it was very interesting going to sax's kids birthday party um freeberg and i were there for about two or three hours sac showed up for the last half hour i think i was there for it i think i was there for two hours and didn't see sax and then i saw him on my way out the door but he had some youtubers there who were pretty cool yeah papa jake and logan thank you papa jake was great yeah you know they have seven million followers on youtube eat your heart out jay cal how many times bigger is papa jake than you business and podcasting on youtube is a new concept uh long form and long form is not what the algorithm is designed for it's obviously designed for short form and people getting to completion so getting to completion on a 90 minute video are we talking about love making again sorry oh god jesus when i say completion i it's not there's we need an hr department at all yeah i prefer the short form format for that too these are called open folks winners hey everybody welcome to another episode of the all in podcast it's episode 56.

we've made it past 55 the show the band is still together coming to you every friday night far too late because the rain man obsesses over every edit in the podcast with us again the all-in scorsese himself david rain man sax and the queen of quinoa the sultan of science david friedberg is here and with a power sweater that cost no turtle neck turtle neck i'm sorry a power turtleneck that cost more than your mortgage payment this month the dictator himself chamath palihapitiya i'm jay cal it was a pretty incredible week i think we have to pander to the cryptocurrency crowd because that's just making ratings go through the roof here i am absolutely inspired by what we saw this week with the constitution dow forming in about a week and going from one or two million to 46 million dollars raised through a dow if you don't know what these decentralized autonomous organizations are it's basically analogous to a corporate structure but that's written in code so you can get a group of people together typically in a discord then you create a smart contract they collect in a wallet a bunch of eth or it's typically eth right now and then you get some kind of governance written into the dow where people get voting power they brought this together to bid on one of 13 copies of the original constitution of the united states and it was a very controversial moment last night when 80 of the money was raised in the last 48 hours and there was this crazy auction going back and forth with two representatives of sotheby's on the phone it hit 41 million dollars everybody thought that the dow had won which would have mean would have meant that almost 20 000 people who participated in this would then vote on what to do with this 41 million dollars in the last 48 hours and there was this crazy auction going back and forth with two representatives of sotheby's on the phone it hit 41 million dollars everybody thought that the dow had won which would have mean would have meant that almost 20 000 people who participated in this would then vote on what to do with this 41 million dollars which would have meant that almost 20 000 people who participated in this would then vote on what to do with this 41 million dollars with this 41 million dollars offer coindesk incorrectly uh reported that the dow won and then the dow announced that they had in fact not some other statistics uh their twitter has 36 000 followers the group reported they needed 14 million to participate 30 million to be competitive and 40 million to have a great chance of winning they raised like i think six or seven million while they were on the air you know and the auction had started and the only uh downside to all of this is that there were huge gas fees uh people were spending 30 40 50 bucks to donate 200 which was the average size of these yeah they should have done it on solana all right so here we go talking our own book again now we got somebody's going to clip this out in the salon there's a lot of pumping here we go what are you going to do with your copy of the constitution you know what's so funny when are you going to auction it back to the down when are you going to burn it and make an nft out of it so it's it's funny uh i did buy something at these auctions uh yesterday's quite unique uh i will i will not comment on what it was but was it that turtleneck no but uh thanks oh oh oh no no no no no no no no but uh i i did so but i i watched these auctions closely i guess is what i'm trying to say and i was surprised that the u.s constitution for sold so little you know the u.s constitution was so little that it was so little you know for a basically like the magna carta of the best startup that's ever been created well but there's 13 of them right so on a market cap basis on a market cap basis you got multiplied by 13.

yeah great 13 times 40. it wasn't one of the originals it was the printing after the original was signed we have a 20 we've created a 22 trillion dollar a year startup that keeps compounding by four to five percent a year i would have thought these things would be worth you know a couple hundred million each well there's a lot of there's a lot of u.s memorabilia but yeah i mean but what i don't understand it means the u.s constitution david is not as it's not worth as much as it used to be that's well you know you got other you got you got the original it would sell yeah there's a lot of documents you got the declaration of independence you got you know the gettysburg address there's time a dozen the tea party memo i actually think citizens united technically guys the citizens united if it was written not one time in one document uh by the supreme court that would be worth much more than 40 million because the citizens united technically guys the citizens united technically guys the citizens united technically that would be worth much more than 40 million because it's basically invalidated most of the constitution well here's one of the interesting things that happened here no david wait david acknowledge that what i just said is true i don't even understand what you just said but i just said if you had printed the citizens united verdict from the supreme court on a piece of paper that would be worth more than 40 million dollars it was it was like democracy 2.0 is what you're saying i don't understand why people are getting so swept up in this thing it's kind of my name either me neither that's the whole thing what you guys are missing is this is a a critical moment in the history of cryptocurrencies because the first three major use cases of cryptocurrency were kind of you had money transfer which is not as good as paypal or venmo or many other solutions no jason i think you had store of value hold on let me finish store of value which is like who cares it's plain waste of store value and then nfts got interesting but these dows are absolutely game-changing the ability to have 47 million dollars show up and be prepared to be deployed in 48 hours and then you have to be able to get it to the next level and you have to be able to get it to the next level and you have to be prepared to be deployed in 48 hours that's not what he's saying you ever hear of an ico you ever hear of it were illegal and they've been banned and people are being how is that any different i mean because dows have governance dows have governance and it's a programmable government it's a programmable corporate entity it is huge if these things transfer ownership interests they will be regulated like securities of course that is a very important point and in this particular model the idea was it would all be kind of part of a non-profit and it would not be kind of there were donations in fact yes there were donations and so as soon as these dows which they should and it's an incredibly powerful tool if it does actually become a security instrument then it changes everything and it is going to be that my my whole thing is like it's one thing outside the us first right and then it'll be crypto x us crypto investments that are going to drive this and that's why the us is going to be left behind here's what you're missing these dows are pushing the envelope in the same way airbnb and uber did in terms of you know bending the rules about ride sharing or renting your extra room these dows are kind of breaking securities laws they were telling people were buying the constitution people who donated thought they were buying part of it we're not we're not missing the point so okay but here's the thing if they bend the rules like this what they showed to the sec is that there is a huge appetite for people to quickly form groups of capital at low dollar amounts to do something important or interesting in the world and americans now have a taste of that they're going to continue to have a taste of it and i think it's going to disagree it's going to force the beginning of the accreditation laws to change i disagree i think that what it showed is that this is yet another explanation of fractionalized ownership that demand existed well before dows totally it's it exists today it'll exist tomorrow a dow was just yet another on-ramp but much like most fractional ownerships are terrible financial trades for crappy assets so was this so said differently if you're going to spend the time to open a robin hood or e-trading account it still matters whether you buy a share of lycos or a share of google right okay and so whether you do a dow or whether you have an llc to me it's irrelevant the underlying asset didn't make any sense had zero chance in my opinion of any meaningful appreciation and so if you really want to make something work and if you want to prove the dow then i would have hoped that they would have actually asked a few smart people hey guys people who buy art people who know crypto what are some assets that you can buy and what are some assets that you can buy and what are some assets that i should own because if this thing does appreciate i wonder you'll do more to prove the questions that you just beat them out on the so obviously the value is greater than what the dow thought it was jason you're the reason why an accredited investor this is non-accredited investors who are doing this i know and that that unsophistication was clear the stupidest thing you can do if you enter an auction okay is to declare how you're going to be an underbidder so like it's basically saying hey guys you know here's my top tick and i'm willing to be and i can and so now you force these guys to be the underbidder at a dollar over there okay that's fine that's a mechanical issue sax what do you do well i wonder where do you stand on this i i wonder if the reason why they chose this particular type of asset is because it's collectible and therefore it's explicitly excluded from the securities laws so basically you know that maybe maybe they're limited in terms of what they can go after because they don't want to be a security but until but but if that's the case then it does limit i think the applicability of dow's right because we want to be a security because what you want is is to create corporations that are programmable that you can have shareholder votes through the tokens yeah things like that and you know basically a digital version of what they do analog in the real world with you know share certificates shareholder meetings and stuff like that that nobody ever attends yeah that nobody nobody ever attends these shoulder meetings and you know i get these notices of votes that are to be held nobody ever feels yeah no one fills that stuff out and people have super share super voting and so you feel like you do have a say and they're going to do assets like imagine somebody had 10 000 acres of rain forest or a national potential national park and all of a sudden you pop up a dow and if the sec says you know what 500 or less you can bet your money however you want hold on let me finish and they take that 500 and you get a million people to put 500 in which is completely conceivable somebody could buy 500 million dollars worth of national forest and say i'm going to make this into a public trust and i'm going to make this into a public trust and i'm going to make this into a to protect the environment this is on the brink of changing the world ico's yes but icos had no governance they had no governance that was missing it was for the benefit hold on icos were for the benefit of the scumbags who did those griffs and ran away with the money this is an organization with a predetermined governance structure this is like creating a new country or a new format for an llc that's what you're missing okay are you done yes what you're missing you're painting the optimistic scenario of what these things could do and you are correct but what's always happened in the history of humanity is these scenarios have resolved to people figuring out ways to scam other people to make money sure sure and while this one looks altruistic let me finish without interrupting thank you but just like you know this looks like a great altruistic action we're going to go out and buy the uss constitution the next deal will end up being some shitty art piece that's worth 100 grand as chamath points out they'll buy it for 10 million everyone will lose their ass and the next 500 will look the same and that's why we have securities regulators and security laws because in the past when these sorts of structures that weren't digitally governed and all this sort of stuff and people would go around and they would put together pools of money from other people and promise them the world and then they would turn around and steal their money and walk away we created securities regulators that could oversee and not have independent governance but have distributed governance across a regulatory system and that's what we're doing now we're going to go out and buy the uss constitution and we're going to go out and buy the uss constitution and we're going to go out and buy the uss constitution and we're going to go out and buy the uss constitution and we're going to go out and buy the uss constitution and we're going to go out and buy the uss constitution and we're going to go out and buy the uss constitution and we're going to go out and buy the uss constitution and we're going to go out and buy the uss constitution and we're going to go out and buy the uss constitution and we're going to go out and buy the uss constitution and we're going to go out and buy the uss constitution and we're going to go out and buy the uss constitution and we're going to go out and buy the uss constitution and we're going to go out and buy the uss constitution and we're going to go out and buy the uss constitution and we're going to go out and buy the uss constitution and we're going to go out and buy the uss constitution and we're going to go out and buy the uss constitution and we're going to go out and buy the uss constitution and we're going to go out and buy the uss constitution and we're going to go out and buy the uss constitution and we're going to go out and buy the uss constitution and we're going to go out and buy the uss constitution and we're going to go out and buy the uss constitution and we're going to go out and buy the uss constitution and we're going to go out and buy the uss constitution and we're going to go out and buy the uss constitution and we're going to go out and buy the uss constitution And with that rule engine, which I know can be built into DAOs, people can then structure what they're willing to bid and how much they're willing to participate in.

