All-In with Chamath, Jason, Sacks & Friedberg

20 of 188 episodes indexed
Back to Search - All Episodes

E18: Inauguration talk, breaking down the $1.9T stimulus, the case for recalling Gavin Newsom & more

by All-In Podcast, LLC
January 23rd 2021
Hey, everybody, it's me, Jason California's welcome. Welcome. Hey, everybody, it's me, Jason. Thank God trumps out Hate Trump and I love myself. Well, let your winners ride brain waves to the fans and they've just gone crazy with way. Hey, everybody, Happy days are here again. Champagne card of bottles popping Cleo again Happy days are here again. Sacks is so happy. Trump's out of office. He gave an amazing speech about how great Biden's inauguration. Waas Welcome to the all in podcast with me today in our post

inauguration afterglow is the dictator trauma Palihapitiya the Queen of Ken Wa David Freedberg and riding the BlueWave diving in no more red pills. The blue wave is David Rain Man Sacks is with us. David How did it feel? Toe watch Biden's inauguration speech, which you said hit all the notes and I see you're wearing blue today. Let me have a sip of my Veuve Clicquot and tell us you've got the blue jacket, the blue shirt and the blue headset on. You've written the BlueWave. Tell us how you feel. With Biden in office, I'm gonna drink my vote. Jason, I'm just happy to see that you're happy. Uh, and, uh, zit, does this mean? Does this mean that that you're trumped? Arrangement is over? Your you've gone cold turkey, You're on the wagon. And

, uh, I'm just happy. I'm just happy to have my friend back and not have you part of this things trump derangement zombie horde that you've been in for the last few years. I'll tell you two quick stories. Uh, the first one turned out not to be true, but there was ah, New York Times alert that came out this weekend saying that, um, there we were gonna lift the travel bland. And for a for a moment, I was like, I was I was a little in shock and, you know, my, my I'm Canadian. My family's in Canada. I haven't seen them in a year. My mom is 80 years old. I haven't seen her in a year. Um and then the second was on the day of the inauguration. Biden signed an EO. I guess that that, you know, starts to basically create a path to citizenship. And there are, you know, to women in my life who I think are just

lovely, lovely people who have never been able to hire. And, uh, and now this gives us a path to hire them and compensate them and the way that we wanted to. And so in these moments, I started crying, and I I've probably had three or four moments, and I realized, like, Holy shit, I have had so much pent up emotion waiting for honestly, just like a normal average date. Onda, like simple, humane, good things. And I'm not. I'm not trying to sort of jump on the Biden bandwagon. I think that he's got a lot of work to do. But But I do think that just at a level simple, basic level of humanity, it was a different. It was a big sea change. How did you take it, Freeburg? I'm curious. Did you cry as well? I observed the inauguration. It was interesting to upgrade your firm. We're sorry. We were supposed to push the to David. Firmware is for the ability to cry. But did you feel any emotion of the three emotions we've given

you and your programming? Did any of them move it all? I don't remember. I mean, I don't remember the origin of my non emotional characterization, Jason, but yeah, I think it was based on every interaction we've ever had with you. But continue. E guess that makes sense. So I feel like the Biden the Biden moment on on Inauguration day. Um, it really did feel like a sigh of relief because so much of Trump love him or hate him has been driven by a degree of tension, right? I mean, he came in, uh, the office on the premise that he was going to drain the swamp. I mean, that's kind of a very kind of active, you know, position. He's going to go away, he's going to change things. And I think, you know, the Biden tone is like, Let's take it down a notch. Let's all take a deep breath and I feel like that. That generated a collective sigh of relief. I'll also say that I watched that with the eyes of someone

who voted for Trump. Um, yeah, I didn't vote for Trump. Uh, but, um, I don't think I voted this year. I can't remember. It was the middle of pandemic, but, um, I basically feel like there was a lot of folks. It's easy to say Let's unite the country. Um, when you're on the winning side and when you're not and you're sitting there And, um, your guy got kicked out of office and your guy claimed that he got kicked out because of fraudulent activity. And you're one of the 46% of Americans, um, that are already disapproving of Biden's performance in his first two days of office. Uh, you don't look at that as a moment of relief. You don't look at that as a moment of of respite, and I feel like there's a little bit of a missed point of view in terms of how we're all covering it and talking about it. It certainly feels good to take the tension down and take, take a deep breath and have leadership not be putting the tension out there. But there's a lot of anger and disappointment still festering out there, and I think we need

to be very cognizant of why and what we could dio. And it would have been nice to see Biden not just say Let's unite, but actually step over the line and declare some of the policies and points of view of the other side as being valid and engaging more directly on those points versus saying, Well, all work together in the future we're already seeing. And we're already seeing this rift with McConnell and others in terms of how to deal with the filibuster in a unified Senate. Andi, I just don't think that were there, so yeah. What were your thoughts? Your month? Yeah. I mean, look, I'm not gonna swoon over an octogenarian reading cliches off a teleprompter. I'm sorry. I just can't do it now. That being said, you know, the the inauguration speech struck all the right notes of reconciliation, lowering the temperature coming together. These are the things you're supposed to say at inauguration. These air, the presidential layups, if you will. It's kind of a weird thing that Trump could never quite get these layups in. Biden did what he was supposed to dio. And And I agree that there is a sense of relief

in the temperature being lowered and on this and the situation in Washington feeling a bit depressurized. And so I think he deserves credit for that. That's all for the good. I think the problem Biden's gonna have is not just sort of the trump right? Opposing him, but the uncivil warriors in his own party. Uncivil warriors, I think, was the most memorable line in his speech. There are people I think, you know on the left who aren't really on board with the reconciliation agenda. I mean, shortly after the election, you had AOC proposing a truth and reconciliation commission, uh, to go after everyone from the trump era. I don't think that's exactly the kind of reconciliation binds talking about you have, I think, the oppressive hand of big tech playing into this revenge agenda by acting as a speech cartel. And now we have the rest of the tech stack jumping on board with the speech cartel. You had an announcement from a whole bunch of finance companies PayPal, Stripes Square

, that said they would cancel the accounts and, by implication, lively hoods of anyone connected to January 6. Well, what exactly does that mean? I mean, there were many thousands of people at this rally on the mall. Only a few percent of them breached the capital and even smaller percentage engaged in violence. But everybody who was at the mall and really everyone in the Maga movement is quote unquote connected to that protest. So how many degrees of Kevin Bacon are we gonna play in acting out thes Reprisals. Um, and I think the worst part of all is that now we have in Congress Ah, Bill put forward by Adam Schiff that basically would create a domestic Patriot Act Thio to create giant new surveillance powers for the state to go after people they deemed to be traders and sedition ists and domestic terrorists. Um, and you know, I actually tweeted a letter by Rashida. Tell a but the squad opposing this it's the first time I stood with

the squad. I was proud, Thio, because the last thing the state needs right now is eyes, mawr, surveillance powers and this idea that we're fighting a war against fellow Americans based on basically political dissent, that's not gonna create reconciliation. That's gonna lead to the next step in this horrible tit for tat game. Just to build on this for a second. Um, there's a Rasmussen poll that came out today. Today's Friday, January 22nd, So two days after the inauguration, and Biden's disapproval rating is 45% and you know all of a sudden you can think again. As you said three days ago, you know, a lot of people were on the losing side and are now on the winning side. And today a lot of people that were on the winning side are quote unquote on the losing side, and you see how reflexive the reaction is. It's like an auto hate, right? It's like auto disapproval. And so if that's the case, it just it just begs the question

