All-In with Chamath, Jason, Sacks & Friedberg

20 of 47 episodes indexed
Back to Search - All Episodes

E5: WHO's incompetence, kicking off Cold War II, China's grand plan, 100X'ing America's efficiency

by Jason Calacanis
July 11th 2020
01:32:00
Hey, everybody, Welcome to the all in podcast. This is our fifth episode. As you know, we regularly published this podcast. Well, every 2 to 4 weeks, something like that. And, uh, just to give you a little idea of how well this is going, the podcast peaked at number 10 in tech podcast, even though we never publish it. And we're only 4 10. So tell your friends about the podcast so we could be number one and just dunk on traditional media, which is full of people who have us as the guests Number 10 Apple, Apple technology podcasts. We literally raced. I mean, it went from, like we debuted in the twenties, then the teens and then boom, we hit number 10 and I was talking to somebody in media who has us on as guests. And I was like, Listen, I formed a super team, and we're now getting more traffic. I'm sorry. Who are you talking to? Just like a mirror where you were just looking at yourself. I mean, you are so fucking arrogant after that shitty video. What video? Are you very thio

? What? My God. You want me to say until all the listeners you are. Hold on. Let me just somebody may How somebody made a cut of the billion times Jason mentioned. He was an early investor in uber. All right, take it easy. Virgin galactic slash lack investor. I don't I don't say anything. I know they put companies like mentioned on the Chiron the lower third every time you're on e everybody, My problem is I have too many unicorns to mention just one, right? So they just go and want to mention they just go with PayPal and knows Peter Thiel. David, David, I have a question. Why is there a picture of two pregnant men behind you weigh technology for men to be impregnated. There's a recent picture of Jason on the golf course, and I'm not sure who's more out of shape. Way you look like a wariness. In fairness, it's 106 degrees. Put his hands on his shoulders

and it's 106 degrees of 80% humidity. And I kid you not. This is the This was the 2nd and 3rd time I play golf. This was the third time, and I'm gonna just ask defray. David Freedberg is here of course, he's our science friend. Buddy on drama. Palihapitiya is here. How many holes? I want one of you to set the over under on how many holes we completed each day. The maximum number of holes were four. Okay, Sharma said. A lot of four and you're taking the over it. Waas sacks 55 actually, and there's a there's a there's a red door every five holes, so that may have had something to do with it. I took nine because I figured Jason was on his rush to the hot dog stand. Well, that's where the red doors where the hot dogs are, you know? You know why I said I said, these two. These two dorks with a D h d can barely make it an hour doing anything on. So if you think an average round takes four hours, then

basically, you know, you get through four holes in about an hour and then you want to give up. We got to the fifth hole. I am addicted to golf now. E don't know if you guys know this. You can gamble on golf, Jason. I I The biggest match I ever played was was a $500,000 million NASA. I don't know what a NASA is. I lost. I lost 1.5 bets. I lost 750 K. What is a NASA type bet? NASA. NASA is basically a gambling bet on a purple basis. Got it. We we had we had just a ton of fun on git was great because this was the first time I've ever It's the single best aspect of golf. In my opinion, if you gamble, it makes that game one of the most incredible games because people with mental fortitude who cannot play it all can show up and literally make hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars. Yeah, we were playing for hundreds of dollars per hole, so let's just leave it at that. In fact, we're playing $100 hole. So it was It was just for fun. But, man, I don't know about you guys

do any? We have some. We knew if we know somebody who's got a A membership in one of these places, I'd love to go back out again, But it was great fun. And, uh, Shadow Creek Shadow Creek in Vegas. We comply. It's probably the best gambling golf course in the world. OK, I'm in Esso. Let's get to business. For those of you who are tuning in for the first time. Uh hm. Auf Palihapitiya is, uh, my cohere co host here on the podcast. We've been friends since we both did a very brief tour at a O. L hey. Then went to work for Mayfield, which is a venture firm you might not have heard of. He stayed there for about, uh, 27 weeks before going to work for Mark Zuckerberg. Hey, secured the bag, then started his own venture firm. It grew way too big, and, uh, he kind of got bored having to manage 100 people. So now he's running his home office venture firm and doing two deals a year. Uh, the one you've certainly heard of is Virgin Galactic, where he's taking people

to space. And he did a SPAC for that. I p o b and I p O c r lined up from what? I understand. How correct me if I am wrong and he'll be back in two more companies once a year, I guess, will be the pace. Is that correct Yarmuth, among other things. But yeah, on Ben. David Sacks has now become and David Freedberg have become regulars. We've decided we're gonna stick with this foursome. A zit goes because we're getting a really nice passing of the ball around topics. And David Sacks went to Stanford with folks, you know, like he threw boy Peter Thiel during an era where, uh, there were a bunch of huge nerds who created a way to transfer money on Palm pilots called PayPal. It didn't work until they decided to move it to email. I'm not sure whose idea who gets credit for moving it to email sacks. Um, Sacks, who decided

like, Hey, I don't know Acts of silence is his way of saying me because it was It was an abject failure when you tried to send money between Palm Pilots Peter Thiel's original idea. But then somebody woke up and said, Well, why don't we just do this over email? What he hasn't said, Let me tell you the names that PayPal he has not said yet. Musk Teal Hoffman, Levchin Silence Radio silence so far. David Sacks, Jeremy Stoppelman, Chad Hurley from YouTube, Jerry Stockman for yelp anyway. He was part of that cohort, Uh. Then he made a movie called Thank You for Smoking, which was Jason Reitman's first film. Jason Reitman then went on to great success. That film actually made money. Sacks was so absolutely depressed by how long it took to make one film and how painful it was. He then decided to go create a billion dollar company in under three years called yammer, which Chamakh made a ton of money on any cackles about regularly. Um, and then David Freedberg is with us. He is just the smartest kid at the table, but somehow

figures out how to lose tons of money to us in poker. He created climate dot com and, uh, sold it. Thio Monsanto Hey created Metro Mile and he created pizza, which felt horribly. But that just goes to show you. Nobody remembers what its A is, but they do remember his giant multibillion dollar companies, and he now is running his own startup studio, which is making incredible lee interesting companies. Can I talk about the one that's related to beverages or not? Not yet, okay, anyway, there's a company related to beverages that is so game changing. I said no, you can't say it. He showed it to us under friend D. A. I just said, Can I talk about the beverage company? Yes or no? I'm trying to give the guy goddamn plug here, but anyway, he's teasing. You can plug. I'm not doing a plug, but I'm teasing it. And I think he's literally sitting on what could wind up being the greatest, most successful company of the entire groups, period. Okay, let's jump

in. I wanna talk. Let's jump out. Um, David Yucel climate to Monsanto for a billion dollars back in the day when it was shocking to people that amount of money, um, still is. But, you know, you were one of the first sort of quote unquote unicorns, and then you you know, we're right in the front seat of Monsanto. Probably could have been CEO if you wanted. I want you to talk to me about what is going on with Bayer Monsanto Roundup, and I want to use that as a jumping off point to talk about the World Health Organization. Eso Roundup is a molecule known as glyphosate, and it's been used as a herbicide for decades, and for decades it was very well studied. The U. S EPA and the FDA and USDA and global health organizations have studied it carefully because of its incredible use. It is a bio degrades the core molecule glyphosate bio degrades in a couple of days. Um, and

it is, ah, very effective herbicides. So when farmers grow stuff, they don't want weeds growing in the field and round up with a pretty effective way at getting rid of weed so you could get more crop per acre, more yield per acre. Um, a long time people thought that round up, like many of the traditional persistent chemical herbicides, was carcinogenic and people were concerned about that, and as a result, there was a lot of studying done. In fact, before I sold my company, Monsanto, I spent a lot of time researching roundup on, Glad to say, to make sure that it was safe, that I wasn't selling my company toe. What everyone was saying was the devil at the time, and from a scientific basis, I felt pretty comfortable about the data, the studies, the research that had been done when I was at Monsanto. There was a bit of a political event that took place in the World Health Organization. The World Health Organization runs a group called I Arc the It's a It's a cancer research institute. That's part of the W. H. O. And there was a gentleman who was politically tryingto get himself on that council to make the case that glyphosate with carcinogenic. And years later

, a Reuters reporter identified how he was able to get this council toe disregard a number of scientific findings and studies, including the U S, EPA and other very wide, broad ranging studies by international organization showing that roundup or glyphosate, was non carcinogenic but the political process by which he was able to get on the council get that data excluded from the study and then get I arc to declare roundup or glyphosate a possible carcinogen. A probable carcinogen, Um, then triggered a bunch of tort lawyers in the United States to start suing Monsanto and now Bayer, because Bayer bought Monsanto a number of years ago for causing cancer and the data is absent. But the way the U. S court system works is if you have some probable definition and you could get a jury to say yes. And the probable cause was there is a probable carcinogen label applied to it by I Arc. Andi. This Reuters reporter years ago did a great job highlighting how this whole thing was kind of politically motivated. And and the data and the science from a broad range of scientists, including the

