Only sacks can lose 20 pounds and look worse. sacks, you know, with with all with all these gains and all your funds, I would really love for you to cash them out and buy a belt. Ask your wife or your house manager to help you find slim fit shirts at the local Macy's you'd literally look like you're wearing a parachute.

I've never I've never worn some fit for a second stand up. I can't I'm not I'm not wearing pants. Oh my god. Can somebody call HR? Are you really not wearing pants? I got I got I got shorts on. Are you really wearing shorts? Yeah, I am. Now it's nice line.

No, I'm not put your leg up. Show us that pasty leg. No fucking way. Oh my god. Oh my god. How big are those shorts? That's Dom DeLuise and he lost to change your wardrobe. Oh my god. Those are like two toothpicks sticking out of a tent. It's like somebody set up a circus tent and didn't tie down the ends.

He's wearing a parachute and a circus tent. Oh my god. Let your winners ride. Rain Man David Sacks. We open source it to the fans and they've just gone crazy. Love you guys. Hey, everybody. Hey, everybody. Welcome to another episode of the all in podcast. With us again, again, the podcast with us again today, the dictator Chamath Pali, hapatea and the Queen of quinoa, David Friedberg in front of some bad art and from the mausoleum, a Shvelt fighting weight minus 20 pounds, the Rain Man himself, David.

You guys gave me the motivation. I mean, this podcast you fat shamed me, you needled me for months. And I'm like, okay, I'm gonna do this. Okay, I'm gonna lose the weight. So I've lost it. What was your peak weight? In the last 12 months? I think I was at in the high 190s.

And I'm down to about 172 now. So it's about 25 pounds. Wow, since since about April or May. That's really great, bro. That's fantastic. I mean, honestly, your family thanks you. I think as a friend to know but seriously, keep that longer. Really fucking great. I'm really I'm really proud of your sizing too.

Thank you. Or just cut your diet. It's it's I'm doing the same exercise regimen I was doing before, which is just running occasionally. But it's all diet. It's all diet. It's frankly severe calorie restriction. And your your munique product has been very helpful. But is it really severe calorie restriction?

Thanks for the plug. I think so. Yeah, we're talking about munique for the syndicate on the call in app the other day. dropping from the sky. I'm allowed to plug I'm allowed to plug so you could put a call in plug. You're violating our rules of the road that it's not a violation of the rules because I'm not a shareholder in unique.

I don't know. But are you negotiating a deal? No, but not funding munique? No, I haven't. But freebrook can I invest? We should actually throw that one in the syndicate if you guys want. Yeah, munich's great. I did it. I lost some weight on it. Saxy poo. What's your what's your basal calorie burn?

Did you get that? I'm not what does that mean? Like your steady state calorie burn on a normal day? Like if you're not exercising or whatever, like, yeah, based on your height, your BMI, your weight, all that stuff. Yeah, I did. I did look it up. And I think it's around 2000 calories a day.

But the thing that's super interesting. Yeah, there's a calculator online where you can enter your your height, weight and age. And it'll tell you how many calories that you burn every day. So if you want to lose weight, you need to consume fewer calories than that. It's that simple.

Everything else that people do around weight loss that is not that. That is basically some sort of game. You just have to consume fewer calories than you're burning. But the thing that's really interesting about that calculator is that the number of calories you can burn every year actually changes as you get older, it goes down.

So the reason why people gain weight as they get older, is because you're in a habit of consuming a certain number of calories every day. But you know, as you get older, like every year, you can consume, say 50 fewer calories a day, something like that. And that basically becomes fat if you if you consume at the same level.

So you have to cut your consumption down. As you get older, or you will gain weight. And in addition to your metabolic fitness, meaning like, you know, having your exercise levels stay up to increase your metabolism overall, you can also add muscle mass, a lot of people lose muscle mass over time.

Muscle burns more calories per day just to kind of keep functioning. So the more muscle mass you have, the higher your basal you lose like half a pound to a pound a year after 40. Is that correct? directionally? Freebird? I don't know. But that sounds about right. Yeah, yeah, that's what I read.

That is about right. Because I think it's because this dynamic where people are just consuming the same amount, but they don't realize that they can't burn it. And so it becomes fat. You know, so to my case, first of all, you got to get your caloric intake down to 2000, just to get to steady state.

And that can be a challenge. But if you really want to lose weight, you need to burn, you need to basically consume a few 100 calories less than that. And if you can consume 500 calories less than that per day, that's considered rapid weight loss. And then you can actually see the results, which is very motivating.

Yeah. So I like the idea of just going for the like significant the 500 calories. You're at 1500 calories a day. Yeah, I mean, I think so. I mean, I haven't like precisely measured it out. But I've been trying to go for and is that you skip a meal?

Is that how you get to the minus 500 calories? Yeah, I will either skip breakfast or I'll do a very light breakfast. And then for lunch, I'll do like something entirely plant based like, like suit like a vegetable soup of some kind. And then when it comes to dinner, it'll be a more normal dinner, but no carbs, no two dinners, one bottle of wine.

No, no, you have a good system. Yeah. Yeah. The system is vegetables first. Yes. Then fish, then poultry, then red meat. And so it's it's not you're not like, entirely all one thing or another. You're not like all vegan, which would be hard. You're not you. It's not like you're all you there's no red meat or something like that.

You do a little of everything, but you have to have a waiting. And the waiting is based on what foods have are the most calorie dense. So the mistake that I think people make, and I think it's one of these trick diets is like with these protein, like the South Beach type diet, or the paleo diet, right, where they're trying to trick their body into ketosis.

And all they do is eat a lot of red meat. But those steaks have a lot of calories in them. Yeah. So it only works if you do it perfectly, where you totally trick your body and keeping your body in ketosis forever is just not sustainable. In my view, it's hard.

So I think you're a lot better off just eating less calories, Yeah. dense food and steak is very calorie dense. So, you know, again, you try to eat speaking of steak then fish. I I rarely eat beef but I get to eat it today and I'm having steak night.

Drey's coming over for dinner and in the season, he whenever I text him and I say, hey, what do you want for dinner, Draymond's always like fish, fish, fish, fish, fish, and I said bro, I, I get to eat steak so **** rarely. Uh and today, we're having steak.

I can't wait. My mouth. When you get to, it's because you're on some diet basically. No, no, I do. I I just observe that I don't eat meat any more than once a week maximum and right now, I'm probably averaging once every two weeks, maybe even once every three weeks and to your point, it's much better.

I I do these uh scans, you know, you can do these kind of body scans to know what your um your total water weight, your total muscle weight, your total weight, your total body fat, all of that stuff and your basic metabolic rate and I just kinda track it like once a quarter just to see where it is.

Um and I I agree with you. Like, I've really found that uh I can't eat red meat anymore. Like, it's like, it just really **** me up. But it's so good. Right. It's so good. Yeah. Oh my god, it's so good. The other, one other trick is that you should never consume calories like in liquid form, right?

You should only be drinking water, tea, coffee, things like that that don't have any calories. People go to Starbucks in the morning and they they drink like yeah, 400 plus calories. Then they have a, you know, cinnamon roll, a whatever or banana. Yeah, they're at 1200 at the start.

Yeah. I mean, that's it. You just, I mean, you're gonna be gaining weight on just from going to Starbucks in the morning. There's no, now, if you do an Americano with a splash of almond milk or something, that's like 510 calories. That's fine. But um you you have to stop drinking calories and then the one exception is like last night, we did poker.

We were drinking wine. So, that's fine. You know, I didn't cuz I thought the wine was **** Yeah, let's talk about the whole game was horrible. Let me just tell you all the things that I've done. Here we go. Hold on a second. Okay. Number one, I **** came all the way up to San Francisco.

Last night, Chamath normally hosts. Sax went over the top. Number one. Chamath is over the top in air quotes. Number one. Nobody arrived on time because nobody respects you enough to show up on time. Oh, Jake and I played heads up for an hour. Hour. Before anyone else showed up.

We we were there from seven to eight just playing heads up. It was fun. It was fun. I took all the free money. I own 3% of Munich. You as the host didn't show up till 9:30 and you spent all of the time on the phone trading outside in the room trading Japanese bonds or doing whatever you were doing.

Talking to Peter. Men showed up at 10:30. You know, the game was basically randomly in the muck half the night. Nobody was observing any good decorum. Run it once, run it twice. There was just nothing going on. There was no fish. You had stale fish. Okay, just sitting there rotting, stinking up the whole **** room.

You know, you had 2013 cold in which is not even a good year. Just FYI. Okay, two thousand twelve. Okay, two thousand fifteen. Do that. I mean, so anyways, I thought it was a disaster. I stormed and up and I left. He did rage quit and it was quite a moment because we're playing PLO.

Finally, Sax loses all his money. But I did have three bowls of ice cream which I regretted this morning. Alright, Sax, in your defense, why were you, why did you leave your guests for three hours while you talked at your own home? It wasn't, it wasn't three hours. You guys were being well attended to.

I made sure that you were well attended to and then I had to duck out. Well attended to? What are we preschool? What do that? What are you talking about? Ex-cute a couple of a couple of trades. So, what were the calls? Well, you know, crypto is like a 24/7 market these days.

Crypto never sleeps. So, David Sax has to excuse himself. Oh, yeah. I got wired 800K Hong Kong gold. Had to uh, Yeah. So, okay. So, first of all, the food was amazing. We had like this incredible. You didn't eat it. You didn't eat it. You had the Brussels sprouts.

You ate none of it. I'm on a diet. I did eat the sushi. There's like this incredible sushi spread. We had so much sushi. Most of it didn't get eaten. Then we had pizzas got the best late night pizzas from two different pizza places got delivered. There was more than one pizza per person in terms of selection.