. How much room and how much tolerance will we have is a society. If we start to go after folks, that is, you know that effectively have an enormous amount of political dissent. Are there fringes of both parties that need to get basically found out exposed and put in jail, whether they're antifa on the left or, you know, the far right extremists on the right? Absolutely. Um, but hopefully the FBI already has enough power to do that, and that's already there. Remit. And what we're not gonna have to do is pass an enormous number of laws. I mean, I've said this before, like the Patriot Act was so crazy because it was a foreign actor and a foreign event on domestic soil that created it. But, you know, between the pandemic and now what happened in the capital of Biological Patriot Act, a domestic Patriot Act. These are all in the offing, and I think what we're gonna have to do is again. It sounds cheesy, but find the common ground so that we can expose who are at the fringes of both parties, who are the real crazy people around those folks up and deal with

them with laws that we have today. Because otherwise the unintended consequences for the overwhelming majority of the Americans who are just normal folks is gonna be a little scary. I thought a really interesting reconciliation moment happened with the woman who stole Nancy Pelosi's laptop. I don't know if you guys were I have read that story, but this woman who stole the laptop and was considering selling it to the Russians or something. She's 22 years old. She's obviously was misguided in doing this, and the judge basically explained to her that she was releasing her to her mother's you know, care and that her mother would go to jail if you know she did anything further. Um, but she said, Listen, you know, you're a beneficiary of the Constitution. You are getting a speedy trial. You are getting representation. And she used it almost as a civics lesson. And I think we had a discussion, maybe two episodes when the when the pot got a little hot. Um, which

was great for ratings, by the way and for our relationships. And it resulted in a reconciliation dinner that we had a little little wives dinner. Our wives brought us together for dinner to just make sure everything was on the Jamaat Jamaat brought us together for dinner on uh, yeah. Uh, no. I mean, it was it was a good thing because, frankly, Jason, I'm starting to hate you just just a little bit A little bit, Uh, but I could feel the hate, you know, and, uh, Jamaat being empathetic as he is recognized the situation. And so we've decided to do, you know, at least a quarterly besties dinner to make sure that, uh, yeah, that the contentiousness does not get out of hand and interfere with our friendships, which are more important than our politics. Ultimately, that's what we all hope is comes out of this podcast, which is a deeper understanding of reconciliation, of issues that we disagree on and breaking bread, having a meal or having

a civil conversation, even if it's a little heated. Keeping it civil is important. I thought that this is the way to handle it. A lot of these, we're gonna be able to use some amount of judgment on the people who stormed the capital and say, Okay, this person's misguided. They took a selfie, this person broke windows and then this person, you know, through a fire extinguisher to cop. And we have to make sure that the justice system is deployed in in a fair way and more surveillance and more investigation. I don't think that's the solution. I think more surveillance, more investigations, Absolutely. Because I think the FBI has the power today to do that. And I think they should. They, like I said, they should find every single person involved, find the appropriate crime, make sure that they're punished. But the idea of passing broad, sweeping surveillance powers over crazy American citizen is fucking nuts, bonkers. And by the way, all that's all that's going to do is create these honey pots for foreign governments to want to attack anyways, because if that capability exists

, it exists in code on servers somewhere. And folks in China and other places will want to find out where that is, and they will be attacking it all day long. And so the last thing we need is we're already leaking enough information about ourselves online, willingly and unwittingly. I don't want there to be, Ah, honey pot, that that's the first thing. The second thing I just want to say is I thought it was incredible. Um, what Mitch McConnell did Just back to your comment, Jason, about making sure folks get the right adjudication. I think Mitch McConnell set the stage to have Donald Trump impeached, and the reason I think that is this was the first time he was completely unequivocal, which is that Donald Trump provoked all these folks. And I think what it allows the Republican Party to do is to get together under closed doors, you know, behind closed doors, circle the wagons and say it's either him or us. We choose right now, and I think what's gonna happen if I had to guess is that that allows a lot of people to break ranks and support the impeachment

in the Senate that's going to start on Monday. Andi. I think there's a real chance now that that this impeachment goes through and he gets convicted. I think it's worth just thinking about the implications of that. If you did that, there, there, trump loyalists. There aren't really GOP loyalists on Bond. I guess there are GOP loyalists, but there are a lot of Trump loyalists that are not loyal to the GOP at this point. And sacks, you know, correct me if I'm wrong. But if Trump does actually create a fringe party does create ah Patriot Party, as he suggested he might, Um, you could see up to 20 million Americans joining that party, and, you know, that would reduce the ranks of the Republican Party significantly and in kind of my understanding is in political theory, what would result is you always have a balance in the parties, and so the party is kind of a just left or right to create that balance. Ultimately, it's just kind of the organic way this this works in order for the Republican Party to gain. Um, you would probably see a lot of membership move over to the Republican

Party, which means that the Democratic Party is gonna move further left. And, um, you know, think about the implications of that. If Trump does, actually, if they do actually kick Trump out of the party and he does set up a French party, you will likely see the Democrats move further left, creating a much Mawr kind of conflicting story for some of the centrist than what they're telling today of what's gonna happen in the future. And that's a very different America in the next 2 to 3 years that could be created if they took that risk. And I think they have to associate that calculus when they're making this decision. You know, you could talk about justice and wanted to kick him out of the party. But the implications of him leaving the party or rather profound Oh, it would fracture the Republican Party. It would be e guess the best historical analog would be went. Teddy Roosevelt left the party, uh, toe form the bull Moose party. He actually fracture the Republican Party. And that allowed, I think Woodrow Wilson to win the presidency. Beating Taft? Um, yeah. I mean, the Republicans would basically lose

every election from now until Trump is no longer, You know, a force in American politics. If he created I guess the or they have to move, they have to move left, right? I mean, in order for them to gain, you know, more people they'd have to get the centrist Democrats. You have to move left. And that will give the Democrats ability to move left. Yeah. I mean, it's a it would be a dream scenario for for the Democrat Party. I'm surprised I would be surprised at the end of the day if if if enough Republicans went along with with this toe fracture the party. But look, I I understand that on some basis, you know, Trump Trump caused what happened at the Capitol. He convened everybody. He rabble roused. But I think that, um, frankly, if you have a trial, I think the question we have to ask is like, what agendas is this serve? Does this serve a reconciliation agenda, or does this server revenge agenda? I mean, the guy's already out of office. I thought we canceled the Trump reality show, and this is like bringing it back for another season because this

trial is gonna be a shit show. Just like all things Trump, You have a trial in the Senate and it's gonna turn into a total farce. Okay? And, you know, look, I think cosmically Trump was reckless. He was responsible. But when you actually look at the legal definition of incitement, it's actually very hard to prove incitement. So now Trump's gonna get his lawyers up there and they're gonna be pushing back on this, and it's going to consume the country for months. And I just think we should be moving forward right now. The guys already out of three days and done, Why would it take months? I'm curious. You're just saying, Hang from it they're talking about, They're going to start in mid February, right? It's not gonna be three days. This goes on until the trial is over. I mean, it's it'll be at least a week of discussion, right? Sex? So sex is it. Do you think prevent the GOP preventing trump from being able to run again is worth the year the week of animosity? Let's call it. I don't I think we should just move on

as a country on guy. You know, at the end of the day, I think that's what's good for Biden's agenda. I mean, this will become very consuming. What's good for the GOP, though, If you're you as a person who would align themselves with Republicans, mainly, I would say, What do you think is best for your party and the party You're part of just moving on, Just moving forward. What if Trump comes back and gets the nomination in 2024? I mean, I think that is definitely a risk. You your take. But I think that at risk, um, you know, I'll leave it to the voters to decide what? What makes sense? Um, interesting. I I think that the only salvation for the Republicans is to repudiate Trump, and I actually agree with, um, with Friedberg. I think that this creates the opportunity for this. I think Trump wants to call it the Patriot Party to be sort of center, right? I think Democrats probably ab over time, you know, center left, and then the Republicans actually are this interesting powerbroker because they can actually tacked to

the middle and be centrist, you know, about a social safety net combined with, you know, small government. If you could somehow tiptoe and and and balance on that line, I think that is the winning strategy that people want. But I think that's that's my point is the Republican Party is gonna have to move left in order to create balance between the two parties again because they're gonna lose 20 million voters to the Patriot Party. And that's the profound shift that's gonna happen. And when the Republican party moves left, the Democrats are gonna move further left. And so maybe I don't think that moving that far left is a really winning strategy for them. But I think I think free Brooke is right. So, as an example, I think I could say this. But like I had a call this week with the mayor of Miami, Francis Suarez. What an unbelievably impressive guy. Holy fucking shit. This guy is amazing. Um, what he's done in Miami is incredible. I mean, the GDP growth is like Chinese

