two days ago, Oh, here we go. in the Piazzetta, I got into a fight. You got into a fight? I got into a fight. Like a physical altercation? A physical altercation. Really? This chick shows up wearing a white wife beater talking all kinds of shit. And I said, listen, lady, you zip it.

And she just kept jawing and jawing. And here she is again. She's back for more. And so I was like, listen! Now, have you ever seen Have you ever seen a onesie wife beater? Look at that little sweetie. Aw. And you just sit there. And then you just sit there.

And then look. There's your cold open, everybody. That's the good stuff right there. Say hi to everybody. I know I'm not a beagle. I know I'm not a beagle, but I'm even better. I have my own thoughts. Sax, what you're seeing here is called affection between a parent and a child.

Just let me know when it's over. Just let me know when it's over. You're the worst. You're the worst human being in the world. I don't need to watch Jamaat Boost's Q rating by using his kids as props, okay? Oh, Freeburg, where's your puppy that you saved from being tortured with Kim Kardashian's lip gloss?

Nick, we gotta get this guy in because he hasn't been in the show in a while. There he is. There he is. Aw, Monty. Aw, your belly rub. Get the props out of the shot. We're doing all this to let your winners ride. Rain Man, David Sacks. I'm doing all this and it's said we open source it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it.

Love you guys. I'm the queen of Kinwa. I'm doing all this Sax, what's up with J.D. Vance in Ohio? Is he gonna pull this thing off or is he getting beat up? I read an article about him getting beat up with the Peter Thiel connection being... He got physically beat up?

Yeah. No, no, no, like in the polls. No, no, no, no. No, I think J.D. should win. He's gonna win, right? Yeah, I think so. And what about Blake Masters? These are the two guys that Thiel is backing. Should we start the show? We kind of did, yeah. Can I just ask you a question?

If any of us entered porn, wouldn't one of our names be Blake Masters? Like, it's just, wouldn't it be on the list? Like, doesn't it sound like a great... Now you can't even see it. Isn't it a great name for porn? It's a great name, Blake Masters. It's a great name.

And J.D. Steele. I'm sorry, Vance. Yeah, go ahead. Explain what's going on with this mentoring candidate. J.D., what would you accuse him of without any evidence? I'm not accusing anybody of anything. I'm just saying, tell us about your mentoring candidates. Go ahead. Well, so J.D.'s already won the primaries, and I expect he will win.

I mean, it's gonna be, I think, a red wave in November, and Ohio is a pretty red state these days. Blake's supposed to win the primary in Arizona. That's a little bit more of a toss-up, but I think he'll do well. All right, well, I had a follow-up question, but I'm not allowed to mention the T-word, so let's just get started.

Why is it such a big deal that, like, Peter supports candidates? You got all these, like, crazy left-wing radicals. No, no, I think it's interesting. Like, Soros gives unlimited amounts of money to, you know, crazy progressives like Gascon in L.A. and Azzilli and others. I mean, why is it such an obsession that we have to focus on who Peter supports?

No, no, I just think it's fascinating that he... Peter's articulated his rationale for supporting these candidates and his objective for, you know, changing government in a way that he... thinks would benefit the country. And Peter's been generally right. What is the thesis, Rayburg? I think part of... If you watch his speech from the RNC during the last Trump cycle, I think he did a good job kind of articulating that there's a lot of inefficiencies in government and there's a lot of, call it, accumulated fat, and we need someone to go in and we need people to go in and really cut this up because so much of politics is driven by what else I'm going to give you, not about what I'm going to fix that's already being spent in an inefficient way.

And as a result, we see debt climb, we see taxes climb, we see efficiency continue to decline of every dollar invested by the government. And I think that's a really important thesis to see someone actually try and execute against because no one's in the position... Very few people are in the position that he's in to actually be able to, like, make that sort of statement.

Everyone wants something more from their government versus trying to fix the government. I think his views are more extreme than that. I think his views are more that orthodoxy is ruining in America. And so you need forms of heterodoxy to basically reset the status quo. And I think that's what he believes more than what you just said.

I think that you need a wholesale reset. And in order to have a wholesale reset, you need to have these very disruptive candidates that basically start to change the norms. I mean, if you think about what Trump did in one election cycle, is he's completely sucked an entire cohort of people, Hispanics and, you know, moderates, and now, you know, a lot of immigrants, towards the end of the day, and now, you know, a lot of immigrants, towards the right, because the Democrats have vacated all of that space in having this massive Trump derangement syndrome and tacking extremely to the left.

And even if Peter, we'll never know, believed in Trump or didn't believe in Trump, it didn't matter, but the process of him getting that candidate elected over the long arc of history may actually serve to pull America back to the center. Pretty good outcome. Yeah, and look, the reason why I support J.D.

and Blake, for that matter, is they are, they represent this more, populist, working class wing of the Republican Party, and they're dragging the Republican Party in a more working class direction. I think that's the future of the party. I think that's the opportunity for the party. To Chema's point, the Democrats have ceded all the sort of this working class territory by becoming this elite, progressive party.

And the face of the party right now, the Democratic Party, is Paul Pelosi. You know, let's talk about this. It's blatant and out in the open. He's trading on chip stocks, like Nvidia and Intel and so forth, like the week before the House is going to vote on a $52 billion subsidy for chip companies.

No, no, no, be more precise. The week before his wife decides when critical legislation goes to the floor of the House to be voted upon. So you have the Speaker of the House, who's the third most important person in government, introducing legislation on her timetable. Her husband trades in those specific equities days and maybe even the same day-- So gross.

--and then he's going to be in the White House for the next three years. And then he's going to be in the White House for the next three years. And then he's going to be in the White House for the next three years. And then he's going to be in the White House for the next three years.

And then he's going to be in the White House for the next three years. And then he's going to be in the White House for the next three years. And then he's going to be in the White House for the next three years. And then he's going to be in the White House for the next three years.

And then he's going to be in the White House for the next three years. And then he's going to be in the White House for the next three years. And then he's going to be in the White House for the next three years. And then he's going to be in the White House for the next three years.

And then he's going to be in the White House for the next three years. And then he's going to be in the White House for the next three years. And then he's going to be in the White House for the next three years. And then he's going to be in the White House for the next three years.

And then he's going to be in the White House for the next three years. And then he's going to be in the White House for the next three years. And then he's going to be in the White House for the next three years. And then he's going to be in the White House for the next three years.

And then he's going to be in the White House for the next three years. And then he's going to be in the White House for the next three years. And then he's going to be in the White House for the next three years. And then he's going to be in the White House for the next three years.

And then he's going to be in the White House for the next three years. And then he's going to be in the White House for the next three years. And then he's going to be in the White House for the next three years. And then he's going to be in the White House for the next three years.

And then he's going to be in the White House for the next three years. And then he's going to be in the White House for the next three years. And then on top of that, Jason, the mainstream media doesn't say shit. And then on top of that, Jason, the mainstream media doesn't say shit.

Now, by the way, I'm not a Trump supporter. Now, by the way, I'm not a Trump supporter. I think he's a complete goofball. I think he's a complete goofball. But if Trump had tried to pull this stuff But if Trump had tried to pull this stuff in 2016 or 2017 or 2018, in 2016 or 2017 or 2018, in 2016 or 2017 or 2018, could you imagine how much media coverage could you imagine how much media coverage there would be?

And today, how much of that is covered And today, how much of that is covered by the mainstream media? zero. Was it mentioned on MSNBC? zero. Was it mentioned on MSNBC? Nope. Was it mentioned in any of the press? Was it mentioned in any of the press? Nope. Let me just set the stage so people don't know what we're talking about.

So on Tuesday, the Senate advanced So on Tuesday, the Senate advanced a slimmed down version of the original chips bill. If you don't know what that is, it's basically a bill that's going to provide $52 billion in subsidies to move chip manufacturing here to the United States, something we really need to do.

It's a bipartisan bill. Everybody kind of agrees on this. But this is been kind of stuck in committee for a little bit. It comes a year after the Senate first approved the $250 billion bill to reinforce US chip making to compete with China. The reason why this is strategically important is because we have a huge chip dependency on Taiwan, which is under threat from China.

So if chips are the new oil, you know, Taiwan is the new Middle East or the new Persian Gulf. And it is a very dangerous situation for us to be completely dependent on Taiwan. Well, not completely, but like for over half our chips. So on shoring, advanced chip manufacturing makes sense.

But I think this is a great example of how you start with a legitimate objective in Washington and very rapidly it turns into corporate welfare and graphed by politicians. I mean, yeah, it's gross. Yeah, I mean, just because we need to onshore manufacturing doesn't mean that you give Intel and Nvidia giant handouts.

And then you got Paul Pelosi making millions trading Nvidia options. Yeah, it's ridiculous. And this is something that is happening. What would you have done, Sax, to support on shoring of semiconductor manufacturing? Who would you give the money to? And how would it be kind of dulled down? What would the terms of it be?

I don't know that you just give these companies money. I mean, I think maybe what you do is you give them tax breaks or various kinds of breaks, but I don't like that. They need capital to support that investment because if you look at the kind of ROIC on these companies, I haven't looked, but I'm guessing they're in the high teens or something, mid to high teens.

And they're not gonna be able to invest in some newfangled fab project that may or may not actually have customers at the end of the day. Their board would never run out of money. They would never approve that on an independent basis. They need capital. Define ROIC, Freberg. Return on invested capital.

So if you're a big industrial business, one of the key metrics that your shareholders look at is the ultimate kind of profits that are generated from a big investment you might make. And so you kind of look at that over time, you look at the invested money over time and the cash returned over time, and you come up with this metric.

And so it's a key metric for particularly capital intensive businesses. And so a business like Intel or Nvidia, I would imagine is gonna have a pretty tough time selling their board on some speculative onshoring fab project. There really does need to be capital and acceleration of capital. - Freberg, who feeds you this bullshit propaganda?

