Hey, everybody, welcome back to the all in podcast with us again today, yawning from Milan, your favorite, the chairman dictator, Chamath Palihapitiya. You look a little tired, my friend. How you doing over there, buddy? I left Monday, I flew to Singapore. I was on the ground for two days.

And I flew here. I'm here for two days. And then I go to London. Five days. I'm exhausted. You are on a whirlwind tour. I mean, I'm flying around the world. Literally flying around the world. Moving west, man. Right. I'm tired. And this is all in service. I mean, at our age, you feel it.

It hits differently when you when you pass 40. And I'm assuming this is 80-90 business. You're out there selling, you're selling, you're selling grok, you're selling 80-90, you're out there doing BD. Little selling little closing. And then I'm speaking at the Oxford Union on Wednesday. Okay, okay. Well, that sounds fancy.

Checking the bucket list. Okay, there you have it. And in his camo hat, and in his election afterglow, look at the glow. He is in that afterglow. He is post coitus here post election. Anybody got a cigarette? I need to I need to light up a cigarette. That was a close one.

I didn't think I was going to make it, but you did. Do you like my camo hat, J-Cal? This is, this is the hat. Well, it says Trump fans on it. You look like Elmer Fudd. What does it say? You're hunting libs. No, remember, remember when Tim Walz rolled out the camo hat?

Oh, yes. And you said it was going to win the election for Harris Walz? It might. It might. I thought that he might have a shot. Yes. No, I was wrong about that one. Be bowie bowie quiet. We got all the camo guys. They voted for us. Hunting liberals.

Nobody's gonna get this impersonation, but it's very good. It looks good. Is that Elmer Fudd? That's Elmer Fudd. Be bowie bowie quiet. We're hunting liberals. That sounds like Mike Tyson. Well, I'm gonna mess up that. Jake Paul. How about I wear a different Trump hat every week for the next four years?

Absolutely fantastic. I mean, the ratings are so many good ones. I mean, all I care about at this point. I'm getting savage in any way possible. All I care about is ratings now. Let's go. You're fine. MAGA. Get in the comments. Let's get these ratings up. And with us, of course, the CEO of Ohalo.

Ohalo. David Freeburg. How are you doing, buddy? Thanks for having me again, Jacob. Thank you. All right. Well, it's good to have you. It's good to be here. Yeah. How are you doing? I'm chilling, man. You know, just nice to the executive producer to have you on the show.

Yes, I've been executive producing here. Well, it's always I'm always thinking about your best interests. I was hearing a little I heard you on a phone call before you said you had a perfect body. What was that in reference to? My wife makes me go. Yeah, she makes me go to the dermatologist where they she examines your whole nude body to look for moles.

So this morning, I went in early to the dermatologist. She examined it. She said, perfect. I said, does she have to wear sunglasses? Because you're just so white. Like it just like it's blindingly white. She's a woman. She can hazard pay the poor that poor dermatologist. My God, she's like, she's like, thank you for the experience.

But this is why we need to. In all seriousness, this is why sacks we have to legalize psychedelics. This poor woman has PTSD. After that, we need to get out of here. Get out of here. It was a wonderful examination. She was thrilled. I mean, all right. Okay. And of course, I'm Jason canis.

And, you know, there's been a lot of scuttlebutt sacks. I don't know if you know this, but comedy might still be legal here on the olympicus. But there's been a lot of scuttlebutt a lot of debate, a lot of energy, dare I say around, are we going to break the rules today?

Finally? I don't know. We'll see anything's possible. People get a little sensitive sometimes with the car. Do I have to put my pronouns back in my zoom? pronouns back in shabbat. Polly happened to you, douche bag. Here we go. You you might not know this, but a lot of appointments are being made sacks.

Did you know this? Are you aware that the appointments are being made? I'm aware. Yeah, it's happening. You'll have seen you've seen the flow of them. Well, I got a dump. I'm not going to say who sent these to me. But I actually got the next five or six announcement that Trump's going to make.

I'm not going to say who gave to me. This is this bit has the potential to be so good. I'm so tired, but you've got me awake. Okay, I'm awake. Well, I'm ready. Here's our first one. Here's our first one. This is a very interesting one. Good. Yeah, here it is.

This is a statement from Donald J. Trump. It is my great honor to announce that under Biden of Delaware will head a new department, the Bureau of founder mode procurement, founder more procurement, you notice sacks dropped off. He doesn't want to have a reaction shot here. Next one up.

This is interesting. Tony Hinchcliffe. I don't know if you know him. He has been appointed to a new role. He's the ambassador to Puerto Rico. That's a good one. Chamath. Actually, your wish has come true. You are now your sole duty is to ensure all executive branch knitwear is on point.

The sweater Inspector General everybody's going to have perfect knitwear. knitwear. Absolutely knitwear. And I just so you know, that's a that's a lower piano cashmere sweater in that picture. Apparently, apparently, I'm actually decided I would flip I've gone full Maggie. Here I am. I've been appointed as chief virtue signal that I like that.

Every time you're gonna have stiff competition from Mark Cuban for that. For that post. I know I beat him out. I beat him. Yeah, I went down to me. He deleted all of his pro Kamala tweets. Have you done the same? No, no, I haven't yet. You're gonna get the job.

Look at the lusty eyes in this. Yeah, I know. It's pretty great. That's really it really you you have there you have the virtue you didn't want to just burrow yourself. Absolutely not. Absolutely not. Hey, Friedberg. You've been appointed. Here we go. As Bobby Kennedy's whipping boy. You will be officially his little boy.

Anything any innovation you come up with is officially blocked. And here he is. My great honor to announce David Sachs is now the chief retribution officer. Retribution must be had Jekyll payback is a bitch. There were a lot of people who are out of line just a little bit.

A little bit. They deserve to get smacked a little bit just on Graham's gonna get his shoeshine box. A little bit. Rain Man David Sachs we open source it to the fans and they've just gone crazy. There's been a lot of talk about a holiday party free break. You want to give us an update on the holiday party?

Quick plug on the party. So the party is coming up in three weeks. The all in holiday spectacular Steve Aoki, Andrea Bowtas, Gary Richards, aka Destructo are going to be DJing. I'm doing a secret DJ set. I may. It's actually a good idea. We will have we will have chess challenges with Alex Bowtas.

Several sections are sold out. VIP is sold out. Draymond's joining us. Draymond Green from the Warriors. He's gonna come and do a little bit with us on stage. It'd be great. He's great. So should be great. Get your tickets at all in.com slash events. All right, let's get into it.

Everybody. I just want to start with a little bit of finance here. Bitcoin and finance stocks way up since the Trump win, which was now 10 days ago, Bitcoin peaked at 92,000. Unbelievable. It's dropped down to 89. But obviously, that's an all time high. And as we all know, we talked about it on the show, Trump heavily, heavily courted the crypto industry during his campaign.

In addition to the Bitcoin news, since early August, a firm Robinhood, PayPal, Coinbase all up double, or 50%. It's an extraordinary run. In July, Trump headlined a Bitcoin conference, he laid out his plans. Number one, he was going to fire SEC Chairman Gary Gensler. Here's the clip. On day one, I will fire Gary Gensler and appoint a new SEC Chairman.

I didn't know he was that unpopular. I didn't know he was that unpopular. Let me say it again. On day one, I will fire Gary Gensler. There it is. Okay, enough of that. Technically, president can't fire the SEC chair, but he can appoint a new one when Gary's term ends in 2026.

Or Gary could resign and Trump takes office that happens sometimes. And folks are speculating Gensler has already made that decision to step down. He put out a press release with a quote in it that a number of people took note of, where he said it's been a great honor to serve with them, the people who work at the SEC, doing the people's work and ensuring our capital markets remain the best in the world.

Trump also said the federal government will never sell, never ever sell its Bitcoin holdings, which they own through criminal assets, as you know. And number three, he said he would create a Bitcoin and crypto Presidential Advisory Council, where Trump said, quote, the rules will be written by people who love your industry, not heat your industry.