GDP growth. 10% 8% 6.5%. He's running fiscal surpluses, you know, crime is down, down, down. He's done an incredible job. This guy is a fundamental centrist, you know? And when you talk about what his beliefs are, I was like, What is this guy? Is he a Democrat? Is the Republican I was like, He's like, honestly, I'm a centrist, you know? And and so my point is, if whoever tax to the middle will find the ability to attract incredible leaders that I think our our our our next generation set of leadership. So in that way, Trump as a change agent Sacks was a success in that he broke the system, and this was Peter Thiel's kind of concept when he put him in. And I know you don't speak for Peter, but Peter's idea was, Hey, this person's a change agent. He's gonna be this, you know, drain the swamp person. Maybe that didn't happen. But he has basically made everybody reconsider what party they want to be part of and what they actually want on the political agenda. And now we're

so we've never been more focused on politics and how our country runs in our lifetime. Have we? Well, Trump, you're right that Trump was a classic disruptor. You know, Keith Ratboy has this line about founders. That disruption is created by disruptive people. And Trump was, you know, one of those very disruptive people. I mean it just to take two examples. I mean, he created a total realignment on our views around China. I think it's now a bipartisan consensus that, you know, we should not keep feeding China on making, you know, keep feeding that the Chinese tiger and turning into a dragon. Everyone seems to think now that that's some reappraisal is warranted. And the other, the other big issue was the Forever wars in the Middle East. You know, I think Trump first created a realignment within the Republican Party when he said no more bushes, he met no more of these stupid foreign wars. Andi, I think that was an important realignment. Um, so yeah, I mean, he's been a very disruptive figure. I think that everyone is breathing a sigh of relief because

we've moved on. I think that he unnecessarily was incendiary and sort of pressurized the situation. Um, but I think the best thing at this point is to move forward and not keep rehashing the trump era. Speaking of rehashing, um, I don't know if you guys know about what is happening with Facebook, but they have an oversight board they created last year in the spring on. And the oversight board is not to dio the day to day policing of Facebook and Instagram and WhatsApp activity. But it is, too be a place where people who have been, have had content removed or have had their count suspended to appeal. They have taken the Trump case as it were, and given it to their Supreme Court, which is the oversight board. And the oversight board is gonna make a judgment basically on should Trump get his social media accounts back? They have complete autonomy from Facebook

. They're funded by Facebook with 124 $130 million over the next six years. So they're getting like, $20 million a year to run this. They've got a really amazing bench of intellectuals, public intellectuals and and they're sort of above Facebook in this regard. What do we think should happen to Trump's social media accounts? Should he have a path to reclaiming them? And with this board that exists as this a Bussmann as I talked about the last episode, What do we think of this process? And and do we think maybe Twitter and YouTube join this oversight board? Let's separate these two things and actually, Jason, you just framed it perfectly. Let's separate the two issues. One is is any of us comfortable with a random set of people that some people will like and other people not like making these decisions on our behalf that are not necessarily trained to make these decisions? I mean, these aren't elected trained judges or lawyers. That's it for a bar exam. These air just, you know, private citizens. Ultimately, at the end of the day, um, I

think that if you allow this to happen at scale, there's gonna be a bunch of decisions that you'll be okay with and support. I think a lot of people probably are cheering when Trump got blocked. But if you could abstract it away and think about all the people that you actually care about, what if the administration was on the other side? And now all of a sudden you know these people to curry favor with? The administration went in a different direction and people that you cared about got blocked. It is an untenable situation, and I think this is the slippery slope that the Framers never intended. I don't think it should be people like this making any decision like this, and in many ways it's, Ah, it's a fig leaf for these companies to pretend they're doing the right thing while they're really shirking the rial responsibility. Friedberg, you agree? It's hard to say on this specific, so I think we should just take a broader point of view on this. Which is how do tech companies, um, create independence in the platforms that they're building so that they don't get scrutinized as monopolists? And so there are several examples of this being done, both successfully

and not successfully across the tech ecosystem. Google made Android open source, and by making the Android operating system open source, they were able to have their own forked versions that they were able to install on phones in with partners like HTC and Samsung and others that they could then have their search engine be the primary search engine. So the entire android operating system is available for anyone to work on for anyone to fork for anyone to use. And then Google's iteration of that open source platform and Google's contributions, which they were making regularly allowed them to kind of have a great commercial outcome without being the owner of the operating system. Having learned from the mistakes of Microsoft in the past, um, Facebook tried to take a similar approach with Libera, and it was a total shit show in a disaster. I don't know where it is today, but they tried to create this also independent board, um, to provide oversight on toe, you know, to kind of do the, you know, all the open source work on the liberal currency. And Facebook was gonna then use that on their platform

A Z. They're kind of, you know, token crypto currency solution. Andi, obviously there was so much scrutiny because no one believed the independence. And I think we're hearing the same thing now about the Facebook Oversight Board. Jack Dorsey is now taking the same approach with Blue Sky, which is meant to be this open source. Um, you know, independently managed, um, social media protocol system. And so Twitter would effectively become an application layer on top of this open source approach to How do you decide what goes on Social media? How do you decide what's inappropriate, inappropriate and what technology protocols are available for everyone to use and what business and arbitration protocols are available for everyone to use in an open source way. And we'll see where Jack goes with Blue Sky. He seems to be doing a better job messaging and organizing teams of people to work on this. And I don't see the pushback that Facebook is getting with their oversight board. So unfortunately, a lot of these the big tech platforms

in order to avoid the monopolistic allegations and the allegations of control and influence, they're creating Independence, uh, independent systems and the hit or miss and I don't think we yet know. I think in the next year or two, we'll see how Blue Sky Libera, the Facebook Oversight Board and some of these other platform What would you do? Deep platform approaches. What would you do? Let me just put it to you. If you were in charge, you with CEO of Facebook or Twitter, would you have a path to reinstating Trump? Yes or no? Yeah. Let me just get free Berg's Would you? Yes or no? Reinstate Trump. Oh, yeah, 100%. We should have a path to it. I think like I've said in the past having some objective, I think that number one, I don't think it was inappropriate for them to kick him off the platform. From a legal perspective, I don't Saxon. I might disagree, but we could probably argue for an hour. But I think from a freedom of speech, point of view, their private companies with private accounts. And they did what they wanted to dio Was it the right thing to Dio? I don't think that was the right thing. So you give him a path to getting his account back. And so I think you need to create an objective system and you need to give everyone, whether it's trump or whoever else. Everyone

has to have the same set of standards that they're held to, and then a universal approach that anyone can appeal and okay, but that's the approach. But knowing what Trump did on January 6, would you let him back on your platform if you were CEO? Is the question I'm trying to get out of your Freeburg, but Okay, David, you go. Yeah, I mean, so So here's the fundamental problem is that the town square is now owned by Facebook and Twitter. The town square got privatized, and our speech rights are now in the hands of Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey. As a practical matter, I mean, you do not have speech rights in the modern world if you get D platform by big tech. And until now there's been no way to appeal their decisions. We have had no transparency into their decision. So I think Facebook creating this appeals board is a step in the right direction. But, you know, they're calling it their Supreme Court. But I'll tell you, my Supreme Court is the Supreme Court. You know, at the end of the day, we all know that the most important part of a trial is jury selection. And Zuckerberg is still picking these 20 people and, you know, just in case in

point, he picked the top. He picked the four and the four picked the next 16. And then they don't have an ongoing ability to pick the next ones, and they have some amount of terms, so just Okay, well, fair enough. And like I said, Look, I don't wanna criticize this move on its own because it is a step in the right direction. We need an appeals process when people get canceled. Okay, Um, that part is good, but But what I would like to see, Like I said, my Supreme Court is the Supreme Court, and they've spoken to this issue, and I would like to see these social networking monopolies apply a First Amendment standard. Ah, speech policy broadly consistent with the First Amendment. And sometimes that will mean allowing speech we don't like, but it will result in a greater level of speech protection for all of us. We'll just remind back on the platform. No, but hold on a second, if you're gonna go by that standard, the problem is, with this oversight board concept is that it completely violates exactly what the Supreme Court is meant to be, which is a country by country set of governance and standards and laws