And the DAO as a whole can resolve what it's willing to pay to go buy an asset. And everyone can feel like they know what they're getting as they get into these things. And then the third problem with this particular DAO as we saw, and I know it's kind of the first big one like this was the obvious point that these guys were showing the world how much they were about to go bid on this asset.

And if you take $46 million, and you divide it by 1.13, or which, you know, remember, there's a 13% buyer's premium on this asset. They showed everyone what they're going to pay. And of course, they lost at $1 over there. They were the underbidder. I'll say something else. The only fractionalized asset that has ever been proven to appreciate reliably our stocks.

Every other fractionalized asset where you take something and then you divvy it up, generally has been a trash burger. You need to either own the whole thing yourself. Or if you're going to own it. With a bunch of other people. The only thing that's reliable are equities. Now that's just a historical artifact for how money has been made.

So I appreciate Jason, what you're saying, which is I think actually you care about the structure because I think it has huge implications to people pursuing wealth creation for themselves for people participating in private markets. But I do think that you're overblowing this one example because I don't think this showed any of that.

I think that this showed how unreliable and useless. Ethereum is as a transactional layer for these things. The fact that these poor people now have money stuck in a Dow that they can't get out of because it would the gas fees would negate their contribution. So that didn't be.

These are all the bumps in the road. One second, please. You got to hold on. It didn't prove governance because as David said, we had this inflationary outcome where all of a sudden I didn't know the equity that I owned. The transparency worked against them because you're bidding on an asset where you were clear about the threshold max price you could pay.

You had no pricing power and you had no opacity in your bidding strategy. So I think that this was a PR lark. In fact, they said it started out as a joke and it took on a head of steam. So I think they felt like they had to execute.

What I would say is there are going to be some really amazing examples of Dows. This proved none of those things that the amazing ones will prove, in my opinion. This will invite regulatory scrutiny faster than it will keep it away. You will see. You know, more of these scenarios where people get screwed out of money like they did in this particular case.

And I know a lot of everyone that participate in this now. I know that there's altruistic reasons. Who do they sue? Who do they sue? The people who do they sue? Who do they go after now that they lost the $200 that they contributed? Yeah, I mean, there's there's there's no structure.

And I think that's part of the regulatory. You know, how do they get the money back? I can respond. Who's the person that who's the person that like, you know what, honestly, if that was control, the social if that Dow had called me. I'd actually bid for them and actually won that fucking thing for half the price.

You know what I mean? So you got anything? You want to chime in? No, I mean, well, I would like to give a closing argument. Why don't you go for it? All right. Number one, you're all speaking like a bunch of rich accredited investors. We need to think about people who do not get to participate.

And what I see in my day job is people go to an equity crowdfunding site, it's too arduous to allow non accredited investors. To invest, it takes months, and it's tons of paperwork. So then what happens is the best deal flow, which goes to the people who are on this podcast who are already rich, we get to sweep up all the best deals, because people who are founders and who have opportunities in corporations do not bother doing equity crowdfunding because the SEC in their wisdom to try to protect people and they have good intent to your point, Friedberg has made it so arduous and painful for people that they then don't do it the founders I'm talking about this then keeps people down.

When we were all poor, we got to spend our money gambling or doing whatever we want with it. But we all would have wanted to have when we were non accredited, the ability to place a bet on a startup. And y'all are forgetting that. What's going to happen here, all of what you're saying, all of what you're saying, Chamath, in terms of the problems here are absolutely accurate and valid.

And those are what you need. You need to identify through projects like this, the gas fees are a problem. So people can move this to Solana, you need to find out that they don't know how to do bidding. They don't say how much has been raised, so that they can come in and bid more intelligently.

And maybe they do need to pick a better target. But this is $200 per person. There you guys are acting like these people are going to lose their shirt. We agree with you. I agree with you. I agree with me. I agree 1000%. I'm a free markets guy, I would love for there to be no regulation, and everyone will come in.

And the problem is society won't let that happen. And that's the point I'm trying to make. It's not other societies have other societies know, if you're in the UK, if you're in Australia, you can go gamble and you can go bet on something. But if you're in one of those startups, there are different accreditation laws, we have antiquated ones that United States, the United States regulatory regime will be invoked, because people will lose money, and individuals will raise their hand and say I put money into a DAO that I lost my ass on and enough 1000s of people do that.

And then Elizabeth Warren and AOC will get on their, you know, their horse and they'll say let's, let's fix this problem. Bernie Sanders will say this is unfair. The billionaires are taking the money from people. And so I agree with you, we should let people take risk. We should let people live.

We should let people lose money, we should drop all the regulatory burden. My point is really that I think structurally, what's going to happen is there are going to be more of those things that are going to show up that will rip people off, and that will heighten regulatory interest.

And people will come along and they'll start to clamp down on this stuff. And that's, that's my point. Okay. I also think this example has nothing to do with what you're talking about. I think what you're talking about J Cal is laudable. And we should all want that because I think that the broader number of people that get to participate in the wealth creation in tech, the better.

But there are different ways of doing it. I don't think we have to run full force and embrace the Dow as the only way that that happens. And I think that structurally, the the democ the democratic norms inside of a Dow, in many ways make it much harder to govern inside a regulatory framework.

And it does set up a very binary decision by the SEC and US regulators, which unfortunately, they're not going to go and be supportive of because the binary decision to support them would effectively negate their rights. Okay. Thank you. And then you're going to have to go back and say, Hey, we're going to have to do this.

That's right. Yeah, they got jobs to keep to they have jobs to keep and I mean, I think it's a cynical and accurate prediction that they will fight it. But what you may not be aware of is that there is in the startup act from years ago, they did allow equity crowdfunding, they put a lot of throttling on it.

And now they're going to let you get accredited through taking a course or like kind of having a driver's license or a gun permit. So it is conceivable that the next time a Dow happens, and they're trying to buy, you're going to have to go buy a car. That's right.

So that's a good way to go. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. trying to buy. But can you stop conflating these things together. We've had iterations in the crowdfunding rules. You're just trying to tag this with a Dow can give you just separated. Could wait, hold on a second, can I just ask a question?

