All-In with Chamath, Jason, Sacks & Friedberg - E56: Constitution DAO, Rittenhouse trial coverage, private sector efficiency vs the government

Episode Date: November 20, 2021

0:00 Bestie intro 1:14 Constitution DAO: implications, shortcomings, how to move forward? 29:58 Rittenhouse trial media coverage 50:52 Ken Griffin plays heel (again), private sector efficiency vs. government inefficiency 1:07:08 Pete Davidson's pull, Sacks' taste in music, wrap 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.cnbc.com/2021/11/18/constitutiondao-crypto-investors-lose-bid-to-buy-constitution-copy.html https://twitter.com/constitutiondao https://www.constitutiondao.com https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2021/11/19/constitutiondao-outbid-for-first-printing-of-americas-founding-document-in-sothebys-auction/ https://youtu.be/1TBa-9Lx3vc?t=8762 https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-closing-arguments-self-defense/ https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/11/19/us/kyle-rittenhouse-trial https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1461372314424164367 https://www.wsj.com/articles/citadel-ceo-ken-griffin-outbid-a-group-of-crypto-investors-for-copy-of-u-s-constitution-11637352087 https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/17/us/politics/biden-build-back-better-act.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/17/amazon-to-stop-accepting-visa-credit-cards-issued-in-the-uk.html https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/1461007806333693959 https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/05/sam-altman-puts-375-million-into-fusion-start-up-helion-energy.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/17/bill-gates-terrapower-builds-its-first-nuclear-reactor-in-a-coal-town.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHZ4MfOiqm8 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/emily-ratajkowski-women-find-pete-davidson-attractive_n_618be849e4b06de3eb7dfbbe

It was very interesting going to Saks's kids birthday party. Freeburg and I were there for about two or three hours. Saks showed up for the last half hour. I think I was there for two hours and didn't see Saks. I'm gonna send them on my way out the door. But he had some YouTube Earth there who were pretty cool. Yeah, Papa Jake and Logan, thank you. Papa Jake was great.

Yeah, you know, they have seven million followers on YouTube. You're hard out, Jake. How many times bigger is Papa Jake than you? Business and podcasting on YouTube is a new concept, long form, and long form is not what the algorithms designed for. So obviously it's around for short form and people getting to completion. So getting to completion on a 90 minute video.

Are we talking about lovemaking again? Sorry, well God. Jesus, I would say completion, I just, we need an HR department at all. Yeah, I prefer this short form for that too. Yeah. Oh, God. These are called open vux.

You're like your winners ride. Rainman, David, Santa. I'm going home. And it said we open source it to the fans. Hey everybody, welcome to another episode of the All in Podcasts episode 56. We've made it past 55. The show of the band is still together coming to you every Friday night, far too late, because the rainman obsesses over every edit in the podcast with us again. The all-in Scorsese himself, David Rainman sacks, and the Queen of Canoas, the Sultan of Science, David Friedberg is here. And with a power sweater that cost more.

No, turtle neck, turtle neck, turtle neck, a power turtle neck that cost more than your mortgage payment this month, the dictator himself, Chimoff, Pauli Haapatia. I'm Jake Hal. It was a pretty incredible week. I think we have to pander to the cryptocurrency crowd because that's just making ratings go through the roof here. I am absolutely inspired by what we saw this week with the Constitution Dow forming in about a week and going from one or two million to forty six million dollars raised through a Dow, if you don't know what these decentralized autonomous organizations are. It's basically analogous to a corporate structure, but that's written in code so you can get a group of people

together, typically in a discord, then you create a smart contract, they collect in a wallet, a bunch of eth, or it's typically eth right now. And then you get some kind of governance written into the Dow where people get voting power. They brought this together to bid on one of 13 copies of the original constitution of the United States. And it was a very controversial moment last night when 80% of the money was raised

in the last 48 hours. And there was this crazy auction going back and forth with two representatives of Sotheby's on the phone. It hit $41 million. Everybody thought that the Dow had won, which would have meant that almost 20,000 people who participated in this would then vote on what to do with this $41 million offer, coin desk incorrectly reported that the Dow won and then the Dow announced that they had in fact not. Some other statistics, their Twitter has 36,000 followers. The group reported they needed 14 million to participate, 30 million to be competitive and 40 million to have a great chance of winning.

They raised like, I think, six or seven million while they were on the air, you know, and the auction had started. And the only downside to all of this is that there were huge gas fees. People were spending 30, 40, 50 bucks to donate 200, which was the average size of these. Yeah, they should have done it on Solana. All right, so here we go. Talking around book again. Now we got somebody's gonna clip this out in the salon. There's a lot of folks who don't. Here we go. Shimon, what are you gonna do with your copy of the Constitution?

You know, it's so funny. I would, I would, I would, you're gonna auction it back to the doubt. What are you gonna burn it and make an NFT out of it? So it's, it's funny. I did buy something at these auctions. Yesterday's quite unique. I will, I will not comment on what it was, but what's it that turtle neck? No, but uh, Thanksy.

Oh, oh, oh, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, but I did it. So, but I watch these auctions closely, I guess is what I'm trying to say. And I was surprised at the US Constitution for sold so little, you know, for a basically like the magna card of the best startup that's ever been created. But there's 13 of them, right? So on a market cap basis, on a market cap basis, you got to multiply by 13. Yeah, great. 13 times 40 is still not. With all the originals, it was the printing after the original was signed. We have a 20, we've created a $22 trillion a year startup

that keeps compounding by 45% a year. I would have thought these things would be worth, you know, a couple hundred million each. Well, there's a lot of, there's a lot of US memorabilia, but yeah, I mean, but what I don't understand what you're saying. It means the US Constitution, David, is not as, is not worth as much as it used to be.

That's what I mean. Well, you know, you got, you got, you got the, you got the original original, it's no, yeah. There's a lot of documents. You got the definition of the pen dance. You got, you know, you got you got the original. There's a lot of documents, you got the diverse independence, you got, you know, the Gettysburg address, there's time. It doesn't. The Tea Party memo. I actually think citizens united technically guys, the citizens united, if it was written not one time. In one

document, by the Supreme Court, that would be worth much more than 40 million because it's basically invalidated most of the Constitution. Well, here's one of the interesting things that happened here. David, David, acknowledge that of what I just said is true. I don't even understand what you just said, but... I just said, if you had printed the Citizens United verdict from the Supreme Court on a piece of paper, that would be worth more than 40 million dollars. It was like democracy 2.0 is what you're saying.

I don't understand why people are getting so swept up in this thing. It's kind of my point. Me neither. Me neither. That's the whole point. What you guys are missing is this is a critical moment in the history of cryptocurrencies because the first three major use cases of cryptocurrency, we're kind of, you had money transfer, which is not as good as PayPal or Venmo or many other solutions. No Jason, I think what you had. Store of had store of value, hold on, let me finish store of value, which is like who cares, is playing with the store of value. And then NFT has got interesting, but these DAOs are absolutely game changing. The ability to have $47 million show up and be prepared to be deployed in 48 hours

in game change. That's not what you're saying. You're here. You're here. yo. You're a nice yo. I see those were illegal. They've been banned and people are being housed down any different. I mean, because douse have governance. Gouse have governance and it's a programmable government. It's a programmable,

j-coupled entity. It is huge. If these things, if these things transfer ownership interest, they will be regulated like securities. Of course, they are, they're very important. And in this particular model, the idea was it would all be kind of part of a nonprofit and it would not be kind of a robot-

Donations in fact, yeah. But it's your donations. And so as soon as these doubts, which they should, and it's an incredibly powerful tool, if it does actually become a security instrument, then it changes everything. And it is gonna be that. My little thing is like,

it's one thing that will do that outside the US first, right? And then it'll be crypto XUS crypto investments that are going to drive this and that's why the US is going to be left behind Here's what you're missing These dows are pushing the envelope in the same way arabian biann uber did in terms of you know bending the rules about ride sharing Or renting your extra room these dows are kind of breaking securities laws They were telling people were buying the constitution. People who donated thought they were buying part of it. We're not not. We're not on the point. So, okay. But here's the thing. If they bend the rules like this, what they

showed to the SEC is that there is a huge appetite for people to quickly form groups of capital at low dollar amounts to do something important or interesting in the world. And Americans now have a taste of that. They're going to continue to have a taste of it. And I think it's going to, it's going to, it's going to be getting the accreditation lost to change. I just agree. I think that what it showed is that this is yet another explanation of fractionalized ownership. That demand existed well before Dows. Totally. It exists today. It'll exist tomorrow. But Dow was just yet another on-ramp. But much like most fractional ownerships are terrible financial trades for crappy assets. So was this. So said differently. If you're going to spend the time to open a Robinhood or E-Trade

account, it still matters whether you buy a share of Lycos or a share of Google, right? Okay. And so whether you do a DAO or whether you have an LLC, to me, it's irrelevant, the underlying asset didn't make any sense, had zero chance, in my opinion, of any meaningful appreciation. And so if you really want to make something work, and if you want to prove the DAO, then I would have hoped that they would have actually asked a few smart people, hey guys,

people who buy art, people who know crypto, what are some assets that I should own? Because if this thing does appreciate, you'll do more to prove the questions that you just asked. Well, somebody beat them out on the, so obviously the value is greater than what the Dow thought it was. Jason, you are the reason why you're like an accredited investor.