. Like I'm just looking at the oversight board people. Right now, these people look incredibly well credentialed. Emmy pal. More of Israel. Catalina Botero, Marino of Columbia, *** dot from Pakistan. Helle Thorning Schmidt from Denmark, Catherine Chen from Taiwan, Jamal Green from the United States. Alan Rusbridger from UK Andres Say Jew from Hungary and it goes on and on. How are we supposed to adjudicate a set of standards at a national level, like when when we have the Are all these people from all these different countries supposed to apply on US constitutional right of free speech and having the idea would be they would use some global standard, but then also take into consideration local standards that that's what they stated purposes and why they're so diverse. The set up for that, though, Jason, is that then you know when when there's ah, you know, the Hindu nationalist BJP party has a specific point of view, And so when Modi wants to get elected, there's going to be specific kinds of free speech laws there. You know, Poland's gonna have a different point of view, and they're not going to respect what's

happening in the oversight board. Case in point, Australia passed a potential law or is considering passing a law which is basically around, if you know, treating Facebook and Google as quasi publishers and that, you know, there I think that they have to pay some kind of royalty now for articles that are shared or published or whatever. And Google said, I'm out. And then Facebook said, I'm out, too. Eso Well, what does that mean? For, you know, 200 million people you're out. What does that mean? You're out. You can make money when the getting is good and all of a sudden you build this public infrastructure when the country's rules change. I actually respect that more than trying to create some of this broad holistic governance committee because I think it's a shit show. You can't cherry pick which laws you wanna observe and respect, and then which laws you don't. You know, I think their mouth makes an excellent point about how difficult this is gonna be Implement. Let me propose an alternative that actually comes from former law professor of mine at the University of Chicago, Richard Epstein

. He made the point that he wants apply common carrier regulation at least in the U. S. To these monopolies. And the example he gives is that the railroad monopolies could not deny you service based on your political views. And, you know, this is this is a This is a real issue. Imagine, You know, going back in time, you know, we had the Lincoln Douglas debates. For example. The way that Lincoln and Douglas went around the country was by train. Imagine if some railroad magnate some oligarchs said, Mr Lincoln, I don't like your views. I'm not going to give you passage on my railroad monopoly. The common carrier rules would have prevented them from doing that. And what Epstein suggests we dio is if you're a essentially a monopoly, a speech monopoly in the in the US one of these platforms that has, you know, the gigantic network effects you have to apply the common carrier rules. It's an interesting concept, I think. Let's move on, Thio. The economy on

will be very interesting. Well, we'll monitor obviously what the this oversight board does. We're gonna monitor what's gonna happen with this January 6 in, by the way, then. Sorry, Jason. The last thing on this is you could you could tell if you if you graphed and I'm sure somebody, uh, listening to all in Congrats and tweet this. But if you graphed the price to earnings ratio. Um, of big tech Has all of these issues have come out like, you know, if you look at a time Siris of their p e um, and you put on there, you know, things like George Floyd. Things like the capital riots. You know, all of these things that have created these, um, flashpoint issues around free speech flashpoints the the massacre in New Zealand and Christ Church that was live streamed on Facebook. All of this stuff what you'll see is at least capitalism is voting that these companies will not be allowed to be companies much longer. Mhm. So the smart money is betting that they're gonna be regulated and

something's gonna change. It's gonna be a quasi governmental organization. Exactly that the level of regulation at a government but government level, um, is going to be so onerous as to make these companies quasi nonprofits that work on behalf of countries they're going they're going to become utilities, right? They're getting They're gonna get regulated like utilities at some point. Or they're gonna have to adopt some governance like we've talked about or other options will emerge. And I think what Jack is doing with the blue sky is what they're calling it. Yeah, what they're really doing with Blue Sky is saying your profile in your data is going to be stored on some Blockchain or or some decentralized system like Bitcoin or like any other peer to peer service, which means it's not on their server. Twitter just pulls all that data together, so we would all have our own domain names and Calacanis dot com or sacks dot com slash profile dot Whatever the HTML equivalent is. Let's just call it dot social

. You know your sax dot social u R l would be your profile on Facebook, Twitter and everywhere else. And when you posted to it, it would post to Facebook and Twitter. Therefore, they could say we don't actually host the stuff. We're just pulling it together, which then destroys their business model perch amounts point. What do we think a za little aside is gonna happen with the tick tock case. Uh, now that Trump is out of office and Biden is in office, we sort of alluded to China Sacks being a super important thing that we all have consensus on now what should happen with Ticktock? And do you think Biden will go after Ticktock and say, Hey, we got to get this out of here because it's, you know, essentially spyware and Jack Ma was just resurfaced on. Let let's just talk about China for a second. Yeah, I think the sad reality is that the whole ticktock things and get swept under the rug. I think there'll be no restrictions on tick tock. I think what we need the issue with like with Banning Ticktock, though, is that is just one place where China can collect data on all of us

. I mean, the reality is there's thousands of places. And so, you know, I do think that taking some action on tick tock is warranted, but it would. It is a little bit of selective enforcement, but what I would like to see is some guarantee. Some assurance that that tick Tock is not is collecting data in the way they're saying they're collecting it and that there is not sort of spyware within the app, and I don't think we know for sure whether there's spyware or not. I'll say I'll say it slightly differently. I've maintained this for a while, But it is inconceivable that inside a big tech in every single company that you define big tech is not at least one spy from Russia, China, India, Israel, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia. Did I tell you guys I had a spy working for me? Climate You got didn't tell you guys about this. Tell us that it's public, so I'll share. We had a data scientist

named Hightower. Great guy, worked on our remote sensing team and worked on our nitrogen model, which predicted nitrogen content in soil and was very deep in the in, the in, the code based and everything. And shortly after I had left, I found out this so climate just for the audience. My company, I started and ran was acquired by Monsanto in 2013, which is a big seed company. A lot of people know it for other things, and and so I left and I found out that the guy quit, went to the airport and the FBI intercepted him at the airport and they found tucked into his bag a thumb drive, and he had downloaded all of our code base for our nitrogen models and he was taking them to give them to the Chinese government. And so he's in jail right now. He's in prison in the US right now. But this was like the most nondescript, super nice scientists data scientist guy you've ever met. Like you would have had zero suspicion. And it turns out how many of those exists in Facebook

. And it was so and by the way, it was so easy for him to get access to our code base. And he pulled all this stuff down and he had the whole model. And, you know, there's a lot of articles about what happened in our case. But you're right, it's happening all over the place. And and I don't think that we fully appreciate, like, how much of America's I P is stored in software, on data and how accessible that is to employees inside of these organizations and that the security is not adequate to protect that data and that I p and then the crazy thing is like, you know, when just to connect the two dots here on this Jack, nothing like when you saw that video where, like, you know, basically he was forced to you know, Schofield team, I'm OK. And you know, this is all about the Chinese party held captive. My gosh, Like I mean, these are all quasi governmental companies. Holly Baba exists because of the largesse of the Communist Party in Xi Jinping. If that wasn't clear after last week, I mean and so to your point, like, you know, if any

company gets a hold of us user data or otherwise, it's effectively the Chinese government getting ahold of that data. Yeah, We don't need proof, David. When Jack Ma disappears and then comes back and looks, he looked nervous on that video. I'm no expert, but he did not look like he was the Jack MMA who was giving speeches and inspiring people on. I don't know what this does to entrepreneurship in China, but I mean, who in China is going to start a company now and want to be the next Jack Ma or Jeff Bezos? No, I think I think, Jason, it's even simpler. What happens? It makes it makes entrepreneurship even simpler. Meaning for those entrepreneurs that thought that there was a balance between financial imperative and moral imperative. There's no balance you can flush the moral imperative down the fucking toilet. They China will allow you to get super rich and super successful as long as you super toe the line bond. That's the message, right? It's like what Putin did with Korsakov ski in Russia. It's like he basically told all the oligarchs, You

work for us now and it worked. That's basically that it worked. That's basically the message from the C, C, P, T, Jack Ma and to every other entrepreneur in China is you work for us now. And by the way, Civil military fusion was part was a policy especially announced by President G. Um, you know, one other data point on this, I think is really interesting is that Biden just announced that he was keeping on Christopher Wray as the head of the FBI. Um, Christopher Wray gave a speech back in July at the Hudson Institute about theme the counter espionage efforts that the FBI is engaged in, and he was saying that the FBI has more cases now related thio to Chinese counterintelligence. He said that the FBI is opening a new China related counterintelligence case every 10 hours and two a day And of the of the nearly 5000 active FBI counterintelligence cases currently underway across

