All-In with Chamath, Jason, Sacks & Friedberg - E52: Trump's SPAC, peak venture liquidity, tech as an economic ladder, Dems overplaying their hand

Episode Date: October 23, 2021

Show Notes: 0:00 Bestie weight loss strategies, poker recap 13:19 Trump SPAC, how he can leverage the capital intelligently, building vs. acquiring, and more 33:43 Peak venture returns, tech landscape 44:56 Tech's global role: are we still in the early days, as opposed to a bubble? Wealth shaming, upward mobility 58:58 Democrats overplaying their hand, Netflix discourse, and more 1:17:41 Pig kidney biological innovation Follow the besties: https://twitter.com/chamath https://linktr.ee/calacanis https://twitter.com/DavidSacks https://twitter.com/friedberg Follow the pod: https://twitter.com/theallinpod https://linktr.ee/allinpodcast Intro Music Credit: https://rb.gy/tppkzl https://twitter.com/yung_spielburg Intro Video Credit: https://twitter.com/TheZachEffect Referenced in the show: https://www.tmtgcorp.com/press-releases/announcement-10-20-2021 https://www.tmtgcorp.com/company-overview https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/22/trump-social-media-spac-digital-world-acquisition-corp-surges-another-100percent.html https://twitter.com/scienceisstrat1/status/1450723760806379520 https://www.wsj.com/articles/venture-returns-keep-climbing-mystifying-some-industry-veterans-11634554801 https://files.pitchbook.com/website/files/pdf/Q3_2021_PitchBook-NVCA_Venture_Monitor.pdf https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/20/us/amherst-college-legacy-admissions.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/20/us/dorian-abbot-mit.html https://www.okayplayer.com/culture/michael-che-elon-musk-snl.html https://www.politico.com/news/2021/10/20/tech-billionaire-aiding-facebook-whistleblower-516358 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-09-20/china-slams-effeminate-men-in-xi-s-mounting-push-for-conformity https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/19/health/kidney-transplant-pig-human.html https://pandaily.com/top-livestream-salesman-li-jiaqi-records-1-7-billion-in-sales-in-first-11-11-livestream-viya-follows

Only sacks can lose 20 pounds and look worse. Sacks, you know, with all these gains and all your funds, I would really love for you to cash some out and buy a belt. Ask your wife or your house manager to help you find slim fit shirts at the local macy. You literally look like you're wearing a parachute. I've never worn something for anything. For a second, stand up.

I can, I'm not wearing pants. Yeah. Oh my God. You're gonna see. Can somebody call HR can, I'm not wearing pants. Yeah. Oh my God. You're gonna see. Can somebody call H.R. Are you really not wearing pants? I got shorts on. No, that's not true. Are you really wearing shorts?

Yeah, I am. No, it's not, he's lying. No, I'm not. Put your leg up. Show us that pasty leg. No fucking way. Oh my God. Oh my God, how big are those shorts?

That's incredible. He's like Dom Dom, he's and he lost 100. Oh, this is a baby change's wardrobe. Your friends do change your wardrobe. Oh my God. Those are like two toothpicks sticking out of a tent. It's like somebody set up a circus tent and didn't tie down the ends.

He's wearing a parachute and a circus tent. Oh my god. What? What? What your winner's ride? Rainman David Saunders. I'm going home. I'm going home.

And I said we open source it to the fans and they've just gone very easy with her. WS Ice Queen of Canwap. I'm going home. I'm going home. Hey, everybody. Hey, everybody. Welcome to another episode of the all in podcast with us today. I guess podcast with us again today, the dictator, Chimoff, Polly, Hapatia, and the queen of

Kenwa David Friedberg in front of some bad art. And from the mausoleum, a shfelt, fighting weight, minus 20 pounds, the rain man himself, David Sack. You guys gave me the motivation. I mean, this podcast, you've actually made, you'd needled me for months, and I'm like, okay, I'm gonna lose the weight, so I've lost it. What was your peak weight in the last 12 months?

I think I was at in the high 190ss and I'm down to about 172 now, so it's about 25 pounds. Wow. Since about April or May. That's really great, bro. That's fantastic. I mean, honestly, your family thanks you. I think it was a friend too. No, but seriously, keep your round longer.

Really fucking great. I'm really proud of you. It's your sizing too. Thank you great. I'm really proud of you. You're sizing too. Thank you. Or you just cut your diet. I'm doing the same exercise regimen I was doing before, which is just running occasionally, but it's all diet.

It's all diet. It's frankly severe calorie restriction. And your unique product has been very helpful. But is it really severe calorie restriction? Thanks for the plug. I think so. Yeah, we're talking about Munich for the syndicate on the call-in app the other day.

It's a plug. There's a lot of people from the sky. I'm a lot to plug. I'm a lot to plug. You just need to be in the club so you could put a call-in plug.

You're violating a rules of the road that we wrote down. It's not a violation of the rules because I'm not a shareholder in Munich. I don't know any interest in that. that are you negotiating a deal? No, but no Funding Munich. No, I haven't but free brick and I invest We should actually throw that one in the syndicate if you guys want Yeah, Munich's great. I did it. I lost the weight on it. Saksipu. What's your what's your

Basel Calorie burn? Did you copy that? What does that mean? Like your steady state calorie burn on a normal day, like if you're not exercising or whatever, like based on your height, your BMI, your weight, all that stuff. Yeah, I did look it up and I think it's around 2000 calories a day. But the thing that's super interesting, yeah, there's a calculator online where you can enter your

your height, weight, and age. And it'll tell you how many calories that you burn every day. So if you want to lose weight, you need to consume fewer calories than that. It's that simple. Everything else that people do around weight loss, that is not that, is basically some sort of game. You just have to consume fewer calories than you're burning. But the thing that's really interesting about that calculator is that the number of calories

you can burn ever, you're actually changes as you get older, it goes down. So the reason why people gain weight as they get older is because you're in a habit of consuming a certain number of calories every day. But as you get older, like every year, you can consume say 50 fewer calories a day, something like that. And that basically becomes fat if you consume at the same level. So you have to cut your consumption down as you get older or you will gain weight. And in addition to your metabolic fitness, meaning like having your exercise level stay up

to increase your metabolism overall, you can also add muscle mass. A lot of people lose muscle mass over time. Muscle burns more calories per day, just to kind of keep functioning. So the more muscle mass you have, the higher your basil. And you lose like half a pound to a pound a year

after 40, is that correct? Directionally free, but I don't know, but that sounds about right. Yeah, that's what I read. That is about right. And I think it's because of this dynamic where people are just consuming the same amount, but they don't realize that they can't burn it.

And so it becomes fat. You know, so to my case, first of all, you got to get your caloric intake down to 2000 just to get to steady state. And that can be a challenge. But if you really want to lose weight, you need to burn, you need to basically consume a few hundred calories less than that.

And if you can consume 500 calories less than that per day, that's considered rapid weight loss. And then you can actually see the less than that per day, that's considered rapid weight loss. And then you can actually see the results, which is very motivating. Yeah, so I like the idea of just going for the, like, significant, the 500 calories. Where are you, you're at 1500 calories a day? Yeah, I mean, I think so.

I mean, I haven't, like, precisely measured it out, but I've been trying to go for a few. Is that, do you skip a meal? Is that how you get to the minus 500 calories? Yeah, I will either skip breakfast, or I'll do a very light breakfast. And then for lunch, I'll do like something entirely plant-based, like like suit, like a vegetable soup of some kind. And then when it comes to dinner, it'll be a more normal dinner, but no carbs, no to do dinners, one bottle of wine. Yeah, well, no, no, you have a good system.

I mean, the sex system, no matter yeah. Yeah, sex system is vegetables first. Yes, then fish, then poultry, then red meat. And so it's not, you're not like entirely all one thing or another, you're not like all vegan, which would be hard. You're not, it's not like you're all, there's no red meat or something like that. You do a little of everything, but you have to have a waiting. And the waiting is based on what foods are the most calorie dense.

The mistake that I think people make, and I think it's one of these trick diets, is with these protein, the South Beach type diet, or the Paleo diet, where they're trying to trick their body into ketosis, and all they do is eat a lot of red meat. Those steaks have a lot of calories in them. It only works if you do it perfectly where you totally trick your body and keeping your body in ketosis forever is not sustainable in my view. It's hard. So I think you're a lot better off just eating less calorie dense food and steak is very

calorie dense. So, you know, again, you're trying to eat this first than fish. I rarely eat beef, but I get to eat it today and I'm having steak night. Drays coming over for dinner and in the season, he, whenever I text him and I say, Hey, what do you want for dinner? Dremont's always like fish, fish, fish, fish, and I said, bro, I get to eat steak so fucking rarely. And today we're having steak. I can't wait. When you get to this because you're on some diet basically. No, no. I do. I just observe that I don't eat meat any more than once a week maximum.

And right now I'm probably averaging once every two weeks, maybe even once every three weeks. And to your point, it's much better. I do these scans. You know, you can do these kind of body scans to know what your total water weight, your total muscle weight, your total weight, your total body fat, all of that stuff and your basic metabolic rate. And I just kind of track it like once a quarter just to see where it is. And I agree with you. Like I've really found that I can't eat red meat anymore.

Like it's like it just really fucks me up. But it's so good. It's so good. Oh my God, it's so good. The other, what other trick is that you should never consume calories like in liquid form, right? You should only be drinking water, tea, coffee, things like that that don't have any calories.

