All-In with Chamath, Jason, Sacks & Friedberg - E51: Supply Chain Shortages, Inflation, DeSantis, Ted Sarandos Netflix Memo, Cancel Culture, Fan Q&A

Episode Date: October 16, 2021

Show Notes: 00:00 Cold Open 01:19 Titles 01:01 Intro Banter 04:24 Supply chain, labor shortage,  34:04 Taiwan 43:14 Sacks Desantis 47:00 Dave Chappelle 01:08:24 FDA 01:23:27 Question 1 01:27:08 Question 2   Follow the besties:  https://twitter.com/chamath https://linktr.ee/calacanis https://twitter.com/DavidSacks https://twitter.com/friedberg   Follow the pod: https://twitter.com/theallinpod https://linktr.ee/allinpodcast   Intro Music Credit: https://rb.gy/tppkzl https://twitter.com/yung_spielburg   Intro Video Credit: https://twitter.com/TheZachEffect   Referenced in the show: Statista - The U.S. Car Models Most Impacted By The Microchip Shortage Zack Kanter on Twitter - "The “supply chain crisis” is a clever rebrand" Naithan Jones on Twitter - NFTs Daily Breeze - No start date for 24/7 operations at Port of LA LA Daily News - Port of LA to go to 24/7 operations, Biden announces Nikkei Asia - TSMC announces plans to build first chip plant in Japan St. Louis Fed - Total Public Debt as Percent of Gross Domestic Product Forbes - Druckenmiller Blasts Fed’s ‘Radical’ Stimulus Policy David Sacks on Twitter - Desantis Dinner Variety - Ted Sarandos Doubles Down The Light of Other Days by Arthur C. Clarke CFTC Orders Tether and Bitfinex to Pay Fines Totaling $42.5 Million NBC -  Most adults shouldn't take daily aspirin Botched - Man Wins $100,000 Breast Implants Bet!

Yesterday the game went off the chain. It was, we started off at 500 and a thousand and then we were like, ah, these $500 chips are so annoying that we started to play 1,000, 1,000, then it was 1,000, 2,000, then it's a 1,000, 2,000, 4,000, then 1,000, 2,000, 4,000, 8,

then 1,000, 2,000, 4,000, 4,000, 1,000, 4,000, 4,000, 16, 30, 2,000, coming around. Oh my God, how much can I lose? What's the big winner and big loser? How much? How much can I say? Just how much? What was the big winner and big loser? How much? How much?

Just tell us how much. Out 800. I put minus 800. Minus 700. Don't say these fucking names, bro. How'd you do, Chimoff? I don't care. Yo, oh, oh, hey.

You can tell that Chimoff lost because when you ask him, how'd you do? And it's like, he goes from this super effusive talking about the game to just like one work. Fine. Okay. Fine, okay. How is your knife good? He's like, look, I shit $42 million for breakfast.

It was fine. Here we go. Three, two. What? You're like your winner's ride. Rainman David's side. Hey everybody, welcome to another episode of the All in Podcasts, 50 episodes down. And yeah, we'll definitely get three or four more in before the Ben breaks up with us today again from an undisclosed location.

David Sacks, the rainman himself, Tremoth Polyhapatia, the dictator, and the queen of Kinh Wai. David Friedberg, how's everybody doing? How's everybody feeling? How's everybody's week going? Really great. Yours? Just great. Awesome. I feel really good. I feel super grateful. Really? Markets are a good game. Yeah, the stock Mark is up tonight. He feels grateful. I mean, I feel grateful. Been a good week. It's been a good week.

I feel so much equanimity. Mark is up 4%. Free break, how are you doing? My wife went to the hospital three times this week. All three times thinking she was in labor. Hey, how do I, I mean, we're two centimeters dilated. We're still waiting here. I mean, we are there too.

And we're just waiting any day, like literally any hour. Um, so we were, I mean, get action on this. Can we, can we bet who's going to come first? Or I think I think freeberg's going to come first because it's his third. It's the only net. It's Allison's third. It's that second. Okay. Yeah. So we can lay odds two to one. Where we get, I'll take the over under on what day is it today? There's the 15th. We're getting induced on the 26th, that's 11 days from now.

I'll take the overrunner on the, I think the overrunner on the 21st. That you're shutting the line? I'll set the line with the 21st of October. I'm going over, I'll go over for a thou. This is for that. Book it. OK. Yeah, for Nat.

You got the OB and the under. What do you got, sax over under on the 21st? 26 is the expected date. Where are we better? I'm not going to have to get out of this today. Some people change their children. When their children are born. Right, I'm going to get out of this.

They're children are born. Get action. I got you guys a little too old, be having kids. Yeah. I mean, you're going to see them graduate. Sax, too old to be having kids. Yeah. Are you even going to see them graduate? You got to be sacked to me. I mean, sacks, some of us are a whole bar mitzvah younger than you. Exactly.

So you snipped, if anybody was snipped, I would guess it would be sacks. Are you sn-are you snippy-snippy? Is this the type of vital information you think the audience wants to know? Yeah, I think they do actually. I think that's a yes. I think he's been snipped. Jamal is definitely not snipped. Hmm. You can.

You can. He birds not. You want to come over here and. In the. The presentation. It's kind of an inspection. I don't think I don't think you can visually understand. Let's let's.

We got a. We got a buzzer. Let's not go. It's not visually understandable. Freeberg's definitely not snipped as proven by his wife being pregnant. I don't think you say SNIP, bro. I think you just say Vasek to me, bro.

Ah, I'm just, you know, I think you say SNIP. I think Saks has been snipped. That's actually a good bet. We could book it on Saks being snipped. Okay, listen, a lot of topics to get to. I think we were trying to get to this topic last week. There's been a supply chain interruption right now. There's some shortages, obviously,

of key components like microchips. We all know this. According to Car and Driver, the top three models impacted by the chip shortage were the Ford F-Series pickup trucks, Jeep Cherokee SUVs, and the Chevy Equinox SUVs. Basically, a lot of the cars that have advanced driving systems are now removing them.

I was looking at getting an SUV for the winner and I was looking at the Cadillac Escalade and they took self-driving out of the 2022 model or the autopilot basically because they can't get the chips. And we all know why this is happening, obviously COVID. And then also on top of it, demand. So people are buying second computers, third computers, places like Dell are having an apple, are selling a lot of desks, tops, a lot of laptops.

And there's also a labor shortage. So the labor force, obviously, here in the United States is much more than it was. We all know that people are raising salaries to try to get people to come back to work. They're turning off the bonus unemployment early in some states. We're here in October. This is also supposed to be turned off by now. So I guess I'll start with you, Chimoff, in terms of the markets here. What do you think is happening? And is this an acute risk or just something

that will pass? I think the, well, this is where I think I kind of generally disagree with the market. I think that most people are under the impression that these are short-term kind of contractions and expansions and that this is just the thing that needs to get worked through the system as we readjust to oppose COVID world blah blah blah. I think it's different. And the reason I think it's different is if you just look at one thing and one thing only, which is that we have a massive labor shortage in America and there is an incredible stat that I saw, which was the average hourly earnings of non-manager people in hospitality and travel. And the average salary, the mean salary, was around 20 some odd dollars an hour, and it's now 33 bucks an hour. And so what that, to me, says,

is that we are going through a really sustained period where you cannot get people to do the work that needs to get done. Biden had to call the Port of LA and try to get these guys to be open 24 hours a day. The President of the United States is calling a local port trying to get it to stay open. But why can't they stay open? Because you have Long Sherman, you have all these Unionized folks who will expect to get certain levels of compensation, which they deserve in order to do that work 24-7, but then all of that is going to get put through the system. And if you still have millions of jobs it needs to get done in order for the economy to function,

the only efficient way that that's going to get resolved is by raising salaries. And those are consistent and persistent. Wait, those things are not just like, oh, you know what I gave? Yes, I did say 50 bucks an hour, but now I'm taking you back to 20. Yeah, you can't take that fast. That's going to be that's. So, I'm in. So I tend to, so that's one thing. And then second, so there's people, right? So labor capital, I just think it's getting more and more expensive to get folks to do work. And then there's the raw materials that you use to make anything. And everything that I see is that stuff is going bananas.

And so I put these two things together and I'm like, I think this stuff is here to stay. I'm really kind of a little bit of a, you know, and I had not worried. And you can see in every episode before this, I was always consistently like, there is no inflation. You can fade the inflation trade. Now I'm kind of positioning myself to hedge myself in this situation. All right, freeberg. We've seen the pictures of the Long Beach and the Los Angeles ports. There's just ships out there. I think 70 or 80 is where it peaked at in July. I don't know, have

the latest data here, I've went and updated. But is there not a silver lining here that if people are making more money, then we're going to increase the size of the middle class and we're going to increase upward mobility. And that is a double edge door. It's great that we increased the middle class. But then they're going to want to buy stuff. So people are now making $35 an hour, and they were making $20. Now they got more disposable. Now they're going to go on Amazon and buy more stuff, and it's going to accelerate this problem.

Is it not? The challenge is the rate of change. This is what the Fed tries to manage, and there's a White House Economic Advisory Committee that's involved in trying to figure out what's going to happen here. Because the current estimate is it's going to take at least a year or probably a year to work through the current log jam and the global supply chains. And during that period of time, as Shimak points out, what's happening is the cost for goods is climbing because people have to charge more because there's limited inventory and people

are bidding up the value of that inventory. As they do that, the businesses end up needing to get more labor, and so they have to pay more to hire people. If they pay more to hire people, those people end up demanding more. And the cycle can actually go the wrong direction where you have an inflationary spike that persists.

How do you taper that inflation? It's not necessarily great for economic growth if you can't produce the stuff. And it can actually cause these runaway kind of effects in the dynamic system of supply and demand when you have these things clogging up the system for supply. So it is a real risk. And it is the biggest thing that the White House,

this economic task force is kind of trying to figure out right now, is where is the balance lie where you can basically try and taper this inflationary effect that's being caused by this log jam and the supply chain without causing economic disruption by raising interest rates. So it's a really complicated second and third derivative formula that needs to be resolved, and that's why so many of these little elements are so important to get right. By the way, central bankers around the world have race rates. The only place that hasn't gone up is Europe, ECB, and the United States of Federal Reserve.