the country, almost half are related to China. So this is directly from a speech he gave in July. So I think it's really interesting now at the time that he gave this speech. You know, a lot of people are saying, Well, this is just Trump's more of Trump's China baiting, But I think that by Biden keeping on Chris Christopher Wray there's a continuity of policy there. And I think, you know, focusing on TIC Tac is probably the wrong thing. We need a more comprehensive policy to deal with counterintelligence. Well, it's a good start, though, to say, if you hit scalpel, we're not gonna let you operate here, and we want reciprocity. Adding to this, uh, outgoing Secretary Pompeo and is the day before the inauguration tweeted I have determined that the People's Republic of China is committing genocide and crimes against humanity, uh, in China, targeting the ***, Muslims and members of other ethnic and religious minority groups. That's quite a bomb to leave the day before, and I think this signals we are going to keep resetting this relationship And

what an incredible opportunity for us to bring factories back here. Bring as we've talked about here, manufacturing back. Correct, Freeburg. That's what I think. Let's kick it off. We got we got 3,000,003 million factories in China. I think we've got less than 100,000 in America. Let's go. It will be so glorious. It will be so fucking glorious. I mean, think about this, right? Look, think about the amount of money, like, at the end of the day, what is the government's purpose? Is it to run a profit? No. You know, that's our job, right? Is it to run at break even? I would actually say no. I think it's to basically promote the prosperity of current and future generations of its citizens. And so you should be investing. So if you should be in investment, So if we're gonna be printing, you know, trillions of dollars And you know, we should talk about the stimulus bill because Biden is gonna rip in another two trillion, which I think is the perfect and then on, by the way. And then after that, there's gonna be this. It's amazing infrastructure Bill put the money toe work. Let's reclaim a bunch of this capability onshore

and let's rebuild America. Okay, Freeburg, you looked at the $1.2 trillion stimulus package that Biden is proposing. How much of that goes towards rebuilding factories in America? Well, none. So remember, there's, uh yeah, but at 1.9 billion, 1.9 trillion 0.9 trillion. Yeah, so? And so just to put that in context, you know, Wall Street has talked about they were gonna be four for massive stimulus bills. You know, since last April, May I think they've talked about this and we're seeing this come to fruition now on Jamaat. Correct me if you've heard differently. But there's always been the expectation we would have the big first stimulus, which we had last March, that a second stimulus. People have been waiting for the state stimulus with local government stimulus, which this one now it captures. And then the fourth program was always going to be infrastructure. And we haven't seen details of the proposed by an infrastructure plan yet, but I'm pretty sure it's gonna have a lot of green energy stuff tied up in it. But let let's just

let's just hit the numbers. Right? So in 2000 and nine, post financial crisis to keep the global economy from collapsing, Um, Congress passed a $800 billion aid package. 800 billion was extraordinary at the time, and we have never seen anything like it. Tarp. And last March, if you'll recall, we passed this emergency $2 trillion package, you know, more than two x what we had during the financial crisis. And now, just in December, right before the year wrapped up, Congress passed another $900 billion package. And now we're talking about this $1.9 trillion package getting past. So we have eclipsed anything you could have ever considered possible. Um, in terms of fiscal stimulus at this point the M one money supply, which I sent the link out ahead of this for she has gone up by 75% in just the past year. And now if we break down the $1.9 trillion stimulus bill, um, you know a huge chunk of it and this is what Wall Street's been waiting

for. Eyes $350 billion is going to state and local governments. So think about San Francisco or the state of California, the city of Chicago, the city of New York. All of these folks have seen their revenue decline, and they've had to run massive emergency programs. Where is that money coming from? They haven't been able to raise taxes. They've had to put a hold on receipts. And so this is meant to bridge the gap at the local level. And this is really important because so much of capital markets still very much fund local and state governments through municipal bonds. And those bonds, if they start to default, are gonna have a dangerous rippling effect in the economy. So bridging the state and local government budgets with this $350 billion package turned out to be, um, you know, an absolute need and be Republicans prior to the election. We're pushing hard against this and saying, Let those states failed There. Mostly blue states let those cities fail. They're mostly blue cities there mismanaged their being stupid about how they're operating. So this is

a big deal. There's 160 billion for covert fighting, some of which, you know, I throw up on $20 billion for vaccination, which equates to about $150 per person they expect to vaccinate, which is an extraordinarily high cost. If you actually think about it on a first principles basis, it's ridiculous how inefficient they're gonna be at this. $50 billion for testing, $40 billion for protective gear and supplies. And what this indicates to me is so much of what goes on in government government spending is skating to where the puck used to be, not skating to where the puck is going. And it's almost like by the time this money gets deployed, I'm not sure we're gonna need is much protective gear and supplies. I'm not sure we're gonna need is much testing if we can actually get the vaccination is done in the next 90 to 100 days, and much of the country starts to recover from this. You know, you've now got $150 billion program sitting out there. That doesn't need to be out there, and it's a waste of money. What we should be doing is taking that money and investing in bio manufacturing infrastructure. So we could more quickly develop and deploy vaccines in the future. What would it cost to build

a factory just back of the envelope that was capable of making the next you know? Let's call it one million vaccine shots. It's not a lot. So let me I'll give you guys the unit economic build and you can do the math at home. 4 g per leader is the expected yield of a of a bio manufacturing facility, and a leader is like, You know, how many liters of water do you have in a tank? You could build half million leader facilities for a couple $100 million and that's 4 g per liter every seven days and US vaccine or the the antibody therapies that we've seen. The antibody therapies that about 2 g and that'll save someone's life. Uh, the vaccines are a fraction of a gram, and so you can start to kind of do the math on how just a few billion dollars invested in building some of these bio manufacturing facilities that are modular and could be very quickly re program. To make a new molecule, um, can be used to support the future

vaccine supply chain and the future Anti a Antibody Therapeutics supply chain, which is critically needed in this country. And if I were to take 100 $60 billion for covert fighting, give me 10% of that and we'll be ready for any virus in the future and will be able to print out vaccines for the whole country within 30 days on DSO a little bit again of this is not really forward thinking. It's scientists and doctors saying what they need, what they're talking about his last year's need. They're not thinking in terms of what the industrial supply chain needs are gonna be in the future on an ongoing basis for this country. At this point, I'm not seeing it. And so I feel a little bit let down by that. And I hope that the infrastructure programs that are gonna be proposed in the next in the next bill will start to encompass some of that work. Paradoxically, it's gonna cost a trillion dollars to upgrade our nuclear weapons, where they were literally going to spend a trillion dollars over the next decade open upgrading our nuclear Z. That's what I'm reading a headline right here. Um, here's my Here's my little wish list for this infrastructure bill. I think

, um, when you look at some of the most compelling work that's happened in the developing world, so, like if you're gonna go and, you know, build a massive water facility or a nen er gee, installation. Ah, lot of people are worried. Hey, listen, I have to deal with, you know, local currency risk. I have to deal with, you know, corruption. I could have the government, you know, take away this facility from me without notice. The rule of law may not be strong, and the World Bank has this mechanism where you could basically go and ensure, you know, for I think it's like one or 2% of your project costs the whole project, and it really makes things work. I would love to see the US government effectively create a program that is similar but different in the following way. There's some enormous things America needs to do where the I P exists with our allies, and there is an enormous fear. What would happen if that I p leaked specifically to China

? One example is, if you believe and you care about climate change? Um, and the making of batteries? Um, there's an enormous amount of I p that sits with the Japanese, Um, that, you know, if we could license and work with as a country, we could build factories all over the country, and we would be the leader in climate. But that will take the U. S. Government to basically work bilaterally with the Japanese government to basically say, Listen, if it takes thean esa to fucking protect this shit, we will do it. Um, but you can run them way could just give them their sovereignty And those, you know, these are these are these are for profit companies that are, you know, relatively risk averse. They're not gonna rip in 10 million bucks. $10 billion to build, you know, a cathode plant in the U. S. I would other people would. But that's my hope in the infrastructure bill is that we take some of these things that have worked in the developing world, and we use it to grease the skids in how we rebuild America. It would be fucking glorious. And also just think about how much a nuclear power plant costs, like 6 to $9 billion

to build a nuclear power plant. And we haven't built many new ones, and we're on the way there. But if part of this trillion dollars we could build 10 more of those energy independence would continue in global warming would go down. Anything to add their David Looks like you want to come. Well, I just just one final word. You know, the the the great Senate leader Everett Dirksen famously said that, you know a billion here, a billion there. Pretty soon you're talking about real money, and now we're talking about a trillion here and a trillion there. And these are really big numbers on. I think we should be very concerned about debt and deficits. No one's really talking about this yet, but all of this money has to be paid back at some point. Um, well, what's the worst that can happen? David, Let's actually do that. I mean, I'm asking the question in a non joking way. What is the worst that could happen? Oh, I mean crisis. Well, not not just so inflation, because the government will eventually have to monetize the debt by printing more money. The dollar stops becoming the world's reserve currency

