Hey, everybody. Hey, everybody. Welcome to another all in podcast. We just got the show notes and I'm ripping them up because the president has the Rona. We knew this was a possibility. We had an incredible docket brewing. But as fate loves irony, we found out on Wednesday night, I believe just in a brief timeline here, Wednesday night, Hope Hicks, his personal assistant got the Rona.

And then of course, President Trump announced late last night that he in fact had the Rona and that his wife Melania also had the coronavirus. So with us today to discuss all things tech, politics and coronavirus, David Friedberg, David Sachs and Bestie C, Chamath Palihapitiya are with us. I guess maybe we'll just drop it right to you, Friedberg.

You are our science kid here in the class uh what is when we look at the president's um physique he's clinically obese technically i'm not saying that to be cruel but he's a 74 year old just clinically obese and snorts adderall we don't know that that's just a claim um but seriously what what is the prognosis here and then i my i understand he's now got a experimental treatment was just announced an hour ago uh the taping of this on friday afternoon and of course we wish them all the greatest speedy recovery etc but let's get let's get into the facts here i think the overall mortality rate for um someone of his age is in call it the two to four percent range right and for someone with with you know he's not known to have diabetes or high blood pressure but generally you kind of say there's some risk factors maybe associated um so a couple points but the reality is the treatment that he got was not as good as the treatment that he got is one that's not available to the public and is effectively like creating these uh you know taking these antibodies to the coronavirus and he got eight grams of this immunoglobulin therapy um that is basically a bunch of antibodies that'll eliminate the virus and they're not widely available they're not publicly available these treatments but uh you know based on the early trials and the general experience with using synthetic and you know polyclonal antibodies for uh infectious uh disease like this it's pretty effective and he should kind of uh you know recover pretty quickly i would imagine so so him him dying would basically be a two-outer him getting this special treatment makes it a one-outer if we were talking about this in poker terms uh chamath when you when you look at this turn of events and you saw the news what was your first thought um that it's now basically a hundred percent guaranteed that we will have all the data that we have and we're going to be able to get the data that we need to get the all of the most transparent data about coronavirus um soon so for example you know we we've been in this position where we've been debating hydroxychloroquine we've been debating these um you know all of these different uh regimens um and the reality is the president of the united states if he doesn't get the absolute top-notch care um we're all in some ways fucked so it's it's probably likely that he's going to get the thing that folks know to watch and that's the work and then it'll be hard for everybody else to not want to ask for that and then it's going to be even harder for everybody to then not get some version of it and so i think probably we're going to de-escalate a little bit of mask stuff of testing stuff of you know what the right course of care is and you know frankly i'll be honest with you i hope you know i i wouldn't vote for him but i hope he's well um i don't want anything to happen to the guy um and i hope that we're going to get the thing that he wants to do and i hope that he recovers and it you know he kicks it in the ass and that um whatever he took to get better everybody else can get it too all right sax coming around the horn here talking about the political ramifications of this you were feeling that uh trump was likely to lose uh but here we are with the october surprise and i hate to make this uh handicapping of the election but this certainly is going to have some impact so with your rain man mind and when you go through this deck of cards here what is your brain how do you assess this as uh the rain man is this going to be a net positive for his election um results a negative neutral handicap this for us in your mind you must be thinking through this and i and again disclaimers we all want him to get better nobody wishes him out i'm sure some people do but no i'm just saying i'm seeing a lot of uh glee frankly on on twitter yeah a lot of people saying i told you so or karma's a bitch or something like that yeah um you know sort of implying that trump getting this was was a moral failing you know um and uh you know certainly a lot of people are kind of reveling in it um i think he was certainly careless i mean he didn't wear masks he said he didn't like to wear masks so well i mean do you wear a mask inside your house no but if i was in walking around at a a debate or something like that if i was on an airplane with 20 people yeah i would wear a mask i mean you know there were certainly a lot of precautions around the president i mean more than most people i mean any of us could get it from anybody yeah you know um if you know our wife happens to go out to meet a friend for lunch or something like that and then brings it back so there's almost no amount of carefulness you can do to completely avoid this unless you're willing to kind of lock yourself alone somewhere um so i just you know this idea that somehow getting covid is is a moral failing is is what i would take issue with it's not um it's not altogether unlike uh the crazy things that um the religious right was saying in the 1980s like you know about aids like when you know jerry falwell said it was god's punishment or something like that trying to imply that the gay plague i mean let's just call it what it is they basically said they they implied somehow that this was um you know some sort of uh just come up and you know or something like that retribution from god retribution exactly exactly and and you know the virus doesn't know who it's infecting obviously it doesn't target sinners or whatever and so i just think that um you know this all this this sort of uh gleeful um sort of blaming that's going around um is is inappropriate and i think it could really backfire if um if trump rapidly gets better i mean if trump is better in say a week um and is hitting the campaign trail again you know what what previously will have appeared to be a moral failing could it could now be argued would be a moral strength since he you know overcame it so easily and um you know so i think that if if he rapidly recovers from this and hits the campaign trail again it's going to make him look strong i think that if he has a hard time with the virus if it's enervating the way that i think it took out boris johnson i mean i've heard british commentators say that boris johnson's just not not even the same doesn't have the same level of energy even now than he did behind before the virus then i would think it could really hurt trump in the last you know this campaign look we i think we all know people um i'm sure you guys do i do who have gone through this and they all say the same thing which is this thing really sucks now there are all these people that say oh it's like dancing on tulips or daffodils i've never encountered a single person like that i see that um i see that maybe on twitter or a friend of a friend but all of my friends who've gotten it they have really struggled through it some of these people are older some of these people are younger some of these people are healthy some of these people are not and consistently they say the same thing which is that there's a couple of days where it literally feels like your chest is being uh pounded inside you you can't move you're just in pain and then afterwards the aftermath is you're at you know 50 60 70 of your lung capacity like it does for a couple of weeks i mean doc sands is a friend of ours and he was very public with his experience he tried to avoid it as best he could he got hit with it he got hit hard and he said he felt like he was going to die it was the worst thing he's ever experienced i i have friends that still complain two three four months after the fact that they're at 50 60 of cardiovascular capacity and you know these these people that i that i'm specifically thinking about were really healthy going into coronavirus and so i i don't know i just think it's something none of us want um i don't think you would want to wish this on anybody of course not yeah you know especially if you're a person who's been through this for a long time you know especially frankly the president of the united states has a role um and so i think folks just need to sort of like class up here um and hope that we figure out that he a gets the best care and then b we all know what it is and then c that we can get access to it too that's that's honestly i think that's all we should be wishing jamal do you see did you see the letter they published on what he's getting so they did the go ahead and read it go ahead and read it the doctor the doctor published it was not too long ago right jason i saw it on your it just happened like an hour ago i tweeted it yes so he got he got eight grams of polyclonal antibodies this is the regeneron formulation so basically they've isolated the antibodies that neutralize coronavirus that patients have presented in their body and then they use recombinant dna technology to produce those antibodies synthetically so it's a bunch of antibody proteins and then they turn it into an injection into a formula that they can put in your body and you now have effectively neutralizing antibodies so they gave him eight grams which is a pretty high dose and it gets it you know goes in intravenously you can have sometimes an allergic reaction to that but it seems like he was fine from that because they didn't announce an allergic reaction and then uh you know the the antibodies are now in his bloodstream and they bind to the virus so any virus that's floating around immediately gets wiped out it gets eliminated from the body so theoretically this is the way we should treat all infectious disease that's right and i do think that by the way i do and i've written about this i think that is the future of infectious disease i think that's the future of infectious disease is we're all going to get a polyclonal cocktail every year instead of getting a flu shot you get a bunch of antibodies to all the new stuff that's emerging and it wipes everything out about this david just think about this there was so much raging debate that got politicized between the left between the right between different folks of people who believed in different things around what the right course of care was there was no single source of truth i'll just say this again when you treat the president of the united states and he gets better that is canonical single source of truth i'm sorry but there can be no debate after that that the smartest people with the access to all of the research i mean let's be clear you don't think a call went out last night before they deployed the nuclear warhead stuff to all of the um r d labs and all the big pharma companies and said what do you got and the answer came back at the top of the ticket was this regeneron cocktail yeah they had they definitely had made that call before to prep for this but yeah right totally great yeah i think that's a really good point i think that's a really good point totally great now um when you say it highlights what the future of infectious disease treatment is and should be which is that all of us should be getting a booster shot every year of synthetically produced antibodies uh that will uh counteract any new infectious disease floating around in the world and we're getting to the point in the next 10 15 years that that should be reality for everyone well yeah it highlights that but it also highlights that in the absence of the most powerful management of the world we're going to be getting a booster shot every year and that's going to be a booster shot every year and that's going to be a booster shot every year and that's going to be a booster shot every year and that's going to be a booster shot every year and that's going to be going to be a booster shot every year and that's going to be the most powerful man in the world the most powerful man in the world the most powerful man in the world getting the sickness that we're all going getting the sickness that we're all going getting the sickness that we're all going to basically and point fingers about to basically and point fingers about to basically and point fingers about what the right solution is and so it what the right solution is and so it what the right solution is and so it can't be the case that the next time can't be the case that the next time can't be the case that the next time there's a crazy illness that's floating there's a crazy illness that's floating there's a crazy illness that's floating around in society we need to go and around in society we need to go and around in society we need to go and target you know five or six of the target you know five or six of the target you know five or six of the leaders of the g8 plus the pope plus leaders of the g8 plus the pope plus leaders of the g8 plus the pope plus this plus that beyonce heaven forbid this plus that beyonce heaven forbid this plus that beyonce heaven forbid you know what i mean like this is crazy you know what i mean like this is crazy you know what i mean like this is crazy yeah this can't this can't be how we yeah this can't this can't be how we yeah this can't this can't be how we find single source of truth yeah well i find single source of truth yeah well i find single source of truth yeah well i think if i think politically speaking i think if i think politically speaking i think if i think politically speaking i think there's a lot of upside here for think there's a lot of upside here for Trump if he does get better in a week.