Let's be honest, Europe and the United States, we absorb labor and materials from all around the world. We are the net importers. We are the net ultimateorters, we are the net ultimate buyers of last resort of all of these things. And so if you're seeing inflation in those other, you know, supply-driven economies, they are going to come on shore, they're going to hit us in the face. I think prices are going up. The other free market argument that could be made is that these current trends will accelerate

a trend towards more automation of low cost labor. Because it now will make sense for businesses to invest in the capital, in the CapEx, in the infrastructure and ultimately for technology companies to build that tooling to support that infrastructure that will automate jobs like working in fast food, like doing local delivery, like doing factory assembly, like moving things across the country and trucks,

so self-driving trucks, factory automation, biomanufacturing, additive and 3D manufacturing and 3D printing, these are all industries that could benefit from the fact that labor now for traditionally low income work has gotten so expensive that it starts to make sense to switch to the technology alternative, which historically may have been too expensive, but now starts to make economic sense to businesses. There's a number of these automation industries that may significantly benefit, and that ends up ultimately being deflationary and the market comes in the

balance. That's another way to think about the macro on what may play out here. There's a bigger risk here than just inflation. I mean, there's also a risk of stagnation or stagnation because it's not just that prices are going up and workers' wages are going up, which could be a good thing. But goods and services are being produced. So, I mean, I know like my own experience,

I recently ordered a Tesla. When I got a Tesla a couple of years ago, I got it in two weeks. It was like almost instant. This time, they wanted me to wait two months, and it's gotten alert that it's going to take two more months beyond that. So we have no idea. And if Tesla doesn't get most of the money, I don't think until I actually take delivery of the car, right?

That's when you make final payment. So now they can't book that revenue and those earnings and Tesla isn't even the car company that's most affected by this, you know the big You know traditional American auto companies like Ford are even more affected so if Companies cannot deliver their products you that can cause an economic recession And I think like these are major storm clouds moving on the horizon. Now, what is the cause of this? I mean, I think it's multifactorial. A lot of things that Shema said,

I just want to really highlight this port issue. There was a great tweet storm by his aunt, or earlier in the week, where he said, the supply chain crisis is a clever rebrand. It makes it seem like there are grand exogenous forces at work rather than the unions holding ports for ransom while dozens of ships pile up Working just two shifts with a two-hour break in between the country at their mercy And he goes on to elaborate on that and that is why

They're allowed to do that But to to Moss point this is why Biden felt the need to get involved so That the problem is if you read the fine print on this story of Biden announcing that the ports of LA and Long Beach will open 24 hours, which they clearly need to get the goods to market. If you read the bottom part of the story, everyone's announcing their intention to go 24-7, but there is no date certain for when that's going to be. It's a negotiation with the union. So, to your point, they are going to have to negotiate with the unions.

Initially, it looked like the story was that Biden was going to use his sway, his clout with the unions to basically push them to take a deal, but I don't think he's really done that. Everyone's just announcing their intentions to negotiate. Well, if the ports are holding the whole country hostage like this, that could cause a recession. I think that's going to re-offering. I think they're running 24-7 now, aren't they, Seth? Long Beach NLA are both running 24-7.

Well, I just posted this article that came out, I mean, like yesterday, and it says it was published two days ago and it said there was not a date certain for when it's oh it's updated October 14th which is yesterday and if you read the bottom of the article it says they have not determined a date for when 24 seven operations will start they've just merely announced their intention. Oh yeah I'm just going to get the Biden administration says it's not really they may announce it as if it was a done-done But look, unless Biden is willing to listen, I mean, Timothy Wright that they're entitled to negotiate, but here's the thing, I mean, they're holding the whole country hostage now, they're holding the economy hostage.

So at a certain point, if their demands are unreasonable, it's, I think, proper for the President of the United States to step in and say, guys, this is ridiculous, you have to go back to work, we're going to make, you know, we're gonna help negotiate a deal here That's what Reagan did with the air traffic controllers the air traffic controllers union shut down the whole Commercial aviation system Reagan got involved said you cannot shut down You can't use this way. You must go back to work. Yes, exactly. So I think Biden is probably gonna have to get a Longshoreman are or the ports. I guess they're not striking. They're just not doing an extra shift. But he could do it in a second or more.

If they're doing two shifts, if they're doing two shifts two hours a day, that's like withholding, that's like a partial strike. Wait, wait, they're doing two two hour shifts or two eight hours. That's what Zach can't say. Eight hour shifts.

They can't be doing two hour shifts. That's why we need to go to work for two hours. Read what Zach can or post it. He said that they're working just two shifts with a two hour break in between. Okay, but those might're working just two shifts with a two hour break in between. Okay, but those might be two eight hour shifts with a two hour break in between. Is that how I read that? No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no 6 p.m. to 3 a.m. An overnight shift to five hours is available, but it is up to 50% more expensive and rarely used.

So basically you're talking about, yeah, it's an 8 to 4 p.m. shift with a 2 r.b. or 6 p.m. to 3.m. So, yes, so it is for that 6 hour, that's 2 6 hour shifts. They should be running it like, you know, you long runs, the test of factors when they're building, which is 24 hours a day, overlapping shifts. Yeah, they're going to have to pay them over time. They're gonna have to pay them some reasonable over time But they can the unions can hold the whole country hostage and look if Biden unless Biden steps into solve this We will have a recession so it will Also, we do think that this could be a recession

I think it's bigger than just the ports. I don't think reopening the ports is is the entirety of it I think there's a lot of other things going on. I mean, Jake, how to a point you've made. We had four million people drop out of the labor force last month. I mean, that was unbelievable. So yeah, the unemployment rate looks great, but the number of people actually going to work is significantly lower. I mean, that was a huge shock to all the economists seeing that many people drop out.

There's still too many people who essentially are being paid not to work in one form or another, and that is hurting the economy. You also have this issue in China, which is very interesting. This was I think covered in the New York Times about how dependent Chinese factories are on coal. And which is a bad thing, obviously, that's not a clean energy source.

But because of restrictions on coal, it's actually started to impact manufacturing over there. We can debate know, is a bad thing. Obviously, that's not a clean energy source. But because of restrictions on coal, it's actually started to impact manufacturing over there. We can debate whether that's a good thing or bad thing. But it's contributing to the effect. I suspect that China has woken up to this and they will, they're not gonna shut down their economy because of concerns about clean energy. So I assume this is a very temporary decision.

And then of course, you have the whole issue of COVID restrictions. I mean, there have the whole issue of COVID restrictions. I mean, there were a lot of international COVID restrictions. It wasn't just in the US that where they were shutting down factories or creating, you know, a lot of rules that got in the way of keeping factories open. They were doing this internationally and there's a lot of regulations around seafaring as well because of COVID restrictions. So you have this pile up, I would say, of regulations ultimately,

I'd say with COVID is the origin that have now caused this supply chain crisis. And unless it gets fixed, it could absolutely cause a 1970 style stagflation type recession next year. Too bad to you by that. You think we could have this combination of people refusing to go to work or just opting out and saying like, yeah, even if you pay me 35 or 40, I'm just not interested. I have enough NFTs and I don't want to go back to work.

I actually think that's exactly what it is. There was this really interesting fleet that I saw on Twitter, hopefully Nick, you can find it. But it was some kid that basically said, you know, I'm growing up in, and there's a bunch of kids that I used to run with, who would otherwise be in the streets, right? Posing all kinds of trouble. And these kids are now at home, like specking NFTs and like,

posting on TikTok or whatever. It's just a completely different reimagination of like labor and time spent. And that's just a very small example. That maybe touches retail or maybe touches quick service restaurants. There's all these different things that are now at the end of this pandemic. People are making very different decisions about their time and how to spend their money. Again, I'll tell you again, there's a lot of people.

You got to remember how many people in the United States have died or are dealing now with some reasonable, the important health issues at the back end of coronavirus? Half a million people, a million people. I want you to keep in mind what I told you guys before. There is $70 trillion that has to get transferred down from all these baby boomers down to these people in their 20s, 30s and 40s. And don't think for a second that they're not making different optimization decisions around perceived wealth.

So I just think inflation is here. I think the labor shortage is going to get worse, not better. I think we're going to have to pay people more to get out of it. I think prices are going up. Input costs are going up, input costs are going up, energy costs are going up. So this is it. And I mean, I think that probably the Fed and the ECB

are really raising. This time next year, they're probably in a really, really tighter posture. What do you think, Freeberg? We should also remember that there are going to be some responses from Freeberg Glassing text stocks in the fucking toilet. Why? Because no bueno for no cash flow growth stocks.

Yeah, rising everybody. Everyone's going to start buying yield when the actual poop. Nobody wants it. Yeah, keep poops. Let's explain this to the audience. Why Freeberg? Why, why, why, you're really much much more? I mean, once interest rates go up, you'll see that dividend yields will go up, which means stock prices go down, because people will expect a higher return, because

if I can buy treasury bonds and make a few points of return on my money, and I'm going to have to buy a stock, I'm going to want to, I'm going to demand a few more points of dividend yield on that stock. And so the price for stocks will typically go down to match the yield that you're gonna get from these more risk-free investments. I don't know, to be more precise. A stock is either a promise note about cash today or effectively a promiseary note about cash in the future.

Thing with tech stocks is we tell everybody the same same thing your money is gonna come 30 years from now because we're gonna be a monopoly by then and Every dollar that I have today. I'm gonna reinvest into R&D and engineering and In an in an environment where interest rates are zero you're happy to do it because you're like well great These guys are investing at way better rates than zero, which is what I get from my bank. And so I want Facebook and Google and Amazon and all these startups to be putting all this money in the ground on my behalf. Oh, when interest rates start going up,

they say, no, hold on a second, I need more money upfront, less money in the future because the future becomes more uncertain. And that's the big tradeoff for tech companies where they get really pummeled. Okay, well, is there a number of... And by a number and there's a class of tech companies, right? Like Amazon, sorry, like Microsoft, Oracle, Google, where you are actually seeing an Apple, you're getting dividends and you're getting share buybacks where the cash is coming out

of the business. And those are the mature businesses that also still happen to have growth attached to them. And I don't see how portfolios are going to shed those assets. You're going to shed the more speculative, hey, we're not yet at a point of maturity. We're still 20, 30 years out. Whatever. The guys that are investing and there's no line of sight to true catch flow coming back to the shareholders.