People go to Starbucks in the morning and they drink like calories. Yeah, 400 plus calories. Then they have a cinnamon roll or whatever, or a banana and not bread. Yeah, they're like 1200 at the start of the day. Yeah, I mean, that's it. I mean, you're gonna be gaining weight on, Then they have a cinnamon roll or whatever or banana and not bread. Yeah, they're at 1200 at the start of the day. Yeah, I mean, that's it.

I mean, you're going to be gaining weight on just from going to Starbucks in the morning. There's no, now, if you do an Americano with a splash of almond milk or something, that's like 5-10 calories, that's fine. But you have to stop drinking calories and then the one exception is like last night, we did poker, we were drinking wine. So that's fine. You know, I didn't because I thought the wine was shit. The whole game was horrible. Let me just tell you all the things. Okay, number one, I fucking came all the way up to San Francisco last night. Chimoff normally hosts sacks.

We're over the top number one. Number one is over the top in air quotes. Number one. Nobody arrived on time because nobody respects you enough to show up on I played heads up for an hour power anyone else showed up we were there from seven to eight just play head up It was fun. It was fun. I took all the freebergs money. I own three percent of me unique You as the host didn't show up till 9.30 and you spent all of the time on the phone outside in the room trading Japanese bonds are doing whatever you're doing showed up at 10.30

You know the game was basically randomly in the mock half the night nobody was observing any good decor I'm run it once run it twice there was just nothing going on Fish you had stale fish. Okay, just sitting there rotting, stinking up the whole fucking room. You know, you had 2013 cold and which is not even a good year. Just FYI. Okay, 2012. Okay, 2015. Do that. I mean, so anyways, I thought it was a disaster. I stormed and up and I left. He did rage quit. And it was quite a moment because we're playing PLO. Finally SACs loses all his money. Mara's spawn.

But I did have three bowls of ice cream, which I regretted this morning. Okay. All right, six, in your defense, why did you leave your guests for three hours while you talked to your own home, bro? It wasn't three hours. You guys were being well-attended, too. I made sure that you were well-attended, too, and then I was in three hours. You guys are being well-attended to.

I made sure that you were well-attended to and then I had to duck out for it. Well, I attended to. What are we, preschool? What do you do? What do you do? I'm going to do a couple of crazy. I'm going to do a couple of crazy.

What are the couple of crazy. So, what were the calls? Well, you know, crypto is like a 24-7 market these days. No. Oh my god. That's crypto never sleeps. So David Sacks has to excuse himself. Yeah, I got wired in on a Hong Kong gold to

that's true. Yeah, so, okay, so first of all, the food was amazing. We had like this incredible, where there's incredible awesome. You didn't eat it. No, I didn't. You had the Brussels sprouts.

You had the Brussels sprouts. You ate none of this. I'm on a diet. I did't eat it. You didn't eat it. You had Brussels sprouts. You had the Brussels sprouts. You ate none of this. I'm on a diet. I did eat the sushi. There's a caramel sushi spread. We had so much sushi, most of it didn't get eaten. Then we had pizza's got the best late night pizza. It's from two different pizza places got delivered.

There's more than one pizza per person in terms of selection. It was Tony's, Nepali. You had pre-great. You had homemade caramel sauce poured over to my back. No, don't you don't let you. That was great. Yeah. Props to the chat to me. Put dolce de leche on the vanilla. Yeah. And the Colgan 2013 to state nine is a fantastic ball of wine that I had another ball that earlier this week. We just lost 42% of the audience. They are now on the YouTube comments saying, why are these people? Why do we listen to

this pot every week? And here's the reality, you're right, is you were very quiet and sort of sullen the whole night. From really the time you got there. It's kind of true. You didn't really participate in the conversation. And Sky hypothesized that the reason why you were so withdrawn

is because you were upset that the game had moved from your place to my place. And you thought somehow I was trying to hijack your game, which is not true. We do a game of my place, maybe. No, no, no, I told Sky. No, no, no, no, I told Sky, text already. I said, hey guys, we normally run the game Thursdays

at my house, I'm happy to come up, but it's harder for me, because that's almost due. Right, so you were upset from the get-go that you were staying? No, no, I wasn't. I told him that pretty candidly. Well, I mean, there's another underlying two weeks here. Friedberg and Sacks have not come to the less three games

at Shamaats' house. Is there something going on here? Is there just a commute? I think the commute is hard. I mean, if you're in a hurry, it's to you guys. The commute's hard. I only miss the last game. I went to the...

Well, Sacks hasn't been coming and I know he's in town. Is there something going on, Sacks, where you can't... No, it's... I mean, it's either the commute or sometimes I'm out of town, you know, so. You were in town the last couple times, I don't know. I think you're kind of you in Chimoff, maybe need to go for a walk. Okay, I'll come, I'll come to next Wednesday's next game.

Whenever the next game is, you should come, but you know, what are you doing? Staying home playing chess with Peter Tiel on your iPad? I mean, come on. Both me and Freeburger about to have kids, we cannot. Are the games over? No, no, no, for another couple of weeks, yeah. We're gonna revert back to that terrible COVID app, iPad app playing poker where like

everyone gets on my car. Oh my god. All the Chinese app that was fixed with a bunch of people colluding. Everyone is so angry. Yeah. Well, we'll get it back a minute. Let's start our show. Let's start.

Let's start the show. First up in Spacland, Donald Trump has done a SPAC, and it's for his Trump media and technology group. And he's launching an app called Truth Social, which you can preload, I guess, in the app store you're allowed to preorder stuff now that that was kind of an interesting feature. The company will merge with a SPAC called Digital World, the acquisition corporation, Tick or Symbol currently, DWAC.

It's led by somebody named Patrick Orlando, who is a Florida based investment manager. I'm not making that up. I don't know if Orlando is actually his name. He founded a sugar trading business and built two energy distribution businesses allegedly or supposedly, Freiburg said maybe he's a real estate guy who knows

the stock peaked at $157 a share this morning, Friday morning. So the stock started at 10 bucks. It started at 10, so that's 16x before dropping back down to 100. It's become a bit of a meme stock on Wall Street bets. Trading was halted. It puts this at something in the range of a well over a $10 billion market cap.

And there is literally no technology, no team, and a bunch of technologists looked at the source code just by doing view source, I think, on the web pages. And there is an open source project, I think, called Master Don, or Master Ton. I don't know, I think it's Master Don. That they seem to have just copied the code from, it's like a distributed version of Twitter.

And it seems they just cut and pasted the code and didn't even change the license, you know, like the GPL license, we're supposed to give credit to who wrote the code. So no business, no team, no IP, no users, no money, no office, no nothing, it's basically, it's an NFT. This is an NFT.

It's an NFT. It's an exchange traded NFT. It's an exchange trade NFT of Donald Trump. The value of this thing is like closer to Donald Trump is closer to 20 billion because there's a $1.7 billion value if they hit certain stock prices according to the press release they put out

but there's not a good SEC filing on it. So at 1.7 that means he got 170 million shares which are now worth let's say at $157 a share. Donald Trump has effectively $20 plus billion. Oh, so he's finally a billionaire? And he's finally a billionaire. A veckery value in his stake in the same-

That's actually a billionaire. And I think this is the absolute penultimate NFT. It is traded against a caricature that is one of a kind, completely rare. This is going to, all of his quote unquote media IP is gonna be licensed into this stack. And so if you wanna own a piece of it, this is the way to own it. And people are trading it like an index

on the Donald Trump character. It's an index on that. I think it's an index on the right. I think it's an index on an alternative to Fox news. The traditional media. The traditional media. It's a huge fuck you to actually the mainstream media. I think this is going to Twitter.

Oh my God, it's going to tilt the hell out of like the folks that write at the at the New York Times. My gosh. Did you see Jack Dorsey's tweet by the way? No, I got to I'll put it in the chat, but he kind of he made a comment on it after there was a screenshot. I mean, let's be honest, it's a grift. I mean, this is just is this is the ultimate peak grift in the peak bubble of our lifetime period. I think it's a vote like Peter Teal said yesterday, you know, like Bitcoin is a vote against

the establishment. This is a vote against the establishment. All right. What are the chances that an actual app launches sacks? And when would that actually happen? When can this crew of dipshits actually write a line of code and actually release a product? You know how hard it is to release product? Yeah. That's a good question. I mean, what they're saying is that they're going to launch a new social network, I guess

Twitter style called Truth Social. And the primary interface will consist of a feed of short posts from users you follow, sounds familiar. However, these posts will be called Truth instead of tweets and reshared as we know as retruths. Wow. So that's what's coming. And the slide deck that's available on the company's website lists Twitter, Facebook, Netflix, Disney+, CNN, IHART Media, Google Cloud, Amazon Web Services, as some of TMTG's current and future competitors. So basically, Trump is proposing an alternative to all the traditional media and social networks that have basically banned him.

But I do think that the trading here does represent, there is, I think, a groundswell for social media platforms that are not controlled by big tech. And, you know, there's Trump has 70 million tech voters, sorry, 70 million voters of those, probably 30 to 40 million, you would say, are would be fans of his on social media. He's been banned from Twitter and Facebook, and this is his response.

He's in great his own platform. I don't know whether it'll be successful, but I think what you're seeing here is the demand for alternatives to, you know, since Sorious platforms that are controlled by Big Tech. So if he has 30 million real fans, Jamoth, what number of them would download the app and participate in the first year?

