All-In with Chamath, Jason, Sacks & Friedberg

20 of 48 episodes indexed
Back to Search - All Episodes

E2: Rebooting the economy, understanding corporate debt, steps to avoid a depression & more with David Sacks

by Jason Calacanis
April 11th 2020

Follow @chamath:

Follow @jason:

0:01 Jason & Chamath catch us up on their quarantines


All right, everybody, welcome to Episode two of the All in podcast with Jason and Shamus and Basic Ground Rules here. If you're not into speculation, you don't like to debate. You don't like to question authority on. You don't like to get a shit ton of inside information and actually turn the podcast off right now and go download the daily from The New York Times or all things consider some other bullshit. But we're here to do speculating and talking about inside information and the real deal with me. As always, my co host, Mammoth Polly Hoppity, if you don't know how to pronounce it Polly Hapa. Tia, Uh, your mouth. How you doing? You holding up? Okay, I am doing fabulously well. We're in Week four of our locked down sheltering in place here. You're losing your mind. I'm not because I'm fortunate to be in the suburbs. I think if I was cooped up in a in an apartment in the city, I would feel a lot worse than I do right now. But there's a lot of fresh air. The weather's finally turned is not raining as much, so we get to see the sun a little bit. Makes a big difference. Yeah. Can you imagine

? 15, 20 years ago, holed up in an apartment with three kids who are home from school. Like these people who are in a city, they must be going insane. I mean, there's so much value to visiting New York, But if you're stuck there in a quarantine lock down, I don't know what I do. All right. Well, we got a great guest. Uh, today I want to introduce our guest a month. Well, we're really lucky here. This is ah, person who I've known now for, I don't know, maybe 15, 20 years. What I would call him is one of my best show ponies. I have written this motherfucker up and down in everything he's done. He has made me so much money. It's like owning the publishing rights to the YouTube back catalog. This is how prolific this guy is like owning the Beatles back catalog. Right? You're like Michael Jackson is back. You bought so David Sacks, though? No. All kidding aside, David Sacks is one of the most incredible people that we know. One of our closest friends, Big bit

of a background, on David. He almost became a lawyer. Um, but dropped out of law school. Um, after going to Stanford and worked with Peter Thiel at people and was the chief operating officer there, left PayPal, uh, moved to Los Angeles, unsuccessfully kept his virginity, found way to not get late as a movie producer in Hollywood, which seems to be impossible. But David found a way of doing it. Um, produced a movie, Um, one of the best known movies of that generation called Thank you for Smoking. Um, then moved back up here. Started Jeannie pivoted, started yammer, um, sold that for more than a billion dollars. Thio Microsoft, um, and became during that time, frankly, one of the most unsung heroes, Uh, off company founders. And, uh

, was a prolific investor in some of the most well known, iconic businesses of this last generation. Airbnb, um, uber, um, slack. The list goes on and on, and now is the co founder of Craft Ventures, which is essentially David's early stage venture business, where he, um, helps a lot of really great companies, um, get to the next level and frankly, the level that he's been playing out for a while. Uh, despite all of that again, I just see him as, Ah, show pony, some money printing machine. If you if you can get in on that fund, if you could get in on those companies, you're gonna do well, Saxes and operating machine. Welcome to the program, David. Welcome to the podcast. Thanks for having me. How are you holding up? Sacks? Just personally. Family, everything. Companies Just generally, uh, psychologically. How is this impacting you? Um you know, I think, um, we're all

fortunate to be safe and, you know, way started paying attention. Toe toe the virus. I guess on in February, because of Twitter Tech, you know, there are a bunch of people in the tech ecosystem who started tweeting very alarming things and in February, or even going this far back is like January 30th. And I didn't know for sure if there right, but some of them were friends of mine. And so we were to get seriously and we started doing work from home. I think on march 1st, and we've all been kind of self isolated since then, and fortunately, everyone has been safe and, you know, holding it pretty well, sack, see Putin tell Tell everybody on the pod, um, our group chat and basically what it is, Um, what we do on that group chat and what you think about it. Yeah, so I mean, basically our poker group and sort of extended

poker group, which is about it's probably about 20 players who rotate in and out of our poker game. We have a chat group, and we used to just talk about cards and stuff like that, but very rapidly became, ah, place to share information about the virus and responsible was gonna happen. And the remarkable thing is that whatever we talk about ends up becoming like it's like everyone else's figures it out about a week or two later, and I think it has helped to stay about a week or two ahead of the curve on this thing. Has it? Has it generally been mentally reassuring, or has it amplified your anxiety talking about it all the time in that chat? Um, well, the interesting thing is that we have people in that chat who are very optimistic. People are very pessimistic. We have people in between that we have people who swing around quite a bit. And eso I think you get like, all the perspectives. Um and I think I guess my view of the future is that very hard to try and figure out what's gonna happen

? You have to think about in terms of scenarios on DSO the year the chat group helps, you know, understand, Like what those scenarios you know, might look like. So where would you describe each of us, then on the positive negative and then swinging your urine? Which camp are you swinging? Eso. So I think three's basics areas are V. U. And l and Jason. I would describe you as a za V. I think the moth is closer to the U, which is the most pessimistic Sorry that the l is the most pessimistic. And then the US sort of sarin between and, um, I I sort of swing between the u and the L. But But I also understand the case for the V Onda and those initials really refer to the shape of the recovery to come and how quickly we'll come out of this. So, David, before we drill down

into your beliefs on the future, let's talk about the past. Um, what do you think this entire episode has shown us? Whether it's from a public health perspective or an economic perspective. But how would you summarize your view of the world as it's been revealed to you in the past two months? Um, yeah. I mean, I think that, uh what what it really should. You know, we live most of our lives during, you know, these relatively calm periods, and then our lives get redefined by these, you know, apocalypse events. Um, and, uh and, you know, we're not really wired for this. This rate of change, I think it was Lenin who said something like, There's some decades when nothing happens. And there's some weeks where decades happen, and I think that that's basically what's happening here. And it feels like a little bit