And he also advocated that all future bitcoins would be minted in America. I don't know that he gets to make that choice. But there have it freeberg. Any thoughts here on the crypto market, and this incredible bull run here we've seen in the last, you know, 10 days, and then before that couple, I mean, I think like you said, it's not limited to crypto.

Crypto is one market of several that have been significantly affected by the outlook based on Trump's election. I think that Trump's election has a couple of key features that are changing market dynamics. One is folks kind of view some of his policies to be obviously stimulatory, with lower tax rates and more deregulation.

This is, you know, theoretically going to drive up investment and economic growth. The deregulatory nature on its own benefits markets that have been encumbered by regulatory oversight and regulatory challenges like crypto finance and fintech. So those types of businesses are clearly going to benefit or expected to benefit significantly by being able to launch products more quickly and have features and ways that they can generate revenue that they might be challenged to do under the current regulatory schemas.

And then there's also this element of kind of things being inflationary, the feature of tariffs, if we don't get spending cut fast enough, there's an effect on market. So you know, we're still seeing tenure treasury sit at about four and a half percent up from three and a half percent, which is where we were right around the rate cut beginning in September.

And remember, since those rate cuts began in September, we've cut 75 basis points. And we're still seeing the kind of tenure treasury hold high, which kind of implies that there's expected to be persistent inflation. In fact, the October inflation number accelerated again. So it's back up, not going down, it's I think it went up to 2.6% up from 2.3% the month prior, these general kind of effects that are predicted from the Trump policy plans is having an effect in different markets, obviously, in equities, we're seeing more kind of risk seeking risk taking.

And then in the bond markets, because of the four and a half percent treasury yield, there's a really interesting dynamic. And I kind of sent this this link out yesterday. But if you look at the spread on yields between US treasuries, which have historically been kind of considered and talked about and are deemed the risk free rate, and the yield that corporates have to pay to borrow money, we haven't seen a spread this low in 26 years.

So it's a 17 year low for the spread between the yield that companies that issue junk bonds have to pay from treasuries. And it's a 26 year low for credit grade bonds. So this means the market is either more risk seeking, meaning they're looking for more yield, and they're going into corporates because they feel like there is a higher probability that these companies are going to be successful in the future, they're not going to have higher default rates, etc.

So the market is becoming much more risk seeking. Or the alternative is that parts of the market are reassessing the risk free nature of treasuries themselves. If spending doesn't get under control, the treasury market appetite is decreasing. So there's this kind of spread that's shrunk in the last couple of months.

So we're seeing capital flooding into the markets for risk seeking assets. And this is obviously affecting crypto equities, and, and bond markets all across the board. And we'll talk a little bit about IPO and M&A later. Great. Chamath, your thoughts? Aside from yum yum? I mean, yum, yum, you could say it.

It's gonna be just say it. No, I mean, look, what did I say at the beginning of the year was going to be the biggest risk asset? Winning trade? Yeah, it's great. Bitcoin's great. Lord, I haven't seen you this happy. What made you more happy? Getting to Momon and spending time with your white truffle dealer?

Or watching Bitcoin break 90k? Which one was more exciting for you? Honestly, you know what I think about? I actually think about all the Bitcoin I sold. I had a bunch of Bitcoin in my funds when I managed outside capital. You know, that's a, I don't know, a $3 or $4 billion mistake and growing now, because my partners at the time capitulated and I wanted to be a good team member and we distributed and it was profitable.

But obviously, I shouldn't have sold it. Would have made them a lot more money. And then I think about like, I bought some land. I remember Tahoe. It was in the Wall Street Journal. I'm sure you can find it. But yeah, how much is that worth now? Probably a couple hundred million dollars, maybe more.

Rough trade, rough trade. But you do have Bitcoin holdings. Can I ask you a question? Why do you say sold Bitcoin, as opposed to converted Bitcoin into dollars? Like when you think about Bitcoin, just as a participant, do you think about Bitcoin as a dollar denominated asset that you go and buy Bitcoin and then you're eventually going to sell it, turn it back into dollars and use the dollars?

Or are you like, what do you think about the purist kind of idea that Bitcoin should be the de facto currency and store of value in the future and the dollar doesn't matter. And we shouldn't necessarily be talking about the value of Bitcoin in dollar denominated terms as something I'm going to eventually turn it back into.

It hasn't happened yet. And so until it happens, I think you have to view it as like a very good gold proxy. But it's a largely dollar denominated asset. Now, why do you see it going the other way? Like, so a lot of folks thought that as a safe haven, it should do well when there's a negative economic outlook, but it has traded the last couple of years kind of the opposite.

No, it's a totally correlated asset. I mean, yeah, there will be a point. And it's probably in our lifetime, where it is an independent asset, and a non speculative store of value. There will be that day, but that day is not now. And I think it's very important to see the conditions on the field as they are versus what you wish it to be.

And, and the reason is that it allows you to risk manage more appropriately. Because if you don't see it, then when something happens to the dollar complex, good or bad, or when something happens to rates, good or bad, or when something stimulative happens, good or bad, you're not going to react properly if you're in the business of managing it as a risk asset.

So if you're in the set it and forget it bucket, and there are some people, I think it's great. None of these conversations matter. But like most people, you're probably going to be motivated to do something. And I think if you're motivated to do something, or you have FOMO that stimulates you to do something, whatever the psychology is that leads you to action, it's probably important to just view things as they really are versus how you wish them to be.

And so I think the purists may eventually be right, I think they will be right at some point in my lifetime, but they're not right now. And that's why these things are correlated. And the other the other thing I'll say just broadly about the market is, I think that there's a tremendous amount of optimism about the economy.

I think that's why you see risk spreads get crushed. Definitely. Yeah. And I think that as long as we see the kind of prognostications that the Trump administration is putting out, I think people are going to be mostly bullish. I think the way that this trade turns around is when something actually breaks in terms of the inflation picture, or in terms of the deficit picture.

And if those things look like going into 2025, that President Trump's actions are not going to be able to course correct it, then I think you're going to see people go massively risk off, which I think will not be great for markets, obviously, right now, we're not in that point.

And you don't think that tenure reflects that already at four and a half percent? I mean, that's showing some degree of inflation and concern about the deficit. Right? It's like, I think, I think the tenure could be at 7%. Yeah. What is four and a half percent mean? I mean, if you're if you're going to run 8% of GDP level deficits for the next four or five or six years?

Yeah. You're going to have the tenure at seven to 8%. That's just mathematical, right? facts, your thoughts on crypto before we get into IPOs and M&A, if and, yeah, just on crypto, the House Republicans already passed a framework for crypto regulation earlier this year, it actually got 71 democrats to join it, it was called the financial innovation and technology for the 21st century actor fit 21.

And it would classify digital assets like crypto as commodities regulated by the CFTC. If the blockchain they run on is is quote, functional and decentralized. That's the key requirement. If their blockchain is functional, but not decentralized, then there'd be concerned securities and fall into the purview of the SEC.

I think the the crypto industry basically wants a really clear line for knowing when they're a commodity, and they want commodities be governed, governed like all other commodities by the CFTC. So that's what the Republican bill would do. I think with the republicans now winning the Senate, the prospects for that bill to get enacted are now greatly improved, especially because Sherrod Brown, who used to run the banking committee just lost to Bernie Moreno, this was a seat in Ohio.

Elizabeth Warren is still going to object to this legislation, but she's just going to have way less influence. And like you said, it's not clear that Gary Gensler is going to be sticking around very long at the SEC. So look, the bottom line here is that I think that we are close to having clear rules of the road codified by Congress, which is what the crypto industry's been asking for.

And the days of Gensler terrorizing crypto companies by issuing Wells notices without clarifying what the rules are that he's in prosecuting, those days are about to be over. So I think this is why the crypto markets are rallying. And so to your point, if it's centralized, or partially centralized, you're going to be a security.

If you're decentralized, anybody can join the network, no one person controls the network. And I guess most people would consider that Bitcoin versus say, ripple, which is partially decentralized, but largely centralized. And that's going to be, I guess, the new rules of the road. In addition to that, there are new rules that are being enforced that hopefully Trump's 21 passes, right?

