E89: GDP growth negative in Q2, $SHOP layoffs, Alzheimer's fraud, Ginkgo acquires Zymergen & more

00:00:00.000 | all right his monthly burn rate would make even bezos wins he's living the life of a sri lankan

00:00:05.600 | prince he drinks nothing but the absolute highest top shelf he's lifting italy's gdp

00:00:11.120 | by himself the dictator's back mouth polyhapite i'm back to the program thank you jake when uh

00:00:17.600 | you mentioned that burn rate i thought you could be talking about me i thought you were talking

00:00:20.640 | about it sometimes these intros you're not sure which which way it's a misdirect it's a misdirect

00:00:25.600 | comedy a mystery it is inconceivable that my burn is higher than david sacks i have i own one house

00:00:32.320 | how is it possible and maybe one or two next week

00:00:36.560 | you're such an ass he's analyzing macroeconomic charts and grids while at the same time ignoring

00:00:44.560 | his kids he's the sultan of sass it's no surprise the only thing heavier than his pockets the bags

00:00:50.480 | under his eyes the rain man is back david sacks it's not bad oh here we go

00:00:56.240 | here we go the admiral of anxiety he's rife with strife he plays a on his ps5 and he also

00:01:03.280 | plays one in real life meow the commander of the cat boys david freiburg i mean i'm totally cool

00:01:09.200 | with that opening because you're gonna look like an it's all good i mean more of an i mean

00:01:14.800 | if you didn't ignore it every time freeburg spoke you would have heard that the guy from unappointed

00:01:20.160 | pictures reached out to him gave him a link to download a free game about cats which he

00:01:24.560 | downloaded and he's been playing it's now the most popular video game in the world you introduced

00:01:28.800 | the cat game it's on you by the way what shirt are you wearing this looks like a carpet yeah you

00:01:32.960 | really do look like one of the characters from goodfellas like one of the older guys in the

00:01:37.360 | kansas city oh yeah i have my cigars right off screen here and i got my ass coffee i got from

00:01:42.640 | duncan you remind me one of the guys in kansas city from casino absolutely guys sit around the

00:01:47.200 | table in that restaurant it's like should we whack him why take a chance boom listen you get my you got my

00:01:53.360 | style icons joe pettry's my style icon you look really bad thank you thank you

00:02:00.560 | let your winners ride

00:02:05.360 | brain man david sacks

00:02:07.360 | and instead we open source it to the fans and they've just gone crazy

00:02:17.360 | gdp fell by 0.9 in q2 marking two straight quarters and a half in the last two weeks and

00:02:21.360 | now it's down to 2.2 marking two straight quarters of negative growth in q1 we all know gdp fell 1.6

00:02:28.240 | percent here's the real gdp chart current dollar gdp increased 7.8 percent an annual rate or 465

00:02:35.600 | billion in q2 to a level of 24.85 trillion home construction down 14

00:02:42.640 | ostensibly because of the interest rates increasing inventories which helped boost gdp in

00:02:49.680 | 2021 21 dragged down by 0.2 percent and now it's down by 0.2 percent and now it's down by 0.2 percent

00:02:51.280 | growth in q2 so supply chain's easing taking away two percentage points uh chamath what's your take

00:02:59.440 | do these year-over-year comparisons work we were talking in the chat a little bit about the spike

00:03:04.800 | uh in 2021 versus the dip in 2020 what's your take on this i mean i think you just summarized that

00:03:11.200 | people are really fixated on these numbers without understanding basic statistics so just taking a

00:03:18.720 | step back if you go to the bureau of finance and you look at the data that's coming out of the

00:03:21.200 | bureau of economic analysis which is an official website of the government of the united states

00:03:25.920 | that posts gdp the title makes it pretty self-obvious what we're dealing with here which

00:03:32.720 | it says nick you can put it up there real gdp the percent change from the preceding quarter so things

00:03:38.720 | can still go up positively but still be negative if it doesn't go up by the same or more than the

00:03:44.480 | quarter before it the thing that we really have going on is that over the last eight quarters we've

00:03:51.120 | had all kinds of very turbulent data that's made the trend line unpredictable and the most obvious

00:03:57.040 | way to see this is actually in one specific sub-sector which we'll get to in a second which

00:04:03.040 | is around u.s e-commerce adoption you see this one huge spike coming out of nowhere

00:04:08.720 | and then eventually everything has settled back to trend the same way i think what we're waiting

00:04:15.600 | to figure out is how many quarters does it take for us to get back to on-trend growth in the economy

00:04:21.760 | we had a massive shortfall in q2 of 2020 we had a massive surplus in q3 of 2020 we've had a country

00:04:29.520 | that's been getting back to finding equilibrium over the last five quarters so we don't really

00:04:36.400 | know what the steady state growth should be this is why i specifically had such an issue with the

00:04:43.760 | tone the white house took which was trying to explain away this that this isn't a recession by

00:04:50.960 | doubt in the definition instead i think it would have been much better off just repeating what i

00:04:55.120 | just said and explaining basic statistics and actually showing that the country is headed in

00:05:00.720 | the right direction largely speaking from a really crazy one-time externality that nobody could have

00:05:07.360 | predicted that it's going to take some number of quarters and so really what you should look at and

00:05:12.160 | jason you've pointed to this is employment and wages and try to be a little bit more circumspect

00:05:20.880 | and you're going to be able to see that the economy is going to be a little bit more

00:05:24.720 | conservative and more conservative than it was in the past and so i think that's a really good

00:05:29.200 | example of how we can look at this and i think that's a really good example of how we can look at

00:05:33.120 | this and i think that's a really good example of how we can look at this and i think that's a really

00:05:36.400 | good example of how we can look at this and i think that's a really good example of how we can

00:05:38.640 | look at this and i think that's a really good example of how we can look at this and i think

00:05:41.200 | that's a really good example of how we can look at this and i think that's a really good example of

00:05:43.600 | how we can look at this and i think that's a really good example of how we can look at this and i

00:05:45.600 | think that's a really good example of how we can look at this and i think that's a really good example

00:05:51.040 | you know, we all didn't understand what a technical recession was, I think instead,

00:05:55.040 | we should just focus on what we have to do to get back to solid state equilibrium.

00:05:58.880 | Yeah, just to put a pin in the definitions. We all know the common definition to successive quarters

00:06:06.320 | of negative GDP. However, people have said it's a temporary economic decline during which trade and

00:06:14.640 | industry activity are reduced. So there's a sort of debate and splitting hairs going on Sachs,

00:06:20.400 | which was kind of stupid. The big news this morning is that we no longer know what a

00:06:25.440 | recession is. This is such a vast and complicated question. You might as well be asking what is the

00:06:32.560 | meaning of life. Now I remember in the days of Republican presidents, we had a very simple

00:06:36.240 | definition of recession, which was two quarters of negative GDP growth. But now that we have a

00:06:40.240 | Democrat in the White House, we just can't know these things. Why even ask such difficult

00:06:44.800 | questions? Right? I mean, that's basically the media coverage today. And it's absurd. I mean,

00:06:50.000 | you saw for the last week, the administration and its spokespeople have been trying to muddy

00:06:54.240 | the waters on the definition of recession. And it was laughable as they're doing it. But now you see

00:06:59.600 | the media coverage today. And you realize like they've bought into this nonsense. And they're

00:07:03.760 | carrying so much water for the administration. Look, the headline should be the Biden recession

00:07:08.160 | has begun. That's it. If you had three minutes and 45 seconds for your Biden over under with Sachs,

00:07:13.680 | you took the under you won. We're in a recession. He's the president. And if we had a Republican in

00:07:19.040 | the White House, it would be Republican President recession has begun. Yeah. So the media here is

00:07:24.800 | carrying so much water to try to avoid the obvious headline. I just explained it. Instead of

00:07:30.080 | reporting the obvious headline, they're now saying that we're approaching recession or we might be in

00:07:35.520 | recession. We have all these difficult technical issues. Listen, we're in a recession. It started,

00:07:41.120 | it might be a shallow recession. We don't know yet. Yeah. It's a recession in which the unemployment

00:07:47.760 | rate as of today is at a recession. It's a recession in which the unemployment rate as of today is at a recession.

00:07:48.640 | As of today is low, although the labor participation rate is also low. So listen,

00:07:53.520 | we're at the beginning of a recession. It might turn out we might have a bouncing Q3. This might

00:07:58.080 | be more of a double dip. I suspect that's what it will be. But we know the cause of this. The

00:08:02.080 | cause of this recession is inflation. If you look at the economy's growth in nominal terms,

00:08:07.600 | it grew at seven point something percent. But because inflation was at nine percent,

00:08:12.320 | you have to subtract them in real terms. The economy is shrinking. And who is to blame for

00:08:18.240 | inflation? Well, Jay Powell at the Fed because he reacted way too slowly, but also the Biden

00:08:23.760 | administration for all the spending they did. How much sooner do you think they could have

00:08:27.040 | reacted? Two quarters? No, like nine months earlier. So three quarters. We got that first

00:08:32.160 | surprise inflation print last summer. It was May, I believe, that five point one percent.

00:08:37.680 | We started to talk about 10 year break evens tips in May of last year. Yeah. So they could

00:08:44.160 | have gone quarter to quarter. No, the nine months. And they continued. Not only did they

00:08:47.840 | not raise rates or signal any desire to raise rates for six months, they continued quantitative

00:08:53.840 | easing for nine months, which just makes no sense. But they should have taken their foot off the

00:08:58.560 | accelerator. Nine months. They only start. They only stopped in June of this past year. So we've

00:09:02.720 | only been quantitatively tightening for two months. They stopped the bond buying program in

00:09:07.040 | March. Maybe that's right. Yeah. Yeah. But they saw quantitative easing in March. But you're

00:09:11.120 | right. The tightening is just something they're getting started with. But the point is they

00:09:14.800 | should have stopped easing. Right. Like, why would you need to keep it?

00:09:17.440 | Keep intervening. In in the in the markets to buy more to basically push out more money.

00:09:24.560 | Is the reason for this that Powell and Yellen just haven't lived through

00:09:28.480 | highly inflationary times, I just read they're older than I am.

00:09:31.120 | I'm just saying they haven't been in office and doing Fed policy like I just read Volcker's book.

00:09:37.680 | If you haven't read it, it's pretty great. His biography. I mean, what he had to do in 81 82 was

00:09:42.880 | super severe. But we just haven't lived through this in our lives. So I guess people are just not

00:09:47.040 | used to having to tap the brakes in. No, no. Look, what happened is that the administration

00:09:53.520 | reacted in a political way to the inflation print. They invented this word. Well,

00:09:58.160 | the word transitory existed, but they applied it. You heard this word used relentlessly for

00:10:02.960 | about six months. So the administration went into denial mode. Yeah. And then by

00:10:07.040 | the end of the year, it became clear that it was persistent.

00:10:09.760 | And I think the issue with Powell is that he is basically responding to headline risk. Right. So

00:10:16.160 | he didn't respond to the inflation print. He was responding to the inflation print. He was responding

00:10:16.640 | to the inflation print. He was responding to the inflation print. He was responding to the inflation

00:10:17.600 | print. But he didn't respond to, you know, the inflation problem last summer. He waits until the

00:10:21.840 | headlines tell him he has to react. And so now the thing that he's worried about is his recession.

00:10:28.480 | Obviously, he knew. No, he's worried about inflation mostly, right? He wants to. He's

00:10:32.640 | worried about inflation. But if you look at yesterday's. Right. But if you look at his

00:10:35.840 | comments yesterday, it was more dovish comments. They did a 75 point rate hike,

00:10:41.520 | but the comments were more dovish. And I think it's because he knows that today we have this

00:10:46.240 | second consecutive quarter of negative GDP growth. So now he's trying to balance recession risk

00:10:50.880 | against inflation risk. But the point is that the Fed's been very slow to react and the

00:10:54.800 | administration basically just tries to relabel and rebrand problems instead of confronting them head

00:11:00.720 | on. Hey, Chamath, when we look at this chart, you pulled up four and we see this massive spike.

00:11:05.360 | Q3, Q4, Q1, Q2, a little bit in Q3 and then Q4. I mean, this massive 123456 just extraordinary

00:11:15.840 | quarters or five out of six in terms of GDP. That's all stimulus in your mind, right? This

00:11:20.960 | is the money drop. That was lockdowns in Q2 2020, Jason. They locked the economy down.

00:11:26.080 | Yeah. So people were spending online and we'll get to the Chamath story about Spotify, but it's

00:11:30.480 | not all of it. But the point is, it's some combination of lockdown and access money,

00:11:35.520 | right? Access money because of loose financial conditions distort what true supply and demand

00:11:43.600 | should be. Got it. Right. And

00:11:45.440 | access money can come from the government. But in this case, access money went from the government

00:11:50.960 | into the hands of individuals who then participated in the public markets and they

00:11:55.120 | distorted what it all looked like. And so there was a lot of purchasing activity that was propped

00:12:01.520 | up by what seemed like an endless supply of free money. Right. So we look at that. Yeah, good.