I mean, if these polyclonal antibodies work, and he emerges from the White House, you know, fit as a fiddle in a week, he's going to say, the cure is here. You know, I was right. We don't even need a vaccine. The cure is here. It's over. And all the I told you so's might flip around.

How far off would that be from the truth, David? Well, if the polyclonal antibodies work, I mean, then it's just a matter of scaling them. Can it be scaled, Freberg? Is this easily scalable? Yes. But by the by, I'll just point out the challenge with this is a lot of people north of 15% will have because antibodies, remember, they're a protein.

And if your cells didn't make that protein, they look like a foreign protein when they show up in your body. And so very often, when you get a foreign antibody treatment like this, you will have some sort of allergic reaction because your body will react and attack that protein.

And so it's not as simple as just saying, Hey, we should just scale this up. And then you're going to get a lot of antibodies. And then you're going to get a lot of antibodies. And then you're going to get a lot of antibodies. And then you're going to get a lot of antibodies.

And then you're going to get a lot of antibodies. And then you're going to get a lot of antibodies. And then you're going to get a lot of antibodies. And then you're going to get a lot of antibodies. And then you're going to get a lot of antibodies. And then you're going to get a lot of antibodies.

And then you're going to get a lot of antibodies. And then you're going to get a lot of antibodies. And then you're going to get a lot of antibodies. And then you're going to get a lot of antibodies. And then you're going to get a lot of antibodies. And then you're going to get a lot of antibodies.

And then you're going to get a lot of antibodies. And then you're going to get a lot of antibodies. And then you're going to get a lot of antibodies. And then you're going to get a lot because there's just zero way. Oh, regenerants been running these trials since March 100%?

Yeah, 100%. That's right. They what what the I can tell you for sure, when Trump got this treatment, I guarantee they gave him Benadryl, and they gave him a steroid shot and they probably gave him a little bit of cortisone or they had it on the side. Because that's kind of like the standard sort of regimen you would use when you get this sort of, you know, synthesized or, or convalescent plasma type treatment.

And, you know, he comes out of this thing on the other end, and he's fine. But but but that treatment regimen is required. So it's, you know, you sit down in an ID booth, and you get a fucking IV and you get shots to go along with it. So it's not as simple as just chipping it out to everyone's home and giving them that treatment, you know, and only Am I correct that only 300 or so people have gotten this to date?

Is that correct with the trial? I don't know the answer to that. I know that convalescent plasma, which is called the poor man's version of this treatment, which is instead of synthesizing the antibodies, you're taking the actual antibodies from other people that have had COVID and recovered, you're isolating those antibodies, and you're injecting them in other people's bodies.

So that is what convalescent plasma is, it is effectively a soup of all the antibodies from recovered patients. Polyclonal antibodies is the synthesized version of those isolated antibodies where we use fermentation systems and bioengineered cells to make those antibodies, then we isolate them and we and we use there any chance that the president would make a bad decision here?

Because he would get to dictate his treatment as a powerful person like Steve Jobs did, tragically, I saw a doctor saying this is one of the problems with powerful people is that they actually can, you know, make a bad decision because doctors will let them have too much of a say in is that possible in this situation?

You think? I think the answer is no, because they didn't put out a letter saying he got bleach and UV light. So he didn't go with his own treatment protocol. And also, you got no, I was just gonna say and also, you know, it eliminated all of the other less nonsensical, but equally sort of question mark treatments.

And so you know, I think they went right to the answer, which would only have been really possible if the best docs basically said, this is what we're doing. And I think David mentioned this earlier, that it had been decided well in advance. I think that's a good insight.

Yeah, there's a there's a protocol that was written down months ago, vetted and revetted probably every week or every month as they get, as they got more data. And so the minute it happened, there was nothing to talk about. And I suspect that that is probably what happened because there is no way you'd want to be, you know, it's kind of like being a pilot, like, you follow a systematic set of rules to deal with the overwhelming majority of boundary conditions.