Intel in 2020 approved a share purchase plan where these guys had a hold of $110 billion and have spent all of it except for 7.2 billion. They have 6 billion left on the balance sheet. - I get it, but they're not gonna put that money at risk. Right, like Chamath, imagine you're on the board of Intel and they're like, "Hey, we wanna honor-" - So the government, okay, so basically, hold on.

I make a ton of money. - But that's the basis of where this, yeah, this is where it all comes from, right? - I make a ton of money. I have no better ideas of how to do it, including theoretically building a chip factory. So I'm gonna go to the government for a handout.

Meanwhile, I'm gonna take all the money that I had, which I could have used to fund this thing, and I'm gonna give it away to people who I don't know what they're gonna do with it. - I would reframe it. I would say that the government wants to see our industry onshore, semi-competitive, semiconductor manufacturing.

And they are going to the companies, not the companies going to the government. They're saying, "We want you to onshore semiconductor manufacturing. Do that for us now." Like in World War II, we went to the automobile manufacturers and said, the government said, "We want you to make airplanes. Here's a bunch of money, make airplanes." And that's, so the question then is, who does that money go to?

Who else would you give that money to besides the two best chip makers in the world? - David's right. If you just give us a CapEx subsidy, that's a one-time effect that helps you in a moment. It doesn't help your business. Any reasonable investor who can actually use a simple calculator sees through that nonsense.

So what David's right is if you had given them sustained tax breaks for being able to build the business line that then supplies things for the duration, you know, tens of years, you're absolutely right. Investors would lot it. It would make a ton of sense. They would be over-earning over a long enough period of time where people would have to bake that into their cashflow estimates, where when you discount it, if you wanted it back, it would make the enterprise of Intel and Nvidia worth more.

And then people would then want to own that stock more. Giving a CapEx subsidy is a meaningless way in which you basically hand out good money to organizations who have otherwise misallocated the money that they've already had. - Yeah, there's a much simpler solution just to Sax's point of like, how do you do this?

And giving free money is not the way to do it. The best way to do it is to give an incredibly low interest rate loan, like a 30, 40, 50 year loan that maybe has some warrants in it, just like a Silicon Valley bank or a Comerica might give in a venture debt loan, where the government actually could make money from this.

And then you incent them with something that is just too good not to take. A 50 year loan of $5 billion to build factories. You have to use it for that. So it's use it or lose it. And then you slowly pay the government back. And then maybe we get some warrants in Intel or whoever we give the money to.

This is something that Obama did with Solyndra, which didn't work out, but he also did it with Tesla and Tesla paid all that money back early. So these loans that the Department of Energy did really did. And you got to give Barack Obama a lot of credit for this.

It really did help drive, even though it wasn't perfect. By the way, when did drive a lot of AV adoption, it did really help Tesla become the company it is today. Sorry, let me just respond because, you know, I don't know how much we've we've gone through the details of the bill, but there are several components to this bill, including, and I just want to highlight if I'm on the board of Intel, I'm not going to make a $10 billion fab investment because, you know, there's there may or may not be, you know, profits down the road to justify that size of an investment.

So if the government comes along and says we will support, we will cover X percent of that investment, I can take on more risk and I'm more willing to make that investment. And theoretically, I can afford to pay people a higher wage or a higher salary because I now have more capital freed up to support to do that.

And so. There is an effect that arises by having the government come in, put some money into these projects, accelerate their outcomes, and it gives the business more freedom. Should it be free, Berg, free money or in the form of a loan? So what should the financial device be?

I think is the question that you asked Saks, if I'm interpreting correctly. Yeah, I'm not sure that the loan because the loan doesn't resolve the fact that they're having to put up money. Right. And so they're not necessarily going to make this onshoring investment. The rational capitalist decision is to offshore manufacturing for Intel.

Yes. And it's rational for them from a business perspective, from a board perspective, from a fiduciary perspective to onshore manufacturing. So the reason they're going to do it is not because they're getting a loan where the interest rate is low. That doesn't really solve the problem. It's the government saying we're going to put a $10 billion facility.

We want you to build it and manage it for us. And that's effectively what's happening. And now by building this $10 billion facility, we've created security for the rest of the U.S. industry. It's worth it to the government to put that money up and create security for our economy.

No, it won't. Why wouldn't it create security if we if we have more onshoring of chips? So by the way, there's more security. I'll say one more thing. There's also an investment tax credit built into this bill, Sachs, which does provide over time a bunch of incentives to continue to support and drive the onshoring work that's proposed in the bill.

If you want the United States. Point of personal privilege. Can I request that Chamath add just one button to his shirt? Yeah. But it's just. Is it too distracting for you? You can't say you're on the glare. You can't voir dire your onshoring. Oh, geez. First, I had to watch Jason do the gun show.

Now I got to watch Chamath. Show us your guns. Come on, pull up that sleeve and show us what you. Let's move on. Let's move on. I want to say one more thing about the Pelosi stuff. So here's the data. I don't know if you guys have looked at the full history of the Pelosi trading data.

Here's the link. She's all the trading that's happened over the last couple of years. So and over the past year, he has bought Nvidia four different times each time in the same kind of volume range. So the timing certainly made a peer suspect and it's certainly a terrible kind of thing to see.

He's also bought Apple in the last month. Microsoft. Sorry, he sold Apple. He bought Microsoft. He bought Alliance Bernstein earlier in the year. He's made a few trades this year. But Nvidia, he's actually bought on four different occasions over the past 12 months for whatever that's worth. Right. I'm not trying to defend it, but I think we should be intellectually honest about the fact that this guy, you know, does take points of view in certain companies.

He trades in a handful of companies. Are we only to be intellectually honest enough to think that a husband talks to his wife and vice versa? Yeah. Or does that not happen anymore? Depends on the husband and wife. But yeah, I think this is blatant and out in the open.

I mean, it looks really at a minimum. The appearance is of graft and corruption. Yeah. The appearance of impropriety is impropriety. They shouldn't be allowed to trade. They should have to put their stuff into blind trusts or they should maybe trade once a year and they should have to announce their trades before the trades happen.

Hey, here's what I'm planning on doing. Just like a CEO is planning on doing this stuff. It's ridiculous. It's ridiculous that they can do this. And why doesn't the mainstream media cover this? They have. And Jason, do you think that if Trump, if this had happened during Trump, it would have a lot more coverage than this Pelosi incident?

I do remember a lot of coverage on Trump. It really doesn't get covered. I mean, if you just search for it today, you'll see basically the only media outlets covering it are like Fox News and then Zero Hedge. You know, that's it. I mean, that's how I found out about it is like the Zero Hedge tweets about it.

Me too. So Daily Beast, you know, headline. You can go digging. Seven hours ago, Dems quietly tried to jam Pelosi on stock trading ban. But if you're asking me, you asked me a question, Chamath, is the media largely biased against Trump and gives a free pass to the Dems?

Yes, I would say that that is the trend. Yes. I think that is intellectually honest of you. Well, no, I mean, I think the media is bankrupt. They're just going for clicks. And I think, you know, we've talked about this before. They saw Trump as an existential risk and they just did whatever it took to get him out of office, even putting up Biden as the candidate.

But in doing so, they completely burned all of their credibility. They lost a lot of credibility. And now the Dems are starting to become increasingly detached and out of touch and maybe hated. But then the result is that the mainstream media is just no longer trusted. The media and the Democratic Party both have the same problem, which is they suffer from what the Democratic political scientist Roy Toucheira has called professional class hegemony.

I mean, they are populated by college graduates with degrees who basically have this very elitist progressive agenda. And that is what is causing the Democratic, the working class to defect from the Democratic Party, their historical base in droves. Look at Hispanics. Well, first of all, if you go to the latest Biden polling numbers, he's down to 31% approval, 60% disapprove.

Okay, so the trend is getting worse there. But you look at Hispanics, it's down to 19% approval, 70% disapproval. It's an even more intense version of the same problem. You had Myra Ford. Flores get elected in that Texas seat, this is a district that went, it's basically a predominantly Mexican-American district.

They went for Biden by 18 points just, you know, two years ago. And now they're voting for her by over 10 points. So you're Republicans winning that seat for the first time. So you have these huge defections. Now, why is that happening? Because the Democrats are appealing to the donor class on issues like border, on issues like crime, and on issues like CRT in schools.

I mean, you know, the working class people in this country, they don't want open borders. They want crime to be prosecuted and cracked down on. And they do not want an ideological education for their kids. Okay. It's very simple. But that basically is why the Democratic Party is losing votes.

Now, let me give you a couple other examples of the Democrats cynically appealing to the donor class. So recently, there's an article about the Democrats have spent $44 million this election cycle, basically running ads in favor of the crazy MAGA candidate in primaries. There's been a bunch of reports of this where in competitive Republican primaries, the Democrats will actually spend money on behalf of the sort of the more perceived crazy Republican, the MAGA candidate, the election denier, and so forth.

Yeah. Because of the perception, they'll be easier to beat in the general. But I think this is a case to be careful what you wish for. Because, you know, if we have a red wave in November, you're going to end up with more of these candidates basically winning. So it's a very cynical strategy.

The other example, I think, of a very cynical strategy is you saw there was a vote in the House this past week on gay marriage. And the House voted to repeal DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, and support, basically codify Obergefell, right, the Supreme Court's decision on gay marriage.

Something like, you know, 60 Republicans voted for it. Look, I would have liked to have seen more Republicans vote for this. I think it should be like, you know, majority of the Republican party should be voting for this. But the point is that is there any intention of the Democrats to bring this up in the Senate and pass it and codify Obergefell when they have a chance?