. Maybe Bitcoin becomes the world's reserve currency. Maybe it's something else does. Um, it could be lied to, you know, very severe. Basically a debt crisis in the future. What would that look like for companies and citizens of America? Well, if you're middle, if you're middle class, your savings get wiped out. You know, if you so if you're super rich. The reality is there's already been tremendous asset inflation, so there's already been a lot of inflation. But frankly, if you are very rich and own assets in the stock market, you're you're sort of you're protected, you know. But if you're a middle class person with most your savings in your bank account, that money is not worth a lot less and your destroyed or your home. Yeah, you get destroyed by that. It's really very sad. So if you are in equities and the market is on a rip, you know paying an extra couple of million dollars for your second home is not a big deal, because your equities have gone up more than that or equal to that. And if you're somebody who get makes income we have, ah, separate issue. Let's look, this is this is a This is a big issue

. But I think we should talk about this at some point because this is what the grand fallacy of technology was supposed to be like. You know, if you if you break down capitalism into its two most natural states, you have labor and you have capital, right? You have workers and you have owners. And the biggest problem that technology did was it drove a wedge. And it created an extremely small owner class on an extremely massive labor class. And so the reality is that a very few very handful of people can can get extremely wealthy by being owners of these next generation assets. Um, and then everybody else is essentially, you know, rendered his labor on dso This wealth inequality just grows and grows and compounds on DSO. We have to figure out a way. How is that different than the past? Because I think it's got I think I think technology accelerated that dynamic. Well, I think jumping in on this I mean, I I think that technology creates bigger winner take all outcomes and that's fed into inequality. But the good thing about tech or the tech ecosystem is that

, frankly, we have option pools, right? We have broad based ownership of these companies. If you go work for a Google or Facebook or whatever you get grants 10,000 people, that's 10,000 people on there, and they're replacing two million jobs with 10,000 people. I mean, this is why this is why we need to have 100% participation in the markets by everybody in the country. Joe Greenblatt, who I had on my podcast recently, is a proponent. This Giamatti. So you're tweeting about it when you're born in the United States. We should put $5000 in a 41 K that you can't touch until you're 65 years old. That is in whatever index funds and every person born gets that $5000 and cannot touch it. And then we see where it winds up. I'm not sure everybody way. It doesn't solve the problem that a lot of people have to climb up a hill first, right? They take on a lot of debt to get education to put themselves in a position to ultimately be able to generate the income to do that. And I think, you know, sure, given $5000 in the beginning, but it's not going to get them where they need to be. But it

does solve one portion of the problem, which is they don't have participation. And we could take out the wondering both of you. It's gonna be like, I think both of you are right. I think like there needs to be, um, something that allows people to have a line of sight to savings, like a lot, a lot of about being invested in, uh in anything where you own it, whether it's real estate or whether it's a piece of artwork or whether it's stocks and bonds. So many people don't even know how to begin and don't understand the concept of ownership. And so they are stuck in being in the ghetto of labor, and I think like one of the biggest things we can do is you can give them the taste of ownership so they understand that difference so that they want to be an owner. Okay, number one, and then to David's point number two is we still have a responsibility to educate people so that they can actually have skills that they can monetize. And we have a responsibility to do that. And right now we make it so fucking hard. And we tricked people because, like we, we send them down the path of getting a $200,000 art history degree and

then they end up working at a Starbucks and then, which is impossible to monetize. I mean, it's really can't monetize that you can't. By the way, what you're saying to mop is the reason I think retirement accounts were set up in the U. S was to shift away from pension fund models where people were getting a fixed income at retirement and shifting them to a model of equity and ownership in the markets where they could participate actively on a tax free basis. But obviously it hasn't done enough, you know, e think the big difference between the Industrial Revolution, the 1st and 2nd industrial revolution and where we are with software in the last 2 to 3 decades, is the capital required right? It's very little capital to build ah, highly valuable software business. It required a lot of capital to build oil, infrastructure and railroad infrastructure and factories. And so, to your point, you get extraordinarily different outside returns today than you did 100 years ago as an owner versus labor. The and the bridge to try and give people ownership through retirement accounts certainly hasn't been enough. Eso to your point Your

point, David. I saw the study. It was fucking crazy. I'm gonna get the exact numbers wrong, but the trend is accurate. When, um when when people used to actively manage their 401 k, there was a very small participation rate. But the mean return was off the charts and the amount of dollars as a function of their paycheck was off the charts. Call it, you know, 50 60 cents of every theoretical dollar you could put into it the minute that we went to passive. And that, you know, you could sort of trickle money in the number of people that participated literally more than doubled. But then the amount of that max dollar went off of a cliff. And so the problem that we've had is we haven't taught people, you know? We've misdirected some of them to say I have a 401 k. It replaces your pension as if it's the solution. That's still not the solution, Onda. And we need to have ways of teaching people how to actually manage it. It's not that hard, and the basics can be taught very simply. But right now we are massively

exacerbating this wealth gap the way that we behave. And then all of this money that's gonna go in this 1.9 trillion, whatever how Maney Trillion comes afterwards is, frankly, for the few that are smart enough to take advantage of. It will be amazing. But it'll still push the overwhelming majority of Americans who are stuck in labor deeper and deeper into that ghetto and they'll never get up. It is definitely every little bit helps, right? Like if you have the 401 K that helps and then, you know, educate people. And I think if we gave everybody and Issa at birth or and I, you know income sharing agreement for these 20 professions and the government provided why, Jason, why is it that you know, for example, if to invest in a start up, you either have to have more than $5 million or more than you know, a million dollars a year more than boxing s. So if you're if you're a product manager, that's like, really, really talented. Or if you're like you know, somebody else who's just got a, you know, a PhD in nuclear biology and frankly is, you know, is decided to teach for 60,000 and you can't participate

, even though you have the intellect to judge like we're just, like, kind of like compounds. It's even worse than that. The person who is changing the accreditation was at the SEC, and working on this said, I cannot. I'm writing the accreditation laws, and because I make 150 k a year or whatever it is under 200 K. I can't participate, and I'm the one responsible for the law. That person must be one of the most sophisticated people in the world. It literally is the most sophisticated person the world when it comes to accreditation, and that's what we need to move to. Sophisticated investor not accredited and just some test. And if you did that, every single uber driver, Lyft driver, Postmates driver, Airbnb host or a person who used the cash app or PayPal would have said I can As one of the first users I have access to buy shares. I'm just gonna say this, I'll buy them things. Problem has to get fixed because I think in the next 10 e think in the next 10 and 20 years, the United States is going to fucking re emerge like a Phoenix. And the reason and the reason is gonna because of innovation around

climate change and agriculture and biotechnology and technology thes four areas, they're going to recast GDP. But what that also means is that we're going to create, you know, 20 or $30 trillion a year for the next 10 and 20 years. 305 100 trillion. How the fuck do we make sure that mawr than 18 people participate? Absolutely. Well, look, I mean, well, eso I agree with a lot of what you guys were saying, but I can tell you, every single one of the companies that I've invested are looking to hire people right now. They cannot hire people soon enough. It's their biggest challenge, and it's not just coders it sales people, it's marking people It's HR people. It's every every role in their company. They have trouble trying to hire the right person, and and and they give options to all those people. So it's not just a small number of founders getting equity. Uh, this is basically a new category of calling entrepreneurial labor. It's labor who gets ownership in the company that's never existed before

