SPEAKER_03: It was very interesting going to Saxe's kids birthday party. Freeberg and I were there for about two or three hours. Saxe showed up for the last half hour.
SPEAKER_04: I think I was there for two hours and didn't see Saxe and then I saw him on my way out the door. But he had some YouTuber
SPEAKER_03: there who were pretty cool. Yeah, Papa Jake and Logan. Thank
SPEAKER_01: Papa Jake was great. Yeah, you know, they have 7 million
SPEAKER_01: followers on YouTube. Eat your heart out. J. Cal. How many times bigger is Papa Jake than you? Business and podcasting on
SPEAKER_03: YouTube is a new concept. Long Form and Long Form is not what the algorithms designed for. So obviously it's run for short form and people getting to completion. So getting to completion on a 90 minute video. Are we talking about lovemaking
SPEAKER_02: again? Sorry. Jesus. When I say completion, I was not. We need an HR
SPEAKER_03: department at all. I prefer the short form format for that too.
SPEAKER_01: These are called open folks.
SPEAKER_03:
SPEAKER_03: Hey, everybody, welcome to another episode of the All In podcast. It's episode 56. We've made it past 55. The show of the band is still together coming to you every Friday night far too late because the Rain Man obsesses over every edit in the podcast with us again. The All In Scorsese himself, David Rain Man, Sax and the queen of Kenwa, the Sultan of Science, David Friedberg is here and with a power sweater that cost no turtleneck, turtleneck, I'm sorry, power turtleneck that
SPEAKER_03: cost more than your mortgage payment this month. The dictator himself Chamath Palihapitiya. I'm Jay Cal it was a pretty incredible week. I think we have to pander to the cryptocurrency crowd because that's just making ratings go through the roof here. I am absolutely inspired by what we saw this week with the Constitution Dow forming in the week and going from one or 2 million to $46 million raised through a Dow if you don't know what these decentralized autonomous organizations are. It's basically analogous to a corporate structure. But that's written in code. So you can get a group of people together typically in a discord, then you create a smart contract, they collect in a wallet, a bunch of ETH or it's typically ETH right now. And then you get some kind of maintenance written into the Dow, where people get voting power. They brought this together to bid on one of 13 copies of the original Constitution of the United States. And it was a very controversial moment last night, when 80% of the money was raised in the last 48 hours. And there was this crazy auction going back and forth. With two representatives of Sotheby's on the phone, it hit $41 million. Nobody thought that the Dow had won, which would have mean would have meant that almost 20,000 people who participated in this would then vote on what to do with this $41 million offer. coin desk incorrectly reported that the Dow won. And then the Dow announced that they had in fact not some other statistics. Their Twitter has 36,000 followers. The group reported they needed 14 million to participate 30 million to be able to donate 240 million to have a great chance of winning. They raised like, I think six or 7 million while they were on the air, you know, and the auction had started. And the only downside to all of this is that there were huge gas fees. People were spending 30 4050 bucks to donate 200 which was the average
SPEAKER_01: size of these. Yeah, they should have done it on Solana. All
SPEAKER_03: right, so here we go. talking our own book again. Now we got out. Here we go. What are you gonna do with your copy of the
SPEAKER_04: Constitution? You know, it's so funny. Are you gonna auction it back to the day when are you gonna burn
SPEAKER_03: it and make an NFT out of it? So it's funny. I did buy something
SPEAKER_02: at these auctions. Yesterday's quite unique. I will I will not comment on what it was but was it that turtleneck? No, but
SPEAKER_02: Banksy.
SPEAKER_04: Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, but I did. So but I watched
SPEAKER_02: these auctions closely, I guess is what I'm trying to say. And I was surprised that the US Constitution for sold so little, you know, for a basically like the Magna Carta of the best startup that's ever been created.
SPEAKER_01: But there's 13 of them, right? So on a market cap basis, on a market cap basis, you got multiply by 13. Yeah, great. 13 times 40 is still one of the originals. It
SPEAKER_04: was the printing after the original was signed. We have a 20. We've created a $22 trillion a year startup that
SPEAKER_02: keeps compounding by four to 5% a year, I would have thought these things would be worth, you know, a couple 100 million each.
SPEAKER_01: Well, there's a lot of there's a lot of us memorabilia. But yeah, I mean, but what I don't understand, it means the US Constitution, David is not as it's not worth
SPEAKER_02: as much as it used to be. That's well, you know, you got all the you got you got the
SPEAKER_01: there's a lot of documents, you got the deck of independence, you got, you know, the Gettysburg Address, there's time a dozen, the Tea Party memo, I actually think citizens united
SPEAKER_02: technically, guys, the citizens united, if it was written not one time, in one document, by the Supreme Court, that would be worth much more than 40 million, because it's basically invalidated most of the Constitution. Well, here's one
SPEAKER_03: of the interesting things that happened here, David, David,
SPEAKER_02: wait, David acknowledge that what I just said is true.
SPEAKER_01: No, I don't even understand what you just said. But I just said,
SPEAKER_02: if you had printed the citizens united verdict from the Supreme Court on a piece of that would be worth more than $40 million.
SPEAKER_04: It was it was like democracy 2.0 is what you're saying.
SPEAKER_01: I don't understand why people are getting so swept up in this thing is kind of my me neither. Me neither. That's what you guys are missing is
SPEAKER_03: this is a critical moment in the history of cryptocurrencies because the first three major use cases of cryptocurrency were kind of you had money transfer, which is not as good as PayPal or venmo or many other solutions. Jason, I think when you had store value, hold on, let me finish store value, which is like who cares is playing with a store value. And then NFTs got interesting, but these downs are absolutely game changing the ability to have $47 million show up and be prepared to be deployed in 48 hours. That's not what he's saying.
SPEAKER_01: You ever hear of it was really legal and they've been banned.
SPEAKER_03: How is that any different? I mean, that because downs have governance, gals have governance and it's a programmable government. It's a programmable corporate entity. It is huge things. If these things transfer ownership
SPEAKER_04: interest, they will be regulated like securities. Of course, that is a very important point. And in this particular model, the idea was it would all be kind of part of a nonprofit and it would not be kind of donations in fact, but there were donations. And so as soon as these doubts, which they should, and it's an incredibly powerful tool, if it does actually become a security instrument, then it changes everything. And it is going to be that my whole thing is like, it's one outside the US first, right? And then it'll be crypto ex US crypto investments that are going to drive this and that's why the US is going to be left behind. Here's what you're missing. These downs are pushing
SPEAKER_03: the envelope in the same way Airbnb and Uber did in terms of you know, bending the rules about ride sharing or renting your extra room. These downs are kind of breaking securities laws. They were telling people were buying the Constitution, people who donated thought they were buying part of it. We're not we're not so okay, but here's the thing. If they bend the rules like this, what they showed to the SEC is that there is a huge appetite for people to quickly form groups of capital at low dollar amounts to do something important or interesting in the world. And Americans now have a taste of that. I'm going to continue to have a taste of it. And I think I disagree. I think the accreditation laws to change disagree. I think that what it showed is that this is yet
SPEAKER_02: another explanation of fractionalized ownership that demand existed well before dows totally it's it exists today. It'll exist tomorrow. But a Dow was just yet another on ramp. But much like most fractional ownerships are terrible financial trades for crappy assets. So was this. So said differently, if you're going to spend the time to open a Robin Hood or e trade account, it still matters whether you buy a share of Lycos or a share of Google, right? Okay. And so whether you do a Dow or whether you have an LLC, to me, it's irrelevant. The underlying asset didn't make any sense had zero chance, in my opinion of any meaningful appreciation. And so if you really want to make something work, and if you want to prove the Dow, then I would have hoped that they would have actually asked a few smart people, hey, guys, people who buy art, people who know crypto, what are some assets that I should own? Because if it does appreciate, I want to do more to prove the questions. Somebody beat them out on the obviously the value is greater
SPEAKER_03: than what the Dow thought it was, Jason, you're like an accredited investor. This is non accredited investors who are doing this. I know. And that that unsophistication was clear. The
SPEAKER_02: stupidest thing you can do if you enter an auction, okay, is to declare how you're going to be an underbitter. So like, it's basically saying, Hey, guys, you know, here's my top tick. And I'm willing to be and I can and so now you force these guys to be the underbitter at $1 over their best. That's a mechanical
