SPEAKER_03: So, Sax, are we going to talk with each other today or, you know, or?
SPEAKER_02: He's an ISO player. He turned into an ISO player. He's like the Carmelo Anthony of this f***ing squad.
SPEAKER_01: He's the Carmelo Anthony of the All-In-Pod. Sax, you want to pass the ball? Or you just want to, you want to clank it off the rim? Rayman! Clank!
SPEAKER_03: I think we should have a focus on having a dialogue with each other today. Several points in the thing as opposed to all standing up saying our piece and then hopping off. Sax, we lost a little bit of the fiber of this team here.
SPEAKER_02: There's three people playing as a team and then there's like... Sax, I would love to ask you questions and I would love for you to ask me questions.
SPEAKER_03: It's not my job to pass the ball, JCal. You're the f***ing guard. You pass the ball.
SPEAKER_00: I'm supposed to score. Oh, really? Remember what Shaq used to say when he wasn't getting the ball? He gets really unhappy. He said, pass the ball to the big dog. He'll score. Yeah, okay. I'm Shaq. You're, you know, you're not Kobe. Who is the the shitty little like off guard? Derek Fisher? Yeah, you're Derek Fisher. Make sure the big dog gets the ball and there won't be any problems. I'm Bob Cousy, okay? I'm Gary Payton in this f***ing analogy here, okay?
SPEAKER_02: Hey, everybody. Welcome to the All In podcast, where three besties talk about a range of
SPEAKER_02: topics and one monologues about Biden derangement syndrome with you again this week, the Sultan of Science and the dictator, Chumash Palihapitiya, David Friedberg, and playing ISO ball somewhere in the wing is your political commentator, Tucker Jr. Rain Man David Sachs. It's an active projection. First story, which Sachs is going to lose his mind over. He's got two monologues prepared. Justin Trudeau has invoked an emergency order to freeze bank accounts linked to trucker protests in Canada. On Monday, Trudeau invoked an emergency law that requires financial institutions in Canada to examine customer records and take action against people involved with or aiding in the protest. Here's Trudeau's tweet from yesterday. If you're watching on the video streams, illegal blockades and occupations are not peaceful protests. They're a threat to jobs and communities and they cannot continue in the House of Commons. Earlier today, I joined members of the Parliament speak about that and about the need to invoke the emergencies act the counter signal which is a right leaning Canadian digital publication reported that 34 different crypto wallets were also being targeted by Canadian officials. This law grants the government extraordinary
SPEAKER_00:
SPEAKER_02: powers like the right to ban public assembly in certain locations. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association said a plan to challenge the government's decision in court. Remember, Sachs wrote a piece on financial deplatforming for barry Weiss's common sense about a year ago, the piece was about the private sector financial platforms deplatforming folks. So your thoughts sacks you have 90 seconds on the uninterrupted clock.
SPEAKER_00: On the shot clock. All right. Thank you, Jake. It's true. Last summer, I wrote a piece for Barry Weiss as some stack, talking about how financial deplatform would be the next wave of online censorship. And here we are, it's actually happened. What I could not have predicted is that it would occur in our mild mannered neighbor to the north and that the reprisals would be directed by the government itself, not just a consortium of private actors. And what Trudeau has done is he didn't just employ the emergency act against the truckers so that he could basically arrest them and break up the protest. They have now directed banks and any financial institution, even cryptocurrency wallets, to freeze the accounts, not just to the truckers, but anybody who's contributed to them. Basically, anyone has contributed $25 or more. There were two crowdfunding sites that they raised money from all those people, the thousands of of just ordinary Canadians who did nothing more than contribute to an anti government protest. They are now at risk of financial ruin because their bank accounts have been frozen. And you have to wonder what is the end here that justifies the means? COVID Omicron is on the wane, it's on its way out at the same time that Trudeau was announcing these dictatorial measures for the guy who runs Ontario, the largest province. 15 seconds.
SPEAKER_02: The Ford was out there saying that he was gonna that COVID mandates were going to be over. So why
SPEAKER_00: exactly are they doing this? We're at the end of COVID. And, Zach, let me ask you a question.
SPEAKER_03: If there were people online making donations to the criminals who loot and kill people in San Francisco, which you've railed against being criminals who are breaking the law and should all be put behind bars, do you think that it would be appropriate in that context for the government to block their donations to supporting criminal activity in a criminal ring? You know that I think we all agree, you know, shouldn't be transpiring.
SPEAKER_00: Well, but the implication there is that truckers are using violence or something like that. And they're not. I mean, it's been largely a peaceful protest. It's been very annoying to people who, But isn't the case being made that they are actually breaking the law by blocking streets?
SPEAKER_03: And that's not, you know, there's a peaceful protest where you can go and get a permit and actually go in a public zone and peacefully protest within the confines of the law and what's allowed in that jurisdiction. But what these folks are doing is civil disobedience, which is not a peaceful protest. It is, you know, kind of breaking the law to make a point. It is peaceful because there's been no violence. If you look at actual
SPEAKER_00: But they're breaking the law, right?
SPEAKER_02: Well, let me let me ask the question for Freeburg, then, you know, the second sex, if a group of truckers were shutting down the Bay Bridge with three lanes of traffic and then shut down the 280 and the 101. And it impacted this, if they in fact are shutting down roads, and picked up emergency businesses and emergency can get through, would
SPEAKER_02: you want them to be towed? Would you want their cars to be towed? Listen, here's the thing, the
SPEAKER_00: ambassador badge, this vital choke point of commerce between the US and Canada that was getting a serious problem, but it had already been cleared on Monday, by the time that Trudeau invoked the Emergencies Act. And then on Tuesday, he then invokes the Financial Act, your opinion sex, if they if they block roads and bridges, would you charge? Yeah, if they're
SPEAKER_02: breaking the law in that way, in one lane, it's all three lanes damages society. I'm just trying
SPEAKER_03: to understand the standard here. Because just zooming out to last year, the year before, right, there was a protest happening with BLM. And those BLM protests resulted in damage to private property, to burning cars. There were protests at the Capitol, that involved folks trespassing into federal land and federal buildings. And now there's protests that are, you know, blocking vital trade routes and, you know, access to emergency vehicles and all this sort of stuff. To me, and also, you know, people in San Francisco breaking the law and not being put in jail, my personal opinion is anyone that's breaking the law, we should stop them from breaking the law. And anyone that wants to kind of, you know, follow a peaceful protest or make a point should kind of make the point. But if the law is the law, shouldn't there be a universal standard to hold up the law? And if the case and if the case is people are giving money to aid in breaking the law, shouldn't we stop the whole lot? You know, transmission? Hold on, hold on a second. Look,
SPEAKER_01: I think you're conflating a bunch of really important things there. Aiding and abetting criminals is already illegal. There are RICO statutes that allow the authorities to go after people that are aiding and abetting through monetary support, criminal behavior. Separately, there's a whole body of law at the federal, state, local level that allows you to deal with protests, okay? The real question is why did you have to go and invoke emergency powers at the tail end of a pandemic for what is effectively non-violent protests? Again, that's the key question, right? So, just to give you some Canadian history, as a Canadian citizen, what I can tell you is that we've invoked this Emergency Powers Act three times in the past. The first was for World War II, the second, sorry, World War I, the second was for World War II, and the third was the FLQ crisis, which was a domestic terrorist organization in Quebec that was fighting for a separate homeland. Those are the three other times in the past that a sitting prime minister has invoked these broad sweeping emergency powers, and they did it because you exhaust the natural body of law and the constitution and the bill of, you know, the charter of rights that governs the normal behavior of a democratic society. What this was is not any of those things. I don't think anybody could claim that a bunch of non-violent protests, yes, they were annoying, yes, they basically, you know, stopped some commerce, but I don't think it was on the order of World War I, World War II, or a domestic terrorism issue like the FLQ crisis. So, why invoke this basically get-out-of-jail-free card where you can behave without any checks and balances? This is the confounding. Hold on a second. Did we exhaust the current body of normal
SPEAKER_01: governing law? And if we didn't, why is this example okay? And the counterfactuals are so many. Imagine Trump invoked this thing during BLM. Imagine Biden did this right now. EU would be up in arms. I think that's well said, and let me just add something to that. The Emergencies Act
SPEAKER_00: that Trudeau invoked requires something like an act of espionage against the country or the word serious violence or in the law or the threat of serious violence. Those conditions were simply not met. Yeah. And then on top of that, to go after people who contribute as little as $25 to these truckers who are trying to support them because these guys are not making any money, you know, they're living under very harsh conditions. So, you make a small check, you write a small donation to support these people to aid them. They're simple working-class people who are protesting for normalcy and to get their freedom back. And now all of a sudden, your bank account gets frozen. It is basically creating a... It's going to have a chilling effect because it's essentially creating a cast of untouchables because no one is going to want to associate with, transact with, or donate to this group of people, these designated people now under the Emergencies Act, who your bank account can get frozen if you deal with them. I think it's going to have the opposite effect. I think there's going to blow up the whole thing.
SPEAKER_02: It's going to have the opposite effect. I think there's going to blow up in Trudeau's face. This is the worst decision-making by any major political leader in a long time. To go after a group of people, as Chamath said, in the waning days of a pandemic, what is the point? Why are we picking this? Why is he picking this guy on? It makes no sense. But why is he doing it?
SPEAKER_03: Chamath, why did the police not break... So, I totally hear your point. Why did the police not break up these protests? Why did he need to invoke the emergency? Because, look, they have been.
SPEAKER_01: I think that the police in some cases did. In some cases didn't. There were probably a lot of police sympathizers. There were probably a lot of sympathizers in general, as there were a lot of people who were detractors. Are you saying there were police that were complicit?