. The last thing that was like this was 9 11, where, you know, you woke up that morning, saw the twin towers coming down on TV, and you realized that we were now in a different era. And something like that's happening here is well, just in slow motion. What do you think? Um, the government did right? And what do you think that the government did wrong? Well, I mean, um, you know, limiting the flights in from for Wuhan or China was a good initial step, but after that it seemed like the response was very slow and Onda sort of disbelieving and kind of incredulous. And And we've seen this basically everywhere the initial response of just about every country with a few notable exceptions in Asia that have previous experience with SARS. But But what we've seen in just about every country is that nobody believes is gonna happen to them until it happens to them. And then

even in the United States, um, you know it zits, like no one believes it's gonna happen in their city until someone in their social network gets gets the virus. And then all of a sudden they take it seriously. And so there's almost been this like it's like the slow moving train wreck where you see it coming, and people are just a little bit too slow to react. And, you know, the problem is it's all about the doubling time. So if the virus doubles, you know, every two or three days in the absence of any action at all, maybe even doubles every day in a very dense city like New York City. Just waiting two or three weeks can make 1000 ex difference. Um, in you know, it's somewhere between I guess, 10 x 10,000 x difference, depending on the doubling time. Whether if you wait two weeks or three weeks, um, I saw an article on There's a bunch of articles now talking about, um, Why has New York been hit so hard in California has been relatively mild. And, um and

the articles were saying, You know, California only declared shelter in place one week ahead of New York. How can it be doing so much better? And they're looking for all these different causes and explanations, and, you know, even one week makes a huge difference. If in New York, um, New York's been hit about 12 times harder than California. But if the doubling time is just two days, um, one week is a 12 x difference. That's how the exponential exponential reality works. And so, like being a week, you know, or two weeks or three behind the curve is incredibly costly. How do you break down um, local government versus federal government and the action there. And is America's architecture er with states rights and powers a benefit in this case, Or, um, is it a negative? Because we did see the blue states take it very seriously. The Red Stakes take it less seriously. The red States have a lot more distance between individuals, the blue states, than to be coastal cities. They're more dense

. Maybe you could handicap for us the spread of the virus with the layer on top of it of local governments and the political climate we're in. Yeah, I think you know the decentralized nature of the American system is both a blessing and a curse in this. In this type of situation, the curse is that has been very hard to create a unified national strategy. We're doing lockdowns piecemeal and s o that the lockdowns get forward as people move around between areas that are not locked down and start new operates very hard to control the virus that way, you know, we're also, um you know, we're also not able to act in in the authoritarian way that we saw China act and move on to control the virus for early on. But the blessing of decentralization is that's allowed. Um, you know, the governors of states to react on disallowed private companies to react. And it's a lot entrepreneurs to react. And you see a lot of people helping

in different ways and and and and And that can be that can make up for having kind of, ah mawr ineffectual, centralized response, which isn't likely toe work completely in a country the size. Anyway. Do you think that, um, the health apparatus of the United States, um, did its job? And where do you think the areas of opportunity are to improve? Well, if you're talking about the health system, it seems like the the health system has done a great job in reacting to the virus in terms of hospitalizations, you know, hospital adding hospital beds, adding, I see you capacity. Even in New York, it looks like e think Cuomo just said today that they've got you know, I see you capacity. They've got hospital beds. I think the hospital systems done a great job rapidly creating more capacity. We haven't seen a situation

like in Italy or even the UK where they're literally rational, uh, rationing ventilators and making horrible triage decisions about who is going to get a ventilator and who's not. You know, we haven't seen those types of horrors in the US, but, um but if my health system, we mean the FDA, the CDC, the W H O, which is part of the U. S. System, but we do rely on them to some extent. Um, you've just seen I think, you know, amazing. Um, really malpractice or negligence? If there are former company, I think they'd be sued. You have. You know, you have on the C. D. C. Website things that I haven't checked it today, but as of a few days ago are displayed only not true. I mean, saying that you only needed a mask If you are actually taking care of a person with with With cove in 19 that that standing say a 3 ft distance was sufficient. Um, that was sort of an acceptable

amount of social distancing. And even if the other person is coughing or sneezing, and that's not true, um, they're just saying things that weren't true. And then, you know, on the you know, the c d C and the surgeon general until basically the last few days were telling us that mask didn't work, were ineffective, didn't. And then now they flipped to recommending them. But they're still not required. And I just wrote a block today that I published about half an hour ago, that I thought the best part of that block post, by the way, it's up on medium and Saxes tweeted and I retweeted it. David is what you said at the end, which is we're taking the most draconian measure quarantining people, which we use this softer term shelter in place. But it's a quarantine. Call it what it is. You're not allowed to leave your house except under rare circumstances. Um, but we won't do the basic thing of wearing the mask. It makes no sense. And tomato, I think you had a really interesting question early on here, which I think we should all circle back on one more time

. Which is what is this? Reveal, right, like in this kind of crisis. And I love the statement of Sachs where you know, did some decades nothing happens, and then a week you have a decade happened. The thing that I am I think, is the big take away from me is handicapping who you can trust and what people's agendas are and how they behave in a crisis because there are a group of people building models. And what is the motivation of somebody who builds a model we think about? We all get pitched as investors, or when we worked inside of companies. We build models, and we know the models mean nothing. They're made by humans. And what's the motivation of somebody building a model in today's climate that then people adopt that model and there's life or death? What would you handicap? Would you go conservative? Would you go aggressive? Would you lean in tow, people dying in the case of supporting the economy on So the there's the model makers. There's the government, local and federal. You have the media who are trying to get clicks. In

some cases, you haven't capitalists who are trying Thio, you know, protect their book and their bets. How did we all look at and think about people's agendas and like the C. D. C. Having an agenda, the local government and the model makers having agenda, maybe you could take that one. Yeah. I, um I think that the masks issue is actually the most instructive thing in this whole debacle. Um, and the reason is that there was pretty obvious data very early on that it was, um, something that had unknown but pretty useful upside an absolutely zero deleterious downside. Right? So if you're thinking about risk management and I gave you some options, option one is do nothing. Option two is Here's some drugs that you could take prophylactically. And I don't really know the either

the efficacy or the long term damage to a broad based population of people taking them an option. Three was a piece of cloth over your nose and mouth. Yeah, and for 10 cents, and apparently at a minimum, it prevents other people from smelling your bad breath. But at a maximum, it prevents projectiles of disease, glade and spit getting into, or death vapor causing you to die. And and we couldn't agree that that was why. Why? Why is this? It was the agenda here because they didn't want people buying up the masks and not going to healthcare workers. Why couldn't we agree on something this simple because it was never about the N 95 masks. You could have worn a cloth mask. A tea cloth could have covered it up and giving you 70% efficacy. This has everything to do with incentives and everything to do with your other question as well, Which is like, you know how. Why do modelers

behave the way that they do? Um, all of this is about being taken seriously, and so to be taken seriously, you have to understand the incentives in the game that you're playing. So for a modeler and a forecaster, the incentive is all around being conservative, because that's how you're taken seriously. There's nobody that has any upside in showing a model that shows 10,000 people dying, all of the attention and the gravity with which you're taken. And the attention that you get is when you first put out a model that shows that two million people could die, which is what Imperial College did, and then eventually you walk it back and you walk it back and after the actuals exceed the forecast, then the data converges on what actually happens, and you see that these models were woefully inaccurate. It's the same with why the c d. C or the W H O. R. Just so completely