It was Tony's Napolitano's. You had homemade caramel sauce poured over tomorrow. That was good. No, Dolce de Leche. That was great. Yeah. Props to the chef. Put Dolce de Leche on the vanilla. Yeah. And the Colgan 2013 Estate 9 is a fantastic bottle of wine that I had another bottle of it earlier this week.

We just lost 42% of the audience. They are now on the YouTube comments saying, why are these people? Why do we listen to this pod every week? And here's the reality at your mouth is you were very quiet and sort of sullen the whole night. Oh. From really the time you got there.

It's kind of true. You didn't really participate in the conversation and Sky hypothesized that the reason why you were so withdrawn is because you were upset that the game had moved from your place to my place and you thought somehow I was trying to hijack your game, which is not true.

We do a game at my place maybe once every six months. No, no, no. I told Sky text already. I said, hey guys, we normally run the game Thursdays at my house. I'm happy to come up, but it's harder for me because Nat's almost due. Right. So, you were upset from the get-go that you weren't hosting.

No, no, no. I wasn't. I told him that pretty candidly. Well, I mean, there's another underlying issue here. Friedberg and Sax have not come to the last three games at Chamath's house. Is there something going on here? Or is it just the commute? I think the commute is hard.

I mean, in fairness to you guys. The commute's hard. I only missed the last game. I went to... Well, Sax hasn't been coming and I know he's in town. Is there something going on, Sax, where you can't drive anymore? No. It's either the commute or sometimes I'm out of town, you know?

You were in town the last couple times. I don't know. I think you're kind of... You and Chamath maybe need to go for a walk. Okay. I'll come. I'll come the next... When's the next game? Whenever. The next game, you should come. But I mean, what are you doing?

Staying home playing chess with Peter Thiel on your iPad? I mean, come on. Both me and Friedberg are about to have kids. We cannot. Oh, the game's over? No, no, no. For another couple of weeks, yeah. We're going to revert back to that terrible COVID app, iPad app playing poker where like everyone gets to kiss at each other.

Oh my God. Oh, the Chinese app that was fixed with a bunch of people colluding. Everyone was so angry. Stay off that app. Yeah. Well, we'll get it back in the next week. Let's start our show. Let's start the show. First up in SPAC land, Donald Trump has done a SPAC and it's for his Trump Media and Technology group.

And he's launching an app called Truth Social, which you can preload, I guess, in the app store. You're allowed to preorder stuff now. I thought that was kind of an interesting feature. The company will merge with the SPAC called Digital World Acquisition Corporation, ticker symbol currently DWAC. It's led by somebody named Patrick Orlando, who is a Florida-based investment manager.

I'm not making that up. I don't know if Orlando is actually his name. He founded a sugar trading business and built two energy distribution businesses allegedly or supposedly. Freeberg said maybe he's a real estate guy. Who knows? The stock peaked at $157 a share this morning, Friday morning. So the SPAC started at 10 bucks.

It started at 10. So that's 16x before dropping back down to 100. It's become a bit of a meme stock on Wall Street Bets. Trading was halted. It puts this at something in the range of a $10 billion market cap. There is literally no technology, no team. A bunch of technologists looked at the source code just by doing view source, I think, on the web pages.

There's an open source project called Master Don or Master Ton. I don't know. I think it's Master Don. They seem to have just copied the code from it. It's like a distributed version of Twitter. It seems they just cut and pasted the code and didn't even change the license, the GPL license.

We're supposed to give credit to who wrote the code. So no business, no team, no IP, no users, no money, no office, no nothing. It's basically... It's an NFT. This is an NFT. It's an NFT. And basically... It's an exchange traded NFT. It's an NFT of Donald Trump. Go ahead, Freeberg.

The value of this thing is closer to... Donald Trump is closer to $20 billion because there's a $1.7 billion value if they hit certain stock prices according to the press release they put out, but there's not a good SEC filing on it. So at 1.7, that means he got 170 million shares.

Which are now worth, let's say, at $157 a share. Donald Trump has effectively $20+ billion. Oh, so he's finally a billionaire? And he's finally a billionaire of equity value in his stake in this thing. He's actually a billionaire. And I think this is the absolute penultimate NFT. It is traded against a caricature that is a one of a kind, completely rare.

This is going to... All of his "media IP" is going to be licensed into this SPAC. And so if you want to own a piece of it, this is the way to own it. And people are trading it like an index on the Donald Trump character. It's an index on that.

I think it's an index on the right. I think it's an index on an alternative to Fox News. To traditional media? The traditional media. It's a huge fuck you to actually the mainstream media. I think this is going to... To Twitter? Oh my God, it's going to tilt the hell out of like the folks that write at the New York Times.

My gosh. Did you see Jack Dorsey's tweet, by the way? No. I'll put it in the chat, but he made a comment on it after there was a screenshot. I mean, let's be honest. It's a grift. I mean, this is the ultimate peak grift in the peak bubble of our lifetime.

Period. I think it's a vote. Like Peter Thiel said yesterday, you know, like Bitcoin is a vote against the establishment. This is a vote against the establishment. All right. What are the chances that an actual app launches SACS? And when would that actually happen? When can this crew of dipshits actually write a line of code and actually release a product?

You know how hard it is to release product? Yeah, that's a good question. I mean, what they're saying is that they're going to launch a new social network, I guess, Twitter style called Truth Social. And the primary interface will consist of a feed of short posts from users you follow.

Sounds familiar. However, these posts will be called truths instead of tweets. And reshares will be known as retruths. Wow. So original. So that's what's coming. And, you know, I think that's going to be a big deal. I think that's going to be a big deal. I think that's going to be a big deal.

I think that's going to be a big deal. I think that's going to be a big deal. I think that's going to be a big deal. I think that's going to be a big deal. So that's what's coming. And the the slide deck that's available on the company's website list, Twitter, Facebook, Netflix, Disney Plus, CNN, I heart media, Google Cloud, Amazon Web Services, as some of TMT G's current and future competitors.

So basically, you know, Trump is proposing an alternative to all the traditional media and social networks that have basically banned him. But I do think that the trading here does represent there is, I think, a groundswell, as well for for social media platforms that are not controlled by big tech.

And, you know, there's Trump has 70 million tech voters, sorry, 70 million voters of those, probably 30 to 40 million, you would say are would be fans of his on social media, he's been banned from Twitter and Facebook. And this is his response. He's a great his own platform.

I don't know whether ultimately be successful. But I think what you're seeing here is the demand for alternatives to, you know, censorious platforms that are controlled by big tech. And I think that's going to be a big deal. I think that's going to be a groundswell for social media platforms that are not controlled by big tech.

And, you know, there's Trump has 70 million tech voters, sorry, 70 million voters of those probably 30 to 40 million, you would say are would be fans of his on social media, are controlled by big tech. So if he has 30 million real fans, Chamath, what number of them would download the app and participate in the first year?

He had 90 million followers on Twitter, J.K., which doesn't count. But that's half of the Twitter registered account. We had 70 million people vote for him. So what are the real fans, not just Republicans who don't want Hillary? I don't think that's the way to think about this. I would I would view this as differently than this.

What's insane is you have this entity here, which is essentially a cash shell. That's now basically, you know, 300 odd million dollars of cash, plus what looks like 18 or $19 billion of brand value, like of intangible goodwill. And the sum total of that is is what the total market cap of this thing is.

So if it is 18 billion, then that's what it is. What this allows them to do. And this is where it kind of gets interesting, is these guys, what it shows me is they could come back and actually raise an enormous amount of money. They could come back and actually raise an enormous amount of money.

They could come back and actually raise an enormous amount of money. They could come back and actually raise an enormous amount of money. They could issue, you know, a secondary stock sale, they could do a convert, they could raise billions of dollars because the demand is there. And then with those billions of dollars, they could actually do something really meaningful, they could go and acquire an existing app, Jason, Colin could acquire engineers and a product that already exists, they could acquire, they could acquire a traditional broadcast outlet and give Trump, you know, a way to short circuit his launch of a fox competitor.

So I actually think this is a huge vote. I think David's right. It's a vote against censorship. It's a vote for Trump. It's a vote for the right. It's a vote for alternative voices. And as a result, I think a lot of folks in the mainstream who have Trump derangement syndrome are now going to be, you know, reawoken and in complete full tilt for a while.

Yeah, it's pretty tilty. TMTG plus will be, you know, terrible branding, but the TMTG plus will be a very, very important tool for the future of the American economy. And I think that's what's going to be the key. And I think that's what's going to be the key. Plus is going to be tilted.

I'm super. I mean, I think the whole thing is just a super grift. I don't think they'll ever get a product out the door. If they do, I think they get to maybe 510 million users. They're gonna raise J. Cal, they've got they've got a $20 billion market cap, they could do whatever the hell they want.

It's all people just manipulating the stock like, like, Chamath said, they could turn that into into cash. I mean, they could turn it up. I don't think they can get the 20 billion. Trump today, in one day, is worth more than two times in New York Times. Can you imagine what's going on in the New York Times?

Yeah, and that's just brand? Well, let's see. I mean, not all these SPACs stay at $150 a share, you know, so Jake, I think you're right that people outside the tech industry really underestimate how hard it is to build technology products that are any good, you know, that have a good UI, they're delightful to users, it does require real talent.

And if you're not sort of from the industry, you don't even know what kind of talent you need to hire. However, I think Chamath has a really good point that with this kind of market cap, they could acquire their way to a portfolio of assets, like for example, okay, rumble right now has become the alternative to YouTube among Yeah, not just conservatives, but anyone who's who's been de platformed.

There's a lot of leftists now there's no goals.com that you invested in. Yes, exactly. I invested in locals, which is Dave Rubin's thing. So but but just to take rumble for a second, because it's kind of the YouTube competitor, you know, they've got something like 30 million users plus, it's a very, it's a it's a pretty big and growing audience.