SPEAKER_03: It's the nature of a protest. You have people for, you have people against. But the point is, I think
SPEAKER_01: what's really clear is Justin Trudeau first basically said, these people are racists and misogynists. Then he said, they just hold views that are just unacceptable to me. And then, like a totalitarian dictator, invoked an emergency measures act that allows him to do what he wants. That's the fact pattern. He painted himself into a political corner and then tried to give, successfully, he gave himself absolute power for some period of time. And the real question, I think, is why should this be allowed to happen in a democratic country with democratic norms against people that haven't done, as far as I can tell, a shred of violent behavior? No, it hasn't been. Do you guys think... And where it's clear that the body of normal governing law hasn't been exhausted yet. Meaning, the minute that these people were asked to actually empty the ambassador bridge, they did. Guys, we're Canadians. That's what we do. Yes, we love to protest. Super nice. But if you just ask us, we'll just go and do it. Super nice. Exactly. No, you're right. Trudeau never tried talking to them. I mean, why wouldn't he just try and...
SPEAKER_00: Never try to talk to them. Why wouldn't he just try and negotiate with them? Instead, he demonized them right off the bat as white supremacists and Nazis and even Confederates, which I don't even understand in the context of Canada. This is yet another example of the dying death, right in front of us, of the woke playbook.
SPEAKER_01: We talked about this last week. I think it's related to the San Francisco Board of Ed recall that's now national and probably even international news. The reaction to Rogan, the reaction to Dave Chappelle, it's all part and parcel of this thing where people up and down the spectrum have learned what the mechanism of action is of this cancel culture, and they don't fall for it anymore. There's a person that's able to escalate it because he's actually in a seat of power. And that's what I think people should be debating. You mean shutting down dissenting voices from a position of power?
SPEAKER_03: Just because and he went on necessarily he went on the record and he said,
SPEAKER_01: guys, these views are unacceptable to me. Well, in a democratic society, that's not your choice.
SPEAKER_02: Yeah, not your choice, Justin. I mean, views on all kinds of topics all the time unacceptable is not the threshold of World War
SPEAKER_01: Two, World War One in the FL q crisis. Do you guys think that there's a moment here that also
SPEAKER_03: is a mile marker on the road towards the state versus crypto, given the actions that were taken against Bitcoin wallets, because that seems to be like a big trend that's going to play out over the next decade or two. There are plenty of inevitably crypto is the threat to the state, right? And so, you know, you're going to see skirmishes like this that kind of, you know, hey, wallets that donate are illegal. And, you know, free, but this is one of the best points you've
SPEAKER_02: made. If you look at what this has done to Bitcoin, and you look at what it's done for other cryptocurrencies, this will do more than McDonald's accepting Bitcoin, because this is the first time like a Western democratic state is seizing people's funds like in an incredibly unfair, unnecessary way, which is just going to have more people say, you know what, maybe I should keep some of my net worth out of the government's purview if they're going to seize it anyway, and then now people are going to start looking into the coins that allow people to conflate having an enemy
SPEAKER_01: with having a different view. Hugs aren't the same thing. Having an enemy is a serious deal, right? Whether that's domestic or international. That's what we had to do in World War One, World War Two, and the FLQ crisis. This is just somebody who has a different opinion. I don't agree in mask mandates is what one person says. I want a mask mandate is what the other person says. The idea that you can de-platform one or the other or fire them from their job or prevent them from having access to the money that they've earned, or preventing other people from donating money, that's really, it's a really low bar. I think when you normalize this kind of behavior, it's a very slippery slope. If somebody else were to do it, they now have, like it's, again, going back to the René Girard sort of philosophical discussion from last week, one of the things about these stoning rituals that Sax talked about, that we talked about last week, one of the things that René Girard talks about is it is always hardest for that first person. The first person that throws the stone, that's how Jesus was able to diffuse that incident as described in the book of John, but in a different example, the first person that throws a stone, all of a sudden normalizes it for everybody else after them, and then these stonings become commonplace or became commonplace. So, similarly, it's like if you're a sitting democratic person who just decides this doesn't work for you, you can't flip the script and basically remove everybody's democratic rights. That's really crazy.
SPEAKER_02: Sax, you had a closing point you wanted to make? Well, okay, just on this point about Bitcoin, the reason why Bitcoin is necessary is because
SPEAKER_00: the tactics that Trudeau is using is essentially to starve these truckers out, to not only basically arrest them, but he's also taking away their insurance licenses, he's basically preventing them from ever working again. He's talked about that, we're going to give you a criminal record, it's going to make it hard for you to get a job. And then most importantly, on top of that, he's preventing anyone from helping them by contributing to them, by making a donation. So he's essentially starving these guys out. And that's the reason why Bitcoin is potentially helpful, is it allows people using non-custodial wallets to make an end run around that and donate and help these people who are being persecuted, essentially. I mean, he could have just simply chosen to do what Sax's favorite President Obama did,
SPEAKER_02: with Occupy Wall Street, which is say, great, you have something you want to voice, here's where you can do it. Just you know, no guns, no violence, but we let how long did Occupy Wall Street last in downtown Wall Street and in Oakland and other places like a year or two, and you just wait them out. And that's it. I think when you encounter a sincere protest movement, the first thing you
SPEAKER_00: should do as leaders actually listen and try to understand what it is that they're protesting on behalf of. And Trudeau never did that. He went straight to 11 with this. And I think part of the reason why, I mean, Jacob, you asked, why is it that, you know, there seems to be a common denominator with this and with the Ukraine issue that the leaders are immediately escalating these situations instead of looking for a way to de-escalate it, and they're doing it with the media egging them on. And so as harsh as Trudeau's rhetoric has been, the media's rhetoric around this has been even worse. You have this CNN contributor, Juliette Kayyem, who's also a Harvard professor, who basically tweeted that Trudeau needed to slash their tires, empty the gas tanks, arrest the drivers, you know, making it unclear how you never get the trucks off the bridge. But then she said, cancel their insurance, suspend their driver's license, prohibit any future regulatory verification. She says, trust me, I will not run out of ways to make this hurt. You know, it's you have the media cheering this on, egging on Trudeau. They're doing the same thing, beating the drums of war in Ukraine. What is wrong with these people? De-escalate,
SPEAKER_02: and where's the off ramp? I think the biggest the biggest story is this, this Bitcoin thing, because,
SPEAKER_03: you know, if you guys think about like, pre 1960s, like capital wasn't digitized, it was like physical, like you had to own like a stock certificate or cash or gold, or a bearer bond. Today, everything is digitized, right? Like there's a digital record of, you know, who owns what stock and who, how much is in your bank account, and none of it is tied to your having a physical asset. And ultimately, the law was able to reach into these digital systems and have greater oversight and ultimately control, you know, over accounts and so on. And it's had a, you know, the digitization of capital assets has had an incredible ability to drive economic growth and investment and ease of transaction. But it's also significantly increased the centralization of assets or the central influence over assets. Bitcoin seems to be the resolution to that. And now you're seeing the ultimate challenge to Bitcoin and the challenge to decentralized systems like Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies and so on. I don't want to speak specifically to anyone. But there seems to be like this trend line over the last 60 years that's now being challenged. Because you can have your accounts frozen at any moment, you know, for breaking the law or because emergency actor are induced. And I think you're right, it's probably going to accelerate interest in these kind of off government chain, if true, separate chain, anyone can do it. Anybody can do it. They're doing it in China, right? And they're, and that's the point of it. It's the point of it. The digital yuan is like this incredible whole point. It's like absolute centralization of every capital asset. Here's where you can think about dangerous the digital yuan is the minute
SPEAKER_01: you say something that Xi Jinping doesn't like it's a it's a stroke of a keyboard key. And all your assets are all your assets are locked away. It's a database entry and you just basically reroute
SPEAKER_01: who belong who belongs to or it could be it could happen in America. They say you know what
SPEAKER_02: California now wants to have a wealth tax. Anybody who's got money, we're just going to take your money out of your account automatically. Do you guys think we sound like a right wing politics
SPEAKER_03: show at this point? No, this isn't a right wing politics thing. I think I think that we have so
SPEAKER_01: jumped the shark. There are things that are happening today, every day, that you know, if you had said in isolation two or three years ago, would any of these things ever happen? We all would have just looked at each other and said, it's impossible that these things could happen. But the problem is, fast forward two years of the pandemic, I think we have led a lot of our civil liberties decay right under our nose. And we're not willing to fight for it because it's become too tribal and rights have been politicized. So the idea of having rights, you know, and then standing up for your rights, all of a sudden has to be a decision between whether you're left or right. That's crazy. I don't think that liberties in the sense of government oversight have decayed
SPEAKER_03: in addition to that, liberties in the sense of a social setting have decayed. You know, we've because of cancel culture, we've normalized the ability to silence minority or dissenting voices. And this is both in the private enterprise setting as well as in the public setting. And it's, you know, I don't know, I don't consider myself a right wing conservative person by any stretch. But I do consider myself a person who believes in individual freedom and liberty. That's called an American, by the way. Yeah, it's basically being an American. And I think,
SPEAKER_02: you know, as we move on to this, recall in San Francisco, I think, Sachs made a really good point. Like, what are political leaders doing here? Are they trying to stir the pot and antagonize these situations? If you look, you know, Clinton, Obama, a lot of people previously were trying to defuse these situations. And then Biden seems to be stirring the pot, Justin Trudeau, and then if you look at Trump with BLM, you know, and the immigration stuff, he never sat down and met with them and he arguably antagonized them. So I think this is a perfect segue into what happened. And, you know, we should expect a little more from our political leaders. Great point from sacks, you just bought up something incredible. You know,
SPEAKER_01: Trump railed against these BLM folks, but at no point did he try to shut down their bank accounts. And take their money away. No, Trudeau can't, you know, this was not even near in the scale of BLM. Yeah, who is the bigger authoritarian? Yeah, I mean, it's clearly if you objectively it's
SPEAKER_02: true down in this situation, the scary authoritarianism, as we talked about in
SPEAKER_01: previous pods tends to come from the left. At least the right you see it coming. I just want to read it's veiled under moral virtue signaling. That's right. They're very sanctimonious. They
SPEAKER_00: claim they claim to be the defenders of the working class. And while they're actually prosecuting them, such an unforced era, like, so dumb, he's gonna lose right. He's gonna lose if
SPEAKER_03: a DA was elected and a police office and police chief were elected to San Francisco. That said, we are going to freeze the bank accounts and, you know, demobilize the criminals that are ransacking our city, our people, our stores, would you support that? No, not if it's not as an extra
SPEAKER_00: not as an extra judicial use of power. I mean, the law specifies what you're allowed to do giving San Francisco's in an emergency situation. I mean, would you support the mayor taking on
SPEAKER_03: emergency authority to go and fix the problem, which she just did, by the way, in the tenderloin?