This is non-accredited investors who are doing this. I know, and that unsophistication was clear. The stupidest thing you can do if you enter an auction is to declare how you're going to be an under-bitter. So like it's basically saying, hey guys, here's my top tick, and I'm willing to be, and so now you force these guys to be the under-bitter at a dollar over there. That's fine. That's a mechanical issue. Sax, what are you doing? willing to be and I can and so now you force these guys to be the underbitter at a dollar over there. That's fine.

That's a mechanical issue. Sax, what do you do? Well, I wonder if the reason why they chose this particular type of asset is because it's collectible and therefore explicitly excluded from the securities laws. So basically, you know, maybe they're limited in terms of what they can go after because they don't want to be a security. But if that's the case, then it does limit, I think, the applicability of DALS, right?

Because what you want is to create corporations that are programmable, that you can have shareholder votes through the tokens, things like that. And, you know, basically a digital version of what they do analog in the real world with, you know. Share certificate. Shareholder meetings and stuff like that, that nobody ever attends. Basically, a digital version of what they do analog in the real world with share certificates, shareholder meetings and stuff like that. Nobody ever attends.

Yeah, nobody ever attends these shoulder meetings. I get these notices of votes that are to be held. Nobody ever fills. Yeah, no one fills that stuff out. And people have super share, super voting. And so you feel like you have no say. But in this case, you do have a say. And they're going to do assets like, imagine somebody this case, you do have a say, depending on the rules, it's like,

imagine somebody had 10,000 acres of rain forest or a national, potential national park, and all of a sudden you pop up a Dow, and if the SEC says, you know what, $500 or less, you can bet their money however you want. Hold on, let me finish. And they take that $500, and you get a million people to put $500 in,

which is completely conceivable. Somebody could buy $500 million you get a million people to put $500 in, which is completely conceivable. Somebody could buy $500 million worth of national far as to say, I'm going to make this into a public trust to protect the environment. This is on the brain of changing the world. That was ICOs. You could have these ICOs. ICOs had no governance. They had no governance.

That was missing. It was for the benefit. Hold on. ICOs were for the benefit of the scumbags who did those grifts and ran away with the money. This is an organization with a predetermined government structure. This is like creating a new country

or a new format for an LLC. That's what you're missing. Okay, are you done? Yes. What you're missing, you're painting the optimistic scenario of what these things could do and you're correct. But what's always happened in the history of humanity is these scenarios have resolved to people figuring out ways to scam other people to make money.

Sure. While this one looks altruistic, it's like you go, let me finish with that in a rough day. Thank you. But just like, you know, this looks like a great altruistic action. We're going to go out and buy the USS Constitution, the next deal will end up being some shitty art piece that's worth a hundred grand of Chimauk points out. They'll buy it for 10 million. Everyone will lose their ass. And the next 500 will look the same. And that's why we have securities regulators and securities laws. Because in

the past, when these sorts of structures that weren't digitally governed and all this sort of stuff, and people would go around and they would put together pools of money from other people and promise them the world, and then they would turn around and steal their money and walk away. We created securities regulators that could oversee and not have independent governance, but have distributed governance across a regulatory system to make sure that this doesn't happen. And that's the slippery slope of where this goes. I'll say one more thing about the structure of this particular Dow, which I know can be resolved, but it creates a problem in that everyone is betting

or investing a fixed dollar amount without knowing how much equity they're getting. And so when you say, hey, I'm gonna put in $500, and there's currently $10 million, or let's say there's $10,000 in this thing, it's like, hey, okay, I've got 5% ownership in this thing. If the next guy shows up and puts in $10,000, you now have 2.5% ownership in this thing, and you've inflated the value of the thing you're buying.

And that's effectively what happened in the structure of this particular doubt, where the more money people put in, the more they were paying and the less they were owning, and you couldn't adjust that. The correct structure in the future for people that do care about equity and ownership will be, I want to buy 1% and I'm willing to pay a max of $500 to buy that 1%. And with that rule engine, which I know can be built into DAOs, people can then structure what they're willing to bid and how much they're willing to participate in. And the DAO is a hole can resolve what it's willing to pay to go buy an asset.

And everyone can feel like they know what they're getting as they get into these things. And then the third problem with this particular DAO is we saw, and I know it's kind of the first big one like this with the obvious point that these guys were showing the world how much they were to go bid on this asset. And if you take $46 million and you divide it by 1.13, or which, you know, remember, there's a 13% buyer's premium on this asset, they showed everyone what they're going to pay. And of course, they lost at a dollar over the back. They were the underbitter. I'll say something else, the only fractionalized asset that has ever been proven to appreciate reliably are stocks.

Every other fractionalized asset where you take something and then you divvy it up, generally has been a trash burger. You need to either own the whole thing yourself or if you're going to own it with a bunch of other people, the only thing that's reliable are equities. Now that's just a historical artifact for how money has been made. So I appreciate Jason what you're saying, which is I think actually you care about the structure because I think it has huge implications to people pursuing wealth creation for themselves, for people participating in private markets.

But I do think that you're overblowing this one example because I don't think this showed any of that. I think that this showed how unreliable and useless Ethereum is as a transactional layer for these things. You know, the fact that these poor people now have money stuck in a doubt that they can't get out of because the gas fees would negate their contribution. So that didn't be the problem. These are all the bumps in the road.

Let's take a look. Please, you got to hold on. It didn't prove governance because as David said, we had this inflationary outcome where all of a sudden I didn't know the equity that I owned. The transparency worked against them because you're bidding on an asset where you were clear about the threshold max price you could pay. So you had no pricing power and you had no opacity in your bidding strategy. So I think that this was a PR Lark. And in fact, they said it started out as a joke and it took on a head of steam. And so

I think they felt like they had to execute. What I would say is there are going to be some really amazing examples of Dows. This proved none of those things that the amazing ones will prove in my opinion. And this will invite regulatory scrutiny faster than it will keep it away. You will see more of these scenarios where people get screwed out of money like they did in this particular case. And I know a lot of everyone that participated in this now, I know that there's altruistic reasons. Who do they sue? Who do they sue? The people who do they sue? Who do they go after now that they lost the $200 that they contribute? Yeah, I mean there's there's there's no structure and I think that's part of the regulatory, you know, how do they get the money back?

I can respond to who's the person that does like you Who's the person that, like, you know what, honestly, if that doubt had called me, I could have actually bid for them and actually won that fucking thing for half the price. You know what I mean? Like, you got anything? You want to chime in? No, I mean, well, I don't like it. I would like to give a closing.

Yeah, why aren't you go for it, Jacob? All right, number one, you're all speaking like a bunch of rich, credited investors. We need to think about people who do not get to participate. And what I see in my day job is people go to an equity crowdfunding site. It's too arduous to allow non-accredited investors to invest, it takes months, and it's tons of paperwork.

So then what happens is the best deal flow, which goes to the people who are on this podcast who are already rich, we get to sweep up all the best deals because people who are founders and who have opportunities in corporations do not bother doing equity crowdfunding because the SEC in their wisdom to try to protect people and they have good intent to your point, Friedberg, has made it so arduous and painful for people

that they then don't do it. The founders I'm talking about. This then keeps people down and when we were all poor, we got to spend our money gambling or doing whatever we want with it, but we all would have wanted to have when we were not accredited, the ability to place a bet on a startup. And y'all are forgetting that. And what's going to happen here? All of what you're saying, all of what you're saying, Shema, in terms of the problems here are absolutely accurate and valid. And those are what you need.