incompetent, because the incentives in those organizations are essentially to play their game. And that game is not one of public health. But it's one of politics, right? And so you have these people fighting each other over political territory and the right to basically make decisions versus the actual substance and the validity of the decision. David does that. Zack correlate with your thinking and then superimpose the media on top of that, Yeah, I mean, so I think there's a couple of things going on. One is that there is a huge culture clash going on between the people who need conclusive scientific proof before they're willing to recommend any course of action. Um, and then between other people who are willing to take a more experimental approach to try things Thio iterate the way that we do in startup land when confronted with kind of a, you know, company existential issues. Um, and

and the latter approach is smart when you know there's a lot of upside and trying something and not much downside, you know and the and the the other approach of this sort of this scientific, the pseudo scientific sounding approach where you're constantly demanding conclusive evidence. It's actually people pretending to be smart, you know, people who wanna sound smart, but it's actually a pretty dumb approach. And so we've seen this, like culture clash, playing out over and over again, Um, you know, and so experts to repeat it back to you. David Experts are afraid to do something experimental with low downside because they have reputations and they want to sound smart. Whereas entrepreneurs or maybe capitalists or other problem solvers, or perhaps even gamblers are going to say there's no downside here. What's the downside to putting a mascot? Nothing. Let's try it. The same thing with Clara Quinn and the Z Pak. Very early on, people were saying, like Ellen and other folks in our circle, why not? Just do

hold on a second? Hold on a second Clark win. Let's not put that in the same category point because it's a drug, Jason. It's a drug for malaria, Okay, But you have on the zero evidence No, no, just taking it. If you are, it's sick already. No, we still don't know. Let's be clear. Okay? So masks is a wholly different thing. This is why I said it that way. You If the minute you start to add drugs, you come off as, ah, armed your epidemiologist and anybody reasonably smart can poke holes in your theory. And you sound like a fucking moron. You cannot sound like a moron by telling people to wear cloth over their nose in their mouth. Okay, But the next step, if you were in the hospital and you've been diagnosed and they said, Hey, the doctor says you might want to try this There were people who were saying Don't even try it. And there was a direct correlation when Trump said he was behind it. It seems like the media and everybody were like, This is the worst idea ever. But but but this is your point, which is that the incentives of that game are to politicize things versus think about what's

in the best interests in the public health interests of either the United States or the world. But are we in agreement to try it? If you were if you were in the I C. U and they said, Hey, you want to try this? You wouldn't try it? No, but this is The problem is like the posture of the American and political infrastructure is broken. And moments like this shine a light on how broken it is because, as David said, all of the testing and iteration, all of those things are must have in peace time. They're nice toe halves in wartime. You don't have a timeto walk around and test fire a gun and make sure this works and that works. The enemy is in front of you. You shoot and you fire and you aim later. And in that posture we have toe have a set of rules that contemplate giving people at the ground floor on the border of you know where their life is at risk, the right to make a decision as well informed as it can

be about what they can try to do to save their life. And doctors need to be equally empowered. And, you know, we've effectively done that. But we just did it in fits and starts, and in that there is all of this noise that delays the right decision, which is not that hydrochloric one is good or bad, but it's that here's all the published data into the hands of the doctor who can actually read and understand it so that he or she and the patient could make a decision together. Yeah, agreed. Sex. What do your thoughts on Clark Win and the Z Pak and that whole sort of unraveling of this is the miracle? It's not the miracle it's worth looking at and how that debate occurred, Let's say on the Twitter on but also in our stream when we were talking well, Trump was not the first to embrace the potential hydroxy Clark win. Um, in fact, we were talking about in our chat group before you know, it became national news. Of course, once he did embrace it and became a political football

, and a lot of people want to prove him wrong. And so now it's hard to have a conversation about it without it becoming political. But the you know, the argument for Hydroxy Corcoran really started with some research papers that showed that it worked in vitro basically in test tubes against the virus on, but it worked against SARS. Um, you know, which is Ah related sort of category virus. I'm not I'm not an expert. Everything this is just sort of, you know me. Tell you what I what I know is a consumer of information on DSO. It was not crazy to think this is something that should be tried in the context of covert 19. Now, we don't know if it's gonna work or not. I saw an interesting presentation by U. C s F. And there are working theory on it is that is that hydroxy Clarkson plus z Pak might have some impact in the first week of the virus when before peak viral replication takes place. And this might

help interfere with the virus replicating once you're in respiratory distress. Distress, though, and it's in your lungs. You have your into a different phase of this, and they don't believe that they think you need to look at other things. So So it sounded like this was a potentially valid treatment and we won less effectively to And, you know, by week three when you're in severe a R d s, you know, it's you gotta find other things. So, um, you know, in terms of like what the right policy is. Um you know this, You know, I'd be in favor of the right to try. I mean, ultimately, we should let patients and doctors make this decision together and eso you know, I think the FDA did the right thing, giving emergency trialing authorization. Two doctors to be able thio, try this with their patients. And And what I think is happening is that there's you sort of rapid, decentralized

information sharing happening among doctors and hospitals. And, you know, I think they're getting to the right answer here. Okay. Do we feel comfortable moving on to financial implications of this, or are there things about the modeling on upside downside? I agree with Jamaat that I dropped the clerk wins a little bit more complicated mass or sort of the really unambiguous one. It's just so easy there. So just cloth cotton. You literally could put a band of your underwear. You could use your own underwear and just put it across your face. I mean, this is what's so insane that David's right. I remember having this argument with someone because on the CDC website, as David said, it would only recommend it. Not as a preventative measure for you. But if you are old, you should use the mask on Lee. If you were treating somebody with Covad 90 there's such an element of these authorities trying to manage us, you know? You know, I really

hate that. That I mean, I do think that they thought about will we create a run on mass? Well, you know that that that they don't want to tell us the truth because they're afraid of some of the consequences of telling us the truth. And, you know, I hate that feeling of being lie to by public officials because they're trying to manage. I'm willing to be infantile by people that are smarter than me. Yeah. So can you give us a list of the four people you think are smarter than you? Go ahead, Traumatic given And I am not one of those four people and tiled by nameless bureaucracies. And I think that Americans deserve to not be infantile. I mean, for the amount of money that we pay and the amount in taxes and the amount of power that we give folks. The one thing that I'm realizing through. This whole thing is like, you know, the It is true in some respect that the countries that had some level of authoritarian management did well. But it's also true that the countries that had robust civil service