SPEAKER_00: Yeah, but that doesn't give her the power to go to Wells Fargo and say to Wells Fargo, we want you to freeze all these accounts with no due process of law. That's basically what Trudeau is done. That's the overreach. That's the line you think is like going see, you should have
SPEAKER_00: to go through a court proceeding to free someone's bank account, period. Can't just freeze someone's bank account. The law allows you to do this now. It's called RICO. So you follow the due process
SPEAKER_01: of the law. And you can do all those things free bird that you just mentioned, if you want to free somebody's bank account, right? You can actually do that the government has the ability to do that they don't need to pass this basically get out of jail free card to do whatever you want without any oversight. And to Jamal's point earlier, have you exhausted the regular law here? They were not
SPEAKER_02: arresting the regular law haven't even tried it's five bucks on you know, the time you want. And meanwhile, the all the provinces are ending COVID mandates anyway. So this whole issue is
SPEAKER_00: moot. So dumb. It's this is like the stupidest behavior at the end of a pandemic that we've ever
SPEAKER_02: seen. And shout out to George Lucas for getting it right. I mean, if you look at the theme of Star Wars, it was like, Oh, I just need emergency powers for a minute because of a trade federation blockade. And here we go. A crisis of fake crisis. Yeah, that wasn't George Lucas, by the way. I
SPEAKER_03: mean, that goes back to the Roman, Roman right? Like, yeah, yeah, that was the formation of the Empire Caesar Caesar got emergency authority. I mean, this is a tried and true and the poll, the poll shows are actually right. And the polls show that the most of the public in Canada is
SPEAKER_00: applauding. So what was the line from democracy dies to applause? Exactly. That's exactly that
SPEAKER_02: was Padme his line in the Star Wars films. All right. They're aging. Well, the prequels, three members of San Francisco's Board of Education were they were the worst just to be clear, but go on. Not compared to the three, just huge dumps that Disney took on the our childhoods with the sequels. Three members of the San Francisco Board of Education were called this week
SPEAKER_02: massively they lost by between 72% and 79%. These were the virtue signaling maniacs who wanted to change the names of all the schools wouldn't reopen the schools, yada yada. And this really frustrated and they wanted to get rid of elite AP classes. All of this, Jason, they did they did. Yeah. And these three board members are out. So London breed. Jason, Jason, just to be
SPEAKER_01: clear in the middle of a pandemic. I think my understanding is that instead of figuring out how to get these kids back in class, how to figure out how they could take off their masks, they wanted to drop Abraham Lincoln and George Washington's name from schools because it was it was too regressive. Yep. They canceled the gifted program because it made other kids feel bad. And a gentleman that wanted to serve on a committee who I think was gay, but not minority was excluded because he wasn't a minority enough for them. So these are the three people that 76% of San Francisco citizens or you know, residents just recalled. And if you're not following this,
SPEAKER_02: the tech industry had a major part in this in terms of backing it, there was a lot of claims, which I'll let sacks address in a moment that this was a republican driven out of state movement. But if you look, there are not 100,000 republicans in San Francisco in all likelihood. This was actually parents in a lot of cases based on the geography of San Francisco and the density of certain populations. A lot of Asian Americans came out in force in some neighborhoods 90% were voting to oust these people. Gary tan, who is a product of the San Francisco public education system and a great entrepreneur venture capitalist was a leader in this movement. So congratulations to him. And this all is going to culminate I think in May or June sacks will correct me with the recall effort for chess abudin this killer da who won't prosecute anybody sacks. What are your thoughts on this victory? And full disclosure, you were a major donor to this. I was the second largest donor and I was the largest donor under age 90. Arthur rock was the biggest donor. What a
SPEAKER_00: badass by the way, the guy's 95 years old. He donated $400,000 to this recall. He was in fairness, you live in San Francisco. This is a backdoor issue for you. You care? Oh, yeah. Yeah. Look, I
SPEAKER_02: think crime in schools are the key quality of life issues in any community. And that transcends
SPEAKER_00: partisan boundaries. If your kids cannot get a quality education, and you cannot be safe in your community, nothing else matters. And that matters to Democrats just as much as Republicans. And that's why like you said, three quarters of San Francisco voted for this recall, even though 85% of them voted for Biden's not, it's basically a 90% Democrat city. So, you know, all these claims that was a Republican recall turned out to be nonsense. This was something that was broadly supported. And, and, you know, look, it's the same reason that young can flipped a, you know, plus 10 Democrats state in Virginia, which is that, you know, it had a lot to do with school closures, they kept the schools closed for a year and a half. And then when they were supposed to have conversate a PTA meeting about reopening it, like Jamaa said, they spent five hours debating whether to allow this beloved gay parent onto a voluntary school board, they didn't, they said, they didn't, they spent all their time, you know, talking about changing the names of the schools and said how to reopen them. They also there's chronic mismanagement. I mean, the school is something like $125 million in debt, despite, you know, being in a very rich city, they open for one
SPEAKER_01: day, that's right, just so that they could get a state piece of the state budget pie. So these kids clamored back to school just so that they could technically say, Yeah, we were open and to get I think it was a 12 or $13 million check, and then they shut the schools down again. Right. And you
SPEAKER_00: point Jason, which is that the Asian American community in San Francisco has been absolutely galvanized by this issue, because the school board also, you know, Lowell High School is one of the best schools in the city, and it was merit based, and it had great advanced math programs. And this this board basically got rid of all that stuff. And it infuriated the Asian American community, many of whose most prominent members have basically risen out of poverty because of the education they got at Lowell. And so this war on merit that's happening is something that is going to, you know, flip the, you know, Asian American community, I think, to When I when I was growing up, I grew up in a French ghetto of Ottawa.