00:12:07.360 | And so now that that money is getting taken out,

00:12:10.240 | we don't yet know what the real equilibrium economic growth rate should be because you have to

00:12:14.720 | remember,

00:12:15.040 | Jason Lowery : we have not seen an era without

00:12:19.040 | federally introduced spending, without federally introduced forms of quantitative easing since the

00:12:24.720 | great financial crisis. So we have been propping up our economy for 14 years straight now. So we

00:12:32.080 | have distorted the prices of bonds and fixed income. We've distorted the prices of equities.

00:12:36.960 | We've created an asset bubble in crypto out of nowhere. And now we have to do the hard work of

00:12:44.000 | figuring out what's going on. Jason Lowery :

00:12:44.640 | And we have to figure out what the real supply demand is in the economy. And we don't know.

00:12:49.120 | Jason Lowery : If it took six quarters here,

00:12:51.200 | there's six quarters of just massive GDP spike there from the preceding quarters.

00:12:55.040 | And we have two down quarters. Is it going to take six quarters to wash this out or longer,

00:13:00.240 | I guess is the question. Jason Lowery :

00:13:00.800 | No, longer because what David said is now making the problem even worse. So because Powell was

00:13:07.680 | catering to whatever pressure he's been getting, and he must be getting some severe pressure from

00:13:12.080 | the White House. Jason Lowery :

00:13:13.520 | Those were really dovish comments, but what is the problem when he is dovish? Well,

00:13:18.400 | the practical reality is a couple of things. Number one is typically the yields of long dated

00:13:25.680 | bonds go down. That essentially tells everybody else to reprice assets. What does that practically

00:13:35.920 | do? It makes the cost of borrowing roughly cheaper. It makes the price of equities,

00:13:43.120 | particularly ones that are far out on the risk spectrum. So specifically, let's focus on

00:13:47.280 | NASDAQ and crypto, tech stocks, biotech stocks, and crypto stocks go up much more aggressively.

00:13:54.400 | So what has Powell effectively done? He has synthetically created a form of easing,

00:13:59.680 | again. His job at the Federal Reserve, if you think about the money supply as a pipe,

00:14:05.840 | it's to shrink the pipe, to close off demand, to get things in equilibrium. So even though he's

00:14:12.880 | doing this, by the language that he's doing, he's effectively allowing market participants to

00:14:18.960 | basically guess that the worst is over and now we're going to start to expand the pipe again.

00:14:24.240 | Jason Lowery :

00:14:24.800 | So they go to the end state. So what he effectively did in one speech is basically

00:14:31.360 | put a pin at the end of this year and is telling the markets, "I'm mostly going to be done.

00:14:36.400 | If anything, I'm probably going to be cutting in the back half of 23. Go on your merry way."

00:14:42.080 | Jason Lowery :

00:14:42.640 | And there is no see-

00:14:43.920 | Jason Lowery :

00:14:44.000 | The problem with that, Jason, is it's now pushing the problem out

00:14:46.880 | another eight quarters. We need to stop this nonsense. He needs to be definitive

00:14:52.960 | and he needs to fundamentally break the back of inflation so that

00:14:57.040 | you find out what the true demand is in the economy.

00:15:00.560 | Jason Lowery :

00:15:01.520 | Yeah. And he did 0.75 yesterday. The markets rallied on the assumption that he would do a

00:15:08.880 | couple of more of these rate hikes and then he'd be done at the second half of the year. And then,

00:15:12.320 | hey, maybe we can get back to growth or some normalcy. Related to all of this, and by the way,

00:15:19.040 | there was an interesting story that Sachs would be interested in. Did you read Paul Volcker's

00:15:24.400 | biography yet, Sachs?

00:15:25.520 | Jason Lowery :

00:15:26.160 | No, I've not read it. I'm not familiar with his record, but yeah.

00:15:29.360 | Jason Lowery :

00:15:30.400 | Like at one point, Baker took Reagan and Volcker into a room off of the White House so it wasn't

00:15:36.640 | recorded and just said, "Volker to Volker, the president does not want you to raise rates going

00:15:42.000 | into the '84 election, full stop." And Volcker's like, "Well, I wasn't planning on raising them."

00:15:47.040 | So there's a lot of politics in this, even though people claim-

00:15:49.520 | Jason Lowery :

00:15:49.600 | They'd already done enough. I mean, Volcker raised rates all the way up to like 20%. He broke the

00:15:53.360 | back of inflation. It created a very severe recession in I think 1981, '82. But by 1983,

00:16:00.080 | the economy was rocketing back with lower interest rates and they basically had solved the inflation

00:16:06.320 | problem. Hopefully we're not in that situation where Powell has to jack up rates so much to

00:16:11.680 | break the back of inflation because it means that we'd be in an even more serious recession.

00:16:16.480 | So I hope we're not in a Volcker type situation.

00:16:19.520 | Jason Lowery :

00:16:19.600 | But just think about that spread, Sachs, 20% versus like 3% or 4% we're trying to get to.

00:16:24.400 | Sachs Kahn :

00:16:24.880 | We've never in the history of America ever had CPI print above 4.5% or 5% without inflation

00:16:34.800 | being brought down by having fed funds not also be greater than 4.5% or 5%. So

00:16:41.360 | at some point inflation will turn over and we'll print 6% and 7%, but that's still not below 4.5%

00:16:48.800 | or 5%. And right now our target fed funds rate is between 2.25% and 2.5%. So we could still be only

00:16:57.920 | 50% of the way there if inflation remains at 4% to 4% to 5%. And this is what I think market

00:17:05.680 | participants don't want to hear. They don't want to hear that there has to be a meaningful form

00:17:11.040 | of tightening. And politicians don't want to hear that. The White House for sure doesn't want to hear

00:17:16.000 | it. The problem is that if Powell caters to too much of that feedback, he's not going to do what

00:17:21.840 | he's supposed to do and why he's put in that job. Jason Lowery :

00:17:24.320 | His job is to get it to 2% and keep price stability and full employment.

00:17:28.240 | Sachs Kahn :

00:17:28.320 | I do think there is a balance here. I mean, the reality is we do not want Powell tightening more

00:17:35.760 | than he should or more than is necessary to solve inflation because it will cause a serious

00:17:39.680 | recession. So I think we're in a situation where we're going to have to do something about it.

00:17:40.720 | I think we're caught between two pretty bad options here. And it's because I think that

00:17:44.320 | what happened last year contributes to this. I mean, look, if you go back to that chart that

00:17:47.360 | you just showed, what happened in Q2 of 2020, we had a very healthy economy going into 2020

00:17:53.280 | and 2019, right? And then in Q2 of 2020, we had COVID, but we made the situation even worse with

00:18:00.080 | lockdowns. And we basically shut down the whole economy, brought it back, at least in most states

00:18:05.200 | in Q3. And then the feds started printing and Congress started printing $10 trillion.

00:18:10.400 | David Collum : Well, still by last year, the economy was back.

00:18:14.000 | We had something like 5.7% annualized growth. This year it's negative. Why is that? I mean,

00:18:21.040 | this may be the lingering effect of all that stimulus, but I think that-

00:18:25.600 | Sachs Kahn : It is.

00:18:25.600 | David Collum : It is, but I do think that the

00:18:27.760 | administration made it worse by sending checks into an overheated economy. They also created

00:18:32.960 | energy scarcity and they just kept spending more money.

00:18:36.240 | Sachs Kahn : I'm not saying the White House isn't without fault, David, but I do think

00:18:40.080 | that if all of these geniuses could have actually just taken a simple econ and stats 101 class and

00:18:45.680 | explained how year over year measurements work to the American people, I think they're smart enough

00:18:50.240 | to understand it. We didn't have to go down this convoluted route. We could have just explained,

00:18:55.200 | we put a lot of excess money in the economy. We don't yet know what the full effect of that is.

00:18:59.840 | We need to let that wash through. In the meantime, you're going to see some crazy numbers from time

00:19:04.960 | to time and we just have to be patient. David Collum :

00:19:06.880 | And the other crazy things you're going to have looking at second

00:19:09.760 | and third order effects is all these downstream effects. People are making business decisions

00:19:15.600 | going into these economies. Shopify just laid off 10% of its workforce, about a thousand people on

00:19:20.080 | Tuesday. Their stock is down 10% past five days, overall 70% year to date. If you look at this

00:19:27.360 | chart and Toby took blame for this, he basically said, "Listen, we thought that this was going to be

00:19:33.840 | a fast forward into the future that people would adopt e-commerce

00:19:39.440 | in a major way and that would stick." Here's US e-commerce adoption growth rate,

00:19:44.640 | massive spike when people were forced to buy all their goods online and now it is regressing to the

00:19:50.480 | mean. David Collum :

00:19:52.000 | I mean, mean reversion is a bitch. If you look at Shopify stock, if you look at Peloton stock,

00:19:58.320 | if you look at Affirm stock, if you look at ARK, a lot of these things were trending in

00:20:03.840 | a great direction. They had this short-term crazy behavior in the middle of all of this

00:20:09.120 | free money and now they've mean reverted. We're in the midst of finding out what the real price is.

00:20:14.560 | I got to give Toby a huge round of applause because he is such a great CEO and I'll tell you why.

00:20:22.160 | Last year, in the middle of all of this wokeism, he wrote this incredible

00:20:26.800 | memo, which was, "We're not a family, we're a team," which I thought was exceptionally well

00:20:33.840 | written and really got the point across. This time around, he just owned it. He's like, "I

00:20:38.800 | made a huge bet that all of this behavior change was going to be discontinuous and permanent and

00:20:45.360 | it turned out I was wrong. I'm sorry for that and here's how we're going to have to course correct."

00:20:49.600 | In both cases, he just put it all out there and he owned it. I think that that's all you can do

00:20:55.040 | when you make a bet and it's wrong. David Collum :

00:20:56.880 | Here's what he said. "It's now clear that bet didn't pay off. Ultimately,

00:21:00.000 | placing this bet was my call to make and I got this wrong. Now, we have to adjust. As

00:21:04.560 | a consequence, we have to say goodbye to some of you today and I'm deeply sorry for that."

00:21:08.320 | David Collum :

00:21:08.480 | I mean, everybody made that mistake, right? You're right, Jamath. Just own it. Everyone

00:21:14.560 | was thinking the same thing. We're talking about how COVID was this acceleration of this virus and

00:21:19.120 | it was going to accelerate all these trends. The acceleration-

00:21:23.120 | Jamath:

00:21:23.120 | Well, let's-

00:21:23.280 | David Collum :

00:21:23.600 | The acceleration-

00:21:24.160 | Jamath:

00:21:24.240 | The rude awakening is going to be for all these people who made all these bets,

00:21:27.440 | assuming that it's permanent. Specifically, I mean, especially around real estate and work

00:21:32.480 | from home and all of this stuff, benefits and it's all going to change now. The reason I say

00:21:38.160 | that is the combination of reversion to the mean will impact a company's bottom line and those

00:21:45.040 | boards of directors and CEOs will say, "Okay, we're just going to have to reset expectations."

00:21:49.920 | That's going to touch the employees. I don't know if you saw this leaked transcript, but

00:21:55.600 | Zuck was asked a question from this employee in Chicago.

00:21:58.000 | David Collum : Oh God, that was classic.

00:21:59.200 | Jamath:

00:21:59.600 | That was unbelievable.

00:22:00.880 | David Collum :

00:22:01.280 | He was asking about his emotional support days or some shit.

00:22:04.160 | Jamath:

00:22:04.720 | I think in the middle of Zuck having a really serious,

00:22:08.240 | you know, heart to heart with the company about how we're going to have to buckle down and,

00:22:11.440 | you know, get this company back on the right track.

00:22:12.560 | David Collum : Performance, individual performance.

00:22:13.920 | Jamath:

00:22:14.240 | One dude, you know, schmengi from the back, raises his hand and goes,

00:22:18.240 | "What about the COVID extra vacation days when those get canceled?"

00:22:21.680 | David Collum :

00:22:24.000 | He literally, his head almost exploded. He's like, "Did you not just listen to what I said? I just

00:22:28.720 | said if people are not performing at a high level, maybe they shouldn't be here and you're asking me

00:22:32.720 | about more days off?"

00:22:33.920 | David Collum : Just fire that person. Just say like, you obviously,

00:22:37.200 | you don't get it. You didn't listen to anything I said. You're not right for this team at this time.

00:22:41.440 | Jamath:

00:22:41.840 | He said a version of that. He's like, there's a lot of people here that may not be the right thing.