You need to identify through projects like this, the gas fees are a problem so people can move this to Solana. You need to find out that they don't know how to do bidding and maybe they shouldn't say how much has been raised so that they can come in and bid more intelligently. And maybe they do need to pick a better target. But this is $200 per person. There, you guys are acting like these people are going to lose their shirts. We agree with you.

I agree with you. I agree with me. I agree a thousand percent. I'm a free market's gut. I would love for there to be no regulation and everyone will come in and the problem is society won't let that happen and that's the point I'm trying to make. Other societies do like that. If you're in the UK, if you're in Australia, you can go gamble and you can go bat on startups.

There are different accreditation laws. We have antiquated ones that you need to evolve. The United States, the United States regulatory regime will be invoked because people will lose money and individuals will raise their hand and say, I put money into a dow that I lost my ass on and enough thousands of people do that. And then Elizabeth Warren and AOC will get on their, you know, their son of horse and they'll say, let's fix this problem. Bernie Sanders will say, this is unfair.

The billionaires are taking the money from people. And so I agree with you. We should let people take risks. We should let people lose money. We should drop all the regulatory burden. My point is really that I think structurally what's going to happen is there are going to be more of the things They're gonna show up that will rip people off and that will heighten regulatory interest and people will come along and they'll start to clamp down on this

And that's that's my point. Okay. I also think this example has nothing to do with what you're talking about I think what you're talking about J. Cal is laudable and we should all want that because I think that the broader number of people that get to Participate in the wealth creation in tech, the better. But there are different ways of doing that. I don't think we have to run full force and embrace the Dow as the only way that that happens. And I think that structurally, the democratic norms inside of a Dow in many ways make it much harder to govern inside a regulatory framework. And it does set up a very binary decision by the SEC and US regulators, which unfortunately, they're not going to go and be supportive of because the binary decision to support them would effectively negate their oversight.

That's right. They got jobs to keep, too. They have jobs to keep and more. I think it's a cynical and accurate prediction that they will fight it. But what you may not be aware of is that there is in the startup act from years ago, they did allow equity crowdfunding. They put a lot of throttling on it. And now they're going to let you get accredited through taking a course or like kind of having

a driver's license or a gun permit. So it is conceivable that the next time a down happens and they're trying to buy and- Can you stop conflating these things together? We've had iterations in the crowdfunding rules. You're just trying to tag this with a down. Can you just separate it? Could wait, hold on a second.

Can I just ask you a question? Can you please just describe and acknowledge that the crowdfunding rules had iteratively evolved in the absence of just that. Yes. Okay. So just separate the two. They're not the same thing.

They are two sides of the same coin because they're not. No, they're not. The doubts allow a global participation in this and the capital can be formed instantly. This was done in days. That's what's so powerful about it. It costs tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands because you went equity crowdfunding This cost nothing because it was for a an ethereal superficial asset with a name that people recognized let me hold on a second now

Let me replace the US Constitution with I don't know Jason. You just sent a deal a day ago. What was the name of it? Let's just call it acne.com sure Now what are people supposed to do? you just sent a deal a day ago. What was the name of it? Let's just call it acne.com. Sure. Now what are people supposed to do? It's not a known asset. They are not known founders. There may be turbulent issues inside the company that are still being hammered out.

What are these people supposed to do? How are they intelligent? I'll let you know that. I'll let you know that. I'll let you know that. I'll let you know that. I'll let you know that. I'll let you know that.

I'll let you know that. I'll let you know that. I'll let you know that. I'll let you is good. You're looking, you have a bunch of researchers working for you. You defended the GME. You have a team. Your team does research and they're smart people and they get paid very well. You were praising the coverage that Wall Street Bets did on GME on this podcast 40 episodes ago. You were saying how incredible their research was. Because they were analyzing public companies who were governed by securities law, where they were the whole private company. Yes, because there are no rules

that govern disclosure. GameStop had very strict disclosure rules because they were public. That was what allowed Wall Street bets to understand what was going on under the hood of GameStop. It was the disclosure of the funds that the SEC's force you to make that allowed people to understand the long and the short book that was building against it.

If that was in the private markets, that data is not obligated to be provided in the wild, Wall Street bets would have had no idea. So I think you're actually proving the opposite of what you intend, which is it's the regulatory framework that allowed the retail GME position to happen. Great, David. And then I can translate with Jake, how saying it, I think what Jake, how saying is we need to create some space here for innovation so that entrepreneurs can work out the kinks of these dowels. So that one day, Jake, I'll can run a syndicate on a blockchain and fundraise that way.

Isn't that what you're saying, J.C.L.? Or anybody. I mean, here's what I'll say. You know, when we do a syndicate amongst accredited investors. I'm gonna cut your computer book here in a weird way. No, no, no, no, no. I didn't mention the syndicate.

I didn't mention the syndicate.com once, except for the sign. He owes his competitors to your syndicates, but now you're all on the doubt train. ICOs, I thought were too big, so I think you could solve this problem by looking at the bet size that people are allowed to make. So you can just say, hey, the upper limit is 5K. So now you've basically taken the individual cratering. Oh, well, because if you wanted to create a regulatory environment, well, because it would

get rid of the resources. No, I think that makes sense. You created a diminimus exception. So that's the first 100% of someone's full worth and one percent of another's. Okay, so make it a percent of net worth. No, the first thing principal of portfolio construction is you need to be concentrated in the things you know and you need to stay away from the things you don't. If you cap the upside on the amount you can invest, what are people supposed to do?

Peen up butter around 50 bets. And do you know what will happen Jason? Most of those will be losers because the mortality rate in startups is super high. And they'll end up with basically nothing. How do they do in Vegas? How do they do betting? We're not arguing about how to invest. I mean, I think what we're saying is that this is where I actually agree, is that the regulators should carve out enough rooms so that innovation could continue around this concept of dals because who knows what they could become one day. And we shouldn't kill this thing.

Hold on, we haven't killed anything because nothing exists and there are no rules about dals. The regulators haven't said anything. I think we all agree that crowdfunding rules should get much more expansive. That makes sense. And with that, private companies should disclose more. That makes sense, right? We all agree with that so that you

can have more disclosure and public available data. So Jason, to your point, communities can get into a discord like today. If you said, hey guys, let's go and analyze a late-stage investment in Stripe. What do you do? Blather on about it and just talk at each other. They're not safe. They're not the disclosures. No, I startup style. That's the question. So now, are you supposed to enter Carta or some other third party platform and buy it at 120 billion? How do you underwrite that? Very simple. Very simple.

In the startup Dow concept we're talking about here, you would do exactly what Angel Investors do, which is say, hey, okay, let's say this Constitution Dow was to invest in startups. Okay, 20,000 people put 200 in each. We have a $40 million pool. Okay, we're all going to submit ideas and then we're going to ask and invite those founders to come pitch the Dow on a Zoom and we'll all vote on which ones we like best and instead of, you know, a venture capital firm getting access to this, now those 20,000 people could say, you know what, we're going to make $20,000,000 dollar bets and then we're gonna pour the 30 million into the winners of that and that is just what I do for a living or any other angel investor

Early stage investor does you invite founders come and pitch you and you place an intelligent bet Just like people bet on the nix or sadly on the jets and lose their money all the time and I like David's idea I'm saying hey maybe for the next two years we'll have a Dow exception where you can raise, you know, from a thousand up to five thousand people up to ten million dollars. And you just have to file that you're not a felon. And we have some basic framework to experiment with this because you could buy, you know, a building that was going to be torn down like some movie theater for a community. You could do non-profit stuff.

There's all kinds of beautiful things you could do with this instant capital formation and government structure that is programmable. Okay, well, here's the. It does relate to capital formation in the startup ecosystem. Here's what I'll say. You made a great point about Uber and Lyft

pushing the boundaries and forcing the regulators to react. Yes. You know why that happened? It's because Uber and Lyft worked. Yes. And it was successful. And this thing was not successful. And so maybe if it is, there's an on-ramp, but I would say that the energy is better served in not focusing on a PR-lark and probably just focusing on trying to improve the crowdfunding laws writ large, which are already on the books and can be iterated upon versus an entire new body of regulation where nobody even has any idea what a starting point should be.