And this seemed like a pretty obvious boundary condition, you would have wanted to have a protocol for well in advance. So okay, so I want to just do one handicapping here, Sax, I'll have you take this one off the bat. Because this was the chatter on Twitter. Number one, you know, you're not going to be able to get this one.

The first two, I think are just crazy conspiracy theories. He got it on purpose or he's lying, put those aside for a second, you can answer them if you want to. But the third one is, hey, what happens if he's incapacitated and cannot run? Or, God forbid, he died.

And so if he's on a ventilator, if he cannot leave the hospital, he's in ICU. It's not even a question. It's not even a question, the 25th Amendment deals with that. Yeah. Yeah. So it goes to Pence. And if Pence cannot do it for whatever reason, but he's I think he's already...

I was actually going to refer to the election, though. What happens to the election if in the next three, four weeks, he's in ICU? What happens then? Oh, that I don't know. Well, I would assume it's up to the party to make a change to his ballot if they wanted to.

But I think if he's in the ICU, he stays on the ballot. So we would literally have an election with him on a ventilator or him. I mean, if he was unconscious, could he? Can people still go vote for him? I think this is a possibility. I think these are very low probabilities.

I think the most likely outcome here is that because he's got the best care, it's probably like at least 50% that this is over for him in about a week. And it redounds to his political advantage. I think there's probably a 40% chance that he's got more like a three or four week case, which I think would hurt him because he just wouldn't be able to campaign.

And then there's maybe like a 5% or 10% chance of something more serious. Zach, I wonder if you could talk about the election. I wonder if he's got, even if he recovers in a week, the odds are pretty high that he'll have a long tail of fatigue, right? And so if he changes his strategy and just does things remotely and whatnot, doesn't do rallies anymore, and he doesn't really come out and say he's fatigued, but there's this behavioral change, does that change things, do you think?

I think he needs to be able to campaign and hold these rallies. I think that's an essential part of his election strategy, but also it's always been his way of going over the heads of the media that hates him and talking directly to people and rallying his base and field testing his ideas.

There was that period during lockdowns when he just stopped doing rallies for several months and it really felt like he was adrift. So yeah, I think if he can't do rallies, I think that could easily swing the election a couple of points and cause him to lose. I think Saxxy Poo is 100% right.

I was in Indiana last week, and there were a bunch of folks in the neighborhood where I was staying, and I was walking my dog and they were walking their dog, so we were all kind of walking side by side and they all were ramping up to go to a Trump rally.

They were super excited about this moment to go hear what he has to say. They sounded like they were kind of in this undecided camp, but they wanted to go to the rally to hear what he had to say and kind of experience that Trump moment. It was a real kind of ground level, I think, proof point to that.

Yeah, I think that's a good point for your statement around people really need to feel, and because that's a big part of his kind of MO is that ground level experience. It is, and I think it was one of the reasons why no one saw his election coming in 2016, is if you turned on the TV and just listened to the commentators, I mean, aside from maybe Fox, it seemed like everyone just hated him.

But if you attended the rallies, you would see that he was reaching a lot of people, tens of thousands of people at each event, and he was flying around three events a day, tremendously energetic. So yeah, I think it would hurt him a lot. But look, if he's back on the stump a week from now, you're probably going to see all sorts of people on the right saying, "I told you so," and "God healed him," and "He must be the chosen one," or who knows?

We could be seeing a Weekend at Bernie's moment here. Even if he's just tired, they'll prop him up on a big stick and hold him up in front of the crowds and then put him back in the airplane and fly him back home. I think we'll know if he's too tired, because he gets up there and he talks for like an hour and a half.

An hour and a half? He's done two or three. An hour and a half is short for him. Yeah. Is it possible we could be talking about Trump having less energy than Biden in a debate, which I think is a good segue here? Are there going to be two more presidential debates?

And what was our take on the absolutely embarrassing shit show that we saw on Tuesday night, which was, I think, supposed to be the topic today that we're going to lead off, which was the debate, which seems unimportant now. It feels like a year ago. I know. How do you expect us to comment on something that happened so long ago?

It was 72 hours ago. I mean, come on, people. Oh my God. It feels like years. 2020 is so exhausting. I think I've aged 30 years in one year. It's like three decades. That debate was just a dumpster fire. The way that I thought about it was- Wrong. Wrong.

Not true. I mean, imagine- No, no, I agree. It was a disaster for Trump. It was a disaster for Trump. Go ahead, Sax. Explain, because he's your boy. Are you now not going to vote for him after that performance? Just to clarify for the audience, I'm not pro-Trump. I'm just anti- Just voting for him.

I'm anti-hysteria. I always support the side that seems least hysterical to me at any given time. Did you vote for Trump last election? Yes or no? Or would you be comfortable even saying that? I think you'd be surprised if I told you who I voted for. Really? But okay, so onto the debate.

I think both Biden and Trump both had a trap to avoid. I think Biden's trap was appearing senile. I think Trump's trap was appearing unhinged. I would say that Biden avoided his trap, and Trump did not. By constantly attacking Biden, interrupting him, it was counterproductive. I mean, what you want to do with Biden was let the man talk.

He's a gaffe machine. You know, let him talk, let him say things that will get him in trouble. Instead, by constantly interrupting him, Trump kind of let him off the hook. Now look, I mean, both of their bases, it's like a sporting event. They're just going to root for the side they already came to support.

But I don't think Trump helped himself with the few percent of independents who are still out there looking to make a decision. I think you're totally right. It was really surprising because if he had just left him to his own devices, you would have let it play out. But I thought Biden, to be honest, for some moments, he was fabulous.

So I thought he was excellent on race. I thought he was incredible in the moment that he basically stood up to Trump about his son, Hunter, and he looks in the camera and he basically says, "Look, I love my son. My son's had troubles and I support." I mean, amazing.

And so in those moments, it's so hard to not see that guy as presidential. It's easy for Democrats or people that are voting for him like me, but I think if you were a Republican, you got to look at that guy and say, "Man, that is a decent dude." Yeah.

I think Biden helped himself a lot. He helped himself a lot. He did in certain key moments, he did fabulously well. And in other moments where there were traps, he actually got built up because Trump kept interrupting. And Joe was smart enough to stop talking so that it amplified the sense that Trump was interrupting him.

Trump to me seemed pathetic and scared. He's scared of losing. He felt like a bully who had been laughed at by the whole class. Nobody takes him seriously. The moderator, what's his name? Chris Wallace. Chris Wallace. The moderator was kind of like, "What are you doing, sir? Please." I think Chris Wallace, I mean, I know people were critical of him, but Chris Wallace is like, "Sir, please." Just trying to appeal to basic decency and Trump just not getting it made Trump look so bad.