He had 90 million followers on Twitter, Jake. That does account. But that's half of the Twitter registered account. We had 70 million people vote for him. So what are the real fans, not just Republicans who don't want Hillary? I don't think that's the way to think about this. I would view this as differently than this. What's insane is you have this entity here, which is essentially a cash shell that's

now basically, you know, $300 million of cash, plus what looks like $18 or $19 billion of brand value, like a vintangeable goodwill. And the sum total of that is what the total market cap of this thing is. So if it is 18 billion, then that's what it is. What this allows them to do, and this is where Ken of Getz interesting, is these guys, what it shows me is they could come back and actually raise an enormous amount of money. They could issue a secondary stock sale. They could do a convert. They could raise billions of dollars because the demand is there.

And then with those billions of dollars, they could actually do something really meaningful. They could go and acquire an existing app, Jason. Call it. They could acquire engineers in a product that already exists. They could acquire. Maybe they could acquire. They could acquire a traditional broadcast outlet and give Trump a way to short circuit. His launch have a Fox competitor. So I actually think this is a huge vote. I think David's right. It's a vote against censorship. It's a vote for Trump. It's a vote for the right. It's a vote for

alternative voices. And as a result, I think a lot of folks in the mainstream who have Trump derangement syndrome are now going to be, you gonna be reawoken and in complete full tilt for a while. Yeah, it's pretty tilty. TMTG Plus will be, you know, it's terrible branding, but the TMTG Plus is going to be... Look at this, you're already tilted. I'm super to now, I'm not tilted.

I mean, I think the whole thing is just a super griffed. I don't think the lever get a product out the door. If they do, I think they get to maybe 5, 10 million users. They're going to raise it now. Jekyll, they've got a $20 billion market cap. They could do whatever the hell they want. I think it's all people just manipulating the stock. Like Jekyll said, like Chimalt said, they could turn that into cash.

They could sell, I mean, they could turn a $20 billion out of it. They can get the $20 billion. Trump today, in one day, is worth more than two times in New York Times. Can you imagine what's going on in the New York Times? Just a brand. Yeah, and that's just brand. Well, let's see. I mean, not all these SPACs, they had $150 a share, you know?

So, Jacob, I think you're right that people outside the tech industry really underestimate how hard it is to build technology products that are any good, you know, that have a good UI, they're delightful to users. It does require real talent. And if you're, that have a good UI, they're delightful to users, it does require real talent. And if you're not sort of from the industry, you don't even know what kind of talent need to hire. However, I think Jamoth has a really good point

that with this kind of market cap, they could acquire their way to a portfolio of assets. Like for example, okay, Rumble right now has become the alternative to YouTube among, not just conservatives, but anyone who's been de-platformed, there's a lot of leftists now. There's locals.com that you invested in. Yes, exactly.

I invested in locals, which is Dave Rubin's thing. But just to take rumble for a second is this kind of the YouTube competitor. They've got something like 30 million users plus. It's a pretty big and growing audience But there is locals there are other assets and you could and I think the last valuation of Rumble I think it was announced when Peter teal actually invested. I think it was around a $500 million valuation Even if you paid a gigantic premium to that I mean if you're marketcaps 20 billion you could spend two billion on that You could spend five billion on that Yeah, you know and by the way sorry just to dispel this idea you don't need good UI You could spend $2 billion on that. You could spend $5 billion on that. You could spend $5 billion on that. Yeah. And so,

And by the way, sorry, just to dispel this idea, you don't need good UI if you have the right feature set. And Reddit is the perfect example where they have always been on the side of free speech. And they've always been on the side of allowing people to vocalize and pursue their own passions, even if some of those things were really, you know, for the mainstream, beyond the pale, their UI is terrible, but they have thrived because that single

feature dominates any desire for elegant UI. And so I think what you're going to find over this next iteration of these apps is how valuable free speech is. And there are enough examples, whether it's rumble or Reddit or others, that show you that the ability to not be censored dominates. Forcham, Discord, they're all very similar. It's going to tweet. It's going to tweak. Oh my God. Here's what they have to say in their defense.

They did figure out how to do data analysis and marketing during his 26 team campaign and they did get that guy Pascal or whatever and they figured out Cambridge Analytica. So they did figure out how to get some tech people right, sacks to, you know, do we sort of can I just say one thing? The other super tilted thing is people will want to fade this trade and, you know, they're going to be saws up. They're going to be silently wishing for this thing to crater. And I think there's going to be a lot of profit taking on this because I think it's very speculative.

and I think there's going to be a lot of profit taking on this because I think it's very speculative. But I think we will all be shocked at the actual closing enterprise value when this thing de-spacts because it will de-spack. And we're all going to kind of scratch your head thinking, how did it be not see this? I mean, I didn't see this. I wouldn't be able to. And there's going to be at least a billion dollars of cash available when they do their secondary. At least, at least. I mean, they can do whatever they want. They're going to have more cash available to them to invest in New York County. He is firmly back in the game.

And by the way, one of the comments, Gary Mochie, made this morning, it's a very astute one, which is, I'm rooting for the SPAC because if this actually does despaque at this valuation, Donald Trump is not running for president again because he's now got a $20 billion media business. So $20 million of equity value in this new media business, and he's going to keep running. Sax, what do you think? That could be a win-win for the Republican party. But you're buying the stock to join the board. Sax is leading the B. Yeah, I mean, I think Timoth raise a good point that, since I read it, I think Timotha raises a good point that sites like Reddit have shown that, you know,

like a beautiful UI is not necessarily the feature that users want in every case. I do think you still have to have some tech talent involved in order to produce a good product just to give you an example. So this product wasn't supposed to have its soft launch until next month, but somehow some users found a way to access the site and they were setting up accounts within hours of the announcement.

So one vandal claimed the ad Donald J. Trump handle and posted a picture of a pig with extremely large testicles. So, well, now I would just submit that you at least need to have enough tech talent to prevent something like that from happening. Yes. I mean, maybe it wasn't a vandal. I mean, maybe Trump posted that photo himself. It's not impossible.

It's not brand. But yeah. But anyway, my point is they still have to assemble the tech talent to build this, or I like the idea better of just acquiring the collection of assets that they need. And I think you're right. I think it's multifaceted. I think it's a social network. A lot Twitter, I think it's probably some sort of video. Do not underestimate the number of people in Wall Street

who are on the right and who will help these guys make very good decisions. Even if they do it sort of, you know, quote unquote, clandestinely meaning, they'll never be on the cover of helping them do a big M&A or whatever, but there are a lot of those folks that will help make sure that there's despacks cleanly, that they have access to capital, that they know how to go and raise and tap the markets. And what's beautiful about the public markets, and you can say this is an issue, but it's not.

In this case, you can go and basically support this guy in a way that's relatively anonymous, because it's not like you have to disclose that you own this stuff if you're a private investor. So, I think that he's back in the game in a big way, and I think this is going to really shake up the media landscape. If they can execute well, they just need to think about this as an M&A vehicle, not as an engineering and product creation. Yes, 100% agree. 100% agree. That's what you sell, call in for a billion dollars in equity value at a hundred dollars a share to these guys today. Yes. I can ask her on

its behalf. Yes. Yes. I'm in 50. How were you doing on the phone line? I'll take the 20 X left. No, no. I'll take 20 X in eight months. Jake, how you doing on the phone line? I'll take the 20x left. I'll take the 20x left. No, no. I'll take the 20x in eight months. Jake, how you wanna be my agent? Jake, I swear. I think you have a quicker line to Trump. No, no, no, no. I think actually this might be like, to Peter Till's point,

maybe don't take the product literally, but take the market cap seriously. Because this is a lot of, if they can keep even a $5 billion market up, I do agree that does make them dangerous in terms of buying assets. And I do think they can get the first five. All of these right wing services get five to, he gets five to 10 million people to sign up for him.

Even his like signal, he was at like a million, you know, very quickly. He's got like a signal or telegram group, I think. And he got to, he could buy, maybe He could buy Ben Shapiro's daily caller. That's a big media brand on the right that people listen to. Yeah, and keep Ben Shapiro there to run it because Trump needs operators. The more disruptive thing isn't to buy stuff on the right. It's to buy stuff in the center or even stuff on the left. Again, it's very hard if you're a public company.

It's impossible, actually. If Trump media group now has a currency and tries to acquire assets, the directors have a fiduciary responsibility to actually vote in favor of that deal, because they're not allowed to look at who the buyer is and say, no, we don't want to do that. So if he puts out a reasonable fair market offer price of the closing price plus 30 35 percent

There is not a single public market director in the world. I don't care how Democrat Tick they are or how much of a donor they are they'll always vote the deal because otherwise they will get personally sued and that's the liability in public market So I would be very careful about this thing this thing is gonna get really serious really quickly. I wonder if there's a tent pole media personality that he could acquire in the same way Spotify got Joe Rogan and Netflix got Dave Chappelle. Back to Sachsen, they could offer $100 million. They shouldn't do that.

They should do what Sachs just said, which is that, you know, that list of like the dumpster fire on Facebook every day, which is like Dan Bunigno and Ben Shapiro and blah, blah, blah. He should just go and get all those guys. Yeah, that's what I just said, round them up. But I wonder if there's like a comedian, you know, like Bill Maher obviously hates him, but then is there somebody in the middle who is like a notable comedian on the right

sax? I'm not fully vetted on your all right buddies, but who's in that alt-right cohort that? Well, I think there's there's comics who are willing to be polically incorrect and non-woake. So I think that, what's his name? Like Bill Burr or something like that? Isn't he like, I don't know if he's not team Netflix. But yeah, I wonder if a Bill Burr,

he hates Trump though, I think. Or, who is the guy who got canceled for exposing himself? Who is the K? Leah, Louis CK. Louis CK. I mean, I'm not saying he's conservative, right, but, you know, he's available. No, he's not.