SPEAKER_01: And I was supposed to go to a local high school that was just plainly trash. And I was able to go to an equivalent of Lowell, this public magnet high school that had advanced classes and everything, a gifted program. And it really did change my life. And so I really understand what people are saying, which is, like when you're in poverty, the only way out is through an education, really, you may, you know, get accidentally lucky. But the only really predictable, sustainable pattern here is is through school. And so when you deprive folks from being able to get a decent education, and there's no real, you know, orderly logic to it, it's a really ridiculous kind of an idea. The other thing is, I think that this speaks very powerfully, as SAC said, as a non as a bipartisan issue that these democrats have to get right, because, you know, you saw this also in Virginia, where Democrats basically went down this one tack. And, you know, the Republican candidate, Glenn Youngkin, basically said, hey, listen, the schools are broken, it's completely doesn't make any sense. We oppose a lot of what's going on, the watering down and the critical race theory, etc, etc. And he put it to a vote. And a lot of people cross the aisle there as well, where typically, ardent Democrats basically voted for this Republican governor. I think the point is that there are just several issues that are just so transcend, like they're just they transcend all party lines. And this is an anchor issue that we have to get right. Friedberg, any thoughts on this? Do you think this is the start of maybe a turnaround for
SPEAKER_02: San Francisco? Because Chesapeake is way more hated. And safety is an even bigger issue, I think for a lot of people right now in San Francisco. And it dovetails with Asian hate and the number of Asian people targeted in crimes. So he's got a, I mean, if these people got out by 75%, on average, he's going to be out by 95%. Is this a tipping point? Is San Francisco going to make a read? I don't know. I mean, look, I think there's generally a broader
SPEAKER_03: trend and momentum around what we classify as wokeism, which I think is a little bit disparaging to the intention of social justice and recognizing the primary points of social justice through action and behavior in civic discourse and in government behavior. And, you know, this, like the election of several DAs around the country, who take a different stance to prosecution of crime to try and create better options for rehab and so on, I think is not a movement that's going to go away overnight. I think there's certainly a hefty amount of resistance. But what we're really doing right now is I think we're learning and realizing the boundaries of this movement and of this moment. The one boundary that I think San Franciscans are too bad at, San Francisco, like, you know, as in the case in tech has always been so progressive in terms of, you know, doing these things faster than anyone else. But what we're realizing in San Francisco is non prosecution of criminals, as the DA has undertaken over the past couple of years leads to really heinous crime and rampant crime. And this kind of social justice movement within the education system causes a decline in the value of our education system. Those are two really important learnings that San Francisco has had over the past couple of years with this very important and momentous kind of social justice movement. But it doesn't mean that the movement is over. It doesn't mean that quote unquote, wokeism is over. It means that that social justice intent is still there. But we're realizing where the boundaries are and how far things can and maybe should go. I posted this article, Tyler Collin, who's a pretty well known economist,
SPEAKER_01: he wrote this op-ed for Bloomberg. And what he said is that wokeism has peaked. And there's just these two passages that builds on what Freeburg said, quote, by wokeism, I refer to a movement that on the positive side is highly aware of racism and social injustice, and is galvanized towards raising awareness. On the negative side, it can be preachy, alienating, overly concerned with symbols and self-righteous, unquote. And I think that that probably does summarize sort of like where it starts, which is I think, rooted in a very good place. But unfortunately, all too often where it ends, which is that sort of moral absolutist judgment, cancel culture around it. And then the second quote that he said was the following. He said, quote, wokeism is likely to evolve into a subculture that is highly educated, highly white, and fairly feminine. That is still a large mass of people, but not enough to run the country or all its major institutions. In the San Francisco School Board recall, for instance, the role of Asian Americans was especially prominent, unquote. So I don't know, I just think that all these things sort of, you know, people are looking for affiliation, and you start with labels that bring you in, and then you have to sort out, are all these labels really true, and how true are they? And I think we're in this moment now where now that we know the mechanism of action of wokeism, I just don't think it works anymore. And I think a lot of people will say, I believe in the high order of deals of racial and social justice, but I don't believe in the mechanism of action. And so the pendulum swung too far. But the core intent of a generation of change is underway, which is social justice and climate
SPEAKER_03: change. I think those are the two big points of concern. It just won't be done with this cohort under this. Well, it won't be done to this extreme this fast, right? And I think that the pendulum went too fast,
SPEAKER_03: too far. And there are boundary effects that are causing recourse right now. And we're seeing this across the country, especially in New York with the election of the mayor in San Francisco, the DA recalls happening in the next couple of months. So, Saks, what's your prediction on the DA recall, by the way? Well, that's 95%. But I mean, to build on your point, they were talking about 10% of the
SPEAKER_02: people in the United States who are involved in this, you know, retweeting and virtual signaling. And, you know, is Twitter a real place? Well, no, a city is a real place, people have to live in San Francisco. And when these ideologies result in unlivable conditions for people, well, they're going to say, you know what, there's reality here, how do we get competent people to take the positions, Saks, that are being vacated? Now, who should London breed put in these three positions? And maybe tech people need to, I mean, this is what I think has to happen. I think some number of tech people have to get off the bench and say, you know what, I'm going to do a tour of duty as politicians in San Francisco to take back the city. What should happen here in terms of who takes these positions? Because Republicans can't win in San Francisco. So you're going to need moderate Democrats, right? So before sex goes, can I just say something? Because I think I just want
SPEAKER_03: to say something that's really important sex, I'm sorry to jump in. But Jake, how I think the point you're making about the tech people implies the tech people are effective and good at doing this. But that's not necessarily the fabric of San Francisco. I've lived in San Francisco since 2001. The number of people in San Francisco in 2001, that were in the tech industry was a minority. Since that time, it became a significant size. And over the last two years since the pandemic, it's decreased significantly. But San Francisco is a city with decades and generations of history. My wife's family is multi generational San Franciscans. And I don't think that traditionally San Franciscans view tech people as the right people to solve these problems for them, that the intention of that city is not necessarily about let's get tech people to solve our problems. They have a different set of values, perhaps. And so we often overstate the idea of tech people are the right people and are the problem solvers. But I don't think that that's necessarily the right problems that people want to solve. So I just I just wanted to interview, take these positions because right, it's really far left people are motivated to take these positions. I
SPEAKER_02: don't see business people writ large across all political, you know, positions but specifically San Francisco don't want to take these positions. So is this just going to be replayed? sex? The recall effort was led by two parents autumn illusion and Siva Raj, who are the parents of
SPEAKER_00: Siva Raj. They're the ones who led this thing. They're the ones who rose up to basically oppose these crazy school board members. And that is who London breach to talk to. I mean, she needs to go talk to the people who are successful in organizing this recall, because they understand the issues, obviously, and the people are with them. So either appoint them to the board or ask them for their recommendations. And I think what you see consistently, whether it's with this SF school board, or the the school boards that we saw in Virginia, that young can very effectively ran against is that they don't believe the parents matter. Terry McCollough's fatal that his last gaffe was basically saying that the parents shouldn't get to decide what is taught in the schools. He basically said the quiet part out loud. But that is what still across the country, the teachers unions believe, and most of Democratic Party, the activists believe, and until they start losing elections, you're not going to see a change in that belief.
SPEAKER_03: Oh, my God, how awesome would it be if SACs are on the school board? Oh, my God. Yeah. And just to put a pin in this, and the cherry on top, the San Francisco Board of
SPEAKER_02: Supervisors voted seven to four to send a recall reform bill. So their reaction to all of this is to do a recall of recalls and say now, you can't recall somebody in their first year and the people who are placed in these positions can't run again. So now the speculation is that three people who got voted off are going to run again. So there's a lot more to come on this. Yeah. And also part, so they're putting this to staff that they're putting that on the ballot on
SPEAKER_00: June 7th, the same day that we vote on the recall of Jason Boudin, the Board of Supervisors now put in this measure that would make it far harder to recall people. One of the provisions of that is whoever London Breed appoints as the successor, like you're talking about, they cannot run after that. So it is designed to for no, that makes no sense. They're basically trying to do a great job. Right? Exactly. It makes no sense. So you have the Board of Supervisors trying to throw a wrench into the democratic process. Meanwhile, these are people who claim to be preserving democracy, saving democracy, they're trying to throw a wrench in the thing is that underlying it,
SPEAKER_01: David is they think they know better. That's what it fundamentally comes down to. They are willing to have democracy up to a point. And when that point is an unacceptable view by somebody else, they feel like they know better. And they're willing to be really draconian in whatever they do to decide. Yeah. And shout out to Mike Bloomberg, I'll pull up the tweet for everybody.
SPEAKER_02: He hasn't been very vocal or been on the stage much, but obviously he did a great job in New York on reforming schools. The San Francisco School Board recall should be a wake up call to elected officials, especially Democrats across the nation, parents are fed up with the status quo. And that put adults that puts adults ahead of kids. Yeah. Well, ideology ahead of results. Well said, Mike.
SPEAKER_00: Yeah, well said, Mr. Bloomberg. Yes, that was very good. And Bloomberg has been very good on calling out the Democrat Democratic Party's blind loyalty to the teachers unions. And until they're willing to break with the teachers unions who are their biggest donor, we're not going to get any real progress on school reform. And this is the issue of my favorite political commentary. One of them is Roy to share a Democrat, he wrote the emerging democratic majority, he wrote a blog post talking about how the Asian American voters are going to swing away from the Democratic Party because of issues like this, because of the decline of standards in school and safety. And the Asian American community, I think, is galvanized on this Jason Boudin issue because they have seen in all these cases of Asian hate, where elders in their community have been violently assaulted. Jason Boudin has done nothing except release the perpetrators. All right. Well, listen, this is it
SPEAKER_02: seems like a good turning point. Let's we talked about on this podcast over and over again, about the compression in SAS multiples in the public market valuations, something that we're still working through in the stock market, which has been choppy at best over the last couple of months, an information story came out just this week, major crossover funds like tiger and D one are slowing down their investments in late stage private companies. And I was talking to some folks who said the multiple compression is here now. They're not doing the deals at 75 or 100 x revenue. This is reported in an article by the information tiger global told their LPS in a webinar earlier this month that it would no longer focus on backing late stage startups preparing to go public instead, they will focus on two things, going even earlier into series A and series B rounds, and buying shares of public tech companies that have sunk in value compared to the all time highs. Obviously, we know Twillo zoom block all down over 60% from their one year highs, I could get into more details here. But let's stop for a second and chamath. What are your thoughts in
SPEAKER_01: the.com bubble? It took somewhere between three to five years for most stocks to bottom. And they bottomed, I think, peak to trough somewhere, you know, towards 80% of where they were in 2000. Right. So it took three to five years to go basically minus 80%. We did that in three months, you know, maybe four months. And so the markets have become a lot more efficient over time. So now that we have that reset, it's pretty natural that there's going to be a very quick reset on the private market side. And you know, you have to go where the bodies are buried. And what I mean by that, in this case is the overwhelming misvaluation of late stage private companies. And so these folks don't have much of a choice, they have a lot of money that they've raised. Before all of this happened, they have a huge portfolio of stuff that they've marked up or have been marked up by others. And they don't want to go through the pain now of resetting. So part of the easy strategic decision there is to say, you know what, we know this is a little bit radioactive. But instead of really figuring out what the mark on these companies are, we'll go to a different sort of part of the playground and play there. Because we don't have to go and deal with these issues. And, you know, we can do 10, 15, $20 million checks into early stage businesses. Pretty normal reaction strategically. But I think the reality is that at some point in the next year or two, these other companies have to get public. The hope is that the market catches back up, so that you can defend the last valuation. And that's the way that this stuff doesn't require a lot of pain. The problem is if you're high burn, and you were counting on yet another successive round, or you're at a point in your lifecycle where you need to go public, in the next two years, if you go public, you will get taken to the woodshed. Take the woodshed being your valuation
SPEAKER_02: might be half of what it is in your last round. So there's going to be medicine that has to be taken sacks. There'll be medicine, some people are gonna have to take some medicine sacks, what's your best advice being one of the great operators in the history of Silicon Valley as a CEO of PayPal? Thanks, Jacob. Well, I'm gonna jump there with share. I mean, I think I think everybody agree the top four people can correct me here. Tim, good operator. Good operator. I mean, I saw what you did to ICQ, man, you were riding that that bad boy down. That
SPEAKER_02: wasn't delivered a billion fucking users to a company. Okay, it's pretty decent. You did
SPEAKER_02: pretty good at Facebook. I'll say that. But if I would think most people would say, sacks, Cheryl, Tim Cook, Keith, our boy will put that aside for the debate in terms of operating a little dark,
SPEAKER_01: spicy barbecue pork here. Come on. Give me a give me a little bit you in the top 25. Sure. Okay.