But there is locals, there are other assets. And you could and I think the last valuation of rumble, I think it was announced when Peter Thiel actually invested, I think it was around a $500 million dollar valuation. Even if you paid a gigantic premium to that, I mean, if your market caps 20 billion, you could spend 2 billion on that you could spend 5 billion on that, you know, and so by the way, sorry, just to dispel this idea, you don't need good UI, if you have the right feature set, and Reddit is the perfect example where they've always been on the side of free speech.

And they've always been on the side of allowing people to vocalize and pursue their own passions, even if some of those things were really, you know, for the mainstream, beyond the pale, their UI is terrible, but they have thrived because that single feature dominates any desire for elegant UI.

And so I think what you're going to find over this next iteration of these apps is how valuable free speech is. And there are enough examples, whether it's rumble or Reddit or others, that show you that the ability to not be censored dominates 4chan, discord, they're all very similar.

It's gonna tweet, it's gonna tweak. Oh my god, the here's one thing I will say in their defense, they did figure out how to do data analysis and marketing during his, you know, 2016 campaign. And they did get that guy Pascal or whatever. And they figured out Cambridge Analytica.

So they did figure out how to get some tech people right, Sax to, you know, by the way, sorry, can I just say one thing? The other super tilty thing is people will want to fade this trade. And, you know, they're gonna be up, they're gonna know they're going to be silently wishing for this thing to crater.

And I think there's going to be a lot of profit taking on this because I think it's very speculative. But I think we will all be shocked at the actual closing enterprise value when this thing de specs because it will de spec and we're all going to kind of scratch your heads thinking how did we not see this?

I mean, I didn't see this, I would have never and there's going to be at least a billion dollars of cash available when they do their second least, at least I mean, they can do what they want. At least I mean, they can do what they want. At least, at least, I mean, they can do whatever they want.

Yeah, they're gonna have more more cash available to them to invest in in your case, he is he is firmly back in the game. And by the way, one of the comments Garamucci made this morning, it's a very astute one, which is I'm rooting for the spec because if this actually does de spec at this valuation, Donald Trump is not running for president again, because he's now got a $20 billion media business or $20 million of equity value in this new media business that he's going to keep running.

Sax, what do you think? Sax: That could be, you know, I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. That could be a win win for the Republican Party. But you're buying the stock, you're joining the board. Sax is leading the B. Yeah, I mean, I think Chamatha raises a good point that sites like Reddit have shown that, you know, like a beautiful UI is not necessarily the feature that users want in every case, I do think you still have to have some tech talent involved in order to produce a good product.

Just to give you an example. So this product wasn't supposed to have its soft launch until next month, but somehow, you know, it's going to be a win win for the Republican Party. Yeah. Some users found a way to access the site and they were setting up accounts within hours of the announcement.

So one vandal claimed the @DonaldJTrump handle and posted a picture of a pig with extremely large testicles. Oh, really? Now, I would just submit that you at least need to have enough tech talent to prevent something like that from happening. I mean, maybe it wasn't a vandal. I mean, maybe Trump posted that photo himself.

It's not impossible. It's on brand. Yeah. But, but yeah, but but anyway, my point is, they still have to assemble the tech talent to build this or I like the idea better of just acquiring the collection of assets that they need. And I think you're right. I think it's multifaceted.

I think it's a social network. But a lot Twitter, I think it's probably some sort of video not underestimate the number of people in Wall Street, who are on the right, and who will help these guys make very good decisions, even if they do it sort of, you know, quote unquote, clandestinely, meaning they'll never be on the cover of helping them do a big M&A or whatever.

But there are there are a lot of those folks that will help make sure that this de-spacks cleanly, that they have access to capital, that they know how to go and raise and tap the markets. And what's beautiful about the public markets, and you can say this is, you know, an issue, but it's not in this case, is that you can go on and basically support this guy in a way that's relatively anonymous, because it's not like you have to disclose that you own this stuff, if you're, if you're a private investor.

So I think that he's back in the game in a big way. And I think this is going to really shake up the media landscape, if they can execute well, they just need to think about this as an M&A vehicle, not as an engineering and product creation. Yes, 100% agree.

100% agree. So would you sell call in for a billion dollars in equity value at $100 a share to these guys today? Yes. I can answer on his behalf. Yes. Yes, I'm going to say what you're doing. 20x left. No, no. I'll take 20x in eight months. J. Cal, you want to be my agent?

I think you have a quicker line to Trump. No, no, no, no, no. I think actually, this might be like to Peter Till's point, like, maybe don't take the product, literally, but take the market cap seriously. Because this is a lot of if they can keep even a $5 billion market up, I do agree that does make them dangerous in terms of buying assets.

And I do think they can get the first five all of these right wing services get five to he gets five to 10 million people to sign up for him even his like signal. He was at like a million, you know, very quickly. He's got like a signal or telegram group, I think.

And he got to me he could buy maybe he could buy Ben Shapiro's daily caller. That's a big media brand on the right that people listen to. Well, yeah, and keep keep Ben Shapiro there to run it because Trump needs operators. And the more disruptive thing isn't to buy stuff on the right, it's to buy stuff in the center or even stuff on the left.

Again, it's it's very hard. If you're a public company, it's impossible. Actually, if Trump media group now has a currency and tries to acquire assets, the directors have a fiduciary responsibility to actually vote in favor of that deal, because they're not allowed to look at who the buyer is and say, No, we don't want to do that.

So if he puts out a reasonable fair market offer price, you know, of the closing price plus 30 35%, there is not a single public market director in the world, I don't care how democrat or how much of a donor they are, they'll always vote the deal because otherwise they will get personally sued.

And that's the liability in public market. So I would be very careful about this thing. This thing is going to get really serious really quickly. I wonder if there's a tentpole media personality that he could acquire in the same way Spotify got Joe Rogan and Netflix got Dave Chappelle back to somebody they could offer $100 million.

They shouldn't do that. They should do what Sax just said, which is that, you know, that that list of like the dumpster. Fire on Facebook every day, which is like Dan Bonigno and Ben Shapiro and blah, blah, blah. He should just go and get all those guys. Yeah, that's what I just said round them up.

But I wonder if there's like a comedian, you know, like, you know, Bill Maher's obviously hates him. But then is there somebody in the middle who is like a notable comedian on the right sex? I'm not fully vetted on your buddies, but who's who's in that alt right cohort?

That? Well, I think there's there's comics who are willing to be politically incorrect and non woke. So I think that was his name, like Bill Burr or something like that is isn't he? Yeah, Bill Burr is net team Netflix. But yeah, I wonder if a Bill Burr he hates Trump, though, I think or I mean, who is the guy who got canceled for exposing himself?

Louis CK. Louis CK. I mean, I'm not saying he's conservative, right? But you know, no, no, he's available. Those guys hit he's highly available. So I mean, actually, one thing to think about is, you know, Trump got all these people to do like the monthly $25 reoccurring subscription. And we got a little bit trouble for that because people didn't know they were signing up for that.

And they're signing up for it. But I wonder if he could get a million people or 5 million people to pay 10 bucks a month for the sacks. Yeah, absolutely. If there's something there behind the curtain. I mean, if it's nothing but like, I don't know, a newsletter of his like, extemporaneous tweets, I don't think so.

But if there's real content there, from people they care about, why wouldn't they? Wait a second, what if he just did every Friday night, a rally on a video service where he just did one of his two or three hour stand up routines and had different people come up and talk like his pillow guy and all of his other weirdos in his I think this could be like the I think this could be like the Oprah Winfrey network where she may like anchor the temple show or something, but there's a lot of other creators on the network.

I think that's the opportunity. Yes. The question. The question, quite frankly, though, is whether he's operational enough to actually drive to these outcomes. I think it's very easy for us to imagine what you could do with $20 billion and his media brand. And the question is just does this get executed that way?

Now does it's not going to be a real estate sugar guy from Florida that's going to manage this thing to an outcome? Does Twitter then let him back on the platform? If he has this competing platform? Does Facebook? How does that? No, I think at that point, they have the perfect excuse not to let him back on which is like, hey, we're not censoring him because he's there's an alternative.

They don't want to let him back on. In a way, I guess you have to ask yourself if Twitter had let him come back on and gave him his platform back after like a six month or a year timeout. Would he even be doing this? No, he says he has a press announcement where he says that he says here, that Trump media and technology groups mission is to create a rival to the liberal media consortium and fight back against the big tech companies in Silicon Valley, which have user unilateral power to silence opposing voices in America.

This is what's given him the opportunity is their censorship. Their censorship just created a $20 billion war chest. I mean, the most tilting thing of this whole conversation is it's worth twice as much as the New York Times. I've been saying on the show for over a year that censorship backfires in ways you can't expect.

And I think that's the real problem. I think that's the real problem. I think that's the real problem. They never think through the second or third order consequences of their censorship. It's like when Angela Merkel came out and said, Hey, like, wait, did Twitter just de platform ahead of state?

Why are we depending on them? I mean, there's all these second or third order consequences they never think through. And now they're coming back to bite him in the ass. Yeah, I mean, forcing people to get vaccines is now leading to whatever percentage of people just retiring or, you know, we're not coming back to work.

And that's causing a bit of bedlam in the economy, as we talked about all these authoritarian tendencies. create a backlash of some kind. And if our ruling elites would just have a lighter hand, there'd be a lot less tension in the country. We had an interesting discussion last night at during, but I think it was on the other side of the table.

So maybe you two didn't hear it. But we were talking about it is Biden going to run again in 2024? And what would that look like? And I just said, I can't imagine Biden in a debate three years from now, like, he doesn't seem I don't want to be derogatory here, but he doesn't seem very crisp the last time.