Both of those guys hit. He's highly available. So, I mean, actually, one thing to think about is, you know, Trump got all these people to do like the monthly $25 reoccurring subscription. I mean, he got a little bit of trouble for that because people didn't know they were signing off for it. But I wonder if he could get a million people or five million people to pay ten bucks a month for this,

Sacks? Yeah, absolutely. If there's something there behind the curtain, I mean, if it's nothing but like, I don't know, a newsletter of his like, extemporaneous tweets, I don't think so, but if there's real content there from people they care about, why wouldn't they?

Wait a second. What if he just did every Friday night a rally on a video service where he just did one of his two or three hour stand-up routines and had different people come up and talk like his pillow guy and all of his other weirdos and I think this could be like the Oprah Winfrey network where she may like anchor the temp pole show or something but there's a lot of other creators on the network.

I think that's the opportunity. Yeah, okay. The question, the question quite frankly, though is whether he's operational enough to actually drive to these outcomes. I think it's very easy for us to imagine what you could do with $20 billion in his media brand and the question is, does this get executed that way? Now, does Twitter be a real estate sugar guy from Florida that's going to manage this thing

to an outcome? Does Twitter then let him back on the platform? If he has this competing platform, does Facebook have that? No, I think at that point, they have the. Does Twitter then let him back on the platform if he has this competing platform to Facebook? How does that make it? No, I think at that point, they have the perfect excuse not to let him back on, which is like, hey, we're not censoring him because there's an alternative.

They don't want to let him back on. In a way, I guess you have to ask yourself if Twitter had let him come back on and gave him his platform back after like a six month or a year time out, would he even be doing this? No, he says, he has a press announcement and gave him his platform back after like a six-month or a year timeout, would he even be doing this? No, he says, he has a press announcement where he says that, I mean, he says here that Trump, Media and Technology Group's mission is to create a rival to the liberal media consortium

and fight back against the big tech companies that's looking to Valley, which have user unilateral power to silence opposing voices in America. This is what's given him the opportunity, is their censorship. Their censorship just created a $20 billion work test. I mean, the most tilting thing of this whole conversation is it's worth twice as much as the New York Times. But I've never been saying on this show for over a year that censorship backfires in ways you can't expect.

You never think through the second and third order consequences of their censorship. It's like when Angela Merkel came out and said, hey, wait, did Twitter just de-platform ahead of state? Why are we depending on them? I mean, there's all these second and third order consequences. They never think through. And now they're coming back to vitamin S. Yeah, I mean, forcing people to get vaccines is now leading to whatever percentage of people just retiring or not coming back to work and that's causing a bit of bedlam in the economy as we talked about. All these authoritarian tendencies create a backlash

of some kind and if our ruling elites would just have a lighter hand, there'd be a lot less tension in the country. We had an interesting discussion last night during, but I think it was on the other side of the table, so maybe you two didn't hear it, but we were talking about is Biden gonna run again in 2024? And what would that look like? And I just said, I can't imagine Biden in a debate three years from now. Like he doesn't seem, I don't wanna be derogatory here, but he doesn't seem very crisp the last time,

four years later. So what do we think? Chances of Biden running in 2024, chances of Trump running in 2024 with all this information. And what would that look like? Zero and zero. You're zero zero. Freeberg? Are you even care? Nope. Yeah, I didn't think so.

I mean, I think Trump's gonna run this $20 billion media empire and be happy doing that. I think if it's not Biden, it's gonna be a proxy. So it's not gonna be too far off in terms of what the you're deep in this sacks you're hosting as people were talking about on Twitter. And you tilted all of San Francisco or 90% of it. You're hosting DeSantis for a fundraiser. It's first fundraiser for Israel election is governor. He hasn't said anything about his plans in 2024. It's way too early for that. Do I think Biden or Trump could be on the ballot? I think it's 50, 50 for both of them.

All right. But I would like to see, but look, it's not having two 80-year-olds running against each other. I would like to see, say, two 40-something, or you just younger leaders, giving America a real choice. All right, where do we want to jump off to now? Venture Capital. Venture Capital capital because clearly sacks is is having extraordinary liquidity events

11 o'clock at night on a Thursday night that freeberg money is not made it simply transferred from one perception to another Wall Street Sacks was like in his speech. Sax was like in his he was going to do it last night. My logs from Wall Street last night. He was leaving the poker table to go into his soundproof chamber that oversees his estate next to the poker room.

And from there he was on his phone screaming, pacing back and forth, doing deals, gecko style, he had his 300 pound trader next to him. He was placing orders and something's going on in the market. I mean, it's that, you know, if you tell, but clearly the venture liquidity waterfall that's going on right now is playing into it. Well, it is bonkers.

Wait, we got to show that chart. We should highlight the statistics, Jake, because it is truly extraordinary how much liquidity venture firms are having this year. All right. Well, just to look at the value of US venture back companies that went public or were acquired, $ So we are now 5,6X where we were five years ago. And this is again, the value of US venture back companies that went public or required. So the liquidity is bonkers. And we're seeing that in real estate,

jets being bought, whatever. The VC industry has experienced three years of record breaking exits. This is a Twitter user who tweeted it. 2021 is obviously smashing all those levels. Yeah, I mean, for the last, until the last three years, the previous 1520 years, the exits per year were in this 50 to a hundred billion range. Then they've jumped up to 600 billion in the last year, and the previous two years, it was 300 billion each. So yeah, I mean, it's just, more money has been made or distributed out

in the venture capital industry in the last three years. I think the previous 20 years combined, at least. The last three years, yeah. And that doesn't even factor in what's happening in crypto. Right. And crypto is just like, I'm sure there's some crypto here, coin bases in here, as an example. No, like, I'm sure there's some crypto here, coin bases in here,

as an example. No, like like in my portfolio, as an example, like, you know, like venture returns, which have been excellent across the board. So forget mine, just everybody's. Venture value kind of like slowly ticks up over time, right? Because like, you know, you're doing this work and then that work gets valued and then somebody else comes in and raises you round

and, you know, you hopefully can defend your prerada. Yadda, yadda. So, it does create a lot of compounding value, but it's, you know, and it's relatively fast, but compared to crypto, it's unbelievably slow. Whereas in crypto, you know, quarter over quarter, you have these swings that I've personally never ever seen. Like I was telling you this story yesterday, we own something, which I'm not gonna tell you what it is,

but it's a crypto thing. And our nav, I had to mark my book up, a billy net asset value on that asset. I had to mark it up because we have to submit to our auditors and just keep an accurate sense of what our book value is. A billion dollars and a quarter. I've never seen that in my entire investing career. And here's how what it does to me and my whole team. I have a budget for next year of how much I

want to spend instantly that number goes up. And what it really means is I'm probably just going to be getting the same ownership, but I'm just going to be paying more for it. And if I'm going through that, I think everybody's going to go through it. What it's going to do is it's like all of these returns are great. All of these increases are great, but I'm not sure that there's going to be that much more progress. There's not necessarily going to be that many more startups because it's just harder and harder to find good things for the same number of GPs in a place.

And costs are going, but, Nana's, salaries are off the charts. I don't know if you guys saw, but Stripe, for example, there was a tweet about how Stripe starting to pay like starting engineers 280K. I don't know if that's true or not, but there was a tweet in Twitter. And I thought to myself, my gosh, like 20 years ago, a starting engineering salary

was 5060K in the Bay Area. And so you've seen this incredible price inflation. So it's actually quite good. Again, it's sort of what we talked about yesterday. All of these gains eventually come back around and get recaptured. And so I think that you're starting to see the beginning of this really incredible cycle of wealth transfer essentially.

So the funds may make it, but it's going to come back to the time. Let me ask you a question about the crypto stuff. Is there any worry there that these valuations match reality? Because you might have a very small float on these, a lot of excitement, and they're not actually products being used by customers in the real world. Here's the thing. Because it's an internal permanent pool of capital, I have no legal requirement

to actually mark, okay? But the reason we do it is because we want to track nav and AV in book value, okay? And I compensate my team based on how well we compound book value, but you're right, it's a huge problem, because I don't know how to get liquid on these things. And so you see this thing sitting on your balance sheet and you're like, what do we do with this?

How do you move it around? You can't, you cannot. And so I would rather, there's a great guy. He was an early pioneer private equity and he had this phrase, which he said, like, you know, the best way to mark up a deal is right at the end. So if you put in, you know, $10 million into a series A, if you could be allowed, the best thing to do would be carry that at a $10 million value right until the minute you get liquid. Because then you don't go through the psychological roller coaster ride

of having to go through these marks. because then when these marks come back down, Jason, to your point, they'll be a quarter where we give back that billion dollars of debt, maybe. You know? I mean, what do we all do? It's a huge mind-fuck. Let me ask a question about valuation. Sax, when you're doing yours,

because this came up when I was doing mine and marking my funds, if a secondary transaction occurs and somebody buys comm or, you know, slack or whatever, it's the one that's a private company at $10 a share, but the last time you purchased it or there was a funding two years ago, it was at $2 a share. Where do you put the valuation at what the secondary market is trading it at or what you last paid for it or somewhere in between those and who makes that decision, Sacks? What is the best practice on this? Because secondary market transactions,

people are actually making a transaction. But is that as good as a venture firm, you know, plopping down and joining the board? Obviously not. No, it's not. So first of all, you don't want to be making these decisions at Hock. You want to have a policy.