SPEAKER_02: But I mean, it wasn't your wasn't your chosen career. A little dark meat. Nice. Please don't get me in trouble. Bring me into your dark people. Your orbit. Who are your top four? Cheryl,
SPEAKER_03: I put my top four in this order. I'll give it an order. So basically for white people when basically Asian and Indian CEOs run most of the tech companies and talking about number two co is
SPEAKER_02: not CEOs. Just for the CEO position to be clear. I'm not talking CEO I'm talking COO I would say Tim Cook when he was Steve Jobs. That's my number one operator last 2030 years. Number two, I put Cheryl Sandburg, who did obviously amazing things for Google and then Facebook, right? Those two would be my top two and then I tie my top two sacks as a PayPal and Zenefits even though it didn't work out. It was still a great run at the time. And then I put Keith, our boy square and a couple of other companies he did those are my top four. Anybody else want to come at me? Go ahead. I don't have complete data set on CEOs. But where would you put sex? You did I put your disagree? Who might have? Wasn't Keith at LinkedIn? Really? You are J Cal lately.
SPEAKER_00: That's a love fest now. Okay. There we go. They're back together. You and
SPEAKER_02: Friedberg are at each other's throats. So I'll just let you guys fight it out. And I'll be all about the love. Yeah, free. But why are you attacking J Cal? Yeah. Free bar. Be quiet over
SPEAKER_02: there. No one's asking you in your lane free bird. So sacks as an operator extraordinaire. What's your best advice to the company that raised 100 million? And let's say their valuation is now not a billion. It's 500 million. What are the steps you take? You got 14 months of runway in the bank? Do you lay people? Do you extend it to 24? What are your thoughts? Okay, let's be dealing with this with companies in your portfolio. Well, there's a few things going on. First of all, I
SPEAKER_00: think Tiger built a great business and providing late stage sort of passive non dilutive capital to companies, SAS companies, we have a bunch of SAS businesses that they provided later stage financing, I think those valuations are going to come down, I don't know that they're going to be such a great partner for series a firms because they are passive. And, you know, we see is that series a companies need a lot of help, they need a lot of advice, you need a lot of help with recruiting, governance, governance, they need, you know, when they're growing from, say, 20 employees to 100, they need to know what that org chart looks like, and on and on and on. So I don't know that if this report, I don't know if this reporting is actually true. But if the goal is all of a sudden for Tiger to become a series a investor that competes with craft or Sequoia, or these other firms that are not very hands on, does it that doesn't seem like a great strategy to me. I do think that for our later stage companies, they have to realize that, you know, if they raised the other side of this, sorry, David, I just want your reaction to this. I think it's going to work.
SPEAKER_01: But not for the right reasons. The reason it'll work is there are way more entrepreneurs now than there are great entrepreneurs. And so of all of these entrepreneurs that exist, the idea of getting passive money, where you won't get fired, where there is that remember, like, remember when we were growing up in Silicon Valley, the risk is always like, if you take Sequoia benchmark, you know, social cap, like there's a high bar for that capital, which means we are helping you run this business effectively. And there's a cost where if you don't perform, you'll get fired. There's always been that risk. It's true. And I guess that's the argument they could make. But
SPEAKER_00: the flip side is that there's a lot of these. So the CEO now, why would you take a $15 million
SPEAKER_01: series a check from Sequoia where they could fire you whereas $15 million from Tiger, they may never call you? We address that by doing look, if a founder is really worried about that, we address
SPEAKER_00: that by giving them three board seats, you know, we might have one, they might have three. I mean, my view on it is you just never fire a founder, unless they don't start a criminal. It's just that simple. But so look, I think there's ways of addressing the governance where you can get the help or the value out of an early stage firm without giving up the control. So yeah, I mean, look, that's the pitch that Tiger would make, but I think that's addressable. What do you think of that pitch? freeburg? I will give you the $15 million series a
SPEAKER_02: you don't have to have a board. You can just be passive and let us know how it goes. Give us a quarterly report. We'll look at the P&L. That's all of crypto now anyways, that's true. Well, I mean, that's a fair point. No governance in crypto is leading to a lot of weird stuff. I can tell you, I tell people this a lot. So I had three term sheets for my series B. It was from Andreessen
SPEAKER_03: Horowitz, kosla ventures and founders fund and founders fund came in kind of last minute. But I went with kosla, even though it's a lower valuation, because the node was pretty insistent, like, let me put someone that could be useful, some, you know, government person, because we're doing a lot of work lobbying in DC, on your board, we won't be on your board, we won't bother you. And I took the round and then my series C I took from founders fund because Brian Singer, who's obviously a good friend, you know, made the case like, look, our model of founders fund is we let founders run the business, we're not here to tell you how to run your business. And they were both great fits. And you know, it worked out well, I didn't I had, I have had experience with antagonistic VCs on boards. And, you know, generally creates a pretty negative dynamic. Now what's the worst story without the person's name, I don't think I want to go public with it. So I'm
SPEAKER_03: not going to do that. But when I was on give us an idea of what the behavior would be, because there
SPEAKER_02: are people in the audience who want to know what is bad behavior, VC, just give us a composite when you're an entrepreneur or CEO running an early stage business, you live that business 20 hours a
SPEAKER_03: day, you know, the details, if you're smart, you're thorough, you're analytical, you're creative, there is no one that's going to come in the boardroom for two hours a quarter, and suggest things to you that you haven't thought of, there's no one that's going to come in the room and be smarter than you at your own business. And so more often than not, the nodes been exceptional at defining this problem. The problem is VCs, they join a board, and they think that they have to quote add value. So they come in and they make a bunch of suggestions and recommendations and push you to do a bunch of things. And as the node has said correctly, many times, they more often than not add negative value, they can actually destroy and damage a business because they need to feel like they're exerting some degree of influence over the business. And as a result, they push the business to do things that the CEO or founder otherwise wouldn't be doing. And that often ends up in a kind of weird sticky kind of place. So I just validated the tiger pitch right there.
SPEAKER_01: I think that's right. And by the way, it's why founders fund founders fund is fantastic. I don't
SPEAKER_03: know if you guys are LPS, but their investment returns are so far beyond what I think anyone really realizes they're incredible investors. And a big part of it is they try and find the entrepreneur that doesn't want it doesn't need the help. And then they give them the capital to go and execute and they leave them the heck alone. And they are just so good at finding those folks, identifying them and then literally being passive in in how they kind of manage and operate their business. And that's why they were so friggin good. I think the people you're talking about are a lot
SPEAKER_02: of rookie VCs who come in and then yeah, they think they just experienced ex operators, even
SPEAKER_03: people who ran businesses, who say I know how to run a business and look, no two businesses are alike. So maybe the way they ran their business with their team and their market and their industry worked well for them. But now when they got to come in and do it with someone else's business in some other space, with some completely different team, you know, they try and exert influence and really, it's just, you know, not wanted. Let me go to sacks sacks, hold on, I want to just get one
SPEAKER_02: from you. Give us an idea because you've been in the business for over 20 years. I mean, by the looks of it may be 40 but 20 years of just crushing it in the business. What's the worst behavior you've seen on a board? You can make a composite of like a VC being destructive on a board. Yeah, I mean, look, I think some of the VCs will have sort of hobby horses, and they'll keep
SPEAKER_00: pushing for things that the founder doesn't want. That's not productive. But what I would say is, first of all, let me just say like, I'm not somebody who likes to take board seats. And I do it as it's like, I see it as a cost, not a benefit to me. Because it takes up my time. If I didn't have to ever take a board seat, that'd be a great, as far as I'm concerned, that'd be a good thing. I'm not somebody who wants to, you know, insert myself and get on these boards, you know, for it as an incentive. No, I only only took the course. Yeah, the only reason I'll ever take a board C is
SPEAKER_00: because I have to do it because the founder insisted that otherwise they won't go to the otherwise they won't go with I've seen it with so he's doing it for one year, right? You'll say,
SPEAKER_02: hey, I'll do it for a year. I always time limited now because I just can't I mean, I can't make a
SPEAKER_00: 10 year obligation. You know, it's typically like one or two years and then you know, we'll see doesn't mean I'll roll off in two years but but I but I need to have the expectation set up. And and the reality is if the company can perform well for another two years, they'll be at a different stage and maybe they won't, you know, need my help as much so to math, the two most valuable
SPEAKER_01: pieces of private equity that I own is a company called DCG. And it's a company called MetScope. And collectively, it's like billion dollars worth of stock that I own. What I'm on the board of one, I'm not on the board of the other anymore. And I text with these guys maybe once every two or three months at best. So, you know, completely confirming David your point that great founders are just n of one individuals, you know, Barry Silbert, Sanjay Barry, next level guys. But that's very different than the series A playbook because when I ran institutional money, I'm telling you there is a pressure to be involved and show some value. And I do think that there is a level of judgment on the CEO that has happened now maybe that's changed historically. But I think that's the single biggest pivot that one would exploit if you were Tiger or co2 or D1 stepping into the early stage game, which is to essentially make it a feature and it's not dissimilar to when DST and Yuri Milner entered the late stage round. You know, what was his big differentiation? I'll take common stock and I won't take a board seat. I did not see the board seat to be influential. It seems so counterintuitive and so against the grain, but he acknowledged what was this thing that up until that point was true, which is common and preferred converged in price per share. So buying common in a late stage company was the same as buying preferred. You know, that's something you should explain for a second. People don't know this, but at an IPO.