But look, at the end of the day, the point I was trying to make earlier was that there is going to be a response, right? So we've seen, remember when the pandemic kind of set in and everyone started ordering from home, Amazon rushed out and hired 100,000 local delivery drivers, they bought all these trucks and they built their own supply chain infrastructure for last mile delivery to get products to people's homes.

And we're now seeing on the other side, Walmart, Home Depot, Target, and other big retailers integrating their supply chain to get product into stores. And so they're starting to buy trucks, hire people, pay them significant wages to be drivers on staff for them, rather than contracting to these third parties that are saying, oh, we don't have any inventory, we don't have any crocs, we don't have any drivers, we can't do anything for you now. And so the responses, think about it, your product company product company. You're Tesla. Tesla just went out and did this massive deal in Caledonia

to source some mineral that they need to make batteries or to make their cars. I can't remember exactly what it was. Nickel, go ahead. You're increasingly going to see the businesses that have a balance sheet step up and actually start to integrate their supply chains. Rather than have this...

You're full stack. More resilient. The kind of this disparate set of service providers each of which is only kind of is all Typically operating at max capacity and then they can't kind of respond to these sorts of jolt to the system And so we're gonna see a lot of investment I think by businesses that make product or deliver product of the consumer as they try and integrate the supply chain problem themselves And that may take some of the strain off the system and some of the inflationary risk out of the equation. We'll see you over the next couple of quarters. But certainly in this last earnings report,

I saw some statistic, a very large percentage of earnings reports spoke directly about supply chain disruption, affecting the forecast for the business, the mobility for the business to meet their forecast goals. And that's just hurting everyone. Okay, so throwing just something. So they're gonna have to do something about it

if they're resource to do it, right? All right, so SACs though, there are some silver linings here. Companies become more resilient. They become more automated. They build a full stack. They build their own factories. We're seeing, you know, the Taiwanese semi conductor company is doing a $7 billion project to build a new factory

in Japan funded by the Japanese government. So we're seeing a lot of redundancy and we're also seeing the middle class grow. If people are making $35 an hour, $40 an hour, and they're getting healthcare and they're starting to have overtime and other concessions being made, that builds the middle class. It sounds like we're solving some problems as well as, you know, dealing with this, I guess what you call it, absolutely. Inflation is a good thing. I know people think it's a really bad, terrible thing. There are certain kinds of inflation that are really productive. We had to find a way to fight the bad parts of technology. Technology is great. Nine out of 10 things, it's amazing.

Efficiency, all these great characteristics that it gives you, but one crappy externality of technology, it's deflationary. You can do more with less, and that's fundamentally not great for earnings. It's not great for labor participation. It's not great for all these things that people are really upset about today. So, it's great for the these things that people are really upset about today. It's great for the individual company getting nice things. I actually think it's kind of like it actually balances out the natural pace of technology,

which is like you have the natural ability to just actually have cheaper, faster, better this inherent efficiency that's building up on one side of the ledger. Often what's great is on the other side of the ledger, you actually have labor being able to balance it out. And I think that that's a really good thing because they can demand more to do the rest of the work that's not covered by tech. So that's important. What are your thoughts about this expanding middle class?

Isn't it a great thing that people are saying, I'll stay home instead of making $12 an hour, it's an unfair wage, it's not a livable wage. And then all of these companies are saying, you know what, okay, they folded so quick, the big companies, they went to 18 to $35 an hour instantly, they always had the money to pay more, they just didn't need to. Increasing wages in real terms is a good thing. I think you have to ask why the wages are going up, is it going up because of increased

productivity, which is a good thing, or is it going up because of inflation? It's going up because of inflation, then the wage gains are somewhat illusory, because all the products that consumers want to buy are also going up in price. All we've done is sort of devalue the dollar. So we don't know yet whether these, well, we do know that inflation is actually very high. We don't know exactly if these wage gains are permanent or just a function of that But let's go back to this inflation point for a second. I think this is actually really important. We're at something like a 5.1% inflation rate. It's just about the highest Since the late 70s early 80s now we have this threat of a supply chain crisis. This is you know, this is We have a supply chain crisis. This is, you know, deep, this is potentially a second- No, we have a supply chain crisis.

It's not a threat. I mean, people can't sell cars. Right, this is a risk. It's a risk. It's a risk. It's a risk. It's a risk. It's a risk.

It's a risk. It's a risk. It's a risk. It's a risk. It's a risk. It's a risk. It's a risk. Right.

It's a risk. Right. It's a risk. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right but I actually think that the degrees of action that the Fed can take here might be more constrained than people think. I just want to flag. So one of the primary source I use for the National Debt is this website,

Fred.StluisFed.org. It's a good website that has a lot of charts by a branch of the Fed. So they have this chart. We've seen that federal debt as a percentage of GDP is at sort of all time, peace time highs. We're now, we were at 100% for a few years, and now because of COVID, we just rocketed up

over 120%, we're close to 140%. Now, the argument by mostly liberal economists that the debt didn't matter was because the debt service remained very low on this debt. So we had a huge increase in debt, but because it interest rates were so low, the debt service was still very, very small. And I think they have a good piece on this website about this as well that I'll just post here in the notes.

But I think I don't know if you guys remember back to a pod we did in May where we talked about Stanley Druckenmiller came out swinging against the Fed and he warned about this very situation. I just want to like, I want to just read this article that we covered back, I think in May, it feels like an eternity ago. But remember when we just talked about this, what Druckermiller warned is that if yields on the 10 year treasury rise, the projected level of 4.9%, which is simply the historical average, the government spending would be close to 30% of GDP each year simply paying back interest expense compared to 2% last year, unless it monetizes the debt, which experts think is unlikely in drug and milliverelies would

have horrible implications for you as dollar. So in other words, we now have this enormous debt. The only reason why debt service payments aren't crowding out the entire federal budget is because you've had interest rates at zero. And we're at normal lows, zero is basically. Yeah. So how exactly is the Fed going to fight inflation? If they jack up interest rates to where they should be, say, four per nine percent, then the entire federal budget will be going

to get serious. They're actually working against themselves, right? It's like you're the bank and taking the loan at the same time. This is like somebody who gets a variable interest mortgage and they get five, ten years into their mortgage and then all of a sudden they go from interest only and some low interest rate and then they have to pay market rate and they realize they can't afford the home. We might not be able to afford the budget we're putting out there is what you're saying, Zach. Well, I'm saying the Fed may not have the tools all the tools they want to

fight inflation if it comes back or I mean it's gonna be politically very unpopular. I mean can you imagine the pressure the Fed will be under not to raise rates if it means that all of these discretionary programs basically have to be cut that we have an austerity mode in the federal budget. How are we gonna pay for all this debt service? Yeah and then the first thing they're gonna think about is hey maybe we should cut military spending since it's the largest at the time when China is doing sororities in and around Taiwan and the South China Sea.

And we've got six navies doing coordinated sailing there, which I think is a adjacent issue here. Historically, historically, great powers that want to remain great Don't owe over a hundred percent of their economy Especially you know and a lot of it's held by foreign powers. I mean that is a situation that makes us fragile Not anti-fragile right because if we hit a crisis if there is you know some unforeseen military conflict What what glass to be now in case of emergency? We've already spent, we're in peacetime and we have wartime levels of debt.

Now inflation is making a return and the Fed is going to have to make some really tough choices about whether to control inflation and essentially impose austerity on government spending or whether they monetize the debt, which will lead to a runaway depreciation of the dollar. Neither one of those things is a good situation. How would they have fending those all sturdy? Well, they can't, but again, if debt service rises to 30% of the federal budget, where's I money going to come from?

You have to raise taxes and cut spending. You got to be doing well. Which is why, and I think this is Joe Manchin's point. You know, if you've been listening to Joe Manchin talk about the current reconciliation bill and he says, look, 3.5 trillion doesn't make sense. We don't know what situation we're going to confront in the future. We don't know what crises are coming. We're going to reduce our ability to tackle all those future problems by overspending

right now. That's been Joe Manchin's argument. And looking at this risk of statflation in the forms of the supply chain shortage and this 5.1% interest rate number, you'd have to say that if we want to preserve any flexibility next year to raise interest rates, you better be really careful about how much debt you incur now. Come on.

Great. Sorry. Yeah. Look, when when trucks said that the 10-year break even was sort of at a five of five year high at the time Go back there now But I'm just gonna I said this on CNBC. I'll just say it again. I think it's coming I don't think it's a short-term blip and I think that we are in a period that will resemble the late 70s.

And I think that you kind of want to be risk off and not own risk assets. And by the way, it is hard, because we are all, all of us, all four of us, both risk, all, we're both risk on. And all we own are risk assets that are, you know, it's one thing to say, let's take risk, but you could take risk in like lower of all things. This is like taking risk in the most risky thing. That's what we all do. And at a time when people have run up the valuations of private market companies to a level that

just nobody can understand. I mean, look, I think you got a year to 18 months to kind of clean this stuff up, meaning like as market participants, we can, you know, we can shut and jive and get everything into a decent place, but it's coming. And I hope I'm wrong, but I think we'll look back on this and we'll say we said it probably eight to 12 months before it really reared its up we had but it's done. Freeberg, any thoughts on what's happening in Taiwan and what, you know, even a modest conflict that would do to markets, given how to Sax's point, this is the opposite of anti-fragile. We are in like full fragility here. I mean, this is like, you know, a tray-folless

champagne glasses on a boat and rough seas. any point we could trip and everything comes crashing down Does it feel like that to you free burger? Do you feel like we're gonna be able to navigate this? I mean, I don't know about Taiwan, but I think we're just gonna keep inflating our way out of this mess remember like that that's what we did last year and It's what we'll do again this year. The biggest losers in that equation are the middle class, cause the middle class actually owns assets

that are now gonna be worth less. Folks who are not in the middle class that are below the middle class don't own assets or doesn't really affect them, they just make higher wages, but stuff costs more, so they'll be fine. And then, you know, wealthy individuals will end up getting taxed away to fund some of this. And I think that's the inevitable kind of way that the equation balances. Right.