So we have a written policy and there's a process for amending it if it ever needs to be amended. And what our policy does is it just uses the most recent preferred round to give us the value of the shares. And then there can be adjustments based on market conditions. Like we know that, it's usually on the downward, right? Like the company, we know as had a huge problem,

they're not gonna fundraise again. So there's not gonna be a new marketing time. So you're saying it's a zombie company, but yeah, there's going to be some company we can, we can mark it down. But basically speaking, we use preferred financing valuations to set marks only. Now, we do sometimes buy secondary shares and there's a methodology for bringing a value on them. Usually it's basically what we buy them at.

And if we somehow otherwise own common, we'll use the 498. So yeah, it's, I think it's basically what we buy them at and If we somehow otherwise own common will use the 498. That's what we do. Yeah. Yeah, I think it's a really really clean policy You want to be conservative in these because nothing you know you're worse. Yeah, I think you have to be accurate not conspicuous Yeah, well, I mean you could be Yeah, I guess the question is like you could see somebody playing some games where you know you buy You know some shares at the you own shares in the company you buy some shares in I think you've got two marks the embedded risk inventor capital has always been the following Which is that you have money that goes in into the a And there is an incentive today especially because so much money is trying to come in

Where you want to drive as much growth as possible because then the B is at such a large step up that the IRRs look amazing. And then the C looks greater than the B, so then everybody's quote unquote, making paper money, which allows you to create more incentives to raise more capital. The problem with all of that is that if these valuations

ever turn out to not be real, or there's a valuation reset, or there's inflation, or the public markets don't value growth stocks, it takes a long time for it to work its way through the venture ecosystem. And all of this liquidity will probably make it even more violent when it does happen, because it'll eventually will happen. We'll go through a re-rating like the year 2000, who knows when it is and what the catalyst is. But that's the real downside of not, of all of this, is that it'll eventually have a valuation reset that's going to be.

Well, and to make this super real for people, US venture capital funds have raised to combine 69.1 billion in 2020. Edge, it passed to 2018. And a couple of these were because of Andrew Dries and Horowitz doing a pair of megafunds with 4.5 billion in commitments recently. And so it's been just a tremendous amount of funds being made. And then to give you an example, Clubhouse went from 100 million to a billion to four billion in under 18 months evaluation, led at think each time by Andrew Dries and Horowitz. So what you're saying in an example like this, or in your hypothetical example, and I'll just make it a real world one, if they take, though, and by the way,

these are 2020 old one, 2020 sets. I don't know what the 2021 sets are. So those are old sets. There's probably many more. I think actually I have the update sets. Funds have raised 96 billion for 2021. That's the most up date. In fairness to all of the venture capitalists, I think that they're doing exactly what they should be doing. And in fairness to all the crossover funds, right now is the time to be putting maximum money to work as fast as possible, not necessarily intelligently, not necessarily in a concentrated way. But the real game, if you want to play it at the institutional level, is to just put

all the chips on the table and then go back to the store and get some more chips. As quickly as possible, put them all in the table, come back and get more so that when it all is set and done, you have as many dollars working. And the worst case is, you will return the average return of the market. And if that happens to be good, you look good. If it happens to be crappy, you'll be no worse, better worse off than anybody else. But meanwhile, you will have collected enormous fees. And so that's the point in the cycle we're at.

And I think that anybody who's doing it makes a ton of sense. I think it's a really logical thing to be doing. The ones that have had big liquidity events are also retiring. I mean, we're seeing across the board, GPs of these ultra successful funds that have returned 5X plus,

taken their, yeah, and they got their carried interest and they share their 20, 25% share in that and they walk away. But if you look at the value of all global public equities, it's about $100 trillion. And so if you're seeing, let's say that we're raising $100 billion a year of venture capital in these funds, and then you're making a two and a half X average market return, which is not normal, right? Let's assume that's the normal cycle we're in right now. That's $250 billion of liquidity realized in a year out of a hundred trillion dollars of global public equities

That's only a quarter of a percent of the disruption of public equities and think about it Technology is set up to disrupt all of these old-school businesses that are public and mature and scaled and that's what the hundred trillion dollars represents So it's actually, you actually kind of looking at it statistically, it's not that unfounded that we're only seeing a quarter percent market cap disruption of public equities each year because those public companies aren't disrupting each other generally, maybe to some extent they are, they're getting disrupted by new companies that are emerging, new startups.

And so I don't think that this is like necessarily the peak, it may kind of be the beginning of a continuing disruption cycle that we're gonna see kind of persist for the next decade or two, especially as more of the old school industrial businesses, which make up a bulk of that market cap, start to get disrupted, not just by software, but also by automation, by ESG, angle investing, by life sciences and all these other kind of technologies

that and these interests, these market interests that are gonna disrupt those all industries. I think we could even see an acceleration from here. So, I don't think that this is necessarily peak frenzy, bubble, blow interest, great fueled outcomes. I think this may be kind of part of a longer term trend that is statistically probably not that big a deal. Saxo, you concerned about this peak bubbly market,

or do you think, like Tramot said, push all your chips in and raise this big of fund as you can. And if the game is going to be played at these high stakes, you want to be at the table. Well, I like what Freeberg said. I think it's a super interesting point that this could just be the beginning. Look, we live in an age of accelerating technological progress. So why went through returns from that accelerating technological progress, also be accelerating? You know, we had this thesis 20 years ago when the internet first started that the new economy would replace the old economy.

It took a few years longer than people thought, but we are fully there. And the number of new companies being created now is just exploding. There are a lot of this, the liquidity that's being generated is being now pumped into the next set of funds, which will go to founders. They'll be able to create more companies. They'll be able to keep more of those companies because they'll be less dilution. And then a lot of this wealth is trickling, a lot of the VC money is trickling down into the competition for salaries. So, really, anywhere in the world who can learn how to write code can now make a six-figure plus salary because of remote work.

So all the salaries all over the world are equilibrating. So I mean, this is an incredible pathway to prosperity for, I mean, certainly the United States, but really the whole world. For humanity. For humanity, For humanity. It's really positive, assuming it keeps going, assuming it's not just totally liquidity-driven and, you know, I don't know exactly, you know, how all those macro forces will play out. But, I mean, this seems very positive overall.

The other thing it'll lead to just quickly is a change in who has political power because ultimately money is the mother's milk of politics and the people who are making all these returns will eventually fund politicians. And yeah, I'm one of them. But look, I think there's two kinds of, I'd say prototypes politically speaking for people in the technology world. You've kind of got the sort of standard woke progresses who are funding a lot of this crazy stuff, like de-carstration cities,

whatever we've talked about that before. But I also think there's another prototype that's less loud and they feel that they kind of keep their views more to themselves, which is I call them liberal terians, who are sort of liberal on social values, but libertarian on economic policy. They don't like government regulations, certainly, if they're in the crypto world. They don't like government regulations. They could see how they create friction to progress, and they believe in markets. And I think they're going

to want to fund politicians who support those types of things. So, I could be very positive politically in that respect. What's interesting, I just wanna build on what you built on what Friedberg said, which is, I think the best point you made was look on a global basis of the opportunity for an individual, somebody who is graduating high school college, they're 18, 19, 20 years old, because of remote work, anybody can work from anywhere. Technology companies have unlimited resources, and they

need an un, and never ending supply of developers, or even a salesperson, a marketer, you know, back office, et cetera, and they can work from anywhere on the globe and make a six figure salary, you know, whatever, 50, 60, 70, 80K for one of these entry-level jobs and sales. And all the information on how to get those jobs is available for free from startups that have put open courseware online or very free courses. Yet we're looking at this massive technological change, and the New York Times' position is that technology is destroying humanity and polarization of wealth is destroying humanity. What we're actually uncovering here is all of this money being invested in these companies

is giving an opportunity for people around the world to get high paying jobs. Totally. And actually, can I, can I, can I, let me mention a really interesting item in that was just in Politico today, which is about Al Sharpton was lobbying in Congress against changing the carried interest treatment.

So remember, all of us in VC make our compensation in the form of carried interest. Explain what it is. Well, it's basically, if a fund is in profits that the VC will get, the VC's firm will get say 25% of the upside after they pay back all their LPs. That's called the carried interest. Because of the way that these partnerships are set up, that is treated as a capital gains, as opposed to ordinary income, assuming it meets the holding periods of the underlying assets. So there's a big debate about whether VCs and private equity people should be paying

ordinary income or long-term kept gains on those returns, Al Sharpton was lobbying against changing it because in this political article, he was saying that it would impede the efforts of black entrepreneurs to build lasting wealth if you jacked up the tax rates because there's a lot of fund managers and who are black, who are making a lot of money now, and they don't want to be subject to this change in treatment. So that was super interesting. This tech boom is not exclusive. I mean, the tech industry gets this rap as if it's this highly exclusionary place.

It's not. I mean, three of the people on this pod right now are immigrants. So the wealth that's being created is not going to traditional centers, traditional, it's not going to the errors of, you know, Northeastern, you know, families or something who've been saying their kids are Harvard and Princeton for generations. It's going to entirely new people who haven't had this kind of wealth before.

By the way, that's interesting. Another positive externality of this wealth, all these massive gains that folks who have invested in venture capital have gotten has caused one really interesting positive change. So Amherst, which is a really exclusive liberal arts college in the Northeast, made so much money. Their endowment is so flush with cash, they basically eliminated legacy admittances, which means if your parents got in, you were 70% likely to get into Amherst. An equivalent kid whose parents didn't go to Amherst had a less than 6% admit rate, right?

So a huge disparity. Basically said, if you were a legacy kid, that exists, you know, we all know this, it exists at Harvard, it exists at all these Ivy League schools. But Amherst has made so much money through VC investments as an example. They're like, we've canceled admittances. So there are some really positive things that are happening with all this money that's being made. All sharp things rationale aside, anyone's going to get wealthier if they're paying less taxes.