is filled with people who are at the top of their class. Also did well Singapore, South Korea, where it is a stature. It's a point of pride to work for the government, where it's some of the best jobs Japan. And and so you know, one of the things that that I realized is like career bureaucrats. Um, really do infantile Americans in a way that's really unproductive and unhealthy. I mean, you know it. Doesn't it surprise you and kind of like perturb you that the ex head of the FDA is way more prominent and outfront with his point of view than the current head of the FDA. I mean, what the hell is going on? I think what we know is going on is I mean, Trump was elected and he dismantled some of this and the system is broken. I heard it. I think No, I think that that's unfair. And you know I'm not. I'm not a big Trump supporter, but I think it's unfair depended on him. The reality is, maybe he defunded or underfunded a bunch of things. But the hollowing out

of our institutions have been happening for 40 years, and it's hot started with Reagan to be clear, because we tilted the scales towards free market, trickle down economics, where government was viewed as a stop for really smart people to inject themselves into industry at higher levels. Or it was a place that's, you know, capable people would never go because capitalism, the way that it was structured, was set up in such an aggressive, tilted manner for those that were capable. And unfortunately, it hollowed out the government from people that were really strong of character in a broadly speaking kind of way. And so what happens is that then bureaucracies form the incentives change on. Do you get what you have gotten right now, which is again, uh, it is a, uh it is a point of argument on something as simple and frankly, idiotic has a mask

. Okay, let's move on to talking about the economy and David, You've been quite a heretic, uh, on Twitter because you decided to engage in the one conversation you're not allowed to have, which is talking about people's livelihood as opposed to their lives. You could Onley keep one thought in your mind as faras. The kind of woke far left is concerned. And the Twitter mobs you could on Lee talk about people in life death. You can't talk about their livelihood. But you've been talking and starting a dialogue on how you would structure teams in a startup for how do we deal with the crisis versus how do we go back to work? So explain how you would do this if this was a startup company. If you were doing it on an entrepreneurial level, um and what you think the road looks like? Let's start with San Francisco Bay Area and then we'll extrapolated to the most acute area in America. New York. Yeah

, well, the big question that everyone is gonna be asking by the end of April is what now? Because I do think you're already seeing this in the New York data that quarantines work. But that shouldn't be a total surprise to us. Historically, quarantines have always worked. I mean, quarantines were the way that people dealt with plagues when they didn't have any technology. Um, it's the problem is just they're incredibly costly. And, um, if the quarantine goes on for months is the only way of dealing with the virus, then you know, we could be looking at the Depression. So the so the question really is, you know, once we've arrested the exponentially of the virus and i e think we have to do that first. Um, but once we've arrested the exponentially, the big question is gonna want. Now, how do we get out of this? And, um, what I worry about is that the daily update mentality. You know, I think it's great that our leaders are giving us these daily updates showing that they they're showing a bias

for action, which I think is good, but I worry that we're not gonna be ready, that this precious time that we're buying with quarantine is not gonna lead to a better plan in May because no one's really working on that plan. They're just working on sort of the triage that the immediate response, the making, sure that that you know hospitals around the country have the ventilators of beds they need and we put in the order. Why is it, David that people can't keep these two parallel processes in their mind at once? You've been attacked viciously on Twitter. The media attacks. Anybody who brings us up is like only caring about capitalism. When it in fact, you need to do both plans. You need to figure out how people get back to their livelihood, and we avoid a depression which would kill more people ultimately, right? I mean, I think there's consensus about that, whether it's depression or suicide, etcetera, or people not being able to feed themselves or, um, you know, have nutritious food and health care. So why can't people put

these two things in their mind at once? On then? Let's talk about the actual plan. If you were planning and you were the mayor of San Francisco or you were in Trump's Cabinet, they said, Okay, David, you make the plan for the Bay Area to go back to work, take us through your 123 and then we'll throw to Gemma. What? What I would do is like I would do what I would do in a company for a product releases. I'd have, you know, in a company and have a product manager for the one daughter release and have a different product manager for the two dot release. Because it's very hard for, you know, somebody to be all in on two different leases which have two different schedules. So, um, you know, I think the team that we have right now that's basically concerned with the immediate response, the triage that should keep doing what they're doing. Make sure that you know the country's reacting the right way that has all the supplies they need that you know, the berating three m into giving us more PPE or whatever it is. But I think that there should be a separate team kind of, Ah a, um you know, a czar for the two point of response

, which should be focused on How do we create a new system that gets us out of lock down but doesn't, um, re trigger the exponentially the virus? And I think that that person in that team should be ready to slide the new system into place in May. I don't know if it's beginning of May and, um a whatever. But sometime in May, he should be ready to slide that new system into place. So that this precious time we're buying isn't wasted. Give us your 1231 is masks. Obviously, I would think massive total, no brainer. So that's number one. Give us your 234 if you if you're one of riff here a little bit, Yeah, I mean, the other elements of the plan that people keep talking about itt's, you know, rapid ubiquitous testing. I mean, you have and you have to have same day results, things business of it taking 234 days in the lab. The problem is, if someone is infected, they'd be passing it on during that time. You don't you don't. You don't isolate them in time. So we have to have massive, ubiquitous same day

testing along with contact tracing, so that when you do find out that somebody's got it, you can not isolate not just them, but all of their contacts. That's the system that seems to have worked in South Korea. Um, and I mean, those seems to be the pillars and his quarantining the high risk. Um, during this first phase of the rollout with testing, social distancing and masks. Um, that that seems to be the no brainer. I would add fourth bullet point, which is, if you're obese, diabetic asthma or some combination of those in over 60 and or over 60. You got to stay home now, and you cannot be in touch with anybody who's out in the bat and part of that first wave to go back to society. Right? We know that certain segments of the population are a much higher risk than than others. And so part of having a more fine tuned response to the virus other than just shutting everything down would say, Well, let the people who are at very, very low risk

go back out. Still wearing mass and having the right protocols and hygiene and all that, all that stuff. But, um, but but you keep the high risk population isolated rather than shutting down the entire economy. Alright, Chamot, if you're on the board of directors and David was the star of the May plan to go back, how would you? What questions would you have for him? And how critical can you be of his plan. Let's make this as if we were actually in charge to moth Savage David's plan. Well, I I probably would push David to consider, um, or aggressive approach here. And, um, this is something that I've talked about before. Jason, you and I have talked about this on the podcast before, but, um, we need ah, biological Patriot Act. Um, I know that it's unpalatable for people on the left for certain reasons and people on the right for other reasons, but it just doesn't matter what they think. Um, it was reported today, by the way