This bill is called 21. But I think much, much higher likelihood that it or something like it now can get through the Congress sense. Yeah. And then there's also legislation that's already been enacted. That's there's multiple ways and multiple paths, but accredited investors, there's going to be a path to becoming an accredited investor with a test.

So that is something that is also on the docket. We'll see if it happens. Let's talk about IPOs and M&A yum yum boys. Just a level set here with the audience. Here's the number of IPOs per year. And as you can see, the last three years have been some of the lowest since 2008 and 2009.

The Great Recession for those of you who are old enough to remember it. And if you look at VC, the number of distributions have been absolutely on the floor for the past three years. In fact, if you look at the distributions from 2022, through 2024, those three years combined, it's been around 200 billion, which is less than 2019 in total.

And with this year projected to be about 100 billion in distributions, that's about 14% of the peak ZURP era. When in 2021, we had $710 billion in distribution here. So the backroom buzz is that Donnie from Queens is going to make M&A great again. A couple of reasons there sacks the wrath of Lena Kahn's coming to an end.

Mag seven, sitting on massive amounts of cash and that cash is growing as people have laid people off and they're focused on getting fit. Obviously, we all know the Fed did another quarter point cut last week, although some people maybe don't know that because it seems to have gotten lost in the election news.

And psychologically, I think everybody's feeling very optimistic. So maybe these IPOs are back on the menu. Chamath, I don't know if you saw it, but Klarna just filed for their IPO. That's a Swedish fintech company. They were kind of the pioneers in buy now pay later. What are the other IPOs we could see file in 2025 Databricks, Stripe, Wiz, Canva, Plaid, Rippling and Airtable.

There's a long shot that people have been buzzing about. I don't have any inside information, but people have been speculating SpaceX could IPO Starlink, their Starlink unit. And if you want to get really crazy, Chamath, maybe there's a long shot that Sam Altman jumps the fence and decides he's going to take open AI public during this window that people expect to be opening.

What do you think Chamath? What's going to happen here in terms of M&A and IPOs in 2025? I think it's going to still be pretty subdued. I don't think that you're going to see these crazy M&A deals that I think everybody is expecting. I also don't anticipate a lot of these big companies going public, at least in the first half of the year.

And the only reason I say that is I just think that this year, and the first half of next year, what's the difference? The IPO market is what the IPO market is. And if the 10 year is back to, you know, four and a half, 5%, that's not a compelling strategy for some SaaS company, or some internet business that didn't take an opportunity to go public when rates were at zero.

So if you just look mathematically at what the actual fair value of these companies should be, I don't know, it's not like such a great IPO market. Then on the M&A side, if all you're doing is waiting for Lena Khan to not be there, to me, I think that that betrays what M&A is supposed to be, which is, you're supposed to underwrite some industrial logic from first principles where things are very accretive, and very accretive things should not hang by a thread on the emotional regulation or dysregulation of the FTC Commissioner.

So I kind of think that you would have seen some of this stuff already as well, if the industrial logic was so high. And again, when rates are non trivially high, I just think that it's not the easiest thing in the world to pull off like a really big M&A event.

Nor is it a really easy thing to pull off to pull off a huge IPO when Yeah, again, there's a reason why Warren Buffett has $325 billion sitting in T bills, making four and a half percent a year, he owns more T bills in the United States government, he's making about $15 billion a year in interest, when you can do that, with absolutely no risk.

Again, relative to stocks, at least, yeah, what is this IPO going to give you two months, right? Like the 10 years at four and a half percent, you're basically paying 20 times cash flow to own a risk free bond, the US Treasury bond, or you can pay 23 times to 30.

Yeah, it's 30 times to own the S&P 500. Right now. It's so yeah, it's but but there is a lot of risk seeking shifting happening to math, right. So I mean, we talked about like some of the crypto stuff, some of the fintech stuff, deregulation, that the PE might seem high today.

But if you forecast out 10 years for some of these businesses in a deregulated, de taxed environment, or reduced tax reduced regulation environment, that the earnings should accelerate in a way that outpaces the multiple you're getting today, right. So I mean, this is part of why some of the fintech companies are ripping right now, why some of the finance companies are ripping right now, if under Trump, and the Republican control of the House and Senate, laws don't pass and regulations get reduced.

Theoretically, earnings are going to rip. And you should pay a higher multiple today, because you're actually buying these things at eight to 10 times earnings five years from now. So there seems to be some risk appetite there. But I do agree with Chamath on the M&A point. If you think about what's gone on over the last couple of years, big hold on a second, can I ask you a question?

Do you think that regulation is the reason why the SAS companies have never made $1 profit? No, no, I'm not talking about SAS. I'm not talking about SAS. I'm talking about industrial companies. No, the fintech market. Right. So we were talking about fintech and some of these assets earlier.

Some of these equities, it's a very narrow part of the economy, right? Like, if you look at brought like on a broad based basis, the 10s and 10s of trillions of dollars of market cap that exist. I do agree with you that deregulation benefits a bunch of those companies.

But it benefits sort of the non tech businesses more than the tech businesses. The tech businesses right now are relatively lightly regulated. Yeah, I would think that it benefits pharma businesses, it benefits ag businesses, it benefits real estate companies, it benefits a whole a whole swath of the economy.

But we've started to see that re rating. And maybe we'll see a lot more. So maybe Jason, the more nuanced answer to your question is the kind of M&A that I think you want to see that I mean, let's face it that we all want to see here because we all have a vested interest, which is really specifically tech M&A.

I don't think that any of this deregulation particularly accelerates that but maybe a more nuanced take on this would be that these other more regulated parts of the economy could do well and catch up to some of the earnings potential or the forward pricing of the tech businesses. But again, now you get into this weird trade where you can buy steady cash flowing businesses that can grow in valuation as fast as a as a fast growing but money losing tech business.

But then you trade both of those two things off and it has effectively the same yield as a tenure. What do you do? Yeah, yeah, I you know, I, I think there's a lot of backed up inventory, where venture capital is boards and founders, people who control and make these decisions on M&A if they would sell the company to a larger company.

I think there's a lot of exhaustion in the market. And that will drive the capitulation on valuation. What do you think the valuations will be? Yeah, exactly. Yeah, why would I know? I'm watching it right now. I mean, you think Warren Buffett's gonna take 325 billion of cash? No, no, but I do.

I do these own stock. So I think in a pay in terms of a multiple, I think it'll be more like Salesforce or Microsoft or Google, or Amazon, getting off the sidelines, because they've looked at and said, you know what, the juice ain't worth the squeeze, we might as well put our efforts and our capital into buying big hardware, and building new products and services.

But if they think, hey, I got a chance of pulling this through, I'm sitting on all this cash. What if I hit another YouTube and Instagram, you know, really great acquisitions that were transformative for those two companies meta would not be where it is right now, Facebook, you know that well, Jamal, if they hadn't gotten Instagram, and certainly, you know, Friedberg as an alumni of Google, if they didn't get YouTube, it would be a completely different picture for that company right now.

I think there's a lot of those acquisitions. I think there's a lot of those acquisitions that have been sitting there waiting, and I'm watching the secondary markets to your question, what's the discount going to be? The discount was last year, I kid you not 70 8090% off the last round for SAS companies.

And this year, it's 20 or 30. I'm seeing this when I'm getting offers to buy our shares in some private SAS companies, some private fintech companies. And then I also think, if you're a CEO, and you watch Robin Hood, Uber, Reddit, DoorDash, and Instacart, those five have actually after getting a little bit of an ass kicking, when they first went out, they have all rebounded massively.

And for the people who held on to their Reddit shares, Robin Hood shares, Uber shares, they have been rewarded massively, massively for having faith in, you know, through this storm. So I think those two things, the capitulation of all these boards and founders are going to say, you know what, let's take the haircut, let's go public.