I think the answer is no. Why? Because the Democrats would rather fundraise off this issue. The same thing was true, about Roe. The Democrats had super majorities in the Senate. Under Obama, they could have codified Roe. They never took the chance. Why? Because they would rather fundraise off this issue from progressive elites, the donor class in California and New York.

So this is why they're not going to codify Obergefell. You don't even think that's the case? Absolutely. Obama said it on the record. Obama was asked, why will you not? He campaigned on codifying Roe v. Wade. And then very quickly into it, he was asked when he had the super majority in favor of Roe v.

Wade, why would you not? And he said, why would you not? And he said, built the house in the senate will you act on roe v wade he goes no it is not a priority anymore that's a quote it absolutely could have been codified just like a birch fell could be codified tomorrow look there are there are 10 republican votes there are 10 republican votes at least for this in the senate you have a filibuster proof super majority in the senate who would support this the same republicans who supported the gun restriction bill that biden just signed and that supported the infrastructure bill you think they could codify abortion rights in this country right now if they wanted no no no that that moment has passed that moment's passed i'm not saying republicans would never give women the right no no look there's not a super majority in the senate anymore for uh for a codifying road there is a super majority right now for codifying a birch fell they could do that right now and they're not chamath you've been a donor to the democratic party do you believe that yeah do you do you believe that the um the abortion issue drove you and others to put more money in and that maybe not no because because the leadership of the democratic party focused on uh trump in the last big cycle it was all trump trump trump trump trump do i think that more grassroots fundraising focuses on that or gun rights or what do you think what's next is saying is true that they actually held off on trying to codify roe so that they could continue to support again i'm just i'm just going to give you the quote because it there's there's no opinion needed okay so i'm going to give you the quote because it there's no opinion needed okay april 29th of 2009 president barack obama says on wednesday he favored abortion rights for women but that passing a law guaranteeing these rights were not his top priority i believe that women should have the right to choose obama told a new conference marking his first hundred days in office again when he had super majorities in both the house of the senate but i think that the most important thing we can do to tamp down some of the anger surrounding this issue is to focus on those areas we can't agree on so you make a promise you get into the seat of power and you're going to be in power you have the decision on what your legislative agenda should be and he made that calculation and david is right sadly that it was in a moment where we had a clear line of sight to codifying many of these rights yeah but the question that's not the question that freeberg is asking he's saying do you think that they specifically did this to keep it as an open issue to raise money off it i don't think that's believable oh yeah absolutely no way no way absolutely if you want to talk about cynicism sack the truly cynical move was you know trump saying i am going to get this in evangelical vote to win the primaries to get those 20 percent who want to take away the right for women to have an abortion and i'm going to stack the supreme court to actually achieve that that's the most cynical of all of the political stuff okay let's just let's define terms political and so hold on a second hold on a second let's define terms so you may be opposed to what trump did but there wasn't that wasn't cynical he stated what he was going to do when he ran for office and then he did it he lived up to his promise somebody who he did not believe in that he did not believe in that he did it specifically to get those votes we all know he didn't believe in it we all know he believes in a women's right to choose jason he he created a platform to get elected yes that's what i'm saying when he was elected he executed on that platform i think what david sacks is saying is obama had a platform to get him elected and when obama chose had the choice he chose to not execute on the platform and that is also true and all i'm just saying is we owe it to ourselves to be intellectually honest about what happened that is what happened okay both of these two guys made claims hold on one second both of these two guys made claims acting in your own self-interest i understand but please i want this on the record both of these two guys made claims to become president it turns out that trump actually did execute on most of his claims as abhorrent as they were to some yeah and obama on some of the most important issues of our time did not look what trump did was just simple coalition politics he thought it was important to win the religious right he basically appealed to them he said that if you vote for me i will nominate these judges he delivered he delivered he didn't believe in it himself right so that's what i'm talking about at a certain point doesn't matter that's not something i believe people should have for sure principles okay look so i know it doesn't matter to you that he doesn't have principles but it matters to me that people are pretty good but jason what does it mean to have the principle of saying that he's going to he's going to pass and codify roe v wade and not do it what is that then i think he uh well listen i i the quote you gave doesn't give why he didn't do it he didn't make it a priority it could also hold on let me finish it could also be that he believed that it would not get overturned so he should spend his time on obamacare and other things i'm saying cynicism is when you believe one thing and then you do something to act in your own self-interest and that's what i think that's what i think did hold on a second we don't need to go back all the way to the obama administration because the issue i'm talking about today is that in the past week they had a vote codifying aubergine fell on gay marriage and uh repealing the bill and they're not going to vote for him you're saying DOMA okay so now listen I actually think there were so many Republican votes in the house even though I would have liked to seen more there were enough that this might shame Schumer into bringing up the vote because it's going to be so obvious if he doesn't that he is doing this for a reason right because they have the votes they can pass this just like they passed the gun bill a few weeks ago right just like they passed um the infrastructure bill so if he if Schumer doesn't bring this up it's a very cynical move you think it's strategically to have that as an issue to phrase funding I I I get it and it's really proof listen do you think both sides are cynical of course both sides engage in politics however however what I'm talking about is the type of cynicism so I think that there's a lot of issues on which the Democrats would rather appeal to the donor class basically that lives on the coast New York California and be able to keep fundraising on that issue and basically scaremonger on that issue and basically scare a little bit on that issue instead of just winning the issue they can just win this issue right now do you have less interest in supporting the Democratic Party based on the principle you stated that in the past there have been kind of promises and capital raised against you know codifying row and then it not happening they never made those promises to me so I never felt like they lied to me um I want to be very clear so then nobody and I never asked for that to be a precondition of my donation again my capital was focused on one thing which is I thought that President Trump was not the right person to lead this country and I thought very clearly that the bright Democrat could do a much much better job and I am glad that Biden won and I'm glad that the money that I put in maybe in no in any small way but hopefully in some reasonable non-trivial way helped and I'm glad that that money helped even out the Senate I'm glad all of those things happened and so I want to be clear they've never made those kinds of promises to be nor have I ever asked I make a high level decision on who I think the best candidate should be and support the party that will get that best candidate affected what I was just trying to make clear to you guys is that sometimes even a Democrat it's important for us to be intellectually honest about what has happened it's very easy to look at the other guy and find all the ways in which they screwed up or tried to screw you or you know is in a lack sympathy or lack sympathy all of these things it's much harder oftentimes to look at your own team and say wait a minute why didn't x y and z happen and the reason I'm bringing up what happened in 2009 is I think David is right we have a moment in time where the leadership of the Democratic Party can codify rights that should be codified and they should have in hindsight they should have done it I know just to be clear no it is still open we can do it I'm talking about Roe v Wade and yes and for the for the issue we're talking about now it should be codified absolutely and just to be clear I'm an independent I would vote for a Republican who was socially progressive and fiscally conservative as long as they're for gay marriage as long as they're pro women's right to choose uh and they were fiscally conservative I would vote for a Republican I'm a moderate independent I want to see less government and more efficient government and I want people I want the government out of people's personal lives and I think that's where Sax and I are exactly the same we both want I mean Sax do you want the government involved in people's personal lives you're a classic Republican by the way according to the Monmouth poll from a few weeks ago you represent four percent of the voting base I do that's an extreme yeah that's an extreme minority the the the lowest self-identifying quadrant of fiscal conservative versus kind of fiscal liberal social conservative social liberal is the fiscal conservative social liberal what are we all here we're I think we all fit this profile fiscally we want the government to be run conservatively you know and with less government and we want progressive social change right I mean I feel that way don't put me in a corner government out of people's personal I don't know I'm just asking I'm asking you guys if we're all insane I wouldn't define my cultural positions as progressive social change because the change that progressives are trying to do right now is radical what I favor is social tolerance I think we need to be tolerant I think we need to be a tolerant society America is a very broad diverse country we need to find ways to live together and find accommodation on issues that are very contentious so that includes tolerance for gay marriage so look I'm on board with that but the radical progressive agenda of social change which includes upending the uh the criminal justice system in favor of I know not prosecution over that yeah what's happening in the schools with CRT and the sort of hyper ideologized education look they should just be teaching the basics reading yeah leave it up to parents to do the other stuff yeah exactly I agree and so on down the line but maybe progressive is the wrong term because that that now has been co-opted less government involved in your personal life and tolerance I think we all agree on that and I think it's a great word everybody agrees with tolerance it's a privileged position to want to have less government involved in your life right I mean many people in the United States have been able to thrive and and survive because of the role that government has played in their lives and there's obviously on one end of the spectrum extreme grift and on the other end of the spectrum extreme need that is being met uh by the wealthiest government in the world and it is a that you know it is in that middle where all of them where do you think is fighting how would you describe your politics in these two dynamics right are you also in this four percent freeberry yeah yeah yeah no I'm here um I'm trying to be thoughtful about this because yeah no I think it's the idea yeah I think that the government's role is to support those in need not those in want and I think that the government should be held accountable for that role and I think that those of us who can that are sitting in privileged positions and seats should enable the government to perform that role well and we should be positive actors meaning we should support we should pay taxes and we should help people and um and institutions in need and that are you know kind of for the greater good and then we should be holding ourselves our government and our our politicians to account for inefficiencies and the biggest concern I have is less about are the people in need needs being met as much as are we holding our government to account for the performance of its services and duties to the American people and I really like this want I like this want need concept here can you give an example of where the government like people need something but then there's another group that wants something and maybe we're over stretching and and you know giving into wants when we should be focused on needs and efficiency yeah I'll give you a pretty um an example I know reasonably well which is the farm bill passes every four years and the farm bill in order to get it passed in both the house and the Senate it has components that serve both farmers and support the the food stamp program uh so the food stamp program obviously supports millions of Americans that are in need of food can't afford food they get EBD cards they get support in buying food and there's a lot of programs and access that are enabled by that program but in order but that mostly services the needs of urban areas of cities so it passes that that element of the bill is attractive and appealing to the representatives of cities found in the house on the other side in order to get it passed in the Senate where the majority of senators come from rural states which are have significant farming populations the farming subsidies are planted in that same bill and as a result because everyone's getting something that bill as a whole has now grown to a multi-hundred billion dollar bill that gets passed every few years because in order for the Senate to pass it the house says okay we'll give you all these farm subsidies in order for the house to pass it the Senate says well sorry and vice versa right we'll give you all these food stamps but but both of them now have incredible what do they call it pork or fat or whatever yeah the amount of money that's wasted that isn't actually servicing the original intention and need of either of the parties that are represented by that bill is extraordinary and I've spent a lot of time in the farmville I actually went with lobbyists years ago to DC and I actually met with the Senate and House ad committees I've gone very deep into the bill and some of the programs in that bill and it's just shocking to me in the same way that Palmer Lucky shared in our all-in Summit how shocking it is how defense spending works in this country it's shocking to me how some of the the programs work in the farm bill uh how much money and how much waste there is and how much Griff there is and so yes we are meeting the needs of populations in need in this country but so much more of the bill now is about people wanting more in order to pass the bill and it's and it's bloated all right so he's gonna come in and fix it because where's the incentive for anyone to come in and cut that bill up where's the incentive to fix it if both sides are barbelling the grift then there's no incentive they're they're they're in a dance to to maximize the grift so where do you stand now if we were to sort of look at politics without the Biden and trump derangement syndrome without the the tribalism just in terms of first principles I think what we're seeing here is we all want to see radical competence in the government social issues fight you know and fiscally how we run the country where do you stand how would you describe yourself now look I mean I think of things in terms of risk here's what I see um I see that there are a handful of issues that remain in terms of social policy that just need to get codified gay marriage is an example of one abortion rights is an example of the other then and and I think like those are like really to my perspective speak about human individual Liberty which I think should trump everything so everybody should be allowed to kind of pursue the best version of themselves however that manifests in the person you marry to in in the gender you Express not these are like things where what you do to be happy you should be allowed to do period end of story then there are issues where I think are much thornier and as I get older I become increasingly ambivalent uh or confused actually is a better word and gun control is a perfect example of that where I don't know what my right is to go and adjudicate a change to the Constitution that's been there since the founding of this country that's a much more complicated issue and so I think we have to