Can you please just describe and acknowledge that the crowdfunding rules have iteratively evolved? Yes, yes. Okay, so just separate the two, they're not the same thing. They are two sides of the same coin. Because now is allow a global participation in this and the capital can be formed instantly.

This was done in days. That's what's so powerful about it. It costs 10s of 1000s to 100s of dollars to do an equity crowdfunding. This costs nothing because it was for a in an ethereal superficial asset with a name that people recognize. Let me hold on a second. Now let me replace the US Constitution with I don't know, Jason, you just sent a deal a day ago.

What was the name of it? Let's just call it acme.com. Sure. Now what are people supposed to do? It's not a known asset. They are not known founders. There may be turbulent issues inside the company that are still being hammered out. What are these people supposed to do? How are they intelligent small bet?

place a small mat, do some research, vote on it, do collective research in a discord. You're looking you have a bunch of researchers working for you. You defended the me. You have a team, your team does research and they're smart people and they get paid very well. You were praising the coverage that Wall Street bets did on GME on this podcast 40 episodes ago, you were saying how it was incredible there was because they were analyzing public companies who are governed by securities law.

They can't do that with a private company. Yes, because there are no rules that govern disclosure. GameStop had very strict disclosure rules because they were public. That was what allowed Wall Street bets to understand what was going on under the hood of GameStop. It was the disclosure. disclosure of the funds that the SEC is forced you to make that allowed people to understand the long and the short book that was building against it.

If that was in the private markets, that data is not obligated to be provided in the in the wild. Wall Street bets would have had no idea. So I think you're actually proving the opposite of what you intend, which is, it's the regulatory framework that allowed the retail GME position to happen.

Great, David. And then, yeah, can I translate with Jake house saying, I think what Jake house saying is, we need to create some space here for innovation so that entrepreneurs can work out the kinks of these DAOs so that one day, Jake, I'll can run a syndicate on a blockchain and fundraise that way.

Isn't that what you're saying, Jake? Or anybody? I mean, here's what I'll say, you know, when we do a syndicate amongst accredited investors, your book here in a weird way. I didn't mention the syndicate. I didn't mention the syndicate.com once he was his competitors to your syndicates, but now you're all on the doubt train.

ICOs I, I thought were too big. So I think you could solve this problem by looking at the bet size that people are allowed to make. So you can just say, hey, the upper limit is 5k. So now you've basically taken the individual cratering. Well, because if you wanted to create a regulatory environment, well, because it would know, I think you created a de minimis exception.

So honestly, guys, the first 100% worth and 1% of another's. Okay, so make it a percent of net worth. No, the first thing principle of portfolio construction is you need to be concentrated in the things you know, and you need to stay away from the things you don't if you cap the upside on the amount you can invest.

What are people supposed to do peanut butter around 50 bets? And you know what will happen, Jason, most of those will be losers, because the mortality rate in startups is super high. And they'll end up with basically nothing. How do they do in Vegas? How do they do betting sports about how to invest?

I mean, I think what we're saying is that this that I mean, this is where I actually agree is that the regulators should carve out. enough room so that innovation could continue around this concept of DAOs because who knows what they could become one day. And we shouldn't we shouldn't kill this thing.

Hold on. We haven't killed anything because nothing exists. And there are no rules about DAOs. The regulators haven't said anything. I think we all agree that crowdfunding rules should get much more expensive. That makes sense. And with that, private companies should disclose more. That makes sense, right? We all agree with that, so that you can have more disclosure and public available data.

So Jason, to your point, communities can get into a discord like today, if you said, Hey, guys, let's go and analyze a late stage investment in stripe. What do you do? blather on about it and just talk at each other? There are no sex. There are no disclosures. No, but hold on to this question.

So now, so now are you supposed to are you supposed to enter Carta or some other third party platform and buy it at 120 billion? How do you underwrite that? Very simple, very simple. In the startup DAO concept we're talking about here, you would do exactly what angel investors do, which is say, Hey, okay, we had let's say this Constitution now was to invest in startups.

Okay, 20,000 people put 200 in each, we have a $40 million pool. Okay, we're all going to submit ideas. And then we're going to ask and invite those founders to come pitch the DAO on a zoom. And we'll all vote on which ones we like best. And instead of, you know, a venture capital firm getting access to this.

Now, those 20,000 people could say, you know what, we're going to make 20 half million dollar bets, and then we're going to pour the 30 million into the winners of that. And that is just what I do for a living or any other angel investor or early stage investor does you invite founders come and pitch you and you place an intelligent bet, just like people bet on the Knicks or sadly on the Jets and lose their money all the time.

And I like David's idea of saying, Hey, maybe for the next two years, we'll have a DAO exception where you can raise, you know, from 1000 up to 5000 people up to $10 million. And you just have to file that you're not a felon. And we have some basic framework to experiment with this because you could buy, you know, a building that was going to be torn down, like some movie theater for a community.

You could do nonprofit stuff, there's all kinds of beautiful things you could do with this instant capital formation and government structure that is programmable. Okay, well, it does relate to capital formation in the startup ecosystem. Here's what I'll say. You made a great point about Uber and Lyft pushing the boundaries and forcing the regulators to react.

Yes, you know why that happened? It's because Uber and Lyft worked. Yes, and it was successful. And this thing was not successful. And so maybe if it is, there's an on ramp, but I would say that the energy is better served in not focusing on a PR lark, and probably just focusing on trying to improve the crowdfunding laws writ large, which are already on the books and can be iterated upon versus an entire new body of regulation where nobody even has any idea what a starting point should be.

I think it's very hard to get get those crowdfunding laws expanded. And with the kind of the crowdfunding laws, which are kind of the core of the regulation. And with the under the current regime, it's sort of a minor miracle that they even got what they got several years ago, right?

Wasn't that? Well, it happened under Obama when the jobs 2008. Yes, the jobs was in 2008. When the market crashed, we said, nobody's starting companies were screwed here, we need to get the economy going again. So we're just going to allow more capital formation. And so the 99 rule for LLCs went to 250.

And they just kind of loosen things a little bit. And now they're the mandate is the SEC has to have a lot of capital formation. SEC has to have a certification test for people to do private market investing. And also people who work at VC firms, right, we have people who work for us who are not accredited, they don't get to participate, but they get an exception if they work at a venture firm, etc.

So it's just it's probably simultaneously true that this thing was massively overhyped. While also being the case that it's a worthwhile experiment that may lead to, you know, useful innovation in the future. what I always look at when I see new technologies doing something is I just imagine if a 10 x, and what that would look like, and if it worked, and then I just 10x it one more time.

So what we're going to see I predict is this $40 million Dow will turn into a 400 million one in the next two years, and then a 4 billion one in the next 10. And people are going to do something extraordinary. They're going to do something so otherworldly changing.

What if a million people or 10 million people around the globe decided they were going to put money in to do a solar farm, or something that would help society? farm or something that would help society. You can already do that, J. Cal. I mean, that's like a manager can- Not frictionless.

Someone's got to manage it. J. Cal's fantasizing about how big a syndicate's going to be. Yeah. That seems to be what's going on. My syndicate is too large right now. I can't accommodate everybody. And it's also because of the laws. It's okay. It could get bigger, right? Well, no.

The problem is you can only have 250 people in it. That's the problem. We beat this down to death, guys. Yeah, come on. We beat it to death. Okay. Anyway, I'm obsessed with it. Clearly. Fentanyl debt's in the US. We're reaching a crisis point. Fentanyl debt's? Is that really what we're talking about?

I mean, we talked about it in the chat. Are you deliberately trying to avoid the biggest news today of the biggest trawlers? No, no. I get it. That's just a weird transition. I'm just going straight down through the docket. But if you want to jump the fence, okay. Well, I'm not trying to.

Kyle Rittenhouse was found not guilty of all charges. It happened within half an hour of us beginning to record this podcast. I don't know how it's not topical. I'm trying to keep the Friedberg ratio up. We had a nice, strong, emotional moment from Friedberg. He obviously is going to have something to say about fentanyl and science.

But okay, he's going to walk off the show now to talk when you start talking politics. I'm not gonna walk off the show. You did last week. You walked off. You walked off and went. You got a beverage. You left for like five minutes. I had to go pee.

All right, fine. I mean, come on. It just happened to be during politics. Kyle Rittenhouse was found not guilty. That's usually when I take my break. Yeah. Exactly. And a third of the audience. Kyle Rittenhouse found not guilty of all charges. A 12 person jury in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial reached the decision after over 26 hours of deliberation.