SPEAKER_01: So when you set up a company, you have a price per share of the common stock and then a price per share that the series a investor has the series a investor is buying preferred shares that actually looks more like debt than equity. And what I mean by that is there's typically a coupon, there's a rate of return, there's accumulated dividends, all these features give it a certain price per share. And the common has none of those features. And so it has a low protective provisions. And that gap is typically around 20 to one when you set up a company. Okay. And that's
SPEAKER_01: what allows you to hire employees and give them very, very cheap options with embedded upside. Then what happens is you raise more and more of these series B, series C, series D, these preference stack, right preferred shares build up. But the value of the common keeps rising too. And by the time you go public, the gap converges. What Yuri realized was, hey, wait a minute, I'm buying a company a year or 18 months before it goes public. The price of the common and the price of the preferred are roughly the same. And so I'm just going to do that. And I'm not going to take a board seat because it's clear this company is successful. So similarly for Tiger D1 and COTU, I would just observe the obvious and kind of put everything that we've just said on the table, which is, hey guys, I'll give you the money. You're either N of one or not. I'm making a guess that you are, and I'm just going to get out of your way and leave you alone. So unbundling governance and unbundling the governance and advice piece from the capital
SPEAKER_02: piece, but you're going to still need that governance and advice piece, I think. I think it could work. Yeah. I mean, I think there's a lot of great founders or their founders who start young
SPEAKER_00: and experience to become great. And the smart ones listen to advice on the way and they seek out people who've done it before. And so, yes, they may be an N of one business by the growth stage, but that doesn't mean they don't need any help whatsoever at the series A stage. Such a good observation. Yeah. And look, I think there's been an evolution in Silicon Valley. I'd actually say there's been like three distinct phases in the venture capital world. And I remember all of them. So you go back to the late 90s, okay, when you had this mentality on the part of VCs that if a company became successful, you would just automatically replace the founders, right? You go bring in professional CEO. Upgrade. That was a disaster, okay? And that's when Founders Fund, Peter came in, I think, Founders Fund in 2003. And the reason they called it Founders Fund is to indicate they were going to be pro-founder and they would never replace the founder. And they would let you do whatever you wanted. And I think... You want to tell the backstory of the Sean Parker stuff and how that happened?
SPEAKER_02: Yeah. I mean, so basically, both Peter and Sean Parker had experiences they felt were
SPEAKER_00: very negative with Sequoia. And by the way, I have great relationships with Sequoia. Roloff, who worked with us at PayPal, is there. And I think they've evolved as a firm. So I'm not calling them out or anything. But both Sean Parker and Peter felt like Sequoia pushed to have them replaced. And so... With Plaxo specifically.
SPEAKER_02: There are a couple of different companies involved. But when Peter was CEO of PayPal as well,
SPEAKER_00: he felt that pressure as well. So when they then founded, as two of the four founding partners of Founders Fund back in 2003, the whole point was, we are going to be pro-founder. You are never going to replace. You will let you do whatever you want. I think that was phase two. And that became, I think, the dominant model. And so becoming pro-founder was now table stakes. And I think the third phase has been what Andreessen Horowitz has now done with this massive... The services and the value add, which is that we're going to basically, not only be pro-founder, but we're going to bring all these resources to help you. And that's the era we're in right now. From our perspective, as Kraft, I mean, look, it's not in our interest to get into any dispute with a founder. And if we feel like our advice isn't being taken, well, we just back off. Of course, we're pro-founder. We don't want the control. We're not control investors. And if it's becoming frictional, we'd rather just get out of the way. It's just not worth it. The underlying thing that you're not saying,
SPEAKER_01: though, is because you have enough of a fund that's large enough where you can have enough bets, where any of these things to the upside is a total needle mover. But anything that goes to zero doesn't actually diminish the fund or impair it meaningfully. So there is no upside to getting engaged and really being non anti-founder. So I think it's a part of a business model. One thing I want to tell you about Parker, Parker was single handedly incredibly responsible for keeping Zuck in the seat when he was president of Facebook, because Parker wrote this structure that really allowed Mark to keep control. Super voting shares.
SPEAKER_02: Zach, to add on to your point, I think that there's been, so there seems to be a bifurcation
SPEAKER_03: around the services model or not. But the fourth thing that seems to have happened, and you guys tell me if I'm wrong on this, but it plays into the Tiger Global story. When I got that term sheet for my series B at Climate Corp, Mark Andreessen, I was trying to raise like 25 to $30 million. And Mark Andreessen was like, we're gonna give you a term sheet for $40 million, more than you were asking for. Because we want you to use that extra capital to go faster, to go harder to grab the market because we have this big good pitch in businesses that grabbing the market. Grabbing the market. And that seems to have also become a bit of a mainstay, but not just a mainstay but now almost like the kind of standard pitch that a lot of the later stage guys are taking, which is like, here's so much capital that it helps you make the market. And then the SoftBank Vision Fund kind of took that to the extreme with $100 billion raise and Tiger Global, I think last year, have publicly said they deployed about $15 billion into startups, where a startup may in a natural cycle kind of evolved to needing $70 million raise or $100 million raise. And they're like writing checks for 250 or 300. And saying this extra capital gives you the ability to move faster. And the reason is, the faster a business moves, the higher the multiple they get on their revenue. So the higher the growth rate, the higher the multiple. So if you can deploy capital faster, we can find a business where we can pump money through you to get it out the door faster, your multiple goes up and Tiger's model was let's just get the multiples up. There's multiple expansion and growth. So we'll make money two ways when the company goes public in 18 to 24 months. Obviously, when the markets end up tanking and all those multiples compress, no growth rate is going to solve that problem for you. But having more capital than maybe you were thinking or asking for also seems to have become kind of attacking. I don't know if you view that as kind of this fourth evolution. But that certainly wasn't the case 20 years ago when VCs were being careful about is it a $6 million round or an $8 million round? What's the right amount of capital? And nowadays, it's much more about take more than you need.
SPEAKER_02: I'll say there was a 3.5 in there, which is you saw a little bit of lack of governance or superpowers on the part of like some incompetent founders or bad founders. Just you know, whether it's we work there, or whatever, too much control, not enough governance, things go off the rail. But you know, based on this discussion, I really think this bifurcates when it's a first time founder versus a second time founder in what I see because I have been doing board training for seed companies where I will just have three founders sit in on each other's first board meetings, we do one board meeting each and I train them how board meetings works and what I experienced with Sequoia on my board and other boards. And first time founders like the tactical stuff, how to run a board meeting, legal, HR, hiring partnerships, go to market strategies, man, it is all tactical all the time. And then when I've been on with second and third time founders, you know, they really are like, here's all the materials, here's what I'm thinking about, what do we think strategically, so they go from the tactical level to the strategic and mission level awfully quick. And they actually seem to enjoy having those four meetings a year. Whereas the first time founders really need to have six to 10 a year in those in that first, you know, call it year two of a company. That's my experience, I realized in this discussion, that the market has really meaningfully
SPEAKER_01: changed, meaning when I was actively investing even in the early 2000s, or sorry, in the in the, you know, 2011, 12, 13, there was a culture where if you underperformed, you would get replaced. And I think David, what you just spoke about, which I guess is true, has really changed, which is if you're running a multi multi-billion dollar fund, where every check is $20 million, the upside is billions, but the downside is negative 20. There's just no point. And so, you know, Sequoia used to be known as a very, very, very tough, tough, tough place for CEOs that were underperforming. Now they got a $9 billion fund. Now you have maybe 20 years ago,
SPEAKER_03: it doesn't matter anymore. Not No, not even even 10, less than 10 years ago. I think it was I think
SPEAKER_01: it was known as a very tough, demanding place. I think benchmark was known as a very tough, demanding place because the money was much more finite. benchmark still still that case.
SPEAKER_03: Yeah, expectation called they never they never grew their fun size. No, Jason, you're not you're
SPEAKER_01: not hearing me. I am I think what's happening is, listen, I had Sequoia on my board and I worked at
SPEAKER_02: Sequoia. So there's there's been high expectations, which I think all these folks have to have.