It's just, I think, confirmed with people say the demographic he has to win is white women in a lot of these swing states. I mean, I don't think women want to vote. I'm not going to speak for a lot of women here, but my understanding is women don't like guys like that who interrupt constantly and who are belligerent and badgering.

And they kind of like a great dad who defended, to your point, Chamath, his son and said, "Hey, listen, my son's got problems. My other son died. He's a war hero." I really think, and we talked about this a little bit before, but the surface area in terms of policy between the Republicans and the Democrats now are virtually non-existent.

So look, if you unpack foreign policy, they both hate Russia, they both hate China, they both need India, and the Middle East is irrelevant because we're moving to a carbon neutral alternative energy world. They also don't need Russia as an example. So all of this stuff that used to matter before, in so much of the foreign policy that dictate how Americans would fight wars, spend money, incite democracy, protect certain leaders, it's all out the window.

And they both think about it the same way, because the surface area is so similar. That's number one. What about the economy? Because it does seem that they're pretty similar too. So number two, economically, they're so similar because they both want to spend trillions of dollars just under a different label.

One is sort of under a Green New Deal and the other is called an infrastructure bill or whatever it is. And then number three, they will both have the same Federal Reserve that is tied to the hip of Treasury who is already committed to be trillions of dollars a year in hock, backing up all the debt.

And that's what we're talking about. And that's why we're talking about the debt that basically exists. And so if you put all these things together, it's a popularity contest. And this is why I think Joe Biden has an advantage because in a popularity contest where you're just picking the figure that you would either have a beer with or feel the most comfortable with, there's an element of this which is like, it's just a decent human being.

It's easier for Biden to get that across than it is for Trump. And when Trump behaves that way, it just violates some simple rules of decency. In the debate against Hillary Clinton, he didn't act this way. And he was more, it was like watching a show. You were kind of tuning in to see what the theatrics would be.

Or in the debates in the primaries in 2016 against the Republicans, it was theatrical. Here, it was just kind of not, it was pretty sacks. In that way, sacks, you think the Democrats put up the right candidate? Because if you did put up Elizabeth Warren, if you did put up a Bernie Sanders, or God forbid, both of them at the same time, it would be a very stark contrast.

You would have the socialist ticket that wants to ban the billionaires and stop capitalism and kneecap it and spend a bunch of money on redistribution of wealth. And here, Biden doesn't, he's never said redistribution of wealth. He's never said ban the billionaires. He's pro-capitalism. Feels like a safer bet to the majority of Americans.

Did the Democrats actually do a good job putting Biden up there? I think so. I think he is the most, now that we know he's not senile. I mean, I think there was some real question about that going into the debate. I think he proved in that debate that he's not.

And he's always kind of had the decency card that Jamal talks about. Now that we know he's not senile, I think he is the Democrats' most electable candidate because he is more centrist than certainly an Elizabeth Warren or some of the other candidates that you mentioned. Elizabeth Warren would have moved the election to be about substance.

And if this— Yeah. In many ways, strategically, no, but think about this. If you basically converge on roughly the same strategy with different labels, you make the election one of style. And there are a lot of people who really want decency back in the presidency more so than they want anything else, because they already come into the election with a level of skepticism that policy, A, won't change that fast, and B, to the extent it changes, doesn't affect them.

And so for years, we've been electing people we like. And this is probably the most extreme test of that idea. I think there was like— I mean, if you think about that debate, you could probably simplify it down into the audience being part of three camps. They either know who they're voting for, Trump, they know who they're voting for, Biden, and then some folks who are kind of maybe they're changeable.

And for the folks that are changeable, there's a diversity of objectives. Right? There are some folks who care about the decency, some folks who care about policy. But at the end of the day, I think you go into this debate with an expectation of Trump and an expectation of Biden.

And I would say that Trump was flat to down relative to expectation, and Biden was flat to up. And so that's where I would kind of give the ticker to Biden. And sorry, I don't want to interrupt, but I just want to read you this headline, "President Trump will be admitted to Walter Reed Medical Center on Friday for a few days." Yeah, I read that.

Well, hold on a second. That is groundbreaking. Well, his doctor said it's because they're out of an abundance of caution. They just want to have him in a place where he can be treated if and as he needs it. That may be a cover story. You buy that? I don't buy that.

I think he's in trouble. I agree with Jason. It is very strange. When you get a treatment like he got today, you know, eight grams of immunoglobulin therapy like that. It sucks. I've had this treatment. I've had immunoglobulin therapy before. And you get knocked out. You're on all these steroids.

You're on all this anti-allergy stuff. You're a mess for a day or two. And you know, you want to get like IVs and stuff. They give you all sorts of stuff to go with it. I got to imagine that after getting that therapy, he's going to need to be in some degree of care.

And I would imagine it's probably better to just do that around doctors and with all the equipment than try and, you know, kind of bring everything into the white house. So, I don't read it as negatively, but… Well, I mean, do you think it could be like an anaphylactic shock?

It might be. He might be having some reaction. Yeah, totally. Like I said, a large percentage of people that get these antibody therapies have some sort of allergic response. It's all the way from anaphylactic to, hey, I'm having my throat's closing. Hey, I feel I'm getting flushed. I'm getting a fever.

There's all sorts of ways that this can kind of present. So… The world is changing so fast that we can't even complete a podcast without it being obsolete. Can I tell you one other thing? What did you guys think about the fact, this is a little morbid, so you can, we can choose not to talk about it, but the stock market basically did nothing today on the news that the most important person in the free world, theoretically… I think you just answered your own question, Chamath.

I can chime in on this one. I don't think that people perceive that Trump is good or bad for the economy either way, and that the economy is separated now from politics, because they think Biden or Trump are going to have the same policies, which you said before. They have the same policies, so why does it matter?

If Trump were to tragically die, it would not make a difference in the American economy. It's not going to affect people buying iPhones. It might shake people psychologically, but I don't think in a massive way, because he's almost out of office. So I think it's all baked in. That's why the market did do anything.

What do you think, Sax? I wanted to disagree slightly with the idea this election doesn't matter. I think it will matter a lot if the Democrats win the Senate, as well as the president, because then they will have one-party control, and they can pass as much legislation as they want.

And I think a lot of things will get signed, and I think the Biden presidency could be very consequential, at least for two years, while all this legislation is passed, even if he's not out in front saying very much. I mean, the significance will be in the pen to sign the legislation.

If the Republicans hold on to the Senate, but Biden wins the presidency, I agree with you that it's not going to be a tremendously consequential election, because we'll have gridlock and divided government again. And so I think a lot hinges on whether Biden wins with or without the Senate.

I don't disagree with you. The only thing that I will say is that I think that Biden will drag the country, especially if it's an up and down Democratic ticket, back to the '80s and '90s, more to the sort of the George Baker school of diplomacy and governance. And I think that if, and I don't know him to know this, but I think that if he really were to have a legacy, I would suspect that part of, again, because he's mentioned that, why did he run?