basically devolve that right to the states where individual states will have very different laws and part of how you choose to express where you live will be defined by some of those rules so that's the social side extreme tolerance is really how I would sum it up economically so but but I think the risk to America imploding quote unquote because of an issue in that surface area in my opinion is extremely limited if I look on the economic lens however I think there are enormous risks to American leadership and exceptionalism and we need a wholesale reset of how we create incentives of how government should work of how regulatory capture should work of how the capital markets work these rules are way too perverted and it's creating enormous stress in a system and again I go back to the example I used last episode the thing that if you look for example like you know in that example of Sri Lanka Singapore Jamaica and how there were these three completely different outcomes underneath the most successful outcome was an incredibly clear transparent and simple financial framework you cannot spend more than you have you need to invest in long-term programs like education and health care you need to make them broadly available and then you need to have an absolute free market that gets the best ideas to the top of the funnel and if you can just incorporate those things the tax law could be four pages you know the the number of regulations could be 50 pages you know the simple rule that says to the Federal Reserve you can't just print free money ad hoc so I'm I'm much more concerned about the fiscal future of America I I think that there's so much movement and progress on the social side including the freedom of movement of people to different states it is an important set of issues but in terms of what drives the outcome and future success for our kids and our kids as kids people should not sleep on the economy because if we get this wrong that will be the tinderbox that lights everything on fire sacks when you hear you know everybody sort of explain their basic uh belief system how far apart do you think we all are on this podcast because I think that's been a an issue we see a lot of the comments discussing you and I discussing it feels like on most of these issues and I think that's people ask me how I'm friends with you all the time and I'm sure you get that question as well yeah and I love you thinking about it no I I love sex like a brother and anytime we talk about basic issues we're very much in sync and then when we talk about politics it feels like we're super you know uh you know opposed you know in in opposition to each other when you hear that we all have essentially the same stack of uh fundamental beliefs how do you interpret this in terms of politics and in America writ large and and how do we get consensus in this country to be more effective in running the country for the citizens I think the media drives a lot of polarization right because they're feeding us a bunch of bogus narratives you look at the polling around the trust in the traditional media has absolutely plummeted through the floor I mean they basically have instead of just reporting objectively the facts they I think the audience has recognized that they are activists they are basically pushing an agenda and they're pushing a bunch of bogus narratives and I think it does drive the polarization so that's part of it to go back to you know what what are the core issues that motivate me and like who I support look I think we could probably agree on a lot of stuff I want us to pursue more of an internationally cautious you know agenda less interventionist because it really hasn't worked out for us very well over the last 20 years with all these Wars that failed I want us to be fiscally responsible and promote a healthy economy to what Jamal said and then third I'd like us to be socially tolerant now why does that leave me in this current environment to support Republicans well on international on sort of foreign policy neither party is really very good both parties are sort of pushing some version of Bush Doctrine light where we're basically over involving ourselves in all these countries all over the world but the Republicans at least have a faction that's in favor of realism and restraint so I'm trying to help kind of push that direction within the party the Democrats just are still very much in this liberal interventionist mode on fiscal issues both parties are guilty of overspending and creating this ruinous federal debt and deficits that we have however there's no way to avoid the fact that the Democrats are just worse I mean Biden wanted an extra four trillion of spending on this whole build back better on top of the four trillion yet so listen I know the Republicans don't have clean hands on this issue but the progressives are just worse and as long as the progressives are calling the shots the Democratic Party they're just worse on spending and then you got social tolerance listen on the issues on these sort of key rights issues that have been the kind of the old social issues the last 50 years by and large not on all these things by and large I'm with you guys that I'm in favor of sort of the the socially tolerant position but look at who is pushing social intolerance today I mean the progressives are the most intolerant group in America they're the ones pushing cancel culture they're the ones trying to shove their positions down the throats of ordinary Americans this is what's creating the backlash you look at issues today like CRT like the progress their approach on crime on borders the progressives are trying to promote I think a social policy that is fundamentally intolerant and and doesn't accord any respect or room for traditional Americans to live their lives the way they want to and you have to be tolerant of them as well we're not going to have peace in our society Yeah Yeah Yeah Yeah without some tolerance of traditionalists okay let's wrap on this and then move to China I I sent you guys a um this was a quote by Mike Solana a tweet from Mike Solana the caption is I've been wondering how they were going to spin this and this builds exactly on David just said here when the Quinnipiac Quinnipiac poll came out and about approved disapprove about President Biden you know the big outlier was the Hispanic population the Hispanic population nice to see you guys thank you so much for being here and I appreciate it thank you so much for being here and I appreciate it thank you so much for being here and I appreciate it 19% approved 70% disapprove and the the article in 19% approved 70% disapprove and the the article in 19% approved 70% disapprove and the the article in the Washington Post which tries to kind of sort of like clean this all up and whitewash it says fake news speaks many languages but it's particularly fond of Spanish essentially saying that you know the the fake news problem in in the Spanish language has basically gotten so bad that you know this sort of explains why Hispanics have have moved in droves and it's like a whole race baiting cheap shot article but the point of all of this is just to show that uh the left this is what really does kind of bum me out they are they are probably more intolerant than they've ever been they are there's an intellectual dishonesty like if Rachel matter really wanted to increase her standing and position she would just start the next program with Nancy Pelosi's trades and say listen we all know let's call this what it is it's not cool and here's how it should change she'll never do it I know and I think that's the disappointing part about all this okay so let's shift now I think we well just just what can I say one final thing about this whole thing that we can move on is I think I think if you are sort of purple and centrist I think the first two years of the bind administration were really a missed opportunity because I think there's sort of this conventional wisdom that the parties are so polarized they can't get anything done I think we saw actually there's enough Republican votes or there were in the in the previous Congress this this current Congress they got the infrastructure bill done they got um the gun bill done you know with the red flag laws and so forth that we talked about they can get codification of gay marriage done if they want to they could have gotten uh the electoral count Act reform so if Biden hadn't gone all the way with his progressive voting rights agenda and just focused on reforming the electoral count Act then you could have invented a situation like we had on January 6 that that what was happening inside the capital not outside so there was a lot of stuff they could have passed and they didn't why because the in the in the first half of his administration Biden's been completely captive to the progressives there's another thing as well you could get a child tax credit uh passed you could get Romney would basically be the floor leader on that in the Senate they could pass a child tax credit that's the most popular part of BBB why don't they peel that off and vote on it you know because they went through the whole thing that's right the progressives are holding it hostage saying that we're not going to give that to you unless you do the whole enchilada and of course there's no votes for that so I think there's and and so who ultimately is the culprit for allowing this to happen will partly bind but also Ron Clay and the chief of staff I mean they've made a instead of triangulating to the center they should have realized hey we're a 50 50 president right I mean we have a 50 50 Senate we should be triangulating we should be building a centrist coalition Ron claims that has been letting going modern progress has tried the train Biden had a clear path to go right to the center pull everybody in pull the working class in that's been his supporting base who he is working class and so he is and and he blew it by going too far to the left if he wants to save this presidency he should go straight to the middle and get all the working class behind him by the guy that went to some elite you know uh East Coast liberal art school where he got a master's in you know fine arts and his four hundred thousand in debt that's not Joe Biden but he's let all these people run over the White House and it's too late now because I think what's going to happen is well the Republicans are going to win the house how much time did we spend talking about canceling student debt for who yeah no for a bunch of elite uh people with graduate degrees from yeah it's a leak I mean listen there's grifters on both sides it's disgusting and we need to get to a version of politics that maybe is more like our conversations here but let's let's get to another society that we thought was going to roll over ours but um and that we were in we were behind on in terms of competition China's in chaos right now apparently um in terms of slowing economic growth bank protests mortgage protests exactly what I predicted last year when you guys were talking about China was going to dunk on us and I said you know it's very hard to run these authoritarian countries and the citizens like to protest when they get the short end of the uh the stick and here we go Chinese economy is is growing very slowly they were going to do five and a half percent this year they were only 0.4 in Q2 covet has a lot to do with this but there's been a series of bank protests and uh the media has been trying to figure out exactly what's going on here to just set the stage here rural banks in China in a couple of provinces froze a bunch of people's uh withdrawals in April okay sounds like the crypto uh contagion in many ways they had been offering unusually high interest rates also sounding like what's going on here no no I think it's I think it's more like 2008 Jason I think the financial I think it's more like the financial crisis in 2008 that was driven by the real estate bubble yes they've got their own real estate bubble which is collapsing there correct and so there's there's multiple things going on at once the authorities haven't said how much money is frozen uh protesters claim it's billions of uh Juan but it's hundreds of millions in the U.S after weeks without a resolution customers have been began protesting plain clothes thugs have been hitting and kicking protesters and as of Wednesday a video went viral of the CCP bringing in tanks to protect the banks very uh evocative of Tiananmen Square I have a question so go ahead yeah so China has a very explicit zero tolerance policy on covet why do you guys think they are so extreme in that policy like any any ideas like have they explained why it has to be zero tolerance they have not explained that um and if you believe that they're the origin of covet maybe they have some insider information about long-haul covet and that was something I want to talk to Friedberg about if he thinks this you know long-term covet stuff is a really acute issue but freebird what do you think yeah I don't let me I don't want to answer that can I answer that if you don't want to yeah listen I I think the answer is very simple but I do want to talk about the Chinese economy I I I oh yeah yeah yeah yeah this is a complex issue there's a lot more going on there so on on zero covet I think this is coming directly from Xi this is his policy and I think that earlier in the pandemic they were hailing their response which they saw as orderly and effective at controlling covet and they were contrasting that with a chaotic Western response and so I think that the credibility of the CCP and G himself got tied up in this idea of stopping covet entirely of zero covet and so I think this is coming directly from the top and it's having a huge impact on their economy and I think this is one of the dangerous aspects of a autocratic system is you got one guy at the top making the decisions and if he's wrong there's not really a great feedback and nobody can question him yeah there's no questioning the God King yeah you know it sort of recalls um a situation in China I think it's about 500 years ago there was a Chinese emperor who banned shipbuilding and banning having a Navy and because of that China shut itself off from Global Trade and it fell well behind the West which then explored and captured the new world there's this question about you know the Chinese uh Chinese culture and civilization was much more advanced than the West than Europe a thousand years ago but basically it fell behind and a big reason is because this unilateral decision by one emperor to basically close themselves off from the rest of the world so you have to wonder does this um autocratic move by G basically doomed their economy to a recession it seems like they're not learning from our experience these lockdowns didn't work I mean you can't stop the virus it's eventually going to get out even I saw Biden got the virus this week I mean it's out right it's endemic now everybody's going to get it is basically what's happening making a bunch of heavy-handed decisions like this so you have besides lockdowns it was it's also the crackdowns it's the crackdown on the tech industry yeah the venture funding has plummeted uh and so people has so LPs are no longer investing in funds there with the exception of Sequoias which seems to be struggling but is still able to raise some money and then additionally uh founders can't raise money and founders are questioning when they meet with VCs if they can actually if the VCs are just meeting with them theatrically uh the story that came out this week in the FT if they're just meeting with them theatrically because they want to still hold out hope that they'll be a venture capital industry but there may not be a VC industry in China anymore let me just give you the housing stuff and then Freeburg I know you want to chime in on this so there's also mortgage boy boycotts happening at the same time as this fugazi bank stuff happened the bank stuff seems to be not the national banks these are local banks that apparently could have been running some kind of uh grift where people deposited the money it looks a lot like the savings and loan kind of uh behavior in the 90s in in the US and these are regional banks to be clear this isn't the national banks and so at the same time the mortgage boycotts are happening in three at 301 unfinished developments in 91 cities homeowners are accusing developers are failing to deliver the apartments they've already paid for according to Bloomberg 70 of household wealth in China's tied up in property much higher than the US this is downstream of the whole Evergrande thing right you got Evergrande Evergrande basically defaulted and there were a whole bunch of people who prepaid for their homes and so they're already paying mortgage but Evergrande never finished the homes and now they're rising up because they're saying why should we pay for a home that was never delivered right I just want to like take a zoom out because I think it's worth you know we can focus on any one of these particular things that are happening and try and diagnose them and dissect them but if you zoom out a little bit I think it paints a more interesting picture over the last 30 years right the Chinese economy grew from 318 billion to in 1990 to 10 and a half trillion in uh 2020 right incredible growth GDP per capita you know grew uh kind of in a similar ratio right now from 318 bucks per person to 12 500 in 30 years I mean really unprecedented in the history of humanity China now accounts for 20 percent of global GDP from less than two percent 1990.