I think it's going to be very hard to get those crowdfunding laws expanded under the Couragee. It's sort of a minor miracle that they even got what they got several years ago, right? Wasn't that, but when it happened to under Obama when, if the 2008, yes, the jobs, if it was in 2008 with the market crash, we said, nobody's starting companies, we're screwed here, we need to get the economy going again. So we're just gonna allow more capital formation.

And so the 99 rule for LLCs went to 250, and they just kind of loosen things a little bit. And now the mandate is the SEC has to have a certification test for people to do private market investing. And also people will work at VC firms, right? We have people who work for us who are not accredited. They don't get to participate, but they get an exception if they work at a venture firm, et cetera.

So it's probably simultaneously true that this thing was massively overhyped while also being the case that it's a worthwhile experiment that may lead to you know useful innovation in the future. What would I always look at when I see new technologies doing something is I just imagine if it 10x and what that would look like and if it worked and then I just 10x at one more time. So what we're gonna see I predict is this $40 million dollar dial will turn into a 400 million one in the next two years and then a 4 billion one in the next 10. And people are going to do something extraordinary. They're going to do something so otherworldly changing. What if a million people or 10 million people around the globe decided they were going to put money into do a solar farm or something

that would help society? Can already do that, J.K.L. I mean, that's like a manager can... Someone's got to manage it. J.K.L. is fantasizing about how big a syndicate's gonna be. Yeah, it's a bad... My syndicate is too large right now. I can't accommodate everybody. And it's also because of the laws.

It's a good idea to get bigger. Well, no, the problem is you can only have 250 people and that's the problem. We can't get a system to death. Yeah, come on. we beat it to death. Okay. Anyway, I'm obsessed with it Fentanyl deaths in the US were reaching a crisis point up Fentanyl deaths. Is that really what we're talking about? I mean we talked about it in the chat I mean this is trying to like avoid the biggest new stay of the biggest Tron. No, that was just I get it. We're good. That's just a weird

Tron. I'm just going straight down through the Docket, but if you want to jump the fence, okay, well Not sure how to do that. I don't know. Not guilty of all Trump. It happened like it happened within half an hour of us Beginning to record this podcast. I don't know how to keep the Friedberg ratio up. We had a nice strong emotional moment from Friedberg. He obviously is going to have something to say about fentanyl and science, but okay, he's going to walk off the show now to talk when you start talking about

I'm not going to walk up the show. He did last week. He walked off. You walked off and went, you got a beverage. You left for like five minutes. I had to go, I had to go pee. All right, fine. I mean, come on. To be during politics. Kyle Rittnaus was finally not guilty. That's usually when I take my break. Yeah. Exactly. Okay. And a third of the audience, Kyle Rittnaus found not guilty of all charges. It's 12th person jury. In the Kyle Rittnaus trial, reached the decision after over 26 hours of deliberation. He shot three people. He killed two of them and he was found not guilty. He was 17 at the time of the shooting. He was charged with killing the two men and a third during the

protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin in August of 2020. This was during the protests over the police shooting of Jacob Blake. He claims he traveled from Illinois with an AR-15 style rifle to help protect businesses. That's incorrect. And for five first aid, he didn't. He did not cross state lines with the rifle. That's one of the many inaccuracies

I've been reported by the media over and over again. Because his dad lived there, I guess, he was in there. His dad lived in Kenosha, I think you went to school in Kenosha, he worked in Kenosha, you got to understand like, this is, there are a few minutes apart from his mother's house. And he never carried the gun across state lines. The gun was bought from my friend who was 18,

who could possess it, and it was kept at his house, which is in Kenosha. He was apparently in Kenosha earlier that day, cleaning up graffiti at the school and checking out the downtown. And then obviously when he went out that night, then he got the gun, but he didn't transport it across state lines. So that's I think one of the multiple of the macrosies. What is your most important insight into this case

and what it represents for American society and the justice system, Zach? Well, I think the case has become a little bit of a Rorschach test of how you see America. I mean, there's clearly a group of people and I'd say the dominant of the mainstream media announced percolated down to celebrities and figures from LeBron James to, I'm spacing, but there's a lot of like, celebrities who've come out putting forward this view that this trial somehow is, that the Caligridden

House are white supremacists and that this knock-yieldy verdict is an example of white supremacy in America. Somehow that became the narrative. I think there's a couple of levels to it. One is the trial itself and what you think about the legal case. I don't think that is that complicated or interesting. You have here that the state was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse did not act reasonably in self-defense when three violent attackers came charging towards him.

That was, I think, a pretty tough case to make. One of the bad guys got in Paul too. I mean, this was right. And so all of them had long criminal histories. The first one who attacked him was daring him to, who said that he was going to kill Rittenhouse. The second one was bashing him over the head with a skateboard, the third one was rushing towards him when Rittenhouse was on the

ground, had a gun trained on him, looked like he was going to bring it to his head, kind of execution style. I mean, all these, I think cases, if you saw the video from, I mean, from the first time, it seemed pretty clear that he had a strong claim of self-defense so I don't think the case itself was that legally interesting the question is why I got blown up into being this like huge thing. And it's really because the media wanted this so badly to be to feed into this narrative of somehow that this is you know a white supremacist violent attacker who was a vigilante, you cross state lines with this AR-15 to go seek out trouble, to confront people at the protests. And that case, that narrative just completely fell apart at the trial. He didn't cross state lines in that way. He didn't, you know, with the gun.

When he went to this protest, he went there. It's interesting. I mean, he was a cadet in EMT cadet. He was kind of in this like junior firefighter program. I'm not saying that he showed good judgment. I think it was poor judgment firm to try and insert himself into that situation. But I don't think he went there to kill any one or to get into a confrontation. He brought it first date for better or worse. He thought he was going to help people. So, any event that the story really is about the media constructing this narrative that fell apart so quickly as soon as all the facts came out. Freeberg, Jamal? Yeah, I think the, I read that there was an analysis of the media and how they tried

to portray this and that I think I'll build on what David said, which is, was really concerning like the, there was, they really wanted this to be a white kid who killed black people during a BLM protest, which was, as it turned out, the furthest from the truth. I'll just tell you my experience. When I first saw it, that's what I thought I had read. And I'll be really honest with you. Initially, I was incredibly biased and I had a violent reaction inside me of anger towards this kid because my thought was my God. This white kid showed up at a black lives matter rally and killed three of my brothers. Like literally, that's how it on feeling. I was so angry because they didn't really give the facts. There was an example where in Germany, it got so out of hand that the articles were written that Kyle written House had actually

killed three black men or two black men. and and I think that that's very dangerous because we need to have the truth and the fact so we can really figure out what's going on so that we can address what's broken. We can hold people accountable and then we can move forward together and heal it. But this like is the opposite of healing. It just froths people up to make a lot of judgments with misinformation. And I think that that's very unfair. I didn't to be honest with you after I saw the facts I stopped paying attention to this case because I literally exhaled. I would have been much more hurt and I would have probably paid more attention if this wasn't white on white violence, quite honestly. Right, right. And I think people, I think we've heard from a lot of people over when written House's

testimony kind of went viral and started getting reported on, there were a lot of people out there who were surprised to learn that all the victims were white. That this was an example of why I don't white violence because it had been portrayed by the media as some sort of racial episode. And it wasn't. And it shows how the media is fueling this polarization and rage in our society

by concocting these narratives, which aren't true. It's really, that I think is the dangerous thing. I didn't follow the case to know whether this kid was right or wrong, but I do think if the media uses these opportunities to not just tell the facts and then race baits people on both of the left and the right and gets them frothed up, they're doing a real disservice to America

because I think it takes good people and it puts them in a state like me for a while at the beginning where I was really angry and I didn't know how I felt and I'm a lucid person, 99.99% percent of time. You're a thoughtful yeah. And so it just goes to show you how dangerous this stuff is when they can take a narrative and run with it and then there's no accountability for it. And we really have to stop and check ourselves. It just speaks to this ongoing fact pattern where the media is at a point where

they are at a very much a low point in their trustworthiness, their ability to fact check, their ability to stick to the truth. I think it's been undone. Just this past week, I think Elon even tweeted out like. Just this past week, you know, I think Elon even tweeted out like, you know, he in exasperation, he said, where can I find like thoughtful news, right? He was asking Twitter like what websites and the question wasn't that bad, but if you read the answers, it was really sad. Nobody had a good answer. You know, one person was like, oh, there's a browser extension that will show you how, you know,

how much lying is happening inside the article. And I thought to myself, my God, like there are browser extensions, like a liometer, you know, like this is insanity that that in 2021, that's what we are faced with, which is very smart people, all of us. Everybody listening, normal people just, you know, out on the street, we can all come to the right conclusion with giving the facts and we're not giving the facts anymore. Jake, how do you think we're missing something here? Because you, I know you, you thought this the soul the written house thing was crazy, right? Which it was but I think I first off violent protests and