SPEAKER_03: issue. Sachs, what do you mean? Well, I wonder, I wonder if the reason
SPEAKER_01: why they chose this particular type of asset is because it's a collectible and therefore it's explicitly excluded from the securities laws. So basically, you know that maybe maybe they're limited in terms of what they can go after because they don't want to be a security. But until but but if that's the case, then it does limit I think the applicability of Dallas, right? Because what you want is, is to create corporations that are programmable, that you can have shareholder votes through the tokens, things like that, you know, basically a digital version of what they do analog in the real world with, you know, share certificate, shareholder meetings and stuff like that, that nobody ever attends. Yeah, that nobody, nobody ever attends these shoulder meetings. And, you know, I get these notices of votes that are to be held, nobody ever fills the eggs, no one fills that stuff out. When people have super share a super voting. And so you feel
SPEAKER_03: like you have no say, but in this case, you do have a say, that they're gonna do assets like, imagine somebody had 10,000 acres of rainforest or a national potential National Park, and all of a sudden you pop up a Dow. And if the SEC says, you know what, $500 or less, you can bet your money, however you want, hold on, let me finish. And they take that $500 and you get a million people to put $500 in which is completely conceivable. Somebody could buy $500 million worth of National Forest and say, I'm going to make this into a public trust to protect the environment. This is on the brink of changing the world. ICOs you could have the exact same thing before. No governance, they had no governance that was missing. What was the benefit? Hold on. ICOs were for the benefit of the scumbags who did those grifts and ran away with the money. This is an organization with a pre determined governance structure. This is like creating a new country or a new format for an LLC. That's what you're missing. Okay, are you done? Yes. What you're missing, you're painting
SPEAKER_04: the optimistic scenario of what these things could do. And you are correct. But what's always happened in the history of humanity is these scenarios have resolved to people figuring out ways to scam other people to make money. Sure. While this one looks altruistic. Let me finish without interrupting. Thank you. But just like you know, this looks like a great altruistic action, we're going to go out and buy the USS Constitution, US Constitution, the next deal will end up being some shitty art piece that's worth 100 grand as Chamath points out, they'll buy it for 10 million, everyone will lose their ass. And the next 500 will look the same. And that's why we have securities regulators and security laws. Because in the past, when these sorts of structures that weren't digitally governed and all this sort of stuff, and people would go around and they would put together pools of money from other people and promise them the world. And then they would turn around and steal their money and walk away. We created securities regulators that could oversee and not have independent governance, but have distributed governance across a regulatory system to make sure that this doesn't happen. And that's the slippery slope of where this goes. I'll say one more thing about the structure of this particular DAO, which I know can be resolved. But it creates a problem in that everyone is betting or investing
SPEAKER_04: a fixed dollar amount without knowing how much equity they're getting. And so when you say, Hey, I'm going to put in $500. And there's currently $10 million, or let's say there's $10,000 in this thing. It's like, Hey, okay, I've got 5% ownership in this thing. If the next guy shows up and puts in $10,000, you now have two and a half percent ownership in this thing. And you've inflated the value of the thing you're buying. And that's effectively what happened in the structure of this particular DAO, where the more money people put in, the more they were paying and the less they were owning. And you couldn't adjust that the correct structure in the future for people that do care about equity and ownership will be I want to buy 1%. And I'm willing to pay a max of $500 to buy that 1%. And with that rule engine, which I know can be built into DAOs, people can then structure what they're willing to bid and how much they're willing to participate in. And the DAO as a whole can resolve what it's willing to pay to go buy an asset. And everyone can feel like they know what they're getting as they get into these things. And then the third problem with this particular DAO, as we saw, and I know it's kind of the first big one like this was the obvious point that these guys were showing the world how much they were about to go bid on this asset. And if you take $46 million, and you divide it by 1.13, or which is, you know, remember, there's a 13% buyers premium on this asset, they showed everyone what they're going to pay. And of course, they lost at $1 over the day where the they were the underbitter, I'll say something else, the only fractionalized asset that has ever been proven
SPEAKER_02: to appreciate reliably are stocks. Every other fractionalized asset where you take something, and then you divvy it up, generally has been a trash burger, you need to either own the whole thing yourself. Or if you're going to own it with a bunch of other people, the only thing that's reliable are equities. Now, that's just a historical artifact for how money has been made. So I appreciate Jason, what you're saying, which is, I think, actually, you care about the structure, because I think it has huge implications to people pursuing wealth creation for themselves for people participating in private markets. But I do think that you're overblowing this one example, because I don't think this showed any of that. I think that this showed how unreliable and useless aetherium is as a transactional layer for these things. You know, the fact that these poor people now have money stuck in a Dow that they can't get out of because it would the gas fees would negate their contribution. So that didn't be these are all the bumps in the road. One second, please. You gotta hold on. It didn't prove governance. Because as David said, we had this inflationary outcome, where all of a sudden, I didn't know the equity that I owned. The transparency worked
SPEAKER_02: against them because you're bidding on an asset where you were clear about the threshold max price you could pay. So you had no pricing power, and you had no opacity in your bidding strategy. So. So I think that this was a PR lark. And in fact, they said it started out as a joke, and it took on a head of steam. And so I think they felt like they had to execute what I would say is, there are going to be some really amazing examples of Dallas. This proved none of those things that the amazing ones will prove, in my opinion,
SPEAKER_04: and this will invite regulatory scrutiny faster than it will keep it away. Right? You will see, you know, more of these scenarios where people get screwed out of money, like they did in this particular case. And I know a lot of everyone that participated in this now I know that there's altruistic reasons who do they sue? Who do they sue? Who do they sue? Who do
SPEAKER_02: they go after now that they lost the $200 that they contributed?
SPEAKER_04: Yeah, I mean, there's there's there's no structure. And I think that's part of the regulatory, you know, how do they get the money back?
SPEAKER_02: I can respond. Who's the person? Who's the person that like, you know what, honestly, if that if that Dow had called me, I could have actually bid for them and actually won that fucking thing for half the price. You know what I mean?
SPEAKER_02: So you got anything? You want to chime in? No. I mean, well, I
SPEAKER_03: would like to give a closing argument. Why don't you go for
SPEAKER_01: it? All right. Number one, you're all speaking like a bunch
SPEAKER_03: of rich accredited investors. We need to think about people who do not get to participate. And what I see in my day job is people go to an equity crowdfunding site, it's too arduous to allow non accredited investors to invest, it takes months, and it's tons of paperwork. So then what happens is the best deal flow, which goes to the people who are on this podcast, who are already rich, we get to sweep up all the best deals, because people who are founders and who have opportunities in corporations do not bother doing equity crowdfunding, because the SEC in their wisdom to try to protect people and they have good intent to your point, Friedberg has made it so arduous and painful for people that they then don't do it. The founders I'm talking about this then keeps people down. And when we were all poor, we got to spend our money gambling, or doing whatever we want with it. But we all would have wanted to have when we were not accredited the ability to place a bet on a startup. And y'all are forgetting that. And what's gonna happen here? What you're saying all of what you're saying, Shammoth in terms of the problems here are absolutely accurate and valid. And those are what you need. You need to identify through projects like this, the gas fees are a problem so people can move this to Solana, you need to find out that they don't know how to do bidding. And maybe they shouldn't say how much has been raised, so that they can come in and bid more intelligently. And maybe they do need to pick a better target. But this is $200 per person there, you guys are acting like these people are gonna lose their shirts. Will you agree with you? I agree with you. I agree with me.