And let's tell our story and see if we can make it work as a public company. And then the people who feel one step weaker than that, I think they want to catch their chips. And they've been in some of these investments, Jamal, it's year 11 1213 14. For some of these private companies, there is capitulation on those boards, people are exhausted.

So that I just I'm gonna, I'm gonna take the other side of the argument on this one, all kind of play along. So I think, and I'll disagree a little bit for a couple different reasons. These big tech companies, the ones that have had, you know, media businesses, or because remember, there's tech, that's tech, right?

Nvidia does not have a media business. But there's been a conversation over the last couple of years, where we need to break up big tech has been kind of part of the conversation with the dams. And now the republicans are coming in, and they're saying the same thing, we got to break up big tech.

So there, I think, are a few of these companies, Google being one of them that are very much handicapped right now, with respect to what kind of M&A they can do without dealing with the regulatory sledgehammer coming down on them. So I don't think that those guys are buyers, Jay Cal, I don't think that Google's in a place right now where they can go out and make a bunch of acquisitions, they're going to do everything they can to avoid the regulatory sledgehammer that's coming their way.

First, it was coming from the dams. Now it's coming from the new administration. There's a bunch of other companies, you know, that don't really fit that bill, like Microsoft probably doesn't fit that bill, Nvidia, Adobe, maybe they'll make some acquisitions, but I don't think it's as simple as well.

We'll sell it a low price, we'll buy it a low price. I'm just not sure they really come to do that right with you. I completely agree. I think that these big tech companies will need to pay a pound of flesh for the deplatforming and the censorship that they did.

And there's a perfect time if we're going to go to the political angle to bring you in sacks, what are the vibes? My perception is Trump likes to win. And Trump wants to see the economy soar. That is his platform. He's a business guy. I think he wants to see fluidity.

I know JD has been not a fan of like the Googles, etc. So maybe you could help us navigate this who's right here. What's the possibility of M&A becoming more vibrant in a Trump administration? Well, there's no question that in general, President Trump wants to have the most vibrant economy we can have.

And I think to that end, you're going to see the end of this era of deceleration of regulatory capture and lawfare. I think all those things are over. I think that equities that have been straining or tamped down under the weight of these abuses, you see them ripping now, for example, Tesla, it's gone from roughly 250 to 320 a share just since the election.

And you could call that the lawfare discount. I mean, that basically is the discount on Tesla stock because the market was pricing in the risk of retaliation. If the Republicans lost, there's a widespread belief that the democrats would go after Elon and his company. So you can actually measure the lawfare discount based on some regulation, right?

Because there's a lot of regulations around self driving, rocket ship launches, all those things he's involved in. There's a lot of regulation. There's this crazy thing where they they made some regulator made a put a headset on a seal. Did you see this to test the effect on loud noises?

The sonic sonic booms? Yeah, this poor seal. Do you see this for sale? Don't do that to free bird. You don't know. Don't put it on the screen. Put it in post. Don't put on the screen. It's free bird. It's gonna anyway, so they subjected this poor seal to exactly the thing that they were worried would harm seals.

In any event, the seal seemed totally fine. It didn't. They torture sales to make a point. I got it. Yeah. Anyway, it's really crazy. So yeah, this crazy about this JD help us navigate. I know JD is the VP and then you have Trump is the CEO. Chamath pointed out maybe there's a little on the GOP anger resentment residual because of the you know, banning of Trump from YouTube and some of these other platforms.

Do you think that makes its way into M&A or not? I guess sacks like, let me be specific to Jake house question. Not all tech companies are the same in that point of view, right? And so like, yeah, tech M&A generally is a thing. But specifically the companies that have had social media platforms may be kind of in a different lens from a regulatory perspective.

Is that fair? Yeah, I mean, look, I think that not everything Lena Khan did was bad. In fact, she definitely has some fans among the populist Republicans and yeah, you know, some of them who've spoken out on her behalf in various areas have been JD Vance, Matt Gaetz as well.

She did do some good things. Specifically, she was willing to take on the big tech companies. I mean, companies like Amazon, Apple, Google, frankly, they just had a free ride for the last couple of decades where they're allowed to do anything. And she came in and said there's a new sheriff in town and she was actually willing to apply pressure on them to not engage in anti competitive tactics.

So I think she deserves credit for that. I think she did change the conversation. I think that we've talked about on previous pods that perhaps there was not as targeted and surgical an approach was used. And as a result of that, it did have a chilling effect on M&A.

And so it hurt the, you know, the small tech environment. And so I think that we need to fix that part of it. But I hope that whoever replaces Lena Khan will continue to apply pressure to big tech because they are monopolies, and they will abuse their power if they're allowed to, and they need to be controlled.

sacks, if you had to handicap the probability of a lawsuit or some kind of attempt to dismantle Google and Facebook, would those be the two companies at the top of your list? And how would you handicap that? So my view is that Google should be broken up. There's abundant reasons for that.

There's at least three monopolies in that company. There's the search business, the advertising business and YouTube, I think they should be busted up. What are the odds that that happens? It's hard to say, but what are the odds that that is pursued in the next administration in some capacity, or at least investigated?

I'd say hi. I'd say, Facebook or meta less, so I don't see the compelling need to, to bust them up. But quite frankly, I think the issue that meta is going to face is just there were a lot of abuses in terms of censoring the free speech rights of Americans.

Now, I don't think that was all the company's idea. I think a lot of pressure was put on the company by the Biden administration. I think they wanted to do the right thing, and just didn't show enough backbone. I think it's Zuckerberg's been clear that he regrets it. Yeah.

So I guess Anthony now he's like, Listen, I'm not gonna do it again. Yeah, he published a letter. And maybe it was done to some degree to inoculate himself against the result of this election. But I'd say, to his credit, it wasn't clear at all who's going to win the election when he put out that letter.

And he basically said that he regretted the fact that meta had gone along with the censorship requests by the Biden administration. And he specifically referred to that whole Hunter Biden story that got censored in 2020. That was election interference. It was a completely true story by the New York Post that got censored by Big Tech at the request of these 51 former intelligence officials who were lying through their teeth claiming it was Russian disinformation.

So he clearly regrets going along with that. In any event, I think there are better ways of handling the speech issue on social networks than busting up Facebook. But I do think, though, that Congress should investigate or continue investigating what went wrong there. And what exactly is the involvement of the intelligence community and the deep state in the censorship requests that we saw exposed by the Twitter files?

Remember, can I bring up something maybe tangential and you can react to this? Just speaking of kind of like censorship, and then just the media complex that we have. I saw today that Trump filed like a 10 or $15 billion lawsuit against the broadcast networks. Maybe this is old news, but I may and maybe I just saw the news headline go by on x I don't I don't know.

Yeah, I saw it as well. Yeah, didn't. And then separately, with Bobby Kennedy's nomination to HHS, one of the things that he has said that he wants to put an end to is the advertising that pharma does on these broadcast stations. If you put these two things together, where you deprive these folks of their largest revenue source, and at the same time, they have to sort of like answer for censorship or manipulating content.

It does, do you think that that changes the landscape of how all these companies behave in the future? Or how do you think that that plays out? Yeah, I mean, absolutely. So all right, let's take each one of those. So on the the broadcasters, and we've talked about this before the big broadcast networks, and their affiliates receive free spectrum licenses from the FCC, and they get some of the most valuable spectrum there is through those licenses in exchange for certain requirements that their broadcaster in the public interest, namely, they have to follow a fairness doctrine, which is supposed to mean that you give equal time to both candidates.

Well, in the final weeks of this campaign, we saw some really egregious abuses. NBC brought on Kamala Harris, but not Donald Trump for a very favorable segment on Saturday Night Live the week before the election. Separately, you saw 60 Minutes deceptively edit an interview with Kamala Harris, where they actually took one of her answers from one question and put it as the answer to another question.

I mean, really deceptive. So you have a couple of examples with both CBS and NBC, which were violating the equal time requirement. We're clearly working on behalf of the Kamala Harris campaign. And when you look at the coverage itself, this election was the most unequal in terms of favorable coverage, it was something like a 60 point difference.