He said the pivotal moment was like Charlottesville and Trump's reaction to Charlottesville. I think Biden is really moored by this concept of decency. And I think that if he were there and he thought to himself, I'm going to be here for four years because that's the right responsible thing to do, but no more, I don't think that you're going to see a bunch of crazy legislation pass.

I think Biden's going to say, guys, this is what I expect to do. By the way, did you, and I think I would bet on that because of what he said at the beginning of the debate. He's like, I am the Democratic party. I don't know if you guys remember that.

I do remember that. That was incredible. That was so powerful. That was a very Darth Sidious emperor move when he said, I am the Republic. No, no, no. I think he was trying to basically say like firewall the far left or the far left, the socialist left and say that rhetoric is not what I was elected on.

I was elected on my platform. I am the party. This is what I believe and everybody else will have to toe the line. And by the way, in the end, that's not such a bad thing. Yeah. It's a man. I agree. I think that that was a really important moment for him is for him to say, look, I'm in charge here because the Republicans have been making the argument that he's a Trojan horse for all these, like, far left elements.

AOC. AOC. And so it was very important for him to come forward and say, no, I'm the one leading this ticket. Now, that being said, and I think it would be a great thing for the country if Biden brought the Democratic party back to more of a, you know, Bill Clinton to, you know, Obama type centrism or, you know, center leftism, I guess you could say, as opposed to this sort of like crazy, you know, woke Marxism or Maoism, whatever you want to call it.

Yep. But I'm, I'm very skeptical that he will, because I think Biden has always positioned himself throughout his career as being at the center of the Democratic party. And I think he moves as the Democratic party moves. I agree. He's not going to be all the way to the left of the Democratic party, but those left elements will drag his sort of center to further to the left and we'll end up with sort of a, a compromise.

And I think at the end of the day, if the Democrats win Congress, he'll sign whatever they, they pass. Hmm. I'm, I'm not so sure. I really, I really, I'm not so sure. The, the White House is, uh, not that far away. It looks like it's a 30 minute drive from Walter Reed sending a helicopter.

Is that normal? Because he drove there last time. Would that be indicative of this as an emergency type situation, sending Marine one as opposed to just driving there for 20 minutes? I think they get, look, they'd be, there'd be a lot of liability if he had an actual medical emergency and they were just like, yeah, we're going to send him for a few days out of an abundance of caution.

The fact that they said out of an abundance of caution, I think if there is an emergency, you, you can't get away with saying that. Oh, you can for sure. They would lie. I don't know. It'll come out later. Trump administration was above lying about situation. If he's unconscious, they got to swear Penson.

Yeah. There's a lot of reasons why you got to be careful. I'm not saying he's unconscious. I'm just saying it's not even unconscious. Like, I'm just thinking, I'll add here is sending a helicopter for a 20 minute ride than a motorcade. Like seems a little, I mean, I would take a, I would take a helicopter to the 7 11.

If I had a helicopter, you're taking a helicopter down to the poker game. Okay. Uh, let's, this is, I think a good jumping off point to an interesting discussion that blew up on Twitter earlier this week, which is we can't keep up with all the politics, the, the rhetoric, the vitriol and this polarization.

So, uh, Coinbase co-founder and CEO, Brian Armstrong wrote a letter saying, Hey, listen, if you, uh, want to talk about politics, that's fine. Not at my company anymore. We're going to have a no politics rule, no debating the stuff. And we're going to be ultra ultra focus focused. I'm sorry at work.

Um, and you can check your politics at the door. When you read this SAC, you've come out in support of Brian Armstrong. Uh, what was your take on his position about leave your politics at the door when you get to work? Right. Well, I think, I think what Brian, so I, I did, I did compliment it, um, his, his manifesto.

And I, I think, uh, are you an investor? I, I am, I'm a small investor in Coinbase. Um, and, uh, and, and I'm friendly with, with Brian. And so I, I certainly, you know, like the idea of, of defending him against unfair attacks, but, um, I also genuinely like the manifesto.

Um, and I think, you know, his argument kind of boils down to, to three components. I think number one, that having these debates on every issue, whatever the issue du jour is pulls the company's focus away from its core mission, which he really emphasized. And, um, you know, that mission mission is challenging enough in its own right.

Um, second, he was saying that, and this is something I've said before as well, which is just that politics is just increasingly divisive in our society. It's just inherently divisive. And therefore it's, it's, uh, corrosive to team cohesion. And the more you have of that in your company, the worse it is for, you know, the team.

And I think the third thing he, he, he mentioned, which I thought was really interesting is that the freewheeling debate of, or discussion of politics, you know, like, like that we're having here, but we kind of have our own little safe zone here. It risks, uh, hurt feelings or misunderstandings that can become HR issues because people can then complain about it.

They feel unsafe. They feel unsafe and they report to. And so that's a further distraction. I felt unsafe at moments in this podcast. I'll be honest. There was a couple of moments. Well, I think, well, I think one of the reasons why this pod sort of works is because we're all, we're all friends and, uh, we've created a safe space for us to have these conversations, but the workplace is very different.

It's not, you know, and, and, and what I read Brian trying to do is to reimpose a true safe space by saying, leave your politics at the door. Now, I think he's been deliberately misconstrued. Yeah. By, by critics who want to say that, well, you have to leave your conscience at the door.

You know, that's not true. He's not saying that you can't have your own political views or contribute to causes that you like, but you just do gotta do it on your own time. Kind of like Mr. Hand said in fast times at Ridgemont high, you know, like do that on your own time.

Um, and I, and, and that makes sense to me. I think like, I mean, look, I think about this from the point of view of one of the employees working at one of these companies that doesn't want to be a party to the debate. Um, if I'm an engineer at Google or Coinbase, I go into work and I am captive, right?

I don't have the option of not showing up to work. If I go to a rally, I have the option of saying, I'm going to go to this rally and walk away. Cause I don't like the speaker or I'm going to go to the rally. Cause I want to participate in this dialogue or this debate.

I can't do that at work. So it's unfair for work, which is a place that I, as an employee have to go to every day. To be a forum for people to express themselves on political points that I may or may not agree with, but more importantly, may or may not want to actually be a party to the discussion around.

Um, and I think that's the most important thing to note here is like, it's not about enabling the free speech of the employees that want to debate. It's about the protecting the workspace for the employees that don't want to debate and don't want to be exposed to that. Um, and that's really important.

As a Chamath, as a person of color who, um, you know, have, I'm sure some sh has some shrunk feelings about what we've seen in terms of police shootings or maybe in your own personal life experience facing racism, uh, again, as a person of color, what are your thoughts on the workplace?

Is it, is it possible for you to leave that at the door? That was the criticism. I think I saw from the, you know, people who were supportive of BLM and they said the background here was they were trying to get Brian to explicitly say black lives matter and to, you know, have the company rally behind that.

Um, and that he didn't, he, he didn't want to have that be part of the work environment and that he was offering people four to six months severance if they would leave, if they don't like the new rules. So what are your thoughts? I think that this whole thing became a quagmire unnecessarily.