Violence is immoral and all of these protests whether it's BLM on the left on the right They should all be non-violent. There's a reason why Martin Luther King and Gandhi You know said that's the rules if you want to come to the protest You have to be non-violent and then I think the why Martin Luther King and Gandhi said, that's the rules. If you want to come to the protest, you have to be non-violent. Then I think the rhetoric that was created during the Trump era and that he exacerbated and that he caused from a lot of his policies and the way he spoke as the leader of the free world in our country, then polarize things. I blame him for a lot of that. If you put a bunch of people who are on the far extremes into a situation

like this, and then you insert guns and you insert young people who have not developed their frontal lobes, who do not have long-term thinking, which is 17-year-old does not. Your long-term and free bird will back me up on this in terms of science. Long-term thinking is something that develops in humans into their early 20s. And so young people with guns in a violent situation with Trump on TV during this time Both good people on both sides whatever, you know the borders all that stuff that he was starring the pot on all of that Eventually resolves to somebody's gonna get killed whether it's on January 6th or it's a BLM protest and that is why he had such a failure of Leadership while he was so disgusting and horrible and low-sem because he was taking all of this heat and rhetoric up, up, up. And the person who

winds up suffering in this are these stupid kids and their really dumb parents and mother who allow them to go to a protest and she could have stopped him with a gun. Somebody needs to stop these kids from going to a protest with a gun. And I think there's a very difficult question here that can be asked. And it probably is true, I think, that it was an open and shut case, David, that, I mean, I saw the video as well, Chema. The guy puts a gun on him. What are you going to do? You've got a gun.

This guy's pointing a gun at you. Whoever fires first survives. It is self-defense. And that's kind of undeniable, I think. But if you have that, I would hope that the number of people that really focus on this case, look at the innumerable number of cases of black and brown people that have been killed.

The Amod Arbery trial is going on right now. Yes. I'm sorry, but I've seen one article in Amod Arbery for every 50 about Kyle Rittenhouse. I just really hope Amod Arbery gets his fair trial. We're gonna tailor. I'm sorry. And let me say again, Breonna Taylor, not a single thing has still been done, okay?

So, I'm not that sympathetic to all of this talk right now because there are a lot of black and brown men and women who have been killed in this country. Yes, where none of you guys care as much. Oh, I care, and that was exactly where it was about to get to. The question I was about to ask you, Chamal Mal is if Power written house had been a black man and he had shot those three people. What would the outcome of this trial have been?

Would it have been the same justice system? And I don't think that anybody can answer that question and say it would have been fair justice I don't think it would have been I think the chance to be very loved. It makes me Makes me make me in the situation would have been true. Just you saying it makes me want to cry, okay? It would not have been just. Well, I didn't say for that reason, but it is the truth. And I think that's what, you know, we, in this country race is something that is our biggest weak point,

and we need to get, you know, the leadership to work on this. You're creating a hypothetical injustice. We don't know because that's a hypothetical that we can't know the answer to right now, and you're ignoring the injustice, the injustice that's right in front of your face, which is that this was a political prosecution from the beginning,

fueled by a media narrative that was completely bogus. This is why I think David is right. And we have to go to this root cause issue that we can all fix. Yeah. You know, we can't, we shouldn't debate these hypotheticals because they're hurtful. Like even now, like you've seen, you have emotional, I can't think straight. So let's get the hypothetical off the table because David, you're right, it's a hypothetical. I mean, this case probably should never, this case had never been broad.

I mean, as soon as you see the video, if you look up the definition of self defense, okay, you just have to have a reasonable belief that your life is in danger and then you're allowed to use force. And you know, written house was running away. These guys were attacking him. They were chasing after him. They had a gun train on him. They were bashing on the head of the skateboard. I don't know how any posture looks at this and says, we need to prosecute this. So the case should never have been brought. And then the media fuels this thing. No, but this is what I'm saying. That's the thing that we can all change,

which is our reaction to that media portrayal. The media can be held accountable for how they lie. But how? Well, people are even to trust them and they're tuning them out and they're going and finding their own answer. But I mean, this has been my point. Like, I think we all get tuned up to what the media quote unquote is and isn't saying. I think that's like, yes, there are years, news. I mean, those guys have lost credibility.

You can see it in all the peer research and all the Gallup research that what used to be called, and it's still by a lot of people called the mainstream media, is no longer mainstream and it's become kind of outskirt and where people are finding their sources of information is direct from the source from people that they know to be reliable trustworthy speakers of the truth and speakers of facts, and they're getting them direct through social media platforms and other systems of self-publication.

And that the idea of having centralized media systems that get to have their own editorial and narrative over whatever facts they may be kind of gathering and presenting to us, that's an old school way of doing things, and I don't think we have to worry about it too much anymore. Whether or not individuals will resolve to truth seeking or motion seeking is the big question for the 21st century because as we've seen, the media, the things that we do click on are the things that we already believe and that confirm our bias and that create an emotional incentive versus the things that maybe not what we believe and not what we want to hear but may actually be factual. And that's the big kind of challenging question here. I think it's less about these evil media people and it's more about where individuals

going to make choices. Yeah, I mean, I'd say alternative media voices have never been more important. And you know, you can get a lot of them on substack. People like Glenn Greenwald, Matt Todd E.B., Antonio Garcia Martinez. Colin, the Colin app. They're all doing this every time. Yeah, Colin. That's the other people. And you do this. I'll be calling. Yeah, the bill. You're solving it.

Very wise. I mean, they all have great. Our podcast, our podcast. Yeah, all that very good coverage of this. By the way, I couldn't help notice that the same week that this written house narrative collapsed, the whole steel dossier narrative collapsed. Okay. You had, and I don't want to get too political and drag it back to the Trump thing, but

you had, you know, John Durham is a special prosecutor unraveling this whole phony fake steel dossier with multiple indictments. And you now have retractions by the Washington Post and other major publications and that whole narrative that fueled like an entire year of media coverage is completely collapsing. And it's just another example of, the media running with these narratives that turn off to be completely, I had to use word fake, but I mean, it is. I mean, it's, it's unbelievable.

Things in the dossier were fake, but Paul Manafort's commission is not. Again, I would encourage everyone to stop using the term the media or even the term mainstream media. And just recognize that there are specific outlets that are on their way down. Content company. Yeah, these are content companies that need ratings.

They used to be the monopoly and they're no longer. And they're like yesterday or years news. And it's just complaining about whatever pick any industry that's been disrupted, but they are and will be further disrupted by direct-to-source fact-gathering. The big, ultimate question is what are consumers going to choose? And that's the thing that scares me the most, to be honest. I think they can go either way. You can

either find better truth seeking or you can find better emotion, more emotion seeking. And that's going to call it a more ugly shit. Well, look, it's happening right now. You're right that the, let's call it the corporate media, the big media corporations. They're prestige and esteem and the eyes of American people have no credibility. Has never been lower. It's gone. New York Times and CNN are probably gone. And people should be questioning them

and stop listening to them. And you have to diversify your information diet and you gotta be subscribed to some alternative journalists on places like Substack. But here's the thing that concerns me. You know, you've got the media narrative being dictated by MSNBC and then it trickles down to LeBron James and Chelsea Handler. Sorry, that was the name that I forgot

earlier. They were perpetuating this white supremacist narrative around Cal written house. By the way, they looked at his phone, his text messages, everything. There is no connection. There's no proof whatsoever of a connection between him and white supremacy was completely made up by the media. And yet these major figures in our culture who have this outsized impact, we're tweeting about this. And so the problem is, you know, like people like us, diversify our information diet, but there are large parts of the country that are just receiving this information. And it gets basically passed down from the media to Hollywood, to the culture. And it's happening. It is.