I mean, so think about how much tax rates are about to go up right now in this reconciliation bill. We haven't even gotten to like any of these crises. By the way, we don't know for sure if they're gonna happen. I think we can describe these things as storm clouds right now that are very much on the horizon. Multiple storm clouds, right? Sort of like they're converging. Right, and if they do materialize in the way

that we're talking about what weapons do we have left in order to fight them? What weapons of fiscal policy? What weapons of monetary policy? We're already gonna have taxes on all time high. Yeah, we're going to have taxes on money. No, we're going to print money and we're going to pay ourselves. We're going to go to the central bank. It's what you said. We're going to monetize our debt. And taxes will go up. That is a bad. Remember, the top marginal tax rate was what? 70, 80% in the 60s and 70s. I mean,

you know, that's likely where we're going to go back to. Well, I think we're already going to be back there as a result of the reconciliation. The spending we've already done. Yeah, but we've already broken the glass in case of emergency. We're already. You're going to you're going to see some of these wealth taxes get chased down. You're going to see the top marginal tax rate go up 70 80%. You know, I mean, I think that's the way the equation balances. It's not like the world's going to end. We're going to solve it by taking assets away from some and we're gonna inflate all assets like that. That sounds pretty bad. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, 78 if you know it's not gonna, it's not gonna, it's not gonna affect most people into most people. That's not the solution, freeberg. It will affect most

people. It will affect most people even though they don't think it will because it's gonna affect the quality of our economy. I'm just trying to predict what's going to happen, SACs. I'm not saying this is the solution to our problem. I mean, I think the solution to our problem is technology, but the question is, does that come to market faster now? Say more about that. I feel like we need a deflationary set of technologies that can mitigate all of these effects, right?

So, software, automation, self-driving trucks, things that take the labor force, because people don't want to work low-income jobs, factually. And now that there's a world where people have other options, because other jobs have been created, because we pump so much money into these other industries, we're seeing people migrate away from low-income jobs, like driving a truck for $10 an hour, or working at McDonald's for $8 an hour. And so to fill that gap and avoid the economic collapse that will occur in those sectors of the economy,

you need to automate, and you need to find solutions that can replace the labor with some alternative technology solution that actually allows the product to be fulfilled to the consumers that demand it, or you're gonna see rates go up, like you're gonna be paying $12 for a hamburger because you're going to have to pay everyone $25 for working McDonald's. Would an easy or traumatic or something, either you can take it, I'm sure you're both

going to have opinions here. But we've been battling over immigration and nobody seems to understand how many people are coming into the country or under what system. Should we not tie the number of jobs available over the trailing X number of months, year, quarter, to how many people were bringing to the country? And couldn't we solve this by allowing five million people, a million people, whatever it is, per year, a half million people, in to take those low income jobs and utilize that group of people to, you know, I think it's businesses back on track. I think it's too convenient to say that these are all low income jobs.

I don't think that's necessarily true And I think that it then starts to introduce a whole bunch of other constraints to the system These are folks that then need health care. These are folks that need child care. These are folks that need you know that they are also Attacks on resources as well, right? We are all tax on the natural resources and the infrastructure of our country. And so, you know, I don't think that that's the solution necessarily to that specific problem. But what if the jobs that we're... We have enough people here to do the work. But what we don't have is a market clearing price for that work to get done. And so what

I'm just trying to say is, I think that the simpler and more obvious solution is to raise salaries until you get people to fill these jobs. And I think that it's happening. And so I do think that over the next year or two or three, you're going to see, you know, labor rates basically go back up and employment rates go back down. And salaries go back up and inflation go back up. All of these things are going to happen together. That's the solution.

I think immigration is a solution to a completely different problem, which is that we're not competitive. I really think you're talking about bringing an elite highly educated technical people. Look, I really think that running a country should really be like running a sports team and recruit the best talent. And you should really be recruiting the best talent. You should be looking at game film. You should be coming up with plays.

You should be running and testing those plays. You know, you should have different plays that you run in the first quarter versus the fourth quarter, different plays when you're on the goal line. Sure. You know, and, and I think that like when you look at professional sports, one thing is that they don't see color, gender, sexual orientation, they see ability to be performed. Statistics. Add a task.

And statistical excellence. Yeah. And then they go seek statistical excellence. And if you translate that to a country, my simple rubric on immigration is every year, there's a draft. And America is the free place every free agent. We're the Yankees. Yeah, we're the Warriors. I fuck the Yankees.

We're like the Warriors. Okay, these are trash. Jesus Christ. I'm just going with the story. We historically has won the most. We're the New England Patriots. Okay, we're the Chicago Bulls. We are the team that everybody would want to play for. It's up to us to have a good GM

And a good president of the team at a good front office that just picks off all these smart geniuses This should be I think you're great point here, Tomoff is you're saying let's take the emotion out of this immigration And let's make it a point-based system which by the way the point-based system is what Australian New Zealand the UK Canada all do and Americans don't even know what the point-based system is what? Australia, New Zealand, the UK, Canada all do. And Americans don't even know what the point-based system is. Sacks, what are your views? As somebody who I've heard, leans a little bit to the right on opening up immigration or maybe sweeping all this amazing talent globally, who have the highest statistics go. I like Jamas' sports demonology. We want to get the biggest stars from all over the world to come to the US. I mean, I think that makes sense. I think, you know, this so-called

immigration issue gets so confused with so many different things. I mean, first of all, there's immigration, and then there's border security, right? And immigration or just having a border period. And so many people think that if you get pro-immigration, you basically can't have a border. I mean, that makes no sense. You know, we need to have a border and we need to have actual, like, have an actual immigration policy shouldn't just get be like, okay, you make it across. I like you were president or if you're a guy run to Santa's becomes president, what should is, what will you tell Ron?

I like what you're saying with, I like what you're saying with the point system having it be skills based. I mean that makes sense right with the Republicans do that They've been so emotionally tied to this issue because of Trump can they actually You know tie themselves to something performance based and be not emotional about it. Can they change their position? I think Trump actually did endorse like a more skills-based immigration system. I think that, and I don't know that Republicans are the ones being emotional about it. I mean, the people right here. Well, no, both sides are clearly

too emotional about it. The side that I think is like insane are the people who don't think we need a border. I mean, you clearly have to have a border. Yes. And even Obama came out recently, made a statement that you have to have a border because the progressive left had gone so far.

It's almost like they wanted to be whatever Trump was doing, they wanted to do the opposite of. It's like pull the 180. And so it's almost like the Biden administration policy became to stop doing whatever it was a Trump was doing, including finishing the wall. I don't really understand why that was like such a problem. Yeah, building a wall also seemed like ridiculous. We could just put that down.

It's just one piece, it's just one piece of the solution, but to stop it in mid-construction. Let me ask you a question. It broke this week that you're hosting a fundraiser for Rondesantis. You got a little bit of blowback from that, from the woke, you know, in the San Francisco crowd. But in terms of your influence with somebody like that, do you think you can actually influence them to get Ron to send us to listen to

this episode and maybe talk about the point-based system and change the framing of that? Do you think you have enough influence to do that? I don't know. I mean, I don't know exactly what his position on immigration is. That's not, that's not like the set of issues that I respect him for. I mean, the reason why I wanted to support DeSantis is that he was the first governor to end these insane lockdowns. And I mean, this was back in it should have been obvious to everybody by May of 2020 that the lockdowns didn't work. And he was the first one to roll them back. And and Florida did very well, especially considering that they have

certainly old people in Florida. So, you know, on the whole, not what I have done, everything exactly the way he did it, no, you know. Nobody did it perfectly. Is he a Trump supporter and a Trump accolade, or is he distancing himself in Trump? I think, honestly, I think that like point of view is coming from the point of view of somebody who's not in the Republican Party, it doesn't have to deal with the dynamics of winning support in the Republican party. No, that's not what I'm saying. Yeah, so you have to basically tow the line with Trump to get the nomination. I don't see it as toying the line. I just think, look, I think he's his own person. He's the governor of Florida. He's setting policy over there. He can be supported or not based on what he's doing in Florida. I think like Trump is the issue

that everybody on the other side will want to talk about, but I don't think it's relevant to what he's doing. There isn't there is relevant to what he's doing. But what is the side of the Republican Party over this? And could we support Trump? I wouldn't say it's a civil war, but there definitely is some conflict. And yeah, I mean, I hope it resolves in, look, I think elections are always about the future.

I don't think people want to relitigate the past. And I think that, and I think that the Republican party be wise, I think, to find a candidate of the future and not try to rehash or relitigate the past. Another good reason for me to support DeSantis, I think he is a future looking, future oriented candidate. I do think that, look, I'll say it, the stuff I hear Trump doing now in these speeches where he's relitigating what happened last year and attacking other Republicans

like McConnell because he doesn't, because they failed his personal loyalty test. It's a little bit like what he did, frankly, in Georgia with the runoffs where he so so much chaos that the Republicans lost a seat, the Purdue seat, that they had won on election night and they had that runoff. And you have to say that a huge part of the reason for that was the, was Trump attacking Raffles Burger and and all the Georgia GOP because he thought they were insufficiently little to him. And then you know, you had the whole the tape come out of can you just find 11,000 votes. I mean, I think voters in Georgia punished the Republican Party for that by by giving

that seat to the Democrats. That is the that that margin created the Democratic majority, which will now give us probably an incremental four to six trillion of spending and tax increases that we would otherwise have had. So I, I do think these elections are very important and it would be who their Republicans. Look, I'm not, I'm not like one of these never Trumper people who, I'm just not obsessed with Trump period. I just think their Republicans need to run a future looking candidate, not a backwards looking candidate in 2024.

And I think DeSantis could be that guy. It's very, very early to say. I mean, the first thing he has to do is run for governor for re-election, which I think is next year's 2022. So I will support him for that. All right, you guys. Anybody read the Ted Ceren does, memo? Yeah, this is great.