He shot three people. He killed two of them and he was found not guilty. He was 17 at the time of the shooting. He was charged with killing the two men and a third during the protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin in August of 2020. This was during the protests over the police shooting of Jacob Blake.

He claims he traveled from Illinois with an AR 15 style rifle to help protect businesses and why first aid he didn't he did not he did not cross state lines with the rifle that's one of the many inaccuracies that have been reported by the media over and over again because his dad lived there i guess he was his dad lived in kenosha i think he went to school in kenosha he worked in kenosha you got to understand like this is they're a few minutes apart where from his mother's house and he never he never carried the gun across state lines the gun was bought from by a friend who was 18 who could possess it and it was kept at his house which is in kenosha got it he was apparently in kenosha earlier that day um and you know cleaning up graffiti at the school and checking out the downtown and then you know obviously when he went out that night then he got the gun but he didn't transport it across state lines so that's i think one of the most what do you think what is your most important insight into this case and what it represents for american society and uh the justice system sex well i think the case has become a little bit of a rorschach test of how you see america i mean there's clearly a group of people in the i'd say the main dominating the mainstream media announced percolated down to celebrities and figures from lebron james to to um i'm spacing but there's a lot of like celebrities who've come out putting forward this view that america that this trial somehow is um that that cowl written house and white house is a very important case and i think that's a very important case and i think that's a very important case and i think that's a very important case and i think that's a very white supremacist and that this not guilty verdict is an example of white supremacy in white supremacist and that this not guilty verdict is an example of white supremacy in white supremacist and that this not guilty verdict is an example of white supremacy in america somehow america somehow america somehow that became the narrative and um so that i think it's become i think there's like a couple levels to it one is the trial itself and that i think it's become i think there's like a couple levels to it one is the trial itself and that i think it's become i think there's like a couple levels to it one is the trial itself and what you think about the legal what you think about the legal what you think about the legal case i don't think that is that complicated case i don't think that is that complicated case i don't think that is that complicated or interesting you have here that the or interesting you have here that the or interesting you have here that the state was required to prove beyond a state was required to prove beyond a state was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt reasonable doubt reasonable doubt that rittenhouse that rittenhouse that rittenhouse did not act reasonably in self-defense did not act reasonably in self-defense did not act reasonably in self-defense when three violent attackers came when three violent attackers came when three violent attackers came charging towards him that was i think a charging towards him that was i think a charging towards him that was i think a pretty tough case to make one of them pretty tough case to make one of them pretty tough case to make one of them had a gun pull too i mean this was right had a gun pull too i mean this was right had a gun pull too i mean this was right and so all of them had long criminal and so all of them had long criminal and so all of them had long criminal histories the first one who attacked him histories the first one who attacked him histories the first one who attacked him was daring him to told said that he was was daring him to told said that he was was daring him to told said that he was going to kill rittenhouse the second one going to kill rittenhouse the second one going to kill rittenhouse the second one was bashing him over the head with a was bashing him over the head with a was bashing him over the head with a skateboard the third one was rushing skateboard the third one was rushing skateboard the third one was rushing towards him when rittenhouse was on the towards him when rittenhouse was on the towards him when rittenhouse was on the ground had a gun trained on him looked ground had a gun trained on him looked like he was going to bring it to his like he was going to bring it to his like he was going to bring it to his head kind of execution style i mean all head kind of execution style i mean all head kind of execution style i mean all these i think cases if you saw the these i think cases if you saw the these i think cases if you saw the video from i mean from the first time video from i mean from the first time video from i mean from the first time it seemed pretty clear that he had a it seemed pretty clear that he had a it seemed pretty clear that he had a strong claim of self-defense so i don't strong claim of self-defense so i don't strong claim of self-defense so i don't think the case itself was that legally think the case itself was that legally think the case itself was that legally interesting the question is why it got interesting the question is why it got interesting the question is why it got blown up into being this like huge thing blown up into being this like huge thing blown up into being this like huge thing and it's really because the media wanted and it's really because the media wanted and it's really because the media wanted this so badly this so badly this so badly to be to be to be to feed into this narrative of somehow to feed into this narrative of somehow to feed into this narrative of somehow that this is you know a white supremacist that this is you know a white supremacist that this is you know a white supremacist violent attacker who was a vigilante who violent attacker who was a vigilante who violent attacker who was a vigilante who crossed eight lines with this ar-15 to crossed eight lines with this ar-15 to crossed eight lines with this ar-15 to go seek out trouble go seek out trouble go seek out trouble um to confront people at the protest and um to confront people at the protest and um to confront people at the protest and you know that case that that narrative you know that case that that narrative you know that case that that narrative just completely fell apart at the trial just completely fell apart at the trial just completely fell apart at the trial you know it's he didn't cross state you know it's he didn't cross state you know it's he didn't cross state lines for you know in that way he lines for you know in that way he lines for you know in that way he didn't you know with the gun didn't you know with the gun didn't you know with the gun when he went to this protest he went when he went to this protest he went when he went to this protest he went there there there it's interesting i mean He was a cadet, an EMT cadet.

He was kind of in this like junior firefighter program. I'm not saying that he showed good judgment. I think it was poor judgment for him to try and insert himself into that situation. But I don't think he went there to kill anyone or to get into a confrontation. He brought a first aid kit, for you know, for better or worse, he thought he was gonna help people.

And so, any event, the story really is about the media constructing this narrative that fell apart so quickly, as soon as all the facts came out. Freiburg, Jamal? Yeah, I think the I read that there was an analysis of the media and how they tried to portray this and that I think I'll build on what David said, which is was really concerning, like the there was they really wanted this to be a white kid who killed black people during a BLM protest.

Which was, as it turned out the furthest from the truth. I'll just tell you my experience when I first saw it. That's what I thought I had read. And I'll be really honest with you. Initially, I was incredibly biased and my I had a violent reaction inside me of anger towards this kid.

Because my thought was my God, this white kid showed up at a Black Lives Matter rally and killed, you know, three of my brothers, you know, like, literally, that's how I'm feeling. I was so angry, because they didn't really give the facts. There was an example where in Germany, it got so out of hand that the articles were written that Kyle Rittenhouse had actually killed three black men or two black men.

And I think that that's very dangerous, because we need to have the truth and the facts so we can really figure out what's going on, so that we can address what's broken. We can hold people accountable. And then we can move forward together and heal it. But, you know, but this like is the opposite of healing, it just froths people up to make a lot of judgments with misinformation.

And I think that that's very unfair. I didn't, to be honest with you, after I saw the facts, I stopped paying attention to this case, because I literally exhaled. I would have been much more hurt. And I would have probably paid more attention. If this wasn't white on white violence, quite honestly.

Right, right. And I think people, I think we've heard from a lot of people over when Rittenhouse's testimony kind of went viral and started getting reported on, there were a lot of people out there who were surprised to learn that all the victims were white, that this was an example of white on white violence, because it had been portrayed by the media as some sort of racial episode.

And, and it wasn't and it shows how the media is fueling this polarization and rage in our society, by concocting these narratives, which aren't true. It's really that that I think is the dangerous thing. I didn't follow the case to know whether this kid was right or wrong. But I do think if the media uses these opportunities to not just tell the facts, and then race baits people on both the left and the right and gets them frothed up, they're doing a real disservice to America, because I think it takes good people.

And it puts them in a state like me for a while at the beginning where I was really angry, and I didn't know how I felt. And that's and I'm a lucid person. You know, 99.999% of the time. You're thoughtful, yeah. And so it just goes to show you how dangerous this stuff is when they can take a narrative and run with it, and then there's no accountability for it.

And we really have to stop and check ourselves. It just speaks to this ongoing fact pattern where the media is at a point where they are at a very much a low point in their trustworthiness, their ability to fact check. Yeah. Their ability to stick to the truth. I think it's been undone.

Just this past week, you know, I think Elon even tweeted out like, you know, he in exasperation, he said, where can I find like thoughtful news? Right? He was asking Twitter, like, what websites and, and the question wasn't that bad. But if you read the answers, it was really sad.

Nobody had a good answer. You know, one person was like, oh, there's a browser extension that will show you how, you know, how much lying is happening inside the article. And I thought to myself, my God, like, there are browser extensions, like a lieometer, you know, like, this is insanity that, that in 2021, that's what we are faced with, which is very smart people, all of us, everybody listening, normal people just, you know, out on the street, we can all come to the right conclusion when given the facts, and we're not given the facts anymore.