that the C. D. C. And the task force at the White House is considering immunity cards. Um, but a much more beefed up version of them these things need to be, um, cards that have, you know, some kind of chip inside them, that air non hackable and issued by the government. But, you know, my what I would push David to think about if he was the czar of getting back to work is the following, which is, um I agree with the broad based testing. Um, I think that you need to have some kind of, you know, wristband that allows you thio be inside of certain green zones and in every single city or town in the country that allow you thio, you know, some way be back to normal. Um, but there also needs to be red zones where you cannot We need to have a very, very quick way of restarting a quarantine if there are hotspots that developed. But all

of it needs to be supported by broad based testing and a biological Patriot Act. We do need to have immunity cards, and the simple basic reason is that it is the only way that one can prioritize the economic salvation of the U. S. Economy. Because I think once we have paid the cost from the public health perspective, which we're doing at the end of this quarantine in flattening the curve or crushing the curve, our immediate focus has to be in resuscitating the GDP of this country because otherwise the number of deaths and the number and the amount of pain that that is caused by economic destruction will far outnumber the number of people that die from this, which is tragic already. And the only way that I conceive for us to do that in a scalable way is with a Nim Unity card. Uh, a biological Patriot Act. So I would be pushing David to think about that and rip the band aid off and get that done. And, David, I would also

push you on thinking about, um, quarantining not just at home, but maybe by region and hot zone. So if we know the New York corridor or the Northeast corridor is severely infected, nobody in or out of that corridor without a visa without. And I know this is a very touchy issue. Well, in terms of civil liberties, But until we're through this, I don't see why people from New York need to go to Florida without maybe a rare exception. Or, um, you know something to that effect, right? So if we know we got California out of it or if so, Cal is still in the thick of it, but nor Cal isn't Maybe we have some level of testing required to get on a flight to come to San Francisco or to go toe leave New York. So those air to ah, to punch ups. How would you look at those David as the news are of getting back to work. E think it's all on the table. I mean, I like the green Zone Red zone idea. I like I like using immunity information. We've been talking in our check group for

, I think, a month about the blood serology tests. I tweeted. I took one of those tests weeks ago. I think, like, three weeks ago, before the FDA and even approved it. And I tweeted about it. Um, so yeah, I think all that I think the community cars I think we should use all that information. I mean, it would all be on the table for sure, but I But I think most of all these ideas tied together and took coherent system. And I'm worried that our approach to date has been so at hawk that we're not gonna have a coherent system, right to go as a replacement to shutdowns in May when we need it is part of this You talked before about how you didn't like to be managed. I think we all agree were being managed a massage because they really do not want to even talk to us about going back to work. in May or what happens because they're afraid that we're going to jump the gun and we're all going to just go to Chrissy Field or, you know, whatever park or Central Park and just

threw a giant party. But people are not stupid. There's a There's a certain self preservation here that should be inherent in all these discussions, which is, you know, any reasonable person watching the death toll in New York does not want to leave their house. Um and so why can't how much of the lack of discussion about this issue do you think David is? Because people are afraid to treat people like adults because they think they're going to just go out to Chrissy Field Or, you know, Dolores Parque. No, I mean, I think you're right, that there was this long period of time where three authorities were just trying to get everyone to buy into the idea that the virus was dangerous. They needed to shelter in place, and they didn't want Thio here. Any views that that that appeared to be contradicted, I don't think they were contradicting it. Um you know, I remember when the Imperial College study came model came out and they said that 2.2 million people die in the U. S. And I tweeted that I thought that number was

insane. It was fearmongering on. But I think you know that's turned out to be the case. Um, but, you know, people responded, Well, good. I mean, even if it is for your modern, we need to make people afraid, because otherwise they won't do the right things. Um, I guess that's true. In a situation in which we're relying on everyone's voluntary compliance, Thio engage in a quarantine or to wear masks. And I guess part of the response here is to figure out what what what action items should not be voluntary that we just need to do in order to get past this Mafia. That's, um I think that, um, getting back to work is going to be much, much more difficult than people think. I think that in the absence of a vaccine, which, um, looks like at best, 18 to 24 months from now, we will never get to 100% of where we were before, or at least the potential to be a 100% on DSO. I just think that over

the next two years we're in for a tremendous amount of difficulty, and this is sort of where, you know, I'd like to shift the conversation. I think that, you know, we've now poured between the United States government and the Fed. Almost $10 trillion. Um, we smeared it, um, into the economy. And only three cents of every dollar has gone into people's pockets. And I think we're hoping that the other 97 cents somehow trickles down into their pockets in some way, shape or form. Now, when you look at that 97 cents, half of it was, you know, things like propping up the commercial paper market, propping up the repo market. Um, but it's also been things like propping up investment grade debt, propping up high yield debt. Um, and I have a really issue with this because I think that if we're going to take two years to get back to normal, and I really do think it's two years because Jason, a lot of the fears that you expressed

people will have as lingering doubts and will prevent them from being at 100% which means businesses will not be 100% until you could get an injection and know that you're protected. Um, we're doing an enormous amount of damage because we're taking trillions of dollars in flooding it into the economy in a way that's just not going to be effective. And I don't think that we're taking enough time to really think through these things. So, you know, on the one hand, while I appreciate the velocity or not, the velocity, the intention, you know, like I think Jerome Powell's commentary, Um I applaud, which is like, You know, he's saying all the right things, which is we will do everything possible. Um, but the lending program to companies has been haphazard and difficult, But it did get started in three weeks, and some people have gotten money in Week four of this. I mean, it's pretty incredible. No, you know, the numbers that I've read is that, you know, on average, the loans air turning out to be sort of like, you know, in the tens of thousands. And on top of that, you know, David and I talked about

this in the group chat, but the math makes it so that you're better off furloughing or letting people go than you are taking P p p. Which means that a lot of this money, um, may never get taken. Um, and so you know, But again, all of that is still a small rounding here. We're talking about less than 10 cents on the dollar. 90 cents of the dollar have gone into areas that will not really touch, um, a Knave Ridge, American citizen. And I think that's just fundamentally wrong, because the trickle down theory of all of this, you know, was started 40 years ago, and we can see now that it doesn't work. David, Any thoughts on the stimulus? Well, I think I think what's happened is that we have a 30% hole in our economy right now. You've got, you know, like a 15% unemployment rate going toe going to 25 or 30. Maybe as high as that. We don't know yet. You've got a You know, we think that GDP is gonna contract in the next

quarter by a quarter to a third. And so you've got this giant hole in the economy. And what the Fed and Treasury trying to do is plug that hole, Um, for a period of time, until they get through this this this health crisis and, um and if the crisis only last a few months, maybe they could hold it all together. But I do worry that if it lasts longer, it's gonna slip out of their hands. And and the result is going to be a cascade of defaults and bankruptcies and on and effectively, a great unraveling of our economy. Yeah, I think that I think that the unfairness like this is where I think bankruptcy, it's almost viewed, is a four letter word. But it's not. And in many ways, the bankruptcy process could actually be the saving grace of American business in this moment. And the reason I say that is that it allows in a bankruptcy these companies to discharge a lot of the debt