SPEAKER_04: I agree 1000% I'm a free markets guy, I would love for there to be no regulation, and everyone will come in. And the problem is society won't let that happen. And that's the point I'm trying to make it's other society have other societies. If you're in the UK,
SPEAKER_03: if you're in Australia, you can go gamble and you can go bet on startups. There are different accreditation laws, we have antiquated ones that you need to evolve, the United States
SPEAKER_04: regulatory regime will be invoked, because people will lose money, and individuals will raise their hand and say, I put money into a Dow that I lost my ass on and enough 1000s of people do that. And then Elizabeth Warren and AOC will get on their, you know, their horse, and they'll say, let's, let's fix this problem. Bernie Sanders will say this is unfair, the billionaires are taking the money from people. And so I agree with you, we should let people take risks, we should let people lose money, we should drop all the regulatory burden. My point is really that I think structurally, what's gonna happen is there are going to be more of these things that are going to show up that will rip people off and that will heighten regulatory interest, and people will come along and they'll start to clamp down on this stuff. And that's that's my point. Okay, I also think this example has nothing to do with
SPEAKER_02: what you're talking about. I think what you're talking about J Cal is laudable. And we should all want that because I think that the broader number of people that get to participate in the wealth creation in tech, the better. But there are different ways of doing that. I don't think we have to run full force and embrace the Dow as the only way that that happens. And I think that structurally, the the democ the democratic norms inside of a Dow, in many ways, make it much harder to govern inside a regulatory framework. And it does set up a very binary decision by the SEC and US regulators, which unfortunately, they're not going to go and be supportive of because the binary decision to support them would effectively negate their oversight. That's right. Yeah, they got jobs to keep to they
SPEAKER_04: have jobs to keep and I mean, I just think it's a cynical and
SPEAKER_03: accurate prediction that they will fight it. But what you may not be aware of is that there is in the startup act from years ago, they did allow equity crowdfunding, they put a lot of throttling on it. And now they're going to let you get accredited through taking a course, or like kind of having a driver's license or a gun permit. So it is conceivable that the next time a Dow happens, and they're trying to
SPEAKER_02: buy, but can you stop conflating these things together? You know, it we've had iterations in the crowdfunding rules. You're just trying to tag this with a Dow can can be separated? Can we hold on a second? Can I just ask you a question? Can you please just describe and acknowledge that the crowdfunding rules have iteratively evolved? Yes. Yes. Okay, so just separate the two. They're not the same thing. They are two sides of the same coin
SPEAKER_03: because they're not house allow a global participation in this and the capital can be formed instantly. This was done in days. That's what's so powerful about it. It costs 10s of 1000s to hundreds of 1000s of dollars to do an equity crowdfunding. This costs nothing because it was for a in an ethereal superficial
SPEAKER_02: asset with a name that people recognize. Let me hold on a second. Now let me replace the US Constitution with I don't know, Jason, you just sent a deal a day ago. What was the name of it? Let's just call it ACME.com. Sure. Now what are people supposed to do? It's not a known asset. They are not known founders. There may be turbulent issues inside the company that are still being hammered out. What are these people supposed to do? How are they intelligent? Small bet.
SPEAKER_03: Place a small bet, do some research, vote on it, do collective research and discord. You're looking you have a bunch of researchers working for you. You defended the army. You have a team. Your team does research and they're smart people and they get paid very well. You were praising the coverage that Wall Street bets did on GME on this podcast 40 episodes ago, you were saying how it was because they were analyzing
SPEAKER_02: public companies who are governed by securities law. They can't do that with a private company. Yes, because there are
SPEAKER_02: no rules that govern disclosure. GameStop had very strict disclosure rules because they were public. That was what allowed Wall Street bets to understand what was going on under the hood of GameStop. It was the disclosure of the funds that the SECs force you to make that allowed people to understand the long and the short book that was building against it. If that was in the private markets, that data is not obligated to be provided in the in the wild. Wall Street bets would have had no idea. So I think you're actually proving the opposite of what you intend, which is it's the regulatory framework that allowed the retail GME position to happen. Go ahead, David. And then, yeah, can I translate with Jake
SPEAKER_01: house saying, I think what Jake house saying is we need to create some space here for innovation so that entrepreneurs can work out the kinks of these dolls so that one day, Jake, I'll can run a syndicate on a blockchain and fundraise that way. Isn't that what you're saying? Jake? Oh, or anybody? I
SPEAKER_03: mean, here's what I'll say, you know, when we do a syndicate amongst accredited investors, your book here in a weird way,
SPEAKER_01: but I didn't mention the syndicate. I didn't mention the
SPEAKER_03: syndicate calm once. He was his competitors to your syndicates, but now you're all
SPEAKER_01: on the doubt train.
SPEAKER_03: I see. I was I, I thought were too big. So I think you could solve this problem by looking at the bet size that people are allowed to make. So you just say, hey, the upper limit is five k. So now you've basically taken the individual cratering. Well, because if you wanted to create a regulatory environment, well, because it would know I think the restaurants you created de minimus exceptions.
SPEAKER_01: Honestly, guys, that the first 100% of someone's worth and 1%
SPEAKER_04: of another's. Okay, so make it a percent of net worth. No, the
SPEAKER_02: first thing principle of portfolio construction is you need to be concentrated into things you know, and you need to stay away from the things you don't if you cap the upside on the amount you can invest. What are people supposed to do peanut butter around 50 bets? And you know what will happen, Jason, most of those will be losers because the mortality rate and startups is super high. And they'll end up with basically nothing. How do they do in Vegas? How do they do betting
SPEAKER_03: sports? How to invest? I mean, I think what we're saying is that
SPEAKER_01: this is that I mean, this is where I actually agree is that the regulator should carve out enough room so that innovation could continue around this concept of Dallas because who knows what they could become one day, and we shouldn't we shouldn't kill this thing. Hold on, we haven't killed anything because nothing exists
SPEAKER_02: and there are no rules about Dallas, the regulators haven't said anything. I think we all agree that crowdfunding rules should get much more expensive. That makes sense. And with that private companies should disclose more. That makes sense, right? We all agree with that so that you can have more disclosure and public available data. So Jason, to your point, communities can get into a discord like today. If you said, Hey, guys, let's go and analyze a late stage investment in stripe. What do you do? Blather on about it and just talk at each other? There are no disclosures. No, but this is starting to answer this question. So now So now are you supposed to are you supposed to enter card or some other third party platform and buy it at 120 billion? How do you underwrite that? Very simple, very simple. In the startup Dow concept we're
SPEAKER_03: talking about here, you would do exactly what angel investors do, which is say, Hey, okay, we had, let's say this constitution Dow was to invest in startups. Okay, 20,000 people put 200 in each, we have a $40 million pool. Okay, we're all going to submit ideas. And then we're going to ask and invite those founders to come pitch the Dow on a zoom. And we'll all vote on which ones we like best. And instead of, you know, a venture capital firm getting access to this, now those 20,000 people could say, You know what, we're going to make 20 half million dollar bets, and then we're going to pour the 30 million into the winners of that. And that is just what I do for a living or any other angel investor early stage investor does you invite founders come and pitch you and you place an intelligent bet, just like people bet on the Knicks or sadly on the Jets and lose their money all the time. And I like David's idea of saying, hey, maybe for the next two years, we'll have a Dow exception where you can raise, you know, from 1000 up to 5000 people up to $10 million. And you just have to file that you're not a felon. And we have some basic framework to experiment with this because you could buy, you know, a building that was going to be torn down, like some movie theater for a community. You could do nonprofit stuff, there's all kinds of beautiful things you could do with this instant capital formation and government structure that is programmable. Okay, well, here's relate to capital formation in the startup ecosystem. Here's what I'll say. You made a great point about
SPEAKER_02: Uber and Lyft pushing the boundaries and forcing the regulators to react. Yes. You know why that happened? It's because Uber and Lyft worked. Yes. And it was successful. And this value was not successful. And so maybe if it is, there's an on ramp, but I would say that the energy is better served in not focusing on a PR lark. And probably just focusing on trying to improve the crowdfunding laws writ large, which are already on the books and can be iterated upon versus an entire new body of regulation where nobody even has any idea what a starting point should be.
SPEAKER_01: I think it's really I think it'd be very hard to get get those crowdfunding laws expanded with the under the courage team. It's sort of a minor miracle that they even got what they got several years ago, right? Wasn't that what happened under Obama
SPEAKER_03: when the 2008 Yes, the jobs in 2008. When the market crash, we said nobody starting companies were screwed here, we need to get the economy going again. So we're just going to allow more capital formation. And so the 99 rule for LLC is went to 250. And they just kind of loosen things a little bit. And now they're the mandate is the SEC has to have a certification test for people to do private market investing. And also people who work at VC firms, right, we have people who work for us who are not accredited, they don't get to participate, but they get an exception if they work at a venture firm, etc. So it's just gonna, it's probably simultaneously true that this
SPEAKER_01: thing was massively overhyped, while also being the case that it's a worthwhile experiment that may lead to, you know, useful innovation in the future. What I always look at when I see
SPEAKER_03: new technologies doing something is I just imagine if it 10 x, and what that would look like, and if it worked, and then I just 10 x it one more time. So what we're going to see I predict is this $40 million dollar Dow will turn into a 400 million one in the next two years, and then a 4 billion one in the next 10. And people are going to do something extraordinary. They're going to do something so otherworldly changing. What if a million people or 10 million people around the globe decided they were going to put money into do a solar farm, or something that would help society can already
SPEAKER_04: do that. J cal. I mean, that's like, like a manager friction. Someone's got to manage it.