now if you look at historically what drove that growth we all talk about manufacturing right manufacturing counts for about a third of the economy and manufacturing as a sector was growing in China 25 year over year in 2008 and then only grew six percent in 2022. it's like basically you know kind of reaching an all-time low in recent years so that's historically been the driver for growth of this economy and so much of the um you know the the the bargain between the people and the Chinese Communist Party has been keep giving us a better life keep growing our economy keep giving us more housing more stuff more food more safety more security we'll support the CCP and the challenge that the CCP is having is that a lot of that growth the core growth engine is starting to slow so manufacturing is slowing then real estate was growing and so real estate accounts for seven percent of the Chinese economy and I've got a good handout for you guys here in 2005 uh 250 million square meters of real estate was sold in China in 2021 1.5 billion was sold every year it's been incrementing so the amount of real estate that's being produced and sold was increasing like crazy this year it's collapsed so it's all it's down like you know forecast to be about 1.25 billion now so the first decline in real estate building and sales so that part of the driver of the of the economy in China is now collapsing and then the financial services sector accounts for eight percent of the economy and that's been growing because it's leveraged off manufacturing and real estate and all the capital that's flown in all of which is slowing down and stopping you know this 58 trillion dollars of assets in China generating about 700 billion dollars of annual profits for the financial services industry insurance banking lending and so on so a lot of the conflict and the things that are starting to fall apart which may just be the tip of the iceberg is a function of a fundamentally slowing economy and the forecast and the outlook for an economy that doesn't have the drivers it's had historically and things are starting to come off the wheels are starting to come off a bit and so you know look the advantage they have is central planning long-term investments being able to kind of be thoughtful about this but in order to do that there's certainly going to be a need for the CCP to keep people in line as some of the long-term bets hopefully play out for them as they would say in order to do that they're going to have lockdowns and other sorts of mechanisms of regulatory control over the people but really this could be the beginning of some of the unwinding and real concern about um you know is there a core economic growth engine in China that can save them and what will it be I think all of this if we look at what's happening in the economy writ large uh chamath you know the global slowdown plus inflation is now causing a stress test on every country Sri Lanka's stress test you know uh showed us what's happening with their farming issues and with corruption and here in China the stress test I think you would agree is showing what's going on in terms of you know banking mortgages real estate and obviously this surging middle class and what their expectations of life are so what's your take on what's happening in China and are they you know how does this um add up in terms of our rivalry with them as our contemporary at a very macro level China has one massive massive massive problem which is one of population it's hard to get an accurate count but it is an aggressively aging population which was the result of the one giant the one child policy for a very long time China has sort of been on their heels trying to adapt that policy but really the the last data I saw I tweeted this out it was a little while ago Nick so maybe hard for you to find in my Twitter feed but it was a projection of China's population which essentially showed it contracting by almost 50 percent by like 21 100.