Four years later. So what do we think? Chances of Biden running in 2024? Chances of Trump running in 2024? With all this information? And what would that look like? Zero and zero? You're zero zero? Freeberg? You even care? Nope. Yeah, I didn't think so. Look, I mean, I think Trump's gonna run this $20 billion media empire and gonna be happy doing that.

I think if it's not Biden, it's gonna be a proxy. So it's not going to be too far off, in terms of what the you're deep in this. Sachs, you're hosting, as people were talking about on Twitter, and you tilted all of San Francisco or 90% of it, you're hosting DeSantis for a fundraiser.

His first fundraiser for his reelection as governor, he hasn't said anything about his plans in 2024. It's way too early for that. Do I think Biden or Trump could be on the ballot? I think it's 50/50 for both of them. All right. But I would like to see but look, instead of having two 80 year olds running against each other, I would like to see, say, two 40 something or just younger leaders, you know, giving America a real choice.

All right, where do we want to jump off to now? Venture Capital? Venture Capital, because clearly Sachs is having extraordinary liquidity events at 11 o'clock at night on a Thursday night that- Freeberg, money is not made, it's simply transferred from one perception to another. One perception to another. There's a Wall Street speech.

Sachs was like in his He was in his Gordon Gekko shirt last night. doing monologues from Wall Street last night. He was leaving the poker table to go to into his soundproof chamber that oversees his estate next to the poker room. And from there, he was on his phone screaming, pacing back and forth, doing deals, Gekko style.

He had his 300 pound trader next to him. He was placing orders. And something's going on in the market. I mean, Sachs, you know, do tell. But clearly, the venture liquidity waterfall that's going on right now is playing into a lot of this. Well, it is bonkers. Wait, we got to show that chart.

We should talk about it. So highlight the statistics, Jay Kell, because it is truly extraordinary how much liquidity venture firms are having this year. All right. Well, just to look at the value of US venture backed companies that went public or were acquired, $290 billion, $280 billion in '19 and '20.

And then this year, 2021, so far, we're at $590 billion. It's literally doubled. But if you look back, it was but $110 billion in 2018. So we are now five, six X where we were five years ago. Yeah. And this is, again, the value of US venture backed companies that went public or were acquired.

So the liquidity is bonkers. And we're seeing that in real estate, you know, jets being bought, whatever. The VC industry has experienced three years of record breaking exits. This is a Twitter user who tweeted it. 2021 is obviously smashing all those levels. Yeah, I mean, for the last, until the last three years, for the previous 15, 20 years, the exits per year were in this 50 to 100 billion range.

Then, they've jumped up to 600 billion in the last year. And in the previous two years, it was 300 billion each. So yeah, I mean, it's just more money has has been made or distributed out in the venture capital industry in the last three years, I think the previous 20 years combined, at least.

The last three years. Yeah. That doesn't that doesn't even factor in what's happening in crypto. Right. And crypto is just like, I'm sure there's some crypto here. Coinbase is in here as an example. No, like, like, like, in my portfolio, as an example, like, you know, like venture returns, which have which have been excellent across the board, so forget mine, just everybody's venture value kind of like slowly ticks up over time, right?

Because like, you know, you're doing this work, and then that work gets valued, and then somebody else comes in and raises new round. And, you know, you hopefully can defend your pro rata, yada, yada. So it does create a lot of compounding value, but it's, you know, and it's relatively fast.

But compared to crypto, it's unbelievably slow. Whereas in crypto, you know, quarter over quarter, you have these swings that I've, I've personally never, ever seen, like I was telling you the story yesterday, we own something, which I'm not going to tell you what it is, but it's a crypto thing.

And our nav, I had to mark my book up a billion net asset value on that asset, I had to mark it up, because you know, we have to submit to our auditors and just keep an accurate sense of what our book value is a billion dollars in a quarter.

I've never seen that in my entire investing career. And here's how what it does to me and my whole team. I have a budget for next year of how much I want to spend, instantly, that number goes up. And what it really means is I'm probably just going to be getting the same ownership.

But I'm just going to be paying more for it. And if I'm going through that, I think everybody's going to go through it. What it's going to do is it's like all of these returns are great. All of these increases are great. But I'm not sure that there's going to be that much more progress.

There's not necessarily going to be that much more money. But I'm not sure that there's going to be that much money. But I'm not sure that there's going to be that much more money. But I'm not sure that there's going to be that many more startups because it's just harder and harder to find good things in the same for the same number of GPS in a place.

And costs are going bananas. Salaries are off the charts. I don't know if you guys saw but stripe for example, there was a tweet about how stripes starting to pay like starting engineers 280k I don't know if that's true or not. But there was a tweet in Twitter. And I thought to myself, my gosh, like 20 years ago, a starting engineering salary was 5060k.

In the Bay Area, I was like, I'm going to be paying more for this. I'm going to be paying more for this. I'm going to be paying more for this. I'm going to be paying more for this. I'm going to be paying more for this. I'm going to be paying more for this.

And so you've seen this incredible price inflation. So it's actually quite good. Again, it's sort of what we talked about yesterday. All of these gains eventually come back around and get recaptured. And so I think that you're starting to see the beginning of this really incredible cycle of wealth transfer, essentially.

So the funds may make it, but it's going to come back to ask you a question about the crypto stuff. Is there any worry there that these valuations match reality because you might have a very small float on these a lot of excitement, and they're not actually products being used by customers in the real world.

Here's the thing I because it's an internal permanent pool of capital, I have no legal requirement to actually mark. Okay. But the reason we do it is because we want to track nav, nav and book value. Okay. And you know, I can't compensate my team based on how well we compound book value.

But you're right, it's a huge problem because I don't know how to get liquid on these things. And so you see this thing sitting on your your balance sheet, and you're like, what do we do with this? How do you move it around? You can't you cannot. And so I would rather there's a there's a great guy.

He was an early pioneer private equity. And he had this phrase, which he said, like, you know, the best way to mark up a deal is right at the end. So if you put in, you know, $10 million into a Series A, if you could be allowed, the best thing to do would be carry that at a $10 million value right until the minute you get laid.

And then you're like, well, I'm going to have to do this. I'm going to have to do this. And then you're like, well, I'm going to have to do this. I'm going to have to do this. And then you don't go through the psychological roller coaster ride of having to go through these marks.

Because then when these marks come back down, Jason, to your point, there'll be there'll be a quarter where we give back that billion dollars of debt, maybe, you know, I mean, what what do we all do? It's a huge mindfuck. Let me ask a question about valuation, Sachs, when you're doing yours, because this came up when I was doing mine and marking my funds.

If a secondary transaction occurs, and somebody buys calm or you know, slack or whatever, it's the when it's a private company at $10 a share, but the last time you purchased it, or there was a funding two years ago, it was at $2 a share. Where do you put the valuation at what the secondary market is trading it at?

Or what you last paid for it? Or somewhere in between those? And who makes that decision, Sachs? What is the best practice on this? Because secondary market transactions, people are actually making a transaction, right? But is that as good as a venture firm, you know, plopping down and join the board?

No, it's not. So first of all, you don't want to be making these decisions ad hoc, you want to have a policy. So we have a written policy. And there's a process for amending it if it ever needs to be amended. And what our policy does is it just uses the most, the most recent preferred round to give us the value of the shares.

And then there can be adjustments based on market conditions. Like we know that it's usually on the downward, right? Like the company we know has had a huge problem, they're not going to fundraise again. So there's not gonna be a new marketing time. So you're saying it's a zombie company, for company, we can we can mark it down.

But basically speaking, we use preferred financing valuations to set marks only. Now, we do sometimes buy secondary shares, and there's a methodology for bringing value on them. Usually, it's basically what we buy them at. And if we somehow otherwise own common, we'll use the 409. A. That's what we do.

Yeah, yeah, I think it's a really, really clean policy. You want to be conservative in these because nothing will be worse. Yeah, I think you have to be accurate, not conservative. Yeah. Well, I mean, you could be. Yeah, I guess the question is, like, you could see somebody playing some games where you know, you buy, you know, some shares at the you own shares in the company, you buy some shares in secondary, you've got two marks, the embedded risk in venture capital has always been the following, which is that you have money that goes in into the A.

And there is an incentive today, especially because so much money is trying to come in, where you want to drive as much growth as possible, because then the B is at such a large step up that the IRRs look amazing, and then the C looks greater than the B.

So then everybody's quote unquote, making paper money, which allows you to create more incentives to raise more capital. The problem with all of that is that if these valuations ever turn out to not be real, or there's a valuation reset, or there's inflation, or the public markets don't value growth stocks, it takes a long time for it to work its way through the venture ecosystem.

And all of this liquidity will probably make it even more quote unquote, you know, violent when it's when it does happen, because it'll eventually will happen. We'll go through a re rating like the year 2000, who knows when it is and what the catalyst is. But that's the real downside of not of all of this is that it'll eventually have a valuation reset that's going to be to make this super real for people, US venture capital funds have raised a combined 69.1 billion in 2020.

Edging past the 2018. And a couple of these were because of Andrew Dreesen Horowitz doing a pair of mega funds with 4.5 billion in commitments. Recently, and so it's been just a tremendous amount of funds being made. And then to give you an example, clubhouse went from 100 million to a billion to 4 billion in under 18 months in valuation led, I think each time by Andreessen Horowitz.

So what you're saying in an example like this, or in your hypothetical example, and I'll just make it a real world one, if they take though, and by the way, these are 2020 old one 2020 sets, I don't know what the 2021 sets are. So those are old stats, there's probably many more.