00:22:45.200 | David Collum :

00:22:45.840 | Freiburg, when we look at these trends, okay, commerce seems like people are going back to

00:22:52.160 | shopping. But I want to ask you about two specific ones. Healthcare, it does seem like telemedicine

00:22:59.200 | was one of those things that got accelerated during COVID. Do you think that's going to

00:23:04.000 | revert to the mean? Or do you think that, you know, doing doctor's visits,

00:23:06.720 | you know, face time and text and all these consultations going to stick with us? And then

00:23:11.120 | what about work from home? Because that does not seem to be shifting all that much.

00:23:15.520 | Jamath:

00:23:17.920 | Freiburg.

00:23:18.240 | David Collum :

00:23:18.640 | The work from home is not shifting?

00:23:20.080 | Jamath:

00:23:20.960 | Well, I mean, people are still staying home. And you know,

00:23:24.080 | Amazon just put a hold on six buildings where they said, "You can finish the outsides,

00:23:29.040 | but let's not do the insides because we don't even know what we're going to do with these buildings

00:23:32.240 | and what hybrid is going to look like." And Zuckerberg hasn't been able to get people to come

00:23:36.240 | back to the office and Apple seems to be getting people two or three days a week. So it seems like

00:23:40.320 | it's still been a struggle and downtown San Francisco is empty. So we're getting mixed.

00:23:45.200 | We're getting mixed results back now, I would say is the best way to describe it. So work from home

00:23:51.280 | and telemedicine. What do you think, Freiburg? Freiburg:

00:23:53.760 | I mean, certainly the knowledge economy seems to prefer work from home. I mean, you're working on

00:23:59.280 | a computer and you don't need to interact with people. And you got kids or family, you're inclined

00:24:05.760 | to stay home. So that seems to be a sticking point. You know, younger people probably have

00:24:12.400 | their own motivations. But there was a good stat on telehealth. I'm just trying to find it.

00:24:17.120 | And I think telehealth surged during COVID. And 36% of patients used a telehealth service in 2021,

00:24:27.680 | 420% increase over 2019. And so despite some reversion post COVID, post lockdowns,

00:24:35.280 | there's a significant sticking point that and I think 60% of telehealth patients are women. So

00:24:44.400 | there's particularly female services that are being rendered through telehealth at an increasing rate

00:24:49.600 | than pre COVID. And so there's a lot of stuff. I mean, look, we've all had to go sit in the doctor's

00:24:54.000 | office for two hours to get some prescription or get a doctor to give us some advice on something

00:24:58.240 | they don't need to physically check us out for. So you know, certainly seems to be a acceleration in

00:25:03.680 | that department. Freiburg:

00:25:05.440 | Offices. What was the Amazon like was working on 15 warehouses, they shut down as well,

00:25:10.160 | right? I mean, if you guys remember at the start of COVID, when you place something on Amazon,

00:25:14.160 | it was like a two week delay, because they didn't have enough capacity to fulfill the order volume.

00:25:18.560 | You know, you look at Toby's chart, it's nearly a doubling in e commerce volume in a week. When that

00:25:24.240 | happens, Amazon's, you know, plus or minus 5% supply chain has to revert to servicing twice as

00:25:30.000 | many customers, it's just not going to happen. So they overbuilt, tried to get ahead of the curve.

00:25:34.320 | Remember, they hired like, you know, 100,000 workers. And you know, they had to make a pipeline

00:25:40.160 | for quarters ahead to build warehouses. Now they're realizing the demand is not going to be

00:25:44.400 | there. And they're cutting back on 15 warehouses around the country and not going to build them.

00:25:47.520 | They were buying up so many warehouses at a couple of companies that were looking for

00:25:51.040 | warehouses in Los Angeles, Northern California. And Amazon just bought an option on every single

00:25:57.360 | warehouse they could find. And now they're putting them back on the market. So they definitely went

00:26:02.400 | too heavy. And then everybody started betting on warehouses. And then Amazon just started betting on

00:26:03.840 | the warehouses. And then everybody started betting on Peloton and Teladoc. And if you look at Teladoc,

00:26:07.760 | I mean, it's off 90% from the peak, I would show the I would show the Peloton chart as well. But

00:26:13.360 | that would just be gratuitous. Some of the stuff to note is like, at the end of the day,

00:26:17.840 | whatever product is better for the consumer, they're going to pick, you know, what's the

00:26:22.880 | better way to buy shirts? You know, what's the better way to get defined? Define better? Yeah,

00:26:29.760 | I mean, for the consumer, it's like, do you want to try them on? Or do you know your size? Right?

00:26:33.360 | Are you buying a brand that you know, and a size, you know, you're gonna buy it online.

00:26:36.400 | At this point, I mean, the one thing COVID did is it basically created a trial by fire.

00:26:40.720 | My parents never used DoorDash before COVID. So then they were forced to use DoorDash during COVID.

00:26:45.040 | Now they know what it's like. And so you know, there are now people that never trialed a lot

00:26:49.760 | of these services that have trialed them and are now making decisions based on that experience.

00:26:54.160 | But that's a beautiful example. So just use your parents. Why do you think

00:26:57.920 | let's assume they did? Why do you think they mean reverted to now using

00:27:02.880 | DoorDash only in the same percentage as they would have otherwise X of a little bit?

00:27:06.800 | I think the quality of the food, the time to wait the experience of going out to dinner,

00:27:11.120 | there's a lot of motivating factors that are different by different demos. And so whatever

00:27:14.480 | the consumer wants, they're going to pick. If I want to go have a dining experience in person

00:27:18.320 | with my friends, I'm going to go do that instead of sitting at home ordering DoorDash and having

00:27:22.720 | everyone come sit on the couch and eat dinner together. So I think that there's this, you know,

00:27:27.440 | this call it mean reversion, but we have seen call it a broader exposure. And we're really going to

00:27:32.400 | see the true market dynamics play out. I don't think everyone wants to buy shoes online. I don't

00:27:37.040 | think everyone wants to buy every piece of clothing online. I think people want to go to the

00:27:40.400 | store and try stuff on. I think it's that and I think that there's a lot of ancillary social

00:27:45.600 | benefits that come with a lot of these activities that you lose if you just optimize for efficiency.

00:27:51.520 | So to your point, like, yeah, you can get a burrito, but even going to Chipotle with your

00:27:56.400 | friend is more fun. Totally get out of the house. Get out of the house shooting the shit, you know,

00:28:01.920 | yep. It's just it's the serendipity. Yeah, you may run into somebody that you nothing beats that.

00:28:08.240 | I will tell you, by the way, I do believe that there is a counter narrative to the idea of work

00:28:14.480 | from home and e commerce moving together. I think as people work from home, they want to go be in

00:28:19.360 | person for other activities more. Yeah. So the more you're working from home, the more you want

00:28:23.360 | to go to dinner with people or lunch to people. Yeah, or you want to go shop in person, because

00:28:27.840 | you're stuck in the house all day, and you want to go do other stuff. And so if you're working,

00:28:31.440 | if you're working in the office, you're going to do more e commerce. And if you're working at home,

00:28:34.800 | you're probably going to do less e commerce. So there's probably some net net balance,

00:28:38.320 | we saw both of them rise together during COVID. But now there's more of an equilibrium being reached.

00:28:43.440 | Well, I mean, if you don't, by the way, I think we're changing your behavior may stay home for

00:28:46.880 | three days straight. And obviously, remember, whoa, and just remember 60% of the US population

00:28:51.440 | lives in urban areas where this is kind of an effective kind of conversation we're having.

00:28:55.360 | I think outside of that, it's a very different world. And so for 40% of Americans, this is not

00:29:00.960 | the conversation that you know, in deeply suburban and rural areas,

00:29:04.880 | you guys know what shadow ghost quitting is, you know, a ghost quitting is

00:29:08.880 | ghost. Huh? I saw it on TikTok. You stop, you stop working. I saw it on TikTok,

00:29:15.920 | but you're still getting paid. It's when you decide to quit mentally, but don't actually quit.

00:29:20.720 | And so you basically get out get off the corporate rat race by doing the bare minimum

00:29:26.640 | to not get fired at a company. Oh, like sacks during the science segment. And so

00:29:30.480 | I, you know, I think that there's all of these like, invented things that people do,

00:29:36.240 | that they think they can get away with, which they generally can in a moment of prosperity,

00:29:42.160 | where in a moment of actually like buckling down when earnings matter, and profits matter,

00:29:47.280 | and investor pressure matters. All of this stuff, I think is going to mean revert. So this is sort

00:29:51.760 | of my opinion on all of this, which is I think that most of these behaviors will eventually take

00:29:57.680 | over. But it's still much more of a risk. Yeah, I think that's a good point. I think that's a good

00:30:00.000 | point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. But it's still

00:30:00.400 | many years away. And right now, we have to go through the process of just getting back to where

00:30:04.800 | we were meant to be in the first place. I think one area with significant

00:30:08.000 | disequilibrium right now, I mean, to your point is productivity, I think it's very hard to assess

00:30:13.440 | and qualify productivity for knowledge workers in this environment. And this is for employed

00:30:20.000 | base, right? Remember, we talked about last time, like a large percentage of the US workforce

00:30:24.320 | has moved to more of an independent contractor, sole service provider kind of model for how they're

00:30:29.360 | interacting and working in the world. But I'm talking about knowledge workers in an employed

00:30:34.560 | environment. And it is becoming difficult for managers and for companies to assess, you know,

00:30:40.800 | the quality and the level of work being produced relative to its potential. It's not the same as

00:30:45.680 | it used to be when you'd be able to have clean in person monitoring and interaction.

00:30:49.120 | And so, you know, I saw a stat the other day, where it was like most companies are asking

00:30:55.200 | workers to come home, most of the workers are to come to the office, most of the workers are saying,

00:30:59.280 | no, and then most of the bosses don't know what to say in response. And they're still sitting on the

00:31:03.600 | sidelines, like, okay, okay, don't come to work. Okay, fired. Yeah. And so there is this signal.

00:31:09.600 | And by the way, this may yield a competitive advantage for businesses in the marketplace

00:31:15.520 | that figure out how to assess productivity and how to assess performance in their organization

00:31:20.240 | right now, in this rapidly shifted, totally different workforce than what we had a few

00:31:25.280 | years ago, because it's so easy to take four hours off in the afternoon, go to lunch, have

00:31:29.200 | hangout, have beers, come back, get back online, get back on Slack, do stuff. And so there's this

00:31:34.240 | real challenge, I think, for organizations and a real disequilibrium of productivity and output

00:31:40.720 | right now. I've had to deal with you guys looked at the tech talks of these people that are like,

00:31:44.480 | in the life of like a Google engineer or day in the life they work for 30 minutes,

00:31:48.640 | and then they're like, four hours at the gym work. They don't work. They're literally smoking weed

00:31:53.440 | and playing video games. And everyone knows that managers know what he's talking about.

00:31:59.120 | Know it. The CEOs know it. It's this is my point. People just don't know how to manage it. It's a

00:32:03.360 | real I figured out it's a real disequilibrium in the workforce, because the way you manage it before

00:32:07.840 | is everyone would show up to work or they wouldn't. Someone's not in the office, they're not

00:32:10.880 | working, they get fired. Now what do you do here? You know, we and no one wants to be monitored. No

00:32:15.440 | one wants to manage keystrokes through a friggin remote computer and figure out how much you're

00:32:18.480 | typing. Actually, it's interesting. You mentioned what you do, Jake, how to your employees? No,

00:32:22.560 | no, no, no, no, no, there are people doing that call centers actually do that. So call centers.

00:32:26.080 | That makes sense. Teams, they have monitoring software,

00:32:29.040 | customer service and call centers. Totally. Yeah, salespeople, you can totally track productivity.

00:32:33.440 | I'm talking about creators, producers, right? Like, yeah, I actually have come up with some

00:32:37.840 | strategies for this. So we have a lot of writers doing newsletters and stuff like that. And so we

00:32:42.080 | did was we created a block in the afternoon, we've been testing where three writers will get together

00:32:46.320 | in a pod, and they work on a newsletter together. So instead of three writers writing three different

00:32:51.040 | newsletters, you have three writers collaborate on three different newsletters, they do one for

00:32:55.920 | two hours, one for two hours, one for 90 minutes, one for 90 minutes. And then the total

00:32:58.960 | of three people read the newsletters. Well, it's doing four or $5 million advertising is hundreds

00:33:04.880 | of 1000s of people a day. But okay. But anyway, the point is, I didn't mention the name of the

00:33:09.200 | company. There's no plug in here. But by putting people into a zoom, yeah, no, you put people in

00:33:14.320 | a zoom or a huddle on slack, which is like an audio only. And then they have to deliver work

00:33:19.760 | to each other. It's kind of how developers work or sales teams work with leads. And then in things

00:33:25.120 | like programming, like pair programs, like peer program, exactly. And then with and it also,

00:33:28.880 | makes people less lonely, and it builds social fabric. So there are techniques that are emerging.