We should definitely jump into this We talked about the Chappelle performance a sax and free version. You haven't seen it. Did you watch it? You watch it? God what nerd you ever watch it. Oh my god you guys are culturally bankrupt What are you guys doing this week like fucking beakers and like you know? Sacks you were just like you like in like some laboratory doing like Sack their beac, they were doing their, I haven't watched it yet, but I don't need to watch it to know I support it.

Ah, I've read it. He's just, yeah, he doesn't have to click on the link. All right, so just, there's almost nothing Chapelle could say to make me want to cancel him. I mean, and by the way,

I've seen a lot of Chapelle and I love Chapelle. So I think I understand that just what he was doing, but I do need to see it still. But look, he should not be canceled's ridiculous. Well, I don't think he is. He's gonna survive. But here's my concerns beyond this. Let me read you from it. So everybody knows the name of the special he did was the, it was released on October 5th, a lot of outcry from glad and advocacy groups

and actually people inside of Netflix, there's been some resignations, there have been some people who contribute content to Netflix who are now saying they'll not work with the company. And it's a really interesting Ted Seranto sent a memo to the entire company on Monday and he's, this is the second one He sent and he says we know that a number of you have been left angry disappointed and hurt by our decision to put Dave

Chappelle's latest special on Netflix very interesting opening He's he's addressing their feelings just this is a masterclass in a memo because in that first part He just addresses I understand you feel that way. With the closer, we understand that the concern is not about offensive to some content, but titles which could increase real world harm. So now he's framing their argument as, it's not because it's offensive, it's because of real world harm. You've brought this up before, SACs, the real world harm concept with Apple and Antonio. While some employees disagree, we have a strong belief that content on-screen

does not directly translate to World War War farm. It's not exactly true. We'll get into that. The strongest evidence to support this is that violence on-screens has grown hugely over the last 30 years, especially with first party shooter games, and yet violent crime has fallen significantly in many countries. And so he goes above and beyond beyond just talking about offensive material. Adults can watch violence, assault and abuse or enjoy shocking stand-up comedy without

it causing them to harm other stand-up comedians often expose issues that are uncomfortable because the art by nature is highly provocative. As a leadership team, we do not believe that the closer is intended to incite hatred or violence against anyone for our sensitive content guidelines. So basically he says, you know, if you don't like it, change the channel, if you're a customer, you can cancel your subscription or if you work here and you don't like it,

you don't need to work here, but is this the end of cancel culture this combined with Brian Armstrong's positioning? Sac, this is your... I don't think it's the end of it for the simple reason. Let's assume that this comic had not signed $60 million deal with Netflix. Let's say he had signed a $60,000 deal. Or $60 million, yeah. Or $60 million or whatever. And he didn't have the legions of fans that Dave Chappelle had. Do you think that Sarandas were making the same decision? I mean, I think that special by, you know,

by a Netflix comedy by Dave Smith would be swept under the rug right now. We'd never see the light of day. I think the same thing was true with Joe Rogan and Spotify, right? I mean, Spotify made a $60 million deal with Rogan. The employees all protested and Spotify stood tall for Rogan, but they had every economic incentive to do so. I don't completely trust these companies that if it wasn't massively

in their bottom line interest, that they would have stood up for free speech. I suspect that if it was, you know, it would not have. They would not have. I think we all kind of know that. He said in the email, he said in the email, sticks and stones is one of the most watched You know piece of content we had and this the closer was like top four or five in America Over like the last few weeks. So there's a huge economic incentive and and read hastings said the same thing when he posted the other Co-CEO into a group forum which said, our job is to please our customers. And all this data says is that we've pleased our customer. Right. And I think in the case of that, that is pretty.

That is pretty. Right. And I think, to me, that's inputting his foot down and saying, we're going to make the content we want to make. I don't think it's a principle. I don't think it's a super, look, I don't want to, I don't want to look past it because I think that it's so rare to get a memo like Sarandas wrote

Where he's defending artistic freedom or freedom of speech or what have you? I mean, it's so rare to ever see that that I don't want to Gainsay it too much, but I also do believe That this sort of special treatment is really reserved for the artists, the creators, like a Chappelle, like a Rogan, they're basically too big to cancel. I mean, these companies have spent too much money on their programs to just summarily cancel them. They also, again, like I said, have legions of fans who would rise up and protest if they were canceled. But I don't think that I don't think these companies

would make the same decision for the middle- level creator. In a sense, Rogan and Chappelle, they're post-economic. They've made so much money that they're free to do what they want, and they've got a big enough audience to protect themselves from these companies. But it's the little creator who's still on their way up who can never take the kinds of creative risks that Chappelle is taking or that Rogan's taking. Well, they can take it. They just can't do it on Netflix. But the tone of this to me sounded like a manifesto and the end of the discussion from dad.

We're doing this if you don't like it, get off the ship, but this is the way the ship is going. That's the way I read it. And I think Spotify did a similar thing with Joe Rogan to your point, which was, hey, listen, there's some content out there from Alex Jones or some people who are just Conspiracy theorist they took down those episodes. I'm Joe Rogan. It's like I don't care. I got paid

But yeah, it does feel to me like this is a tipping point when you put Brian Armstrong Joe Rogan and ship hell together that Corporations are gonna say you know what the mob is fine. You can have your opinion But your opinion stops where we have to run a business freeberg or do you have thoughts? I think Netflix has an appreciation for artistry. Certainly evident by the money they've spent and the product they've put out and I think good artist and good artistry can be provocative. It's designed to make you change your opinion, look at things differently, think about things differently, and be challenged in the norms of, you know, your everyday life.

And I think that's important in art, in all forms. And that means seeing and being exposed to and being engaged by things that you don't normally get exposed to and engaged by. And I think that's what Chepell is fantastic at. And I think that's what other great art is great at. And I think that as long as Netflix maintains that ethos, that artistry does that, and the good thing is, people appreciate it. And they appreciate that form, and they appreciate being challenged in that way.

And I think that as a result, the the market will as read hastings identified, continue to demand it. And as much as some people might be offended, it's the fact that it is offensive that I think makes it good. So let me ask you and I think the band will hold on. Let me take a look at what you're right about what this means. I mean, to be, let me be really clear, I mean, I hope it goes down exactly the way that you're saying because that, that is what I want to believe is happening. I'm a little bit skeptical that this is a little bit more of a bottom line motive because they got so much money at stake. They can't afford a cancel ship hell. But I hope you're right that I hope you're right that it's a statement of principle and they will apply that principle

to lesser known artists who can't protect themselves as much. And hopefully this is kind of like, you know what it reminds me of is the John Stewart Labelik moment, where you had John Stewart go on Colbert show, and he all of a sudden he made it okay to talk about the Labelik theory. It was like, you couldn't talk about it before. He cracked the Overton window office. Exactly, and so hopefully, Shepel will do that for this like, woke cancellation mob is to finally get everybody to realize,

oh, like we can stand up to this. Chimath is the Overton window on a go-forward basis. Do you see it closing more, staying where it is, or perhaps even opening? There's a really great philosopher. This is my one and only grand tribute to Peter Teo, but he is a huge supporter of the philosopher named Renas Gerard. And I agree with a lot of that. A lot of Renasier arts philosophies and basically it's called Mimetic Theory. And the idea is you're born without preferences and then you kind of just copy what's around you. And so what the other person wants is what you want and that's what ultimately leads to a lot of conflict. And the only way to resolve conflict is with a huge grand sacrifice of some kind. And if you think about it here, if you're going to really put, you know, cancel culture,

if you're going to kill it, there needs to be some just massive escalation and conflict around this idea that allows us to resolve it in one way or the other, in one direction or the other. And I don't think this is it. I think it's not big enough, quite honestly. I think it's a little bit sort of like, there's folks like us that love comedy, and we're willing to keep it in a very strict box,

which is let people say what they're gonna say, be shocked with it, and don't take it onto yourself, and go and reflect it into the world. It's entertainment, and you can, it's like, I choose not to watch violent stuff because I don't like it. I find it very offensive or, I don't play first-person shooters.

I find it really unsettling. Grand Theft Auto, I found it really outrageous. And other people will feel like that about Chappelle. My whole thing is we should all be allowed to make those judgments, because I think we're all still pretty rational people at the end of the day and do the right thing in the normal world. But this isn't the thing that's going to get this issue to be resolved. So I don't know how it comes.

There needs to be some huge escalation around this thing. I suspect what happens is it actually just dissipates and goes away. And the reason is because everybody who's much younger than us has such a huge digital footprint that they've created through their whole lives. There is so much shit that's out there. Oh God, yes. That they just have no choice

but to let everybody else off the hook. We, we are in a very different situation because we were doing some fucking shady stuff always on the download, always hidden. Whoa, he's there. But that's how it was. If you were in your larger anonymacy, you would roll deep and you would pretend. And now the culture is very different.

And I think with that comes a lot of acceptance. Every kid at some point may or may not be on tinder, bumble, ria, grinder, whatever. So there's going to be a body of that content that's up. Every kid will have said something crazy on TikTok. And all of this stuff will be there. And so you'll have a choice, which is if you're going to hold me accountable, I'm going to hold you accountable.

And so it's mutually assured destruction. And I think that's what causes cancel culture to go away in time. It's the last festage of very guilty people of our generation. Fascinating. What do you think, Freeberg? Is the Overton window opening closing or about this? I think we're saying, I think we're saying.

What Tim Hopper saying is right, I think I've referred to this book called The Light of Other Days Before, when we talk, I think so, right? Yeah. The book is like all about this notion of all information that's available to everyone everywhere, and societal norms completely change. People no longer find things offensive, and they no longer, and everyone basically shifts

to a mode of much more kind of open dialogue because, you know, keeping things behind closed doors and then positioning one person against the other completely changes when you can see everyone's cards all the time. And so I think generally we're headed that way. I don't think information wants to be free. More information is being generated about each of us all the time. I don't think that we're headed in the opposite direction, kind of back to a Victorian era. I think we're going in the other way. So there's going to be blips and starts that'll kind of be setbacks on that general

trajectory. So yeah, I do think it's a moment in time right now where this is happening. I mean, Sachs, if you look at the two examples we've discussed, Brian Armstrong and Coinbase, that was about essentially Black Lives Matters and talking about social justice at work. And this one is about trends and trans rights. And essentially, I don't want to say poking fun at or discussing, I mean, he basically says in it that he's team-turve.