Triple A s ah, lot of scientific, uh, membership organizations very definitively in clearly show that glyphosate is non carcinogenic. Um, but, you know, it was super troubling and frustrating. Now, look, this doesn't bother me personally anymore. I have no interest whatsoever, but it turns out that these lawsuits are now going to cost Monsanto. And now Bayer, which bought Monsanto somewhere between 10 and $15 billion to settle this. And this is all a function of some political hacking that took place at the W H. O. So for a long time, I've had a bit of a concern about how the W H O operates and and and the process by which they do scientific assessment of validation. And a lot of this has obviously become much more apparent with the coronavirus crisis and the response with respect to masks and treatment and so on, so that that's a little bit of the background. I think you're referring thio and so good at your mouth If you want to know. I mean, like to me, I I think that this is such an interesting thing. Um, I wanted to use it as this on ramp to the

W h o largely because, um it's like the ineptitude keeps calm pounding in that organization. Um, I just read that we still don't have a definitive posture on masks from the W, H. O and that they are finally ceding ground to the idea that the coronavirus could partially be spread in air. I mean, this is so bizarre because it's the middle of July. There are three million cases and half a million people who have died, and we are still there. And so, you know, when I saw that Trump pulled out of the w h o. Um, you know, in this weird way, the way he did, it was kind of cartoonish and stupid and, you know, kind of an insolent child. But the reason he did it was actually pretty reasonable, because this organization is not a scientific or health body. It's an academic body. And you know, you can see this in universities where all of a sudden things tilt away from fax and it tilts towards, you know

, all kinds of very, very, very small points of sort of like political capital that people fight over. And so these politicized organizations are incredible. And to the point at which we saw, you know this past week, the report that well over 250 of their own scientists who they rely on said, Hey, it's very clear that this is an airborne phenomenon aerosol, tiny micro particles of aerosol When people talk when they sing, when they cough, when they sneeze, all this obvious stuff floats in the air. And if you have a closed air conditioned, you know, location like, say, a church in the south or ah, hotel or a casino, it's not a good idea to be in there, and it's It's especially not a bad I especially bad idea to take your mask off. So now the W. H. O. Is over, too, and Trump, as you said in his just horrific Lee comical way, can't explain as we're very clearly explaining that this is a

political organization that is funded by a duopoly of superpowers that have many issues which we're gonna get into today. Onda. We don't have to say who the duopoly is. Sacks. When you look at this being our token conservative here and you see the Trump win, how frustrating is it for you that Trump's delivery and it's persona when he is right and a person can't be wrong all the time? I'm proof positive that you you have to deal with the fact that he does it in such a stupid, inane way that you don't actually get credit for the win. Well, you know, Trump is often the bull in the china shop, and, um, you know, kind of, uh disrupts the status quo by throwing a grenade into it. But frequently there there are good reasons why the status quo needs to be disrupted. And, um, the The New York Times laid out the case in a news story on who? The one that reported the scientists complaining that you're talking about

It was just a straight news story, but it almost came across as an expose because whose incompetence was laid out so starkly the fact that they were slow on Mass and opposed them. And I think kind of light about them on Ben, uh, and then toe to be downplaying the airborne nature of the virus in favor of maintaining this narrative that it spread through touching surfaces or foe mites, which I think people are realizing now is much, much less likely. Um and so, yeah, you do kind of have to wonder whose side is who on. And the New York Times article kind of suggests why they do this, which is when they issue a declaration. They have to think about the ramifications in all of their member countries. And so what ends up happening is they sort of start with the policy implications are political result that they're thinking about the kind of reverse engineer the science

. And, you know, the article talks about how, um, you know, if you were to come out and and sort of be very clear about airborne transmission that could affect spending or, you know, political budgets in all these different countries. And so they've been reluctant to do that. Um, so, yeah, it's a It's a It's a organization that sort of political first and then reverse engineers the science to fit that. And you know what this reminds me of? It's like when you have giant investors on the board of a company, the management team comes out and now they've got a present, like a pivot or an acquisition or whatever it is. And they're thinking, Well, OK, we've got this funding source these people own 26% of who this person owns, 22%. We've now got to present it to them. And what are the downstream ramifications? Luckily, there's an alignment in a single company. The alignment is we all want the company's share price to go up. But here in the world, it is not equally aligned. What is in China's best interest? What's in the EU's best interest

and what's in America's best interest might be radically different, and they are literally funding them. Correct him off. Well, there's a there there. There's a There's a thing called Saviors Law, right, which many of us kind of have seen play out, which is that academic. The saying is something like Academic politics are so vicious because the stakes are so small and in this interesting way, the W. H. O has lost the script because, uh, they fight over politics. Who gets to say what? Who's being positioned and they lose sight of the rial downstream, in my opinion, the downstream implications of the things that they have, because if they actually just thought from first principles and tried to be a truly independent body that said We're gonna take the capital were given from the countries that are supporting us and actually do the best and actually published, like, what is the best thing to do? For example, in the case of coronavirus and be definitive and iterate, we'd be in a much better place. But

a lot of what is allowed the posture around coronavirus to transition from a health issue to a political issue in many ways has been because organizations like the W, H. O and the C D. C, our political bodies and their academic bodies. And so the incentives of the players within these organizations are not to necessarily, you know, project the right public health positioning. They are at some level to think about their own career trajectory and the political machinations that happened within the organization that are blind to normal citizens like us that just consumed the output. And then so when you see something like an inability to give a definitive ruling on things like masks or you know, other things, you just kind of scratch your head and wonder is it that they're dumb? And the answer is No, it's not that they're dumb, they're just motivated by very different things, then public health all the time, which might be including keeping their jobs and the fact that we had David Freedberg on this podcast

on then sacks, you know, charming in after it shortly after just definitively saying first principles. Why wouldn't you marry? Where, um, ask what is the possible downside and friedberg saying, Hey, I'm getting some testing equipment. We should just be doing mass testing. Freeburg when you look at this, um, and how? When we started the podcast, I think in March or April we were very clear as people, not in the with the exception of yourself, not in the healthcare space in any way, why can't they? What would be a better structure for the who and or is there a better structure than just a bunch of, you know, Randall's like us on a podcast very easily, seeing through first principles that a 79 cent mask is a no brainer. That getting testing, mass testing and recording it every day and doing sampling. What is the better solution here for governance or for dealing with these type of, uh, you know, really large problems on and ones that kind of have a clock

? That's the other thing about this problem is this? This problem came with a countdown clock. You had to make a really fast decision in order to protect yourself, and we made a really drawn out decision. Now we're paying the price. I mean, I think under the circumstances you outline, you know you need leadership, right? So you need probably a country or some entity to step forward and lead with respect toe being proactive and aggressive with action because any multinational oversight body or political body is gonna be kind of, um, you know, molasses doubt it's gonna be stalled out with the processes and the competing interests, as you guys have highlighted. So the libertarian argument would be let the free market Dr Outcomes. And you know, some folks will succeed in some folks will fail if we want all of humanity to succeed. Then you know, the likely scenario is what we've seen with with world wars and such, which is you need leadership. You need one organization or one entity or one national body to step forward and say this is what we're doing

and we're gonna lead. And the world was absent leadership over the last six months. Historically, the U. S has filled that void. But that certainly wasn't the case this year on DSO. You know, it seems to me like you're not going to find a political governing system multinational governing system that's going to be successful in solving these kind of existential global problems overnight. You really need, uh, someone to step forward. And the U. S is kind of leaving a bit of a gap. This might be a good segue, because the question next is who's going to fill that gap going forward? Yeah, So let's make that segue when you look at the duopoly that currently is, uh, I would say on par Now, I don't think we could say we're the superpower anymore on. But China is an up and coming superpower. It's pretty clear they are an equal superpower. I don't know. Anybody here disagrees with that right now. But, um, if we have an edge, it's a very minor one at this point. How do we look at health problems with an authoritarian country where individuals do not vote? And

there is a god King who has recently said, I will be the God king for the rest of my life for sure. How do we manage this relationship with China? Friedberg. Then we could pass it over from the health care perspective. Let's start there for sure. And then whatever other major issue you would like to then Segway into climate change comes to mind. Trade comes to mind human rights. I would imagine the biggest. The argument that your geo political commentators would make who are probably more experienced, and experts in this than any of us would probably relate toe, you know, the degree of influence. Um, you know the question of who has the most influence globally, Um maybe kind of the way that you define who has the most power globally on dso you know, in the current circumstance, you could look at trade balance between China and other nations. You could look at trade balance between the US and other nations, and you could look at the balance sheet, the assets and and the debt owed