00:33:33.280 | The other one I've looked at is I tell anybody, if you're doing any type of knowledge work,

00:33:38.880 | you need to create a notion or a coda page, depending on what you use, and update us on

00:33:43.040 | that and then send it to the group chat, you know, to the general channel, hey, I was working on the

00:33:48.320 | strategy for this. So when people say they're working on strategy, I have them documented.

00:33:52.480 | And I say share us share with us the Google Doc, and I use the Amazon six page, you know, philosophy

00:33:58.800 | right first culture. And now people have to write it down. So I've been teaching people how to write

00:34:03.040 | use Grammarly or Hemingway app to be better writers. And then what you can do is as a

00:34:07.200 | manager, you can just look at your notion or your coda and see the changelog. And when I see people

00:34:12.640 | in a changelog, and I see they made no commits, I'm like, what is this person doing? They said

00:34:16.880 | they did all the strategy stuff. Where is it? Where's the strategy stuff, write it down.

00:34:20.240 | So if you switch to a right first culture, and then train people how to write and become more

00:34:24.400 | confident writers, all that knowledge gets captured on your knowledge base. And you can

00:34:27.920 | actually see people getting

00:34:28.720 | done. It's not perfect. But I think it's actually intellectually better than being in an office if

00:34:33.760 | you know how to do it. Because in an office, people are also performative. They're doing like

00:34:38.240 | bullshit meetings. They're pretending they're working, they they're, they're actually reading

00:34:42.320 | the news or you know, whatever. So sex, what are you doing to monitor your employees covertly and

00:34:48.800 | keep them productive? We don't need to monitor our employees that way, because we're a small team of

00:34:55.120 | yes, they're highly motivated, you know, but look, it

00:34:58.640 | is an issue. I don't, I think we're work from home is beneficial is on the hiring side, right? It's

00:35:04.720 | so much easier to hire for a job. When your potential pool is anyone in the world, you're not

00:35:09.920 | just geographically limited to the city in what your office is. So that was the temptation for all

00:35:16.000 | these companies to go remote is it made hiring so much easier. But there's no question that it makes

00:35:20.560 | management much harder and scaling the company much harder and building culture much harder.

00:35:25.440 | And so there's some real trade offs there. I don't think companies have totally wrapped their

00:35:28.560 | heads around it. But look, in addition to productivity, there's one other aspect of this

00:35:32.560 | economy that I think is really broken. So the Chamber of Commerce says that 3.25 million fewer

00:35:39.200 | Americans are working today than they were in February 2020. So basically, if you go back to the

00:35:44.640 | month before COVID, we had over 3 million more Americans in jobs than we do today. And yet the

00:35:52.000 | unemployment rate is still in the 3% range. And the reason is because that if somebody drops out

00:35:57.680 | of the labor force,

00:35:58.480 | and isn't looking for work, they don't get counted in the unemployment rate. So we do have a if you

00:36:03.920 | define unemployment as a large number of people who aren't working, we have a huge unemployment

00:36:08.320 | problem. But the problem is they're not they're not counted because they're supposedly not not

00:36:12.160 | looking for work. So I don't think this economy is that healthy. And and I think that there's a

00:36:19.280 | lot of distortions that have been created by government. Suspect is what you're saying,

00:36:24.240 | right? Like labor participation is data, the data is suspect the

00:36:28.400 | labels are suspect. I mean, like we talked about all of a sudden, we can't know what a recession is.

00:36:33.520 | And let's just bring up one other thing that just happened today. So Manchin

00:36:37.040 | cut a deal with Schumer to bring back to bring back a slimmed down version of BBB. Thankfully,

00:36:43.520 | it's not 4 trillion like Biden wanted 750 trillion. Okay. But what do they call it?

00:36:48.880 | Billion? Billion? Right. Okay. So you know, thankfully, it's it's a slimmed down bill.

00:36:53.360 | But what are they calling this? They're all of a sudden calling it the inflation reduction act of

00:36:57.600 | 2022.

00:36:58.320 | What? Like, are you kidding? This doesn't pass?

00:37:00.480 | Are they trolling us with the names of these bills? The bills are never what's in the bill.

00:37:06.480 | Why don't they just call it the green energy bill and the screw private equity bill? I mean,

00:37:10.720 | that's basically what it is. Yeah, well, inflation reduction sells to everyone, right?

00:37:15.360 | But Jason, the media, the media is not holding the administration accountable. If we had,

00:37:20.240 | if we had an honest media, they the headline today would be left the station sacks, we can only

00:37:28.240 | get it on this pod or other podcasts. Yeah. What did President Manchin get for this deal? He agreed

00:37:33.440 | to it? What did President Manchin get? Well, he secured some bag, right? Did you see what I said

00:37:38.800 | to the group chat? He agreed. He's like, I got a pipeline. There's gonna be huge handouts and pork

00:37:46.080 | for the state of West Virginia. There's no question about it. I mean, if you look at this bill, okay,

00:37:49.520 | the I mean, we just, we should just look at what's in it. And yeah, more and more is going to come

00:37:53.600 | out over the next few weeks, right? It's only one day old. So we're going to learn a lot more about

00:37:58.160 | what's in this. But the largest thing Republicans feel like can you explain the dynamic as well,

00:38:02.640 | after you get through this, of why the Republicans felt like now that he double crossed them,

00:38:07.120 | because the Democrats felt double crossed by Manch, President Manchin, and now the Republicans

00:38:11.600 | are feeling double crossed by President Manchin. Well, I don't know that you can use the word

00:38:16.720 | double cross because he's not a Republican and he had no obligation. But look, there's no question

00:38:22.320 | that Manchin went back on what he said just a few weeks ago, he was saying that Build Back Better was

00:38:28.080 | going to be a big problem because it would contribute to the inflation problem. In fact, he's

00:38:30.240 | been reasonable since last summer, he's been saying that we have a growing inflation problem,

00:38:34.320 | we can't contribute to it with a lot more government spending. Now he's agreed to a

00:38:38.800 | $750 billion of which something like 450 is new spending. So yeah, it's a smaller package than

00:38:48.880 | what we had before. But if your concern was inflation, a few weeks ago, you can't justify

00:38:54.800 | this. You certainly can't call it an inflation reduction act. I mean,

00:38:58.000 | that's just patently dishonest. Well, how do they come up with it being inflation reduction?

00:39:03.920 | Is it because the healthcare stuff is theoretically going to help consumers have more

00:39:09.920 | money to spend? Because I think it's a 10. It's a tenuous argument. But if you want to, if you want

00:39:14.480 | to make the argument, there's some cap on what seniors pay for prescription drugs. And then there

00:39:20.480 | are subsidies for people are in the market for an electric vehicle. However, those are small

00:39:25.040 | adjustments. Those are small rebates.

00:39:27.920 | To a small segment of the population. I don't think you can argue in good faith that this

00:39:31.920 | bill will reduce CPI. That's just not a plausible argument. And the vast majority of the bill,

00:39:38.800 | like you said, are subsidies for clean energy, which are basically handouts to

00:39:43.360 | special interests in the donor class in the Democratic Party, just limits this itemize

00:39:48.080 | some of these things. So the largest single outlay 60 billion is for quote,

00:39:52.480 | environmental justice initiatives to address the unequal effects of pollution on low income

00:39:57.120 | communities.

00:39:57.840 | And communities of color. This includes 3 billion to invest in community led projects

00:40:01.760 | and disadvantaged communities and another 3 billion to support neighborhood equity,

00:40:06.000 | safety and affordable transportation access. Another 30 billion shovels of states in the

00:40:10.320 | form of grant and loan programs for states electric utilities to advance the green energy

00:40:14.960 | transition. 30 billion for additional production tax credits to accelerate domestic manufacturing

00:40:20.080 | of solar panels, wind turbines, batteries and critical minerals processing.

00:40:23.680 | So it's basically going to companies, right? 20 billion in loans to build new

00:40:27.760 | clean vehicle manufacturing facilities across the US and 2 billion to revamp existing auto

00:40:32.560 | plants to make clean vehicles. 20 billion for the agricultural sector to quote curb emissions.

00:40:38.400 | 3 billion to reduce air pollution at ports. 10 billion investment tax credit to manufacturing

00:40:43.840 | facilities for things like electric vehicles, wind turbines and solar panels. It seems redundant to

00:40:49.440 | the $30 billion outlay I just mentioned, but it's another giveaway to Democratic donors.

00:40:54.160 | Wouldn't that be good for Chamath? Wouldn't that be good for the

00:40:57.680 | US? Wouldn't that spending be good for energy independence in addition to climate? Because

00:41:01.120 | we've been talking about being energy independent. If we have more EVs, more batteries, more solar,

00:41:05.600 | that's a good thing, right? We want to be energy independent. So this seems like we get two wins,

00:41:09.920 | or possibly three. One, we get economic activity. Two, we reduce our dependence on foreign oil. And

00:41:16.720 | three, we stop burning a hole in the ozone and increasing the temperature of the planet. Seems

00:41:21.360 | like three good things. We have to, I think we have to see the forest and the trees here. And

00:41:27.600 | there's one good part of this bill. And then there's the kind of more ugly reality

00:41:35.920 | that it avoids. The ugly reality is unfortunately, or fortunately, or maybe without taking emotion

00:41:44.080 | out of it, we are dependent on fossil fuels for a very long time. It is a necessary bridge fuel.

00:41:51.200 | And so we need to, if we're talking about energy independence, it can't happen without us

00:41:57.520 | frankly drilling more and subsidizing the capital incentives of private companies to go and do this

00:42:05.520 | exploration work, which they have stopped, Jason. And the reason they've stopped is that they don't

00:42:09.040 | trust that these oil prices will stay this high. And so they don't want to make these outlays and

00:42:14.000 | investments for the next five to 10 years, because they're worried that it's going to be a rug pull,

00:42:17.520 | which did happen to them in the back half of last decade and the early parts of this decade.

00:42:23.360 | So they're like one spit and twice shy. They're not going to touch this stuff.

00:42:26.880 | Robert Leonard : So you're saying,

00:42:27.440 | oil companies that would do some exploration, it would cost them whatever amount, $2 to get

00:42:33.440 | the gasoline out of the earth and then process it, but they're afraid it's going to be negative.

00:42:40.000 | They're not going to be able to sell that gasoline or oil.

00:42:41.600 | Jason Lowery : I think they're afraid that the United States

00:42:43.840 | government may impinge on their ability to actually process it, that there may be tariffs and

00:42:49.840 | costs and taxes that they don't-

00:42:51.200 | Robert Leonard : They'll be upside down.

00:42:52.080 | Jason Lowery : ... forecast, they'll be upside down. So they

00:42:53.920 | just don't want to be... And right now, and you saw this, I don't know if you guys saw it, but

00:42:57.360 | like Shell and Exxon, these guys are printing enormous record profits. So their incentives to

00:43:02.960 | change the status quo right now is zero. Robert Leonard :

00:43:05.280 | They want less supply because then they can raise prices.

00:43:08.560 | Jason Lowery : They have the perfect situation right now,

00:43:10.320 | which is it's an incredibly energy intensive world we live in, and we don't have nearly enough energy

00:43:15.760 | to do the work that needs to get done. And by the way, and you saw this this week already where

00:43:20.000 | Putin cut Nord Stream by another 50%. It was already running at 40% capacity. He cut it down to

00:43:26.480 | 20%. Robert Leonard :

00:43:27.280 | Yeah. Jason Lowery :

00:43:28.400 | It's only getting worse. So I don't know. I mean, I think this bill could be good. I haven't looked

00:43:34.160 | at the specifics to give you a very- Robert Leonard :

00:43:36.160 | Well, the specifics aren't even out yet. It's trickless.

00:43:38.640 | Jason Lowery :

00:43:39.600 | I did see the EV credits, Friedberg, and I thought that these were particularly well constructed.

00:43:44.240 | 7,500 bucks off of a new car, but you have to be in the 150K salary or less

00:43:52.880 | on your taxes. So rich people can't get these. And it can only be for an $80,000 new

00:43:57.200 | car, a $50,000 or $25,000 used. And so they did seem to be staggered pretty well. And I do know

00:44:03.520 | that those incentives did work in the early days of Tesla because when you went to the website,

00:44:08.240 | you would look at the price and this would be 10% off of a new car. And they did drive sales and it

00:44:14.960 | was pretty significant. What are your thoughts on the EV tax credits? That's a wise thing. And then

00:44:20.080 | what do you think overall about spending a couple of $100 billion on reducing emissions and becoming

00:44:27.120 | more energy independent at the same time? It seems like a laudable strategy to you.