So something like Kamala Kamala Harris received 87% favorable coverage and Trump received something like 85% negative coverage. So it there's no way it was that according to you know, yeah, there's a it's a report by Brent Bezell's media watchdog group that's been around forever and it's been recording this stuff in every election for the last 30 years.

In any event, I think that there's a very strong argument that the broadcasters have not been fair. That's a violation of their licensed requirements. And we should be reevaluating their spectrum, especially because it's not the highest best use of the great irony of this, though, sex is that they have already been demolished.

I don't know if you saw but a bunch of the anchors at CNN are not renewing because their advertising is so far off. That like Chris Wallace, I think was making 8 million a year, 9 million a year. And he just said, I'm gonna go do podcasts because they think they lowballed his offer.

And if they know, yeah, well, there's a bunch of advertising from pharma, which I think in some of these networks is a third or half. And that's all networks. That's from Fox to CNN, and every MSNBC, everybody combined. If they lose advertising from pharma, it's over. Like these, those news networks are going to lose half their revenue overnight.

That would be a that would be a deathblow to your question. Yeah, well, let me let me get back to that. So just on CNN, and MSNBC, you're absolutely right that they're announcing a bunch of layoffs, their ratings are destroyed. I think they're down. MSNBC ratings are down like 50% since the election.

What that tells me is that their own audience, right? Sorry, since the election? Yeah. And what that what that tells me is that their captive viewer base who's been tuning in for years to all of this TDS have has now realized that they were deceived by MSNBC, and they've lost credibility, even with their most fervent supporters.

So there's no question that CNN, MSNBC, they're hurting. Now, Jake, I'll just make one small modification. They do not receive, they do not have spectrum licenses from the FCC, right? Because their cable network, so they're in kind of a different bucket. They don't have to abide by the fairness doctrine that CBS and NBC do, right?

But they have different problems. And to your point about pharma, there's absolutely no reason to be allowing pharma advertisements on these TV networks. The fact of the matter is that people who are viewing those networks can't buy you can't buy pharmaceuticals without a prescription, right? It's up to doctors to write you the prescription.

And this is why most countries most Western countries prohibit pharma advertising on the networks. And I think Bobby Kennedy has a very strong argument that it would serve the public interest not to allow this. We don't allow advertisements for tobacco, right? So I guess the thing that doesn't make sense to me, sex is you're so such a First Amendment, absolutist and free speech app absolutist, isn't it?

And I'm not saying it's my opinion. But you know, my my challenge to you would be is tell me about freedom of speech and expression in relation to being able to do advertising for these products? Well, I mean, aren't they aren't consumers smart enough to figure it out? The point of the advertising is, I think is not at the end of the day to influence consumers, because consumers can't buy pharmaceuticals, they have to go.

That's what they say in it. Ask your doctor about the purpose of the advertising is to buy favorable coverage. That's the point. And there are many examples. Explain that. Well, there are many examples of people who've worked in these networks saying that they had a story that was negative about pharma companies.

And that story got spiked because the pharma companies are the biggest advertisers. In fact, I think it was there was a story about Fox News. And who? Who's the guy? Roger Ailes? Well, there's been a number of stories. I know what you're talking about. There's been stories about Anderson Cooper.

Who's the the guy who does international coverage on the weekends? GPS is the name of a show. I'm drawing I can't remember right now read Zakaria. Thank you for reading Zakaria. Yes. I think a bunch of those shows were like literally brought to you by Pfizer brought to you by these things.

And so those shows potentially would just go away. And then there were there was reporting on the number of times they would report on those companies. And it showed they didn't. So what do you think freeberg of should pharma companies be allowed to advertise to consumers to ask their doctors to ask them about Viagra?

What's your take? He's thinking for those of you at home listening, he's giving a deep thought. Well, he's thinking, Jake, let me just say, yeah, I think I think there is there is a free speech issue that has to be weighed. Okay. So I don't want to be totally dismissive of that.

However, I think that the Viagra example is a is on the like far end of the spectrum of a drug that by, you know, by advertising it, you could actually get consumers to request it from their doctor, I don't think most drugs are like that. And I think my contention would be that the real reason they're paying all this massive advertising is not to influence consumers, but to influence the coverage that they get.

And there is something very corrupt about that. And I think that Bobby Kennedy has a really strong point that if you were to remove that incentive that many people inside the industry have admitted exists, then you get much fairer coverage of these pharma companies, and we would actually get to be a healthier country, because you wouldn't allow them to basically manipulate the public debate.

So that that's the argument. Friberg, you want to chime in on it or no, I mean, I feel like there's some market correction that takes place here, which we're already seeing, which is the consumers are moving away, we just talked about moving away from cable news, moving away from legacy media, they don't trust it, the trust is at an all time low.

I don't know if it's necessarily the government's job to determine who advertises what, where, how and why. I don't like the government having that sort of degree of authority, generally speaking, because it can then lead into the government having overreach and oversight to control entities that maybe are competitive with the government in different ways.

I do believe that the the beef with big tech is a result of big tech's influence over the population where big government wants to have that degree of influence over the population. So it's actually a battle between government and private entities over who can influence the population, and who has the ability to control the narrative.

And I think that the general concept that the government should be determining who advertises where, what, how and why is not a great one. And I don't think that consumers are dumb. I think that consumers are showing their proclivity for independent media and independent news sources, because they don't trust the influence that's been kind of imparted upon these other channels and these other sources.

And they're moving away from it. So I don't know if it's as much kind of a regulatory question and big pharma needs to be affected. I think that the market to some degree does its job. I don't think the consumers are dumb. I will also just kind of counter one of sax's points, I think that there are drugs, like multiple sclerosis is a good example.

There was a drug introduced a couple years ago called octopus, and it was a new therapy for multiple sclerosis that is extremely effective. It's a it's a really big step change in biological therapies. And a lot of people that were on Ms and have had Ms for decades, take kind of old school mall old school drugs that maybe aren't that effective.

So to create awareness, and they're not regularly seeing their doctors, they may not go in and see their doctor every year like they're supposed to. So the pharma companies are creating awareness that there's this new modality in this new product that could help them to get them to go into the doctor's office.

You know, so I don't want to say that these are all like evil, you know, trying to control and influence like there are good drugs that come to market, they are beneficial to people and people don't know about them. How else are they supposed to get that word out if they're not able to advertise?

So I don't think that it's all like negative and all malicious, you know, kind of behavior and manipulation of media. People, we all have the resources, we all have the capacity. And we are all likely very frequently going to doctors. Most people don't. And so most people that have chronic disease or have health issues, there has to be a mechanism for, you know, making them aware of new options, new alternatives, new products that are coming to market.

So I'm not super, like putting my foot down saying pharma companies shouldn't be able to advertise shouldn't be able to buy media out there and put ads up and tell people about stuff that they've discovered or that they've invented, that's been regulated, that's been tested, that's been approved, and that works and can help save lives.

I think they should have the freedom and ability to do that. So I think there's a there's a bit of a nuance here to how this gets handled, is my point. Yeah, I mean, look, I'm not saying that there's no benefit at all to letting pharma companies advertise some products.

I think the question you have to ask is, why is so much money going from pharma to these news outlets, because most of the products, you know, that you generally can't buy them. I'll tell you the reason. The reason is that the pharma companies make so much money off of government funded insurance programs.

Let me just state that again. If we only had private insurance, or if consumers had to pay for their drugs and their therapies themselves, the cost of drugs would go way down. The reason the cost of drugs has gone way up is because so much of the government insurance programs don't negotiate drug prices.

And there are all these middlemen and all these people that sit in between that have been regulated through regulatory capture into the system that has allowed an incredible inflation in the cost of drug prices. Therefore, there is a lot of money to kind of continue the capture of the system.

I don't think that it is right. And I think that the free market generally or having a less regulatory captured market will allow an appropriate kind of pricing of therapies and appropriate kind of adjustment in the market, which doesn't exist today. So, so much money to kind of keep the market the way it is needs to kind of keep flowing.