on dure, right? I mean, a lot of people are making the case that we're kind of reaching a point of parody through some metric of some set of equations here. And at this point, there's there's gonna be a jockeying for for leadership globally, in terms of influence on DSO that will have ramifications with respect, Thio, things that are global in nature, like global pandemics. Andi, I think this is ah, really kind of key Flash moment, flashpoint moment for us because we are facing that, you know, we did face that circumstance this year, and obviously we took the wrong end of the deal. Way failed most. I mean, we all concur on that way. Did worst. China is just like an extremely good example of focusing on strategy while the rest of us focused on tactics. You know, the last 20 years have been punctuated by the United States spending literally trillions of dollars on endless wars and unnecessary military infrastructure and all kinds of wasted pork barrel spending and programs that just have

resulted in zero r O I for the United States and its taxpayers and citizens. And instead, what did China do? They basically went around the world, and they used the equivalent amount of dollars. And they said, every war that the United States fights is a war that we can essentially be silent on. Let them do that dirty work. And what we will do instead is we will go and basically buy and own large swaths of Southeast Asia. Large swaths of Africa, which is, you know, the emerging labor pools that will drive GDP forward for us and what what they've essentially created is not necessarily a voting bloc, but a productivity block. And that's what's so you know, uh, interesting. And also really important to understand, which is that China is fighting, not an ideological war. They're fighting an economic war, and it is one where they are buying. Um, you know, member States to join them with their capital on

DSO. We've kind of like not seeing it, and it's unfortunately happened right under our nose. So now what we need to do is we need to sort of wake up to this reality and have a very aggressive point of view around what you no matter so and so by the way, this is also why Andi, I'll hand the mic to David after this. But this is also why I think, like we have completely wasted so much time focusing on, you know, all these other countries that just don't matter anymore. And, you know, I don't say that emotionally. I just say it practically like every single minute we spend on Russia is just a wasted time. This is a you know, country that just won't fundamentally matter in the world over the next 15 to 20 years. Large swaths of Europe, you know, they're ideologically aligned, but they just don't matter. Um, the United States has to develop a really specific strategic viewpoint on the fact that it is us versus China, whether we like it or not. And it starts in things like public policy

. But it stretches to everything including capitalism, technology, intellectual property, healthcare. Andi, This war will not be fought on the ground with guns. It will be fought with computers, and it will be fought with money. Yeah, you need to realize that Loans and joint ventures Sacks. What are your thoughts here on this coming Cold war? Um, you know, way beat the Russians in the cold last cold war. Um, and Thio Jamaat's point. The only thing they have really going for them is they're incredibly a sinister KGB style, uh, information warfare and the increasing value of their oil and irrelevance. Which is why they have to do things like mess with us on social media. I mean, literally, I feel like it's like the last couple of dyeing techniques they've got in their playbook from, you know, the eighties as the KGB, and they got a KGB agent running the country. When we look at China, how do you frame

, um, our relationship with them and what would be the best practice for the next 10 years? Well, I think I think what you've seen just really in the last couple of weeks is a critical mass of scholarship and punditry, declaring that we are in a new Cold war with china. Um, and I think you know of all the momentous news events that have happened this year. Um, from cove it to, um you know, the riots and protests. Um, I think that the most, uh, newsworthy and historically important event will be the beginning of this in the recognition that we are now in Cold War to, um, court talk is part of it. It's paradoxical about a dance app is literally the tip of the So I mean, I think I think Tic tac is sort of at the fringes. I think the Cold War to to David's point started when the United States basically embargoed Huawei from getting access to five g technology. And

I know that sounds like a very sort of like thin thread that most people don't understand, and we can unpack it in a second. But in my opinion, that sort of, you know, at the beginning of this year was when I started Thio, pay attention and try to understand this issue more because it seemed like, wow, that's a That's a shot across the bow and declaring China as the clear, uh, you know, sort of a clear and present danger for American sovereignty and the MBA being cultural ramifications. of that, which are different. Tic Tac's irrelevant. Who cares? Well, is it relevant sex? Well, what Ticktock and what we have in common is that the the sort of proxy battles of Cold War two will be fought between these sort of client corporations. Whereas, you know, Cold War One. You have these. You have sort of these proxy, these sort of client states fighting these proxy wars. Uh, Cold War Two. You have more of these, like client corporations fighting these, um, proxy wars. Um, so you know, it Z that that's

a sense in which I think they're related. Um, the what? What Tic Tac shows is a company that's desperately trying to maneuvers. They don't become one of the first economic casualties of cold Cold War two. They appointed a American as CEO. They've pulled out of Hong Kong, so they're not subject toe to those regulations. And they're desperately maneuverings so they don't get banned in the United States. They want to preserve their market access. Uh, but I think there's a very good chance that they will get shut down in the They've been shut down in India. And today is July the 10th and right before we went on, the breaking news was that Amazon basically asked all their employees delete to delete Ticktock because of a security threat. So it's happening. I think that ticktock unless they basically have bite dance cell under 20 or 30% of the company and get it into the hands of Americans, um, it will get banned. And I think that there will be a massive destruction, an enterprise value

. But can I tell you why Ticktock doesn't matter or doesn't matter as much? I think, David, you're right, that it's sort of like collateral damage It it almost is like, you know, it'll exist. But whatever, uh, the Huawei thing, in my opinion, is so important because it shines a light on two things. The first is that you know what happened Essentially, is the United States told TSMC, You know, you cannot basically give Huawei access to the five G chip sets in the five G technology that they would use to essentially kind of like, you know, implement their spyware and then sell it into Western nations effectively. And so then what it does is it puts China in the posture of having to figure out how did they get access to this stuff? And you know the most obvious answers to invade Taiwan and take over TSMC. Um and you know, why would they do that? While obviously, that has huge geopolitical ramifications. But they could only do that again. Going back to the first comment is because they've already bought. So Maney Nation states into their productivity block that it's still on a balance, a worthwhile

trade. And it allows them to solve, uh, their version of Taiwanese sovereignty, uh, completely and definitively and basically say, Look, we've we've now solved Hong Kong, you know, Macau was already solved, and now we're going to solve Taiwan and put the whole thing to bed. And now we have access to this critical technology that we need, Um, so that that's why I think, sort of like what happens with Huawei, sort of what happens with TSMC. What happens on five G is so important, because if you're going to force China, you know, to basically have to buy Western technology in order to get access to a critical piece of, you know, Internet infrastructure, they're gonna be put to a very, very difficult test about what they have to do. And then they will have to be much more transparent on the global stage about what their ambitions really are and how far they're willing to go. And I think that's, you know, that's a lot more important than, you know, a bunch of kids dancing, too. Short videos, Well, and and just just add to that point

, um, you know, So I think the mouth is right. That thes thes sort of chips, um, the five g chips, these other chips, um, are there the new oil, you know, in terms of their geopolitical significance? Um, you know, obviously all of our technology, our iPhones are advanced event weaponry. It's all based on thes these chips, and, um, and 70% of them are fabricated in Taiwan. And, um and I think you know what one of the huge blind spots of American trade policy over the last 30 years is is kind of not to notice that, um, that this, um, key technology that's really the substrate for all of our technology for our economy has now been many. It's now been moved into manufactured, uh, you know, in Taiwan whose sovereignty China does not recognize and is constantly, you know, threatening uh, with with the risk of being of being

annexed. So, um, you know, we have a tremendous vulnerability there, and, um, you know, at the same, you know, way. Finally, after about 40 or 50 years of declaring that we'd be energy independent, we've achieved that. But now we have this new dependency on these chips that and pharma and manufacturing. I mean, and we and we, it seems like now manufacturing, we're starting to realize Hey, Ellen was right. We need to be able to build our own factories. And guess what? American spirit, American ingenuity, American focus, American capitalism. We can do it. We have the wherewithal to do it. There's no reason we cannot make these ships here. Sorry, I don't buy it that we're gonna be this dependent forever. We just need to have the will and the leadership to say we're going to do this whether it costs us an extra 50 cents per chip. And well, the fabrication of these chips is incredibly complicated. I mean, there, uh, they're they're basically so let's by the company's microscopic

and it takes years and like, several years to set up the you know, the facility toe. To do this kind of Why don't we buy those companies now? Why don't we just take Cimatu Point, which was very clear, which is Hey, this is an economic. This is Ah, Ledger. This is, you know Ah, check writing exercise to win this war. Why don't we take out our checkbook and buy 50% of these companies now and put them on the NASDAQ? If they're not already there, it requires riel leadership a t end of the day. It needs to be led by the United States government. The reality is that, you know, lithography has gotten so advanced. I mean, like, look, I have you know, uh, companies that are, you know, taping out chips at, like, seven nanometer, and I don't I don't have supplier diversity. I don't know. I don't I can't basically choose, you know, nine folks to bid it out against of which, you know, five or domestically in the United States, there are two, right? And so, you know, you kind of just deal with the complexity or the lack of diversity that we have And Jason