I think actually, I have the updates that funds have raised 96 billion for 2021. That's the most updated fairness to all of the venture capitalists, I think that they're doing exactly what they should be doing. And in fairness to all the crossover funds right now is the time to be putting maximum money to work as fast as possible, not necessarily intelligently, not necessarily in a concentrated way.

But the real game if you want to play it at the institutional level is to just put all the chips on the table, and then go back to the store and get some more chips as quickly as possible, put them all on the table, come back and get more so that when it all you know is said and done, you have as many dollars working.

And the worst case is, you will return the average return of the market. And if that happens to be good, you're you look good. If it happens to be crappy, you'll be no worse better worse off than anybody else. But meanwhile, you will have collected enormous fees. And so that's the point in the cycle we're at.

And I think that anybody who's doing it makes a ton of sense. I think it's it's a really logical thing to be doing. The ones that have had big liquidity events are also retiring. I mean, we're seeing across the board GPS of these ultra successful funds that have returned five x plus, taken their key.

Yeah, and they got their carried interest and they share their 20 25% share in that and they walk away. But if you look at the value of all global public equities, it's about it's about $100 trillion. And so if you're seeing, let's say that we're raising $100 billion a year of venture capital in these funds, and then you're making a two and a half x average market return, which is not normal, right?

Let's assume that's the normal cycle we're in right now. That's $250 billion of liquidity realized in a year out of $100 trillion of global public equities. That's only a quarter of a percent of the disruption of public equities. And think about it, technology is set up to disrupt all of these old school businesses that are public and mature and scaled.

And that's what the $100 trillion represents. So it's actually looking at it statistically, it's not that unfounded, that we're only seeing a quarter percent market cap disruption of public equities each year, because those public companies aren't disrupting each other generally, maybe to some extent they are, they're getting disrupted by new companies that are emerging, new startups.

And so I don't think that this is necessarily the peak, it may be the beginning of a continuing disruption cycle that we're going to see persist for the next decade or two, especially as more of the old school industrial businesses which make up a bulk of that market cap start to get disrupted, not just by software, but also by automation, by ESG angle investing, by life sciences, and all these other technologies that...

And these interests, these market interests that are going to disrupt those old industries. I think we could even see an acceleration from here. So I don't think that this is necessarily peak frenzied bubble low interest fueling outcomes. I think this may be kind of part of a longer term trend that is statistically probably not that big a deal.

Sax, are you concerned about this peak bubbly market? Or do you think, you know, like Chamath said, push all your chips in and raise as big a fund as you can. And, you know, if the game is going to be played at these high stakes, you want to be at the table?

Well, I like what Freeberg said, I think it's a super interesting point that this could just be the beginning. Look, we live in an age of accelerating technological progress. So why wouldn't the returns from that accelerating technological progress also be accelerating? You know, we had this thesis 20 years ago, when the internet first started that the new economy replaced the old economy.

It took a few years longer than people thought, but we are fully there. And the number of new companies being created now is just exploding. There is a lot of this, the this liquidity that's being generated is being now pumped into the next set of funds, which will go to founders, they'll be able to create more companies, they'll be able to keep more of those companies, because there'll be less dilution.

And then a lot of this wealth is trickling down, a lot of the VC money is trickling down into the competition for salary. So anybody really anywhere in the world who can learn how to write code can now, you know, make a six figure plus salary because of remote work.

So all the salaries all over the world are equilibrating. So I mean, this is an incredible pathway to prosperity for I mean, certainly the United States, but really the whole world for humanity. It's really positive, assuming it keeps going, assuming it's not just totally liquidity driven. And, you know, I don't know exactly, you know, how all those macro forces will play out.

But, but I mean, this seems very positive overall. The other the other thing it'll lead to just quickly is a change in who has political power, because, you know, ultimately, you know, money is the mother's milk of politics, and the people who are making all these returns will eventually fund politicians.

And, and, you know, yeah, well, yeah, I'm one of them. Yeah. But look, I think there's two kinds of like, I'd say prototypes, politically, politically speaking, for people in the technology world, you've kind of got the sort of standard woke progressives who are funding a lot of this crazy stuff, like decarceration cities, whatever, we talked about that before.

But I also think there's another prototype that's less loud, and they feel that they're, they kind of keep their views more to themselves, which is, I call them liberalitarians, who are sort of liberal on social values, but libertarian on economic policy, they don't like government regulations, certainly, if they're in the crypto world, they don't like government regulations, they could see how they create, you know, friction to progress.

And they believe in markets. And, and they, I think they're gonna want to fund politicians who support that those types of things. So, you know, I could be very positive, politically, in that respect. What's interesting, I just want to build on what you built on what freeberg said, which is, I think, the best point you made was look on a global basis of the opportunity for an individual, somebody who is, you know, graduating high school, college, they're 18, 19, 20 years old, because of remote work, anybody can work from anywhere, technology companies have unlimited resources, and they need an un, a never ending supply of developers, or even a SaaS salesperson, a marketer, you know, back office, etc.

And they can work from anywhere on the globe and make a six figure salary, you know, whatever, 50 60 70 80k, for one of these entry level jobs, etc. And they can do that. And they can do that. And they can do that. And they can do that. And they can do that.

And they can do that. And they can do that. And they can do that. And they can do that. And all the information on how to get those jobs is available for free, from startups that have put open courseware online or very free courses. Yet we're looking at this massive technological change.

And the New York Times is position is that technology is destroying humanity and polarization of wealth is destroying humanity. What we're actually uncovering here is all of this money being invested in these companies is giving an opportunity for people around the world to get high paying jobs. Totally. And actually, can I can I can I remember you mentioned a really interesting item in that was just in politico today, which is about Al Sharpton was lobbying in Congress against changing the carried interest treatments.

Remember, you know, all of us in VC make our compensation in the form of carried interest. Explain what it is. Well, it's basically, you know, if a fund is in profits that you know, the VC will get, the VCs firm will get, say, 25% of the upside after they pay back all their LP.

That's called the carried interest. Because of the way that these partnerships are set up, that is treated as a capital gains as opposed to ordinary income, assuming it meets the holding periods of the underlying assets. So there's a big debate about whether you know, VCs and private equity people should be paying ordinary income or long term cap gains on those returns.

Al Sharpton was lobbying against changing it because in this political political article, he was saying that it would impede the efforts of black entrepreneurs to get the capital gains. And he was saying that it would impede the efforts of black entrepreneurs to build lasting wealth, if you jacked up the tax rates, because there's a lot of fund managers and you know, who, who are black who are making a lot of money now, and they don't want to be subject to this change in treatment.

So that was super interesting. You know, this tech boom is not, it's not exclusive. I mean, the tech industry gets this rap as if it's this highly exclusionary place. It's not I mean, three of the people on this pod right now are immigrants. So you know, the wealth that's been created is not going to traditional centers traditional is not going to the heirs of, you know, Northeastern, you know, families or something who've been sending their kids to Harvard and Princeton for generations, it's going to entirely new people who haven't had this kind of wealth before.

And that's interesting. Another positive externality of this wealth, all these massive gains that folks who have invested in venture capital have gotten has caused one really interesting positive change. So Amherst, which is a really exclusive liberal arts college in the Northeast made so much money, their endowment is so flush with cash, they basically eliminated legacy admittances, which means if your parents got in, you were 70% likely to get into Amherst.

An equivalent kid whose parents didn't go to Amherst had a less than 6% admit rate, right? So a huge disparity, basically said if you were a legacy kid, that exists. You know, we all know this, it exists at Harvard, it gets it at all these Ivy League schools. But Amherst is now so has made so much money through VC investments, as an example, they're like, we've canceled admittances.

So there's there are there are some really positive things that are happening with all this money that's being made. Al Sharpton's rationale aside, anyone's going to get wealthier, they're paying less taxes. So I think you're broadly Yeah, you're gonna see a bit of a focus on that point. Obviously, which is why Cal Freeberg California was massively in the bonus in terms of budget surplus and cash because of this issue.

And they were spending money like drunken sailors. Yeah, I mean, I just think you're gonna hear a lot of positioning for, you know, the case. And by the way, I think that, you know, building individual wealth creates, this is obviously a philosophical point, but you know, it creates a greater path to prosperity for more people through the spending that they'll under do and growing the economy, then, you know, the not so I don't know, I mean, I feel like the Al Sharpton point is a good one to kind of make, but it's a broader one than that.

Well, I think that in my view, the broader point about the Sharpton thing is that it shows that we talk about this group of rich people, the wealthy, the millionaires and billionaires, as if it's a static class of people, at least this is the progressive attack. It's not I mean, what Sharpton points to is that this group is constantly changing, there's new people getting rich.

So when we talk about the rich, if it's new people getting rich, we're really talking about is success. And if you really want to ban people getting rich, I mean, you're talking about banning success, our country can't be successful. That way, we're not going to be able to out compete China, if we're preventing success.

And by the way, we can't fund all these progressive programs, if we are, you know, hamstringing success. So, you know, I think this what we've created here with this highly entrepreneurial free enterprise system that's funded by venture capital, this is the golden goose of the American economy. And the most important thing is that we don't break it, Sachs, it might just be we may have underestimated its power is what we're sort of realizing collectively here today, is that we've always thought that this thing is hitting all time highs, this might be the beginning.

Right? Like, it feels like this is getting bigger. And, you know, and going at a velocity that is different than even when we came into the industry, you know, the amount of exits the amount the scale of these companies, the coin bases, the Robin Hood's the Ubers, the slacks, I mean, these are giant companies making huge international impacts.

I think it's either that, or this whole thing is liquidity driven bubble. So it's one of the two. It's both. It's both. Well, I also think the the Sharpton thing is a very interesting point that we can go back to maybe episode 25 or 20. When we started this podcast, which was Trump got massive support from the black and Hispanic community because of this entrepreneurial freedom, upward mobility pitch the republicans were making.