That's my sense of this. It's I don't think it's about bad drugs need to kind of stay in play. As much as it is this market's been allowed to inflate and the cost of health care and the cost of drugs has inflated in a way that's simply untenable. And it doesn't make sense.

And I think that it's because of regulatory capture. And I think that that needs to change. And I'm hopeful that it does. That's the second reason then to get the this form of money out of advertising, because you're basically explaining it as like a self looking ice cream cone.

But again, there's another reason as well. I think that explains the sheer magnitude, which is this influence buying its influence. To your point, sexism, that was what I was about to bring up, you know, there. It's very subtle, you're not going to have somebody at NBC, or CNN, or Fox come down and tell Tucker Carlson, or Rachel Maddow, or Anderson Cooper, hey, you can't cover the story.

But there is a bunch of self censorship that occurs, I believe, where people just don't select certain stories to be on the docket. And they just shape the coverage. So they might not say something positive or negative about Pfizer, or Johnson Johnson, whoever it is, they'll just avoid that story.

And because these anchors are getting paid, or have been previously paid 10 10 million 25 million a year. Do you think they're going to like, really go hard at Pfizer or somebody like that? No, they're just not going to I've been inside the machine. They just avoid those stories.

Okay, let's keep going through the docket here. I think it was a pretty good conversation. I know, by the way, I just wanted to say to the Trump administration, if you want the economy to rip, let m&a rip. But my one caveat is is a really simple way to do this.

If you're under a trillion dollar valuation, let those companies buy and sell each other because then we could go from a mag seven to a mag 70. That's where I think actually, it makes the most sense if you actually are concerned about the consolidation of power in the top seven, let them sit out acquiring more great companies and let the people under that who are the mid market cap companies, let them do the buying and selling because then you might have a mag eight, nine and 10 show up.

That's not talking my book, it would be better for me Friedberg to let the mag seven participate because they can pay higher prices. They're not price sensitive. But I do think the mid market companies buying and selling would make a healthier environment for competition. So you think it sorry you think it creates more competition, which will that'll benefit and grow the economy?

Well, look at it this way. If somebody wants to buy, let's say Waymo gets spun out, somebody wants to buy it, if Amazon can't buy it, and Tesla can't buy it, and Amazon can't buy it, but they could merge with Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, you know, all those mid Airbnb, if those companies could consolidate, can you imagine what would happen if Amazon couldn't buy those companies, but you could see Waymo spin out and then partner with DoorDash and partner with Airbnb and you had that as one company.

Now you got a $400 billion company that is nipping on the heels that is aggressively competing with Amazon. That's what you want in the market is more competition for the mag seven, you don't want the magnificent seven to run away with it. And we could create the eighth, ninth and 10.

So just imagine that Friedberg there was a another trillion dollar company like I actually I think Tesla just became a trillion dollar company again. So now that they're up in those ranks, great. Don't let Tesla don't let Amazon, etc. Nvidia buy more companies, let those that mergers and acquisitions and that strength happen under the trillion dollar mark.

What do you think of that general concept? Yeah, I generally think competition is good. I generally think free market should be allowed to operate. And I've shared my point of view, I think bigger is going to drive more innovation than lots of little. So okay, again, Waymo wouldn't exist if not for Google plowing billions and billions.

And I don't know about you guys. I took Waymo around the city yesterday. Pretty sick. Like it is legit. I don't go to the city. Yeah. It's pretty legit. And I think that's a toxic cesspool. And by the way, I will say my other comment is I think San Francisco has gotten 10x better.

Now that I've been working downtown the last week or two, 10x better from a toxic cesspool just being a cesspool. I think part of the fat part of the reason is all of Walgreens is gone. There's no Walgreens left. You can't buy deodorant. Problem solved. There's nowhere to do crime anymore.

How do you buy a drugstore that doesn't exist in San Francisco? How do you do that? You gotta ask Jason. Jason, how do you get an Amazon package delivered? Yeah, I don't. Hey, man, I'm in Texas. You can do whatever you want here. Jason gets his supplies air dropped in once a month.

What are you talking about? I'm bullish on the San Francisco turnaround because I think Daniel Lurie getting elected mayor was huge and this doesn't get really as much attention, but it's very important. The board shifted. The radicals got voted off the board of supervisors. So the board of supervisors are less progressive.

Daniel's in the mayoral office. Good progress. And I think I think the city's already like turning around. I've been super blown away the last couple of weeks I've been downtown. I'm like, why am I not working downtown every day? It's actually really nice. It feels like San Francisco 20 years ago.

Let's see. I'm pretty bullish. Yeah. I mean, safety is the number one thing. If they can and this budget needs to get put under control, San Francisco spends one and a half X per capita of what New York City spends and that's something that Daniel and his team have kind of said they're gonna address sort of like their own doge and there's a team going in there to address this.

So, I'm really bullish on what's gonna happen with the city. It's just such a great place. It seems like the power resides in the supervisors and they seem to have flipped two or three of the really lunatic ones, right? Sax, they got rid of Dopey Dean Preston. Who was the other guy?

Peskin. Peskin, he was an idiot and they, those guys are done. So, that's progress. Do you wanna talk about the Trump candidates, Jayco? Yeah, let's get to that in a second but before we get to that, FBI raided the home of Polly Market CEO, Shane Copeland. He was on the election night stream.

He was raided on Wednesday, November 13th, 8 days after the election. They say Polly Market is Bloomberg says Polly Market is being investigated for allegedly accepting trades from US based users. Here's the backstory. In 2022, Polly Market paid 1.4 million to settle a case with the CFTC for offering option contracts without proper designation.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission also ordered the company to prevent US traders from making bets. They recently said Polly Market that is that they had taken additional measures to block Americans from trading. At the same time, Cali and Robin Hood were able to offer presidential prediction markets because Cali, it seems like they won their lawsuit against the CFTC last month.

So, that allowed some betting markets to happen but Polly Market is still banned from the US because of that settlement in 2022. Here's the Polly Market claim. They claim the raid was obviously political retribution by the outgoing administration against Polly Market for providing a market that correctly called the 2024 presidential election and Shane posted on X, discouraging that the current administration would seek a last ditch effort to go after companies they deem to be associated with political opponents.

Bunch of conspiracy theories flying around. Peter Thiel and Founder Fund have made an investment into the company and Nate Silver is an advisor. I guess I'll just point out two things. They're much more accurate than Nate. Yeah. So, how manipulative can it be if they've got everything right? Yeah, I mean, that's literally the point I was about to make and I'll just end with this and then give it to you, Sachs for red meat.

Americans are not allowed to participate in a lot of different markets and these kind of actions have been taken many, many, many times as we all know, poker, crypto, real estate, and prediction markets have all had actions like this taken against them and they typically are a speedy ticket.

The offices too or just his house? Just his house according to the information we have right now. They bust into his house at 6am and they took his phone. Yeah, by the way, shout out to like, like if you're breaking the law, why wouldn't they? All that TBD offices.

Yeah, it's a great, great speculation and important to note this action came after the election is resolved. So it's obvious the FBI knew that doing this beforehand would be seen as political and doing it after I don't know what I'm saying the decision. No, I know what you're saying.

I'm adding something else, which is they obviously knew to be political sacks. And so they did it after they knew if they did it before that would be looked like, you know, really bad that the prediction mark that's predicting Trump a Trump win was rated. So they did it after.

What do you think sacks? What's going on? Okay, I think it's political or not, I guess we don't know what was driving this. It's certainly an extreme action to bust into someone's home at 6am. But the FBI and take take your phone. So it's very curious. I think there's three theories that I've heard that I think could explain this.

And I want to just be very clear that there's no proof on any of this. It's just a speculation. Yeah, it's a speculation going on. Yeah. But by the way, just before I get into it, I think Shane Copeland had one of the funniest tweets I've ever seen. New phone.

Who dis? New phone? Who dis? Next? You should show them. I mean, that was like ballsy. The FBI bus in your house takes your phone. And that's the first thing you tweet. This is a that means that this is probably not a serious situation. But anyway, go ahead. Well, who knows?