. And we could set up a mechanism where these bankruptcies could be done in a way where again, similar to taking P p p. You don't let people go. You know a percentage of the of the cap table must go to the pensions. If they have them, a certain percentage of the cap table must go to employees. Um, and then the remaining percentage goes to the secured ball on holders. And so the existing equity holders and the unsecured bondholders would effectively, um, you know, not be made whole. But in that all the employees would be. And if you combine that with, ah, you be I program where you put look in the United States economy Onley $8 trillion is wages. So you know, we could do so much, Um, if we had given every United States citizen their absolute salary of 2019. Right now, we still have two trillion left to bail out companies. And everybody could take a year and get paid, like, literally have a year sabbatical on people

. I think what it really does is it guarantees the chances or it maximizes. Sorry. The chances of the consumer led recovery, like the United States, has never been an economic system that's been vibrant because of government spending or other things. We've always been vibrant because we've been consumer led. It's consumer consumption and its customers of companies buying products that they need or want that drive the economy forward. And if you think about our largest customer base there, the U. S. Population. And by guaranteeing their revenue, so to speak, you actually allow them to then spend. Once they get out of quarantine and you'll see them spend even in fits and starts in this way, you know, you could spend $500 billion buying a bunch of junk debt. I really don't see as a reasonably, you know, savvy participant in the markets. How it actually helps anything. Um, I think all it does is it saddles you and me and all of our listeners with

a bunch of toxic junk debt that eventually has to get sold by the Fed. As David said in the grand unraveling. And it would be more healthy market would wouldn't it be more healthy, David, um, to allow a certain percentage of these companies, the weaker ones, to fail so that the stronger ones could then pick up those employees and there'll be some stability. And I'm curious if you think that we're gonna be living in a world where people have speculated about this, maybe some. The individual consumer changes their perspective. And maybe people come out of this crisis with a different world view. I don't necessarily subscribe to this, but Matthew do we've had this conversation, and so I'm curious, David, if you think the American consumer will forever change and maybe they upgrade their phone half assed much they, you know, spend less and and they basically live a more modest rural lifestyle. And people maybe stay out in Tahoe or Colorado wherever they went during this crisis. Where your thoughts Well, you're really talking about Depression era values

. And, um, the problem is, if we acquire those values via depression, that that would be a pretty bad outcome here. So But, yes, that could happen. Um, you know, I think where I agree with Jamal is that I think that, um even though the federal government, the Fed, the Treasury have a tremendous amount of firepower in a situation like this, it may not be inexhaustible. And we have to kind of pick and choose and prioritize who's going to get, um, aid and who's gonna get bailouts? And right now it feels a little bit willy nilly. Um, you know, and it feels like it. Under those circumstances, the bailouts default to the people who are politically connected and powerful. A supposed to the workers, The pension funds, You know, the Main Street small business owner who's worked their whole life on the business and all of a sudden, eyes underwater. Andi

, I think you know, it's it's it's gonna be very hard to get the to the right people look in the last four weeks in the last four weeks. Oh, sorry. In the last week, this is an incredible set. I apologize. In the last week, the amount of distressed debt in the U. S. Has quadrupled in one week to a trillion dollars. So as an example to David's point, Um, that's much more visible to Jay Powell Or to Steve Mnuchin, um, in the Fed and the Treasury than, um than it is that, you know, thousands and thousands of nameless, anonymous small business who owns this is what can you give an example of what that debt would be for the listeners? You sure? Just, uh I mean, so you know, I mean, a fallen angel today is Ford. So we we're not we're not gonna pick on four, but we're just gonna point to it as a well known company. So This is a car manufacturer. Um, they employ

hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people. Um, in very important political states. Um, you know, uh, Michigan, uh, Ohio, I think Tennessee probably, Um, but Ohio and Michigan, obviously critical state Andi, they, you know, issue debt, uh, into the market to fund, you know, building factories or buying equipment. Who buys that debt? Um, pension funds by the debt, family offices by the debt, hedge funds by the debt. Um, now those guys were giving out a coupon and they were playing, Let's just say four or five or 6% a year on this interest. But now, because of all this economic uncertainty, people think that their ability to pay that back has gone way down. And so now they have to issue that a TMA each higher interest rates and the existing debt has a much lower credit quality. It's effectively, like you having a

credit card and, you know, American Express calling you and saying, Jason, I think the odds of you paying your credit card balances have gone way down. So I'm increasing your interest rate to 24% from 17%. Yeah, and then I get another credit card to pay it off, and and so essentially, what's happened is the Federal Reserve has decided to become that next credit card issuer. What could go wrong out of doing it for you? They're doing it for companies, but not for you. And the question is, is that okay? Well, at some level, companies like Ford should be saved because I think these are iconic businesses that employ hundreds of thousands of people and their critical lynchpins in the economy. Right, because they have a massive supply chain network and you know they're really important for many other things beyond just the economics that they themselves represent. But there are better ways to help Ford. You could lend forward as much money as they needed to meet their short term obligations, similarly

to the way that the Federal Reserve would allow a bank to borrow from the from their window. And I think that that's a very reasonable approach. The question is really when the Fed then basically acts as a buyer of last resort and obfuscates the price of these bonds and essentially saying the American taxpayer will own these bonds for the foreseeable future. If you think that at some point those bonds that you bought for you know, 90 cents on the dollar are worth 90 cents on the dollar than everything is okay. But if there's a chance that 90 cents goes to 70 cents, the people that really eat that cost are us in the short term and our Children in the medium. And I have a silly question. It's obviously not my wheelhouse. Corporate debt like this. Why wouldn't there be a clause that if they didn't pay back that 90 cents on the dollar that the American government bought before it converts into equity in the company? It's a great question because the Federal