00:44:32.160 | : Nope. Seems like a total waste of money.

00:44:34.160 | : Okay. Unpack it, please.

00:44:36.080 | : The EV tax credit is just giving away money to EV car manufacturers. There's already

00:44:41.840 | enough demand. The prices are low enough. There's enough consumer interest. There's

00:44:46.240 | enough consumer intent. I don't think you need to put this money out there. It distorts a market

00:44:51.120 | that's already functioning well. And this goes back to my point about the role of government and

00:44:57.040 | how we create incentives or spend money. This is not a place we need to be spending money because

00:45:02.960 | there isn't an absolute need. There's no data that indicates that this will accelerate a transition

00:45:08.320 | to a carbon-free economy or that it's even needed. It really is a point of view that people hold and

00:45:15.040 | they believe that EVs are good. They're good for climate change. We should accelerate it. Therefore,

00:45:20.480 | we should spend money on it without any accountability or proof that these tax credits

00:45:25.440 | will actually motivate a market to do so. :

00:45:26.960 | It's not a question of how fast the market moves. It's a question of how fast the market moves. It's

00:45:29.200 | not a question of how fast the market moves. It's a question of how fast the market moves. It's a question

00:45:32.640 | of how fast the market moves. It's a question of how fast the market moves. It's a question of how fast the market

00:45:34.080 | moves. It's a question of how fast the market moves. It's a question of how fast the market moves. And so,

00:45:35.040 | it's just spending taxpayer dollars that could theoretically not be spent or be spent in a more

00:45:39.760 | effective way to improve the lives of people broadly in this country. So, yeah, I don't fully

00:45:44.240 | agree with it. I haven't seen any data that tells me this makes sense. : Anecdotally, you don't think

00:45:56.880 | And you know, giving people $7500 off a car that manufacturers are still struggling to keep up with making because there's so much demand already, you don't need to do it. It is so much cheaper to drive an electric vehicle now, by plugging this thing in and spending money on gas that people already want to buy these things, they pay for themselves super fast. Every consumer wants to save money on transportation, and you will save money by buying an electric vehicle. So you will already buy an electric vehicle, you don't need government money to get you to buy an electric vehicle.

00:46:24.100 | To Freiburg's point, there was a lot of analysis that's been done on consumer adoption patterns.

00:46:31.220 | And typically for a new good or service, the tipping point is around 5% mass market adoption

00:46:35.940 | from when it goes from early adopters to the mass market, and EVs just crossed 5%. So to his point,

00:46:42.820 | the historical data would tell you that we're now past the critical point where it's no longer

00:46:50.740 | questionable. And now it's just going to happen. So it's not early adopters, we're getting to

00:46:53.940 | the point where it's no longer questionable. Now it's just going to happen. So it's not early

00:46:54.020 | adopters, we're getting to the point where it's no longer questionable. Now it's just going to happen.

00:46:54.100 | The mass mass market. I mean, I'll tell you like the best the best thing about

00:46:57.620 | EV adoption, or for me for having an EV is never having to go to the gas station.

00:47:03.540 | Amazing. Amazing. Yeah.

00:47:05.700 | I just just that one thing is like, I'll just give you guys currently it's about 34.6

00:47:12.260 | kilowatt hours per 100 miles. Okay, I'll just get let's just do some math together. Let's say

00:47:18.020 | kilowatt hour in the US costs about 10 cents. Okay, so that's about $3 and 50 cents to drive 100

00:47:24.020 | miles in an electric car. That's a lot cheaper than paying $15 for gas to drive the same distance

00:47:31.300 | in a gas car. You don't need the tax credit to get people to buy these things. These cars are

00:47:36.180 | financeable. There's a very liquid, very active lending market. You get paid back on these cars

00:47:42.740 | within a federal TV here. Better would you direct if you were going to direct some stimulus to I

00:47:48.180 | would not say anything right now. We don't we just talked about how we don't need to stimulate the

00:47:52.020 | economy. I would not know where the economy is the economy I'm talking about to you believe global

00:47:57.940 | warming is happening. Friedberg Yes, look, you want my point of view on climate change and industry.

00:48:03.620 | I think I think humans I think humans are on a driven, naturally market driven path

00:48:10.500 | to resolving carbon output in our industrial systems. And I don't think that government

00:48:17.220 | intervention with tax credits and specific consumer products is actually going to accelerate or

00:48:21.940 | resolve you know, these changes that are needed. We need to not change consumer behavior. Consumers

00:48:28.100 | always want to have cheaper, faster, better. What we need, you know, at the end of the day, what we

00:48:32.580 | need to do is change the way that we're producing and making things because that's ultimately what's

00:48:36.580 | going to drive this transition. And guess what consumers are demanding things that are, you know,

00:48:41.140 | more efficient that are more effective and efficiency ultimately resolves to less carbon

00:48:45.700 | ultimately resolved to less land, less energy, and industry has always resolved to greater efficiency.

00:48:51.860 | Steve Jobs Natural market forces improve the efficiency of every industrial system.

00:48:56.500 | Friedberg So stimulus not necessary.

00:48:58.180 | Steve Jobs Mankind has ever created and I think it does it it is a matter of

00:49:01.460 | time and a matter of natural evolution that we will resolve all of the factors that are driving

00:49:08.100 | climate change from animal agriculture to transportation systems to energy systems.

00:49:12.660 | These are all going to get completely rewritten. Will we do it in time? We absolutely will. And

00:49:17.540 | at the end of the day, we can pull carbon out of the atmosphere and resolve it into products. We have

00:49:21.780 | tools to do that as well. So I am an eternal optimist. But in this particular case, I think

00:49:26.740 | that this century, much of what we're throwing our hands about, and you remember, at the beginning of

00:49:31.060 | the 20th century, we thought we were going to run out of food. Then suddenly we invented the Haber

00:49:34.900 | Bosch process and created fertilizer out of air. It was an incredible, incredible invention that

00:49:40.660 | saved mankind. We have had time and time again in the history of humanity, these thoughts that

00:49:45.060 | weren't an existential crisis. Friedberg We thought we would have peak oil.

00:49:47.780 | Steve Jobs And we have had these points of view that weren't an existential

00:49:51.700 | crisis and humanity is about to end. And every single time we figured out a way out of it. And

00:49:56.740 | we didn't figure out a way out of it because the government came along and said, here's a tax credit.

00:50:00.580 | And we've gotten sick and we've gotten drunk on government spending. And we think that it is

00:50:05.780 | the solution to every problem we have as a species. You know, the biggest solution to

00:50:09.140 | our problems is our ingenuity. And then they let the markets figure it out. Consumers are smart.

00:50:14.260 | Businesses are smart. They will figure out ways to resolve these solutions. They don't

00:50:17.540 | need to have these handouts. And I think that that's that's a really important point that

00:50:21.620 | we've kind of missed. And I'll say we were talking earlier about the economy.

00:50:25.140 | This stimulus, we've been giving ourselves caffeine since 2008 when the Fed started to build up this

00:50:29.220 | balance sheet. And we got used to the idea. Remember before this, it was like, oh, my God,

00:50:33.220 | multimillion dollar bills. And then it became multibillion dollar bills. Then we had an $800

00:50:36.820 | billion bay out in 2008. And suddenly it was the multiple of 100 billion and the multiple of a

00:50:41.700 | trillion. And this expectation now we've kind of reset the clock and everything now is in what

00:50:46.980 | multiple of 100 billion or what multiple of trillion we're going to spend on stuff.

00:50:50.260 | And no one's even batting an eye

00:50:51.540 | at the size of these the bills anymore.

00:50:54.740 | Freiburg, what is a bigger existential threat to the United States? Is it climate or is it

00:51:00.180 | overspending by our government?

00:51:01.540 | I think it's over. I think the biggest threat is is productivity.

00:51:07.220 | I think that as a society, we've gotten to the point that we are so well off,

00:51:11.620 | that we have so many things that we don't realize we didn't have 50 years ago. And, you know,

00:51:17.380 | read Pinker's book on enlightenment now and just go through those 200 charts he puts

00:51:21.460 | in there, it will blow your mind. And if you actually sit down and think about it, never

00:51:25.060 | broader perspective on where we sit in this country today versus where we were 100 years,

00:51:29.460 | 50 years, even 30 years ago, you will say, Oh, my God, we live in an absolute

00:51:35.140 | luxurious state in this country, golden and golden era. And it is a condition that unfortunately

00:51:42.180 | reaps, you know, a decline in productivity, because at that point,

00:51:47.620 | entitled to some degree, some people are entitled, there are many people in this country that are

00:51:51.380 | still very hungry. There are many people in this country that still want to progress. And frankly,

00:51:55.700 | I think a lot of the the lax behavior from government entities actually holds us back

00:52:02.020 | from accelerating our productivity outings, because it gives people many incentives and many

00:52:05.700 | reasons and industry many incentives and many reasons to not solve problems. And I think that

00:52:10.100 | we solve problems and we're left to our own Shabazz. There was an article I posted Nick, you

00:52:14.420 | can put it in about the Congo, and that they've decided to auction a bunch of land to oil companies.

00:52:21.300 | And I think before they tried to heed sort of, you know, the West's directives, and they said,

00:52:30.580 | Okay, well, let's build a land bank, and we'll put a bunch of money in and so then the, you know,

00:52:34.900 | people in the Congo will have money for things. And you won't have to sell off the oil rights.

00:52:41.220 | And only 10s of millions of dollars showed up. And then the Congolese were like, they threw up their

00:52:45.860 | hand, I'll just read the quote, because I think it's interesting. Congo sole goal for the auction,

00:52:50.020 | said the government of Congo.

00:52:51.220 | official is to earn enough revenue to help the struggling nation finance programs

00:52:55.140 | to reduce poverty and generate badly needed economic growth. That is our priority. He said,

00:52:59.540 | our priority is not to save the planet. And it's quite a stark statement when you read it. But

00:53:06.340 | but the reality is, in one generation, what will happen is they will feed the world's desire for

00:53:11.300 | fossil fuels, that will generate a lot of revenue. Hopefully, it doesn't get pilfered. And so it

00:53:17.220 | gets invested in healthcare and education. And within a generation, this country,

00:53:21.140 | could be in a completely different situation. Allowing the productivity of that entire

00:53:27.300 | population of that country to do what they think is right. So I'm generally of the belief that that

00:53:32.820 | that freebergs right on this. Do you think that we should subsidize EVs to increase the percentage

00:53:39.060 | and then also for solar? Just give me those two Chamath solar and EVs? Do you think they should be

00:53:43.460 | subsidized or not? In the United States? It depends on how and at what point of the market cycle. The government's

00:53:51.060 | job is to create economic incentives that tip the balance of power towards investment. So if you are

00:54:00.340 | sitting here 15 years ago, the price of solar panels was sky high. It was incomprehensible that

00:54:08.180 | we could make solar equivalent to any other form of energy. The only way that we were able to close

00:54:14.660 | the gap was through government subsidies. But what that did was allow a bunch of companies to build

00:54:20.980 | businesses to make revenues and then also to make profits that then the public markets valued.

00:54:27.620 | Those public markets then put pressure on those companies to take those profits

00:54:32.500 | to become more efficient to make the panels cheaper. And 15 years later, we're now at parity.

00:54:38.340 | So that was a really great example of the government stepping in to smooth out an imbalance

00:54:45.620 | in the investment incentive of the private markets. That is where they are

00:54:50.900 | exceptional. So in any market, they should be able to do this. But I think what Freiburg is saying is

00:54:58.420 | when then they do do it successfully, and a market starts to germinate on its own,

00:55:04.100 | where supply and demand happens naturally between the private markets,

00:55:09.060 | the worst thing a government can do is step in, because it completely

00:55:14.020 | perturbs what true supply or true demand is. And that is what causes all of this crazy stuff that

00:55:20.260 | we deal with.

00:55:20.820 | Jake, how fast forward assume that there's a $7500 tax credit for EVs that artificially

00:55:25.460 | makes EVs cheaper, and then a better technology than EVs comes along. Let's assume it's some

00:55:30.260 | nuclear fusion, cold fusion, Mr. Fusion car, like from Back to the Future. And that car inevitably

00:55:35.780 | has to fight against the cheaper car, because the cheaper car is subsidized by the government.