SPEAKER_01: J gals fantasizing about how big it's gonna be. Yeah. It's my syndicate. My syndicate is too large right now. I can't
SPEAKER_03: accommodate everybody. And it's also because the laws get bigger, right? Well, no, the problem is you can only have 250 people in. That's the problem. We've been down to death. Yeah, come on. Yeah, we beat it to death. Anyway, I'm obsessed with clearly fentanyl deaths in the US are reaching a crisis point up.
SPEAKER_04: Is that really what we're talking about?
SPEAKER_03: I mean, we talked about it in the chat. Trying to like avoid the biggest news today of the biggest
SPEAKER_01: trial. I get it. We're good. That's just a weird time just
SPEAKER_04: going straight down through the docket. But if you want to jump
SPEAKER_03: the fence, okay. Well, I'm not guilty of all charges. Like it
SPEAKER_01: happened within half an hour of us beginning to record this podcast. I don't know how to keep the Friedberg ratio up. We
SPEAKER_03: had a nice strong emotional moment from Friedberg. He obviously is going to have something to say about fentanyl and science. But okay, he's gonna walk off the show now to talk when you start talking about I'm not gonna walk up the show did last week. You walked off you walked off and when you got a beverage you left for like, I had to go. I had to go pee. All right, fine. I mean, come on to be during politics. Kyle written out when I take my break. Yeah, exactly. A third of the audience. Kyle written has found not guilty of all charges. A 12 person jury in the car written has trial reached the decision after over 26 hours of deliberation. He shot three people. He killed two of them and he was found not guilty. He was 17 at the time of the shooting was charged with killing the two men and a third during the protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin in August of 2020. This was during the protests over the police shooting of Jacob Blake. He claims he traveled from Illinois with an ar 15 style rifle to help protect businesses and first aid he didn't. He did not cross
SPEAKER_04:
SPEAKER_01: state lines with the rifle. That's one of the many inaccuracies have been reported by the media over and over again, because his dad lived there. I guess he was in his
SPEAKER_03: town lived in Kenosha. I think he went to school in Kenosha. He
SPEAKER_01: worked in Kenosha. You gotta understand like this is there a few minutes apart were from his mother's house and they got and he never he never carried the gun across state lines. The gun was bought from by a friend who was 18 who could possess it and it was kept at his house which is in Kenosha. Got it. He was
SPEAKER_01: apparently in Kenosha earlier that day. And you know, cleaning up graffiti at the school and checking out the downtown. And then you know, obviously when he went out that night, then he got the gun, but he didn't transport across state lines. So that would that's I think one of the multiple What do you think is your what is your most important insight
SPEAKER_03: into this case and what it represents for American society and the justice system sex?
SPEAKER_01: Well, I think the cases become a little bit of a Rorschach test of how you see America. I mean, there's clearly a group of people in the I'd say the main dominant of the mainstream media announced percolated down to celebrities and figures from LeBron James to to I'm spacing but there's a lot of like somebody who've come out putting forward this view that America that this trial somehow is that that Calgert now so white supremacists and that this not guilty verdict is an example of white supremacy in America. Somehow that became the narrative and so that I think it's become I think there's like a couple levels to it. One is the trial itself and what you think about the legal case. I don't think that is that complicated or interesting you have here that the state was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse did not act reasonably in self defense when three violent attackers came charging towards him. That was I think a pretty tough case to make. Give one of them had a gun poll to I mean, this was right. And
SPEAKER_03: so all of them had long criminal histories. The first one who
SPEAKER_01: attacked him was daring him to with told said that he was going to kill written house. The second one was bashing him over the head with a skateboard. The third one was rushing towards him when written houses on the ground, had a gun trained on him looked like he was going to bring it to his head kind of execution style. I mean, all these I think, cases if you saw the video from me for the first time, it seemed pretty clear that he had a strong claim of self defense. So I don't think the case itself was that legally interesting. The question is why it got blown up into being this like huge thing. And it's really because the media wanted this so badly, to be to feed into this narrative of somehow that this is, you know, a white supremacist violent attacker, who was a vigilante who crossed eight lines with this ar 15 to go seek out trouble to confront people at the protest. And you know, that case that that narrative just completely fell apart at the trial. You know, it's, he didn't cross eight lines, you know, in that way he didn't, you know, with the gun. When he went to this protest, he went there. It's interesting. I mean, he was a cadet, an EMT cadet, he was kind of in this like junior firefighter program. I'm not saying that he showed good judgment. I think it was poor judgment for him to try and insert himself into that situation. But I don't think he went there to kill anyone or to get into a confrontation. He brought a first aid kit for, you know, for better or worse, he thought he was going to help people. And so any event that the story really is about the media constructing this narrative that fell apart so quickly, as soon as all the facts came out.
SPEAKER_02: Freeburg, Jamal? Yeah, I think the I read that there was an analysis of the media and how they tried to portray this and that I think I'll build on what David said, which is was really concerning like the there was they really wanted this to be a white kid who killed black people during a BLM protest, which was, as it turned out the furthest from the truth. I'll just tell you my experience when I first saw it. That's what I thought I had read. And I'll be really honest with you. Initially, I was incredibly biased and my I had a violent reaction inside me of anger towards this kid. Because my thought was my God, this white kid showed up at a Black Lives Matter rally and killed, you know, three of my brothers, you know, like, literally, that's how it I'm feeling. I was so angry because they didn't really give the facts. There was an example where in Germany, it got so out of hand that the articles were written that Kyle Rittenhouse had actually killed three black men or two black men and and I think that that's very dangerous because we need to have the truth and the facts so we can really figure out what's going on so that we can address what's broken. We can hold people accountable, and then we can move forward together and heal it. But this like is the opposite of healing. It just froths people up to make a lot of judgments with misinformation. And I think that that's very unfair. I didn't, to be honest with you, after I saw the facts, I stopped paying attention to this case, because I literally exhaled. I would have been much more hurt. And I would have probably paid more attention. If this wasn't white on white violence, quite honestly.
SPEAKER_01: Right, right. And I think people, I think we've heard from a lot of people over when written houses testimony kind of went viral and started getting reported on. There were a lot of people out there who were surprised to learn that all the victims were white, that this was an example of white on white violence, because it had been portrayed by the media as some sort of racial episode. And, and it wasn't. And it shows how the media is fueling this polarization and rage in our society by concocting these narratives, which aren't true.
SPEAKER_02: It's really that that I think is the dangerous thing. I didn't follow the case to know whether this kid was right or wrong. But I do think if the media uses these opportunities to not just tell the facts, and then race baits people on both the left and the right and gets them frothed up, they're doing a real disservice to America, because I think it takes good people. And it puts them in a state like me for a while at the beginning, where I was really angry, and I didn't know how I felt. And that's and I'm a lucid person. You know, 99.999% of the time. And so it just goes to show you how dangerous this stuff is when they can take a narrative and run with it. And then there's no accountability for it. And we really have to stop and check ourselves. It just speaks to this ongoing fact pattern where the media is at a point where they are at a very much low point in their trustworthiness, their ability to fact check their ability to stick to the truth. I think it's been undone.
SPEAKER_02: Just this past week, you know, I think Elon even tweeted out like, you know, he in exasperation, he said, Where can I find, like thoughtful news, right? He was asking Twitter, like, what websites? And, and the question wasn't that bad. But if you read the answers, it was really sad. Nobody had a good answer. You know, one person was like, Oh, there's a browser extension that will show you how you know, how much lying is happening inside the article. And I thought to myself, my god, like, there are browser extensions, like a lie ometer, you know, like, this is insanity that, that in 2021, that's what we are faced with, which is very smart people, all of us, everybody listening, normal people just, you know, out on the street, we can all come to the right conclusion when given the facts, and we're not given the facts anymore.