. And really, what this comes down to is we need more people participating in the new economy. If you participate in the new economy, then you get ownership. And if you're in the old economy, then you really are stuck in labor. And so what we need to do is spread the opportunity that that technology represents two more people part of the minimum wage. Maybe we should have a minimum equity participation, so we have the minimum wage over here. But if you're working for an entrepreneur enterprise, why not get a minimum? You know, participation in equity, because the free market takes care of that. I mean, if you have the free market hasn't taken care of it. David, that no, no, the free market has agreed. David, the free market has The problem is How does a person working at Walmart ever participated in the Walmart appreciation of? That's the point that they will. They will leave and go to a company that gives them equity. And that's why you'll see this. This that's convenient to say. But Walmart the only job within an hour of their house, it's not. They gotta have the right skills, Jason. And so this all comes back to education. You know, we gotta Yeah, but why not? People who are in rank and file jobs, the 30 million truck

drivers, cashiers, etcetera have equity participation as right, I think I think you're saying something different. Should they? Absolutely. Should the company that does that be created? Absolutely. Will they be rewarded with all the people that wanna work there? Absolutely. So now somebody should go and start that fucking company. Okay, I think it's an interesting concept. I mean, we do have a minimum wage. Why not have a minimum, Jason? Just participation. You know, the same woman that ran Ellen out of California. Lorena Gonzales she's doing is posted. Who's proposed a new bill like, Do you want her to basically pick the equity thresholds? Because that's what you're saying? Well, no. Okay, let's pay for to another disaster. California s O. The recall is well on its way. They need to get 1.5 million signatures were at 1.1 or 1.2. But we actually really need to because there's some verification process that goes on. So in all likelihood, we will see Gavin Newsom recalled

. We agree on that. Yeah, I'll tell you this. The stats I heard there's about a million. Call it a million million. One signatures. They've seen about an 85% verification right today. Sacks. Correct me if I'm wrong on this, they're getting They're getting about 200,000 signatures a week. Um, there, you know, the cost for marketing and attracting people to get these signatures is coming in at, like, 3 to 6 bucks a signature. So it's really not a lot of money is needed to be spent to get this done. And, um, you know, even if the verification rate drops to 75 or 65% you're still on track at this rate to hit the recall target by March 17th, which is the deadline. And so it appears highly likely they're going to get there. Um, I write on all that. Yeah, I think there at 1.2 million signatures. That's what I heard. And they're trying to get their trying to get to two million to have Ah, buffer so that you know, they that you know, they don't get pushed under the but 1.5 is the number they need. Yeah. 81.5 million certified signatures, 70% away. There, according to the website recall Gavin

2020 dot com e. I think they will get there. I think they'll get there, and then they're on. Then the recall election would take place about 4 to 5 months after. After that, there's, ah, a couple of months where it moves through the Finance Committee. The recall election has to be budgeted. And then, um, Newsome would have the opportunity to set a date with, and I think 60 toe 80 days roughly so. I think we're looking at July for a a recall election sex. How how do you get? How does a candidate get on the ballot? Because Jamaat is asking for a friend. Wait a second. I wanna be on to that can. Should we have all four besties beyond way? Should all run. We all are. You We're gonna let you We're gonna We're probably gonna have four Kardashians on there. So for besties on there, Um, yeah. So the ITT's stunningly

easy to be a replacement candidate. We should expect they'll probably about 150 replacement candidates on the ballot every every third tier C list celebrity is gonna, you know, like, you know, back to Gary Coleman did it, like, you know, 20 years ago, they all every C list celebrities. Yeah, to try and boost, sir. Curating. I'm sure we'll see Kathy Griffin on there. I mean, what she'd been doing s so it's gonna be a farce way. Talk about why he's getting recall. Because I do get this question a lot from people in tech and out of tech. And I just want to highlight some of the reasons I've heard. And I'd love to hear why you guys think he's you know why there's this push against him, but from people within the tech community, I've heard that the ad hoc locked down rules have really pissed a lot of people off in terms of when businesses are allowed and not allowed to be open and kind of the responsiveness and the guiding principles around this during co

vid. Obviously that the you know, the inability to fight against the tax rate. But no one wants to be publicly saying that the failed vaccine roll out the failed testing. Um, you know Saks Chammah Jason, What do you guys think is the reason he's getting recall? What are the top five? Hypocrisy is Number one. I think it's the hypocrisy of going to those restaurants and then making people not go to the beach, which is crazy. And then I think number two is the virus. We've only deployed 37% off our doses in California. On that makes us, you know, of the major states that are putting out a lot of these vaccines one of the worst performers. Second, both Florida and New York are the other large states, and they're at 56 49 50%. We're still stuck at 37% California, the cradle of innovation and technology, and this bum he's a bum 37% of point we should be leading from 70%. He's a bum e. It's

Newsome Derangement syndrome. I e. A clip. I'm trying to get a your best. Just have a problem with anyone. E No, it's the hair. A great fucking hair. It's to the hair. Is too good. French laundry, the hypocrisy and then get toe work. Personality, Personality for you is the biggest driver. Is that right? Jason? No, it's it's literally the performance of the Washington to see West Virginia, North Dakota, South Dakota, all 66 to 73% of their vaccines about their double us. Now it's smaller states, but still we're goddamn California. Here's what I would say as a list, um, number one, where the most heavily taxed, um number two we are. We have some of the worst infrastructure in the country. We have some of the lowest and poorest performing schools in the country. We have the highest homeless rates for veterans in the country. We have the worst preparedness for climate

in the country. On DSO, it's basically just a complete bungling at every level, and so and then the fourth or that, then then asked, which is the biggest one is we have now created an inhospitable culture for innovation. And the biggest problem with that is if the's climate, jobs and these technology jobs and these biotechnology jobs pivot to mawr accepting and progressive, um, local and state, uh, management's like Austin, Texas, in Miami, Florida we lose thes things forever. This is a multi generational decay that we're starting. And so, if we care about the state, I love California. I love San Francisco. I love how eclectic and unique and different it is. I was always happy to pay 10 11 12 13 14% because it was worth it. Now I don't know what we get for it. And so I think we I think I think he should get recalled. I just think he's trash. Yeah

, just just underscore the point on lockdowns. Um, we now have certainly more cases. We have MAWR deaths, and we have more desperate capita than Florida, despite the fact that Florida has no lockdowns and a much older population. And so I was just in Florida a few weeks ago like, uh, you know, like a mouth was saying, um, you know, Suarez, the mayor there has created it, really? Ah, land of the free. I mean, it's really unbelievable. You could go to bars, You go to restaurants. There's no lock down whatsoever. They don't have as big a problem is. California does right now. So that is because well, because I think that the lot, yeah, I think the lockdowns only forestalled the problem. Eventually, the virus finds away around them. And I also think the thing that's happening in Florida is that Okay, so my aunt lives there. She's in her seventies. She's not going to bars and restaurants because she knows she's highly at risk. And so just because the government doesn't lock down doesn't mean that people don't take sensible precautions on their own. And

so and so I think that what's happened is that people are going out to bars and restaurants are low risk, and they're keeping the economy going over there and instead in California, we have this very draconian lock down policy and has put all these small businesses out of out of work. No, no, it's worse. It's not a draconian lock down policy. It's a whipsaw. Oh, it's open. Okay, great. Now going. Invest in a bunch of cutbacks to make sure there's outdoor dining Hold on your clothes. What is that? Bruce's tons and tons of restaurant bar owners in San Francisco spent on average $30,000 building outdoor seating for their facility, only to have it all shut down 3.5 weeks later. Incompetent. Can you imagine being an owner of that business? What e. I mean, you would literally they're going to kill themselves. Meanwhile, tragedy of it, people will lose everything and they'll be suicides, depression, domestic violence. This guys. And then this guy is having dinner at French Laundry during the whole. I mean, it's just such a I just got a note that he will. He's actually been banished from being at the French Laundry. Apparently, it's been renamed

the Sri Lankan Laundry, and some notable Sri Lankan billionaire has brought the French laundry French laundry, a long laundry. They got a $2.6 million pee pee pee long that got forgiven. So you know there's a There's a lot of heat on the French laundry as a whole. What does it cost to go to French Laundry? $800 a person. Anybody who want who's listening to this who wants to go to the French Laundry? Stay at home. Pour a bunch of salt on whatever you're gonna eat. Okay, Melt a stick of butter in the microwave, stick of butter in the microwave, drink it and then basically take a $1500. Light it on fire. You've been to the French. You're welcome. Here's what you do. Take a really great steak on that. Place it into a cube and throw out 80% of it. Places a cube in the middle of a big, large plate. That's not even nouvelle riche. That's just nouveau stupid. Oh, a people are down in like Texas getting like a brisket burrito for $4. But I think California really