your point is exactly right. Which is the first and most important decision here is one that's philosophical, which is again saying that era of efficiency at the sake of all else is over. And we're now moving to a new era of resilience, which, inherently, is mawr inefficient? But in that inefficiency we will rebuild American prosperity because it rebuilds American industry and it rebuilds American jobs. There's another example that I want to build on David's point, which is, let's all believe and a test that we all care about climate change for a second, and we all want the world to be electrified. Okay, well, electricity and electrification requires two very, very basic inputs. Okay, one is a battery, and the second is an electric motor. Right? Makes sense so far. Well inside and an electric motor. There is one critical thing that

you need to make it work, which is a permanent magnet. The permanent magnet spins around, and that's how an electric motor works. Okay, why is that important? Um, as it turns out that permanent magnets need special characteristics that air Onley provided by a handful of very, very specific rare earth materials that we need to mine out of the ground and refine those materials actually exist in many places, including the United States. Yeah, we stop mining for them. But right now, China controls 80% of the supply of rare earths. They can choose how they price it taken differential price to their own companies. Which means that the battery and engine manufacturers inside of China can now lead on electrification, Which means China can actually lead on climate change before the United States can. Unless we have leadership that says at a governmental level on down, we're gonna make this a priority. We're gonna fund it, we're gonna make sure that they're onshore

minds. We're gonna make sure that those minds air clean. We're gonna build a supply chain domestically and we're going to subsidize. This is what governments do best. It's not act. It's just incentivize on things like climate. So I don't know. Freedberg has spent a lot of time on climate change, so he has a He has probably a lot of ideas on this, but whenever you look at any of these things health, climate, food, it all comes down to the United States vs China strategy versus tactics. Free Bird not, I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I think that the Chinese action is as deterministic as we think it is, or as we kind of frame it where it's China's got this grand plan. They're gonna beat the U. S. And they're going to control things and make decisions that hurt us. I think a lot of this is China. If you think about it less about black and white, there's a continuum, and the continuum is one of influence and one of creating an environment where by these things can happen. So China, for example, made capital readily available

for the agriculture industry to be able to buy buy assets. And so the company's inside of China, which aren't controlled. The Chinese government isn't telling them what to dio. The Chinese government has set a policy that enables them thio increase their prosperity and, as a result, increase the prosperity of the Chinese people. Um, you know, when I was at Monsanto, we were we bid for the largest ag chemicals company in the world based out of Switzerland. It's called Syngenta, and we did like $44 billion to buy this company and the largest chemical company in China, called ChemChina, bid $47 billion and and acquired the business, and they now owned the largest add chemicals company in the world. China also bought Smithfield's and they bought. They put a bunch of people in Canada. Hey, Freebird, how much of that money do you think came from the CCP and what involvement you think the CCP had in putting their thumb on the scale of making sure that transaction went that direction? Look, I mean, ultimately, wherever the capital comes from, it's no less equivalent

than what you would see in the United States, where Treasuries fund the central bank, which funds banks which fund lending to corporations which ultimately make. But do you think the leadership said, Hey, we're winning this at all costs? So here's what happened in 2000 and seven, there was a CCP internal doctrine that was published, and it's now reasonably well known, and there was a speech that was given that started this aggressive action in agriculture Onda. As a result, Chinese citizens started moving to Canada and buying farmland in Canada. They started moving Australia, buying farmland in China. They started building these facilities in Argentina and Brazil and Africa. Onda Chinese government set out you know, a strategic objective and provided the capital and enabled industry and people to go after pursuing these interests. But the CCP didn't say Here's the road map. It's not like here's the specific plan for what we need to dio. They had a general, high level kind of point of view that that that I think, drove all that action and all of that behavior on DSO. You know, it's I would say it's it's not as perhaps coercive

as we might think it is in terms of the CCP wanting to target and attack us. They're trying to increase their influence around the world. They're trying toe, increase their own security and increase their own prosperity. And at some point there's only so many. Resource is globally. There's only so much land, so much magnets that you know, they and their winning in the markets on. Do you know we're kind of crossing that threshold now where they're actually like a computer? You know, the only difference between this is and I couldn't see My point is I just don't want to frame. It is like I just think it za misstatement to frame it is China has this grand plan to come after the U. S. And they're evil and that's what they're doing. I mean, you know, Yeah, This is where I think you're completely wrong, David. Respectfully in that. I believe this is an ideological war. And if you can't diminish what's happening in Hollywood Ticktock, um, and the n B A and other sports where China is explicitly saying, If you put a villain in our in a movie, if you talk about Tibet in a movie, we are going to not play

that movie and we're gonna start funding your movies And so they are absolutely using the vector of culture and Jamaat. I think you're also wrong here where you're saying Tik TAKS not important. Tic tac is something that a generation of kids absolutely are in love with. And those kids are like, Hey, boomers stay out of our platform. And so and the ideological issue here Freeburg, which I think that you're under playing, is they want to win and they want to spread their ideology, which is the ideology of authoritarianism. They're not going to win Africa and then suddenly say, You know what would be great for Africa if we made the entire continent democracies? That's not in their best interest different from you. Well, Freeburg, I just think that it's it's inconceivable to me that the Chinese, when they do this grandiose planning and they do the you know, the political theater of having the thousands of people in the Chinese, you know, Assembly Hall once

a year, you know, and g Pink talks that they haven't developed a multifaceted, multilayered plan that they're executing. In part, I think this is why she Jinping essentially wants to be this ruler for life inside of China, because he I think they have a 20 or 30 year plan, and I do think it is to disrupt the United States. And I don't think that they believe, though, which is the smart thing, that there is one silver bullet. I just think that they're going to take 1000 shots on goal whether it's, you know, monopolizing the rare Earths or, you know, figuring out how to basically put spying software in the hands of millions of Americans. That's where I think TIC TAC is actually really important. It's essentially a vehicle to spy and backdoor into Americans, Um, or whether it's, you know, introducing a digital yuan so that we can try to disrupt the, you know, the the use of the U. S. Dollar as a reserve currency of the world. They probably have a list of 1000 tactics, and they're going to go and execute them. And I don't begrudge them that. I just think it zwelling organized

machine. I just think we now need to counterpunch sacks. Yeah, I mean, so China is on a mission of national greatness. I think the immediate goal is to, um is to assert its hegemony over Asia and toe kick the US out of that region. But I think ultimately now they see in their sights, potentially being the number one country in the entire world because of the because of the chaos, that cove it has brought over here. Um so I think, And in fairness, David the incompetence of Trump thus far. I mean, like, you know, it's it's not fair to think that the Chinese Politburo versus Trump in his cabinet are unequal. Match. Forget their political persuasion I mean, they clearly seem emboldened. And, you know, just in the last few weeks and months, we've seen the ending of the two systems and Hong Kong, which was a 50 year commitment they made in, I think 1984. So they abrogated on that commitment? Yeah, they haven't to do that

three or four months before Trump is looking like he's not gonna be in office. So talking about point shots on goal, this may be their only shot to do this. And exactly they go after Taiwan. Yeah. Do they go after Taiwan and the next 100 years where they have a window? I think we have to be extremely clear that Taiwan is a red line for us and that we're committed to the security of Taiwan because if we show any hesitation or weakness there they will. They will seize on that. And we do that with Trump, put his foot down because he did nothing when it came to supporting. I think we need to extract away from any given president of the United States because they change every four or eight years, and I think we need to have a bigger discussion which is like I said over the next 40 to 50 years, Are we comfortable with dual duopoly power structure in the world, which is the United States and China? Because that's effectively, what we are today. Or are we the Shining city on a hill once again, and if so, what are we willing to do to make sure that that's the case? And I think that's independent of your political persuasion in your party, right