so in the in the so it that's a really really bad situation now when you have a slowing population then the economy has to morph why is that when you have a young population so for example take what China was 20 years ago when it entered the WTO or what uh India is today when you have lots of thoughts of young people you can on-ramp them into economically productive activities like manufacturing the problem those folks accumulate middle class income and wealth is that they age out of those kinds of jobs like they did in America and what we seek are services and service level jobs and you spend more money you spend it in a different way so as populations age your economy has to turn over unless you have a large Bulwark of young people that is constantly growing to take up more of the slack the economic slack to pay for these folks who have different lifestyles more savings and different needs specifically health care that's China's enormously big problem so when you see them talking about six percent GDP targets and you think how does a country that big even grow at six percent it's because they're reverse engineering for what they need to create economic vibrancy in that country and so when you start to look at two percent which in America you'd say two percent's great we would like high-fiving each other for two percent uh that's not a sustainable level of growth for what's happening inside that country it does not create enough of expansion economically to cover all these folks that is a really really big issue so as that happens I think what we need to do is figure out how to be competitive now this goes all the way back to our first conversation subsidies don't make us more competitive things that governments can do to make us more competitive are long-term drawn out tax incentives that change the earnings capacity of companies why because in the capital markets reward those businesses Jason you just mentioned it why is the Chinese capital markets in difficulty nobody knows what the long-term earnings are how do you forecast it it's not simple anymore it's not a model it's not an interest rate it's not a discounted set of cash right and so that's how they need to refactor themselves they need to have a much larger population if you don't have that you have to figure out how to do it with immigration if you don't have that what China has done is they've tried to go to Southeast Asia into Africa and they've tried to create that synthetic form of a growing pyramid right now that can work as long as the balance sheet of the country supports that because ultimately you're still talking about moving money offshore okay so I think they're in a little bit of a they're they're in a pretty difficult spot the most difficult spot is the one they put that she put them in if you get rid of entrepreneurship if you get rid of high growth companies that create the opportunity on a global scale and then you you know take DD off the public markets you don't let education companies become public or you basically get rid of their little co-opting of capitalism and Venture Capital their whole their whole society is going to become slow growth and slow growth in a country that doesn't have safety nuts is really dangerous sacks your thoughts in terms of competition versus America okay let me get to the the competition in a second just a billion which Ma said the uh the birth rate or the fertility rate in China slipped to just 1.15 in 2021 so last year it takes 2.1 just to maintain your population or replacement level so and this is lower than even Japan which is also shrinking as a Japan said about 1.3 the US and Australia are at 1.6 but we get above 2.1 because of immigration and China doesn't have that so they've got a huge demographic problem to Jamal's point it's going to be something like well the population is shrinking by 40 with every generation that's what these numbers imply insane the numbers are it's going to be under 600 million by the year 2100 but I would I don't understand how it wouldn't even be less than that if it keeps going at this rate so there and the the commentator Peter uh zihon has or I don't know if that's the right way to pronounce saying Peter zyhan or something anyway he's pointed out that China is facing a lot of economic growth and I think that's facing demographic collapse in the next decade or so on top of that like you're saying Jason that you've got um Xi emphasizing Maoist economics he basically says he thinks that the Chinese economy again he stresses the need for socialist characteristics and he seems to be bringing back that sort of communist ideology to their economy and they've basically really cracked down on entrepreneurship and Venture Capital it's really a cell phone I mean they've moved away from the policies that have made them so successful economically over the last 40 years and then on top of that you got this debt crisis and this housing crisis so it really looks like the deck is stacked against all of them and you're asking what does this mean for us well I think it depends on whether you look at it economically or geopolitically I think if you look at it economically you'd say that it's bad for us because our two economies are economically linked there's a lot of dependency they've evolved together for a long period of time and if China has a collapse then that they're so big now that that's going to have I think global repercussions there's going to be contagion but the truth is if you look at it geopolitically and geopolitics is more of a zero the balance of power is a zero-sum game economics can be a positive some game but but the balance of power is it's definitely not a positive some game uh you'd have to say it's good for us because the reason why China has become such a threat is because of its growing economy over the last 40 years yep and look I mean what they've done and what they've been doing over the last 40 years is growing economy over the last 40 years yep and look I mean what they've done and what they've been doing over the last 40 years is growing economy over the last 40 years yep and look I mean what they've done and what they've been doing over the last 40 years is years yep and look i mean what they've done and what they've been doing over the last decade or so is translating their economic might into military might and that has given them the capability to now threaten their neighbors to become more belligerent to basically rattle the saber against taiwan and if their growth if their impressive economic growth continues for the next couple of decades as it has until now there's no question that they will they will basically try to assert their hegemony over east asia and uh taiwan will be a huge flash point but there's also flash points in the east china sea with japan over there but they're going to need a bankroll to do that so if they don't if their economy is not growing they don't have the bankroll to do it they're going to have to look inward and say hey we got to fix these domestic problems we got to get people stop protesting these streets we need to this middle class is demanding of jobs the great news for what's happened in china and i think this is why the people there are very happy about this is that they're going to have to look inward and say hey we got to get people stop protesting these streets we need to this middle class is demanding of jobs the number of people living in poverty has plummeted you know when they started tracking this data in the 80s you know high 90 of people were living in extreme poverty or poverty 99 of people were in poverty on the on the global definition of it and now you know it's just plummeted to you know a couple of hundred million people so um a couple of charts for you here but just and the data is obviously it's very hard to understand what's going in china because a lot of it is opaque but just the number of people on a percentage basis living in poverty has gone and now the number of people who are in the middle class has surged that creates another dynamic those people want to have a great life they want better jobs they don't want to work in factories they want to have a a more information-based economy and a better job than 60 hours a week in a factory that's why they're moving their factories to africa and other places i mean i i don't know if that's absolutely true i i think that china's manufacturing sector is um is aiming to evolve so you know china has about three million factories or manufacturing facilities throughout the country uh employing about 112 million people the u.s has about 300 000 factories employing about 12 and a half million people the output of our factories is um about 70 percent of the output of um of china's factories uh in in aggregate sorry the total production output of all the factories so we have very um high value outputs coming out of our factories and high leverage and so china is observing and obviously recognizes that there's an opportunity probably to evolve their manufacturing capacity to be higher leverage higher value output and so there is going to be you know from the long range perspective planning and investment in technology that allows those factories to become much more sophisticated and create much more higher value products moving up from what is effectively just cheap labor putting things together in an assembly plant to being things like additive manufacturing manufacturing 3d printing automated manufacturing biomanufacturing etc and i think this is particularly going to be realized because china announced that they're building 400 nuclear power plants that drops the cost of electricity to under five cents a kilowatt hour in the u.s manufacturing um electricity typically cost around 11 cents per kilowatt hour 12 cents per kilowatt hour in that range so if factories become much more automated they start to become a function of the price of electricity in terms of what they can output china is going to have a huge advantage as these nuclear power plants come online over the next couple of decades and these facilities get upgraded so there is a plan right remember this is you have a plan and the reason they have that plan there is there is a question of do they get there fast enough to drive economic growth that actually supports all these other industries like real estate and finance that they become critically dependent on because those industries only work if there's a core economic driver core economic driver or a core economic driver or a core economic driver or a core economic economic engine that's working here so this energy infrastructure this new manufacturing infrastructure these are things that by the way they can do um really effectively because they're not working on four-year and six-year political cycles they can take a five ten and thirty-year outlook and make a make a plan and invest against it what they did from night so i wouldn't count them out but there's certainly a lot of challenges they're facing right now it's a big question mark right now what's going to happen well and it to your point factories in china are you know factory workers getting paid over six bucks an hour now in vietnam three in india even less and that's why you're seeing a lot of folks uh i don't know if you're seeing it in your portfolios but we've seen a lot of folks looking at india vietnam and moving factories there and obviously japan has been uh incentivizing china's not going to just lose their manufacturing edge they're not just going to say hey we give up let everyone go to vietnam they're going to try and upgrade the capability of those factories and say hey instead of just putting together you know parts for with six dollar an hour of human labor let's start to do the more sophisticated so then free the next card that turns is well what happens to those factory workers if they've been automated out what do you do with hundreds of millions of people working in factories who now have been turned into robots and then if they're going to be in the answer is information economy if it's going to be an information economy you need venture capital and you need new companies to create those jobs and they just killed that so i don't know what strategy she is uh pursuing here but it seems like a bad one we could talk about this one at length but um we were going to bring this up but you know generally speaking technology drives productivity gains but it's it's deflationary explain what that means on in like a practical sense maybe uh you know that the technology so let's say let's say that you have to pay a bunch of people to make a t-shirt and then a machine is built that makes the t-shirt the cost of the t-shirt goes down because one machine can just print out 100 t-shirts an hour whereas it would take five people you know 10 hours to make those hundred t-shirts or whatever it is right so a technology of uh kind of emerges and those people are now theoretically out of jobs but what ends up happening is those people transition into new jobs that didn't exist before and we end up seeing higher order work take place think about the the world 200 years ago do you think we would have had any concept of people being uber drivers or people um uh you know creating crafts and selling them on etsy um people being yoga teachers or yoga or yeah yoga teachers or psychotherapists only okay well there you go only fans or dog walkers or all of these um these service businesses or you know industries that simply did not exist before and so the labor that those that that percentage of the population was involved in historically has gone away because it's been automated as that automation has happened it's allowed higher order services jobs to emerge and that will be the progression of humanity forever i will tell you guys um i was going to mention this have you guys played with dolly too yeah the other day um yeah sure i got the the login i was uh my brother-in-law was visiting we were playing with dolly too and making funny kind of explain what it is yeah so so dolly 2 is developed by open ai um we all know sam altman he's been leading that organization to great effect over the last couple of years and um and what they're doing is they've basically scanned the web for images tag them and then applied you know uh machine learning uh to um you know to basically allow um you know to basically allow um you know to basically allow um you know to basically allow um you know to basically allow um natural language creation of images from scratch so the ai can generate an image and you can go to you know uh the internet and look at a bunch of these but the imagery is incredible i mean the the creative output what feels like creative output from the system where you just say hey you know make me an image of four guys doing a podcast on zoom in the style of van gogh and it creates this image that is unique has never been created or seen on earth before and is a function of the um the learning that's been done in the world of video game development so i think the the idea of creating these neural networks to develop this ai that can that can create novel stuff is really amazing and i started to think about like what are the implications for this over time think about you know the original movie ben her in today's dollars would have cost a billion dollars to make they had thousands of people i think tens of thousands of people on that set it took years to make they built giant sets they could only you know make one film it was an incredible feat and an effort that's what movie making is you know it's a great way to do it but it's also a great way to do it in a way that's really creative and it's a great way to do it in a way that's really creative and it's a great way to do it in a way that's really creative and it's a great way to do it in a way that's really creative and it's a great way to do it in a way that's really creative and it's a great way to do it in a way that's really creative and it's a great way to do it in a way that's really creative and it's a great way to do it in a way that's really creative and it's a great way to do it in a way that's really creative and it's a great way to do it in a way that's really creative and it's a great way to do it in a way that's really creative and it's a great way to do it in a way that's really the director the director is no longer doing this thing where they have to get it just right make the perfect 90 minutes and then line up all the money and all the people to do that work on that plan on that program they can be much more iterative and they can be much more creative on the fly they can create a two-hour movie by speaking to the a.i and then edit the movie by speaking to the ai change the actors change the color change the voices change the music just speaking to ai to generate creative output and people will consume that output and i think it's amazing to think about what creators will end up doing 10 years from now as ai and these tools proliferate and you see version 12 of this which is version 2 and what version 12 might enable and so the role um the number of people that can do that job goes from steven spielberg and bob zemeckis and a few other people to suddenly thousands or tens of thousands of people around the world making incredible movies here's dolly's image uh let's pull it up of four guys doing a podcast so we have a ways to go but uh yeah that is four guys doing a podcast that's awesome yeah that's awesome i mean and to your point like you know this is gonna we're on version two of this this is gonna so a lot of people are like oh is this gonna wipe out graphic designers is it gonna wipe out the creative industry but the reality is the roles that those people are in today will absolutely be gone but they will emerge and evolve into new roles that we never even thought imaginable that will really transform that industry and society and this is going to be true across everywhere that ai touches yeah and i think you'll see this in china as china steps up their technology in manufacturing you'll see those you know new new markets evolve sorry jamar go ahead designers will have less leverage to ask for all these stupid snacks and offices of startups well i mean you need only look at the designers are the worst my god oh they're the best i love them but anyway um in the 1940s i mean there were literally hundreds of thousands of telephone operators it was totally and totally they're all gone now and not only that have you ever met a designer that didn't take themselves incredibly seriously that didn't have like you know tea that they would steal only the bad ones you know the good ones they would seriously they'd have like steel straws video game designers are a little different i'm sorry what did you say about the steel straws that was it yeah oh there it is i have by the way on video eliminating waste in my life i mentioned to you guys last year this video game i played over christmas by anna perna pictures and the guy that um runs the studio sent me a dm he loves the pod oh that's nice and they just launched a new video game which i uh started playing and i'm like oh that's a good idea i'm gonna play that video game video game which i uh started playing and i'm like oh that's a good idea i'm gonna play that video game video game which i uh started playing and i'm like oh that's a good idea i'm gonna play that video game video game which i uh started playing and i'm like oh that's a good idea i'm gonna play that video game which i uh started playing a couple nights ago called stray and you literally at you you play the game as a cat lost in some crazy world you're literally a cat that's awesome the imagery on this thing is unbelievable actually my favorite game right now sax is i play a cat and i'm a stray cat and it's really amazing the the ai i you know it's really hard you should go play the game yeah i'm gonna take a hard pass on that i like to play a game where i'm a stray dog and i meet another dog and i'm a stray dog and i'm a stray dog and then we eat a bowl of pasta but this long and then we eat a bowl of pasta but this long and then we eat a bowl of pasta but this long string of pasta we each come closer and closer string of pasta we each come closer and closer string of pasta we each come closer and closer then we end up kissing then we end up kissing then we end up kissing let's uh move on to do we want to go black let's uh move on to do we want to go black let's uh move on to do we want to go black rock has lost rock has lost rock has lost 1.7 trillion dollars in six months 1.7 trillion dollars in six months 1.7 trillion dollars in six months uh vc funding is down uh vc funding is down uh vc funding is down or amazon acquires one medical for 3.9 billion which which one do we want to go to next anybody have a favorite here sachs you've been a little quiet you got one you want to go to uh we can talk about the blacklock thing this is the largest amount of money lost by a single firm over a six-month period in history blackrock uh is the world's largest asset manager and uh it was the first firm to break 10 trillion dollars in aum assets under management now right now they're at 8.4 trillion 2022 ranks as the worst start in 50 years for both stocks and bonds chairman and chief executive officer larry fink said on his earnings call at the end of june only about a quarter of its assets were actively managed to beat a benchmark rather than track it seamlessly as passive strategies are designed to do firm's passive equity holdings are now 10 times larger than its active holdings although it does operate some active multi-asset and alternative strategies that narrow the gap collapse in bond markets this year has shaken money out of active fixed income funds listen i think there's less than meets the eye here with this i think this was a headline that was trying to grab attention by saying biggest lost ever look the reason why it was the biggest loss ever is because blackrock is so big i mean and and what is blackrock it's basically at this point they're index funds their etfs their index funds they just represent market indices so you know the reason why it went down 1.7 trillion is because it started with 10 trillion so the average index is down 17 that's all it means we know this the s p 500 is down 20 22 for the year the dow jones down 15-ish the nasdaq is down 15-ish the nasdaq is down like 30.