That's the perfect pitch for the republicans not this divisive divisive, you know, shut the board. Yeah, I think that's the perfect pitch. And I think that's the perfect pitch. And I think that's the perfect pitch. And I think that's the perfect pitch. And I think that's the perfect pitch.

How crazy is it was Michael Che, did you want to just add on this and I'll give it to you tomorrow. Michael Che was on the Breakfast Club when our friend was hosting SNL. And he said, I don't know, I think white people just don't like their billionaires for some reason.

It's weird, because we love our billionaires. If Oprah Tyler Perry was coming, we'd be excited about it. And I met Michael Che there. Michael Che was really excited. He's a fan of Elon's and like, was a really great conversation they had. So true. It's so true. Like, why are we hating people who are changing the world and helping?

Right? Because it's not we it's it's frankly, it's white woke progressives. They're crazy. They're the crazy ones. They're bonkers. We have to get purple. I think conservatives and what you call woke progressives are the same. I don't think it's about a political affinity. I think it is about people feeling like they don't have the opportunity that others clearly were able to realize.

And it is amplified and magnified. By a social media that that basically shines a light on the success that people have had in a way that we've never had in history before. And it creates a great deal of feeling like I'm missing out and I'm being left out. And that's what's driving a lot of the discontent on both the left and 100% it's not it's not a political point of view.

I think it's a social point of view. And the great progress we've had and the great success we've had as a society over the past couple of decades is now being realized through this media in a way that's kind of driving emotional conditions for people. That haven't had the same level of success.

Maybe if they stopped tweeting and complaining and just learn some skills, like your skill is complaining on Twitter. As the only colored person on this pod, what I'll tell you is I it's very rare that I meet a colored person that hates a successful other colored person. Just doesn't exist, guys.

Tell us more. It's just one of these things where you know, we were we are all grinding. We all know how hard it is to be on the outside looking in. If any one of us makes it, there's a lot of support. I mean, we see that. It's just what we see.

That's what I felt. South African Jews don't feel that way. No, I mean, we see that in the incoming emails and tweets to you, Chamath. You are inspiring people in India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, we see it constantly. They come up to you at events. And they're like, hey, if Chamath can figure this out, I can do it.

I'm about to do this thing in Africa, and I'm going there in December. I can't wait. And you know, we're thinking of just doing a couple of like, lectures and talks. Let's do it. Lectures and talks. And these this these places are going to get rammed with people. And it's like, it's beautiful to see like, yeah, I just think that minorities like don't hate on other people that are successful.

It's just not. You're going to Africa in December? Yeah. Why don't we do all in Africa? What are we doing? Like, where are you going? I got some stuff cooking. I got some stuff cooking. Hey! I'm getting email constantly by people who are starting startups in Africa. I want to go.

I've never been I really want to go. You can come with me in early December if you want. I'm in. I'm 100%. I have nothing to do. I'm bored. Here's the thing that I wanted to talk about before. What is crazy and this is Jason to build on your Trump comment.

We may be facing a situation I'd love to get your guys's reaction where Donald Trump in his first two years of his presidency may actually have gotten more done than Biden will get done in his first two years. And I just want your guys's reaction and thoughts on how that possibly could be because we have a democratic president, we have a democratic Congress, and we may not get anything done.

I can speak to that. Here's your alley oop. Okay. With the wind up. I can't believe that the way the progressives have done this reconciliation bill. It's been crazy. Okay, look, from the beginning, they've been saying the Biden, the administration, the Democrats have been saying we want to do the biggest package of tax expense.

It's a great society. Okay, but here's the thing. If you want to do LBJ type things, you got to have LBJ type majorities. They've got a 5050 Senate and a three seat margin in the house LBJ when he passed the Great Society, he had like 69 senators, he had a filibuster supermajority.

filibuster proof, supermajority in the Senate, he had something like 150 more seat margin in the house. That is the kind of margins you need to pass great site like programs. So instead of having, I'd say ambitions that were reasonable. The administration coxies with the progressives, they come together with this for over four and a half billion of spending three and a half in the social welfare 1.2 trillion of infrastructure, and they wanted even more, okay.

And then they've been trying to jam this thing, and they never went to the center of the party to Sinema to Manchin and said, Hey, what are you guys willing to do? And so somehow, I think they thought they could just jam this thing through over the objections of these votes that they absolutely need.

And I think there's really this mentality on the part of the progressive left that I think they're so used to jamming people with speech codes and cancellation and censorship and COVID mandates that are not passed by legislatures but have been imposed by edict. I think they're just used to jamming people and they think they're gonna shame people on Twitter, like Manchin, like Sinema into voting their way.

Guess what? It doesn't work that way. Twitter is not the real world. Eric Adams showed that in New York. He won that election. Exactly. Dave Chappelle is, Dave Chappelle has a 95% approval rating. Okay? The critics hate him. The progressives hate him. Guess what? You know how many people were actually at that Dave Chappelle protest?

Like three dozen. Okay? The progressives don't have the votes, what they should have done. And by the way, their conduct through the whole thing has been insane. AOC has basically been saying, if you don't give us everything we want, we're not voting for your one and only. They overplayed their hands.

These guys have like ace jack off and they're shh. They're putting it up their heads saying, hey, unless you give us three and a half billion, we're not gonna vote for one billion. Really? You're gonna do that? How does that make sense? We know, call their bluff. We know progressives will vote for every penny they can.

What Biden should have done if we had a more hands-on president who actually wanted to get things done, and he knows this from his time in the Senate, he should have gone to those swing senators as a group and said, hey, what can we get done here? Not to AOC and Pelosi.

They can't deliver. They can't deliver the bill. Well, I mean, the promise of Biden, I'll say, you know, as somebody who voted for Biden, I'm a little disappointed, was he was supposed to be moderate and he was supposed to bring people to the center. And it doesn't feel like he's actually, to your point, Shumav, you asked us what we think.

I have, I'm not regretting, because Trump had to go. It was too much chaos. There was just too much risk having him in there. Agreed. So I am glad I voted for Biden. Agreed. But I am unhappy that he cannot build consensus down the middle and get the far left to just, you know, pump the brakes.

I understand they have passion for certain projects, but just get something done moderately and in a phased approach. Why does this have to be so huge and confusing? Do a smaller thing three times. Sachs is exposing what we may not know, which is that progressives are very loud, but they may not actually represent a plurality of people.

So for example, in the Netflix protest, I saw a video and there was about two dozen people, and one person actually had tweeted, hey, I never even showed up to the office yet, but now I'm showing up to walk out of the office. But then what happened was there were some other people that showed up and in the middle of the protest, they had a sign that said, you know, jokes are funny.

I like jokes. And then everybody started chanting that. Then a black woman got up and she started to say Black Lives Matter. And then everybody got confused and started to chant Black Lives Matter. And then they were all looking around each other, trying to find direction in this protest.

And it became somewhat directionless. And I think this is what you're talking about. You know, we're now realizing is that, you know, remember, we're like, as managers and corporations, we've all heard this term, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. But it may actually be the case that the squeaky wheel shouldn't get the grease because it's a head fake, and we're going to get lost in misdirection.

Another example of this, there's a guy Dorian Abbott, and I wanted to talk about this as well. This is a guy who's an acclaimed climate professor. Okay, let me just give you the whole story. I'm just going to read to you, because I think it's interesting, the first couple paragraphs of the story from the New York Times.

MIT invites geophysicist Dorian Abbott to give a prestigious public lecture this autumn. He seemed a natural choice. He's a scientific star who studies climate change, and whether planets and distant solar systems might harbor atmospheres conducive to life. Then a swell of angry resistance arose. Some faculty members and grad students argued that Dr.

Abbott, who's a prophet University of Chicago, had created harm by speaking out against aspects of affirmative action and diversity. Because in the United States, you can't just say, "I'm going to give a speech about climate change." If you're a professor, you can't just say, "I'm going to give a speech about climate change." If you're a professor, you can't just say, "I'm going to give a speech about climate change." Because in the United States, you can't just say, "I'm going to give a speech about climate change." If you're a professor, you can't just say, "I'm going to give a speech about climate change." If you're a professor, you can't just say, "I'm going to give a speech about climate change." If you're a professor, you can't just say, "I'm going to give a speech about climate change." If you're a professor, you can't just say, "I'm going to give a speech about climate change." and to help people understand climate change, and would make no mention of his views on affirmative action.

But his opponents argued that he was infuriating, inappropriate and oppressive. And so they cancelled the lecture. Now, here's the question I have. Here, that's another example of all of this stuff. Are we better off with let's just say there's 100 grad students 100 brilliant minds at MIT being pushed to think even more specifically about climate change by an expert who can do that?

Or are we better off finding some more middle of the road person who maybe not be as intellectually ambitious around climate change, but has a whole bunch of other views not related to climate change that are more palatable? And what does that do for all of us, including probably all these people who probably want a solution to climate change, but who have not yet found a solution to climate change?

So, I think that's a really important question. And I think that's a really important question. And I think that's a really important question. And I think that's a really important question. Now held back the ability to teach these kids, what do we do? What do we think about that kind of stuff?

And this is where again, the squeaky wheel in this case did get the grease. But are we actually better off in this example? Friedberg? Diversity of thought drives successful outcomes. All right, thanks for coming in for the all in podcast. We're telling you shit you already know. I mean, like, what are we talking about?

Think for yourself, people. Listen to a bunch of opinions. And if somebody says something you don't like or challenges you, maybe that's an opportunity for you to learn or grow or for you to make a blog post or do your own stand up special and give your own talk that challenges their debate like we do here every week.