If you were to take two organizations that standing up against would be the most challenging and difficult, I think those are the top two, no? I guess so. I mean, that's why I think this is the most telling is that you have two different organizations saying, hey, we're going to put our foot down. Just for background, Netflix had a very strange, I didn't see the actual film, so I won't make judgment on it, but it was a very strange trailer for a film called QDs which was really over sexualizing young girls like 8, 9, 10-year-old girls and they didn't take it down in the United States Netflix, but they did take it. It was in France. It was in France. It was a French movie. Yeah, it was a French. And they have a different view of kids and sexuality and yeah, I think people found it a little dark here

in the United States, but they survived that one as well, or they weathered that one as well. So I think what people are finding is if you put your foot down at a certain point, I think what sexist says is right then, these guys have realized that if we have this very specific message around artistic freedom and we never violated violated because that's one of those things where if you take that hill, you have to be there forever, right? You can't have asterix is around that idea. But by doing that, they basically dominate the content production game in Hollywood, which then allows them to field the most content at the cheapest average

price, which then makes churn less and customer acquisition higher. And they're already the largest media company in the world and they're only gonna get bigger. And Netflix has what, 200 million subscribers, they're gonna get to a billion subscribers. It's just inevitable. And so for them, I do think it's a very rational business position to take, which is that I have to appeal to a billion people over the next seven or a year.

You don't have to watch everything on Netflix. You do not have to listen to every album or like, Netflix is a fucking mess. I mean, they should spend 10 minutes and improve the U.S. You actually find something. My God, it's so bad. He basically, Surandos made the point that, along with Chappelle Show, they are funding a ton of content by people of color probably more than anybody and trans people. It's a big focus of what they're doing at Netflix and it's, you know, essentially to Saxus Point more speech is better than less.

All right, do we want to go tether? FDA chaos. Well, tether, why don't you take, why don't you do your reverse victory lot? Because after all your shit got out. Not a victory laugh for me, but, no, it, bro, it was exactly. It's a fraud. It is not a fraud. It's a fucking fraud. Come on. because after all your no, it was it was not a it's a fucking fraud. Can you please go saying that apparently the

CFTC went in, did the work and is actually now refuting what you thought was the case. She's okay. Why don't you just tell me how about I reach the quote from at least June 1, 2016 to February 25, 2019 another misrepresented to customers

and the market that tethermateane sufficient US dollar reserves to back every USDT in circulation with the equivalent amount of corresponding fiat currency held by Tether and safely deposit in Tetherbank accounts. In other words, they told everybody they were one for one, they were not, they lied to the public, and that's why they're getting a $4,000,000. That's why they're banned from New York, and that's why they're getting a $4,000,000. That's why they're banned from New York

and that's why they're banned from trading in Canada. And they're supposedly a department of justice. These guys are shady as F. A F shady. Do you have a, do you have an economic interest in Tether? No, in crypto he does. No, no, no, no. I can't even have an economic interest in Tether.

All it is, one for one tokenized dollar. Well, no, I can't anyone have an economic interest in tether. All it is, the one for one tokenized dollar. Well, no, it's not. That's what they claim it is. No, I know, you're right that it should be, and we need an audit to establish that it is. And they wound audit. They'll do it in a test station, and when they did their a test station, all they have to do is show a document that says there's money in an account. They don't have to show how long that's been in the account.

Certainly, this certainly feels like a security to me And I would think the SEC should get involved in you a Stable coins are the number one thing on Gensler and the SEC's mind right? Yeah, I mean they make they make a claim of a secured interest in something unlike This is the easiest part of the Why is it? Bank account you audit it. You're done. It's a tokenized regularly. Why is it easy? Because, because. Look at the bank account, you audit it, you're done.

It's a tokenized dollar, that's it. It is not, actually I'm not even sure it's a security. It basically is a digital representation of a dollar that's just sitting in a bank account somewhere. It's a money market fund. Yeah, it's a money market fund. But money market is a security, and they're regulated at security.

Okay, fine, but my point is, you know, there are compaid securities, and then there's securities that aren't complicated. This is definitely the least complicated. The least complicated. That this company only has to their own attestations, like 6%, 3% to 6% in cash in a bank account. And the rest is in highly volatile corporate paper. Right.

Here's the point that I was trying to make to you in the group chat. Oh. When a company who's got billions and billions and billions of dollars of some stable coin, what I'm going to say. Or something that you think is zero, okay. It's a multi-multibillion dollar market. a company who's got billions and billions and billions of dollars of some stablecoin or something that you think is zero. It's a multi-multibillion dollar market. Tens of billions. Oh, sorry, tens of billions. They have 70 billion in tether and there. And could you imagine if they, like let's just say, there were 70 billion of tether and like,

you know, one billion of securities, that would be a fraud of gargantuan proportions. Right? We might not be that far off. If they siphoned the money out for their own use, that would be a fraud of gargantuan proportions. Right. We might not be talking. If they siphoned the money out for their own use, that would be fine. We'd be beyond talking about fines. What I found comical, Jason, is your claims make it seem like Bernie made off N-Ron level corruption, crazy. This hold on.

Okay. And the fine was 42 million, which is like, oh, fucking cares, 42 million. And it was between them and another firm. So either the CFTC completely got the fine wrong and they missed a zero or two zeroes, or this was not nearly as big as you thought it was. Well, this is not one half. Jake, I got overly excited about some perceived hopes.

Here we go. Another house. I'm totally nervous. I'm not excited. I mean, that was right about Felly knows. Yeah, Jason didn't fully understand something and got very emotional about it. Look, here's one.

All right, that's it. I'm off the fence, then. Here's the best case scenario for making sense of J. Cal's points, which is it's possible that Tether, the company behind Tether, has all the money. They've just not chosen to keep it in dollar reserves. And so they've put it in corporate bonds and a whole mishmash of different things. To get the float. To get the float to make more money.

So there's a margin. I don't, my guess is that tether is solvent. I don't think it's, it lacks solvency, but, but I personally would feel better about any stable coin. If it was a hundred percent dollar back, I think it be which is what germany layers doing at I who has to see in circle I had them on the pod this week. I hope they bought the githlab IPO Well, I mean the the issue here is they also combing old funds, which is what got fault-ulten Troubled the users accounts with their money in it was mixed with The operating capital so they were using the consultant trouble. The users or accounts with their money in it was mixed with the operating

capital. So they were using the deposits to operate the business, which is the biggest no-no. They were co-mingling the funds that Apple bought were backed. And Bitfinex and Tether were the same company. That's why they both got the fines at the same time. They've also been banned from doing any any having any customers in New York And they've been banned in Canada and there's apparently a DOJ wire for it. So I think this is the beginning Of the end not the end of the beginning. Okay I was just wanting to get your reaction to what seemed like a really pathetic fine $70 billion fraud

Facebook got a series of speeding tickets too. I mean, I think that that's I mean, that's dollar fraud. That's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's they throw off for you 42 million I mean, that's a tax payment it's a quarterly tax pay for for you. Tremont for us Or maybe for sacks. He's doing pretty well too. You know me. I'm alright. Do we want we promise we do some questions Should we do a couple questions? Sure I mean we could also talk about the FDA and oh my god the FDA my gosh free bird you want to leave this? We could also talk about the FDA and oh my god the FDA my gosh free bird you want to leave this? Free bird you want to tell us about the chaos at the FDA? Well, I don't think it's chaotic like you guys think it is Um, I'll make it just counter why don't you why don't you make your chaos point first and then I'll make that I don't that's not by the kind of the what people yeah people are perceiving this so like you know There've been a couple of these um changes in recommendations now all of these recommendations that, and, you know, these

statements and approvals that have come out of the FDA are predicated on these independent advisory panels that are put together to look at research data, assess the research data and make a recommendation on what they think is appropriate. So we saw this happen with the Pfizer booster shot a few weeks ago, where initially the advisory panel, which, again, is made up of independent doctors and scientists who generally don't have any sort of economic interest in the outcome here, they voted 16 to 2 against everyone getting a booster shot and then they voted 18 to 0 in favor of everyone 65 and over and those at risk of getting a booster

shot. And then recently there was similar sort of consternation around the Moderna and they ended up looking at data that indicated that maybe a half dose which is 50 micrograms instead of 100 micrograms would have a reasonable amount of efficacy relative to the side effect risk for people over 65 and therefore they made a recommendation to approve that as a booster which the FDA is now approving. And so again the way this process is run and I think it's a good process is independent advisors of doctors and scientists come together. And the one that recently came together

was around this generalized use of aspirin as a heart attack deterrent, because it thins the blood and limits the risk of people getting heart attacks. But it turns out that such a large percentage of the population or large enough percentage of the population were having bleeding issues, where your stomach bleeds.

I don't know if you guys have this, but you know you take ID profiner or NSA ID's or stomach can bleed. That was causing more of a problem for people than they were seeing in the data in terms of a reduction in heart attack effects for people that were not highly at risk. And so they revised the recommendation and said, hey, let's give people that are only at risk and over a certain age aspirin, not just, like, it could give it to everyone over 40 or 50. And so it took an account in your data. And I think this is an important point. Science is messy, right?

By definition, science is about gathering data, forming a hypothesis, testing again, iterating, restating your hypothesis. And it's designed to be circular. It's designed to be a learning system, not designed to be a system that defines absolute truth and absolute fact. And it's good to see a learning system, not designed to be a system that defines absolute truth and absolute fact. And it's good to see the FDA doing this work and it's good to see scientists reviewing

new data and changing their recommendations. And we've seen this in health, we've seen this in the food system and the USDA changing their diet guidelines and people used to be told don't eat dietary cholesterol, it turns out saturated fat, is what causes cholesterol in your blood. So there were a lot of changes that kind of emerged as new data was gathered. And I see a lot of carbs, remember the all carb diets. Yeah, and then they alerted,

and they made a change in their days. Yeah, wait, can we bring that back? I'm starving. Are you see eat pasta every day? First it was rice in my tens and twenties. Oh, I've seen you eat rice. I see it. Oh, the shoveling of rice.