00:55:40.740 | We see this in a lot of markets that already exist in food, in energy,

00:55:45.460 | in infrastructure, where government subsidies that are embedded in the operating model of that industry

00:55:50.740 | and that industry becomes kind of reliant and dependent on it totally distorts the ability for

00:55:56.340 | the market to naturally transition to a more productive, more efficient state. And that more

00:56:01.060 | productive, more efficient state ultimately is cheaper, better for consumers and better for the

00:56:05.700 | planet. And we're we hold ourselves back when we insert government dollars into well functioning

00:56:11.380 | markets. I do think the government has an important role, as I mentioned last time,

00:56:15.300 | in pure science, in seeding new markets and seeding these opportunities in identifying paths

00:56:20.660 | that are quantum leap efficiency improvements in production systems, in industrial systems,

00:56:25.300 | in ways of living. Once those have been identified, if those breakthroughs have been

00:56:29.460 | kind of catalyzed, boom, let the market take off because it's going to take off.

00:56:33.620 | But we shouldn't be in this business.

00:56:34.660 | So you believe EVs and solar are there already?

00:56:37.460 | Absolutely. They're cheaper. And so let me point, let me just give you one point of reference. Let's

00:56:41.620 | use Chamath's Congolese example. Let's assume that there's someone that lives in the Congo.

00:56:46.180 | And I said to this person who's probably subsisting on less than $3,000 a year of income,

00:56:50.580 | and they're probably living, you know, day to day on finding food. And you said to this person,

00:56:55.220 | in the United States, they have these cars, they're called electric cars, and they're cheaper

00:56:59.780 | than gas cars. And they're, you make more money, or you save money by buying one of these cars,

00:57:05.460 | and they're cheaper now. And we're giving people $7,500 to buy one.

00:57:09.780 | This person who's making three grand a year would say what it is a state of luxury that

00:57:14.500 | allows us to do this. And frankly, I think it's, it's a state of excess abundance.

00:57:20.500 | And that's what I'm most worried about.

00:57:22.740 | Sachs, what are your thoughts on the government giving these type of subsidies to accelerate solar

00:57:27.860 | and EVs?

00:57:28.340 | The whole bill seems anachronistic. You know, first of all, it's raising taxes by $739 billion

00:57:35.380 | at a time when we're entering a recession. I don't know any economist who thinks that tax increases

00:57:40.260 | help the economy. We just talked about how the economy is in a really tenuous position. So

00:57:45.540 | this is not the right medicine right now. Then you've got the fact that the vast

00:57:50.420 | majority of the spending this bill goes to these, you know, energy subsidies, which are just,

00:57:57.220 | they're not going to help the average person. There's very little money in this bill that

00:58:01.620 | helps the average working class person. These are basically handouts. There's basically pork

00:58:05.700 | barrel spending for Democratic Party donors and special interests. And like Freeburg,

00:58:10.420 | I think just articulated very well. They're not necessary right now. The what's driving demand for

00:58:16.180 | electric vehicles and solar panels and so on is first of all, the products just keep getting better.

00:58:20.340 | And second, they keep moving down the cost curve as technology and innovation gets better. These

00:58:25.380 | products get cheaper. That's what's fundamentally driving the demand. We don't need the government

00:58:28.980 | now. Again, we need to accelerate it in an anachronistic way to shovel out all this money

00:58:34.820 | at a time. We can't afford it. Look, I'm glad that $300 billion of the bill is supposedly going to

00:58:39.780 | deficit reduction. I hope those numbers actually materialize. But we're still $30 trillion in debt.

00:58:45.380 | And now that interest rates have gone from basically zero to around 3%,

00:58:50.260 | the imputed debt service on our debts basically gone has increased by almost a trillion dollars.

00:58:56.420 | That is a lot of money. So just like somebody who had a variable mortgage,

00:58:59.700 | the United States is on a variable mortgage with our debt. And so when interest rates go up,

00:59:04.260 | we're going to have to pay more interest. Yeah, exactly. So if interest rates stay at this,

00:59:08.420 | call it 3% level, which is roughly where the 10-year T-bill has been bouncing around at, that

00:59:14.180 | is a lot of debt service, a trillion dollars a year of debt service. So I think we're probably

00:59:18.660 | entering an era, an over-the-top era of debt service. And I think we're probably entering an

00:59:20.180 | overall era of austerity that lasts more than just this year or even this presidency.

00:59:25.220 | And I think we'll look back at all this wasteful spending, this last $10 trillion, $20 trillion

00:59:30.900 | of spending as money we didn't need to spend that we're going to be paying for for a long time.

00:59:35.060 | So to be shoveling out another $300 billion plus of these programs, and again, once again,

00:59:41.060 | going to corporations and special interests, not to the average person who needs it,

00:59:46.580 | it's just so irresponsible. I have a question for Friedberg.

00:59:49.300 | Yeah. So one of your exceptions there was investments in science.

00:59:55.300 | You want to talk about your opinion on the quality of the grant process at the NIH and

01:00:02.980 | whether we're doing the real work necessary to get the right things funded?

01:00:08.900 | Yeah. I think it's a good transition to what happened this week, which was that there was a

01:00:16.740 | major potential frisk. Yeah.

01:00:19.220 | And there was a broad uncovered in Alzheimer's research, which has led to over a billion and

01:00:25.060 | a half dollars of funding and grants being given out to follow on Alzheimer's research programs in

01:00:31.620 | the years that followed this initial paper. So, you know, in 2006, there was a paper published

01:00:40.980 | in the journal Nature about amyloid beta proteins that impaired memory in brains, which then became

01:00:49.140 | the leading theory for the cause and the driver of Alzheimer's disease. And much of the research

01:00:55.700 | and funding that followed from there, which is now up to nine, several billion dollars in total

01:01:04.900 | funding in private and public institutions. Last year alone, the NIH funded $287 million

01:01:10.980 | in research into amyloid beta. And it turns out that the initial paper was shown to be from

01:01:19.060 | the University of California, the University of California, and the University of California, and

01:01:21.220 | so that was a major step forward in the research. And so, you know, just recently, the journal Science

01:01:26.500 | published in detail an analysis of the photos of the Western blot measurements, the protein

01:01:30.740 | recognition images that the scientists used in this initial paper were forged, and that many

01:01:37.860 | papers of his were then forged years later. And this paper is one of the most cited papers in

01:01:44.180 | Alzheimer's research and much of the work that's been done on Alzheimer's came out of this. And if

01:01:48.980 | you look at the data that was published in the paper, you can see that the data that was published

01:01:53.700 | in the paper was actually from the study of the biogen drug. And that biogen drug is meant to stop

01:01:58.900 | amyloid beta plaque. And you know, the projection is that Alzheimer's drug and and remember, there

01:02:03.700 | was a panel of scientists that looked at the data for that drug that biogen got approval for from

01:02:08.820 | the FDA. And they all said this does not show conclusively in any way that it improves Alzheimer's

01:02:14.100 | and the FDA still approved the drug, because so much of the NIH funding went into the research

01:02:18.900 | and the research that we're doing. So this is the way that we can solve Alzheimer's. This is the way

01:02:23.700 | to resolve it. And everyone gets so strongly held in that core belief. And there's so much money

01:02:29.060 | behind it, that we can't turn away and say maybe we're wrong. And this is the problem when science

01:02:34.020 | meets money. Once you go from funding something, and then suddenly a whole bunch more money pours

01:02:40.500 | into it, everyone's gonna look bad. And everything's gonna fall apart. And everyone fears that the

01:02:45.060 | system fails. If you realize that something you did and said was so totally wrong.

01:02:48.820 | Recently with COVID, the masks, the vaccines, all of the statements that were made that you have to

01:02:54.020 | keep doubling down. Every system has bad actors, you know, people plagiarize fraud, whatever. Is

01:03:00.980 | this like a systematic thing? And doesn't science protect against this? Because people then do double

01:03:06.580 | blind studies and try to replicate studies? Who thinks because like Jason Blair eventually got

01:03:10.500 | caught right at the New York Times, it was only a matter of time before somebody said like, his

01:03:14.340 | description of my back porch was not accurate. I never looked at his journal. Let's say that you're

01:03:17.940 | a smart up and coming.

01:03:18.740 | scientist, your job is to is to publish research that gets attention, and that you can then go

01:03:24.820 | raise grants from the NIH and others from on. So you want to get some good papers out, you want to

01:03:29.380 | get attention. And then you want to forward the research that's already being done. It is to no

01:03:34.020 | one's incentive to go out and try and retest something that someone's already published on,

01:03:38.900 | even though that's what you're supposed to do in science. There's no motivation. There's no

01:03:43.220 | dollars to do this. It's, it's a disincentive to your career. It's a disincentive to your ability

01:03:48.660 | as a scientist to source funding and to source grants to go back and retest assumptions that are

01:03:53.940 | already strongly held beliefs in the industry. I'll give you another strong example that just

01:03:58.740 | came out two weeks ago. You know, you guys heard of SSRI antidepressant drugs, right?

01:04:03.860 | 37 million Americans are on these drugs. The market is projected to be at about 25 billion

01:04:11.300 | in the next few years. That's how much Americans are spending on these on these antidepressant

01:04:16.180 | drugs.

01:04:16.580 | Half a sacks, but yes, go on.

01:04:18.580 | Right. So there was a paper published in Nature a few weeks ago. And the Nature Journal

01:04:25.220 | pulled all the research and all the data from 17 other studies that

01:04:29.220 | was across several hundred thousand patients. And their conclusion was

01:04:32.900 | that there is effectively no proof that these SSRI drugs have an effect on depression have a

01:04:41.700 | positive effect on depression, that, you know, serotonin and the idea that, you know, serotonin

01:04:48.500 | uptake should kind of have a driving effect on depression. And this has been the assumption

01:04:53.140 | that's been held now for, you know, for many years. I mean, you know, I think the original

01:04:57.700 | paper on this was published, probably north of 20 years ago. But the industry is so big,

01:05:03.060 | right? The drug companies are making 20 $25 billion a year on this drug on these drugs.

01:05:08.500 | And scientists are incentivized to further that research that supports that research.

01:05:13.380 | And so they can go out and get NIH grants, because it's already an asset accepted, proven belief,

01:05:18.420 | that this is driving, is there a solution to this, like for every dollar that's spent on primary,

01:05:23.060 | you know, a dollar needs to be sent on double blind testing it and making sure that it's

01:05:28.660 | accurate? Should there because we have this issue in journalism, right? Everybody's a content creator,

01:05:33.060 | reblogger and opinion journalist. But there's very few now investigative journalists left.

01:05:38.020 | The actual problem is peer review systems,

01:05:41.380 | entirely, in my opinion, like the the problem with this study is that this was done by an up and com

01:05:48.340 | researcher in 2006 at the University of Minnesota, under a researcher who is well known.

01:05:54.900 | And so there was zero incentive, as Friedberg said, to really push back when well credentialed

01:06:00.820 | scientists tried to find this amyloid beta star 56, they couldn't find it. And, you know, lo and

01:06:06.500 | behold, those articles don't get published, because they don't get accepted. Why? Because it

01:06:10.740 | unravels the entire game that folks will play. So you know, if you're a well educated PhD with postdoc in the

01:06:18.260 | right places, supporting other people, it's just a loop that goes on forever. The article goes on to

01:06:24.500 | talk about how that person who wrote that initial article eventually got this very prestigious

01:06:30.820 | multi year grant from the NIH by a person who was his reviewer who worked on the 2006 paper with him.

01:06:38.820 | I mean, these are some pretty blatant conflicts of interest. But the reason they don't get

01:06:43.780 | uncovered is like, who is who's going to step in and all of a sudden become the let me strike

01:06:48.180 | an analogy here. You know, there's a seedling of fraud here, obviously, some guy took some

01:06:54.420 | friggin photos and Photoshop them and doctored him or whatever. But we then tell ourselves stories.

01:07:00.340 | And those stories get us access to money, which allows us to pursue more science,

01:07:05.380 | which is meant to forward the market. And then eventually, the market gets forwarded so much,

01:07:09.620 | and you spend a billion and a half dollars. And it turns out the whole thing doesn't work.

01:07:13.060 | Just like stock markets. It starts out as a voting machine in the beginning, and it's a way

01:07:18.100 | weighing machine over time. The same is true in science, you will have a voting machine in

01:07:22.660 | the beginning where everyone has some belief, some theory, some hypothesis, and they all want to

01:07:26.660 | believe it. And they forward it and they fund it and they fund it. But ultimately, if it's not true,

01:07:31.300 | and it doesn't actually resolve in real world change, the market will collapse, the stock will

01:07:37.220 | collapse. And that's what just happened with amyloid beta in Alzheimer's to a large degree.

01:07:42.260 | There's a billion and a half dollar market cap, you can think about it or billion and a half

01:07:45.300 | dollars of funding that's gone into this. No, that's right.

01:07:48.020 | That's pretty well. No, there was a billion and a half of NIH funding over time.