But yeah. Or he's confident is what I would say. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So theory number one is that what the feds are looking for is whether any domestic whales were illegally wagering on the election outcome because theoretically, the money is all supposed to be offshore because domestic wagering on the election was illegal.

However, a court ruled just days before the election that domestic wagering was legal. So that's a theory number one doesn't really make a lot of sense because the FBI would be enforcing a rule or a law that the courts had just overruled just days before the election. So but that's theory number one.

Theory number two, and this theory was raised by Fortune magazine, is that this that poly market was rife with what's called wash trading, which is a form of market manipulation, where shares are bought and sold often simultaneously, and repeatedly by the same people to create a false impression of volume and activity of liquidity.

This is illegal in the US. And it does occur in crypto markets. So they could have been going after that. But again, it does seem like a very extreme thing to bust into his house. Why don't you just ask Shane? What authority would the US government have if it's all offshore in that context?

I don't know. I'm just laying out possible theories. But fortune magazine did did raise that theory. But again, if that's what your claim is just subpoena poly market during business hours, I don't know why you need to raid the guy's home or raid the office, right where the files are.

Right. And now let me let me lay out theory number three, okay, which is going to be a little bit controversial. But get the tip well, if if somebody was manipulating the sites, okay, then on whose behalf were they doing it, and what you'd have to say is that they were doing it on behalf of the Kamala campaign.

Because in the last few days of the election, there was a weird blip where poly market and and calcium, especially calcium, even more than poly market, all of a sudden flipped to Kamala. And you can see this, particularly in Pennsylvania, where all of a sudden there was a big flip at the end, away from Trump towards Kamala that turned out to be totally fake.

And Trump won Pennsylvania pretty, pretty handily. And so you got to wonder, well, wait a second, was a combo supporter, maybe trying to push the narrative that there was a last minute surge to Kamala, because that's what the action seemed to imply. And remember that the same time this was happening, there was a big, there was like a media push to create a narrative by her supporters in the media that there was a late break for Harris.

Yes, by independents. And so you have to kind of wonder, was somebody trying to push the prediction markets at the last minute to feed a media narrative that they were trying to create? Look, I have no evidence of this whatsoever. But the the action in the betting markets and the narrative they're trying to create in the media do line up.

So if somebody was going to investigate election manipulation, this is what they should look into. Chamath, you have any thoughts here? No, zero thoughts. I mean, yeah, you know, my thoughts on an error. I don't see him ever doing anything risky or illegal. So it makes no sense to me.

I'm guessing that somebody made him aware, pure speculation of something in the system. And that probably was on his phone. And they probably wanted to get that. And it's probably like a speeding ticket, ticky tacky thing. And you're just have the law still working its way through the system because they sacks were under an order to not take us, but Cal, she had gotten the mark, the law changed with their successful lawsuit, or they had defended their their case.

So I would say it's all allegedly folks. And so wait for more information is always a good idea. All right, Trump is building his team. And it's a long list. We've got, I guess, dozens of names right now. So let's start with the four. Who's your favorite Jacob? Well, my opinion probably doesn't matter all that much.

But let me go with the four that are creating a buzz tomorrow. Let's let's create the let's go with the four that are having the most buzz. And then I'll let you each tell me what you think you love. The one Yeah, there is one actually I love but let's I'll say who's that I'm curious.

I'm genuinely curious. The fake and Ilan doing doge is my absolute favorite. Yes. Anything else that I am fascinated by Bobby Kennedy, going in and trying to make the country healthier and the country is the most sick country think of all of the Western countries and I think our food system has massive problems.

So I'm very excited to see what he does inside of the Health and Human Services Department. I think it's a little bit controversial, obviously, but I don't see how it could be any worse than what we currently have. How do you feel about that? Who's your favorite? I guess we can just go with people's favorites if you want to go that way.

The way I interpret his cabinet picks is that he's creating a coalition. So I view it more as like a package deal. J. Cal, I'm not going to pick out one or two, although I do have my favorites. The person who I think very astutely understands what Trump is trying to do is Charlie Kirk, who's a major influencer on the Republican side.

And he says that, that what Maha, which is make America healthy again, they get RFK, Bobby Kennedy, HHS, obviously, the libertarians get Tulsi at DNI, I would add to that that they also get Ilan of a vague at doge. The base, the populist base gets Matt Gaetz, they get heck Seth at do D, they get home and, and then the piece through projecting strength crowd, which is kind of a nice name for neocon gets Rubio as Secretary of State and Stefanik at the UN.

So I think that Trump is basically trying to have his cabinet reflect the diversity of views within the Republican Party. He's not decisively choosing one side over another. What this means is that during his presidency, he's going to get all the views and all the options within the collective view.

That's an interesting way. Let's go point by point to the most controversial ones. Matt Gaetz is obviously the most controversial attorney, though. That's what they are all young. That's another trend. Yeah. And he has been put up as Attorney General. He has to be confirmed by the Senate. Obviously, he's the house rep from Florida, sacks.

How qualified is he for this job on a scale of one to 10? I think that Matt Gaetz would be a breath of fresh air at that DOJ. I mean, look, here's that the DOJ has been involved for the last eight or nine years in a completely fabricated effort to portray Donald Trump as an agent of the Russians.

It started with the Steele dossier. They then opened an investigation based on that phony piece of opposition research funded by the Hillary campaign. They lied to the FISA court to spy on Donald Trump's campaign. They then worked with the various intelligence services and with the media to create this like hoax that went on for years and years.

There's been no accountability for that. Furthermore, in the 2020 election, you also had that effort to essentially cover up the 100 Biden hard drive that the FBI and DOJ were sitting on that for roughly a year. They created a phony story that it was Russian disinformation when it turned out to be completely authentic.

So you believe there's a lot to clean up there? How qualified is he on a scale of one to 10? What the president, what the president ran on was that the DOJ needed to be de weaponized that it had been turned into a partisan political apparatus for the Democrats.

I don't think anyone can argue with that at this point. I think the American people clearly bought into that argument. Now, in order to clean it up, you're gonna have to bring in a total outsider who's willing to break some eggs and shake things up. Is Matt Gaetz the only person who could do that?

No, there are other people who could do it. But Matt Gaetz is definitely qualified for that role. He was one of the most outspoken critics in Congress of this weaponization of the FBI. He was never fooled by the Russiagate hoax. Most of the establishment was. And anybody who bought into the Russiagate hoax is not qualified to run the DOJ at this point.

Okay, any concerns? Well, there's a bunch of unproven smears and accusations have been made against him. Any other concerns? Excuse me? Aside from the the the investigations and whatever in the smears, a bunch of unproven, yeah, smears and accusations were made against him. And my own view on that is that if there was really something there, I think Merrick Garland's DOJ would have acted on it two or three years ago.

So I personally discount all these smears without there being any evidence whatsoever. And I think it's very predictable that what we're seeing with both Matt Gaetz and with Tulsi is that the worst accusations get made without any evidence in the media, when the blob or the establishment wants to stop a true populist reformer from cleaning up their backyard.

Freeberg, your thoughts on Matt Gaetz? And that seems to be the most controversial one. Any concerns? You think he's the most suited guy for the job? I don't want to comment on Matt Gaetz, but I'd like to talk about... Why not? Because I'd like to talk about a broader point of view on it.

Okay. So I think there's this kind of thing that happens in biology called evolution. And a lot of people think evolution is this continuous process, but it's not. Evolution is this process by which there is some significant growth for a period of time. And then there is an extinction event or an external force that causes what ultimately becomes what's called punctuated equilibrium.

So the whole kind of system resets and then the healthier, stronger species survive and they grow and they persist. And if you look at the first chart, Nick, that I pulled up, this will just show you guys past extinction events, large amounts of biomass over the past half billion years get wiped out when these extinction events occur.