Reserve has chosen to go and essentially the equivalent of open an e trade account and step into the markets by themselves and just by So they're buying bonds and they're buying, um, individual bonds, and they're buying indices that control or that that have exposure to certain bonds. What they're not doing is going directly to these companies and negotiating essentially saying I will give you four or $5 billion and what I want you to do is retire that old debt and replace it with this new instrument. And here are the terms of this new instrument the United States taxpayer gets, you know, 3% or 4% warrant coverage of the company. You know, you must make sure that the pension holders and no brainer Why wouldn't we have those clauses? Is basic blocking and tackling that, you know, seat funds have David Sacks. What he why is this not like a no brainer? Well, I mean, I think we've got to get a good deal for taxpayers. I mean, Jamaat has said it. I've heard Mark Cuban say it pretty

eloquently, argued Trump say that we have to get a good deal for taxpayers. I just think that they're in such an emergency. They're not really taking the time to do that. They're you know, they're there trying to do things they could do immediately. Yeah, the the forgivable nous of these of this money to me is the thing. I don't understand. Why is any of it forgivable? Why isn't any all of it just, you know, a 10 year law or 20 year long loan that converts into equity over some crunches. But Jason, this is Why? If you're if you're going to haphazardly fire trillions of dollars out of a bazooka, why not give more than three cents on the dollar to average Americans? Why not put it into the pockets of every single bank account? You know, you know, who knows, uh, how much everybody made the I. R s does. And you know, the I. R. S has a mailing address for everybody. And the I r s either gets a check or males to check to every single taxpayer in the United States, which and they also have direct deposit for half of the people. And so, you know, there's nothing stopping us from saying, Well, you know

what? Why don't we do 10% 10 cents of every dollar? Why don't we do 15 cents of every dollar to Americans? I really think this is the way that you limit the amount of waste that's going to happen. So the intention isn't wrong. And we shouldn't castigate people for wanting to put money in the system, as David said to plug the hole. But we can't be so haphazard as to not think about the moral hazards were creating and try to fix them in real time, and so this 10 trillion has already gone out the door. But if the next trillion or two don't touch Americans, I think it's going to create an enormous amount of damage. We've only given people a few weeks of a lifeline, and they need Mawr. And you can't tell companies that they can have effectively a limitless lifeline, but not the individuals, because I do think at some point companies will find a way to get out of these loans

and or break the covenants with not much repercussion. Okay, I want to wrap with to sort of not doomsday scenarios, But I wanna touch on politics. And I also want to know in the chance that this quarantine goes on for May and June. In other words, San Francisco says, You know what? We're gonna keep going, and we're gonna in New York says We're keeping going, and we're talking about not just April being in quarantine, but may end or June and we're looking at June 1st or July 1st. What are the chances, David that people say You know what, I am a free person. I want to take my take my life into my own hands. I wanna make my own decision. I'm going out. I'm gonna go surfing. I'm gonna do this. And we have this social unrest and how to politicians handicapped that in this new world, I think that could happen. I mean, particularly among young populations who are not at risk as much, you know, for the

relatively younger, healthier people who don't have co morbidity factors could say, Look, I've got a one in 1000 chance or you know, or less of dying if even if I do get this, um and I'm just going to take that chance. But it's all the more reason why I think we need a strategy to get out of lock down that already includes three idea of letting out these these people who are a much lower risk and and isolates the people who are at higher risk and against the you have anything to add to that came off that kind of doomsday scenario or that eventuality. Well, I think that you're very right, Jason, that I don't think we're going to get out of lock down until June 1st at the earliest. Andi, I think that's in California. I think nuisance posture is basically that if April looks like the curves are thinking, it's gonna be mid made a late May before he lifts this thing. I don't know if I e and but but it's it's also

important that that we understand. Like, you know, we just talked about companies. The only entity that's in even worse shape than companies and people, our states and cities and counties. Yeah, they're dead is incredible. They have no revenue and massive revenue, massive costs, and they're non profits. And think of the the, you know, the garbage collector, the fireman, the police officer, the teacher thes air like these are the backbones and the pillars of our community. It's such a good thing that we were so resilient and we thought ahead and built up massive surpluses in our tax base is Oh, wait, we didn't do that. Well, there, there, there there were there were some provisions to do that thes rainy day funds. But those were gonna get exhausted, and, uh, you know, we're gonna have to bail those guys out as well. So this is what I'm saying, Which is that when you're pumping in trillions of dollars haphazardly into the capital markets before you think about people or you think about the states and cities and communities in America. I just think it's a recipe for disaster

. Let me ask this even more simply, David. Under what circumstance would you be willing to go back to our poker game on a Monday night and have 67 of us around a table sharing a meal on playing cards for six hours? Well, if there was, if there was, ah, treatment for for the virus so that you knew that if you got it, you work out a dye that would be a big deal. Uh, there's a Russian roulette aspecto the virus right now or even if your odds are low, you know you still want to take the chance. Um, I think the next thing that would probably help with would be that if we had this rapid, ubiquitous testing so I could know that the people who are in the room with me, um, are we're all tested and we're all negative and, you know, they could repeat that the test on a frequent enough basis that we could all trust the result. That would make a big difference, I think. All right

, let's wrap with politics. All of this is occurring in an election year. Um, Bernie is out of the race. Biden is doing a daily Webcast. Trump's ratings are through the roof as he is, uh, more than willing to let us all know in his abhorrent, narcissistic way, that his ratings are just tremendous right now in the middle of thousands of Americans dying a day. Um, but we have to touch on this because elections are how we govern and make these decisions is by who we put into these positions. So what do we think? Let's just make odds here. Odds that Trump wins again. Odds that Biden wins. If you had to lay the odds if you had to give it a percentage or you want to set a line What? What do you what? Do your thoughts, David. Um, I always think that these things are basically a coin flip

. I mean, this far out e mean right now, it seems like, um, you know, Trump's ratings have never been higher. He's pulling relatively well on Biden just seems completely irrelevant. But if we're still dealing with the virus by November, if we cycled in and out of walk down if we have kind of an unresolved situation if the economy is in a very, very deep recession or depression, I think you know it Z up for grabs. Jamaat. I think that if if there is a V shaped recovery of any kind, Trump will win in a landslide right now we are in a V shaped recovery. The market has come back or not. No, we're not. Well, if you use the market and market now, the market is the market is completely decoupled from Main Street. And so what Wall Street does is irrelevant right now, What I mean by recovery is what happens on Main Street. Uh, because if you have 16 17 2022% unemployment