SPEAKER_01: Jake, how do you think we're missing something here? Because you you, I know you thought that this whole Rittenhouse thing was crazy, right? Which it was, but we're missing some interview. I think, first off, violent
SPEAKER_03: protests, and violence is immoral. And all of these protests, whether it's BLM, on the left on the right, they should all be nonviolent. There's a reason why Martin Luther King and Gandhi, you know, said, that's the rules. If you want to come to the protest, you have to be nonviolent. And then I think the rhetoric that was created during the Trump era, and that he exacerbated and that he caused from a lot of his policies and the way he spoke as the leader of the free world in our country, then polarize things, I blame him for a lot of that. And if you put a bunch of people who are on the far extremes into a situation like this, and then you insert guns, and you insert young people who have not developed their frontal lobes, who do not have long term thinking, which is 17 year old does not your long term and freeburg will back me up on this in terms of science. Long term thinking is something that develops in humans into their early 20s. And so young people with guns in a violent situation with Trump on TV during this time, both good people on both sides, whatever, you know, the borders, all that stuff that he was stirring the pot on. All of that eventually resolves to somebody's going to get killed, whether it's on January 6, or it's a BLM protest. And that is why he had such a failure of leadership while he was so disgusting and horrible and loathsome, because he was taking all of this heat and rhetoric up up up. And the person who winds up suffering in this are these stupid kids. And they're really dumb parents and mother who allow them to go to a protest and she could have stopped him with a gun. Somebody needs to stop these kids from going to a protest with a gun. And I think there's a very difficult question here that can be asked and it probably is true. I think that it was an open and shut case David that I mean, I saw the video as well. Chima the guy puts a gun on him. What are you going to do? You've got a gun, this guy's pointing a gun at you, whoever fires first arrives, it is self defense. And that's kind of undeniable, I think. But if I would hope that the number of people that really
SPEAKER_02: focus on this case, look at the innumerable number of cases of black and brown people that have been killed the Ahmad arbery trial is going on right now. Yes, I'm sorry, but I've seen one article in the mod arbery for every 50 about Kyle Rittenhouse. Yeah, I just really hope Ahmad arbery gets his fair trial. And let me say again, Breonna Taylor, not a single thing has still been done. Okay, so I'm not that sympathetic to all of this talk right now. Because there are a lot of black and brown men and women who have been killed in this country. Yes, we're none of you guys care as much. Oh, I care. And that
SPEAKER_03: was exactly where I was about to get to the question I was about to ask you, Chima is if Kyle Rittenhouse had been a black man and he had shot those three people, what would the outcome of this trial have been? Would it have been the same justice system? And I don't think that anybody can answer that question and say it would have been fair justice. I don't think it would have been I think the chance would be very low. It makes me mad in this situation would have been just just you saying it
SPEAKER_02: makes me want to cry. Okay. It would not. I didn't say for that
SPEAKER_03: reason, but I it is the truth. And I think that's what you know, we in this country, race is something that is our biggest weak point. And we need to get well, leadership to work on a hypothetical injustice. We don't know because that's a
SPEAKER_01: hypothetical that we can't know the answer to right now. And you're ignoring the justice, the injustice that's right in front of your face, which is that this was a political prosecution from the beginning, fueled by a media narrative that was completely bogus.
SPEAKER_02: This is why I think David is right. And we have to go to this root cause issue that we can all fix. Yeah, you know, we can't we shouldn't debate these hypotheticals because they're hurtful. Like even now, like you've seen me, I'm emotional. I can't think straight. So let's get the hypothetical off the table. Because David, you're right. It's a hypothetical. I mean, this case probably should never this case should
SPEAKER_01: never have been brought. I mean, as soon as you see the video, if you look at the definition of self defense, okay, you just have to have a reasonable belief that your life is in danger. And then you're allowed to use force. And you know, Rittenhouse was running away. These guys were attacking him, they were chasing after him that a gun trained on him, they were bashing on the head of the skateboard. I don't know how any prosecutor looks at this and says, we need to prosecute this. So the case should never have been brought. And then the media fuels this thing. But this is what I'm saying. That's the thing that we can all
SPEAKER_02: change, which is our reaction to that media portrayal, the media can be held accountable for how they lie. That how? Well, people
SPEAKER_03: are, we don't trust them, and they're tuning them out. And they're going and finding their own answer. I mean, this has
SPEAKER_04: been my point. Like, I think we all get tuned up to what the media quote unquote, is and isn't saying, I think that's like, yesteryear's news. I mean, those those guys have lost credibility, you can see it in all the peer research and all the Gallup research, that what used to be called and it's still by a lot of people called the mainstream media is no longer mainstream. And it's become kind of outskirt and where people are finding their their sources of information is direct from the source from people that they know to be reliable, trustworthy speakers of the truth and speakers of facts. And they're getting them direct through social media platforms and other systems of self publication. And that the idea of having centralized media systems that get to have their own editorial and narrative over whatever facts quote, they may be kind of gathering and presenting to us. That's an old school way of doing things. And I don't think we have to worry about it too much anymore. Whether or not individuals will resolve to truth seeking or motion seeking is the big question for the 21st century. Because as we've seen in the media that the things that we do click on are the things that we already believe in that confirm our bias and that create an emotional incentive versus the things that may be not what we believe and not what we want to hear, but may actually be factual. And that's the big kind of challenging question here. I think it's less about these evil media people. And it's more about where individuals going to make choices. Yeah, I mean, I'd say alternative media voices have
SPEAKER_01: never been more important. And you know, you can get a lot of them on substack people like Glenn Greenwald, Matt, Tony, Antonio Garcia, Martinez, Colin, Colin, and Barry Weiss. I mean, they all have our podcast, our podcast, they all had very good coverage of this. By the way, I couldn't help notice that the same week that this written house narrative collapsed, the whole steel dossier narrative collapsed. Okay, you had I don't want to get too political and drag it back to the Trump thing. But you had, you know, john Durham is a special prosecutor unraveling this whole phony fake steel dossier with multiple indictments. And you now have retractions by the Washington Post and other major publications. And that whole narrative that fueled like an entire year of media coverage is completely collapsing. And it's just another example of, you know, the media running with these narratives that turn out to be completely, I hate to use word fake, but I mean, it is I mean, it's things that were fake, but Paul Manafort
SPEAKER_02:
SPEAKER_03: can, again, I would encourage everyone to stop using the term
SPEAKER_04: the media or even the term mainstream media and just recognize that there are specific outlets that are on their way to content companies dying. Yeah, these are content companies that need ratings. They used to be the monopoly and they're no longer. And you know, they're like yesteryears news. And it's just, you know, it's like complaining about, you know, whatever, pick any industry that's been disrupted, but they are and will be further disrupted by kind of direct to source fact gathering. The big ultimate question is what are consumers going to choose? And that's the thing that scares me the most, to be honest, I think they're going to go either way. You can either find better truth seeking, or you can find better emotion, more emotion seeking, and that that's going to more ugly shit.
SPEAKER_01: Well, look, it's it's happening right now. You're right that the let's call it the corporate media, the big media corporations, their prestige and esteem and the eyes American people have no and their credibility has never been lower is gone. New York Times and CNN. Absolutely. Gone and people should be questioning them and stop listening to them and you have to diversify your information diet and you got to be subscribed to some alternative journalists on places like substack. But here's the thing that concerns me. You know, you've got the media narrative being dictated by MSNBC and then it trickles down to LeBron James and Chelsea Handler. Sorry, that was the name that I forgot earlier, who were they were perpetuating this white supremacist narrative around cow written house. By the way, there was they looked at his phone, his text messages, everything. There is no connection. There's no proof whatsoever of a connection between him and white supremacy was completely made up by the media. And yet these major figures in our culture who have this outsized impact. We're tweeting about this. And so the problem is, you know, like people like us diversify our information diet, but there are large parts of the country that are just receiving this information. And it gets basically passed down from the media to Hollywood to the culture. Yeah. And it's from Tucker from Tucker Carlson to Scott Bayo to the pillow guy
SPEAKER_03: is fueling that is fueling tremendous divisiveness of
SPEAKER_01: polarization in our culture. And I would say that, you know, JC brought Trump and he was a polarizing figure, but I don't think he's the root cause of this polarization. I think he is a reaction to it. I think he is a manifestation of it is a manifestation of it. And ultimately, the root cause is the complete deterioration and collapse of journalistic standards in the media in the major mainstream corporate media. I'll disagree.
