the leesties. It's going to be me, Howard Linson, Sarah Cone, and Prof G. Prof G. Now, why wouldn't you call it the leasties, it's going to be me, Howard Linson, Sarah Cone, and Prof G.

Prof G. Now, why won't you call it the worsties? The worsties. Yeah, I'm going to do the worsties. Just as a thing, I had an idea. Here's an idea. If we want to be the number one podcast, Friedberg, do you have any of that Molly from your 1999 2000 era?

I've never done Molly. I've never done Molly. Okay, sure. You just made your own synthesis of it and took it. Okay. Great. Here's how we become the number one podcast. We all take Molly at the start of the podcast. And we start the podcast 30 minutes in. And then we see if David's actually say, I love you. Can I just say we've done more self referential naval gazing bullshit on this pod than any other pod and I don't know This is like even worse than you don't listen to people. We may need to splice and fly

Nick will need to edit the fuck out of this and spike it Spike it all right here. We love you boys. I love you besties Love you David love you other David. I got you. Love you to mouth pal. We upgraded the David's by the way with their outrage and contancurus firmware, which we saw from Friedberg when he threatened to quit the podcast over the publishing over the Robin head. No, that's why we added the thirst trap feature set. That's why he went to throbbing and pulsating. He was a throbbing and pulsing. We'll see.

Oh, that's time on The All In Pod. What like your winners ride? Rainman David Sack. What a cool win. And it said we open source it to the fans. And they've just gone crazy with it. Lumbia West. I'd be sweet up.

Can't walk. What a cool win. What? What? What are winners ride? I'm not sure. Besties are gone. Going all in Besties are gone We should all just get a room and just have one big huge or two because they're all just

It's like this like sexual tension, but we just need to release them out What your big B? What your beat beat? Beat your beat Beat your beat We need to get merch That's just our name I'm going on lead I'm going on lead

Do we know it?