Jake, how do you think we're missing something here? Because you, you, I know, you thought that this whole Rittenhouse thing was crazy, right? Which it was, but are we missing something in your view? Well, I mean, I think, first off, violent protests, and violence is immoral. And all of these protests, whether it's BLM, on the left, on the right, they should all be nonviolent.

There's a reason why Martin Luther King and Gandhi, you know, said, that's the rules. If you want to come to the protest, you have to be nonviolent. And that's, that's the rule. And, and then I think the rhetoric that was created during the Trump era, and that he exacerbated, and that he caused from a lot of his policies, and the way he spoke as the leader of the free world in our country, then polarized things, I blame him for a lot of that.

And if you put a bunch of people who are on the far extremes into a situation like this, and then you insert guns, and you insert young people who have not developed their frontal lobes, who do not have long term thinking, which a 17 year old does not your long term and Freebird will back me up on this in terms of science, long term thinking is something that develops in humans into their early 20s.

And so young people with guns in a violent situation with Trump on TV during this time, both good people on both sides, whatever, you know, the borders, all that stuff that he was stirring the pot on all of that eventually resolves to somebody's going to get killed, whether it's on January 6, or it's a BLM protest.

And that is why he had such a failure of leadership while he was so disgusting and horrible and loathsome. David Erickson: Because he was taking all of this heat and rhetoric up, up, up. And the person who winds up suffering in this are these stupid kids. And they're really dumb parents and mother who allow them to go to a protest and she could have stopped him with a gun.

Somebody needs to stop these kids from going to a protest with a gun. And I think there's a very difficult question here that can be asked. And it probably is true. I think that it was an open and shut case, David, that I mean, I saw the video as well, Chamath, the guy puts a gun on him, what are you gonna do?

You've got a gun, this guy's pointing a gun at you, whoever fires first survives, it is self defense. And that's kind of undeniable, I think. But if I would hope that the number of people that really focus on this case, look at the innumerable number of cases of black and brown people that have been killed.

The Ahmaud Arbery trial is going on right now. Yes, I'm sorry, but I've seen one article in Ahmaud Arbery for every 50 about Kyle Rittenhouse. Yeah, I just really hope Ahmaud Arbery gets his fair trial. And that was a straight up lynching. And let me say again, Breonna Taylor, not a single thing has still been done.

Okay. So I'm not that sympathetic to all of this talk right now. Because there are a lot of black and brown men and women who have been killed in this country. Yes, we're none of you guys care as much. Oh, I care. And that was exactly where I was about to get to the question I was about to ask you, Chamath is if Kyle Rittenhouse had been a black man, and he had shot those three people, what would the outcome of this trial have been?

Would it have been the same justice system? And I don't think that, I don't think that anybody can answer that question and say it would have been fair justice. I don't think it would have been I think the chance would be very low. It makes me in this situation would have been just just you saying it makes me want to cry.

Okay? It would not have I didn't say for that reason, but it is the truth. And I think that's what you know, we in this country, race is something that is our biggest weak point. And we need to get well, I mean, leadership to work on a hypothetical injustice.

We don't know because that's a hypothetical that we can't know the answer to right now. And you're ignoring the justice, the injustice is right in front of your face, which is that this was a political prosecution from the beginning, fueled by a media narrative that was completely bogus. This is why I think David is right.

And we have to go to this root cause issue that we can all fix. Yeah, you know, we can't we shouldn't debate these hypotheticals because they're hurtful. Like even now, like you've seen me I'm emotional, I can't think straight. So let's get the hypothetical off the table. Because David, you're right, it's a hypothetical.

I mean, this case probably should never this case should never have been brought. I mean, as soon as you see the video, if you look up the definition of self defense, okay, you just have to have a reasonable belief that your life is in danger, and then you're allowed to use force.

And you know, Rittenhouse was running away. These guys were attacking him, they were chasing after him, they had a gun trained on him, they were bashing him on the head with a skateboard. I don't know how any prosecutor looks at this and says, we need to prosecute this. So the case should never have been brought.

And then the media fuels this thing. But this is what I'm saying. That's the thing that we can all change, which is our reaction to that media portrayal, the media can be held accountable for how they lied. But how? Well, people are you don't trust them, and they're tuning them out.

And they're going and finding their own answer. I mean, this has been my point. Like, I think we all get tuned up to what the media quote unquote is and isn't saying. I think that's like yesteryear's news. I mean, those those guys have lost credibility. You can see it in all the peer research and all the Gallup research that what used to be called and it's still by a lot of people called the mainstream media is no longer mainstream.

And it's become kind of outskirt and where people are finding their, their sources of information is direct from the source from people that they know to be reliable, trustworthy speakers of the truth and speakers of facts. And they're getting them direct through social media platforms and other systems of self publication.

And that the idea of having centralized media systems that get to have their own editorial and narrative over whatever facts quote, they may be kind of gathering and presenting to us. That's an old school way of doing things. And I don't think we have to worry about it too much anymore.

But I think that's a good point. And I think that's a good point. And I think that's a good point. And I think that's a good point. Whether or not individuals will resolve to truth seeking or emotion seeking is the big question for the 21st century. Because as we've seen the media that the things that we do click on are the things that we already believe and that confirm our bias and that create an emotional incentive versus the things that may be not what we believe and not what we want to hear, but may actually be factual.

And that's the big kind of challenging question here. I think it's less about these evil media people. And it's more about where individuals going to make choices. Yeah, I mean, I'd say alternatively, alternative media voices have never been more important. And you know, you can get a lot of them on substack people like Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, Antonio Garcia Martinez, Colin, Colin, Colin, Barry Weiss, I mean, they all our podcast, they all had very good coverage of this.

By the way, I couldn't help notice the same week that this Rittenhouse narrative collapsed, the whole Steele dossier narrative collapsed. Okay, you had I don't want to get too political and drag it back to the Trump thing. But I think it's a good point. I think it's a good point.

I think it's a good point. I think it's a good point. I think it's a good point. But you had, you know, John Durham is a special prosecutor unraveling this whole phony fake Steele dossier with multiple indictments. And you now have retractions by the Washington Post and other major publications.

And that whole narrative that fueled like an entire year of media coverage is completely collapsing. And it's just another example of, you know, the media running with these narratives that turn out to be completely, I hate to use the word fake, but I mean, it is I mean, it's things in the dossier, fake, but Paul Manafort's conviction is not.

Again, I would encourage everyone to stop using the term the media or even the term mainstream media and just recognize that there are specific outlets that are on their way down and are dying. Yeah, these are content companies that need ratings. They used to be the monopoly and they're no longer.

And you know, they're like yesteryear's news. And it's just, you know, it's like complaining about, you know, whatever, pick any industry that's been disrupted, but they are and will be further disrupted by kind of direct to source fact gathering. The big ultimate question is what are the consumers going to choose?

And that's the thing that scares me the most, to be honest. I think that they can go either way, you can either find better truth seeking, or you can find better emotion, more emotion seeking, and that that's going to cause more polarization and more ugly shit. Well, look, it's happening right now.

You're right that the let's call it the corporate media, the big media corporations, their prestige and esteem in the eyes of American people have no and their credibility has never been lower as gone. New York Times and CNN. Absolutely. I mean, just gone and people should be questioning them.

And stop listening to them. And you have to diversify your information diet and you've got to be subscribed to some alternative journalists on places like substack. But here's the thing that concerns me. You know, you've got the media narrative being dictated by MSNBC, and then it trickles down to LeBron James and Chelsea Handler.

Sorry, that was the name that I forgot earlier, who they were perpetuating this white supremacist narrative around Kyle Rittenhouse. By the way, there was they looked at his phone, his text messages, everything. There is no connection. There's no proof whatsoever of a connection between, you know, him and white supremacy was completely made up by the media.

And yet these major figures in our culture who have this outsized impact, we're tweeting about this. And so the problem is, you know, like people like us diversify our information diet, but there are large parts of the country that are just receiving this information. And it gets basically passed down from the media to Hollywood to the culture.

Yeah. And it's from Tucker Carlson to Scott Bayo to the pillow guy is fueling that it is fueling tremendous device to support. Polarization in our culture. And I would say that, you know, JC brought up Trump and he was a polarizing figure, but I don't think he's the root cause of this polarization.

I think he is a reaction to it. I think he is a manifestation of it is a manifestation of it. And ultimately, the root cause is the complete deterioration and collapse of journalistic standards in the media, in the major mainstream corporate media. I'll disagree with you on that. And I've made this point in the past, which is sex.