Tucker from Tucker Carlson to Scott Bayo to the pillow guy. It is fueling. It is fueling tremendous device and polarization in our culture. And I would say that you know, JC brought Trump and he was a polarizing figure. But I don't think he is the root cause of this polarization. I think he is a reaction to it. I think he is a manifestation of it. He is a reaction to it. He is a manifestation of it. He is a manifestation of it.

And ultimately, the root cause is the complete deterioration and collapse of journalistic standards in the media, in the major mainstream corporate media. I'll disagree with you on that. I think John's responsible for his own business. And I've made this point in the past, which is, sax, I don't know if it, you make it sound, and other people make it sound like in a directed editorial initiative to take things in a direction. And I think that the reaction process

is really about what do consumers wanna consume? What they choose to consume is what they sell more of and what they produce more of. And that's the cycle that's driving this. And you know, that doesn't mean that these folks are not complicit or not making good kind of ethical decisions. That could actually be argued either way, but at the end of the day, their businesses that are selling content,

and if consumers want content of one form, they're going to choose that form. Okay, look, I think you have a point that once a publication goes in a certain direction, it starts getting subscribers, there's some positive reinforcement there that hasn't kept pushing in that direction. That being said, I don't think this is commercial in nature primarily. I think what's going on is fundamentally ideological. You saw, for example, the New York Times, they ran out very wise. I've seen it. I've seen it. No, you're wrong. They did this because they wanted subscriptions. No, no, you're wrong, sex. When the New York Times did this, they realized Fox picked

aside MSNBC and they benefited from that by picking aside in the Trump era. So the New York Times picked aside. They went MSNBC's side and they got rid of the right because the right people drove away the anti-Trump subscription. So I think Freiburg's right on this one. I will say another thing to build on what you were saying before, or sacks about the media's responsibility here. We also have to think about the cable news media's responsibility when they put these protests on wall-to-wall and they send people there that then inspires people to go there and

you know when you do this wall-to-wall coverage across five networks and You obsess over something people are gonna obsess over it and they see people out there riding and people model other people's behavior and I think they need to Think like how much coverage do we exactly have to give? Right. Even now they're bringing out the National Guard in anticipation of possibly riots and protests in reaction to it. Which then could induce it. Well, in reaction, no, I don't know if it's going to induce it, but in reaction to this verdict and the written house trial, they're bringing out the troops to basically quell,

any, you know, riot before it gets started. But why would that riot even happen? Because the people have been fed this narrative that is completely bogus, and in that sense, the media has been incredibly irresponsible, and they're playing with fire. They really are. I'll say it again, and we've fallen into this same trap. Look how much time we've just been talking about COVID. Now I've mentioned the mod arbore and we've just glossed over it. Is his trial being, it's happening right now?

No, no, is it on video? Because that is another major issue here. It's when the trials are on video. These trials, they should never do TV again on these trials. Does it never again? I mean, it really does create... It really does create the courtroom, but do not put it on TV. Like, Verinose is not allowing video in the courtroom and it's not getting coverage of

this extent and I think the video in the courtroom does drive this. It makes it a circus. Breaking news. Citadel CEO Ken Griffin outbid a group of crypto investors for a copy of the US Constitution according to the Wall Street Journal. Oh my God. We knew somebody was trolling the villain before this, but now, but for my god's flow. Exactly. I mean, he was the central villain,

basically, in that whole Robin Hood fiasco for payment for order flow. And now he outbid the crypto crowd. He is going to be enemy number one. Basically, there is no more sophisticated market participant that can griffen. And on a silver platter, this group of people unfortunately show them their strategy and show them exactly how to become the under the right. You know what? You know what?

You put one dollar on top of their pants. You know what? Ken Griffin knows that now this is an object of interest that people are basically willing to pay anything for. Bingo. He's going to buy it now and in one year he'll sell it for twice as much. It's a valuable asset. But by the way, I want to make a point on this.

I disagree, by the way, he's a buyer. He is not a seller. It's a valuable asset. By the way, I want to make a point on this. I disagree, by the way, he's a buyer. He is not a seller. He's going to hold. Okay. But look, markets don't work with this much transparency. Markets only work when people have different information than other people that are participating in the market. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. If everyone's never paid to everyone else, what's going to do?

Same data, but if everyone knew what everyone else is, different opinions, but if's every one of you and everyone else's opinions. Different opinions, but if everyone you everyone else's opinion on what something is worth, the market doesn't work. And that's the problem that I'm in here. Yeah, so here's what I value an asset at. And now if you know that, you know how to play against me in the market. And I go point out what I said.

Yeah, exactly. And one thing I'll take note of, that I kind of realized yesterday, when I was thinking about this, which is this like transparency in markets leads to this inflationary problem. Why do you think everything that the government buys inflates? Because everyone already knows what the government is going to spend on that thing. When the government enters into a market like healthcare or education or defense,

the amount that they're going to spend is published in a bill. And Congress says, here's your authorized budget. here's how much you're going to spend. So there is no natural market force that says, a bid and an ask, what are you willing to pay? And is there a walk away price? There is no walk away price when the government is told to go spend some amount of money. And as a result, the price of everything inflates to that walk away to that price, to that budget.

Can I build on that? It's, by the way, that's, in my opinion, based on everything I've looked at, the primary reason for the increase in education costs, because the government funds all the student loans, the increase in health care, the increase in defense, all of it is because the government is the customer, and they tell the person that servicing them upfront, they tell the market what they're willing to pay. And so the market just inflates to that amount. It's really the reason why the way that we budget things and the government is opposed

to saying, look, this is the ROI metric or this is the IR metric you need to be shooting forward with this government spending. It's all based on a fixed dollar amount of a budget that says here's how much you should go spend. Well, look, it's, as I said, it's actually worse than that because then the procurement process is not, is the furthest thing from a free market where you essentially have these licensed people that are allowed to provide services.

And so if you actually have the key critical input to making something possible, you have to get bundled in through contractors and subcontractors and general contractors who each take their five and 10% and then that's what you, that's when you have like, you know, and they're hourly costs all balloon just a little bit, just a little bit, just a little bit and suddenly the balloon cost of everything matches

exactly the budget. So the perfect example of this is the space program. There was a, there was a, there was a rant by Bernie Sanders yesterday basically saying, how could we have allowed Jeff Bezos, Mr. Bezos and Mr. Musk to basically take over our national space program? We need to take it back. And then somebody, hold on, and then somebody thought, I'll just ask it. Somebody thoughtfully went back and actually looked, because again, as David said, everything is transparently published,

they went back and they actually counted how much money NASA spent in the last seven or eight years, and the number was 360 odd billion dollars. And then they counted how much money SpaceX had spent, and it was, you know, if you counted revenue between seven and 11 billion. Totally. And so you have this incredible disparity. What speaks to this?

I've seen a space shuttle after the space shuttle was retired. NASA didn't even have a way to get to space until SpaceX had the rockets. I mean, and think about how many people died on the space. Guys, what Bernie is saying, which is what's, I think, scary to me is if you take the difference between 360 billion and seven. So three hundred and, you so $353 billion and divided by the number of people in the United States, you're basically talking about a thousand dollars a person. Would you and I sit around a table and give Bernie Sanders a thousand dollars

out of our own pocket to go and basically implement a half-ass base program. No, I'd rather give Elon Musk 10 cents, which is the equivalent alternative. This raises a really serious issue, which is who is the better capillate allocator of private resource society, private markets, or the government. Let me give you an example. Today, the House is voting out that reconciliation bill. They've got it, they're spending 2.1 trillion. This is one example. Does one example that caught my eye is they've got 2.5 billion dollars going to tree equity. Whatever that is. I'm sorry, tree equity. I'm sorry, equity. This is like tree equity. I think it might mean that like some communities have more trees. I think it means that some some communities have more trees than others and they got to rectify that. I don't know. I mean, this is like the jump-to-shock moment for the word equity because I think now everything is equity.