, e mean you could feel the prancing dog and he'll be trump. Yeah, so I think that, uh, the president needs, um, uh, massive victory here. So what does the game theory say? The game theory probably says that he'll try to force people to go back to work as quickly as possible. And if there's even a motor come a shred of evidence on some kind of, you know, therapeutic. They'll, you know, drum it up like it's, um, like it secure and try to confuse people that there's a vaccine. Um, but I think he needs that because in the absence of that, again, I just go back to How difficult will it be to start real life? I think it's going to be difficult. And I think in that, um, people won't have a lot of patients for the fact that, you know, the debt will have ballooned, deficits will have ballooned, trillions of dollars will have gone out the door and people will

be meaningful e struggling going into election day. I don't think that that helps trump at all. And you know, by the way, and we'll talk about this in our next podcast, cause we should probably get a Nikon amiss to talk about it. But you know what is putting $10 trillion or whatever the final number is? It will probably be 20 trillion, you know, 11 times US GDP. What does that do to the economy? What does that do to long term inflation? Like if you see what I mean, doesn't that what Japan did? And they went through a lost decade or two? No, I think the best better example is what happened in China, which is a combination of fiscal and monetary stimulus in 2009 and 10. And the results are basically a lot of fake growth and massive inflation. Um, and so you know, it's it's probably useful to debate that in the next in the next pod. What are the chances? I think it creates a lot of risk for Trump. What are the chances of a dark horse candidate? Yeah, in in on the 00 So it's Biden for sure. Yeah. Barring

a Biden health emergency. Yeah, he is. Yeah, he's, you know, not a spring chicken. So? So either person, either person gets coronavirus. It could be Yeah, well, no. Look, if anything happened to him, Look, I'm way should even talk about these possibilities. I don't want to sound like, you know, it's not like no one wants this to happen, But look, I think Jamal is right. They're not gonna replace the head of the ticket absent. You know, something health wise happening. What is your game? theory, then on how Trump will play this because in Che Matt's mind getting back to work earlier, um, makes it seems like we're getting back to normal. And he did that. But a politician might also say, You know what? I think there's a chance of the second wave, so I want to keep a closed until June or July 1st, then time it. And I know this sounds incredibly cynical that a elected official would make health and economic policy decisions on their reelection. But

that is the reality we live in, is it? Not sure, Of course. Um, I think the next big political debate is is gonna be around this. What now? You know. Yes, The quarantines have arrested the exponentially the virus. But how do we get out of them? And, um and you know, Trump's gonna have to make a decision about when and how we get out. And he's gonna be eager t get out of lock down toe to restart the economy. But on the other hand, if he missed times it and we cycle, you know, the virus then takes off again and we cycled package on the other lock down that's that's very dangerous for him politically too. So, um, he's got a needle toa threat there. I agree. I agree with Jemaah that if if this ends up being v shaped, um, Trump is a shoe in, um, But if it ends up being a recession, a deep recession or depression, if we end up, then I think the question is gonna be Does he appear to be

Maurin? The Is he Is he a Hoover, or is he more in Boulder Oven? FDR, you know, and well, I mean so So whoever took took the blame for the Great Depression. FDR gets elected in 1932. We're still in the Great Depression in 1936 when he gets reelected, you know, and because he's seen as a za man of action, he does these fireside chats and he's doing things. And and I do think that, you know, Trump kind of pivoted from initially being a little bit flat footed on the virus now doing these daily briefings. And I think the American public is giving him credit for action right now. And so that s O. Obviously if those actions work, I think he gets reelected. And if they don't work, the question is, you know, Does he get blame for that? Is it Is he a Hoover, or is he an FDR? Alright. On that note, um, encourage

everybody thio wear masks. Social distancing on for those people in the audience who are start ups and investors, um, keep keep the faith, keep investing, keep starting companies. Never a bad time to start a great company in my mind, Onda, uh, came off any final thoughts. Here we are. It's Ah, what is today's date is I know it's April. I think it's somewhere around the 10th. Um, I even 10. It's Friday, right? April 10th. Lett's just make a decision, uh, to be all in on masks, all in masks, all in on masks, um, and take it into our own arms. We don't need to be told that these things make sense. They make sense. You're an idiot. If you think otherwise, David. Closing. Keep watch. What other thoughts totally agree That that was my block today? Um, we shouldn't have to make it the law, but I think we should, because they're so people who aren't adopting it. But it's the lowest cost thing we can do. And if

you look at the Asian countries have controlled the virus. Every single person wears a mask when they go out in public. Every single person is a simple no brainer. Give people $1000 fine. If you're not wearing a mask, give him a warning first and hand of a mask. Like literally. The cop should have masks, and they should hand them to stay. Put this mask on. And if I see you again you get $1000 fund. The post office should put one or a number of these in everyone's mailbox. Um, this is the first step Thio having, um, or fine tune policy than just quarantine. And if we can't even get this right, then you know, I I fear for for what's coming next If you there's a great execution idea, the mail carriers, every mail carrier leaves them. And then you could also get the private sector. Do you tell every UPS FedEx driver uh, the government gives them those masks? Amazon, Amazon. They just all have it. Hey, Jeff, somebody clip this and said It's Jeff Jeff, if you want to do a mitzvah. Uh, give Aled these masks to the drivers and just leave masks on everybody's doorstep

and forget about Trump and whatever government officials gonna drag their heels on it. Go ahead. You do it. Jeff Bezos on. Hey, how great was Jack giving away a billion dollars? I mean, we saw him get barbecued on social media, but what a strong move, huh? And he's gonna you put it into Google Sheet. He's like, Here's made this and made the heat open. I mean, it's the strongest move ever. It's like, you know, everybody. You know, I've I've always been very skeptical of philanthropy because I feel like it's, you know, ah, dalliance of the established rich in North America because they like to have their names on things. And here's a guy who just basically po owned all of that. I don't need a hospital with my name on it. I don't need a building with my name on it. Here's a billion dollars, and here's a Google spreadsheet to track it, which means I'm gonna have zero in, you know, overhead and running it. I mean, it's it's so strong. It's literally like he the only thing that could be stronger if he connected it to a stripe account. And like as he as he swiped his credit card is just It's just so strong, zap ear that tweets it. I mean, he has a Google

doc, which is set so that everybody could read it at all times. I mean, for a billion dollars, it's just amazing. You should start a slack instance with, like each of those nonprofits having a completely, By the way, he completely poem the giving pledge in one fell swoop. Three. Giving pledge which nobody has any. It's pretty opaque now. It's just like it's basically pretend you're going to give your money away. We don't need to know how much you don't really need to do it. There's no accountability, but we have this fun party once a year. We can all hang out and you know, how is the party's except each other? I haven't cited outside tree like the giving much. Yeah, so stupid. It's like the sign of insecurity. Uh, Sacks, IPU. Thanks for coming on The pod. Rain man. We appreciate it. Love you, Sacks IPU. We love you, Sacks. IPU. Love you, Jake. Love you. to trauma STC We love you on, uh, everybody stay safe. Seriously. And I just want to close, wear a mask, wear a mask. And to those people on the front lines the janitors, the Google, the Amazon drivers, insta cart, people in the food supplies you

are the best. It's amazing what you're doing. What a sacrifice. Get the money to them. Yeah, and I seriously give the Amazon Let us tip those drivers in our get the money to them for sure. Double the pay. Okay, We'll see you all next time. Bye bye.

E2: Rebooting the economy, understanding corporate debt, steps to avoid a depression & more with David Sacks
E2: Rebooting the economy, understanding corporate debt, steps to avoid a depression & more with David Sacks
replay_10 forward_10