I don't know if it you make it. Sound and other people make it sound like in a directed editorial initiative to take things in a direction. And I think that the reaction process is really about what do consumers want to consume? What they choose to consume is what they sell more of and what they produce more of.

And that's the cycle that's driving this. And you know, that doesn't mean that these folks are not complicit or not making good kind of ethical decisions that could actually be argued either way. But at the end of the day, they're businesses that are selling content. And if consumers want content of one form, they're going to choose that form.

Okay. Okay, look, I think you have a point that once a publication goes in a certain direction, starts getting subscribers, there's some positive reinforcement there that has them keep pushing in that direction. That being said, I don't think this is commercial in nature. Primarily, I think what's going on is fundamentally ideological.

You saw, for example, the New York Times, they ran out Barry Weiss, they've run out multiple editors. No, no, you're wrong on this. They did this because they wanted subscriptions. No, no, you're wrong, Sachs. When the New York Times did this, they realized Fox picked a side, MSNBC picked a side, and they they benefited from that by picking a side in the Trump era.

So the New York Times picked a side, they went MSNBC side, and they got rid of the right because the right people drove away the anti Trump subscription. So I think freebirds right on this one, I will say another thing to build on what you were saying before Sachs about the media's responsibility here.

We also have to think about the the cable news media's responsibility when they put these protests on wall to wall and they send people there. That then inspires people to vote. And that's what we're talking about. And that's what we're talking about. And that's what we're talking about. And that's what we're talking about.

And that's what we're talking about. And that's what we're talking about. And that's what we're talking about. And that's what we're talking about. And that's what we're talking about. And that's what we're talking about. And that's what we're talking about. And you know, when you do this wall to wall coverage across five networks, and you obsess over something, people are going to obsess over it.

And they see people out there writing, and people model other people's behavior. And I think they need to think like, how much coverage do we exactly have to give? Right? You know, even now, even now, they're bringing out the National Guard in anticipation of possibly riots and protests in reaction to do said, well, in reaction, no, I don't know if it's gonna induce it.

But in reaction to this verdict in the Rittenhouse trial, they're bringing out the troops to basically quell any, you know, riot before it gets started. But why would that riot even happen? Because the people have been fed this narrative that is completely bogus. And in that sense, the media has been incredibly irresponsible.

And they're playing with fire. They really are. I'll say it again. And we've fallen into this same trap. Look how much time we've just been talking about Kyle Rittenhouse. I mentioned the Maude Arbery. And we've just glossed over it. Is his trial being it's happening, right? No, no. But is it on video?

Because that is another major issue here is when the trials are on video. These trials, they should never do TV again on these trials. Just never again. I mean, it really does create a courtroom but do not put it on TV. Like Veranos is not allowing video in the courtroom.

And it's not getting covered to this extent. And I think the video courtroom does drive this. It makes it a circus. Breaking news, Citadel CEO Ken Griffin, outbid a group of crypto investors for a copy of the US Constitution, according to the Wall Street Journal. Oh my god. We knew somebody was trolling the crypto.

He was a villain before this, but now, remember for Payment for Order Flow? Exactly. I mean, he was the central villain, basically, in that whole Robin Hood fiasco for Payment for Order Flow. And now he outbid the crypto crowd. He is going to be enemy number one. Basically, there is no more sophisticated market participant than Ken Griffin.

And on a silver platter, this group of people, unfortunately, showed them their strategy and showed them exactly how to become the underpinner. He priced it right. He did the prices right. He put $1 on top of their bid. You know what Ken Griffin knows? Ken Griffin knows that now this is an object of interest that people are basically willing to pay anything for.

Bingo. He's going to buy it now. And in one year, he'll sell it for twice as much. It's a valuable asset. But by the way, I want to make a point on this. I disagree, by the way. He's a buyer. He is not a seller. He's going to hold.

Okay. But look, markets don't work with this much transparency. Markets only work when people have different information than other people that are participating in the market. Yeah. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. No. Same data. If everyone knew everything that everyone else was going to do.

Same data, but if everyone knew what everyone else- Different opinions. Different opinions. But if everyone knew everyone else's opinion on what something is worth, the market doesn't work. And that's the problem that happened here. Opinion, yeah. Yeah. So here's what I value an asset at. And now, if you know that, you know how to play against me in the market.

And I will point- That's what I said. Yeah, exactly. And one thing I'll take note of that I kind of realized yesterday when I was thinking about this, which is this like transparency in markets leads to this inflationary problem, why do you think everything that the government buys inflates?

Because everyone already knows what the government is going to spend on that thing. When the government enters into a market like healthcare or education or defense, the amount that they're going to spend is published in a bill. And then Congress says, here's your authorized budget. Here's how much you're going to spend.

So there is no natural market force that says a bid and an ask, what are you willing to pay? And is there a walkaway price? There is no walkaway price when the government is, is told to go spend some amount of money. And as a result, the price of everything inflates to that walkaway, to that price, to that budget.

Can I build on that? It's- And by the way, that's, in my opinion, based on everything I've looked at, the primary reason for the increase in education costs, because the government funds all the student loans, the increase in healthcare, the increase in defense, all of it is because the government is the customer and they tell the person that's servicing them upfront, they tell the market what they're willing to pay.

And so the market just inflates to that amount. Mm-hmm. And it's, uh, it's, it's really the reason why the way that we budget things and the government, as opposed to saying, look, this is the ROI metric, or this is the IRR metric you need to be shooting for with this government spending.

It's all based on a fixed dollar amount of a budget that says, here's how much you should go spend. Well, look, it's, it's, as I said, it's, it's actually worse than that because then the procurement process is, is not, is the furthest thing from a free market where you essentially have these licensed people that are allowed to provide services.

And so if you actually have the key critical input to making something possible, you have to get bundled in through contractors and subcontractors and general contractors who each take their five and 10%. And then that that's what you, that's when you have, like, you know, and, and their hourly costs all balloon, just a little bit, just a little bit, just a little bit.

And suddenly the balloon cost of everything matches exactly the budget. So the perfect example of this is the space program. There was a, there was a, there was a rant by Bernie Sanders yesterday, basically saying, how could we have allowed Jeff Bezos, Mr. Bezos and Mr. Musk to basically take over our national space program?

We need to take space program. We need to take it back. And then somebody hold on. And then somebody thought, I'll just give me the transcript. Somebody thoughtfully went back and actually looked because again, as David said, everything is transparently published. They went back and they actually counted how much money NASA spent in like the last seven or eight years.

And the number was 360 odd billion. Yeah. And then they counted how much. Money, uh, SpaceX had spent. And it was, you know, if you counted revenue between seven and 11 billion. Totally. Totally. And so you have this incredible disparity, which speaks to this. This guy's senile. After the space shuttle, after the space shuttle was retired, NASA didn't even have a way to get to space until SpaceX had the rockets.

I mean. Uh, and think about how many people died on the space shuttle. Guys, what Bernie is saying, which is what's, I think scary to me is if you take the difference between 360 billion and seven, so 300 and, you know, 53 billion dollars and divided by the number of people in the United States, you're basically talking about a thousand per thousand dollars a person.

Would you and I sit around a table and give Bernie Sanders a thousand dollars out of our own pocket? Oh no. To go and basically implement of, uh, a half-ass space program. No, I'd rather, I'd rather give Elon Musk 10 cents, which or one cent, which is the equivalent alternative or a penny.

This raises a really serious issue, which is who is the better capital allocator? Of private market society, private markets or the government. And let me give you an example. So today the house is voting out that reconciliation bill. They've got it. They're spending 2.1 trillion. This is one example.

Does one example that caught my eye is they've got $2.5 billion going to tree equity, whatever that is. I'm sorry. Tree equity, tree equity. This is like tree equity. I think it might mean that like some communities have more trees. I think it means that some, some communities have more trees and others, they gotta rectify that.

I don't know. I mean, this is like the jump, the shark moment for the word equity, because I think now everything is equity, but, but you know, what, what struck me about this $2.5 billion number. Okay. Is that like craft ventures, which I've been doing for the last four years, we've raised and we'll be deploying a total of about 2 billion over call it five years into hundreds of startups that, you know, will pave the way for the next generation of the economy.

So 2 billion versus two and a half billion as one line that's just a footnote. That's an asterisk in this bill. I mean, what is the better capital allocation decision? And what people have to understand is, you know, all this money that gets spent gets sucked out of the private economy somehow.