Right. But you guys are more the same thing happened with that. What's that ultra conservative young guy, Sax, who went to Berkeley a few years ago, and they blocked him from going to campus? No, no, no, the Greek name Greek name, you know, you know, plus Milo Yiannopoulos. He's the right guy.

Right wing guy, the gay provider. Here we're talking about an expert in climate change, giving a lecture about climate change. To grad students who could then go and solve climate change for the call of the world. I mean, this is MIT and you Chicago, which are probably two of the smartest institutions of people in the world.

Right? He's not saying anything politically offensive. It's just that his unrelated views. They view they think are anathema and therefore they're going to protest and block him. And of course, you know, they're they always use the language of safetyism, which is, oh, well, if you allow this person on campus, it threatens my safety.

Really? This person's a physical threat to you? No, he threatens my self conception. Really? He said something that you know, he's gonna talk about something that offends you know, it's just that, you know, he said things that that threatened my view of the world. So my safety is jeopardized.

I mean, this is this is literally the language that's being used now. I mean, free works reaction to it is Yeah, this is so obvious that we don't even need to discuss it. But it's not so obvious that it's not taking place. It's actually, you know, it's not taking place.

It's not taking place. It's happening. It's happening. It's happening. You know, what I find the most disappointing about the whole Netflix situation is I thought Dave Chappelle, you know, even though maybe the special wasn't as funny as other ones, I thought it made you think in such a incredible way.

And I was actually read that I looked up the transcript, and I read the transcript, so I could think more about it, and try to form an opinion about this turf issue and trans people and, you know, people punching up punching down and comedy, it made me think. And then the entire discussion about this, it's just people walking out and no discussion about what he actually said.

And that to me is just a little bit of a tell, like if you are so upset about what he said, well, where is the transcript of what he said, break it down sentence by sentence and tell us exactly what he got wrong and why so that we can continue the discussion.

The Netflix walkout and how this thing has unfolded. The reason it's so unproductive is because they're not moving the discussion forward. They're not actually listening to what Chappelle said. And spoiler alert, I think that's a little bit of a spoiler alert. But I think that's a little bit of a spoiler alert.

haven't seen it yet, I'm going to talk a little bit about the what was in it. He talked about his friendship with a trans person who was a comedian, and how he and she had these incredible discussions and learned a lot from each other and how she was dragged on Twitter, and a lot of tragic outcomes.

And I'll leave it at that. But there was no discussion about his relationship with that woman who had a tragic fate. And the substance of what he said, did you notice that, Chamath, that there's no discussion about the actual words and points that Dave Chappelle made that shows you that this is a disingenuous or a broken discussion?

Yeah, I just I just think that the problems that we have as a society are really big. Friedberg talked about it, we have inequality problems, we have climate change problems. You know, we have problems of sort of like systemic health issues. These are all fixable. And I think that this other stuff is getting in the way of people getting organized to solve those issues.

100%. And I think that that frustrates me. I would have really, I'm not sure I agree with this guy's views on affirmative action. Let me just be clear. I've kind of, I think on the margins of affirmative action, it's actually, it levels the playing field. And so I support it.

But I also sort of the fact that if this guy's a brilliant geophysicist, and he's already proven that I would want my kids to be taught climate science from him. Sure. I don't think he's out there to try to like peddle his affirmative action views, you know, to a bunch of other physicists.

I don't think that's what he's doing. No. That's not what he's celebrated for. That's not his life's work. And so I don't care. I would want all of those really brilliant kids at MIT to have to be one step closer to proposing a solution to climate change. I think that's a pervasive global issue.

I mean, We don't have the ability to prioritize these things. And, and that's what's just so sad. We're not gonna have an honest conversation about climate change, because we can't have that expert give us talk. And I don't think that's what he's doing. I don't think we're, to Jason's point, I don't think we're having an honest conversation about the Chappelle special.

I don't think any of us believe that Chappelle hates LGBTQ people, or I don't think anyone in the audience thinks that. And I think you have to deliberately misinterpret what Chappelle is thinking in or saying in order to believe that his message is hate. I don't think it is.

Now, what I think the Chappelle special represents a threat to is perhaps this idea of intersectionality that all of these oppressed groups have to be on the same team. What he seems to be saying is, you know, we're not gonna have a conversation about climate change, but we're gonna have a conversation about the Chappelle special.

And what he's saying is, there's a group of, what he's kind of making fun of is that there's this group of sort of pampered, rich, white, LGBTQ people who have made enormous progress. I mean, doesn't he say at one point in the special that, you know, I wish, I wish my community, you know, black people could have made as much progress in 40 years in terms of acceptance as this group has.

And yet this group now wants us to immediately adopt all of their language and sensibilities and, and punches down, talks down to us if we don't. I mean, that's kind of the point he's making is he's kind of revealing a little bit of a rift between these, between these two groups that are supposed to be united.

Well, by the way, if you saw the, if you saw the clip of the protest, that rift was actually in display because everybody got confused about what they were supposed to support because you had one set of chants, and then you had jokes or funny chants, and then you had BLM chants from completely different cohorts of people.

And it just became a chaos. Well, I mean, everybody's opinion must be put through the lens of how many oppressed groups they're from, you know, obesity, I'm black, I'm gay, I'm trans, I'm short, whatever. I mean, like, how do we have? How do you even navigate a discussion intelligently?

If I have to say, okay, you're Sri Lankan, but you're rich Chamath and freebergs got Asperger's, but he's really smart about what I mean, it's like, just make your point. And let's have an honest discussion about it. And why are we so upset about this special? When in China, you know, we've got a million people, Uyghurs being sterilized and tortured.

And then I don't know if you saw this week, Xi Jinping is saying like, he wants to get rid of the sissy people. A sissy man in is the term he's using in China, right? They literally want to media rules against effeminate men. Yeah, I mean, well, why are we not protesting that?

Well, we saw this in the Middle East as well. The real threat to LGBTQ people is are these authoritarian governments that really want to oppress, you know, they want to murder and murder gay people. Yeah, I mean, Chappelle is not the threat. I think I think Chappelle had to be silenced, because what he's saying is actually very heretical to the woke progressive left, which is that not all of these groups on the same page.

And they again, they believe in this idea of intersectionality that all these groups have to basically be on the same page. And actually, the more oppressed groups that you're part of, the more elevated you are. And so this idea that there could be a schism actually, is something they want to silence.

Yeah, I mean, Chappelle's quote, I don't disagree with the trans movement, I disagree with the way they're going about it was his kind of point. And he said, again, let me speak on as a as a, as a color person who grew up in a minority family, you know, I would love to tell you that my parents were super, super open minded, but that would be a lie.

And, you know, I love them to death. And I think they tried their best. But you know, they came with a ton of fucking baggage, and a ton of stereotypes. And you know, I don't think that my parents would have been open minded or, you know, they would have been the most supportive of other minorities, whether it's color or sexual orientation or ever.

And it was, it was a lot of like, very complicated conversations to explain to them how to see the world differently. And, you know, that's what happened when you pluck them out of a third world country and drop them into Canada. And, you know, I think that my parents came far a very long way.

I remember, you know, when when I first started, you know, dating my ex wife, it's like, it was a very complicated thing for them to see me dating an Asian woman, they didn't understand. And then it was like, Well, do you do you want me to marry or date a Sri Lankan?

And they were like, Yes, but as long as she's not Muslim. And it's like, what the hell are you? What are you saying this? And, and so I'm just trying to tell you that this idea of intersectionality, it does play out in a lot of our lives, because we all come from families, especially our aging parents.

Oh, my God, are my grandparents, there were some, I mean, I love my parents. I'll be honest with you. They're, you know, they try their best, but man, the thing that's got me particularly saddened or tilted, or just, you know, the thing that just sort of hits me is, we've made so much progress in so many ways as a society, yet we don't celebrate that.

And we seem incredibly focused on marginal issues, to your point, Shemot, that are not global warming, that are not education, that are that are not, you know, international relations and geopolitics, you know, like there's economic empowerment, there's so many things that we could be focused on that would actually make change than arguing about canceling Chappelle.

And it would unite people. Kevin Hart on the officers, you know. But it would unite people. That's what I think is so, that's what I think is such a great opportunity. If we all collectively came together and focused on a bigger enemy, right? Climate change. Climate change. Fortering governments.

I think you'd find people to be much more accepting of each other, because we would have a common shared goal, and then we would find commonality in achieving it. Yeah, so J. Cal, Bill Maher invented a word to describe what you're what you're saying, which is progressive phobia, which is it's the reluctance to admit any progress because of the fear that if you do admit progress, then that means that you don't you will lack of justification for all these, you know, progressive programs that people want.

And so they have to make the situations always seem as dire as possible in order to scare people into a certain agenda. But yeah, there's a, you know, unwillingness to admit how much progress we've made in so many areas. The time they tried to cancel me was because I said on Twitter, isn't it amazing?

amazing that every single skill you want to learn right now and including the high paying jobs is now available for free on MIT courseware and anybody can learn the stuff for free. And you used to have to pay $50,000 a year and get accepted into these, you know, Ivy League programs.

But now all that information is free. And all we need to do is expose people to it and give them the motivation the time to do it. And they were like, how did you say that, you know, people are not able to do it. And I was like, and then a bunch of people replied who were people of color or people who are poor and said, I actually learned it on the MIT website, I learned artificial intelligence, I learned, I got my degree in, you know, social media marketing or whatever at this website, you to me that website, other tree house.

And all these people are saying, yeah, I learned all these skills. And I went from making working at Walmart to making 60k a year 70k a year. And then there was this big fight, like, are you going to cancel me for saying there's more opportunity now than ever, I hold that position, there was more opportunity now for you to learn a skill and get a high paying job than in the history of humanity.