So my lord. So freeberg, I mean, if we're you eat rice. Oh, my God. The shoveling of rice. 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, 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 for decades and now they can revise those positions. I mean, doesn't that lend some credence to some of these like anti-vax arguments when they say, well, gee, I'm skeptical about injecting our mRNA into myself. I think it's a totally new year. You just got the episode banned on YouTube. We just got a warning. I'm glad I got the vaccine. I got the Pfizer vaccine.

And I think, look, I could have saved my life. I mean, I had a very mild case of Delta. Yeah, I had one of the first breakthroughs, because it's so, but it was very mild. And I think that was because I got Pfizer. I think the risk return was completely worth it. And, but I can also see why people with like five year old, like kindergarten age, you know, don't want to get it.

Might not want to get it for their kids when the upside is absolutely, you know, don't want to get it for their kids when the upside is absolutely, you know, tiny, given that it doesn't really affect five-year-olds very much. And the downside is not- There's not proven downside, but I know it's unknown. How is that any different than the aspirin thing? No, I don't wish as you had gotten really sick with Delta. Yes, you are.

No, but as a bunch of people on the left, I don't disagree with the framing that here's what typically happens. The scientists or the FDA panel will say based on the data that we have, this is our recommendation on what should happen. And then the framing that people then assume is, oh, this is what they believe to be absolute truth and with absolute certainty, this is what we have to do. And I think the translation layer to the general population is such that this is the 10 commandments I came down from monocyanine. This is what I'm saying. It has to happen. When the reality is, it is based on data and that data changes over time. And I think that your point is right. There is no absolute certainty that the Pfizer vaccine

is going to be absolutely perfect for everyone and it's going to absolutely reduce the risk more than it increases the risk for people five years old and younger. And it's a very fair point that like, but the problem, as we've seen on all sides, is that the framing is that these things are binary and they're not right. There's a probability distribution of which is defined as the risk and the things that might go wrong and the probability distribution of the benefits. And then people assume that it should find out. I think I'm making an excellent point there. I just want to underscore,

let me kind of translate what you're saying, is that the people at the FDA are in these positions who actually understand the science, make a cost benefit analysis, and what they're saying, and approving it is that the costs outweigh the risks, sorry, the benefits outweigh the risks. To the broad population.

So there's a broad population, okay? By the way, that's why I got the risk. Sorry, the benefits outweigh the risk. To the broad population. To the broad population, okay. By the way, that's why I got the vaccine. I don't know for sure that there's no downsides in 10 years. All I know is there's an upside immediately, and I benefited from that. So I was very happy to take it. But in any event, instead of this complicated cost-benefit analysis, the media translates that into good bad. It's almost like a moral case. And then the politicians translate that into laws and rules. And if you question the rules,

you're now a bad person because you've opposed the quote unquote good side of the argument. I mean, for example, Gavin Newsom just signed a bill in California saying that if you are a public school child elementary school kindergarten, you have to get vaccinated in order to go to a public school even though the vaccine doesn't exist for them yet. I mean you can be pro-vax which I guess I would consider myself to be clearly pro-vax I mean I got it my 13 year old got it I supported I think it's a smart. You're a pro-vax yeah. But to require a five year old to get it in order to go to public schools and. He can also wait until we get the FDA data. Here's a question for you, Friedberg. You know, having this, one of the complaints has

been the FDA restricts progress. I mean, I think actually Peter Tiel have this position for a while that we should, you know, just get rid of it and disband it. Well, what do we think about having the FDA being framed as these are recommendations? And then each state gets to make a decision with their local FDA. So then if Colorado or Texas or Florida had a difference of opinion about psychedelics, about vaccines, they could run their own studies. It's a really important matter of ethics. What are your ethics that you believe should be the guiding principles for how the government plays a role in individuals making choice about their health and their body?

And so if you believe that the government, and there's no right or wrong here, it's simply a framing of what you believe, if you believe that it's appropriate for the government to make the decision about what's safe and not safe for you as an individual to do, then the FDA should stay in place and they should have their criteria of when they're ready to make a recommendation. There's enough data to define the benefit

and the cost of a particular thing that you might put in your body and then telling you, yes, you should or shouldn't do this. If not, they're gonna take their time and figure that out. If you don't believe that, then yes, the FDA should be disbanded and drug companies will go around and they will tell people take this drug, it will save your life, and people will take it, and there will be people that will suffer from that, there will be people that will have infected that drug.

Or maybe something in between, there will be people that will die from that. And remember, the criteria for the FDA is do no harm. So that is the criteria for a doctor in general. It is a very difficult criteria to meet when there are costs to a drug or cost to a therapy or treatment. When people get chemotherapy for cancer, there are awful, deleterious side effects to their body. But the benefit of saving their life and getting rid of the cancer, having at least a

shot at doing that, is great enough. And the FDA has made a judgment call that that cost and that benefit kind of created an equation that says this isn't approved drug now and that's really their goal. And if they don't have enough data and they haven't taken enough time to figure that out, they don't feel comfortable approving a drug and making that recommendation. But then if you let them get out of the way and you let individuals make choice, you could see this being a disgusting free for all where drug companies will hawk snake oil on people and a lot of harm will be caused and that's that's the

the counter argument and I'm not saying one is right or one is right. I was thinking that might be something that really comes down to state. What is the role that you want? I mean, it's really that what is the role that you want any government whether it's states or the federal government to play in deciding what you can and can't do with your body and what you can and can't put in your body. And ultimately what companies that are making products for you can and can't say to you about the benefit and the cost of that product. And there's no simple solution, right?

I mean, like, if you want to say like- Well, I mean, look at a career, look at career-erving. I mean, he's basically- And not every individual- And not every individual- And not every individual- Not every individual is equipped to look at the data and make a judgment call on their own.

And so the question then is, what authority will they look to? And if the alternative authority that they will look to is not as good as a research team of 18 scientists, then they're probably gonna end up getting bad advice. You think that's a really important thing. What do you think the odds are at fiery retires? I think it's 60% right now. I think it's 40% to $200 million.

He's giving up $200 million to $200 million. He gets paid like 30 or $40 million a year. He refuses to get the vaccine He said the reason he's not getting the vaccine is because of All the people who don't have a choice the pilots who are being forced to get it or not go to work So he is a privilege. He says and he wants to make this decision for everybody else He also believes that the earth is flat Stop that was a joke. He said I don't think it was a joke

Where are you going that from, Jacob? Uh, typing, carrying, or having flat earth, he talked about how do we know the earth is actually around and basically, that's not like a media distortion to me. Two days later, he came out and he was like, you guys miss the trip. Anyways, that's that's nothing over there. He's, oh, he's, he's unique and wacky. He's sound. I don't know. So I would, I would make that decision. He's so white, so pejorjorative? I know. I know. Because it's infuriating that to be someone disagrees with you, you say that they're wacky. No, because Katie wanted to come to the next. These are tailored ones to come to the next

and Kyrie convinced them to go to Brooklyn. That's the reason. Jake, out you're still a member of the media. You have like a vestigial tail here. Is that you just bought in to the framework that Freeberg laid out, which is the media it takes complicated issues, cost-benefit analyses, and turns the man to right or wrong. He didn't come to the next. He didn't come to the next first. So now he's bad, he's bad because.

It's bad for not coming to the next, that's it. He sounds to me like a man of conscience. No, a man of conscience who's willing to stand up on principle, turn down $200 million. I got the vaccine for free I sure as hell wouldn't turn away 200 million dollars not to get it so I Would you 200 million to not take it would you have taken? You have

I think I think I'm not taking it for 200 million there There was a I heard a great story yesterday at the poker table one of the guys was telling It's his backgammon teacher and it's his backgammon teacher, and he says his backgammon teacher is an, you know, good backgammon teacher in a magician blah, blah, blah. 20 years ago, he was asked to get female breast implants for a year, for $100,000.

He did it and he kept them for 20 years. That's quite a free roll. So, you know, the bar for people to do, the bar for people to do things is really not that high, is really what I took away from that story and what I took away from this story is, so let's go on the horn. No, but Kyrie's willing to draw the line on something that he believes in, and it's going to cost them $200 million.

There's a lot of things that come with all of that noise. He's willing to draw the line on something that he believes in and it's going to cost him $200 million. There's a lot of things that come with all of that noise. He should be allowed to make that decision in my opinion. And I don't like the way that he's characterized because I think this is a good human being. He's a phenomenal basketball player. And don't you imagine how strongly he feels about this if he's willing to walk away from the game that he loves and that's been an enormous part of his life? Why is this so important to foist on Kyrie Irving the need to get vaccinated?

I mean, it's because in New York City, indoors, you have to have this vaccine requirement and he can't play at home games. He could play in Texas or Houston. So they've talked about trading him to Houston, but then when he went to New York and you also can't Practice with the team in New York, New Jersey. I guess Massachusetts is a bunch of states where you can't go indoors without a vaccine They're in close proximity to each other. You get the idea. I just think we're turning a good thing into which is the vaccine I generally think it's a it's a great thing that I got done so quickly. It's a miracle science And I think it's helped a lot of people. I mean all of of us, I mean, it's the thing that's going to end the pandemic largely

ready has. But we're turning into a bad thing. But why were we demanding that these holdouts, like every last person must get vaccinated? What about a flight attendant? Should a flight attendant be forced if they're on a tiny, expensive,year-old guy or should they be work somewhere? You get so much protection by being vaccinated yourself that I don't think you should- So you don't believe in mandates now? Well, I think private companies have the right to- And be it as a private company?

I know, I get it, so, but I'm just starting to really question here whether it's truly necessary to get every single one of these last holdouts. There's something on American about imposing on free people this decision, they can't just make up their own mind. You in a previous episode said you were in favor of it if people were dying at a higher rate, if it was more key. No, no, no, no.