But, you know, what struck me about this $2.5 billion number, okay, is that like craft ventures, which I've been doing for the last four years, we've raised and will be deploying a total of about two billion over call it five years into hundreds of startups that will pave the way for the next generation of the economy. So two billion versus two and a half billion as one line item, that's just a footnote, that's an asterisk in this bill. I mean, what is the better capital allocation decision and what people have to understand is,

all this money that gets spent gets sucked out of the private economy somehow. It either, you know, comes from taxes or gets added to the national debt. But either way, it comes out of the private economy and resources that could be allocated to the next generation of innovative companies. I'm planning to squandering the money like that on all these programs that no one even knows what they do when we're almost 30 trillion in debt is just unbelievable. Okay, the 1% are going to be going to space and taking away the moon from the other 99% here, roll the clip. Unbelievably, this bill would provide and authorize some 10 billion dollars in tax pay

of money to Jeff Bezos, the second wealthiest person in America, for his space race with Elon Musk, the wealthiest person in America. This is beyond laughable, and I will be introducing an amendment to strike this provision. Frankly, it is not acceptable. It's not an issue that we have discussed terribly much, but it is not acceptable. But the two wealthiest people in this country, Mr. Musk and Mr. Bezos, take control of our space efforts to return to the moon and maybe even the extraordinary accomplishment of getting to the moon.

This is not something for two billionaires to be directing. This is something for the American people to be determining. Yeah, all the people have to be able to go to the moon before two people can go to the moon. Is that the idea? Yeah, if there was a go to the moon, Dow, it would get more. Fulfillian call back. Look at you. The friggin' factory, very good learning.

You had to entertain the audience. People would just plow money into a go to the moon, Dow, and give it all to Elon Musk. Maybe so. More people would do that than would vote to support the Senate bill. Additionally, I would like to report that stalling does not work at find lake house. And Amazon Prime takes three to four days at my beach house on the Cape and that these two companies are oppressing the 3% of the top 3%, which I am not part of the 1% and some people don't have enough trees.

And in my community there's only small trees and we want the redwoods from San Francisco. Why do they or the hippies get the redwoods that are much taller? Do you guys remember one of our very earliest pods? I made a statement, which is equity is this danger word that the progressive left uses the steel power. Yes. That we should always want equality, but not equity because equity is zero sum, right?

You know what cap table? When you give somebody else equity, it's dilutive to everybody else, but equality is infinite. You can have unbounded equality. Yes. And when I hear these guys talk about this stuff, it's so scary. The second thing is I'm a little confused by what Bernie is saying because on the one hand, he wants to cancel the American government's effective support of these programs. On the other hand, he wants us to take back the responsibility for it, but I think he must realize that it would cost 50 times more or 100 times more. He's not spending sensitive in case you ever noticed.

I also think this is like virtual signaling. He was attacking Bezos about minimum wage and then Bezos came over the top and doubled it and then gave people college education. That was Bernie Sanders platform for president was give people free college and give people a better $15 minimum wage. Bezos has done more for Bernie's platform than anybody.

He should be telling people, all companies should be asking like Amazon. No, no, but also actually to your point, can I build on that? Yeah, Amazon is now doing more to actually unwind Duopolys and monopolies in markets than the government and the FTC is. Absolutely.

See this thing that Amazon is now doing in the UK with Visa, where they basically shut Visa off. And people are speculating now that it's a step in this direction of Amazon, you know, in Amazon domestically in the United States, they just did this big deal with a firm. And so they are looking at, and there's a rumor that they may switch the Amazon credit card off of Visa rails and put them on MasterCard rails. But there's another example, Jason, to your point of like, you know, Bernie and the left progressive left would probably rail against the duopoly practices of visa and master card. They can't get anything done. Jeff Bezos has actually done more now.

Presses a button. Presses a button and has done more now to actually another one to build on yours. Who's doing, I mean Bernie Sanders cares about global warming. It's like one of his key issues. Who's donated more to global warming? Then Jeff Bezos, nobody, who's doing 100,000 electric vehicles for his delivery fleet? Jeff Bezos, Jeff Bezos took Bernie Sanders platform that he fell to get into office on and he made it Amazon's platform.

Here's a third example. Nick, you tweeted this out, Nick, or you can find this thing that I tweeted out, but it was a little meme. And it was it was basically Toby McGuire and Kristen Dunst, right? There's a meme. Famous upside down quit. No, they're looking at each other. And basically the joke is like, you know, every time you protested at, you know, to shut down a nuclear plant, the resulting effect 40 years later was another 100

megatons of CO2 was put into the air. And it just goes to it yet again, another example of we virtue signal nuclear reactors and nuclear power, we go and we get them all shut down. It turned out that we ingested or we put out as a result an enormous amount of more CO2 than had to be put. And then now who's helping to step in and solve it in other private citizen book gates? Look, everywhere for these private companies, we can even get astronauts to space anymore. Impossible. The government has actually lost the capacity to do that.

Impossible. It would have been impossible. And who will we up against for space? I mean, China? Not just China. Just China. It's just like economy. It's such a dichotomy between, and this is like a recurring theme of the show, between

what the private sector and specifically, and not like the Fortune 500, not those old Stodgy companies that are in the process being disrupted, but what the sort of entrepreneurial economy is able to accomplish versus like how stultified and calcified and incompetent the governments become. I mean, to your point, I think Sam Altman led the fusion energy start appealing, like $500 million around. I mean, by the time these nitwits, you know, in the political office, figure these things out, we're going to have fusion reactors, aren't we? Is that real science?

Is that coming close? What do you think, Reuber? I mean, Bill Gates just did this, what is it called, TerraPower announcement this week. He's got a company that he's been funding for years and they're building a 500 megawatt fusion plant in Wyoming, I think. Yeah.

In Wyoming, yes. In Wyoming. And you got two billion from the government and two billion that was funded by the company and its shareholders, which I think is majority owned by Bill Gates. But it certainly feels and seems to me, I mean, look, this one, like we've said, a lot of these infrastructure deals, these big infrastructure deals for things like power and next-gen manufacturing and whatnot, could benefit from the boost of government subsidies

or government-shared costs to get these things off the ground. Over time, as you get scale and reproduced ability of them, the cost per unit comes way, way, way, way down. It seems to be the case that there are enough of these programs. I know of at least half a dozen nuclear power companies that are in advanced stages of doing first installation design right now.

And so it seems like this is gonna be a reality. I think it would be an incredible boom to clean energy in the United States and globally if we can get more of these built. I mean, what was the staff China's building 150 nuclear power plants? Yeah. So if commission 150 nuclear power plants, I mean, it's a no-brainer that that's what we need in the 21st century. It's the best renewable source.

Very small footprint, very reliable, it can run 24-7, it doesn't depend on some, you know, sun or wind or what have you. So you can plug it into a grid. So the government literally does not need to get involved in this. Aside from writing a check and chopping it up 50, 50 split the pot with the money. There's an important role that the government can and should play here, which is, you know, if we want to talk about what infrastructure this country needs,

I said it on the last couple of shows, we don't need yesterday's infrastructure. We don't need last century's infrastructure, new bridges and, you know, toll bridges or whatever nonsense is, you know, going to get inflated as a result of this recent infrastructure. But what we need is next gen infrastructure and not charging stations because the free market's already there doing that. And, you know, not internet because the free market's already there giving everyone internet and we see a thousand examples of that.

What we need is the stuff that the free market cannot afford to fund and stand up like next gen nuclear power stations, like biomanufacturing, like large scale, on demand 3D printing systems. These are the sorts of infrastructure programs that the United States and our workforce could benefit from government subsidies to help private force, the private markets gets stood up. And as these things get stood up and the flywheel gets going and cash starts getting generated, they can sell fund and they can grow and they can install more of these and the costs come down for the next one. The things where the government is the only customer, the only person buying, the cost

will only go up on over time. Whereas the things at the private market is building, the cost will go down over time. And in some of these cases where there's a big hurdle to get over the first build or the first build cycle, the government has an important role to play, I think. And so, look, I mean, it's clearly not going to happen with this current infrastructure build. There's a few nuggets in there that might be useful and helpful, but generally speaking, you're right.

Over time, we want the cost of things to come down, not go up. And so we need the private market to play a critical role in being the majority driver of these kind of systems. All right, seems like a good place to end. Pete Davidson is now dating Kim Kardashian. How jealous are you, Timoffer? I'm not jealous, but I'm a great,

I am shocked that Pete Davidson has dated some of the most incredible, the famous popular women. Oh, so you are jealous, okay. So you are, John, sorry. Well, I'm a little curious. I gotta say I'm a little curious. I mean, if you put a picture, Pete, I mean, there's gotta be something happening there.