It either, you know, comes from taxes or gets added to the, the national debt, but either way it comes out of the private economy and resources that could be allocated to the next generation of, of innovative companies. All right. Let's play the clip. And to be squandering the money like that on all these programs that no one even knows what they do.

Uh, when we're almost 30 trillion in debt is just unbelievable. Okay. The 1% are going to be going to space and taking away the moon from the other 99% here, roll the clip. Unbelievably, this bill would provide and authorize some $10 billion in taxpayer money to Jeff Bezos, the second wealthiest person in America.

For his space race with Elon Musk, the wealthiest person in America. This is beyond laughable. And I will be introducing an amendment to strike this provision. Frankly, it is not acceptable. It's not an issue that we have discussed terribly much, but it is not acceptable that the two wealthiest people in this country, Mr.

Musk and Mr. Bezos take control of our space efforts to return to the moon and maybe even the extraordinary accomplishment of getting to the moon. This is not something for two billionaires to be directing. This is something for the American people to be determining. Yeah. All the people have to be able to go to the moon before two people can go to the moon.

Is that the idea? Yeah. If there was a go to the moon Dow, it would get more fucking good callback. Look at you with the callbacks, Freiberg. You're learning how to entertain the audience. Can you imagine people would just plow money into a go to the moon Dow and give it all to Elon Musk.

It'd be so. More people would do that than would vote to support the Senate bill. Additionally, I would like to report that Starlink does not work at my Lake house and Amazon prime takes three to four days at my beach house on the Cape and that these two companies are oppressing the 3% of the top 3%, which I am not part of the 1%.

And some people don't have enough trees. And we need trees in my community. There's only small trees and we want the Redwoods from San Francisco. Why do they or the hippies? The Redwoods that are much taller. Do you guys remember one of our very earliest pods? I made a statement which is equity is this danger word that the progressive left uses to steal power.

Yes. That we should feel unsafe. We should always want equality, but not equity because equity is zero sum, right? You know, a cap table. Once you give somebody else equity, it's dilutive to everybody else, but equality is infinite. You can have unbounded equality. Yes. And when I hear these guys talk about this stuff, it's so scary.

The second thing is I'm a little confused by what Bernie's saying, because on the one hand, he wants to cancel the American government's effective, you know, support of these programs. On the other hand, he wants us to take back the responsibility for it. But I think he must realize that it would cost 50 times more or a hundred times more.

He's not spending sensitive in case you haven't noticed. I also think this is like virtue signaling. Like, he was attacking Bezos about like minimum wage and then Bezos came over the top and like doubled it and then gave people college education. That was Bernie Sanders platform for president was like, give people free college and give people like a better $15 minimum wage.

Bezos has done more for Bernie's platform than anybody. He should be thanking. He should be telling people all companies should be asking like Amazon. No, no, no. But also actually to your point, can I build on that? Amazon is now doing more to actually unwind duopolies and monopolies. markets than the government and the FTC is, you know, see this thing that Amazon is now doing in the UK with visa, where they basically shut visa off.

And people are speculating now that it's a step in this direction of Amazon, you know, in Amazon domestically in the United States, they just did this big deal with a firm. And so they are looking at and they there's a rumor that they may switch the Amazon credit card off of visa rails and put them on MasterCard rails.

But there's another example, Jason, to your point of like, you know, Bernie and the left progressive left would probably rail against the duopoly practices of visa and MasterCard. They can't get anything done. Jeff Bezos has actually done more now, presses a button and has done more now. Here's another one to build on yours.

Who's doing I mean, Bernie Sanders cares about global warming. It's like one of his key issues who's donated more to global warning than Jeff Bezos. Nobody, nobody who's doing 100,000 electric vehicles for his delivery fleet. Jeff Bezos, Jeff Bezos took a Bernie Sanders platform that he failed to get into office on and he made it Amazon's platform.

Here's a third example, Nick, you tweeted this out, Nick, or you can find this thing that I tweeted out, but it was a little meme. And it was it was, it was basically Toby Maguire and Kristen Dunst, right? There's a meme upside down quit. No, they're looking at each other.

And basically, the joke is like, you know, every time you protested at, you know, to shut down a nuclear plant, the resulting effect 40 years later was another 100 megatons of CO2, was put into the air. And it just goes to yet again, another example of we virtue signal nuclear reactors and nuclear power, we go and we get them all shut down, it turned out that we ingested or we we put out as a result, an enormous amount of more CO2 than had to be put.

And then and now, who's helping to step in and solve it another private citizen Bill Gates, like everyone for these private companies, we couldn't even get astronauts to space anymore. Impossible. I mean, like the government has actually lost the capacity to do that. Impossible. It would it would have been impossible.

It would have been impossible. And who are we up against for space? I mean, China, Russia, China, just China. It's such a dichotomy between and this is like a recurring theme of the show between what the private sector and specifically and not like the fortune 500, not those old stodgy companies are in the process of being disrupted, but what the sort of entrepreneurial economy is able to accomplish versus like how stultified and calcified.

And incompetent the government's become. I mean, to your point, Freeberg, I think Sam Altman led this, the fusion energy startup helium like $500 million round. I mean, by the time these nitwits, you know, in these political office figure these things out, we're gonna have fusion reactors, aren't we? Is that real science?

Is that coming close? What do you think, Ruber? I mean, Bill Gates just did this. He's got a what's it called TerraPower announcement this week. He's got a company that he's been funding for years and they're building a 500 megawatt fusion plant in Wyoming, I think. Yeah, in Wyoming.

Yes. In Wyoming. And he got 2 billion from the government and 2 billion that was funded by the company and its shareholders, which I think is majority owned by Bill Gates. But it certainly feels and seems to me, I mean, look, this one, like we've said, a lot of these infrastructure deals, these big infrastructure deals for things like power and next gen manufacturing and whatnot could benefit from the boost of government subsidies or government shared costs to get these things off the ground.

Over time, as you get scale and reproducibility of them, the cost per unit comes way, way, way, way down. And so it seems to be the case that there are enough of these programs. I think I know of at least half of them are going to be used. a dozen nuclear power companies that are in advanced stages of doing first installation design right now.

And so it seems like this is going to be a reality. I think it would be an incredible boom to clean energy in the United States and globally if we can get more of these built. I mean, what was the staff? China's building 150 nuclear power plants. Yeah. They've commissioned 150 nuclear power plants.

I mean, it's a no-brainer that that's what we need in the 21st century. It's the best renewable source. Very small footprint, very reliable, can run 24/7. Doesn't depend on some, you know, sun or wind or what have you. So you can plug it into a grid. So the government literally does not need to get involved in this, aside from writing a check and chopping it up 50/50, split the pot with Bill Gates.

I think there's an important role that the government can and should play here, which is, you know, if we want to talk about what infrastructure this country needs, I've said it on the last couple of shows, we don't need yesteryear's infrastructure. We don't need last century's infrastructure, new bridges and, you know, toll bridges, or whatever nonsense is, you know, going to get inflated as a result of this recent infrastructure.

But what we need is next-gen infrastructure and not charging stations because the free market's already there doing that. And, you know, not internet because the free market's already there giving everyone internet. We see a thousand examples of that. What we need is the stuff that the free market cannot afford to fund and stand up, like next-gen nuclear power stations, like biomanufacturing, like large-scale on-demand 3D printing systems.

These are the sorts of infrastructure programs that the United States and our workforce could benefit from government subsidies to help the private force, the private markets get stood up. And as these things get stood up and the flywheel gets going and cash starts getting generated, they can self-fund and they can grow and they can install more of these and the costs come down for the next one.

The things where the government is the only customer, the only person buying, the cost will only go up on over time. Whereas the things that the private market is building, the cost will go down over time. And in some of these cases where there's a big kind of hurdle to get over the first build or the first build cycle, you know, the government has an important role to play, I think.

And so, you know, look, I mean, it's clearly not going to happen with this current infrastructure build. There's a few nuggets in there that might be useful and helpful. But generally speaking, you're right. I mean, over time, we want the cost of things to come down, not go up.

And so we need the private market to play a critical role in being the majority driver, you know, of these kind of systems. All right. Seems like a good place to end. Pete Davidson is now dating Kim Kardashian. How jealous are you, Chamath? I'm not jealous. What are you talking about?

Great. I agree. I am. I am shocked that Pete Davidson has dated some of the most incredibly famous, popular women. Oh, so you are jealous. Okay. Well, I'm a little curious. I gotta say, I'm a little curious. I mean, if you put a picture of Pete Dav-- I mean, there's got to be something happening there.