so this is just reflecting what we already know which is that the stock market is down this year do you think it's another um data point to support the idea that active managers generally speaking and maybe holistically speaking over time cannot beat the uh you know the market cannot beat indices i mean you have a point of view on that as an investor sex well i think you know you're talking about public market investors i think it's very hard to be i think it's very hard to beat the stock market as an investor i think it's very hard to beat the stock market as an investor the public markets over a long period of time consistently i just think it is now you know the contradiction though is if you have no active managers then the indices won't be efficient anymore so you need the participation of the active managers to help drive the uh the indices and make corrections to it so and the fewer active strategies you have the more inefficient the markets will become thereby inviting active strategies so you know i think it's a good question i i think there are some managers who are who can probably do it but i think it's a very tough thing to do jim off what do you think you're a public investor active selector of here's what i hear i've been thinking a lot about this i think that i have disproportionately benefited from being at the right place at the right time backed by enormous amounts of central bank money and so i think we all have been i think it is very difficult to be a public market individual stock picker in a world where the central banks are constantly meddling because when they do the best thing that you can do is belong the market beta and the more concentrated you are the better returns you would have delivered since 2008 when the central bank started to get very aggressively involved when individual stock pickers reigned the the universe was when central banks were largely on the sidelines and so there was all kinds of dispersion right dispersion meaning good outcomes bad outcomes lots of alpha right meaning your performance was independent of the market but since 2008 it's largely been beta that's driven the market and the folks that have done exceedingly well were those in tech because we delivered the best beta and every time we confuse alpha and beta we get over our ski tips and there's always some big out you know blow up so i think my my general takeaway is that uh if the central banks stay on the sidelines individual stock picking reigns and active management can win if they continue to be involved and do quantitative easing and all of this other stuff index funds that are long concentrated market beta will always outperform in the long run i was watching warren buffett answer some questions and one of the questions and this goes to the law of big numbers like blackrock he was saying listen the reason i did better earlier in my career than later in my career on a percentage basis is because i was placing at a smaller amount of capital and i was placing it on smaller bets uh smaller ideas and themes and then as i had a bigger chip stack i had to find bigger ideas to put more money to work and therefore more people were looking at those and so those assets were not undervalued and so i found that very like um insightful in terms of when you participate in the market if you're trying to pick between very large bets like kotu and tpg and tiger were doing in the growth space sacks like now everybody knows that these companies everybody knows stripes a winner everybody knew airbnb and uber were winners you know in the late stage of the private everybody knew facebook was a winner in late stage prime market if you're battling that out you know yuri milner is going to come over the top and pay 2 billion more than you or masayoshi san is going to pay five or ten billion dollars more than you where is the alpha there you know where where is the gain the alpha's in the fees okay there you go and so they were playing a different game and i that's you know i started trading this past two weeks because i've never traded public stocks and i wanted to add it as a skill set so i put a couple million bucks into an account and i'm just trying to actively figure out how does value work there and you know i'm just starting to make trades that i want to hold for 10 or 20 years and we'll see if i can beat the market that's the other thing is what do you want to spend your life doing if the index if you can put money in a passive index and not do any work well you know that's attractive as well so sax what do you think in terms of active management you know in these public markets and the size of the bets that have to be like i said i think it's very hard to beat the market consistently i think it's a very tough profession i i'm sure there are people who can do it but i don't know if it's easy to predict who those people are so look i you know i think it's something that can be done but i just think it's a tough tough game i mean what we do as private investors is a little different right because not everybody is in a position to buy share right yeah you're not available to you you don't even know the company access is limited and information is limited and in exchange for that sort of preferential access that we get we actually have to do work so when you're when yeah when you're a public investor in a company disney or whatever you don't do any work you're not involved at all we do a lot of work for the companies and that's why they choose us and so it's not you know it's you're not competing against the whole world i think the public markets are just so competitive are you tempted though looking at these prices and how they're going to be able to do that because i was looking at a company that was trading at 50 times revenue last year they're raising again they double their revenue so now they're at 20 25 times revenue they're raising at last year's valuation and then i looked at the public market comps and they're trading at six times so now i'm like wait a second and obviously you're gonna look at the growth rate you gotta look at the growth rate so it was three three the growth rate in this example was three times fat greater than the public market comp so how would you assess that then well what we're seeing right now is that pretty good sas companies that are growing maybe on a trailing basis they grew 3x and you know prospectively they're growing call it two and a half x um they're trading right now not trading but basically deals are getting done at 20 times ar 20 which are this year's current run rate yeah the current arr you're not getting that like bonus like here's your projected next year we're going to give it based on that this is current no no current arr is about 20 22 23 times arr um down from what last year a hundred oh it was like a hundred times was the rule of thumb yeah so now there are some where their you know deals are getting done in the high 20s i'd say or even 30 if they're if you believe that by the end of the year it'll be more like 20.