I think that he showed, um, a lot of naivety, um, and frankly, like, um, you know, a little bit of stupidity really. Um, it was really poorly written. Um, and that's why it's been so misunderstood and misconstrued in my opinion. I think a lot of what he had to say was valid, but when it was so poorly presented and you know, the, the essay was like eight minutes and it was rambling and the mission was like, you know, 97% down on the, you know, in the, it's just like, it was a convoluted fucking mess.

So if I had to do it again, if I were him or if I was his advisor and he had asked me, you know, to proofread the essay, what I would have said is more of the following, which is our mission, which is, you know, I think to create financial Liberty or something, something like that, you guys can find out what it is for the whole world is unbelievably important.

We will talk about every issue through the lens of achieving our mission. And we will be disciplined about saying which things matter and which things don't. So for example, if somebody says, listen, I really believe in spaying and neutering dogs, the right answer shouldn't be, Hey, shut the fuck up.

It says, okay. How does that allow us to maximize our users? How does that allow us to achieve our mission? Why does it allow us to achieve our mission? And if you ask the question, why four or five times in a very first principles way, you'll get to the answer.

So I would have rather said, we are going to train people how to understand what builds up to our mission and what is otherwise something that you should leave at home. And in that context, there are a lot of things actually that are political that need to be brought, especially into a company like Coinbase, which is working in crypto, which is all about eliminating the financial barriers of people that don't have access to it.

Like you are trying to dismantle an extremely exclusionary part of the economy. And so there are potentially many movements that matter. And those movements in countries in which you will want to gain users may look like political movements. Well, and that was Jack Dorsey's point. He came out. Yeah.

So I just think it was kind of a too superficial. It was very Silicon Valley-esque reaction. It was emotional. It was a little insecure. And to me, it missed the mark because there was a lot of validity in what he was saying, but presented in a lens of Silicon Valley bullshit.

And it was not well thought through. So if he had rewritten it and he had said 99% of what he said, but through the lens of why we're going to think about a first principles way of defining how everything ladders into the mission, he will train his employees. Instead, what he created was a schism and a decision point.

And I'm not sure that that's how you maximize value in 2020 as a CEO, because at the end of the day, you have to deal with an entire population cohort that is that are in their twenties, early thirties, teenagers that will eventually want to work for you. And whether we like it or not, they're different.

And one of the things you need to do if you're going to run an enormous company is understand the psychology of your employees, understand the psychology of how movements and decisions are organized, and then play to win. And it's no different than anybody else. If you want to be in the job, to be the starting point guard for the warriors, you got to know how to fucking pass the ball.

And if you're going to be the power forward, you have to know how to do a certain set of things that are different than that. And so I would sort of have framed it there because I think there was a lot of goodness in what he said, but presented in a pretty shitty manner.

I think it's good. He brought up the topic. I do think there's a tactical issue here and he, he could have laid out the ground rules for, I think to your point, Chamath of how we should talk about, uh, politics at work and what are the ground rules. I think the number one issue here, which people don't talk about is that slack and email and forums inside of companies have created a massive distraction.

And when somebody goes into the random channel, which is built into slack, and I know this is in the weeds, but I have seen this happen at multiple companies. Now, slack infects a company. Somebody creates a room about a topic, whether it's Trump or police violence or immigration, whatever it is.

And then people want to sound off on that. And now you've got an electronic form where people are talking, talking about highly charged issues that makes people feel unsafe. And so what I told my companies was, um, the two companies I run, you could talk about politics. If you want to go for a walk with somebody and have coffee or lunch, and you want to have a two hour discussion about it, go for it.

Please do not put this in electronic form because it's a massive distraction. Uh, and there'll be a record that could create downstream human resources issues to your report sex. I have a suggestion, and this is an organizational design experiment, and maybe somebody listening will implement it. Their company. Okay.

Allow 100% free form debate about anything. One condition. You literally need to have a soapbox and like in the 1880s Hyde park in London. Yep. You put the soapbox someplace in a safe space where you can go and you can talk and people who want to listen will listen and people who need to work can work and people who don't want to listen, don't have to be forced to listen.

What's the digital version of that, that you're suggesting? No, not saying a literal room in the campus. No, a literal place in your office. You put the soap, you have a soapbox, you grab it, you put it down the ground, you stand on it and you say it. And if you're not willing to do that, then, you know, it's okay.

Are you saying that there's no digital version of that? Because people could, what I'm saying is that two things. One is the digital version is actually training people to ask why, why does it matter? Now, the reason why it's important to ask that is because somebody may say, I'll use Jason's example that he loves.

We need to support the Uyghurs in China. The best way to do that is to proliferate our software in the following way, because it will free them from enslavement of the Chinese and it'll give them access to financial independence. Wow. I mean, okay, that seems to be paying off the mission.

So if you would, if so, you got to give freedom for people to come up with these ideas, because it may the first version of this idea may, may not actually be what the final version is. And the final version may be the killer feature. So I, on the digital forum in the slacks, it should be why respect.

It's a very respectful question. It shouldn't, it should not be in any digital forum because it leads to chaos because we see that on Twitter and what's happening is the Twitter derangement that we all suffer from is now infected inside the communication system that runs the operating system of the company.

Go ahead. Yeah, that's exactly right. Yes, I do. I do agree with Jake on this one. So, so look, I mean, Chamath is right that I'm sure I'm sure Chamath would have written a better letter, but I think we understand the gist of what Brian was trying to say.

And actually, I thought it took a lot of courage to, to write it. And what he's basically saying is that politics has become so divisive in our society that the, I mean, it'd be nice if we could have these reasonable debates the way that we're having this discussion inside companies, we didn't have to have these artificial restrictions, but we do, we have to, you know, it's the same reason, you know, that we have the separation of church and state is because people couldn't stop killing each other over religious wars.

And so finally we had, you know, the treaty of Westphalia to stop it. And what Brian's basically proposing is a, is a treaty for the workplace because we cannot get along around politics. But David, he is the CEO of an $8 billion company. Could he not have hired somebody to edit that essay?

Okay. Well, I mean, look, I, I just, to me, like if it's meaning, if it's seriously well thought through and it, and if it was as important as Westphalia, you would probably have a couple of proofreaders corporate version. Okay. It's not, it's not historically polished for sure. Here is Jack Dorsey's response.

I don't have you guys respond to it. I think it's in your wheelhouse in terms of what you said, Chamath Bitcoin, AKA crypto is direct activism against an unverifiable and exclusionary financial system, which definitely affects so much of our society important to at least acknowledge and connect the related societal issues.

Your customers face daily. This leaves people behind. I think he's right. You have, you have to view this problem, not through the lens of your own emotions, not even through the lens of the frustrations of your employees. You have to help shift the discussion to say, why does this achieve our mission?