SPEAKER_01: And the willingness to replace the founder as CEO. And what I'm saying is every VC claims this, but there were a handful of VCs that had the courage to do this. I mean, famously, Mike Moritz and John Doerr, you know, had it out with Larry at the, you know, right, right after this round, like either go public, you know, get your business model or give us your money back famously at Google. So they're not, they're willing to draw a line in the sand. I think that that has fundamentally changed at all these organizations because the fun sizes have gone up. And the and the mathematical reality of venture capital has changed. Something else you're missing,
SPEAKER_02: which is you got to remember Moritz and Doerr were not operators. And now these companies are being run rule off is running Sequoia. And he's an operator and he was there. So the changing of the guard and Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz were operators. So the operator class behaves very differently. I disagree with you. I think that it fun. No, hold on. I think that fun size dictates
SPEAKER_01: his behavior more than any singular other feature. When you're running a $9 billion fund, you just don't sweat that changing of the CEO and David said it really well. You just say okay, I'll cut our losses and move on. We don't lose. I think it's more about the culture change in Silicon Valley of
SPEAKER_02: a bunch of MBA finance people who have never run a company now moving and running companies. But you know, let's move on to the next one. Any closing thoughts on this one? Well, just I mean,
SPEAKER_00: Jason, you start to make this point that if you're a founder, and you want to eventually run a great public company, when you IPO, guess what, you're going to have governance. And what I've seen big time, right? I mean, there's just Delaware law, there's just a lot of like expectations around being a public company. And so if you don't have a board, you know, and you're not constituting one until you go public, there's gonna be a massive amount of cleanup that you have to do. I mean, that's what I've seen. And so you'll end up scrambling to create a board, I think that board serves so many purposes early on of giving you advice and giving you structure of providing support, help services, you can still remain in control while getting those things. And I'm just, I'm just skeptical that like, if you form a company with completely passive VCs, you don't even serve on a board, like, you're gonna have to do a lot of cleanup later, I'd say at a minimum. Totally. I think that that's true, too. Totally. I'm not by the way, I'm not saying I advocate
SPEAKER_01: this. But I just think that the reality is that if these large late stage crossover firms really step into the early stage, I think they could really build a big book of business. I do think there are a lot of founders who would love to just be given the money and just to be left alone. I'm not saying that they think they know that it's better for them. But on the margin just to be able to be left alone. Now, what has changed, maybe those everybody's going to be very hands off just because all the fun sizes have exploded. So at that point, then, you know, what is the difference between Sequoia and D1? Time will tell. I just know that like, when I see a founder
SPEAKER_00: doing something that I think could risk the company going off the rails, I'll say so. And then, you know, if it keeps happening, and situation gets worse, I'll say so again, I might mention the third time or might not. At a certain point, I'm just like, maybe after like two times, I'm just like, they don't listen to me. That's fine. It's their decision, their company, their decision, they go off the rails, their problem, you know, we'll move on to the next one. I mean, that's the reality. Sometimes founders have to learn by doing it like sometimes their intent and you know what,
SPEAKER_02: they could be right. And you could be wrong, too. So it's right as a, as a it's hard as a board member. You know, that's why I'm very judicious in giving advice as a board member now and I'm on a bunch of boards and do word training, because when the rule was on my board, and he still is, you know, he would ask great questions. And he would be very thoughtful about, hey, have you thought about this, or when I got advice from Doug or Michael Moritz directly, you know, Doug would say, Hey, well, can you share the two year plan with me? And I'd say, you know, we haven't built a plan. And he said, Well, you know, Jason, you know, hope is not a plan. Let's make a plan. And let's discuss, you know, the milestones along here. And it was amazing to have that level of thoughtfulness around totally vision as a founder. I love I mean, as a founder, I love getting advice.
SPEAKER_00: And I think you got to be really dumb not to seek it out. I mean, I when I was a founder, I would even though I was sort of competing with any off, I would meet with him and I would like get amazing tidbits. Just recently, we did it wasn't like an official board meeting, because Rolf isn't on our board, but he's a big investor in one of my incubations, Colin. And we just did a meeting with him and and in the guesstimate every time not to be confused with all in, but no, we had trademark, it was it was me and Axel, who's the co founder, Colin, and, and Rolf. And we had like an amazing meeting where we got like, I'd say amazing advice from Rolf, that like, focused us. And it wasn't that I didn't know these things. But it's just like when you're in the weeds, sometimes you don't actually crystallize on focus on the most important thing. And I came out of that meeting, meeting, feeling like, okay, Rolf just refocused us on the most important thing. And it was immensely valuable. And you've got to be like, dumb not to seek that out, no matter what stage you're at, because I seek it out today.
SPEAKER_02: Yeah, and think about this, David, you're in the thick of things. He's on squares board, he's on other boards, he's got a picture of the entire playing field. It's like somebody who's the coach of 15 NBA teams. And you're like the coach of one. He's seeing things on other NBA teams that they're doing in methodologies and best practices that you're just not going to see. So I mean, again, and then if you look at the great founders, TK used to come to me and say, hey, you know, this is the thing I'm going to be doing at the next board meeting, or here's the thing, can we jam out? And he would just ask for a jam session, he came up with that term, and three or four people would get together and just jam and talk for five hours about the product. It was awesome. Right? Let's go on to David Sacks, his favorite section of the show, science with the Sultan of Science himself. Oh, I thought you were gonna say his program. Oh, enough with that. We can't. You have to you if you are engaged in the science segment, it's oxen PG or in a fight.
SPEAKER_00: All right, let's cover it. Here's the deal. If David Sacks is engaged during the science
SPEAKER_02: portion of the class, we will let him have his fight. As the as the teacher here, tell us a little bit about stem cells and this HIV story. I was gonna tell sacks that the the earth is round.
SPEAKER_03: Okay, it's not flat. I don't care. Yeah. How does that affect Lana? So sorry, the story that I think we wanted to you guys wanted to cover today with the HIV story, which incredible. Yeah, I suggested
SPEAKER_00: this topic. So I'm interested. Explain it to us. HIV is a retrovirus. Meaning once you get infected,
SPEAKER_03: it doesn't go away. He doesn't care. He's muted you. He's flipping through his political notes to figure out what did he miss saying that he was supposed to say today. He just flipped over to Ben Shapiro. He's listening to Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris in conversation. Go ahead. So
SPEAKER_02:
SPEAKER_03: the HIV being cured headline, you know, we can dive into it for two minutes. But HIV is a retrovirus. When you get infected with HIV, it stays in your body forever. It actually ends up living inside of your immune cells. That's what makes it such an interesting, challenging virus. And it destroys those immune cells. So over time, you end up getting AIDS. And the way it enters the immune cells is through a specific protein. Some people have a genetic mutation, where if there's a change in the their DNA, and that protein is different. HIV cannot enter their immune cells, and they can actually they are naturally immune to HIV. CCR5. Yeah. And so what's happened is, found a barony in white, northern Europeans. Yeah, like Norwegians, I think. Exactly. And
SPEAKER_03: anyway, so what's the interesting study that was done? All immune cells are made from stem cells in your bone marrow. And so you know, all the white blood cells that we have that fight off our diseases come from our bone marrow. And when you get a blood cancer, sometimes you end up getting so severe that you have to actually wipe out all the immune cells in your body, and give your and you end up with a bone marrow transplant. So you get new bone marrow put in, new blood cells put in. And hopefully, if you can survive the therapy and survive that treatment, those that new bone marrow will produce new immune cells and your body will recover, and you will be cured of your blood cancer. So what happened is people had HIV. And when you get this, this bone marrow transplant, you end up, you know, they give you radiation and chemo, and they wipe out all your blood cells. And and then they give you this bone marrow transplant. So they selectively chose bone marrow stem cells that came from people that have the genetic mutation that that prevents HIV. So then when these HIV patients that got blood cancer got a bone marrow transplant with this mutation in it, they were cured of HIV. And so it's a pretty profound kind of demonstration of what we already knew, which is that this genetic mutation can, can prevent HIV. And there are a lot of therapies that are underway right now, to actually use gene editing to induce that mutation in people's blood cells and in their bone marrow without needing it to get the whole thing. The first guy that did it, the first guy that did it was German, right? Or he was in Germany, I think. And he unfortunately passed
SPEAKER_01: away. They cured his HIV AIDS, but he unfortunately had a relapse of the leukemia that killed him. But I think all three cases of people that that have been quote unquote cured, have had been these leukemia patients. But I'll say two things, two things about the future of
SPEAKER_03: this kind of possibility. Number one is you don't need to get a bone marrow transplant to have this mutation induced in your cells to prevent this infection from kind of occurring in your body, you can use gene editing tools to do that. And so we are now developing gene editing therapies, where rather than go and get a whole bone marrow transplant to cure your HIV, we can actually edit your cells, those edited cells will now be resistant and you will be resolved of HIV. The second thing is the way that they gave people the bone marrow transplant, the way they created those stem cells for the bone marrow transplant was from umbilical cord blood from from newborns, which is very rich in stem cells. And this is a traditional way of kind of giving people stem cell based therapies is you go and source stem cells from another body, or your own body, which are called autologous stem cells. But like, I just want to say one thing, what's really interesting in the future is not going to be about pulling other people's stem cells into your body, and finding them from, you know, fetal blood or what have you. We now have the technology, which I've talked about multiple times on the show called Yamanaka factors, where theoretically, we can take your cells from your own body, turn them into stem cells, grow them in a lab, and use that as the therapy that's called autologous stem cell therapy. And rather than use stem cells, or trying to find them and sort, you know, figure them out where they are in your body and pull them out, we can actually do stem cells from your body. And that's like, you know, 15 years out is autologous induced stem cell therapy, where you actually make your own stem cells, and then give yourself all sorts of therapies, not just bone marrow transplants, but you can heal lots of tissue in the body using the stem cell systems. We don't really hear about HIV AIDS
SPEAKER_01: anymore. In that article, I think it said that there's about 37 million people around the world that have HIV AIDS. And it's incredible, actually, the amount of progress that science has made in this disease. I remember when I was growing up, it was made to be like this incredible boogeyman. And it really governed like a lot of social norms at the time, because we were still discovering what HIV AIDS was and, you know, how do you think about sexual promiscuity, you know, from a moral and ethical perspective. I think it had a huge impact on my generation. And now it did. It was a death sentence. They made us paranoid.
SPEAKER_02: So here's what's happened. therapies have gotten so good at suppressing suppressing the virus.