? Well, the good news here is that both Trump and Biden are basically racing to sort of position themselves as the more hawkish candidate on China. Which is to say that this recognition of Cold War Two is now. I think bipartisan, which if you want to sustain a policy in this country over, say, 40 years like we did in containing the Soviet Union, you have to have bipartisan support for that on DSO, it does seem like finally, as a country, I think we are kind of getting our act together on China. I mean, obviously there will be disagreements within that larger context, but it seems like now people are waking up to the threat that, uh, that China represents to, uh, you know, to America being the number one country in the world. Yeah, by the way, I agree with I agree with sex. I mean, I think that's exactly what's happening. And what will happen here on digital? Certainly. Um, it'll

be a big hill to climb. I'll just highlight, and I'll ask the question of Mammoth. Um, you know, per his point earlier, Let me ask you guys, How many factories do you think exist in China? Take a guess. 11 million. 2.8 million. Now, how many do you think exist in the United States? 150,000. Close that 150,000. And China has about 83 million factory workers, and we have about 12. So you know Jamaat if we do end up in Cold War two, where you know we escalate the tension and escalate the divide. How do we end up, you know, having avoiding $2000.3000 dollar iPhones. How do we get all the televisions we want for 500 bucks? How do we do that? Given that, you know, to catch up with this production capacity will end up costing many tens of trillions of dollars of invested capital of China invested over decades. Well, this is such a brilliant This is somewhat fabulous question, and I think I don't have the answer. But here's the way that I think about the

solution. You know, the thing that we had before was in my way in many ways, like this kind of like, perverted sense of globalism. And I think that we, you know, we thought that globalism equals utopia and that's not true. It's actually more like a chess board, which means you have, you know, two different sets of colored pieces competing against each other, and each piece on the board, in many ways is a country. So you know, we can look at that as a geographic skew and say, like, we need to really consolidate you know, North Central and South America as a block as a productivity's block. And so David. That's where we need to have mawr trade within those areas so that we can actually build up production capacity in places that can absorb and produce low cost labor or low cost items to compete with the China block. That may be a solution. I mean, that is an incredible point. She meth. Which is why, with the rhetoric with Mexico, which would love so relationship

with us is so dumb. Guy, We were talking about factories they would love for us to put more factories on there and whatever countries get let's work our way down the peninsula. Go to go down the peninsula. Go, Go to Honduras, Goto El Salvador. Go to Guatemala, where there are paragraphs they won't work, are screaming for work, Which is why they're trying to enter the United States. The best ways to not build a wall, take all that money and fuel it into production and manufacturing and warehouse capacity in those places in which they're leaving in the first place. And if we thought like China, we would go ahead, do it. Free books. You can't successfully sustain a cold war with China without global partnership. And I think you know this notion of nationalism and isolationism in the United States will not work in a world where we are also trying to compete globally with China and are raising the stakes in a global cold war. You can't have it both ways, so you know either the current administration

policy needs to change. I'd love to hear Saxes point of view on this or, you know, or we need to have a change of administration and, actually, you know, re engage on on a global basis with partner states. Well, okay, so I think that the point about, um, about well, I I think what? What some people on the right would say is that being able to buy cheap goods at target is not worth the hollowing out of the American industrial base that happened over the past 30 years. And that was a catastrophic mistake. Um, and you know, this is what got Trump reelected was shattering that blue wall in those rust belt states. Um, so I think we can kind of look back on that and wonder whether that trade off was really worth it. Um, but moving forward, I think the balance is gonna be, um, to realize that trade does create wealth. Um, you know, all wealth, in fact, comes from trade. Whether at the level of individuals or nations, if it weren't for trade, all of us would be subsistence farmers or something like that. Um

, but we also have to realize that trade creates interdependence because I stopped making certain things in order to buy them from you. And so, in order to engage in trade, we have to trust each other. I have to trust that that you one day won't decide that your ability to manufacture antibiotics a strategic and you might deprived me of them in order to facilitate some geopolitical interests. And so I think what we're waking up to with, you know, production of of, you know, pharmaceuticals or N 95 masks, you know, PPE and now chips is that we've had this real blind spot with respect to trade. We've basically offshored so many of the elements are necessary for our national survival. And I think those elements have to be brought back so that America is safe and independent. But with respect to you know, so many other things. I think it's fine for us to get them through trade, whether you know, it could be apparel or toys or so many other goods that

, you know, we do want cheap goods. I wanna dio strategic. I wanna do a mental exercise. We all for our living try to come up with 100 x 1000 x solutions whether we're creating the companies or betting on the companies when everybody just think for a second of the United States as a startup company and a 10 x 100 x idea for how we can not only maintain our position but maybe become the shining um hill, where we actually lead the world towards democracy towards human rights. I'm gonna start with one that I just happened. Thio hit me while you all were talking. Which is why I love doing this podcast because I got such inspiration listening to you guys, you know, pass the ball around. We haven't added a state to the United States in a pretty damn long time. What if we said to Puerto Rico? What if we said to the Dominican Republic what we said to Honduras? E mean and I don't want to make this into a, uh, exercise in colonialism. But if

we said you know what, Puerto Rico, how do you feel about being the 51st state? Because we're already 80% of the way there. And what if we said three United States is going to and this is just a crazy 100 x idea. We're going to start taking countries that maybe love democracy that would love to be part of United States and and having a bridge towards becoming part of this block. Whether it's how Puerto Rico is Jason, the United States can barely function as it is. Um, no. That's why I'm giving you the freedom to say this is 100 x exercise as a startup. Because if we put out crazy ideas like this, maybe we can pull people towards thinking like, um, the chessboard of how to play three d chess or how toe win the chessboard, not just move the pawns back and forth. Well, I I think the first thing America has to do is is decide whether it wants toe, whether it's still thinks that national greatness is important and whether it wants toe compete Teoh to be the leading power in the world. Because right now it seems like, uh, we're hopelessly divided and our guns air literally

drawn on each other. Um, and you know, you've got this, um, all out assault going on on capitalism, you have sort of cancel culture, and America just seems hopelessly divided. And I don't know if Americans still think it's important to be the number one power in the world. So what's your thought? Experiment on how to make Americans realize this is important or if anybody else wants to jump in here with a tenant for America? Good, I have. Ah, well, I haven't overlaying theory that I it This is sort of kind of me spitballing, So bear with me. But let's do it. You know, there's a There's this concept called the Overton Window right, which is sort of like the minimum lee viable acceptable surface area of dialogue, at which case it starts to sort of, you know, get extreme. I my, I would theorize. I would tell you that the Overton window is the smallest it's ever been, and there's basically nothing that you can talk about that is relatively benign without it being politicized. And there's no gradation anymore. It's a very binary thing. You're

either in the Overton window, which, for example, would be like, you know, vegetables matter or looking both ways across the street matters, um, and outside the Overton window on A C is black lives matter. As an example, you know, and it gets politicized on both sides. Masks? You know, if a balaclava when you're skiing because your face is cold is inside the overton window. That same balaclava when you go to the drugstore so that you can actually, you know, either prevent disease one way or the other is outside the overton window. Um, you know, making sure that, uh, police, uh, you know, are there to protect you in a time of need is now outside the Overton window because it's framed in a in the lens of police brutality. So the overton window has shrunk. So we we have very little surface area where we can actually all agree without getting into a fight, ideological, trying to cancel each other. I totally agree with that. I mean, we have this. We have this sort of epidemic of cancel culture going on, and I guess, Jason

, you recently experienced this. Oh, my lord. I mean, for the love of God, what happened? Jason, tell us what happened. Listen, I I look at Twitter as a place to have vibrant discussions, and, you know, 10 years ago, it was kind of where the overton window was most open. You could have a discussion about anything and we had a discussion about, you know, my feeling that as a former journalist and we're doing random acts of journalism here, that I just thought The New York Times was just way too biased and that they picked aside in order for their business to survive. And I actually believe that I believe they picked the side of Trump. I'm sorry, the side of Anti Trump in order to get subscriptions because their advertising business has been demolished by the duopoly of Facebook and Google. This led to the circling of the wagons of the A journalist, which I was part of. But listen, it's pretty easy to hate me. I understand that I'm a loud mouth, Um, and so now I'm getting piled on by the Journal and and

you were an early investor in uber. Absolutely. Forget that. Let's forget third or fourth. I don't They tell me the third or fourth anyway. So, um, there's a journalist at said publication. I'm not going to say her name because I don't want any harassment of anybody. Nobody does. Um, who said People are stupid for going back to work. Um, and they're idiots. And I said, You know, this is a very convenient thing for a journalist who works behind a keyboard who makes $100,000 a year to say, because those people are literally not gonna be able to feed their kids if they don't go back to work. And this led to her saying I was harassing and stalking her. Then I was in club house, the new social network where you talk and the same journalists was in the audience. And I said to the people who were talking, Just be aware there is a journalist in the audience because even though this is a private beta, this could wind up being in The New York Times, which it

did not that discussion, but another one that was covertly taped and I don't know, it was covertly taped by journalists or not, but it did wind up in the press. Anyway, um, this whole thing turns into a giant fight. Uh, and clubhouse sounds like some dark S and M sex club in Berlin. No, no, that is what I think is most entertaining. Clubhouse H O A. U. S House clubhouse let me. What I think is most entertaining about this is that the New York Times journalist was in this vicious, uh, battle with apology, who's, Ah, Silicon Valley founder and personality. And they were arguing. And then Jason somehow comes running over and starts involving himself in this feud on It's like it's like apology gets fouled. But Jason takes the flop, you know, and all of a sudden, all of a sudden Jason is talking about you know, how he's getting docks. Biology is the guy who was, like, called out in The New York Times. But somehow, Jason, uh, Jason takes the flop, but anyway, so here's what's