The system is more powerful now than ever. Yeah, I was gonna say with that, in the in the world of in the world of progress, there are some amazing innovations every day, this week, and I put this in the chat and then Nick, you can post the article. There was a gentleman in at the NYC and what NYU Langone Center of Medicine, who transplanted a pig kidney into a human and had that human kidney or basically had that pig kidney not get rejected.

Now, this was a person that was brain dead. And I guess, you know, the family, you know, God bless them, donated this person's body to science effectively, they were kept alive, but then they were able to transplant a kidney in, and they were able to see the urine production and creatinine production.

And all of a sudden, now, there is a chance that we could actually use pigs, genetically engineered pigs, as a basis for us to basically get kidneys, hearts, lungs. That is incredible. And that's the kind of thing that we're still seeing in the world. And it's a really interesting thing.

And I think that's what I'm trying to do with this, you know, in the future. And I think that's the kind of thing that we're still seeing. And I think that's the kind of thing that we're still seeing. And I think that's the kind of thing that we're still seeing.

And I think that's the kind of thing that we're still seeing. And I think that's the kind of thing that we're still seeing. And I think that's the kind of thing that we're still seeing. And I think that's the kind of thing that we're still seeing. And I think that's the kind of thing that we're still seeing.

And I think that's the kind of thing that we're still seeing. And I think that's the kind of thing that we're still seeing. And I think that's the kind of thing that we're still seeing. And I think that's the kind of thing that we're still seeing. And I think that's the kind of thing that we're still seeing.

And I think that we're still seeing. And I think that's the kind of thing that we're still seeing. And I think that's the kind of thing that we're still seeing. And I think that's the kind of thing that we're that's the kind of thing that we're that's the kind of thing that we're seeing.

And I think that's we're still seeing. And I think that's the kind of thing that we're still seeing. And I think that's the kind of thing that we're we're still seeing. And I think that's the kind of thing that it from now put a couple billion dollars behind it.

What does it look like in a decade? Well, I think there's other techniques that are being developed that you could actually generate actual human organs using, you know, basis of induced, these induced pluripotent stem cells. And regardless of the path I do think like availability of organ transplants is going to go up like crazy.

The big infrastructure and technical challenge we still face is we've got to build these these GMP facilities to make all of these cell based therapies, not just kind of organs, but also other cell based therapies that are becoming kind of the mainstay of the future of medicine, personalized medicine for humans.

And so there's also this kind of tremendous infrastructure opportunity. We've talked a lot about, we've talked a lot about infrastructure in biomanufacturing broadly, and other life sciences opportunities, but there's a tremendous infrastructure opportunity to build out facilities that can produce these, you know, these, these therapies, and the therapy can be an organ or a cell based therapy that can target cancer in your body or or what have you.

And so you can kind of think about, look, we've resolved the science. Now we've also resolved the engineering, the next step is to build it, right. And so this is like, you know, the build decade, the build decades, globally for where the intersection of software and biology has enabled these incredible breakthroughs in human health and manufacturing and food.

And now the infrastructure needs are there. I've said this before, I do think this is where we are have the biggest gap in terms of infrastructure needs, and the biggest opportunity to kind of fill those needs. And if we if I were to kind of be in Congress or be president, I would say this is the number one priority for an infrastructure bill.

Because once you get this going, it's going to change lives, and it's going to change the economy. So high speed rail costing us 50 billion 100 billion versus this. Yeah, yeah, we could build a bunch of GM facilities or a bunch of biomanufacturing facilities, a lot of stuff that we could build that would, you know, pay back within years, and have a huge outcome.

Private markets, maybe we'll meet this demand. But I think you got to, you got to kickstart this stuff, the economics are going to be unfeasible for a while. If you want to get a car T therapy, which is a type of therapy that's personal, you know, personalized party therapies.

Today, your cost is about $450,000. You know, a local university here, I was speaking with one of their, their lead doctors the other day, they've built their own GMP facility at a cost of $50 million. And they can now get the therapies down to $40,000 per patient. But they can only serve 250 patients a year using that that kind of 90% cost reduction.

So you can kind of see like, as you build these systems, and this is built locally by a university, right? It's not built for industrial scale, these guys aren't commercial operators on these facilities. So if you start to build these facilities from a commercial point of view, and you can bootstrap some of these things in this infrastructure cost, very quickly, the cost becomes so low, that you see these technologies proliferate.

And I think we should see that both, you know, this organ transplant one is a great case study, cell based therapies, biomanufacturing, all sorts of opportunity. You keep saying GMP facility, sorry, good manufacturing. Yeah, it's, you know, if you're gonna, you know, if you're gonna make cells that are going to go in your body, there's incredibly stringent requirements on the safety and the cleanliness and the practices that go on in that facility.

So these quote unquote GMP facilities have a very specific criteria of how you how you build and how you operate them. They're just highly, they're high quality facilities is what you're saying. Yeah, think about like a clean room to make semiconductors, except in this case, you're making cells that you're putting in your body.

So you got to be really careful. All right, everybody, it's been 70 minutes, 75 minutes, 80 minutes. Anybody have any last minute questions? Any last minute plugs for products that they want to disguise as a compliment to another bestie? I still think we should launch bestie coin the all in coin and monetize the all in podcast.

We were talking about this at poker last night. No monetization. No more than that. NFTs. Can we NFT ourselves? No. Bestie coin would be incredible. I think I want to tell you about this guy, Lee Jiaqi, who's known as the lipstick king in China. He did a 12 hour live stream on Wednesday on Taobao.

250.5% of the time, he was the bestie coin. He was the bestie coin in the world. He sold 50 million people tuned in. He sold $1.7 billion of product. So basically the equivalent of the entire adult population in America. Watch this. Isn't that incredible? That's amazing. That is just incredible.

So that's QVC. And as if in two and a half times the people who watch the Super Bowl, it's two and a half Super Bowls. Jackie, the lipstick king, the lipstick king. Guys, we haven't had Monty on the show in a while. Let me bring him up. Oh, Monty.

Get him to the mic. Monty. Yeah. Monty, anything you want to say? Monty, you want to say something? Yeah. Monty, you want to say something? Yeah. Monty, you want to say something? Yeah. Monty, you want to say something? Yeah. Monty, you want to say something? Monty fan service. For those of you asking about the All In Summit, we are looking at locations in Miami and we will have news shortly.

If you want to sign up for the email. When are we doing this thing? We're going to look at March, April, May. But we're going to do a we're going to do an L.A. show in January. We're going to do a live All In podcast at the Upfront Summit Mark Schuster's event in L.A.

But that's like a closed event. And then the All In Summit. You can go sign up for email updates. summit.allinpodcast.co. summit.allinpodcast.co. We're not looking for volunteers. We're not looking for event planners. We have all the spaces in Miami. We could possibly know every single person's email. Just thanks to the fans for giving us every piece of information.

Right now, it's just about dates, dates, dates. We got to find a two day date. And then whatever place we use like Faina, the New World, the Jackie Gleason Theater. There's so many great facilities there that we're going to be able to use. There's so many great facilities there that have reached out to us.

Once we pick the facility, we'll know what the facility capacity is. Some of them can fit 2000 people. Some can fit 250. When we figure that out, then we'll figure out ticketing and get people there. This time next week, both Friedberg and I may have kids. So are we skipping next week?

No, I'm actually not giving birth. I don't know about you. No, we got to get pictures and yeah, it's going to be incredible. Well, congratulations, guys. I'm going to be a little bit more excited. I'm going to be a little bit more excited. I'm going to be a little bit more excited.

I'm going to be a little bit more excited. I'm going to be a little bit more excited. I'm going to be a little bit more excited. I'm going to be a little bit more excited. I'm going to be a little bit more excited. I'm going to be a little bit more excited.

I'm going to be a little bit more excited. I'm going to be a little bit more excited. I'm going to be a little bit more excited. I'm going to be a little bit more excited. I'm going to be a little bit more excited. I'm going to be a little bit more excited.

I'm going to be a little bit more excited. I'm going to be a little bit more excited. I'm going to be a little bit more excited. I'm going to be a little bit more excited. I'm going to be a little bit more excited. I'm going to be a little bit more excited.

I'm going to be a little bit more excited. I'm going to be a little bit more excited. I'm going to be a little bit more excited. I'm going to be a little bit more excited. I'm going to be a little bit more excited. I'm going to be a little bit more excited.

I'm going to be a little bit more excited. I'm going to be a little bit more excited. I'm going to be a little bit more excited. I'm going to be a little bit more excited. I'm going to be a little bit more excited. I'm going to be a little bit more excited.

I'm going to be a little bit more excited. I'm going to be a little bit more excited. I'm going to be a little bit more excited. I'm going to be a little bit more excited. I'm going to be a little bit more excited. I'm going to be a little bit more excited.

I'm going to be a little bit more excited. I'm going to be a little bit more excited. I'm going to be a little bit more excited. I'm going to be a little bit more excited. I'm going to be a little bit more excited. I'm going to be a little bit more excited.

I'm going to be a little bit more excited. I'm going to be a little bit more excited. I'm going to be a little bit more excited. I'm going to be a little bit more excited. I'm going to be a little bit more excited. I'm going to be a little bit more excited.

I'm going to be a little bit more excited. I'm going to be a little bit more excited. I'm going to be a little bit more excited. I'm going to be a little bit more excited. I'm going to be a little bit more excited. I'm going to be a little bit more excited.

I'm going to be a little bit more excited. I'm going to be a little bit more excited. I'm going to be a little bit more excited. I'm going to be a little bit more excited. I'm going to be a little bit more excited. I'm going to be a little bit more excited.

I'm going to be a little bit more excited. I'm going to be a little bit more excited. I'm going to be a little bit more excited. I'm going to be a little bit more excited. I'm going to be a little bit more excited.