SPEAKER_04: And I've made this point in the past, which is sex, I don't know if it you make it sound and other people make it sound like in a directed editorial initiative to take things in a direction. And I think that the reaction process is really about what do consumers want to consume, what they choose to consume is what they sell more of and what they produce more of. And that's the cycle that's driving this. And you know, that doesn't mean that these folks are not complicit or not making good kind of ethical decisions that can actually be argued either way. But at the end of the day, they're businesses that are selling content. And if consumers want content of one form, they're going to choose that form. Okay, look, I think you have a point that once a publication
SPEAKER_01: goes in a certain direction, starts seeing subscribers, there's some positive reinforcement there that has them keep pushing in that direction. That being said, I don't think this is commercial in nature. Primarily, I think what's going on is fundamentally ideological. You saw, for example, the New York Times, they ran out very wise. I've seen it. You're wrong. No, no, you're wrong sex. When the New York Times did this,
SPEAKER_03: they realized Fox picked aside MSNBC picks aside and they they benefited from that by picking aside in the Trump era. So the New York Times picked aside they went MSNBC side, and they got rid of the right because the right people drove away the anti Trump subscription. So I think free birds right on this one, I will say another thing to build on what you were saying before sacks about the media's responsibility here. We also have to think about the the cable news media's responsibility when they put these protests on wall to wall and they send people there. That then inspires people to go there. And you know, when you do this wall to wall coverage across five networks, and you obsess over something, people are going to obsess over it. And they see people out there writing, and people model other people's behavior. And I think they need to think like, how much coverage do we exactly have to give? Right? You know, even
SPEAKER_01: now they're bringing out the National Guard in anticipation of possibly riots and protests in reaction to induce it. Well, in reaction, no, I don't know if it's gonna induce it, but but the in reaction to this verdict in the Rittenhouse trial, they're bringing out the troops to basically quell any, you know, riot before it gets started. But why would that riot even happen? Because the people have been fed this narrative that is completely bogus. And in that sense, the media has been incredibly irresponsible. And they're playing with fire.
SPEAKER_02: They really are. I'll say it again. And we've fallen into this same trap. Look how much time we've just been talking about Colorado now. So I mentioned the mod arbery. And we've just glossed over it is his trial being it's happening
SPEAKER_02: right? No, no, is it on video? Because that is another major
SPEAKER_03: issue here is when the trials are on video.
SPEAKER_01: They should never do TV again on these trials does never again. I mean, it really does. Courtroom but do not put it on TV. Like
SPEAKER_03: very nose is not allowing video in the courtroom and it's not getting covered to this extent. And I think the video courtroom does drive this makes it a circus. Breaking News Citadel
SPEAKER_03: CEO Ken Griffin outbid a group of crypto investors for a copy of the US Constitution according to the Wall Street Journal. So Oh my god, we knew somebody was trolling before this but now
SPEAKER_01: exactly. He was the central villain basically in that whole Robin Hood fiasco for payment for order flow and now he out bid the crypto crowd he is going to be enemy number one. Basically, there is no more sophisticated market participant
SPEAKER_02: than Ken Griffin. And on a silver platter, this group of people unfortunately showed show them their strategy and show them exactly how to become the price is right. He put $1 on top
SPEAKER_04: of their bed. What Ken Griffin knows Ken Griffin knows that now this is an object of interest that people are basically willing to pay anything for Bingo is going to buy it now and in one year, he'll sell it for twice as much. It's a valuable asset. But by the way, I want to make a point on this. I
SPEAKER_02: disagree. By the way, he's a he's a buyer. He is not a seller. He's gonna hold Okay, but look, markets don't work
SPEAKER_04: with this much transparency markets only work when people have different information than other people that are participating in the market. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no,
SPEAKER_02: no, everyone, everyone else was gonna do same data, but it's everyone, everyone else's different opinions. But if
SPEAKER_04: everyone knew everyone else's opinion on what something is worth the market doesn't work. And that's the problem. Yeah. So here's what I value an asset at. And now if you know that you know how to play against me in the market. And I said, Yeah, exactly. And one thing one thing I'll take note of that I kind of realized yesterday when I was thinking about this, which is this like transparency in markets leads to this inflationary problem. Why do you think everything that the
SPEAKER_04: government buys inflates? Because everyone already knows what the government is going to spend on that thing. When the government enters into a market like healthcare or education or defense, the amount that they're going to spend is published in a bill. And then Congress says, here's your authorized budget, here's how much you're going to spend. So there is no natural market force that says a bid and an ask, what are you willing to pay? And is there a walkaway price, there is no walkaway price when the government is is told to go spend some amount of money. And as a result, the price of everything inflates to that walk away to that price to that budget. Can I build on
SPEAKER_02: that? It's by the way, that that's that's, in my opinion,
SPEAKER_04: based on everything I've looked at the primary reason for the increase in education costs, because the government funds all the student loans, the increase in healthcare, the increase in defense, all of it is because the government is the customer and they tell the person that servicing them upfront, they tell the market what they're willing to pay. And so the market just inflates to that amount. And it's, it's really the reason why the way that we budget things and the government as opposed to saying, look, this is the ROI metric, or this is the IRR metric you need to be shooting for with this government spending, it's all based on a fixed dollar amount of a budget, but since here's how much you should go spend. So it's, as I said, it's actually worse than that,
SPEAKER_02: because then the procurement process is, is not is the furthest thing from a free market where you essentially have these licensed people that are allowed to provide services. And so if you actually have the key critical input to making something possible, you have to get bundled in through contractors and subcontractors and general contractors, who each take their five and 10%. And then that's what you would, that's when you have like, you know, and their hourly costs,
SPEAKER_04: all balloon just a little bit, just a little bit, just a little bit, and suddenly, the balloon cost of everything matches exactly the budget. So the perfect example of this is the
SPEAKER_02: space program. There was a there was a there was a rant by Bernie Sanders yesterday, basically saying, how could we have allowed Jeff Bezos, Mr. Bezos and Mr. Musk, to basically take over our national space program, we need to test by his program, we need to take it back. And then somebody, hold on, and then somebody, and then somebody thought, I'll just give me the transcript, somebody thoughtfully went back and actually look, because again, as David said, everything is transparently published. They went back, and they actually
SPEAKER_03:
SPEAKER_02: counted how much money NASA spent in like the last seven or eight years, and the number was 360 odd billion dollars. Yeah. And then they counted how much money SpaceX had spent. And it was, you know, if you counted revenue between seven and 11 billion, totally, totally. So you have this incredible disparity, which speaks to this space shuttle after the space
SPEAKER_01: shuttle was retired NASA didn't even have a way to get to space until SpaceX had the rockets. I mean, and think about how many
SPEAKER_03: people died on the space. What Bernie is saying, which is
SPEAKER_02: what's I think scary to me is if you take the difference between 360 billion and seven, so 300, and, you know, $53 billion, and divided by the number of people in the United States, you're basically talking about 1000 per $1,000 a person, would you and I sit around a table and give Bernie Sanders $1,000 out of our own pocket? Oh, no, to go and basically implement of a half ass space program? No, I'd rather leaveable, I'd rather give Elon Musk 10 cents, which one cent, which is the equivalent alternative or this raises a really serious issue, which is
SPEAKER_01: who is the better capital allocator of a resource society, private markets or the government and let me give you an example. So today, the house is voting out that reconciliation bill they've got it, they're spending 2.1 trillion. This is one example does one example that caught my eye is they've got $2.5 billion going to tree equity, whatever that is.
SPEAKER_03: I'm sorry, tree tree
SPEAKER_01: equity, tree equity. This is like tree equity. I think it
SPEAKER_01: might mean that like some trees, I think it means that some some communities have more trees than others, they got to rectify that. I don't know. I mean, this is like the jump the shark moment for the word equity, because I think now everything is equity. But, but you know, what struck me about this $2.5 billion number, okay, is that like craft ventures, which I've been doing for the last four years, we've raised and we'll be deploying a total of about 2 billion over call it five years into hundreds of startups that you know, will pave the way for the next generation of the economy. So 2 billion versus two and a half billion as one line item. That's just a footnote that's an asterisk in this bill. I mean, what is the better capital allocation decision and what people have to understand is, you know, all this money that gets spent gets sucked out of the private economy. Somehow it either you know, comes from taxes, or gets added to the national debt. But either way, it comes out of the private economy and resources that could be allocated to the next generation of innovative companies. And squandering the money like that on all these programs that nobody even knows what they do. When we're almost 30 trillion in debt is just unbelievable. Okay, the 1% are
SPEAKER_03: going to be going to space and taking away the moon from the other 99%. Here, roll the clip.