happened. I'm only telling the story. I'm not trying to get victim points. Give a fuck about that. Uh, it's July 4th i e. I put the kids down for the nap. We, you know, stakes air going on the grill. It's fucking great day. And then I'm on the pellet on trying to be just a little less fat so I could be less fat than sacks so that the photo that were Saxes using I just come out 5% less fat than sacks, and I look and I had posted a picture of the tree line outside my house to the beautiful blue sky on July 4th, and I said, Listen, everybody, take a break from Twitter. Go spend time with your family, which is what I was about to dio a 37 year old private equity do sh from Boston does a reverse image search on the tree line finds a bigger picture of the trees, finds a picture of my pool based on that bigger picture in Google. Reverse image search and all these other tools. And then docks is me, which basically means releasing your address. He releases

my address in my thread where, Okay, because so I d. M. Him and he's using his real name and he's got a linked in profile. And I said, Do you realize how dangerous this is is He goes, Well, you're stalking, said journalist. I said, I am not stalking the journalists when she said you're stalking her. So if you apologize to her and you take down the mean stuff you said about her, I'll take down your home address and I said, Hey, dipshit, um, this is illegal Number one and number two, you're gonna lose your Twitter account. And then I said, number three, we're connected, your boss, because you have your your using your public name. Your boss is connected to 14 people off which, like, half are very close friends of mine. And I'm calling your boss, and I have all these screenshots of your doxy. Me? What do you think is gonna happen on Monday? And I just gave him my phone number. Hold on, hold on. Good. You want to finish the story? Okay, let me just finish the story. I

tell the guy, Here's my phone number. He calls me. I said, Hey, I know that you're a kid. I know that you did something rash, but this is actually, you know, a kind of a dangerous thing because, you know, there's serious mental illness and whatever 0.1% of the population, there's millions of people and now involved in this discussion, it could be a security concern for me. I'm not gonna post your address. Please don't post mind delete the tweet He was. I refused to do it to treat until you whatever, and I said Okay, well, I'm gonna call your boss on Monday. We know these people in common. She's going to fire you and you're gonna lose your job. Now, I know you're only 23 or 24 this doesn't matter to you. And he goes, uh, I said, how old you said 37. I said, you're 37 year olds. You married? You say, Yeah, I'm married. I've got a six year old is like, Now you want me to make you lose your job because you're so mad at me over nothing. I said, I don't want to call your boss on Monday and tell them what you did, because it will certainly result in you being fired. And he goes, Oh, I said you might want to go talk to your spouse about what you did and maybe get her perspective. He

writes me an apology letter. We deleted. It's all water under the bridge. But I've been trying to tell people you have to be very careful when this gets too personal, because there are your dog whistling to crazy people who that might do something crazy. Anyway, end of story. I backed off the whole discussion because I just don't wanna I wanna finish my second book, and I wanna do podcast with guys like you and have a great time with my life and not be involved with a bunch of idiots. End of story. Um, so I want to go back to this Overton window concept for a second. So again, just my my my idea. So you take the word matters. The word matters is in the Overton window. Nobody can argue that the word matters is offensive. If you If you pretend that word with vegetables, it stays in the Overton window. If you put looking both ways before you cross the street, Mac were still there were over two window. If you say black lives as a term just without the word matters, that's probably in the Overton window. Sure, you put black lives matters. It's out the over to window and

both sides politicized. I think the left politicizes with this cancel culture and basically like an extreme form of political correctness. And then the right politicizes by, you know, in their way, a vein of hypersensitivity and then a doubling down on this notion of an attacking of individual freedoms and free speech. And in all of that. Both of these two groups miss the fact that they're both sort of the same and they they're they're wrong in the same way, But they're both not listening in the same way. Um, so if I had to put something in the Overton window that would address the US China Cold War thing, here's what I would say. We all need energy. We all need food, and we all need technology, right? We need to sort of warm our houses. We need to feed our bellies, and we need to be able to be productive in some way so that we can make money. And I think that everybody in the United States can agree that on these three dimensions

there are some really simple things that we could do that basically doubled down on us sovereignty on allow us to basically b'more on the offensive. So I'll give you a couple of ideas on the energy side is we need to continue to support energy independence, and that will require subsidies. And the reason why that's important in my opinion, is that then what happens is it hastens and accelerates Russia and the Middle East uh, not becoming relevant anymore because they are forced to monetize their oil sooner. The Middle East probably disintegrates into 30 countries. You know, the Middle East was just a kind of a random exercise of, you know, basically Americans and Europeans after the war, divvying up a bunch of things that has no sensitivity to culture or language or anything. So that probably, you know, goes to in a very different direction. And Russia itself, and Russia becomes less important

because they just have to monetize. Otherwise they will lose their only source of revenue. So that's one thing on energy that I think we could do that I think is relatively politically acceptable. And inside the Overton window, um, second is on food, which is that we have to double down on creating a completely independent food supply inside the United States. And there are ways again where if we don't need to be building tanks and having $90 trillion programs for aircraft carriers anymore, we could pour that money into U. S farms, you know, and give people like Friedberg a lot more money to go and actually make sure the United States has food security that in any situation and scenario, we can feed the 330 odd million people inside of our borders and then the fourth. The third thing is on technology, which is there are a critical bunch of inputs, whether it's five g chips, rare earth materials or minerals, things like cobalt and lithium, which we need for batteries

for climate change. Um, that we could go and basically co opt, because those things are concentrated in countries like Chile, in places like in places like Africa, where we can actually do a better job of instilling government governance and security. Um, so that's my Jason back to your thing. These aren't sexy ideas, but they would work, and I think they would work by both Republicans and Democrats. And it's noncontroversial, even punch up the food part. There's no reason why you know the same way we made water, um, and public schools, you know, kind of a given in the United States, nobody really has to worry about going getting water. Nobody has to worry about getting ah, basic education, learning to read. Let's say it's not perfect. Obviously, why not make healthy produce and some amount of healthy food so affordable in United States that, uh, it's essentially free, right? And then you think about food security. Like, how are we still discussing

food security with the amount of money and prosperity we have in this country? Make it free. We've We've almost made energy free. We have energy independence. I'll say a Manhattan project to make energy and food as free or de minimus as water would be just an amazing thing for us to rally around, because then people can work on the next thing in their life their careers, their family, their pursuits. Freeburg, what do you think of the Overton window? And would you add something to it that we can all agree on? That we could work on together and maybe unify the country as opposed to pulling guns on each other in the parking lots because of the color of our skin? I'm reminded of a great moment in history when Will Smith and his friends blew up the UFO that came to attack Earth. Nothing brings us together like a common enemy. Eso It could be that the the unification is going to be, you know, in part driven by this Cold War two and creating a common enemy in China is gonna work for both the right and the left and create

a lot of opportunity of Jamaat highlights and manufacturing and food production is there's a lot of tools available to us. I think we could all sit here and speculate, and I could pitch and plug all the companies I'm involved in. E think we're gonna play a role. But I do think it z that moment where, you know, we are going to coalesce around a common enemy and we'll be good if you actually shared one or two of those projects you're working on. If you can actually think well, I mean, I think I hear what you're working on. I've shared this before, but I do think bio manufacturing, which is the technology whereby we engineer the DNA of microbes and those microbes then make molecules for us in a big fermentation tank in the same way that we make beer or wine. Bio manufacturing can be used to make flavors and fragrances, and now we're making materials like silks and plastics. Plastic equivalents on bmore, interestingly proteins for human consumption to replace animal proteins and the cost of production and the cost of energy associated with making

these materials. These molecules, these proteins through bio manufacturing, is literally several orders of magnitude less than the traditional technique, which is just insane. If you think about it in first principles, basis of growing fucking corn feeding it to a cow, letting the cow grow up, feeding it hundreds of gallons of water, killing it, chopping it up, transporting it to a restaurant. I mean, the amount of energy that goes into making a pound of ground beef is insane on the greenhouse gas emissions and so on. So I do believe that there is a big wave of bio manufacturing is an industry that is coming on the U. S. This century, and it will hopefully by the end of the century be the primary way that we're kind of producing a lot of the molecules that we consume and that we use for clothing and materials. So then that does what to factories because, you know, you did explain earlier the a number of factories. If we can bio produce, that's not only our steaks, not only our corn. So and also I mean, we could bio manufacture steel plastics, cars Not so much steel, but alternatives toe leather alternatives to cloth alternatives Thio

so close to clothes, food. So imagine instead of a traditional factory, think about a factory historically being purpose built. So you build all these components to make one thing. You spend all this money making a giant machine that you put stuff in on one end and the same thing comes out over and over the other end. And that's classic industrial revolution. 1.0, you know, 20th century industrial Revolution output In this century, we're gonna build these giant printers. They're not gonna be single for machines that make one thing over and over. There gonna be systems that are giant fermentation tanks. And in those fermentation tanks, it's like you program them with software. The software in this case is genetic software. You edit the genome of these organisms, they take stuff on the input and they make on the output a bunch of different stuff. A Replicator like in Star Trek. And if there were seasonality and people needed something over the summer for July 4th versus what they need in Christmas or in the winter and ski season. The same factory makes that thing Where 10 2030 40 50