So, I think, you're broadly... Yeah. You're gonna see a bit of a focus on that point. Obviously, you can... Well, which is why California was massively in the bonus in terms of budget surplus and cash because of this issue. And they were spending money like Trump and sellers. Yeah, I mean, I just think you're gonna hear a lot of

positioning for the case. And by the way, I think that building individual wealth creates, this is obviously a philosophical point, but it creates a greater path to prosperity for more people through the spending that they'll underdo in growing the economy than not. So I don't know. I mean, I feel like the Al Sharpton point is a good one to kind of make, but it's a broader one than that. Well, I think that so, in my view, the broader point about the Sharpton thing

is that it shows that we talk about this group of rich people, the wealthy, the millionaires and billionaires, is if it's a static class of people, at least this is the progressive attack, it's not. I mean, what Sharpton points to is that this group is constantly changing. There's new people getting rich. So when we talk about the rich,

if it's new people getting rich, or we're really talking about is success. And if you really want to ban people getting rich, I mean, you're talking about banning success, our country can't be successful that way. We're not going to be able to outcompete China if we're preventing success. And by the way, we can't fund all these progressive programs

if we are hamstringing success. So I think what we've created here with this highly entrepreneurial free enterprise system that's funded by venture capital, this is the golden goose of the American economy. And the most important thing is that we don't break it. Sachs, it might just be, we may have underestimated its power, is what we're sort of realizing collectively here today, is that we've't break it. Sacks, it might just be, we may have underestimated its power is what we're sort of realizing collectively

here today is that we've always thought that this thing is hitting all time highs. This might be the beginning, right? It feels like this is getting bigger and going out of velocity that is different than even when we came into the industry. The amount of exits, the scale of these companies, the coin bases, the robinhoods, the ubers, the slacks. I mean, these are giant companies making huge international impacts. I think it's either that or this whole thing is liquidity driven bubble.

So it's one of the two. I said it's both. It's both. I mean, I also think the sharpening is a very interesting point that we can go back to maybe episode 25 or 20 when we started this podcast, which was Trump got massive support from the black and Hispanic community because of this entrepreneurial freedom,

upward mobility, pitch the Republicans were making. That's the perfect pitch for the Republicans, not this divisive, divisive, shut the border down, but more, hey, we want everybody to support it. And I thought, well, no, how crazy is this? Michael Che, do you want to just add on this and I'll give it to you, Tremac? Michael Che was on the breakfast club when our friend was hosting SNL and he said, I don't know.

I think why people just don't like their billionaires for some reason. It's weird because we love our billionaires. If Oprah or Tyler Perry was coming, we'd be excited about it. And I met Michael Cheyne. Michael Cheyne was really excited. He's a fan of Elon's. I'm like, it was a really great conversation they had. So true. It's so true.

Why are we hating people who are changing the world and helping? Right, because it's not we. It's frankly, it's white woke progressives. They're crazy. They're the crazy ones. We have to get purple. I think conservatives and what you call woke progressives. They're crazy. They're the crazy ones. We have to get purple. I think conservatives and what you call woke progressives are the same. I don't think it's about a political affinity. I think it's about people feeling

like they don't have the opportunity that others clearly were able to realize. And it is amplified and magnified by a social media that basically shines a light on the success that people have had in a way that we've never had in history before. And it creates a great deal of feeling like I'm missing out and I'm being left out. And that's what's driving a lot of the discontent on both the left and 100%. It's not a political point of view. I think it's a social point of view. And the great progress we've had and the great success we've had as a society over the past couple of decades is now being realized through this media in a way

that's kind of driving emotional conditions for people that haven't had the same level of success. Maybe if they stop tweeting and complaining and just learn some skills, like, as the only, as the only colored person on this pod, what I'll tell you is I, it's very rare that I meet a colored person that hates a successful other colored person.

Just doesn't exist, guys. Tell us more. It's just one of these things where, you know, we are all grinding. We all know how hard it is to be on the outside looking in. If any one of us makes it, there's a lot of support. I mean, we see that in a... That's what I felt. I've...

So that's what I felt. So that's what African Jews don't feel that way. No, I mean, we see that in the incoming emails and tweets to you, Jamal. If you are inspiring people in India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, we see it constantly. They come up to you at events and they're like, hey, if Jamal can figure this out, I can do it. I'm about to do this thing in Africa. And I'm going there in December.

I can't wait. And, you know, we're thinking of just doing a couple of like lectures and talks and stuff. All in Africa, let's do it. Lectures and talks and these places are gonna get rammed with people and it's like, it's beautiful to see like, yeah, I just think that minorities like don't hate on other people that are successful.

It's just not. You're going to Africa in December? Yeah. Why do we do all in Africa? What are we doing? Like, where are you going? I got some stuff. I got some stuff. Hey. I'm getting email constantly by people who are starting startups in Africa. I want to go. I've never been. I really want to come with me in early December.

If you want. I'm in. I'm 100% I have nothing to do. I'm bored. Here's the thing that I wanted to talk about before. What is crazy and this is Jason to build on your Trump comment, we may be facing a situation I'd love to get your guys' reaction where Donald Trump in his first two years of his presidency may actually have gotten more done than Biden will get done in his first two years. And I just want your guys as reaction and thoughts on how that possibly could be because we have a Democratic president, we have a Democratic Congress and we may not get anything done. I can speak to that. Here's your aneupe. That's what the wind up. I can't believe that the way the progressives have done this reconciliation bill.

It's been crazy. Okay. Look from the beginning they've been saying Biden administration the Democrats have been saying we want to do the biggest Package of tax expense. It's a great society. Okay, but here's a thing. If you want to do LBJ type things, you got to have LBJ type majorities. They've got a 50-50 Senate and a three seat margin in the house. LBJ, when he passed the great society, he had like 69 senators. He had a filibuster supermajority, filibuster proof, supermajority in the Senate. He had something like 150-seat margin in the house. That is the kind of margins you need to pass great-style like programs. So instead of having, I'd say, ambitions that were reasonable,

the administration coaxes with the progressives, they come together with this full over 4.5 billion of spending, 3.5 in the social welfare, 1.2 trillion of infrastructure, and they wanted even more, okay? And then they've been trying to jam this thing, and they never went to the center of the party to cinema to mention and said, hey, what are you guys willing to do? And so somehow, I think they thought they could just jam this thing through over the objections of these votes that they absolutely need. And I think there's really this mentality on the part of the progressive left that I

think they're so used to jamming people with speech codes and cancellation and censorship and COVID mandates that are not passed by legislatures but have been imposed by Edith. I think they're just used to jamming people and they think they're gonna shame people on Twitter like these centers, like Manchin likes cinema into voting their way.

Guess what, it doesn't work that way. Twitter is not the real world. Eric Adams showed that in New York. In one of that election. Exactly. Dave Chappelle is, Dave Chappelle is a 95% approval rating. Okay. The critics hate him. The woke progressives hate him.

Guess what? You know how many people were actually at that Dave Chappelle protest like three dozen, okay? The progressives don't have the votes. What they should have done. And by the way, their conduct through the whole thing has been insane. AOC's basically been saying, if you don't give us everything we want, we're not voting for your one and only dollar bill.

They have a play their case. These guys have like ace jack off and they're shh. They're pretty good. They're had saying, hey, unless you give us three and a half billion, we're not going to vote for one billion. Really? You're going to do that. How does that make sense?

We call their bluff. We know progressives will vote for every penny they can. What What Biden should have done if we had a more hands-on president who actually wants to get things done. He knows this from his time in the Senate. He should have gone to those swing senators as a group and said, hey, what can we get done here? Not to AOC and Pelosi. They can't deliver. I mean, the promise of Biden, I'll say, as somebody who voted for Biden, I'm a little disappointed, was he was supposed to be moderate and he was supposed to bring people to the center.

And it doesn't feel like he's actually, to your point from our view, ask us what we think, I have, I'm not regretting, because I Trump had to go, it was too much chaos, there was just too much risk having him in there. So I'm glad I voted for Biden. But I am unhappy that he cannot build consensus down the middle and get the far left to just, you know, pump the brakes. I understand they have passion for certain

projects, but just get something done moderately and in a phased approach. Why does this have to be so huge and confusing? Do the things three times? Well, sacks is exposing what we may not know, which is that progressives are very loud, but they may not actually represent a plurality of people. So for example, in the Netflix protest, I saw a video, and there was about two dozen people, you know, and one person actually had tweeted, hey, I never even showed up to the office yet,

but now I've been showing up to walk out of the office. But then what happened was there were some other people that showed up. And in the middle of the protest, they had a sign that said, you know, jokes are funny. I like jokes. And then everybody started chanting that. Then a black woman got up and she started to say black lives matter. And then everybody got confused and started to chant black lives matter. And then they were all looking around each other trying to find direction in this protest

and it became somewhat directionless. And I think this is what we're now realizing is that, remember, as managers and corporations, we've all heard this term, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. But it may actually be the case that the squeaky wheel shouldn't get the grease because it's a head fake and we're going to get lost in misdirection. Another example of this, there's a guy, Dorian Abbott, and I wanted to talk about this as well. This is a guy who's an acclaimed climate professor. Okay, let me just give you the whole story. I'm just going to read to you, because I think it's interesting the first couple of paragraphs of this story from the New York Times.