01:07:51.060 | This is just the NIH money. No, what I'm saying is the NIH budget per year for Alzheimer's and

01:07:55.700 | dementia is 1.9 billion. Yeah, yeah. And half of it, if you look at the tags, if you just search

01:08:01.460 | the tags, half the money has gone into Alzheimer's disease, amyloid beta. So the point is, you could

01:08:07.060 | orient the terms you used and the way in which you wrote your grants to disproportionately affect the

01:08:13.700 | likelihood of getting money. Separately, there's a whole body of research

01:08:17.940 | that has been done by researchers that have felt for a very long time that specific forms of

01:08:23.780 | infection viruses, Lyme disease could actually be a precursor to Alzheimer's. And it has been

01:08:30.020 | poorly researched because the funding dollars weren't there. So there's a lot of other theory,

01:08:34.900 | mitochondrial dysfunction. Yeah, yeah.

01:08:36.900 | So Freeberg, when we look at this, a bad actor, committing fraud, can send the entire deployment

01:08:43.540 | of capital in science on a multi billion dollar...

01:08:47.860 | Yeah, yeah.

01:08:48.420 | ...billion dollar scale.

01:08:48.900 | Yeah.

01:08:49.300 | And that's the thing. It's not just about, like, we didn't get the dollars in. It's if you don't

01:08:53.220 | take the path, the drug doesn't get discovered. That's a really big deal.

01:08:56.820 | Right.

01:08:57.320 | And now the drug is in the market. Biogen gets approval, and people start taking it. And we're

01:09:01.620 | seeing the data doesn't work, and no one wants to use it. So the market has collapsed. And you kind

01:09:05.860 | of go back to the origin. It's like, the market collapses, ultimately. The weighing machine

01:09:09.860 | happens because the science doesn't work. It's not there. And there was no incentive. No one got paid

01:09:14.820 | along the way. Imagine if there was a bounty program to go and disprove...

01:09:17.780 | Mm.

01:09:17.860 | ...papers. I mean, imagine if there was a system where people...

01:09:19.620 | That's what I was talking about. What is the safeguard? And we do have that in public markets.

01:09:23.380 | It's called shorting.

01:09:24.340 | No, there is.

01:09:24.740 | In short stocks.

01:09:25.540 | It's called PubPeer. The problem is, if you go to PubPeer and all of a sudden put your name out

01:09:29.940 | there as someone calling it out, your professional career inside a research institution is finished.

01:09:35.380 | Right. If your job is to go and get...

01:09:36.340 | Oh, they're not heroes?

01:09:37.460 | No. If your job is to disprove other people's stuff, you don't forward your career, right?

01:09:41.460 | I mean, it's a real challenge.

01:09:42.900 | Oh, those people should be heroes. Those are like bug bounty programs. They have to look at it like

01:09:46.740 | bug bounty programs and stuff.

01:09:47.700 | Yeah.

01:09:48.660 | Or shorting stocks in...

01:09:50.180 | The problem is that this community is extremely small, highly specialized,

01:09:54.100 | and their impacts are enormous on all of society. But you can't replace them with somebody else very

01:09:59.860 | easily because it takes an enormous amount of expertise. If you read that science article,

01:10:04.820 | the amount of work... Science took six months of due diligence before they even

01:10:08.900 | had the courage to put this thing out there. They had all kinds of different teams

01:10:13.220 | trying to prove what this guy had found before they were willing to put ink

01:10:17.620 | to this thing.

01:10:18.340 | Yeah. When things are starting to feel like they're ultimately moving to market or getting

01:10:22.340 | to market, the more money starts to flow in. Another good example of this is Zymergen and

01:10:27.060 | Genco. Okay. So in the past week, Zymergen was acquired for $300 million. It was announced that

01:10:32.500 | they're going to be acquired by Genco Bioworks, both of whom are public companies. Genco went

01:10:36.180 | public at, I think, a $20 billion market cap as a SPAC a few months ago. Zymergen went public at,

01:10:42.660 | you know, $4 billion or whatever they went public at. Zymergen being acquired for $300 million,

01:10:47.540 | comes off of them having raised a total of $1.5 billion of capital from many investors,

01:10:52.980 | including SoftBank and in their IPO since they were founded in 2013. Both of these businesses

01:10:58.660 | do exactly the same thing or similar things, which is pursue the industrialization of synthetic

01:11:03.380 | biology. Synthetic biology has been talked about, you know, or pursued for 20 years in

01:11:07.460 | an industrial setting. The kind of Gen 1 of synthetic bio companies was Amaris,

01:11:12.420 | Jivo, Kior, Solazyme. These companies were all engineering cells. You change the genome,

01:11:17.460 | or the DNA of the cells, you get those cells to make a product you want them to make,

01:11:21.540 | you put them in what's called a bioreactor, and they make the product. You can make bioplastics,

01:11:25.620 | you can make animal proteins, you can make fuel. And so these, and you put sugar water in the tank,

01:11:31.860 | so you're programming the organism to make stuff for you. And there's a lot of technical

01:11:35.700 | challenges, right? How do you change the genome? How do you get it to be more productive?

01:11:39.060 | What are the environmental conditions of the bioreactor? How do you scale this thing up,

01:11:42.580 | and so on. And so many of them had early stage proof points and then extrapolated out that they

01:11:47.380 | were going to be able to do it. And so they were able to do it. And so they were able to do it. And

01:11:48.660 | so all the Gen 1 companies largely failed Jivo, Kior, Solazyme, they were all trying to compete

01:11:53.460 | with the price of oil, and they lost. And so they could never actually the science worked in the lab,

01:11:58.660 | but getting it to a big scale, there was a million things that went that suddenly were kind of proven

01:12:03.060 | or disproven along the way. And they all kind of pivoted and became cosmetics companies and kind of

01:12:07.780 | did high end food and other stuff. And then Ginkgo and Zymogen were kind of Gen 2. They were like,

01:12:12.260 | we're going to reduce the cost, improve the timescale of the synthetic biology programs. And they

01:12:17.300 | started using industrial robots and arms. Zymogen made a bunch of kind of strategic errors where

01:12:22.180 | they were like, we're going to make the product and design the organisms. So it took a lot more

01:12:26.580 | money, a lot more time. And as they kind of stepped up and tried to scale up, turns out a lot of the

01:12:31.860 | things that they believed to be true weren't quite true. But the CEO did a great job selling the

01:12:36.340 | story. Josh Hoffman, he went out for years and he told everyone, you know, we're going to kind of

01:12:40.820 | create this factory and we're going to make everything in the world using biology. It's

01:12:44.580 | going to transform the world. And we're talking about- You're talking about the world.

01:12:47.220 | We talked about this. Is it a true story? Yeah. And so look, so much of the fundamentals

01:12:51.300 | are true. But the industrialization, the amount of capital these guys raised and what they promised

01:12:55.540 | they would deliver on when turned out not to quite beat the economics, not to quite get there.

01:13:00.500 | And the market decisions they made about what products to go after, how quickly to scale up,

01:13:04.820 | building their own facilities. There was just a lot of strategic errors. And I think the

01:13:08.420 | storytelling got ahead of where the business was. You know, we saw this a lot in other

01:13:12.820 | businesses in the past year, as we've talked about crypto and other markets.

01:13:17.140 | But these were really key examples because the science is so compelling and the narrative is so

01:13:21.140 | compelling. And if it's right and if it works, it changes the world. And I think the same was

01:13:25.140 | true of amyloid beta and Alzheimer's. Everyone wanted it to be true. SSRIs,

01:13:29.860 | everyone wants there to be a cure for depression that you take a pill and you solve depression.

01:13:34.020 | Everyone wants to, you know, have a drug that you take and it ends Alzheimer's. Everyone wants to

01:13:38.420 | print all the world's products in a factory using cells. But there's a lot more to it.

01:13:42.820 | And as you kind of get through the nuanced 10 to 20 year cycle of science moves to

01:13:47.060 | technology moves to industry, those stages are wrought with errors and issues, and ultimately

01:13:52.500 | may not actually yield what we expected it to yield. And those stories start to fall apart.

01:13:56.660 | And that's what happened with Zymergen. They're getting bought.

01:13:58.420 | We look back on this free bird in 20 years and say, Hey, yeah, these things were total train

01:14:02.820 | wrecks, they flipped the car. But it was a step in the right direction. And yeah, that was 100%

01:14:07.380 | capital. But you know, something will be built on top of it, just like mainframes

01:14:12.740 | or mini computers to smartphones. The first system of call it synthetic biology or recombinant

01:14:16.980 | DNA, where we took DNA from one organism, and we put it in a in a in a microbe to make stuff for us

01:14:22.100 | was Genentech in 1978. Prior to 1978, the way we got insulin is we actually processed pig parts.

01:14:29.380 | So it would take like, you know, hundreds of kilograms of pig parts

01:14:32.820 | to make just a few grams of insulin. And Genentech took the DNA for human insulin,

01:14:38.580 | and they put it in a bacterial cell, and they made human insulin in a bioreactor.

01:14:42.820 | And that really kind of ushered in this this era of, you know, industrial synthetic

01:14:46.900 | biology that all of these companies kind of followed suit to do in different markets.

01:14:51.780 | But remember, biologics, the entire pharma industry and biologic drugs is all made this way.

01:14:57.300 | We take the DNA to code for certain antibodies or proteins,

01:15:01.380 | we put it in microbes, and those microbes make those products for us. That biologics drug

01:15:05.300 | industry is a $350 billion annual revenue industry today. And so it works. It's just a matter of when

01:15:12.740 | and what the right products are. Industrial enzymes, $25 billion annual revenue today.

01:15:16.820 | So there are markets that are working, it is working, but this whole like,

01:15:20.740 | we're going to change the world overnight, isn't really, you know, true. And so these stories catch

01:15:25.140 | up to us. And I think we've seen this where I call it science meets money. You know, money usually

01:15:29.700 | wins. And the science isn't quite there yet. And so we've seen this in kind of

01:15:34.500 | Genentech. The Genentech story is amazing. I mean, Tom Perkins from Kleiner Perkins fame,

01:15:38.820 | like will that company into being and they? Yeah, it's pretty amazing how

01:15:43.300 | in the old days of venture capital, they basically built

01:15:46.740 | Tom Perkins these companies like you're doing today for your Berg in like a production board

01:15:50.980 | model, he basically incubated Genentech, and then surprised the world with like,

01:15:54.980 | hey, we have synthetic insulin here. It was like, yeah, look, I mean, the Silicon Valley,

01:16:00.740 | there isn't a single material or food, or a fuel or product that we ultimately won't be able to make

01:16:07.540 | using synthetic biology. It's just a matter of how do we get from here to there. And the storytelling

01:16:12.100 | kind of gets you a bunch of money, and then you get ahead of your skis, and then boom, you fall

01:16:14.900 | down. Same happens with the technology. You know, you're building a company, you're building a

01:16:16.660 | company, you're building a company, you're building a company, you're building a company,

01:16:17.220 | you're building a company, you're building a company, you're building a company, you're building

01:16:17.700 | a company, you're building a company, you're building a company, you're building a company,

01:16:18.820 | and I think we'll see this happen a lot. But like when science gets exciting,

01:16:22.740 | a lot of money gets behind it. And sometimes it can kind of, you know, get ahead of its skis and

01:16:26.980 | fall down. But and it will reside in our sacks. How excited are you for this revolution instead of

01:16:32.340 | biology? It's actually an investor with us in one of our companies in synthetic biology. He may not

01:16:36.180 | remember, but he's got some money. I won't name the company, but he's got some money.

01:16:40.340 | Oh, yeah. How's that doing? Yeah. Did you fall asleep in the board meeting? No, we're not, we're not

01:16:46.580 | on the board. We're passive. We didn't. Is that the one we brought to you freeberg? Yeah, well,

01:16:50.900 | I have three people brought, but I've known him since they were small. But yeah, I know there

01:16:55.460 | was a deal that came in that looked interesting, but it was a little bit out of our area. So we

01:16:58.980 | went to freeberg with it. It is an interesting business because these guys provide a tooling

01:17:02.740 | service to other symbiote companies. And so it's a recurring revenue shovels. Yeah, it's a picks and

01:17:07.940 | shovels. Exactly. Yeah, yeah. It was very sass like in that regard. Babushka doll of nerds.

01:17:16.500 | Awake. Okay, so we're talking about an area where you know, I'm not going to be able to contribute a

01:17:20.580 | lot to the discussion of SSRI is I'm not going to pretend to know. I'm just a consumer. I'm not.

01:17:25.860 | Sacks. These SSRIs helps you in any way with your depression about Biden?

01:17:35.620 | No. Okay. The story that I think kind of fits with everything we're talking about this week.