And just constantly in a thoughtful, respectful way, ask why, and by the fourth or fifth, why it will either be something that doesn't matter and you can dismiss it quickly or something that actually is rooted in fact, and probably is something you need to pay attention to. And maybe the way that the conversation started was probably not with the right language that people given the chance would have framed it differently.

Okay. The worst take, uh, according to the internet's, uh, Twitter's ability to ratio people, which is when you get more comments than likes, um, which is not normally how it works. People are actually taking the time to explain to you how bad your take was as opposed to liking it is what a ratio is.

If you don't know, um, goes to Dick Costolo, um, who's a friend of ours, uh, me first capitalists who think you can separate society from business are going to be the first people lined up against the wall and shot in the revolution. I'll be ha I mean, and that's, that's enough to get you ratioed and have this thing go supernova.

I mean, Mike Cernovich is retweeting this and losing like his mind over it. You know, that the former CEO of Twitter is inciting violence. He's a comedian as well. Um, to Costolo. So I think he's joking here and, but he adds the punk, the exclamation point. Okay. Okay. Okay.

Okay. I'll happily provide video commentary. Here's here's here's my, uh, disagreement with, with Dick and, and with Jack is ultimately the societal value of a company doesn't come from whatever platitudes or political statements it's CEO makes, but rather from the quality of its products and the impact of its products.

And in that sense, Dick and Jack are living in a glass house. I mean, Twitter is a sewer of political, diatribe and polemical hate. I don't know anyone who feels better after spending time on Twitter. If Facebook is like cigarettes, I don't know what Twitter is. Fentanyl? Fentanyl or something, yeah.

So ultimately, maybe Jack should spend his time figuring out how to make Twitter into a less socially divisive product because just issuing woke platitudes is not going to do it. I agree with that. I don't think platitudes does it. All I'm saying is you have to view it through the lens of, I want to become the most relevant company possible and achieve the most impact.

And I think that there are a lot of times where some of these issues, when presented politically, underlying it is actually some feature or some capability or some way of seeing the problem that unlocks more demand that can help you win. And not knowing a priori what the answers to those questions are, that's not going to help you win.

It's important to train people on a framework versus say you can't talk because I guarantee you what will happen is somebody with some killer feature will be too scared to say something because they're not sure how to say it well. And you and I both know because we've seen many companies that have gone through that cycle, those companies decay and die.

Yeah, I think it'd be great if a policy like this wasn't necessary. I mean, I agree it's suboptimal, but I think it's caused by the fact that people just can't get along around politics anymore. Yeah. Friedberg, what is your take on ultimately how Coinbase winds up the year or two after this?

Do they get more resumes of hyper talented people who want to embrace a politics social issue free workplace? Or do millennials and you know, Gen C and this next group of talented folks say I don't want to work for somebody who doesn't want to talk about these issues at work.

And then at the where you have a factory where you build companies. Do you have some rule around this yourself? Or thoughts about how you run your companies? I think the more clearly you define culture, the more successful your company will be. And right or wrong about whether or not you enable the debate in the discussion and how you define the forums for kind of political discussion within your company, the fact that there is a clear definition of delineation around this point, I think removes the uncertainty.

And I think he'll do exactly what he's hoping to do, which is to get people to leave and to attract other people that better fit with that cultural model. I want to put my game face on, I want to go to work and I want to win the game I'm here to play.

I'm not here to fuck around. I'm not here to do other stuff. I want this job because I believe in this mission. And I want this company to succeed in what it's trying to do. And I think other places that allow people to run around and, you know, do things that they may or may not appreciate other people doing or, and you have this kind of low definition kind of culture, where some people are happy, some people are unhappy, it all kind of, you know, slows things down.

And I wouldn't kind of encourage anyone to let that happen. I think it's really important to just define how it is you want to operate, be really clear about the rules and the boundaries and then that I agree with as well. I mean, I think it's very much within his right.

And I think it took it, I do applaud his courage, courage and doing it, I just think that it misses the mark, because I think it was too emotional. I think he could do a 2.0 version and just keep building on the manifesto and say, hey, based on the feedback I got, here's how we're going to do it.

No discussion. He on the look at what Reid Hastings put out that fantastic PowerPoint that I think we all know really well, the cultural playbook from Netflix. And when did he put that out? Like, 2000? A decade ago? No, two decades ago, 2000. 2001. And he's continued to refine it, right?

If you look at it, there's recent iterations of it, and they continue to kind of do a better job of defining, you know, how do they intend to operate with people. And I think it's, it's only continue to reinforce the innovation that drives that company into the $100 billion plus valuation it's earned.

Yes. And if you if there's one important thing, which is that there's a meaningful difference in the average age of a Netflix employee and the average age of a Silicon Valley company. Now, that may be also part of it as well. I think the one thing that Brian could clarify is that you don't have to check your conscience at the door.

You it's not we're not saying that you can't have political views. You're allowed to say things on Twitter or take political stands or donate to whoever you want. It's just that the company itself is going to be a demilitarized zone. You know, we're not going to bring we're not going to bring these contentious, divisive debates that really aren't related to our core mission inside the company.

So we can all work better. So we can all work better as a team. Yeah, I think that's a really important thing to say. And I think that's a really important thing towards the reason that we all joined this company. But that's totally fair. But you know, all I'm saying all I'm saying again, I'll just say it again.

That is such an important thing to say. You could have had a proofread a couple times. You didn't could have been could have come across the way you're saying it. It didn't have to be written by GPT-3. You know what I mean? Also, I think that it was the the dunk he did afterwards where he's like, and by the way, if you don't like it, here's four months severance.

Get the fuck out. That was a pretty aggressive move as well. I don't know how you guys felt. I think I think I kind of like the gangster nature of it. I like I think it's I think it's great. It's like, if I'm on the team, and I believe in what he just said, I feel great that he's flushing the shit out.

And if I don't agree with it, it's like, fuck, yeah, I'll take it. You know, like, it's really clear. And I think the clear cut definition of culture is what every company needs to kind of pursue. And it's an ongoing pursuit. And you can always do a better job with it.

And culture is what you choose not to do as much as it is what you do, right? I'm not going to talk about culture. I'm not going to talk about culture. I'm not going to talk about politics. Friedberg is totally right. It takes a lot of courage to say, here's what I believe.

And if you don't, if you don't believe it, then it's okay for you to leave. And here's a severance package that takes a lot of courage. So I applaud him for that. Yeah, I mean, look, it's a free country. And we all have limited time, we should all go work on the mission that is most important and inspiring to us.

And Coinbase has a very specific mission that Brian's defining. He's trying to find it clearly. And if that mission is important and inspiring to you, then go work there. And if it's not, then go work at the place where the mission does inspire you. And it may be a startup or maybe a political organization, whatever it is, go do that thing that's most meaningful to you.

That's kind of my interpretation of what he was saying. All right, as we wrap here, It was hard for me to interpret because it was so poorly written. Well, also, I mean, it was also like a huge bomb on Twitter. And people's reaction to it was based upon, I think, how they feel at this moment in time.