SPEAKER_00: Unbelievably, this bill would provide and authorize some $10 billion in taxpayer money to Jeff Bezos, the second wealthiest person in America, for his space race with Elon Musk, the wealthiest person in America. This is beyond laughable. And I will be introducing an amendment to strike this provision. Frankly, it is not acceptable. It's not an issue that we have discussed terribly much. But it is not acceptable that the two wealthiest people in this country, Mr. Musk, and Mr. Bezos take control of our space efforts to return to the moon, and maybe even the extraordinary accomplishment of getting to the moon. This is not something for two billionaires to be directing. This is something for the American people to be determining. Yeah, all the people have to be able to go to the moon before
SPEAKER_01: two people can go to the moon. So the idea Yeah, if there was a go to the moon Dow, it would get more
SPEAKER_04: fun. Good callback. Look at this. You're learning how to entertain the audience. Can you imagine people would just plow money into a go to the moon Dow and give it all to Elon Musk. More people would do that they would vote to support the Senate bill. Additionally, I would like to report that Starlink does not
SPEAKER_03: work at my lake house. And Amazon Prime takes three to four days at my beach house on the Cape. And that these two companies are oppressing the 3% of the top 3%, which I am not part of the 1%. And some people don't have enough trees.
SPEAKER_01: And in my community, there's only small trees and we want the
SPEAKER_03: redwoods from San Francisco. Why do they or the hippies get the redwoods that are much taller? Do you guys remember one of our very earliest pods I made a
SPEAKER_02: statement which is equity is this danger word that the progressive left uses to steal power. Yes, that we should feel unsafe. We should always want equality but not equity because equity is zero sum, right? You know a cap table when you get somebody else equity, it's diluted to everybody else. But equality is infinite. You can have unbounded equality. Yes. And when I hear these guys talk about this stuff, it's so scary. The second thing is I'm a little confused by what Bernie's saying, because on the one hand, he wants to cancel the American government's effective, you know, support of these programs. On the other hand, he wants us to take back the responsibility for it. But I think he must realize that it would cost 50 times more, or 100 times more. He's not he's not he's not
SPEAKER_04: spending sensitive in case you haven't noticed. I also think this is like virtue signaling like, he was attacking
SPEAKER_03: Bezos about like minimum wage and then Bezos came over the top and like doubled it and then gave people college education. That was Bernie Sanders platform for president was like give people free college and give people like a better $15 minimum wage. Bezos has done more for Bernie's platform than anybody. He should be thanking. He should be telling people that he should be telling people all companies should be like Amazon. No, no, but also actually, to your point, can I
SPEAKER_02: build on that? Yeah, Amazon is now doing more to actually unwind duopolies and monopolies in markets than the government and the FTC is, you know, see this thing that Amazon is now doing in the UK with visa, where they basically shut visa off. And people are speculating now that it's a step in this direction of Amazon, you know, in Amazon domestically in the United States, they just did this big deal with a firm. And so they are looking at and they there's a rumor that they may switch the Amazon credit card off of visa rails and put them on MasterCard rails. But there's another example, Jason, to your point of like, you know, Bernie and the left progressive left would probably rail against the duopoly practices of visa and MasterCard. They can't get anything done. Jeff Bezos has actually done more now button presses a button and has done more now. Here's another one to build on yours. Who's doing I
SPEAKER_03: mean, Bernie Sanders cares about global warming. It's like one of his key issues who's donated more to burn to global warning than Jeff Bezos. Nobody nobody's doing 100,000 electric vehicles for his delivery fleet. Jeff Bezos, Jeff Bezos took Bernie Sanders platform that he failed to get into office on and he made it Amazon's platform. Here's a third example. Nick, you
SPEAKER_02: tweeted this out Nick, or you can find this thing that I tweeted out but it was a little meme. And it was it was it was basically Tobey Maguire and Kristen Dunst, right? There's a meme upside down quit. No, they're looking at each other. And basically, the joke is like, you know, every time you protested at, you know, to shut down a nuclear plant, the resulting effect 40 years later was another hundred megatons of co2 was put into the air. And it just goes to yet again, another example of we virtue signal nuclear reactors and nuclear power, we go and we get them all shut down, it turned out that we ingested or we we put out as a result, an enormous amount of more co2 than had to be put. And then and now who's helping to step in and solve it and other private citizen Bill Gates,
SPEAKER_01: like, if it weren't for these private companies, we couldn't even get astronauts to space anymore. Impossible. Like the government has actually lost the capacity to do that. Impossible. It would it would have been impossible. And who
SPEAKER_03: are we up against for space? I mean, China, China, just China. It's such a dichotomy between and this is like a recurring
SPEAKER_01: theme of the show between what the private sector and specifically and not like the fortune 500 not those old stodgy companies are in the process of being disrupted, but what the sort of entrepreneurial economy is able to accomplish versus like how stultified and calcified and incompetent the government's become.
SPEAKER_03: I mean, to your point, freeburg, I think Sam Altman led this, the fusion energy start appealing in like $500 million round. I mean, by the time these nitwits, you know, in these political office figure these things out, we're gonna have fusion reactors, aren't we? Is that real science? Is that coming close? What do you think, Rupert? I mean, Bill Gates just did this. What is it
SPEAKER_04: called? terra power announcement this week. He's got a company that he's been funding for years, and they're building a 500 megawatt fusion plant in Wyoming, I think. Yeah, in Wyoming. Yes, in Wyoming, and he got 2 billion from the government and 2 billion that was funded by the company and its shareholders, which I think is majority owned by Bill Gates. But it certainly feels and seems to me, I mean, look, this one, like we've said a lot of these infrastructure deals, these big infrastructure deals for things like power and next gen manufacturing and whatnot, you know, could use the benefit from the boost of, you know, government subsidies or, you know, government shared costs to get these things off the ground. Over time, as you get scale and reproducibility of them, the cost per unit comes way, way, way, way down. And so, you know, it seems to be the case that there are enough of these programs, I think I know of at least half a dozen nuclear power companies that are, you know, in advanced stages of doing, you know, first installation design right now. And so it seems like this is going to be a reality. I think it would be an incredible boom to, to clean energy in the United States and globally, if we can get more of these built. I mean, what was the staff China is building 150 nuclear power plants, and they've commissioned 150 nuclear power plants. I mean, it's a no brainer, that that's what we need in the 21st century, it's the best renewable source, very small footprint, very reliable, can run 24 seven, doesn't depend on some, you know, sun or wind or what have you, so you can plug it into a grid. So the government
SPEAKER_03: literally does not need to get involved in this, aside from writing a check and chopping it up 5050 split the pot with Bill Gates is an important role that the government can and should
SPEAKER_04: play here, which is, you know, if we want to talk about what infrastructure this country needs, I've said it on the last couple of shows, we don't need yesteryears infrastructure, we don't need last century's infrastructure, new bridges, and you know, toll bridges or whatever nonsense is, you know, going to get inflated as a result of this recent infrastructure. But what we need is next gen infrastructure, and not charging stations, because the free markets already they're doing that. And you know, not internet, because the free markets already they're giving everyone internet, we see 1000 examples of that, what we need is the stuff that the free market cannot afford to fund and stand up, like next gen nuclear power stations like bio manufacturing, like large scale on demand 3d printing systems. These are the sorts of infrastructure programs that the United States and our workforce could benefit from government subsidies to help private force the private markets get stood up. And as these things get stood up, and the flywheel gets going, and cash starts getting generated, they can sell fund, and they can grow and they can install more of these and the costs come down for the next one. The things where the government is the only customer, the only person buying the cost will only go up on over time, whereas the things that the private market is building, the cost will go down over time. And in some of these cases where there's a big kind of hurdle to get over the first build, or the first build cycle, you know, the government has an important role to play, I think. And so you know, look, I mean, it's clearly not going to happen with this current infrastructure bill, there's a few nuggets in there that might be useful and helpful. But generally speaking, you're right. I mean, over time, we want the cost of things to come down, not go up. And so we need the private market to play a critical role in being the majority driver, you know, of these kind of systems.