And then evolution occurs because the species that can survive the extinction event persist in the environment and they grow. And that's how evolution kind of actually takes place, is there's an external force that changes what survives and what doesn't. It's kind of a testing force. If you look at federal spending, and this is a crazy link, but here's federal spending over the last couple of decades.

And I would argue that many of the agencies, much of the bureaucracy, many of the jobs created, many of the spending programs, many of the operating models, many of the behaviors can kind of be viewed as a species or species within this ecosystem that have kind of grown a lot over the last few decades.

And I think what Trump's mandate was by the people, and people don't want to hear this and they don't like it, but his mandate was to be kind of the extinction event. And whatever agencies, whatever operating processes, whatever individuals, whatever bureaucratic systems exist within the federal government that can withstand the scrutiny of the individuals that Trump is going to put in charge of each of these agencies, that they can survive and they can come out the other end, there is certainly some degree of strength and resilience and hardiness.

This is not about right or wrong. You say they deserve to exist if they can survive? I'm saying this is going to bring in the most disruptive force that federal agencies have ever seen. And the intention with Trump isn't to find some person to keep running things the way they have been run in the past.

His mandate from the people who elected him based on the message he put out there is to do the opposite, which is to go in and be as disruptive and damaging and destructive as possible. And whatever comes out the other side will be stronger, will be harder, and theoretically, will be, you know, more resilient.

And I think that that's the event that's underway. Now, the people who are getting exactly what they want in Trump's candidacies are the Democrats. They were saying Trump is going to put a bunch of crazy lunatics in office, and he's going to make them the cabinet, and now they're able to kind of clap their hands and say, "We told you so.

We told you so." And I'm not sure that if they're really getting the message, which is that the intention here isn't to keep things running the way they have been running, but to really fundamentally test the systems and test the systems with the most challenging oppositional forces the systems have ever been tested by, which is the candidates or the individuals that he's putting in charge of each of these agencies.

So, I'm not saying it's right or wrong one way or the other, but I'm making an observation that this is going to be kind of an extinction level event, that Trump's decisions on who he's putting in place, I think, are going to drive an outcome on the other end that's going to make the government look very different.

And, you know, I'm not going to sit around and say, "This person's good. This person's bad," because I don't think the point is to find someone that's, quote, "qualified to do the job." The intention is actually quite different, and the outcome may actually be positive for America if you fast forward a couple of years in some cases.

And there's some cases where things could get really messed up, and people could suffer, and jobs will be lost, and all sorts of bad things will happen. But we cannot continue the way we have been with respect to federal spending, with respect to federal spending, bureaucracy and inefficiency in the federal government.

And so something has to happen. And if this is the path by which this gets resolved in the limited window that's in front of this particular administration, which is probably two years, maybe four, maybe this is what has to happen. Shabbat, where do you stand on Freiburg's interesting metaphor here that we're sending meteors into each of these departments to blow them up and see if they survive an extinction level event?

I saw you nodding. Do you think this is an interesting framing? Great take. I have nothing to add to Freiburg's take. Got it. Who's your favorite? Yeah. You asked me the question, I answered. Who's your favorite? Well, I think let's take Elon and Vivek off the table, because that's an obvious one that we've all been behind since the beginning.

Yeah. And we know and we all support the idea who's not against more efficiency. I mean, you have to be an idiot to be against efficiency. It's like the easiest one to say you love. I think the highest beta pick so far has been Bobby Kennedy. I think the second highest beta pick is Matt gates.

Explain highest beta pick in this context, please. I think the third is Tulsi Gabbard. That there is the potential for an enormously positive two or three sigma outcome. But there's also the chance that it can really not work. That was exactly why I picked Bobby Kennedy, because he's going to shake it up, right?

Peter Thiel just did this podcast with Barry Weiss. And it was fantastic, by the way, highly recommend. Highly recommend. He's awesome. Yeah, the one of the great things he said is that he was talking about science, but I think the example works here as well, which is that we didn't have enough skepticism, and we had too much dogma.

He was talking about sort of like the death of science. And I think that that idea applies here as well, which is that the federal bureaucracy has not really been challenged. And Vivek put out a very compelling post on x, where he basically said like, look, when you on the one hand, there's going to be radical transparency.

But on the other hand, there's a lot of case law that we can use to kind of try to really dismantle the government apparatus. And they're putting themselves on a shot clock to do it by 2026 for the 250th anniversary. So I think I'm really predisposed to this idea that it'll force the government to be very resilient at the end of this process.

And I think that's a good thing. And it'll probably be very different than what it is on the way in. And I think that that can be very positive. All right. So we got your mouth and myself actually giving some specific names that we thought were interesting. I'll go back to you sacks.

Maybe I'll phrase it as to Chamath's phrasing, which one do you think has the greatest chance of creating a massive potential change that could be positive, but also has some possibility of a destructive downside. In other words, it could go either way. But man, if it goes the right way, it could be brilliant and amazing and great for all Americans, who would be your number one number two in that regard?

Well, you have to identify what the potential downside is, I think the single biggest risk in a second Trump term is that somehow the United States gets into an unnecessary war, a war that we don't need another forever war. It's certainly not what President Trump wants. He's been abundantly clear on the campaign trail that he wants to avoid wars, he wants to avoid World War Three, it's clearly where all of his instincts are.

But the fact of the matter is, we have a very fraught and difficult international situation right now, the Middle East is on fire, we have a proxy war going on with Russia. So there is the chance that things could always spiral out of control. And you need, I think, within the cabinet, not just hawkish voices, but also dovish voices, so that the President has the full range of options at his disposal.

And so in that sense, I would say that, you know, Tulsi is being one of the more dovish voices is incredibly critical, just to balance out some of the other voices who are more hawkish. And so in that sense, I think, you know, just making sure that the President gets to hear from a wide spectrum of views, I think that that part's very important.

So that would be Tulsi, Tulsi would be your pick for like, Yeah, just because like Tulsi could literally make the difference between whether we get in a unnecessary forever war or not. I would also just say that with respect to the other picks, there's obviously a lot of hysteria going on a lot of hyperbole about the downsides.

I don't think it's going to be like a meteor hitting the earth. I don't think it's that destructive. I think that it's more like, will some eggs be broken up to make an omelet, right? That's, that's the analogy I would use rather than the meteor. And the thing I would just say is that we all agree the United States is currently on an unsustainable fiscal path.

We know that we're spending too much money, we know that the bureaucracy is too big. What's the downside of shaking it up? There's just way more upside than downside in terms of shaking up this bureaucracy, because the current path is bankruptcy. Exactly. So why do we have to act like that it's so risky to bring in outsiders and populists and reformers into these agencies, we know there's going to be huge resistance to them.

The biggest risk, frankly, is inertia taking over. And the reformers aren't able to do enough. And we all doing nothing is not an option. Yeah, and then we go bankrupt. That's the big risk. Why is Chelsea getting attacked? What's the Russian people are saying? Like, I don't I don't know any of the history here.

So tell me, it's obvious. It's because Washington is a very hawkish place. It's basically run by the war machine. There's there's no money going to Washington to lobby for peace. All the money in Washington is coming from the military industrial complex. So by definition, it's extremely hawkish, and it's geared towards war.

And told us there's some history with Tulsi in Russia. Yeah, just to finish my point. Yeah. Tulsi has been one of the few consistent voices advocating for peace. So of course, the establishment wants to basically get her nomination vetoed. But again, I think you have to see the cabinet as a package deal.

I think it's very important to have Tulsi as one voice for peace within a larger cabinet that already has many hawkish voices on it. Okay. All right, everybody for your sultan of science from Ohalo. David Freeberg, the chairman dictator Chamath Paihapatia from 8090. And David Sachs, from craft ventures.

I am Jason kalachannis your host here at the all in podcast and this week in startups. We'll see you next time on the all in podcast. Bye bye back at you chief retribution officer. Let your winners ride. Rain Man David We open source it to the fans and they've just gone crazy.

Love you. We should all just get a room and just have one big huge orgy because they're all just useless. It's like this like sexual tension that they just need to release somehow. What you're about to be. We need to get murky's are going on.