so but i i think the new levels are landing at 20 20 something times ar now why does that make sense relative to the public sas companies well like you said the sas index is trading at roughly six times but that's only twenty percent average growth right and so you know if you're growing three times the growth right right and the high growth sas companies are trading it like seven times um that's for like a forty percent grower we've talked about this before so listen if you're tripling year over year and you pay 20 times that'll be a seven times next year but if you're growing two two and a half three acts next year that's way faster so yeah i think there's actually an arbitrage there i mean this is why we like doing private sas investing right now deals are getting done i will say that the people who i'm seeing who are really struggling uh freeburg are the people who are really struggling with the money that they're making and the people who are really struggling with the money that they're making and the people who are really struggling with the money that they're making they're not the people who are really struggling with the money that they're making they're the people who are really struggling with the money that they're making they're the people who didn't turn on i'm talking about the very early stage they didn't turn on revenue they were making progress in team building and culture and features but they just weren't focused on the revenue side and my lord people got a lot of credit i mean 50 million hundred million dollar evaluations without the revenue turned on um and that now they're faced with not being able to make money yeah it's and raising money yeah because you have to raise money for your companies it's not easy okay unpack it what's not you know uh well what are the conversations like give us the anecdotal information i mean i've seen a number of term sheets get pulled so i think oh really yeah we've heard a lot about companies that kind of during the q1 early q2 time frame had term sheets weren't closing got the laid out and um there's a number of kind of examples of repricing where the investors come back markets have changed let's reprice the thing or hey um we're not going to do this deal anymore we're going to sit on the sidelines and wait till the market settles or our lps actually aren't going to let us fund new stuff uh so there's a a lot of those last one for people what does that mean you know yeah investor you know investors have lps they have investors themselves and their lps are coming to them and saying do not put more money out right now we are telling you we are not going to wire our money to you we need you to wait until even though they're contractually obligated to they're telling you theoretically they don't may not be contractually obligated to but obviously these are long-term partnerships and so when an lp you know or a group of lps says guys we're not comfortable with you deploying money right now you know you're in a 10-year partnership 15-year partnership with them you're gonna as an investor as a fund you're gonna say okay i'm gonna kind of listen to that right now now the bigger issues in series bc and bc are you know you're gonna be able to deploy money right now you're gonna be able to deploy money right now you're gonna have a lot of people that are going to be able to do a lot of other things right now you're not going to have a lot of people that are going to be able to deploy money right now you're not going to have a lot of people that are going to be able to deploy you know have some traction have some performance have raised a bunch of capital have done a bunch of work and investors don't know what they're worth they're like hey is this thing worth 25 million or 125 million or 500 million last year you could have raised money at 500 million i mean look at what happened with uh one of those crypto things those crypto trading platforms they raised 500 million dollars last july and they just sold the business for a reported 25 million dollars after being valued at 5 billion a year ago yeah so the whole thing the truth might have been more like 275 million um yeah we don't know some news that got left yeah and and so but but series a people seem to be pretty active again and so active again but the prices now for seed yeah but it's a lot easier happening 6 to 15 series a is happening 15 to 25.

it's a lot easier to get a deal done in a series a because people say hey look i'm going to give you this you say okay i'll take it i need the money series b c and d is where there's this whole fight because there's existing investors existing shareholders who are saying i don't want 50 right down a 70 right down a 30 right down over the last round and fighting and then doing inside rounds and bridge notes and all sorts of other shenanigans to not have to take a negative mark on their book yeah well one thing so one thing that's interesting here is that um you think about like where the opportunity is in the market right now and i think one of the things that happened in the boom is that everyone got pushed to go earlier and earlier because deals were so competitive and so you know in the sas business normally one million of ar was considered the rule of thumb for getting a series for basically graduating to a series a that you were ready to go from c to series a when you had a million of ar as we know during the boom last year that number kept going down you know yeah 500 300 000 and then you would see crazy deals get done that were pre-revenue with price at 100 plus we never did any of those kinds of deals because we just thought they were too crazy but they definitely happened well think about the dynamic now which is let's say that that sas startup that has a million of ar they can do a series a at 50 or we can just wait until they get to 5 million of arr and then pay 20 times and do it at 100 free which of those is the better risk adjusted return let me tell you there's a lot of risk in going from 1 million arr to 5 million arr that's hard it's hard there's a lot of things you need a sales team you're just you're not doing it through the founders yeah you need to start scaling a team you need a real sales capacity but also a lot of startups that could sort of hack together and cobble together one million of arr based on non-scalable techniques that various startup incubators teach like you know don't do things that don't scale programs right it's okay to do that from zero to one but not one to ten right well well or it's it's not that it's not okay it's just that it doesn't work right like you're not going to be able to cobble together five million of ar you can cobble together one million of ar you can use the cheat code to get there so what i'm saying is there's a lot of risk in going from one to five you find out whether the product's really scalable so what is the better deal wait till 100.

wait till it's priced at 100 or 120 million pre or doing the deal at 40 to 50. now if you love the if you love the company you want to get in as early as possible but i think you're going to start seeing a dynamic where in the same way that last year everyone went earlier and earlier you're going to see vc start to sit back and go a little later and later prove it to us a dead man's zone nobody should be putting money into deals right now what is it why what does it do unless unless you're in the business unless you're in the business of running a fee generating machine if you're really trying to generate alpha you have to have a sense of what's actually happening in the world right now if you're just trying to deliver the market beta and run an index then yeah you're right you should ignore this idea that there could be more price adjustments but if you look at the public markets which is again the ultimate terminal buyer they have more cash than they ever had since 2008 which means that there is no real reason to buy you're talking about private companies it all ultimately ends up in the public markets and so if the public markets are saying there is no reason to buy this stuff it trickles down so then the crossover investor who has a public private business says you know what on the public side i'm completely de-risked and in cash and so on the private side i'll just be a little bit more circumspect and wait as david said i'll just wait six months and put even more money in later i'll actually have a better irr and i'll make the same profit dollars so then the series b and c firm who used to feed those deals to the crossover folks are like oh well if you're waiting i don't want to have to write a check to support these folks my whole point was to have you mark up the deal so i could raise a new fund they slow down and then that goes back to the series a person who's like well wait a minute you know the reason i paid it at 50 pre was because i thought you'd step in and buy it at 100.

slow down so all i'm saying is i think that we are at the point of the cycle where constipation is setting it and this is why you're seeing such a downtick in deal velocity and dollars put to work this is uh great advice i want everybody to take i'm going to take the opposite advice and i'm going to do twice as many deals in the seed stage as everybody else but i encourage every venture capitalist and seed fund to take chamath's advice i'm doing the opposite because a five-person company this isn't advice this is just a market observation i'm just telling you what observation i hope everybody takes that as the truth because what i'm seeing is the founders who are raising and who have real businesses are so sharp right now and so focused on costs and profits and what matters and they have eliminated all the that doesn't there's a whole contingent i don't know if you're seeing it sax i'd say it's one out of five one out of four that are like i understand what's happening here and i'm going to take advantage of this moment in time and i'm going to just drive revenue and profit but what happens to the 250 billion dollar that's been put to work in the last two years that need to get up rounds yeah it doesn't matter to me all i care about is meeting young companies that are growing with revenue but i think they're they're just trying to have i'm trying to have a conversation yeah yeah no i mean that's a lot of indigestion yeah they're gonna have to cut their staffs by half and get to profitability ultimately the way that valuations matter or price levels matter is there's an entry price and an exit price and ideally if you can time it right you want to invest when valuation levels are low and you want to exit when valuation levels are high if you were a vc last year you should have been realizing as much as you can because valuation levels are really high there was a good uh tweet by one of uh brett gerstner's colleagues at altimeter basically saying she was talking to lps and asking what they care about and what she reported lps is saying is that if you're a fund that's more than five years old and you didn't distribute during the best yep window ever which was 2018 or 2021 it's a hard no you know we're not going to be re-upping with your i'll say it even more if you're if you're a venture investor who took a longitudinal view on public market stocks and then have now seen 60 to 70 percent write downs of those same stocks that you could have distributed you should still have something to answer to that makes no sense it turns out that the skill of private market investing and the skill of public market investing are different even if all you're doing is delivering the market beta it's still different enough we had this discussion last year remember i was saying should i distribute for the shares of robin hood should i hold them what should i be doing we told you to distribute and i distributed i distributed everything you know and uh and in terms of secondary i feel particularly you feel like a genius now because your lp should say thank you jason they should know some of them are saying that what i feel smart about i'll be honest is uh we had i think let's just say i'm making up a number four out of five times we were offered the opportunity to trim our positions in secondary with our winners uh from people who wanted to buy secondary shares i did it probably four out of five times um and i'm just kicking myself i'd into it the fifth or i didn't ask if they would take more because my god we were able to clear some positions at very high valuations that are now lower than that in the private markets and send cash to our lps and get our you know get over our hurdles and our first two funds which you know i feel smart about i think that you should feel so so good about that that is that is really hard what you did and i think people underestimate how hard it is it is really hard to actually return more money than you have taken it yeah i mean that's what i'm focused on just that simple statement and and by the way it was hard in the last 10 years where we've had basically a massive up market and the four of us frankly benefited from the extraordinary luck of being in tech yeah no it's super lucky i think the big thing that's going to happen right now i'm seeing it all over the place is m a i think is going to start ticking up just today amazon acquired one medical for 3.9 billion one medical operates a network of clinics if you don't know three point nine billion dollar enterprise value for a hundred and eight and eighty two franchises which is 21 million a franchise look at what happened to their um look what happened to their stock price no i know i went from 60 in the peak in february of 2021 to uh seven in may and they bought it they basically bought it at the same price it was trading at in january no my point is you could buy a mcdonald's franchise for 2 million or you could buy the company that fixes the people that needed mcdonald's for 21 million that's why they got by the way at mcdonald's you can't make money selling pharmaceuticals and upselling you know other stuff that amazon's gonna certainly i think it's super interesting i think it's super interesting that amazon's getting into this business wow i mean that is really interesting they clearly have a an economic model that shows um some significant footprint and retail footprint well yeah and there may also be kind of a supplement pharmaceutical kind of upgrade opportunity there's synergy in this uh business and think about the synergy between what they're getting is also not just the physical locations but a network of different types of businesses that are going to be able to get into the field and so you can see that there's a network of doctors that can do telehealth i don't know if you guys have ever used one medical but they do really um you know easy zoom telehealth services and so you could hop on get a prescription have it fulfilled by amazon it shows up at your doorstep in under an hour genius it'll be an incredible synergy for that business and probably a real value driver not just at the core units but with respect to other things they're going to sell through your one medical doctor will provision a blood test he or she will analyze those blood tests over a telehealth and then they'll be able to get a prescription and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll be able to get a blood test and then they'll