And a lot of people feel, Yeah. This is why, I'm sorry, but communications is important. How you say things, what you say, style is really important. Yeah, whether it's Biden or Brian. Take the time, get it right. Yeah. All right. So 2021 is going to be upon us before we know it.

And I wanted to wrap here with each of your feelings on the economy, technology and politics, economy, technology, politics. How do you feel about 2021? Are you optimistic, pessimistic, neutral on those economy, politics, technology? Have you guys ever been to Magic Mountain or Disneyland? Of course. You ever get in one of those log rides and it's like raging rapids or roaring waters or whatever they're called?

Sure. And it's just fucking like you hop in and this thing just takes off down the river. I don't know. Nothing summarizes it better for me. But in so many ways, is that where I feel we are right now? We've all jumped on a bunch of fucking logs and we're shooting down this rapid river.

And I think a big part of what I'm feeling and Chamath is in the middle of this, but there's this extraordinary velocity of capital right now. And when I say that, I just mean capital is moving in large amounts very freely. And that creates like once in a generation kind of opportunity.

It's in part because the Fed has dropped interest rates to zero. So there's all these trillions of dollars moving markets. There's a change in an outlook and the world is being shifted in so many ways. This is this really amazing moment that I think we can all be afraid of because we're on a fucking roaring rapid on a log trying to stay afloat.

But there is so much happening in these markets that we kind of operate in. There's never been a better time to get your business funded or to take your company public or to get customers to make quick decisions and change their behavior, whether they're a consumer or an enterprise customer.

Money and decisions are happening at a... Money is moving at a faster pace than we've ever seen and decisions are happening at a faster pace than we've ever seen. That's my general sentiment. I don't think it stops going into 2021. There's just another kind of floodgate about to open with this election one way or the other.

But we're in the middle of this kind of raging rapids right now. And it's a pretty scary but also kind of exciting kind of time. It's so well said, Quinoa. I really agree with you. I think that it's kind of like if you used to take a second, to make a $1 decision and a minute to take a $100 decision, the amount of money being flooded into the economy now allows you to make a $100 decision in a second.

So like the order of magnitude of the mental barrier that it takes has changed. And I agree with you. I was thinking earlier this week that it's really incredible time to be alive in one very specific way, which is obviously there's stuff that's happening. There's a lot of stuff happening.

There's a lot of stuff happening. That's really turbulent. But there is a chance that a bunch of us can really like, change things in a meaningful way. And I find it exciting. So I'm generally like, I'm super bullish on the economy. I'm super bullish on tech. And I think I'm actually kind of like reasonably optimistic about politics.

I think that we're going to find our civility soon. And I don't know why that's going to happen or how it's going to get triggered. But I think honestly, like the election of Biden will go such a long way to just showing what is rewarded and then to figure out how to reward the folks that were supporting Trump in the first place for purposes of economic pushback.

Preston Pysh : Could be a nice de-escalation, in fact, and maybe an olive branch if Biden can bring that Republican party into the conversation. Jay Gould : Yeah. And Sachs had this really beautiful thing that he posted on Twitter, which was like, a lot of San Francisco's dysfunction is really going to spread wealth throughout the rest of the country, because a lot of cities that were shut out of all these tech gains will now see it.

And now you can imagine all kinds of people. Jay Gould : There's a guy that I follow on Twitter. He lives in Bowie, Maryland. He's an engineer at VMware, this black guy. And he was just talking about how he got promoted and he's now a principal engineer. And I just thought like, this is really fucking cool.

There's going to be all this redistribution of opportunity all around the country. And that'll happen because of coronavirus, because of people's frustration with California, because of a handful of us, how fed up we've gotten with the culture of Silicon Valley, including by the way, what Brian Armstrong wrote, which again, still very important.

And so we'll all be better off for that. So I don't know, I'm pretty optimistic. Preston Pysh : Sachs Tech Economy Politics 2021. Jay Gould : Well, I'm super bullish about the entrepreneurial energy in the American economy. It's 100 times greater than when we started out our careers in this business 20 years ago.

Jay Gould : Yeah. I mean, it's a lot of work. It's a lot of work. Preston Pysh : And I think it's important to think about the things that we've done in the last 10, 20 years ago in terms of the number of companies that get funded, the ideas, the tools that are available, the funding.

I mean, when you think about it, this might be the first time in human history where money is chasing the, like throwing money at the ideas. I mean, throughout history, until I'd say the last 10, 20 years ago, the people who had no money but had great ideas always had to go hat in hand to go find the capital.

And now it's completely different. You can't find the people with ideas. Jay Gould : It was worse than that, Sachs. They had to go give their ideas to a big company and take a salary. Preston Pysh : Right. So Tesla, Nikola Tesla, the original inventor, didn't profit at all from his ideas.

And so that was pretty common. And so just how entrepreneurial the US economy has become, I'm very… The new economy has completely taken over and I'm bullish on that. I think the tweet that Chamath was referencing, I said that San Francisco's loss is going to be America's gain, the rest of America's gain, because middle America was really left out of the new economy.

It's just not where it was taking place. And so globalization really gutted industrial America, agricultural America. They didn't get to participate in the enormous wealth creation of the last two or three decades. And I think, I guess, because of what San Francisco has done in terms of driving out companies, I think the companies are going to be… Tech companies are going to be all over the US now.

Preston Pysh : Yeah, totally. It's fucking awesome. Jay Gould : Should be super interesting. And so let's just lay the odds as we wrap here on Biden winning. Biden… Preston Pysh : 65-35, approaching 70-30. Jay Gould : Okay. David, you got a handicap for me on Biden winning? What do you think, Sax?

David Morgan : Well, I mean, the betting line, is like somewhere in the 60 to 70% range. And so you'd have to say that the betting markets are probably pretty accurate. I guess, probably there's a 70% chance of him winning if I had to bet on that line. I'd probably take the 30% underdog, because I think things are in so much turmoil right now that anything could still happen.

Preston Pysh : So you think there's a chance that Trump could win? David Morgan : Yeah, and it's probably bigger than 30%. It's slightly bigger than what the betting markets are giving him credit for. Jay Gould : Friedberg, what are your thoughts? Preston Pysh : Probably right. Yeah, I don't have anything to add to that.

Jay Gould : All right. Any speculation that we want to end with, Chamath? On the, I just noticed that Emil from Uber is doing a SPAC. Mark Pincus is doing a SPAC. Everybody's doing SPACs now. Any speculation on what we're going to see in that market? Chamath Nani : Nope.

God bless them. And I love you all, besties. Jay Gould : All right, besties. Chamath Nani : Back to the grind. Jay Gould : Back to the grind. We'll see you next time. You know what to do. Share this podcast with your friends. If you'd like to advertise on the All In Podcast, you can't.

And so the best you can do is write a review or clip it and we'll see you all next time on the All In Podcast. Bye-bye.