01:17:40.740 | Yeah, it's been wrapped. 75 minutes in. Yeah. Is there was more there were more stories this week

01:17:46.420 | about this cynical ploy by the Democratic Party to fund candidates? No, we talked a little bit about

01:17:54.660 | this last week, but they spent you should be really opposed to this J Cal. I listen as an

01:18:00.660 | independent. I think it's gross. I am an independent. You're an independent only votes for

01:18:06.660 | Democrats. So not true. Not true. I'm gonna vote for Liz Cheney for president. I think Liz Cheney

01:18:11.300 | or Bezos. Those are my have you ever voted for a Republican candidate for any office ever? I had Yeah,

01:18:16.340 | I have. You have really? Yeah. Yeah. I'm a moderate. I don't feel like when I voted for

01:18:23.460 | an iPhone for USA Reagan. We've got to say wrong. You're too young. Patrick.

01:18:28.660 | He was a Democrat. It's been a long life. But I did I did vote I remember for Republican and when

01:18:35.060 | I lived in New York, David Sacks has a look on his face that says finish your stupid banter so I can

01:18:39.380 | go on my money. Hold on Henry Belcaster in 322. Go No, I don't I don't really have a monologue on it. But

01:18:46.260 | I just think that this is this is a pretty amazing story that you've got Democrats spending almost

01:18:51.220 | $50 million as primary season boosting MAGA candidates. Yes, at the expense of moderate GOP

01:18:57.620 | candidates. Perfect. And so let's get the crazies in there. Yeah, I mean, they're easier to beat,

01:19:02.740 | right? And that's the theory if you get a theory, but in a year in a year in which you get a red

01:19:09.780 | wave, it's really dangerous. And it totally undermines what the Democrats are saying in their

01:19:16.180 | January 6th. Completely, completely cynical. I agree. You can't you can't on the one hand backing

01:19:22.660 | Trump. You can't on the one hand say that we're facing an unprecedented existential crisis for our

01:19:28.580 | democracy. And on the other hand, be giving money to the very same people you're saying are the

01:19:33.700 | threat to democracy. It makes no sense. It just shows that both sides are completely cynical

01:19:38.420 | backing anything that is talking about your No, you're what you're saying. You're trying to both

01:19:43.300 | you're trying to both sides it you're trying to both sides.

01:19:46.100 | No, but the difference here is that there is this is, I'd say partisan political

01:19:52.740 | gamesmanship. But the point is, you can't on the one hand be engaging in ordinary

01:19:57.780 | partisan gamesmanship while you're saying that democracy faces an unprecedented threat.

01:20:03.220 | That's the disconnect. No, no, I get that. You're trying to get too cute.

01:20:06.660 | What do you think about Liz Cheney? I'm curious. Well, I think for her if she was a nominee,

01:20:12.100 | she's a warmonger, just like her father. She's like, she's basically Darth Vader 2.0. So that's

01:20:18.420 | my biggest problem with her is no, I would not. I would not vote for much more. There's not there's

01:20:22.820 | not there's not a war she doesn't want to get us involved in. And there's not a country she

01:20:26.740 | wouldn't try and impose democracy at the end of a barrel. Okay. So that's why I don't like her. But

01:20:32.020 | to your point, Democrats say they want to work with more Republicans like Liz Cheney. But

01:20:38.420 | if you look at who they're donating money to, they're donating money to some of the most important

01:20:42.020 | people in the country. And they're donating money to support the MAGA election denier against every

01:20:47.780 | single Republican who voted for impeachment. Okay. So you look at like the specific races.

01:20:53.140 | It's completely cynical. And it's just about winning just like the

01:20:57.540 | just to give you one, one example. Democrats they gave, they launched $450,000 of ads to take out

01:21:03.620 | a Grand Rapids Congressman Peter Major, who also voted for Trump's impeachment. They did this with a

01:21:11.940 | lot of other people. David Valledale, and just on and on. So you've got on the one hand, you've got

01:21:18.500 | Democrats saying that this is an unprecedented threat to democracy, they want to work with more

01:21:23.060 | reasonable Republicans who are denying the election, while at the same time trying to

01:21:27.780 | basically fund the campaigns of the MAGA candidate. Yeah, the reason they're doing it obviously is if

01:21:33.300 | you fund one of these maniacs, then they're easy to beat. So they're trying to serve up somebody

01:21:38.740 | who's an easy candidate to be. Right. But I get the strategy. But in a year. Do you think it's an effective strategy?

01:21:41.860 | I think it's a very dangerous strategy, because it was my question. No, I don't think so. Because

01:21:48.420 | this year, I think this November is likely to be a wave election. And when you get a wave election,

01:21:55.780 | the specific candidate matters less, and party matters more. So you could get some of these

01:22:01.060 | crazy swept into office. So I think it's a cynical and counterproductive strategy. And you say that

01:22:06.180 | Republicans do it too. I can't remember any example. I think Trump itself is like supporting

01:22:11.780 | Trump is that I can't I can't remember. I can't remember a single time ever where Republicans have

01:22:17.140 | basically funded have funded the Soros. The audience loves it.

01:22:21.540 | I just think this is very stupid and dangerous. But let me ask you a piece. Listen, it's of a

01:22:27.300 | piece. Okay, it's of a piece with the administration claiming we're not in a recession

01:22:31.940 | trying to redefine recession now that we're in one. It's of a piece with Joe Manchin all of a

01:22:36.260 | sudden calling the slimmed down BBB the deficit reduction act after saying that it would increase

01:22:41.700 | the deficit. And the media is not holding these guys accountable. That's why politicians are going

01:22:47.620 | to be as dishonest as the media allows them to be. And the media is not holding Brian,

01:22:52.500 | Conan O'Brien kept the White House on this. He tweets out. The White House now says it's only

01:22:58.020 | a recession. If you see a salamander wearing a top hat. The comments are the best one guy.

01:23:04.100 | What about a wrap? What about a rabbit?

01:23:11.620 | Let me ask you a serious question.

01:23:12.580 | Jay, Jay, seriously going beyond just the specifics of the political issue. I think we

01:23:16.340 | really have a problem with the media class. I mean, the media is carrying water for these

01:23:22.180 | Democrats because they agree with the ideological agenda. We do not have an honest media who's

01:23:26.500 | willing to hold the party in power accountable. Given what you've said about being disgusted by

01:23:32.100 | like the you know, denying of you know, this voter fraud conspiracy stuff by Trump or whatever,

01:23:38.740 | if Trump wins the nomination, which I think he will,

01:23:41.940 | how are you going to be able to when we're on the show a year from now, and Trump has the nomination,

01:23:47.380 | or you know, 18 months from now, whenever it is that he locks it up,

01:23:50.340 | and he will lock it up if he runs?

01:23:51.700 | I don't think so.

01:23:52.740 | So if he does, though,

01:23:53.780 | I don't think so.

01:23:55.140 | Would you conceivably be able to back Trump for a second term? Would you be able to come on this

01:24:01.300 | program and say I back Trump as a Republican because you don't want to vote for a Democrat?

01:24:05.540 | What would you do just not vote because you don't like Trump? You said you would not support him.

01:24:09.220 | Listen, politics is always

01:24:11.460 | a choice of the lesser of two evils. There are a lot of cases.

01:24:13.380 | So you would vote for Trump.

01:24:14.260 | So I hope I'm not in that situation. Listen, I

01:24:16.740 | What would you do?

01:24:17.300 | Listen, the election that America does not want in 24 is Biden versus Trump. I think the race that

01:24:23.780 | they want, I think the choice they want to make is actually DeSantis versus Newsom. That's the choice

01:24:28.580 | I'd like to make. So look, I'm on the DeSantis train. That's what I'm supporting for 24. You know,

01:24:34.980 | if it ends up being something different, we can talk about it.

01:24:37.780 | If it was Bezos-DeSantis, what would you do? Would you vote for Bezos?

01:24:41.380 | Bezos or DeSantis?

01:24:42.660 | You go DeSantis? Really?

01:24:43.860 | Yeah.

01:24:44.260 | What about you Chamath? Would you go Bezos or DeSantis? Who would you vote for? Bezos or DeSantis?

01:24:49.780 | Bezos or DeSantis? Well, that's a tough one. Probably DeSantis.

01:24:55.220 | Okay, Freiburg? Bezos or DeSantis?

01:24:58.020 | I'm good. I'm going to sit this question out. Let's keep going.

01:24:59.860 | Okay. All right, everybody. There you have it, everybody.

01:25:01.700 | It's a dumb question, J. Cal, because Bezos is not running. I mean,

01:25:04.900 | and honestly, the fact that people were even discussing that.

01:25:08.500 | Well, the practical reality is he's a thought experiment.

01:25:10.260 | No, but his thought experiment. The thought experiment.

01:25:11.300 | But the thought experiment, the reason why I would go DeSantis is at least he knows how to

01:25:14.740 | play the game of politics. Bezos would just in a matter of a week be like, why did I do this?

01:25:19.140 | I had the best life in the world.

01:25:20.660 | Exactly. There's just no way.

01:25:21.700 | It's a stupid idea.

01:25:22.580 | He is living his best life.

01:25:23.940 | Listen, J. Cal, Bezos had two tweets criticizing the administration

01:25:28.260 | on inflation and you're like, he's running for president. He's running.

01:25:31.140 | No, no, no, no. There's other reasons.

01:25:32.500 | Come on. Stop being such a clown.

01:25:34.740 | He bought the Washington Post. He bought the biggest house in DC.

01:25:37.860 | And he gave that $10 billion climate hedge.

01:25:41.220 | I think those are all little cards that you could check boxes. And if he writes a biography.

01:25:46.820 | Bezos probably has houses all over the world.

01:25:49.620 | Doesn't mean he's running for president of those countries. Come on.

01:25:51.860 | I'm just saying. You're just scared. You're scared of the Bezos presidency.

01:25:55.300 | You know that he would roll over DeSantis. He would roll DeSantis.

01:25:59.460 | Even if Bezos were dumb enough to run for president, I think he's too smart to do that.

01:26:03.380 | The Democratic Party would never nominate him. That's not.

01:26:05.700 | Why? He wouldn't pass some purity test because of unions?

01:26:07.940 | Look what happened to Bloomberg. I mean, listen, don't get me wrong. I'd love to

01:26:11.140 | see a candidate like Bloomberg or Bezos nominated by the Democratic Party because

01:26:15.540 | they clearly understand economics, right? Would it be a masterstroke by the Democratic

01:26:19.620 | Party to embrace a modern business person? I would love to see a candidate like that.

01:26:22.580 | Would it be a masterstroke? But look at what happened to Bloomberg.

01:26:24.740 | Bloomberg spent $100 million and he lasted to the first question of the first debate.

01:26:29.460 | One debate. Yeah, they knocked him out.

01:26:30.580 | The first question of the first debate. And then, you know, Elizabeth Warren knocked him

01:26:34.660 | out by just basically calling him a billionaire. And he's there stunned. He had no answer.

01:26:38.340 | Terrible. Yeah, he did. Terrible, terrible. But,

01:26:41.060 | I mean, it would be a masterstroke if they went with a moderate. You know it.

01:26:45.060 | All right, everybody, for David Sachs, Chamath and Friedberg, I'm Jay Cowell. We'll see you next

01:26:49.300 | time on Episode 90. Love you, boys. Love you.

01:26:52.020 | Bye, catch you. Bye bye.

01:26:53.700 | Love you, Sachsie Poole.

01:26:54.980 | We'll let your winners ride.

01:26:57.780 | Rain Man, David Sachs.

01:27:00.660 | And it said we open sourced it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it.

01:27:07.780 | Love you, West.

01:27:08.340 | The queen of quinoa.

01:27:10.980 | Love you.

01:27:11.540 | What your winners ride.

01:27:12.740 | What your winners ride.

01:27:14.100 | What your winners ride.

01:27:14.900 | What your winners ride.

01:27:16.660 | Besties are gone.

01:27:17.700 | It's past 0:13.

01:27:19.220 | That's my dog taking a notice in your driveway.

01:27:21.380 | Sachs.

01:27:21.860 | Oh, man.

01:27:25.140 | My avatager will meet me at Blitz.

01:27:27.060 | We should all just get a room and just have one big huge orgy because they're all just useless.

01:27:30.900 | It's like this like sexual tension that they just need to release somehow.

01:27:33.860 | Wet your feet.

01:27:36.980 | Wet your feet.

01:27:37.940 | Your feet.

01:27:38.500 | Your feet.

01:27:38.820 | Your feet.

01:27:39.140 | Wet your feet.

01:27:40.340 | We need to get out of here.

01:27:40.900 | - We're just--

01:27:41.740 | - The merchies are loud.

01:27:42.560 | ♪ I'm doing all in ♪

01:27:46.540 | ♪ I'm doing all in ♪

01:27:53.140 | For more information, visit www.fema.org

E89: GDP growth negative in Q2, $SHOP layoffs, Alzheimer's fraud, Ginkgo acquires Zymergen & more

Chapters