SPEAKER_03: All right, seems like a good place to end. Pete Davidson is
SPEAKER_02: now dating Kim Kardashian. How jealous are you? I'm not
SPEAKER_02: jealous. I'm gonna great. I am I am shocked that Pete Davidson has dated some of the most incredibly famous, popular women. So you are jealous. Okay. Well, I'm a little curious. I gotta say I'm a little curious. I mean, if you put a picture of Pete, I mean, there's got to be something happening there. Let's just put it out there. He's got the Kevorka. I'm gonna send you
SPEAKER_01: a link to an article. I don't know what an article is. I'm Google that from Seinfeld, where Kramer was like, you know, dating all these beautiful women. And it's because he explained he had the Kevorka. He's got a better finishing
SPEAKER_02: move. Yeah, this is an article that went viral this week,
SPEAKER_04: Emily ratakowski. How do you pronounce her name? Yeah, breaks down breaks down why women find Pete Davidson so attractive. And so this was like, you know, I saw it all over Twitter this week, but it was all about, you know, and what is the answer? Just give me the headlines. I don't know.
SPEAKER_04: It's some he's got super charming. He's vulnerable. He's lovely. His fingernail polish is awesome. He looks good. He has a good relationship with his mom. I mean, I just think he comes across as a good guy might be the appeal. But they want to take care of him. I think because he's got like, his dad
SPEAKER_03: guys are missing a more subtle, not obvious. I don't know what
SPEAKER_03: you're talking about. Joe. Explain. Maybe you could expand. I'm just getting family show tomorrow. It's a family show. Oh, my God.
SPEAKER_04: No, it's good to care of him. That's what I heard. Good for
SPEAKER_03: Pete Davidson woman said they want to like rock on him. David. Yeah, I mean, also Kim Kardashian. I think you know, she just got the Gen Z. I think she was probably going the way of Paris Hilton, like maybe aging out of her. You know, celebrity, and now she went Kanye, kind of Gen X, right? And now she's going down to Gen Z. She's got a whole new. I hate to be cynical about it. But I am also, you know, I'm gonna take so
SPEAKER_02: much flack for saying this, but I was a little short Donda. But I've listened to Donda now a couple times. And my god, is it good. It's pretty fucking good. I mean, Kanye West is one of legitimately one of the most incredible artists of all time. I mean, the way he's my growth, the music, the beats, it's outrageous. I think if you give done that, like, two or three shots. It's really registration college dropout and 808 and
SPEAKER_03: heartbreaks. I imagine my dark twisted fantasy was probably one
SPEAKER_02: of the best albums ever created. Well, see, that's the thing is,
SPEAKER_03: I think ridiculous with his later work. Like I didn't get into my beautiful dark twisted fantasy until I had listened to it 10 times. And then I was like, Okay, I get amazing. Yeah.
SPEAKER_02: And I feel like I'm so accessible, like, draw
SPEAKER_03: registration. But Donna is pretty incredible. I mean, it's right now. David's actually like, what are you guys talking about? I listen to any of this. David, do you know? He's like,
SPEAKER_02: is that like Paul Anka? David's like, Yeah, wow.
SPEAKER_02: Sax, do you listen to music? Actually, this is your favorite artists? What's your favorite? Like, if we found like, if we listen, like you're like your workout tracks, so like on your like on on Barry Manilow, like I Apple, like, what are you listening to? Like Spotify? Like, what do you talk about?
SPEAKER_01: No music. I don't listen to music when I work out. The only time I really
SPEAKER_01: listen to music is when I'm like in a car on a plane or whatever. But do you have music for example, like downloaded on your
SPEAKER_02: phone? Like if you send out your phone? Huh? Yeah, I do.
SPEAKER_01: Can you give a couple names here? Yeah, top three. Yeah,
SPEAKER_02: honestly, it's gonna be recent hits, because I just downloaded
SPEAKER_01: my kids told me to download. I understand. But just give me a
SPEAKER_02: couple albums that you've downloaded. Okay, so where's
SPEAKER_01: recently added? Okay, so it looks to me like I recently added Khalid. Yes. Okay. Well, good. There's a Gaga song. Kid
SPEAKER_01: Leroy and Miley Cyrus. Okay. Okay. Leroy and Justin Bieber. Great. Doja Cat. My kids. She's great. She's great. Tiktok Queen. Yeah.
SPEAKER_03: See, my kids keep me current. You know, you think I'm like,
SPEAKER_01: he's great.
SPEAKER_03: Here's what I'm doing for my kids. This is my new parenting strategy. I was like, they love listening to the 80s playlist on Spotify. But now I was like, what, who are like great seminal artists. So I have them doing Tom Petty, David Bowie, talking heads and Bob Marley. And I get the whole greatest hits album. And I explained to them every song and they're like, totally getting into it. So basically, actually know what great music
SPEAKER_02: is. You're being self indulgent, you're focused on yourself, and you're trying to make them a loser. No, I'm trying to get
SPEAKER_03: them to understand what actually you want your kids to walk into
SPEAKER_02: school. And when somebody else like, Hey, do you like Doja Cat? They're like, No, but have you listened to Betty and the Heartbreakers? I've been doing that. I've been playing my kids,
SPEAKER_04: my favorite artists, and they and he's become their favorite artists. A-Fex Twin. You guys don't know who he is. Yeah, he's a great album called the Richard D. James album. Richard D. James album is probably one of the best albums of all time. And I play it, my kids go friggin nuts for it now. And they ask for it nonstop. And I'm like, Oh, my God, I love you. You're my kids. It's the best. I try to get my kids into my favorite movies. And that's just
SPEAKER_01: too hard because movies were everybody. They were so too slow. But yeah,
SPEAKER_04: watch movies. It's hard. They want to watch hard. Yeah.
SPEAKER_03: No, they can't watch movies. They're too slow. They can't watch movies. They watch a Marvel movie. They can't even watch the original Star Wars Raiders of the Lost Ark. Totally. Anything where the scene doesn't cut every one and
SPEAKER_04: a half seconds. They can't watch it. I was like Raiders of the Lost Ark. You're gonna love this.
SPEAKER_03: So like, this is so boring. I'm like, Raiders of the Lost Ark Tell Me to Boom are boring. This is terrible. I remember watching like character development. They want
SPEAKER_01: to cut the first act. Have you guys watched and watch Jaws would be like unwatchable. She loved it. Did you guys ever watch like AMC and you watch the
SPEAKER_04: old school movies of the 30s and 40s? They are impossible to watch. Like they are so it's like watching a play. And that was, you know, it's like gotten more and more kind of short form as we've kind of aged but you know, that's like Oh, no, what happened? Okay, so teach Aki.
SPEAKER_02: Okay, Aki. Aki just came and took it from you don't take it a
SPEAKER_03: biscuit. Aki you eat a dog food. You don't need a biscuit. Bad
SPEAKER_02: Aki. You know those biscuits are cashmere. They're really expensive. All right, I'm gonna I'm gonna get my booster shot.
SPEAKER_04: See you guys later. All right, everybody. This has been another
SPEAKER_03: exciting, amazing episode of the all in podcast for rain to get back for the dictator. I'm not sure I'm happy to and the Sultan
SPEAKER_03: of Science David freeburg. We'll see you all next time.
SPEAKER_02: sexy. We have a wonderful time with Suarez. He came by last night. I'm hosting Miami Mayor Francis Suarez tonight. We're
SPEAKER_01: doing a cocktail reception fundraiser for him. And we got huge turnout. I mean, I tweeted this thing. And we're gonna have, I think at least 60 people at the reception at least 20 people for dinner. Security. You're letting randos in your house from Twitter of
SPEAKER_03: security. Oh, they have to pay five dimes. Yeah, they're yeah, yeah, to pay but also like, we kind of took everybody
SPEAKER_01: out one of your enemies, one of your enemies will pay five
SPEAKER_04: diamonds just to get in your house. I think basically like
SPEAKER_03: BuzzFeed paid to get in there. I'd be careful. We have to we
SPEAKER_01: have to know who they are. We've got them background. There's a lot of people I mean, look, if we want to let everybody in, there are at least 100 people who are applied to my tweet saying I can't DM you. But I want to go and open your dams for a day. Oh, you can do that. Yeah. Francis came by yesterday
SPEAKER_02: with his team. He was in top form. He looks great. He's excited about the next term. All right. We'll see you all next
SPEAKER_03: time. Bye bye.
SPEAKER_01: What your winners ride? Rain Man David Sasse. We open source it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it. Love you. Besties are
SPEAKER_02: just get a room and just have one big huge door because they're all just like this like sexual tension but they just need to release. You're a bee.