Let's just put it out there. He's got the Kavorka. I'm gonna send you a link to an article. I don't know what an article is. I'm Google. You remember that from Seinfeld where Kramer was like, you know, doing all these beautiful women and it's because he explained he had the Kavorka.

He's got a better finishing move, yeah. This is an article that went viral this week. Emily Rata Kowski, how do you pronounce her name? Yeah, breaks down. Breaks down why women find Pete Davidson so attractive. And so this was like, you know, I saw it all over Twitter this week, but it was all about, you know, the way.

And what is the answer? Just give me the headlines. I don't know, it's some, he's got super charming, he's vulnerable, he's lovely, his fingernail polish, it's awesome. He looks good, he has a good relationship with his mom. I mean, I just think he comes across as a good guy, might be the appeal. That's easy to summarize.

Also, I want to take care of him, I think, because he's got like his dad. I think you guys are missing a more subtle, not obvious, but I don't know what you're talking about Shlok. Do explain. Maybe you could expand. I'm just guessing. It's a family show, Timah.

It's a family show. Oh my God. No, it's a pair of them. That's what I heard from P. David woman said. They want to like rock on him and take care of him. Right. Yeah. I mean, also Kim Kardashian, I think, you know, she just got the Gen Z. I think she was probably going the way of

Paraselton, like maybe aging out of her, you know, celebrity. And now she went Kanye, kind of Gen X, right? And now she's going down to Gen Z. She's got a whole new, I hate to be cynical about it, but I'm not I also, you know, I'm gonna take so much, I'm gonna take so much flack for saying this, but I was a little short Donda, but I've listened to Donda now a couple times and my God is a guy's pretty fucking good. I mean, Kanye West is one of legitimately one of the most incredible artists of of all time. I mean, the way he's mind growth, the music, the beats, it's outrageous. I think if you give Don to like two or three shots, it's really registration college dropout

and 808 and heart breaks. Amazing. My dark twisted fantasy was probably one of the best albums ever created. Well, so that's the thing is I think, with his later work, like I didn't get into my beautiful dark twisted fantasy until I had listened to it ten times. I mean, I was like, okay, I get amazing.

Yeah, and I feel like I'm so accessible like so access registration, but don't is pretty incredible. I mean it's right now David's accent. What are you guys talking about? I haven't listened to any of this. David, do you know, is that like Paul Enka? David's like, yeah, wow. Sacks, do you listen to music?

Actually, this is a good question. Yes, it's what your favorite artist, what's your favorite guy? If we listen to your workout tracks, so on Barry Manolo, I like Apple. Like what are you listening to? Like Spotify, like what are you listening to? Tucker Carlson.

No music. I don't listen to music when I work out. The only time I really listen to music is when I'm like in a car on a plane or whatever. But do you have music, for example, like download it on your phone, like if you said, pull out your phone, huh? Yeah, I do. Can you just give a couple of names here? Yeah.

Honestly, it's going to be recent hits because I just download what my kids tell me to download. I understand. Just give me a couple of albums that you've downloaded. Okay, so we're recently added. Okay, so it looks to me like I recently added Khalid. Yes. Okay.

Good. There's a Gaga song, Kidler Roy and Miley Cyrus. Okay. Kidler Roy and Justin Bieber. Oh, doja cat. My kids love to do that. She's great. She's great.

TikTok, wein. Yeah. See, my kids keep me current, you know, you think I'm like, She's great. Here's what I'm doing for my kids. This is my new parent strategy. I was let, they love listening to the 80s playlist on Spotify. But now I was like, what are, who are like great seminal artists?

So I have them doing Tom Petty, David Bowie, talking heads, and Bob Marley. And I get the whole greatest hits album, and I explain to them every song, and they're like, totally getting into it. So basically, you're being... What's the day?

You're being... You're being self-indulgent, you're focused on yourself, and you're trying to make them a loser. No, I'm trying to get them to understand what actual music... Really, bro. You want your kids to walk into school, and when somebody else like

Hey, do you like doja cat? They're like no, but have you listen to talk that in our breakers? I've been I've been doing that. I'm in playing my kids my favorite artists and they and he's become their favorite artist Apex twin you guys don't know who you guys are Yeah, yeah, yeah, what about this? What about all of it? I'm called the The romical problem rich or D. James album is probably one of the best albums of all time And I play it My kids go friggin nuts for it now and they ask for it nonstop and I'm like, oh my god. I love you. You're my kids

It's the best. I'm sorry. I get my kids into the my favorite movies and That's just too hard because movies were so too slow about Yeah, yeah, you have to watch movies. It's hard. They want to watch hard. Yeah, yeah No, they can't watch movies. They It's hard. They want to watch movies. They're too slow. They can't watch movies. They watch a Marvel movie. They can't even watch the original Star Wars. It's crazy. Raiders will lost our. I think we're the scene doesn't cut every one and a half seconds. They can't watch. It's crazy. I was like, Raiders will lost our. You're going to love this. They're like, this is so boring. I'm like, Raiders of the lost

art. Tell them to do more boring. They're like crazy. It's terrible. I remember watching like his character development. They want to cut They're crazy. I remember watching like, his character development. They want to cut the first act. Have you guys watched it? And you guys watched it. And you guys watched it. And you guys watched it. And you guys watched it.

I remember as a kid watching, you guys watched it. You guys watched it. You guys watched it. You guys watched it. You guys watched it. You guys watched it. You guys watched it.

You guys watched it. You guys watched it. You guys watched it. You guys watched it. You guys watched it. You guys watched it. You guys watched it. You guys watched it. You guys watched it. You guys watched it. You guys watched it. You guys watched it. You guys watched it. You guys watched it. You guys watched it. You guys watched it. You guys watched it. You guys watched it. You guys watched it. You guys watched it. You guys watched it. You guys watched it. You guys watched it. You guys watched it. You guys watched it. You guys watched it. You guys watched it. You guys watched it. You guys watched it. You guys watched it. You guys watched it. You guys watched it. You guys watched it. You guys watched it. You guys watched it. You guys watched it. You guys watched it. You guys watched it. You guys watched it. You guys watched it. You guys watched it. You guys watched it. You guys watched it. You guys like watching a play. And that's where they, you know, it's like gotten more and more kind of short form as we've kind of aged, but, you know, that's like, oh no, what happened? Okay, said each,

Aki, Aki, Aki, calling a biscuit and Aki just came and took it from me. Aki, not the good Aki, you don't take it a biscuit. Aki, you eat it a dog food, you don't need it a biscuit,

bad Aki, you know those biscuits are cashmere, they're really expensive. All right, I'm gonna get my boosters out of you. I'll see you guys later. All right, everybody, this has been another exciting, amazing episode of the All in Podcast 4. We're gonna get to your cookies.

4, the dictator, Shema Pahapitiya, and the Sultan of science, David Freiberg. We'll see you all next time. Zach's people have a wonderful time with Suarez. He came by last night. I'm hosting Miami Mayor Francis Suarez tonight. We're doing a cocktail reception fundraiser for him. Hang out with him.

We got huge turnout. I mean, I tweeted this thing and we're going to have, I think at least 60 people at the reception, at least 20 people for dinner. You're letting Rando's in your house from Twitter? Or have security. Oh, they have to pay five times. Yeah, they're good, yeah, they have to pay.

But also like, we kind of check everybody out. One of your enemies, one of your enemies will pay five times just again in your act. I think basically like Buzzfeed pay to get in there. I'd be careful. We have to know who they are. We've got them. There's a lot of people, I mean, look,

if we wanted to let everybody in, there were at least a hundred people who are applied To my tweet saying I can't DM you, but I want to go and open your dams for a day Oh, you can do that. Yeah, Francis came by yesterday with his team. He was in top form. He looks great He's excited about the next term. All right. We'll see you all next time. Bye. Bye Well, your winners ride about the next term. Alright, we'll see you all next time. Bye bye. What, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, We just need to release our album What your heartbeat? What your heartbeat? Your heartbeat

What? We need to get merch I'm doing all it I'm doing all it you