years from this. Having an impact on the economy. Yes, and we're seeing it now. I mean, look, the number of artificial animal protein companies and the funding that they're getting, um is, I think, highlighting investor interest and appetite in backing the cap ex needed to get this to become a reality right now. Perfect day. Just raised $200 million this week. Um, impossible foods raised $400 million from the Qatar Investment Authority. Um, you know, obviously beyond meat, that's where they're at. I mean, these companies are using the's techniques of genetic engineering to make microbes that make the proteins and the flavorings put 50 places we put 500 million into the PP PP program. If we put 500 I'm sorry. 500 billion put 500 billion into this. How much would it accelerate it, um, pretty substantially. And I think it goes from food to pharma to materials and that's probably, you know, where you would see the impact. But again, one system could make different materials to make different. So we could be independent of other countries for food to tomatoes point

and also pharma, which we are way too dependent. Correct? On China. Yeah, we're definitely a net exporter, by the way. You know, our largest export partner is China. So most of our soybeans in the United States that we produce and soybeans are grown on 160 million acres on the U. S. And it rotates half and half each year with corn. But about two thirds of our soybeans historically get exported to China s. So we are already food secure from a net resource perspective, it's just the rest of the infrastructure in terms of turning that stuff in the meat and other stuff is where were You know, we probably have to build up a little bit of infrastructure, swing the ball over to you when you hear the Overton window ideas. When you hear about this biochemistry, slurry tank revolution that free birds working on, how does that change or evolve your view of our relationship with China and the political mess we're in right now in 2020? Yeah, well, I think Cold War two does provide a lens. Um, toe to re think and re evaluate a lot of these domestic

political fights. And so, for example, are the big technology companies, you know, Google, Facebook and so on. Are they these, you know, even monopolies that need to be broken up, Or are they the crown jewels of the American economy that need to be protected from Chinese espionage? Um, you know, is the free enterprise system this, you know, horribly, um, you know, oppressive racist thing? Or is it actually the engine of prosperity that's built this country? Um, you know, is freedom of speech a now outdated principle, or is it something we we wanna, you know, that that should be canceled, Or is it something we want to fight for? And I think that, you know, when you start thinking about these issues, uh, you know, in the through the lens of Cold War to it provides option to kind of re evaluate them and think about what's really important. Um, and and hopefully it can provide a little bit of Ah, you know, unifying force in America. Not because we want China

to be an enemy, but just because we want to maintain ah sense of national greatness. Um and I You know, it's not something I just want to give up on. I have a question for Friedberg. Our our school is gonna be back in the fall because I cannot deal with my kids being at home. Yeah, I think it's gonna be a mixed bag. It seems like I mean, if you follow this, this is a political decision, right? It's not a scientific decision on DSO. There are different politics around nationally that are affecting this, and there are some schools that seem like they've got processes and methods of being comfortable. Some of them were just throwing everything out the window and say, I don't give a shit. The kids got to go back to school and some of them who are being very conservative and saying, you know, we're not ready for that. We can't take the risk so you'll definitely see a mixed bag. I don't know where you're living, Thomas. I don't know what's gonna happen per se, but it's definitely a local policies. It's safe. Friedberg Is it safe to send our kids back to a 10 person pod in a school in California? I mean

, That's like asking, Is it safe to cross a train track? You know, you can look left. You can look right, but yeah, you know a busy train intersection during during rush hour. You know, it's hard to say what level of safest safe. Um, we know that kids are less susceptible. Thio any sort of health risk themselves from the virus, and it looks like there's a lot of studies showing that they're likely less. The virus is less transmissible through kids, especially kids under the age of 14. On DSO, it seems like there's there's some theories that say that look, it's the ace two receptors whereby the virus enters the cells really start to present. When you turn 10 years old at a greater rate and you know it scales up to 14 and above 14, you're you're kind of an adult from an H two receptor point of view. And then there's the severity of the infection, as we all know is really more of a significant issue for much elderly people. So when you take those factors into account, the virus is likely less transmissible amongst Children. Therefore, bunch

of kids get together. They're not gonna transmitted to each other, and it's likely gonna be less severe even if there is a new infection. For kids, the risk is just about. Are the teachers comfortable on what happens when they go home? And there have been a number of letters that you guys have probably seen op EDS and whatnot, written in papers by teachers saying, I'm nervous to go back to school. I don't want to teach this fall. I don't wanna take the risk for my health. I take care of my mom and my dad or what have you? Um, so there's a lot of competing interests, so let's go. Let's go around the horn of who's sending their kids back to school. I'll start I posted on Calacanis dot com yesterday that we've decided as a family that we're starting a micro school. Uh, we put out a call for, ah, a teacher and, you know, just looking at teacher salaries. They don't get paid particularly well in our society. As we all know, they're underpaid. So we think we can come over the top and provide a you know, a better financial arrangement for a teacher, um, and then have 1 to 5 students and we're gonna just create a micro school. That's our That's our current plan. Our

kids did go to camp this summer in a small 10 person or last pod on DWI felt that was safe. Everybody was tested and it was outdoors. But for me being indoors at a school with 300 pods of 10, Um and I think the best teachers, they're not going to show up. And my kids don't learn over Zoom. I don't know about your kids, but it's not working. So we're starting a Are we gonna roll our own school and hopefully find one or two families who want to chop up the cost with us or we'll We'll just pick up the tab and invite one or two families if they don't have the means to do it. But what we're gonna we're gonna go solo for 2021 Free Bertram off. What do you think in right now? Because we're only 78 weeks out from this, right? We're less than two months. I really think like, look, not everybody Jason is going to be in a position to hire teachers. In fact, most everybody won't be e think it's I want to send my Children back to school. Um, I refused Thio create some alternative reality for them. Um um

, I think it's really important that they're with their friends. I think that we're not really thinking strongly enough about the social implications for, you know, Children. Let's just say like, you know, you take an eight year old or a nine year old or a 10 year old and you deprive them of their friends for a year. I mean, that's an enormous part of their life, where they like a prison sentence. They've been socially isolated. You know, I just think it's a it's a really bad outcome. So, um, I think that obviously from a public health perspective, we want to keep our teachers safe. Um, I just think that it's so important that we realized that, you know, we are going to impact an entire generation of kids. I think that if you're 18 or 19 and and and have had, you know, 18 or 19 years of normal teenage them, you know, and growing up that it's okay if you miss a year or you have to, you know, do your first year of college remotely like it sucks, but you can deal. Um, but I really worry about these kids in

in primary school and middle school. It's really unfair. Yeah. I mean, our plan was to try to get to four or five students, small bubble and then, you know, have outdoor. The problem is in the Northeast, I just I just think it I just haven't gone to school. It's your inside with a heating system of the clothes ventilation system that was built in 1920. And I think it avoids the rial key thing, which is like, I don't think you go to school to learn as much as you go to school to socialize. I mean, you learn as a byproduct because everybody socializes. Not everybody learns, right? And so it's It's an enormously important formative experience for a child to be around 15 or 20 of their other kids and to be in the playground to deal with all the adversity that comes with normal life of a kid. Um, that's the biggest thing that I think we're depriving them of. And I understand that you know, there's an important reason to hold these kids back. But I just want to appreciate that behavior early and psychologically

. Thistles Not gonna be for free. Free Burr Sacks, E I guess I agree with both mouth and Freeburg on on this. That the there are huge benefits to going back and the risk to kids are low in terms of getting it. And also, they're less viral if they do. Uh, but Israel's sort of a strong recent counter example where they recently opened schools and now all of a sudden, they've got a spike. So, um, you know, we're going to send our kids back, but I expect it to be a little bit of a shit show. I think that the schools will reopen and they'll do all this planning. They'll be all these like pods and half days and smaller groups and that kind of thing. And then somebody's gonna they'll be like, one case either a kid or, you know, one family. And then all of a sudden they're gonna shut down again. And I guess I you know, they're spending all this time planning, But I wonder if they're really gonna have contingency plans for what happens when there's a case. That's exactly what I think is happening. Yeah