SPEAKER_03: If the virus is suppressed far enough, even though you always going to be infected, if it's suppressed far enough, the WHO and the FDA have both said you can still have unprotected sex and not transmit HIV. And so even though there are plenty of people out there that might be having unprotected sex with HIV, the therapies have suppressed the viral load to the point that they're not transmitting it actively. And so that's been the big breakthrough in science over the last decade. And then they also had these prep pills, right, which people could take
SPEAKER_02: proactively if they thought they might, you know, find themselves but I mean, Chammav, you and I lived in a generation where I mean, it was the end of things. Yeah. Well, I mean, it was the
SPEAKER_03: end of days. And they're like, I don't know, it was a single biggest thing that I was that I was
SPEAKER_01: taught in sex ed classes to be afraid of being really scared at all costs. And then the problem that it that it created was like a you know, in countries that had a large Catholic population, you know, the Catholic Church was so you know, evil, they had they were undecided on. They were the opposite. Right. They told people in Africa to not use condoms. When AIDS was rampant, it was
SPEAKER_02: the biggest evil, second biggest evil the Catholic Church did in modern history, obviously, the first we know I have a contribution to the segment. I know I just your boy, my relationship. Look, I
SPEAKER_00: remember how scared people were of AIDS, you know, back in the 1980s, when this came up, and I remember that there was a head of the NIH, who even whipped up people's fear, hold on, people's fear by saying that even casual, even casual contact within the same household can spread it and you know who that was? Yes, we know faculty dedicated his life to trying to solve and reduce
SPEAKER_02: the suffering of software AIDS and HIV. No, in the 1980s. In the 1980s, he was the face of
SPEAKER_00: government difference towards AIDS, and he spread fear and was medically wrong about it. Go check the records. He was a screw up then and he's a screw up now on it. He worked tirelessly and worked tirelessly on it. J Cal I think sax is right in the sense that like what we thought we
SPEAKER_03: knew back then turned out to be wrong. And I think that's a really important point. You know, particularly in science, it's a process of discovery. What we thought we knew back then turned out it was all a hypothesis. It's all a thesis until it's proven or disproven. And that's the case. Read Andrew Sullivan. I mean, you know, Fauci was absolutely the enemy public enemy number
SPEAKER_00: one of the of the game. Who is it Tony? Tony? Yeah, well, it was a Tony. Tony Perkins. There
SPEAKER_00: was actually a debate that Fauci was in on AIDS where a gay actress literally said to him, I hate you. And if you read Andrew Sullivan's blog, he will talk about how he remembers back in the 1980s, that Fauci was sort of public enemy number one in the gay community, because of his position on this during the Reagan administration. And so it is a lot of civil disobedience act up.
SPEAKER_02: Remember, and he responded by putting massive resources into this. So I think you know, if he was that's not listening. Listen to Andrew Sullivan on this. Andrew Sullivan. He is not that
SPEAKER_00: right. Wait, Andrew Sullivan is the reason why more than any other public intellectual, why we have marriage equality today. He is number one, he advocated for marriage equality and in the new republic made the case for it before anybody else and popularized that. I'm a fan of his writing. I'm a fan of his writing. Let's not try and portray him as a far right wing or whatever.
SPEAKER_00: Portray foul. You're going to Fauci's intent. Anyway, you want to believe that Fauci is an
SPEAKER_02: evil person. I think you and many other people have mysteriously forgotten who Fauci really is.
SPEAKER_02: Okay, you think I know the conspiracy that you think Fauci's intent is to, you know, cover up the doubt and he intentionally was working against solving for HIV. That's ridiculous. I haven't seen it. Do you think Fauci had good intentions? And few inferred that. Zach,
SPEAKER_03: do you think Fauci had good intentions? I don't I don't really care about his intentions. I just
SPEAKER_00: want to look at his actions. It's amazing. It's amazing. It's amazing to me that a public official who was so wrong back then in the 1980s 1990s on the public health crisis of our time would just be given a free pass. And along comes a new public health crisis last couple of years. And he's been completely wrong about that, too. So why are you giving this guy a free pass? I don't get it. Hey,
SPEAKER_03: Zach, in a cloud of uncertainty in a time of war, do you think that leaders need to show strong intent and clear signals? Or do you think that they should be wishy washy because they don't know enough? I think they should just be right. And if they're trying the best with what they have
SPEAKER_03: with the information they have at the time that they have it? Okay, well, yeah, there's some
SPEAKER_00: forgiveness for for making mistakes. But when you're constantly wrong, maybe it's time to get somebody else in there. That's true. And Fauci, by the way, Fauci app with respect to code, we talked about it before 100% participated in a suppression of the investigation into the origins of COVID. There was an active attempt to suppress that come on, you know that the the foyer email show it. It's a good science segment. I do want to give a shout out to the researchers who actually
SPEAKER_01: did this with this woman in New York. It's pretty freaking incredible. What's incredible is that
SPEAKER_03: they did it with HIV patients who had blood cancer, and it was a really kind of like thoughtfully designed experiment. incredibly thoughtful. Yeah, it's been four years. So I mean, this has been
SPEAKER_01: baking for a long time. By the way, as I zoom out and hear you guys talk about what HIV was like,
SPEAKER_03: you know, back in the day and the fear around it, I do think that 3040 years from now, given the tools we have with induced stem cells and cell based therapies, and there are hundreds of cell based therapies coming to market over the next few years. They're all in late stage clinical trials, as well as gene editing, I think, hopefully, and I'm optimistic that one day we will look back at cancer and aging in the same way that we're talking about HIV today, and that both of those diseases can and will be resolved with the tools that we're developing through science. And you know, there's there's gonna be bumps along the road. But man, I, you know, it's so clear that
SPEAKER_00: look, I think I think what freeburg just said actually is really important and inspiring. And I think it's great. And I was kind of joking around with the Fauci thing. I didn't expect it to become a tangent. So I don't need to keep going on. Where do you see him? Where do you see
SPEAKER_02: him in editing, try to change his position? Can you use a can I do a voice? If you hadn't become
SPEAKER_00: so argumentative, we wouldn't have spent five minutes on it. If I'm correct, you're incorrect
SPEAKER_02: position that he's in. Please because I got to fly to Europe. Okay, here we go. David Sachs and Paul
SPEAKER_02: Graham have gotten into it. It's a battle for the ages and the stakes are so low. The stakes are so high. And the animosity is so high because the stakes are so low. Here we go. Wait, wait, wait,
SPEAKER_01: before this does Phil Hellmuth qualified this as a billionaire battle or a billionaire. Literally, he revealed the billionaire if you follow Phil Hellmuth's
SPEAKER_02: account, it's being da greatest being greatest on Twitter, being da greatest to get that felt no Phil Hellmuth outed he outed on his Twitter. And his new billionaire bestie is his which he stole bestie for me I used to call everybody best and he just co opted it like he co opted me calling to month the dictator but I'll tell the dictator origin story later is Stanley from door dash.
SPEAKER_01: Stanley tank, co founder, chief product officer of door dive. Great guy. Really great. You'll
SPEAKER_02: tell how much later is truffle. Exactly. He found it. Okay, here we go. So you can introduce him to Paul Graham. Go ahead. All right, here's the issue to pick. What's your beat? Here we go.
SPEAKER_00: Actually, I did not seek out this be sex vendetta section of the Listen, PG waded into my tweets.
SPEAKER_00: He came after me. I love it. Please any billionaires out there who want to like debate like come waiting into my tweets. Mark Cuban did it make a big ass himself. I don't want to deter these guys from waiting in because it's great. Here's what's basically happened is I tweeted a video of all these multimillionaire celebrity hypocrites partying massless at the Super Bowl. And then meanwhile, the next day, my three kids have to go to school in California, wearing their masks. That is ridiculous. Okay, it makes no sense. We all know that. Okay, any sane person knows that. That's what I tweeted about. I don't know why of all issues that was triggering in a PG but he had to come in and say, Well, they were all partying outdoors. It's like, really? Looks to me like they're in a skybox. And if it has three walls in the ceiling, I call that a room. But in any event, that wasn't he was he was misinformed because the rule of the Super Bowl was that if you are not eating and drinking anyone under over the age of two after you're wearing a mask. So, you know, my point stands, I just want to air here's where things kind of went south is is so that I tweeted blink twice.
SPEAKER_00: You know, Paul, and and here's the thing, I wasn't totally trying to be snarky with that comment. Here's why I said that is because explain what that means. I didn't understand that. What does
SPEAKER_01: that mean? Blink twice? Well, it means like, are you are a captor, you're being held kidnapped by
SPEAKER_02: these concepts that you have to wear a man, you're being held hostage by somebody. And the reason why
SPEAKER_00: I said that is because is is look, if PG had just been some crazy dumb person ever would have said that. The fact is that PG is smart. He writes extremely well published a lot of interesting things. He's an independent thinker. So it almost seemed to me like somebody is holding him hostage here because how can this really smart person be making this case anyway? It kind of went south from there. So I have no desire to continue that. Meanwhile, Kendall Jenner wore North Face shoes to
SPEAKER_03: Justin Bieber's. Yeah, can you believe it? She knows that. How did he do that? Gossip, gossip,
SPEAKER_03: gossip. All right. So this has been Saxe's
SPEAKER_02: for the week. Can we make this a regular segment?
SPEAKER_00: I want to stay on the main issue here, which is, please let's do it every week. But yes. Am I wrong about this mask hypocrisy that's going on? How in the world are
SPEAKER_02: picture of Saxe in the mess? No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, Jake, I'll stop. I want to air 100% support for Saxe on this statement. I totally agree with you
SPEAKER_03: on the mask. hypocrisy as well as the mask mandates in schools. I think it's ridiculous. We think that we've pivoted so far away from first principle thinking on this stuff. It's not I totally agree with you completely. And on this point on you wasting your time fighting with people on Twitter, my personal advice to you as a friend is just cut it out. But
SPEAKER_03: but totally agree. Oh, it's entertainment. All right, everybody for the dictator himself,
SPEAKER_02: chamath Palihapitiya. Rain Man. Yeah, David Sachs, and the Sultan of Science. If you see him out and about ask for a selfie Sultan of Science love selfies. He does. Love you boys. Bye. See you all next time on the all in pod. Bye bye. Love you besties. Bye bye.
SPEAKER_00: Oh, man. We should all just get a room and just have one big you George because they're all just like this like sexual tension but they just need to release that out. We need to get