You keep, well hold on. You just say that, you said if it was killing kids and a lot of people were dying. If it was, if it was some sort of like Ebola, yeah, of course it'd be a whole different cost benefit analysis. But look, what I said, and I think this is still my position, is that government shouldn't require, shouldn't stick a needle in your arm.

I think private businesses can do it, or you don't use that service. So. How much would it take for you to get B cup's implanted three years? For $1 billion would you do it? That's not really it. Only B. So I'm not saying like a strong D or something,

just like a modest B. No. I mean, is that a real storage from off? Yeah, send you the link. It's a huge article about it. It's in Wikipedia's one. Yeah, that's an old story, Jason. You've already got B cups.

I hope so. I'm telling you for that. I've lost 16 pounds. I'm good. I'm good. I'm just like a perk E.A. right now. B cups be gone. This show has gone off the rails.

We promised the audience we'd take two questions. The first one is for Friedberg and the first question comes from Daniel Nielis. He says, alpha-phoid may great progress in predictive protein folding. Is there anything similar for chemical synthesis? Could a similar system finally predict a less energy? Is there anything similar for chemical synthesis? Could a similar system finally predict a less energy intensive pathway to ammonia?

Then the Haber Bosch process, for example. I don't see that. This is a great question. When molecules interact, a molecule is a bunch of atoms stuck together, and there are electrons and protons that make up that molecule. And therefore, there is this kind of variable electric potential, energy potential that surrounds that molecule.

And it's very difficult today to deterministically model how two molecules might interact with one another in physics. And it turns out that that resolves using quantum physics. And so today, we can't really kind of put two molecules together and say, here's what happens when you put these together and have a computer program very quickly and easily solve that. Quantum physics is involved and we don't have a good way to simulate quantum physics in binary computers.

So one of the theories, and there's been some work on this in on the research basis, creating the framework for it, is that we can use quantum computers to simulate the quantum states of molecules. Wow. And use that to figure out how molecules might interact with one another. And as a result, you could kind of see us creating simulations that resolve certain enzymes or proteins that might break apart molecules or stick molecules together, or other molecule

combinations that might cause something to happen. The Haber Bosch process, which is being referred to, was discovered through trial and error in the early 20th century by a German physicist and engineer, and they realized that if they compressed atmospheric air to 200 times atmospheric pressure and ran it over an iron catalyst with electricity, it zapped, it broke apart the nitrogen bonds in the atmosphere and the air that was compressed and trickled out ammonia, which is nitrogen and hydrogen. And so this was like this amazing invention and saved the world and fed the world. It's a great book called The Alchemy of Air if anyone's interested in hearing about this.

But it was through trial and error and we got so friggin' lucky as a species that we figured this out. Using quantum computing in the next 30 years, hopefully, we'll be able to deterministically model these behaviors on a molecular and atomic level, and as a result, kind of build new systems to make things. And that'll be an incredible tool kit for humans that'll advance a lot of science and a lot of engineering forward.

I'm still really strongly of the belief, and this goes back here, point early, I'm sorry I'm going on a bit of a ramp. It likes, great. In 100 to 120 years from now, I do think we'll all have a replicator in our room. A replicator will make all the things we want to make, nearly instantaneously with very low energy

and very low cost. I'm going to get a new brand. New brand. New brand. New brand. New brand. New brand. By the way, this is a crazy concept. It's not just about, oh, you know, quantum stuff or whatever was described in Star Trek.

But the general principle that you can locally make things and locally make things cheaply with very little energy and very little input changes the whole supply chain model. We're seeing this increasingly with new technologies, with 3D printing and biomanufacturing, you start to put these all together and you take a non-linear track out in the next couple decades, and you get to a point that all this nonsense we're talking about where we're mining stuff in one place and making it in another and shipping it, and buying it all in other sacks. I think that's also all of these parts. Sacks, you're going to be able to print a conscience.

That's going to be cool. I'm so glad. I'm so glad. You're going to be able to print an emotion. Sorry, audience question. So glad. Alright, here's a question for Saks. Maddie, or I guess me and also Chimath,

and I guess all four of us. Maddie Chavez asks, between being a VC founder, angel, corporate employee, which has been the most fun, rewarding, and why, what advice would you give someone early in their career, hoping to be like you? Multi-channel investor thought leader when they grow up? sacks Well, I didn't I didn't become a VC until after I had already done a few tours of duty as a founder and operator

So I mean my recommendation would be to get involved in startups first generally get some operating experience and That would serve you well. You can start up some or even bigger companies. I just think getting some reps inside of an organization is critical. I tell everyone that that's coming out of college or early in their career. It's important you go get that perspective and work at a bigger business. I mean, I spent a few years at Google and you know, it was a thousand people when I joined, grew to 10,000 by the time I left. But like, I learned so much just in that role

and seeing successful products, successful models for operating a business. It was really impactful for me long-term, and then you go and make all the mistakes as a founder building a startup. And a lot of people end up with bad confirmation bias if they work at a startup that didn't work out and they think, and all they can draw from

is a failed model for operating if things didn't work out and they think, and all they can draw from is a failed model for operating. If things didn't work out. Which was your favorite? Which, you know, role has been your favorite today, freeberg? You know, when I was an executive at Monsanto, it was really nice to have that private jet that would come out and take me places. They had a whole security requirement. I already have that anyway.

Yeah, you guys have. Wow, the 1%. I have this impression of 0.1%. What are you guys looking at? What are you guys looking at? What are you guys looking at? What are you guys looking at? What are you guys looking at? What are you guys looking at? that anywhere. Yeah. Wow. The one percent. I have this impression of going one percent. What are you doing? I'm sending the take. That's nice. That's a you said it. It's in your heart. You're your words. Stamins. What was your favorite sex? My favorite stint Well, I mean obviously what we did a PayPal has gone on to

Become a legend and then you know PayPal was the founder CEO. We led that to a unicorn exit So you gotta say those would be the two best professional I was joking about the private jet thing. I honestly like to me and I Sac I'm sure, and the rest of you guys can feel the same, but making a great product and selling that product and working with a customer with that product is honestly the most rewarding thing you can do.

It's like getting your hands dirty and actually delivering something of value in the world, there's nothing more rewarding than that. I mean, all the financial engineering and making money and all the nonsense that goes on is really kind of a zoom out of that, but that's really where reward comes in. Yeah, I feel that way too.

I was joking about the private jet too. Which one? Which jet? I think Nick caught me in this speaking. So yeah, the first experience was PayPal, the second experience was Yammer. You may have to do some of the other things. Which is your favorite private jet that you have? Yeah.

Which, by the way, I just want to defend myself on stealing toiletries on Tramot's plane. No, don't defend yourself. It was a mini bottle of scope. I drank half of it. What do you suppose you do? How many did you take? Put it back in the drawer.

How many did you take? That's the way. On your plane or on site on Tramot's. On your plane, I took a true true story I did take the half bottle of papi there you take my papi even winkle it was like a half left that's a five thousand dollar bond I'll tell you I'll tell you a funny story about I boosted a half bottle of papi so yeah okay so here I got to say this funny story so I was going on you didn't take it I was going on a I was going on a business trip with a couple of friends co-workers who they're actually

founders now of a company I backed. Anyway, we were going to like an event in I think it was in Atlanta so it was like a four hour flight. So they opened the liquor drawer or whatever and saw the pipe for everyone. And they asked like they could have so sure take whatever you want and then I went in the back and I went to sleep. So by the time we land like far as later the entire Pappy van Winkle like stash has been they've gone through it and it's like it's all these different types of Pappy you've got the Pappy 23 you've got

some of these you got some of these antique ones. So they asked me, you know, they never have fallen on private plane before they asked me, you know, say, he's asked how much did this flight cost? And I said, it costs about $6,000 and Jeff fueled about $8,000 in Papi event. We're the happy to the Jeff. Oh my God. It costs more on Papi than in the way. I'm from around the way. I'm leaving with something. I'm leaving with something. You know, like if I'm a beer, I'm a pizza. I'm a leave with something. I'm leaving with something. I'm leaving with something. You know, like if I'm a BRP, I'm leaving with something. I think we found a way to end this podcast in the most successful way possible in sufferable way possible.

I love your best. I let it all out. Edit, no, edit nothing. Highlighted, make it the opening. All right. For the Queen of Kenyra, David Friedberg, for Rainman, David Sacks and the dick. And also, Sacksie put, we're playing, we're playing next week at Sacksie Poo's place. We're playing at BEEP. At the Muzzle Amos. No, we're playing at the Muzzle Amos.

Nobody knows of the Muzzle Amos. Nobody knows where the Muzzle Amos is. I've been dox so many times. We better get security. Dr. Moth has come. Don't bring it. No, we're not. We'll see you all next time bye bye

We open source it to the fans, I'm going to the US, I'm going to the US, I'm going to the US, I'm going to the US, I'm going to the US, I'm going to the US, I'm going to the US, I'm going to the US, I'm going to the US, I'm going to the US, I'm going to the US, I'm going to the US, I'm going to the US, I'm going to the US, I'm going to the US, I'm going to the US, I'm going to the US, I'm going to the US, I'm going to the US, I'm going to the US, I'm going to the US, I'm going to the US, I'm going to the US, I'm going to the US, I'm going to the US, I'm going to the US, I'm going to the US, I'm going to the US, I'm going to the US, I'm going to the US, I'm going to the US, I'm going to the US, I'm going to the US, I'm going to the US, I'm going to the US, I'm going to the US, I'm going to the US, I'm going to the US, I'm going to the US, I'm going to the US, I'm going to the US, I'm going to the US, I'm going to the US, I'm going to the US, I'm going to the US, I'm going to the US, I'm going to the US, I'm going to the US, I'm going to the US, I'm going to the US, I'm going to the US, I'm going to the US, I'm going to the US, I'm going to the US, I'm going to the US, I'm going to the US, I'm going to the US, I'm going to the US, I'm going to the US, I'm going to the US, I'm going to the like it's like this like sexual tension, but we just need to release that album What you're that big, what you're here for? Beer or beef? Beef or beef? We need to get merch these aren't that bad I'm doing all this! I'm doing all this! I'm doing all it!