Let's just put it out there. He's got the Kevorka. I'm going to send you a link to an article. I don't know what Kevorka is. I'm googling. Remember that from Seinfeld, where Kramer was like, you know, dating all these beautiful women, and it's because he explained he had the Kevorka.

He's got a better finishing move. Yeah. This is an article that went viral this week. Emily Ratajkowski, how do you pronounce her name? Yeah. Yeah. Breaks down why women find Pete Davidson so attractive. And so, this was like, you know, I saw it all over Twitter this week, but it was all about, you know, the-- And what is the answer?

Just give me the headlines. I don't know. It's some-- He's got super charming. He's vulnerable. He's lovely. His fingernail polish is awesome. He looks good. He has a good relationship with his mom. I mean, I just think he comes across as a good guy might be the appeal. Also, they want to take care of him, I think, because he's got, like, his dad died-- I think you guys are missing a more subtle, non-obvious point.

I don't know what you're talking about, Chamath. Do explain. Maybe you could expand-- I'm just guessing. It's a family show, Chamath. It's a family show. Oh, my God. Yeah. No, I think they want to take care of him. That's what I heard from a woman, said they want to, like, nurture him and take care of him.

Rock on. Rock on. I mean, also, Kim Kardashian, I think, you know, she just got the Gen Z. I think she was probably going the way of Paris Hilton, like, maybe aging out of her, you know, celebrity. And now she went Kanye, kind of Gen X, right? And now she's going down to Gen Z.

She's got a whole new-- I hate to be cynical about it, but-- I also, you know-- This feels like PR to me. I'm going to take so much flack for saying this, but I was a little short Donda, but I've listened to Donda now a couple times, and my God.

Is it good? It's pretty fucking good. I mean, Kanye West is one of-- legitimately one of the most incredible artists of all time. I mean, the way his mind works-- I agree with that. The music, the beats, it's outrageous. I think if you give Donda, like, two or three shots, it's really amazing.

I always did some late registration, college dropout, and 808 and heartbreaks. I-- Amazing. My dark twisted fantasy was probably one of the best albums ever created. Well, see, that's the thing is, I think-- Ridiculous. --with his later work, I think-- I think his later work, like, I didn't get into my beautiful dark twisted fantasy until I had listened to it 10 times.

Amazing. Amazing. And then I was like, "Okay, I get it." Amazing, yeah. And I feel like-- The early stuff is so accessible, like, dropout and registration. So accessible, yeah. But Donda is just perfect. Those are pretty incredible. I mean, it's-- Right now, David Sachs is like, "What are you guys talking about?

I haven't listened to any of this." David, do you know-- He's like, "Is that like Paul Anka?" David's like, "Yeah. Wow." Sachs, do you listen to music? Actually, this is a good question. Yeah, Sachs, what's your favorite artist? What's your favorite band? Like, if we found-- Like, if we listened to, like, your workout tracks, so like on your-- Like on-- Barry Manilow?

Like, Apple. Like, what are you listening to? Like, Spotify. Like, what are you listening to? Tucker Carlson? No, music-wise. I don't listen to music when I work out. What? So Tucker-- The only time I really listen to music is when I'm like in a car or on a plane or whatever.

But do you have music, for example, like downloaded on your phone? Like, if he said, "Pull out your phone." Huh? Yeah, I do. Can you just give a couple names here? Top three, yeah. Honestly, it's gonna be recent hits because I just downloaded what my kids told me to download.

I understand. That's where I get it from. Just give me a couple albums that you've downloaded. Okay, so, hold on. Where's-- Recently added. Okay. So, it looks to me like I recently added Khalid. Yes. Okay. Good. There's a Gaga song, Kid Laroi, and Miley Cyrus. Okay. Okay. Kid Laroi and Justin Bieber.

Great. Doja Cat. My kids love Doja Cat. She's great. She's great. TikTok queen. Yeah. See, my kids keep me current. You know, you think I'm like-- She's great. Here's what I'm doing for my kids. This is my new parenting strategy. I was let-- They love listening to the 80s playlist on Spotify, but now I was like, "Who are like great seminal artists?" So, I have them doing Tom Petty, David Bowie, Talking Heads, and Bob Marley.

And I get the whole Greatest Hits album, and I explain to them every song, and they're like totally getting into it. So, basically-- I want them to actually know what great music is. You're being self-indulgent. You're focused on yourself, and you're-- You're trying to make them a loser. No, I'm trying to get them to understand what actual music-- Really, bro.

Great music. You want your kids to walk into school, and when somebody else is like, "Hey, do you like Doja Cat?" They're like, "No, but have you listened to Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers?" I've been doing that. I've been playing my kids my favorite artists, and they-- And he's become their favorite artist.

Apex Twin. You guys don't know who he is. Yeah, Apex Twin. Yeah, yeah. Apex Twin has this great album called the Richard D. James album. Richard D. James album is probably one of the best albums of all time. And I play it, and my kids go frigging nuts for it now, and they ask for it nonstop.

And I'm like, "Oh my God, I love you. You're my kids." It's the best. I try to get my kids into my favorite movies, and that's just too hard because movies were-- Say hi, everybody. They were too slow about this. Yeah, so did Gene. Yeah. If you have kids to watch movies, it's hard.

They want to watch-- It's hard. Yeah. Yeah. No, they can't watch movies. They're too slow. They can't watch movies. They can only watch a Marvel movie. They can't even watch the original Star Wars or Raiders of Lost Ark. Totally. Anything where the scene doesn't cut every one and a half seconds, they can't watch.

It's crazy. I was like, "Raiders of Lost Ark, you're gonna love this." They're like, "This is so boring." I'm like, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Temple of Doom are boring? Isn't that crazy? -It's terrible. Well, the first act is character development. They wanna cut the first act. Have you guys watched-- Jaws, if you've watched Jaws, it would be like unwatchable.

But I remember as a kid watching it. She loved it. Did you guys ever watch like AMC, and you watch the old-school movies of the '30s and '40s? They are impossible to watch. They are so-- it's like watching a play. Exactly. It's gotten more and more kind of short form as we've kind of aged.

Yeah. That's like, oh no, what happened? Oh, quesadilla. Aki-- Aki. Trolling a biscuit, and Aki just came and took it from him. Aki, not the good Aki. You don't take a biscuit. Aki, you eat a dog food. You don't eat a biscuit? Bad Aki. You know, those biscuits are cashmere.

They're really expensive. All right, I'm gonna go get my booster shot. I'll see you guys later. All right, everybody. This has been another exciting, amazing episode of the All In Podcast for-- I'm gonna get Sergio cookies. --for-- The Dictator. Hi, Nat. Shamath Palihapitiya and the Sultan of Science, David Freeburg.

We'll see you all next time. Sexy Poo, have a wonderful time with Suarez. He came by last night. Oh, yeah. I'm hosting Miami Mayor Francis Suarez tonight. We're doing a cocktail reception fundraiser for him. Hung out with him last night. And we got huge turnout. I mean, I tweeted this thing.

And we're going to have, I think, at least 60 people at the reception, at least 20 people for dinner. You have security. You're letting randos in your house from Twitter? Security. Oh, they have to pay five dimes. Yeah, they have to pay. But also, we kind of check everybody out.

One of your enemies will pay five dimes just to get in your house. I think basically BuzzFeed paid to get in there. I'd be careful. We have to know who they are. We vet them. Background checks. There's a lot of people-- I mean, look, if we wanted to let everybody in, there were at least 100 people who replied to my tweet saying, I can't DM you, but I want to go.

And-- Open your DMs for a day. Oh, you can do that? Yeah. Francis came by yesterday with his team. He was in top form. He looks great. He's excited about the next term. All right, we'll see you all next time. Bye bye. I'm going all in. We'll let your winners ride.

Rain Man, David Sack. I'm going all in. And it said-- We open sourced it to the fans, and they've just gone crazy with it. Love you, Besties. I'm the queen of kinwa. I'm going all in. Let your winners ride. Let your winners ride. I'm going all in. Besties are gone.

That's my dog taking a ride. What do you say? Oh, man. My haberdasher will meet me at-- We should all just get a room and just have one big huge orgy because they're all just useless. It's like this sexual tension that they just need to release somehow. Wet your feet.

Wet your feet. Wet your feet. We need to get merch. Besties are back. I'm going all in. I'm going all in. I'm going all in. I'm going all in. I'm going all in. you