, I think they'll just shut down. It's just it's too scary for a child to die or a teacher to die. And people in the overreaction to it, um, will be to shut everything down. Right? It is. And then we're gonna be back to our kids. When When we sent our kids to camp for the three weeks they went, man, it was just They were different kids, right? And such amounts point. They, their little social animals, they need to roll around like a little baby tigers and and play. And if they don't have that, it dramatically affects behavior. And we saw it in only three months. I mean, 12 months. I mean, these kids, they're gonna go mental. Yeah. I think that basically where the country is that is that we're on undeclared Sweden. You know, we've basically that the virus has become endemic. It's everywhere, you know, we've basically given up on trying toe container. Stop it. And, um And so now we're just on this path to herd immunity. And, um, it's basically what Sweden did, except we haven't declared. That's what our plan is, um, and so it's haphazard

and, um, but it's that seems like kind of where, by default, just headed for herd immunity. Freeburg, as we wrap up here on, got one final question I want to do after this and then we'll wrap free bird. What's your thoughts? Kids in schools? I know you have kids. I'm not sure the Ages, if they're like, would be going back to, uh, I think they're a little bit on the younger side. So if you did have 89 10 12 year olds sending them back to school, starting your own what are your thoughts? Yeah, I mean, I would probably be a little ridiculous and send them and test them every other day at home on. Do you know you could get this back to Dickinson Testing system now for 2 to 50 bucks. It's a handheld device, and these test strips cost 20 bucks. Say the name of it again. The vector Dickinson. It's a vector with a VI BBB. Wait. How are they available? Yeah, you could buy them through medical retailers and, yeah, the handheld device that they use in hospitals and stuff. Today it's 250 bucks and there's a little test kit that you buy. It will probably cost 20 to 30 bucks

. It'll be available next month. Protest or 15 to 20 bucks on. But it takes five minutes to get a result. And so you literally could do it in the school yard before they go into the building. Yeah, so you could test you. I would test my kids every day if I had. My kids are my one kids in preschool, the other ones. But you got to do a little pinprick on their finger, right? No, no. If you could just do a little swab of the nose. So yeah, no swab Or, you know, halfway There's data that shows now that you could actually do a throat swab and get a pretty good reading on it. So, you know, whatever the protocol, it would probably be pretty noninvasive, and you could get a result. Now that's expensive for most people. You know, that's not expensive for school, not expensive for school. That's right. And so I think that company will do well with that testing system they've launched because it actually tests not for the Arna, but for the protein public company? Yeah, on the stocks done well beyond. And this this test does really well because it tests for the protein, not the Arna. So it's actually a much, um, you know, much easier. Test

scientifically, todo you're not trying to pick up specific nucleotides nucleic acid. You're trying to pick up a protein. Um, and so it's Yeah, it's it's pretty effective. Alright, if if the election was held today was like toe talk about this a bit, they wanted slaves When we talk about it, we talked about Oprah last time. That was our sleeper candidate changing, changing your Duckworth's Tammy Duckworth's now my sleeper vice presidential. I'm with the moth on that absolutely 100. Uh, now who's gonna win if the election was held today? Sacks, I'll let you go first, since it's the most heartbreaking for you. Uh, Biden strategy is working. His strategy is basically to say nothing to be tied in his basement and, um, and but is working because even though he's a cipher, I think people, uh, he's basically a protest vote against Trump. And, uh, Trump, you know, is, uh

, you know, Sina's very divisive and inflammatory And I think the American people at this point just wanna push a button and make it stop. And right now, Biden seems like the make it stop button, okay? And should buy it. I'll add to the question, uh, be too will end on this. This double question who wins today and should buy it in debate Trump? Or is it better for him to just opt out of the debates and and not risk it buying? Would you advise? Well, I think buying strategy right now is working. I don't know why he would change it. I mean, so he should not. There's three debates on the books he agreed to. Should he do the three debates? Yes or no? If you were advising him. Um, so I think he probably will not be ableto duck. Uh, these debates forever, I think. I mean, it seems unlikely that, um, you know, if you were advising him, would you tell him to do it or not? I would. I think I would tell him his strategy is working, which is to say nothing. And so don't go to the debates. If you could get away with it. I'm

not sure he'll be able to get away with it. So I think eventually, people, eventually the American public will turn its attention to the election. But part part of part of the reason why his strategy is working is because Trump is running such a bad campaign. In fact, it feels like Trump has even really started to campaign. Um, there's no logic to it, for sure. Well, it's, you know, normally what the incumbent does, especially they've got a lot of money is they use this summer to define the opponent. They start running. Ah, lot of ads seeking to define their opponent and and, you know, where are those ads? Where is that attempt toe? Define Biden. E think it's hard because, um, you know, because it's it's hard toe. Define Biden, as as a radical who represents thes, um, woke mobs. Biden doesn't even know how Toe say the word woke correctly. I think he's called him. Walked, um, so that zone by my four year old who needed a change, right

? All right. But the fact that Biden is so clueless Andi seems like so out of touch actually helps him, because I mean the way the way for Trump to win the election. OK, let's let's put that way. Is T to make the alternative to trump the destruction of Mount Rushmore, right? I mean, if if Trump could somehow convince the American public that the election of Joe Biden means the ripping down of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln and and Mount Rushmore and the destruction of capitalism Um, that is the way for him to win. That's you know, But he has to actually, um, listen. Well, he has He has to actually be able t tag Biden with that. Why didn't Peter Thiel? Why did Peter Thiel dropped Trump? He's You've got a 30 year relationship with Peter Thiel. You talk to him on the regular. Why did he'll drop him? I don't know that he has. I think you have to get him on the show to talk. All right, There you go. Good deflection. Best e c. Who wins

. And should he do those three debates, Biden? Yeah. Yeah, I I think you can't get away from them. I wouldn't make it a big issue because the debates are going to be kind of this random, crappy kind of experience You know, I I don't even know whether they'll be in the same place. I think they should try to make sure that they're not in the same place so that it's done almost over. Zoom like you can. You can cripple the effort. The usefulness of these debates. In many ways, there really isn't much that can happen in the debates. The reality is that people aren't voting for Biden. They are voting against Donald Trump. Any chance Trump wins and they are voting against the sheer incompetence of him and his family, and, uh, you know, it's going to be very difficult for him to overturn it. There is one thin path for him to win, which is to absolutely shower America with money close to the Election Day. So if there is a

multi multi trillion dollar stimulus bill that passes on git literally puts money into the hands of working Americans, especially in the swing states, it could work. Now. The one thing I'll tell you is if you look at the exit polls in Georgia, it's scary because there were 230,000. I think Mawr Democrats out of the exit polls in the Georgia primary than there were Republican. Now just hold the phone here for a second because under no calculus on Electoral College, did we ever have to think that there was probabilistic Lee Any chance that a Democrat wins Georgia? And I think what this speaks to is a changing demographic, Longitudinal E. And this is not a racial thing, meaning this is an age thing where these young people are very different politically. And so if you think that there is an even remote chance that Donald Trump loses Georgia, don't even

worry about Minnesota and Pennsylvania and Florida because he would have already lost those in order to lose George. Also, this pandemic and work from home is gonna result in people if it is a sustained work from home. We have scarred the American economy guys, and we don't know the extent of the injury because, you know, you know the extent of the injury when you get, you know, step out of the chair that first moment the cast gets taken off and you put a little pressure on the leg to see how bad it is, and we don't know how bad it is except we know that it's pretty bad. So, um, you know, I think that all roads kind of look like Biden. I think the very narrow path that Donald Trump has is, you know, a multi multi trillion dollar stimulus bill directly into the hands of Americans. Freeburg. Is he gonna win? Yes. Or now? Should he do the debates yesterday? You have The vote would happen today. He would win. Joe Biden would win. I think he's actually more likely to win. Based on news

that just hit the wire, which we haven't talked about today. Which is it Looks like Facebook is gonna ban all political ads this year. What? Yeah, I do that. Obviously that Facebook and a fight for survival right now that add camp. Amazing how a bunch of advertisers taking a one month pause all of a sudden bring Zuckerberg to the table. Amazing how my well timed short thesis tweet place. Yeah. So I think that works. That obviously works to Biden's favor. If that's the case. And then my my point on the debates. If I were Biden, what I would do right now is I would go on Twitter and I would say, Release your tax returns and I'll debate you. And I would repeat that tweet twice a day. Uh, love in Freeburg gets the dunk 3 60 ducks does in that cardinal done over. Freebird wins the debate. This show is sponsored by nobody. However, I'm gonna ask my bestie, see if somebody were to make a $25,000 donation to charity. Would you allow me to read

an ad for 30 seconds during the pot at some point? No, but I'll match it to wherever you want to go. No fucking ads ever I love I love you guys. I miss you. Love you best e c e Love you Love you Free love you sacks with great playing golf. Let's get Let's golf. Let's fucking golf, man. I'm losing my mind. We'll see you, little let's do a little small little NASA boys. A little 10,000, You know, Leo, See that time on the all in podcast? Tell your friends to tune in if they want to listen to something intelligent. Bye bye.

E5: WHO's incompetence, kicking off Cold War II, China's grand plan, 100X'ing America's efficiency
E5: WHO's incompetence, kicking off Cold War II, China's grand plan, 100X'ing America's efficiency
replay_10 forward_10
1.0x