MIT invites geophysicist Dorian Abbott to give a prestigious public lecture this autumn. He seemed a natural choice. He's a scientific star who studies climate change. And whether planets and distant solar systems might harbor atmosphere is conducive to life. Then a swell of angry resistance arose. Some faculty members and grad students argue that Dr. Abbott, who's a prophet University of Chicago,

had created harm by speaking out against aspects of affirmative action and diversity, because in videos and opinion pieces, he wants people and members of groups rather than as individuals. He basically favors a diverse pool of applicants selected on merit. So, but he said his planned lecture at MIT was about climate science and to help people understand climate change and would make no mention of his views on affirmative action. But his opponents argued that he was infuriating, inappropriate, and oppressive, and so they canceled the lecture.

Now, here's the question I have. That's another example of all of this stuff. Are we better off with, let's just say there's a hundred grad students, a hundred brilliant minds at MIT being pushed to think even more specifically about climate change by an expert who can do that? Or are we better off finding some more middle of the road person who may be not be as intellectually ambitious around climate change, but has a whole bunch of other views not related to climate change that are more palatable. And what does that do for all of us, including probably all these people who probably want

a solution to climate change, but who have now held back the ability to teach these kids? What do we do? What do we think about that kind of stuff? And this is where, again, the squeaky wheel in this case did get the grease, but are we actually better off in this example? Friedberg. Diversity of thought, drive successful outcomes?

All right, thanks coming in for the all-in podcast. We're telling you shit you already now. I mean, like, what are we talking about? For yourself people, listen to a bunch of opinions. And if somebody says something you don't like or challenges you, then that's an opportunity for you to learn or grow or for you to make a blog post or do your own stand-up special and give your own talk, that challenges their debate. Like we do here every week.

Right. You guys are more the same thing happened with that. What's that ultra conservative young guy, Sacks who went to Berkeley a few years ago and they blocked him to join the campus. No, no, no, the, um, no, a Greek name, Greek name. You know, you're not a list.

Mealow, you know, a list. He's the right wing guy, the gay, provocateur. We're here. We're talking about an expert in climate change, giving a lecture about climate change to grad students who could then go and solve climate change for the call of the world. I mean, this is MIT and you, you Chicago, which are probably two of the smartest institutions

of people in the world. Right. He's not saying anything politically offensive. It's just that his unrelated views, they view, they think are anathema and therefore they're going to protest and block him. And of course, they always use the language of safety as in which is, oh, well, if you allow this person on campus, it threatens my safety. Really?

This person's a physical threat to you? No, he threatens my self-conception. Really, he said something that, you know, he's going to talk about something that depends on you. You know, it's just that, you know, he said things that threatened my view of the world, so my safety is jeopardized. I mean, this is literally the language that's being used now.

I mean, free works reaction to it is, yeah, this is so obvious that we don't even to discuss it, but it's not so obvious that it's not taking place. It's happening. It's happening. It's happening. You know what I find the most disappointing about the whole Netflix situation is,

I thought Dave Chappelle, you know, even though maybe the special wasn't as funny as other ones, I thought it made you think in such a just incredible way. And I always were actually read, I looked up the transcript and I read the transcript so I could think more about it and try to form an opinion about this turf issue

and trans people and, you know, people punching up, punching down and comedy, it made me think. And then the entire discussion about this is just people walking out and no discussion about what he actually said. And that to me is just a little bit of a tell. Like if you are so upset about what he said, well, where is the transcript of what he said,

break it down sentence by sentence and tell us exactly what he got wrong and why so that we can continue the discussion. The Netflix walk out and how this thing has unfolded, the reason it's so unproductive is because they're not moving the discussion forward. They're not actually listening to what Shepel said and spoiler alert. If you haven't seen it yet, I'm going to talk a little bit about what was in it. He talked about his friendship with a trans person who was a comedian and how he and she

had these incredible discussions and learned a lot from each other and how she was dragged on Twitter and a lot of tragic outcomes. And I'll leave it at that. But there's no discussion about his relationship with that woman who had a tragic fate and the substance of what he said. Did you notice that, Timoth?

That there's no discussion about the actual words and points that Dave ship hell made that shows you that this is a disingenuous or a broken discussion. Yeah, I just think that the problems that we have as a society are really big. Freibler talked about it, we have inequality problems,

we have climate change problems, you know, we have problems of sort of like systemic health issues. These are all fixable. And I think that this other stuff is getting in the way of people getting organized to solve those issues. 100% and I think that that frustrates me. I would have really, I'm not sure I agree with this guy's views on affirmative action. Let me just be clear. I'm kind of, I think on the margins of affirmative action, it actually, it levels the playing field. And so I support it. But I also sort of the fact that if this guy is a brilliant geophysicist and he's already

proven that, I would want my kids to be taught climate science from him. Sure. I don't, I don't think he's out there to try to like pedal his affirmative action views, you know, to a bunch of other physicists. I don't think that's what he's doing. No. That's not what he's celebrating. It's not his life's work.

And so I don't care. I would want all of those really brilliant kids at MIT to have to be one step closer to proposing a solution to climate change. I think that's a pervasive global issue. I mean, we don't have the ability to prioritize these things and that's what's just so sad. We're not going to have an honest conversation about climate change because we can't have that expert give us talk. And I don't think we're to Jason's point, I don't think we're having an honest conversation

about the Chappelle special. I don't think any of us believe that Chappelle hates LGBTQ people or I don't think anyone of the audience thinks that and I think you have to deliberately misinterpret what Chappelle is thinking or saying in order to believe that his message is hate, I don't think it is. Now what I think that Chappelle Special represents, a threat to, is perhaps this idea of intersectionality that all of these oppressed groups have to be on the same team. What he seems to be saying is there's a group of what he's kind of making fun of is that there's this group of sort of pampered, rich,

white, LGBTQ people who have made enormous progress. I mean, it doesn't even say at one point in the special that, you know, I wish my community, black people could have made as much progress in 40 years in terms of acceptance as this group has. And yet this group now wants us to immediately adopt all of their language and sensibilities and punches down, talks down to us if we don't. I mean, that's kind of the point he's making

is he's kind of revealing a little bit of a rift between these two groups that are supposed to have been. Well, if you saw the clip of the protest, that rift was actually in display because everybody got confused about what they were supposed to support because you had one set of chance and then you had jokes or funny chance and then you had BLM chance from completely different cohorts of people and it just became a chaos. Well, I mean, if everybody's opinion must be put through the lens of how many oppressed groups they're from, you know, obesity, I'm black, I'm gay, I'm trans, I'm short, whatever. I mean, like, how do we have, how do you even navigate a discussion intelligently if I have

to say, okay, you're Sri Lankan, but you're rich, Chamoff, and Friedberg, Godassburgers, but he's really smart about saying, what do we mean? Just make your point and let's have our honest discussion about it. And why are we so upset about this special, when in China, we've got a million people,

Uighurs being sterilized and tortured. And then I don't know if you saw this week, Xi Jinping is saying like he wants to get rid of the sissy people, a sissy man in his terms using in China. They literally want to media rules against a feminine man. Yeah, I mean, well, why are we not protesting that?

Well, we saw this in the Middle East as well. The real threat to LGBTQ people, or these authoritarian governments that really want to oppress, you know. I'm pretty much, they want to murder. I murder gay people absolutely. They want to kill them. Yeah, I mean, Sappelle is not the threat. I think Sappelle had to be silenced

because what he's saying is actually very heretical to the work progressive left, which is that not all of these groups on the same page. And again, they believe in this idea of intersectionality that all of these groups on the same page. And again, they believe in this idea of intersectionality that all of these groups have to basically be on the same page and actually the more oppressed groups that you're part of, the more elevated you are. And so this idea that there could be a schism

actually is something they want to silence. Yeah, I mean, Chappelle's quote, I don't disagree with the trans movement. I just agree with the way they're going about it was his kind of point. And he said, I mean, Chappelle's quote, I don't disagree with the trans movement. I disagree with the way they're going about it was his kind of point. And he said, I mean, I think again, let me speak on as a, as a, as a colored person who grew up in a minority family, you know, I would love to tell you that my parents were super, super open minded, but that would be a lie.

And you know, I love them to death, and I think they tried their best, but you know, they came with a ton of fucking baggage and a ton of stereotypes and, you know, I don't think that my parents would have been the most supportive of other minorities. Whether it's color or sexual orientation or ever, and it was a lot of like very complicated conversations to explain to them how to see the world differently. And that's what happened when you pluck them out of a third world country and drop them into Canada. And I think that my parents came far a very long way. I remember when I first started dating my ex-wife, it's like it wasn't very complicated thing for them to see me dating an Asian woman, very complicated. They didn't understand.

And then it was like, well, did you want me to marry or date a Sri Lankan? And they were like, yes, but as long as she's not Muslim. And it's like like, well, did you want me to marry or date a Sri Lankan? And they were like, yes, but as long as she's not Muslim. And it's like, what the hell are you? Like, what are you saying? And so I'm just trying to tell you that this idea of intersectionality, it does play out in a lot of our lives because we all come from families, especially our aging parents. Oh, my God. Yeah. My grandparents, there were some, I mean, I love my kids, but I'll be honest with you there, you know, they try their best, but man. The thing that's got me particularly sad and or tilted

or just, you know, the thing that just sort of hits me is, we've made so much progress in so many ways as a society, yet we don't celebrate that. And we seem incredibly focused on marginal issues to your point, Jamal, that are not global warming, that are not education, that are not, you know, international relations and geopolitics, you know, like there's economic empowerment.

There's so many things that we could be focused on that would actually make change, that arguing about what you would. And it would unite people. Kevin Hart on the office, you know, but it would unite people. That's what I think is so. That's what I think is such a great opportunity.