needs to fix this. We need to figure out what's going on, and I just wanna ask one more question of you guys. You don't think that this and, um, you know, cause I was having this debate with my family about Newsome and I was telling them about the perspectives I was hearing from tech people and why everyone. So against Newsome and I've heard all these different things that you guys have shared today and you know, They're very, you know, and I'm hearing a lot of people kind of making the counterpoint like This is a very difficult time. It's been impossible year for everyone everywhere. So first of all, you know, Newsome was dealt a pretty difficult hand to play. And at the same time, we're all psychologically primed toe look for grass being greener on the other side. I think a big part of you know, certainly there's a lot of people leaving California, my belief for Texas and Florida, primarily because of taxes, and then you justify it with all the things that are wrong with California. But we're all really primed right now with this notion that that that it's a difficult place to be. But we're also really having a shitty year. We've had this pandemic. Businesses have been shut. You know, everyone's

sick economies having issues. I mean, you know, there's this really difficult hand that's been dealt well, I don't I don't buy that as an excuse for Newsom. I mean, look, it is true that we're going through a very difficult time, But the reason I don't buy that as an excuse for Newsom is because this is not April or May of 2020 when we thought the fatality rate was 7% and you know lockdowns could lockdowns could be justified then. But we now have so much more data. We've seen that states that did not do lockdowns like Florida and Texas, frankly, have been no worse off than those who have done very severe lockdowns. And so what is the point of continuing with this facade on? But that is what I think we could legitimately blame Newsome for is the failure toe learn and to change course based on data to adapt. And where is the A E? By the way, most of the spread is not happening at businesses. It's happening in homes. And in California we have a particularly difficult problem because of multi generational family homes, especially in the Latino communities that have been

hardest hit by Covic and the transmission to secure with diabetes as well. But, yeah, the transmission rate in those communities is 3 to 5 x What it is elsewhere. Andi, I think you know, and that is not a result of businesses being open. In fact, those communities are also suffering the biggest hardships because businesses are closed. Well, by the way, things goes to the vaccination strategy. Just being so idiotic, like, you know, if you wanted to be equitable, then why weren't we just rolling through and basically getting those families to be vaccinated first independent of age. You know, you're you're apparently all these vaccination sites. Nobody shows up. I spoke to S. F. D. Ph Department of Public Health about this last week, and they told me that they cannot get those communities. They're very non trusting of the vaccine, and they're having a real struggle getting people to sign up to take the vaccine. The problem is, even if that is the case, the problem is you should not be holding up vaccines for one community. Then get everybody else vaccinated. So they you cut the head off. This fucking transmission

over 60 gets it. That's it. There's nothing to discuss. Let's wrap up everyone. Everyone gets it. But you allocate a certain number of doses toe. You basically have, like a TSA pre check line. If you're over 60 or you're in certain communities, you jump to the front of the line and that's it. But everyone can stand in line and put fucking shots in arms because everyone I know that's over 65 can't even get an appointment. And it's bullshit on the whole thing is, is incompetence. So I think. But I think what Sachs said is so right. It's like in these moments Jaeckel on Friedberg like a light gets Sean on the ability for people to figure things out. And then you know what the intellectual capability off these people are and like. Look, we saw the intellectual incapability of Trump because we all stopped this guy could not adapt, okay? And on dso we're now seeing the intellectual incapability of Gavin Newsom and I just think they're they're part of the same lot. They're just kind of, you know, people who are, um, in over their head

. And they're beholden to people who got them there. And their number one concern is staying in office, which means appeasing a bunch of special interests. Speaking of special interest, David Sacks is still on tilt about conservatives being, uh, canceled. David, you wanted us to wrap with this, uh, Wilkinson cancelation. So every podcast we're gonna have a right winger who is canceled, and David's justification for putting them back on the platform. David. Well, actually, so yeah, this is this is this is the issue, you know? It's yes. Yes, it's well, this is actually it's not a it's not a left wing s. So this is the issue to share on social media right now. Is that a writer named Will Wilkinson was just fired from his job and canceled. But here's the thing it was he's not a conservative. He's actually a liberal. What? And it was yes. And it was a right wing tweet mob that got together to get him fired. Yes. And so how did you get this mob together To get him canceled? Explain it. Yeah

. So we're back, everybody. So much for the wives. Dinner? Yeah. You don't need another wives dinner. Well, no, I Look, I I feel the need to speak out on this because I gotta make it really clear that I do not support cancel culture when perpetrated by the right against the left. I think it's what did he dio? Okay, so he posted a tweet making a joke that maybe was in poor taste. Not that funny. Basically saying that if We want unity. The one thing that, like the Trumpers and the buying supporters can agree on is hanging pence. You know, it's what hanging lynching, Mike Pence lynching. You use the word mentioning or hanging, he said. He said, Hang, I think No, I think he said. He said, Hang maybe, maybe taste And it's inciting violence on the March book ahead. Sacks. Well, no, look it za joke. That's not actually that funny. And maybe in poor taste, what he's referring to is the fact that the, you know that there were people on January 6 who were going after Mike Pence, right? That was sort of a joke. Anyway

, look, he that's not the point. He deleted it. He apologized for it. His bosses still fired him for it. Nobody believes that he was trying to incite violence. Okay. I mean, come on. We all know that was not inciting violence, but But the mob pretended that he was in order to create its phony outrage. And then his bosses have to pretend that was in order to appease the mob. And they pretend like it was incitement to violence so they can fire him. And then he even had to pretend that he was inciting violence because you have to then abjectly apologize for it. And there's this. That's the thing about cancel culture I really don't like. It's just it's just so fake and phony. We all have to pretend and things that aren't true in order to pacify some, you know, tweet mob who's outrages manufactured anyway. And I don't like seeing the right doing this on guess what I tweeted about. And then we had all these people on the right responding to me, saying an eye for an eye, you know, you know, that the Left deserves is to

now they're gonna get a taste, their own medicine. And the problem with that is Look, you know, your you might win this particular battle, but you're losing the war because you're now buying into the premise of cancel culture. You're now buying into this idea that we need to economically cancel people who disagree with us, and I really reject that. It's certainly bad timing to say Lynch or hang whichever word he used. Obviously, lynching is a much worse word. After people were chanting Hang Mike Pence, but he was making a commentary on that the joke didn't land. And when the joke doesn't land, you need to just take ownership of that and say that you shouldn't be canceled just to say it was a poor attempt at humor. I apologize, right? And Jason, you know better than anybody else when import jokes is when a joke doesn't land. So here's one thing to learn about comedy. People don't remember the jokes that don't land. They remember the ones that land. Okay, everybody is like investing in startups. It's like you got a lot of losers to find the few winners. Absolutely. That's my I'm a volume guy

. Governor jamaat dot com, governor sacks dot com governor Freeburg dot com and Government Can I just say, Jason, Jason, if Newsome is recalled, I would like to put my name on the ballot and my my my commitments are quite simple. I just wanna I'm going to cut the taxes to zero, and I'm gonna basically create an incredibly pro climate change, um, jobs and protect jobs and pro biotech jobs economy. And I'm gonna raise teacher salaries and I'm gonna give everybody a school voucher. Okay, We have maybe, maybe on the next episode, we can all declare that we're running for governor and present our platform. Let's do that. Let's see. Oh, all right, governor trauma dot com governor sacks dot com Governor Reggio Register your domain name before the registered All four of them all redirect my Twitter handle. Thank you guys. We'll see you all on the podcast. Love you besties Love you, sacks back at the O

Well, let your winners ride Rain Man David Sockets Way open sources to the fans and they've just gone crazy with way. What? What? You're winners trying, trying Besties are going over there. My dog taking notice your drive way? No way should all just get a room and just having one Big George because they're all useless. It's like this, like sexual tension, but they just need to release way. I'm going

E18: Inauguration talk, breaking down the $1.9T stimulus, the case for recalling Gavin Newsom & more
E18: Inauguration talk, breaking down the $1.9T stimulus, the case for recalling Gavin Newsom & more
replay_10 forward_10