If we all collectively came together and focused on a bigger enemy, right? Climate change, for changing governments. I think you'd find people to be much more accepting of each other because we would have a common shared goal and then we would find commonality in achieving it. Yeah, so Jake, Bill Maher invented a word to describe what you're saying, which is

progressive phobia, which is it's the reluctance to admit any progress because of the fear that if you do admit progress, then that means that you don't, you will lack a justification for all these progressive programs that people want. And so they have to make the situations always seem as dire as possible in order to scare people into a certain agenda. But yeah, there's a unwillingness to admit how much progress we've made in so many areas.

The time they tried to cancel me was because I said on Twitter, isn't it amazing that every single skill you wanna learn right now, including the high paying jobs, is now available for free on MIT course, where anybody can learn this stuff for free, and you used to have to pay $50,000 a year and get accepted into these Ivy League programs. But now all that information is free,

and all we need to do is expose people to it and give them the motivation, the time to do it. And they were like, how could you say that? People are not able to do it. And I was like, and then a bunch of people replied, who were people of color or people who were poor and said, I actually learned to code on the MIT website. I learned to get artificial intelligence.

I learned, I got my degree in social media marketing and whatever, at this website, you to me, that website, other tree house. And all these people were saying, yeah, I learned all these skills and I went from working out Walmart to making 60K a year, 70K a year. And then there was this big fight, like are are you going to cancel me for saying there's more opportunity now than ever.

And I hold that position. There is more opportunity now for you to learn a skill and get a high paying job than in the history of humanity. This system is more fair now than ever. Yeah, I was going to say, are you with that? In the world of progress, there are some amazing innovations every day. This week, and I put this in the chat, Nick, you can post the article.

There was a gentleman at the NYC, NYU Langone Center of Medicine, who transplanted a pig kidney into a human and had that human kidney or basically had that pig kidney not get rejected. Now this was a person that was brain dead and I guess the family, God bless them, donated this person's body to science effectively. They were kept alive, but then they were able to transplant a kidney in and they were able to see

the urine production and creatinine production. And all of a sudden now, there is a chance that we could actually use pigs, genetically engineered pigs, as a basis for us to basically get kidneys, hearts, lungs. That is incredible. Freeberg. So to your point, Saks, that is happening still every day and we don't talk enough about it because we're up in arms about Dave Shabell. Freeberg, tell us, you know, if that, in 10 years, what that looks like, and the impact

of the Nonsense Society, we take that, pick transplant, and we just 10X it from now, put a couple billion dollars behind it. What does it look like in a decade? Well, I think there's other techniques that are being developed that you could actually generate actual human organs using basis of induced plutonous stem cells. And regardless of the path, I do think like availability of organ transplants is going to go up like crazy. The big infrastructure and technical challenge we still face is we've got to build these GMP facilities to make all of these cell-based therapies, not just

kind of organs, but also other cell-based therapies that are becoming kind of the main state of the future of medicine, personalized medicine for humans. And so there's also this kind of tremendous infrastructure opportunity. We've talked a lot about... We've talked a lot about infrastructure, environment manufacturing broadly, and other life sciences opportunities, but there's a tremendous infrastructure opportunity to build out facilities that can produce these therapies, and the therapy can be an organ or a cell-based therapy that can target cancer in your body or what have you. And so you can kind of think about, look, we've resolved a science. Now we've also resolved the engineering. The next step is to build it, right? And so this is like,

you know, the build decade or the build decades globally for where the intersection of software and biology has enabled these incredible breakthroughs in human health and manufacturing and food. And now the infrastructure needs are there. I've said this before, I do think this is where we have the biggest gap in terms of infrastructure needs and the biggest opportunity to kind of fill those needs. And if I were to kind of be in Congress or be president, I would say this is the number one priority for an infrastructure bill.

Because once you get this going, it's going to change lives and it's going to change the economy. being Congress or be president, I would say this is the number one priority for an infrastructure bill. Because once you get this going, it's going to change lives and it's going to change the economy. So high speed rail costing us 50 billion, 100 billion versus this. Yeah, yeah, we could build a bunch of GFD facilities or a bunch of biome manufacturing facilities. A lot of stuff that we could build that would pay back within years and have a huge outcome. Private markets maybe will meet this demand, but I think you got to kickstart this stuff. would pay back within years and have a huge outcome. Private markets maybe will meet this demand, but I think you gotta kickstart this stuff. The economics are gonna be unfeasible for a while.

If you wanna get a CAR T therapy, which is a type of therapy that's personalized CAR T therapies, today, your cost is about $450,000. You know, a local university here, I was speaking with one of their lead doctors the other day. They built their own GMP facility at a cost of $50 million and they can now get the therapies down to $40,000 per patient. But they can only serve 250 patients a year using that kind of 90% cost reduction.

So you can kind of see, as you build these systems, and this is built locally by a university, it's not built for industrial scale, these guys aren't commercial operators on these facilities. So if you start to build these facilities from a commercial point of view, and you can bootstrap some of these things in this infrastructure cost, very quickly, the cost becomes so low that you see these technologies proliferate. And I think we should see that both,

this Oregon transplant one is a great case study, cell-based therapies, biomanufacturing, all sorts of opportunity. You keep saying GMP facility? Good manufacturing for. Yeah, it's, you know, if you're going to make cells that are going to go in your body, there's incredibly stringent requirements on the safety and the cleanliness and the practices that go on in that facility. So these quote unquote GMP facilities

have a very specific criteria of how you build and how you operate them. They're just highly, they're high quality facilities. This is what you're saying. Yeah, think about like a clean room to make semiconductors, except in this case, you're making cells that you're putting in your body. So you gotta be really careful.

All right, everybody, it's been 70 minutes, 75 minutes, 80 minutes. Anybody have any last minute plugs for products that they want to disguise as a compliment to another bestie? I still think we should launch Bestie coin, the all in coin and monetize the all in podcast. We were talking about this at poker life. No monetization. No more to the NFTs. Any NFT or sales?

No, bestie coin. Bestie coin would be incredible. I think I want to tell you about this guy, Lee Jackie, who's known as the lipstick king in China. He did a 12 hour live stream on Wednesday on Tau Bao, 250 million people tuned in. He sold his $1.7 billion a product. So basically, the equivalent of the entire adult population in America watch this. Isn't that incredible? That's amazing.

That is just incredible. So that's QVC and as if in two and a half times the people who watch the Super Bowl, it's two and a half Super Bowl Jackie, the lipstick king. The lipstick king. Guys, we haven't had Monty on the show in a while. Let me bring him up. Oh, Monty. Get him to the mic. Oh, Monty. Yeah.

Monty, you want to say some Monty fan service. For those of you asking about the all-in, Summit, we are looking at locations in Miami and we will have news shortly. If you want to sign up for the email, when are we doing this thing? We're going to look at March, April, May. But we're going to do a, we're going to do an LA show in January. We're going to look at March, April, May. But we're going to do an LA show in January. We're going to do a live All-in podcast at the upfront summit, Mark Suster's event in LA, but that's like a closed event. And then the All-in Summit, you can go sign up for email updates, summit.allinpodcast.co.

We're not looking for volunteers. We're not looking for event planners. We have all the spaces in Miami. We could possibly know every single person's email just thanks to the fans for giving us every piece of information. Right now it's just about date-state-state. We got to find a two-day date. And then whatever place we use, like Faena, the New World, the Jackie Gleason Theater, there's so many great facilities there that have reached out to us. Once we pick the facility, we'll know what the facility capacity is.

Some of them can fit 2,000 people, some can fit 250. We'll figure that out, then we'll figure out ticketing and how do we get people there. This time next week, both Friedberg and I may have kids. That's small.

So are we skipping next week? No, I'm actually not giving birth. I don't know about you No, we got to get pictures and yeah, it's gonna be incredible Well, congratulations guys, and if this Africa trip is coming I was after this happening. I can't wait Do you what countries are you thinking about? Of course, I this is one of my life. I have my own, what's the point of having my own schedule in a bunch of rich, powerful friends who are traveling the world doing interesting shit. I'm the ultimate wingman. Your motto is private jet will travel. I'm a wingman professional wingman as a service. Kenya Nigeria Ghana and there may be a couple

of other wingman as a service. That's if you need to somebody fun with you for a couple of, you know, touchdowns takeoffs wingman as a service. He's leaving with something. I'll bring Sonny as my body double. He sent him said Sonny in another escalade. They all just the paparazzi follow him and then we go to little little Honda Accord and you go to the actual events. I can't wait actually.

I'm super excited. I that a Honda Accord and you go to the actual events. I can't wait actually, I'm super excited. That's gonna be fun. Yeah, man. I think so. Get your passport, let's cut deck of cards. Oh, actually, you know, that'll be great. You can, we can do a couple of fireside chats, big fireside chats. We got 100% we'll take it on the road.

Yeah, for sure. All right, everybody. Fire boys, I love you. The rain, man. The rain, man. Good luck, bro. Good luck to Alice. Thank you, love you, you. And for the Queen of Canwap. Rainman David Sacks.

Bye bye. Bye. We're like your winners right? Rainman David Sacks. And it says we open source it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it. Lombi West, I speak. Queen of King Wild! I'm going all in! What? What?

What? What? What? Besties are gone. I'm going through it. That's my dog. Can you give me a wish? You're driving away.

Sit next. Wait at all. Oh man, my ham is actually really easy. I should all just get a room and just have one big hug or something. Because it's like this sexual tension that we just need to release that. What your feet, what your feet? Be your feet. What?

We need to get my feet. I'm doing all this! I'm doing all this! I'm doing all it!