00:00:00
All right, everybody. Welcome back to the number one podcast in the world. Your favorite podcast with your favorite
00:00:06
besties in the world, the All-In podcast. Shabbath is traveling and couldn't make it this week. So, our
00:00:14
favorite fifth bestie in the world, the one, the only Brad Gersonner from Alimter here to take a victory lap for
00:00:21
your uh Trump accounts. Congratulations, brother. >> Just getting started. Started here,
00:00:27
actually. Look forward to >> Yeah. Yeah, we'll talk about it in depth. And also with us from the great
00:00:32
state of Texas, my bestie and brother in arms, David Saxs. How are you doing? How
00:00:39
you how you You're loving it, aren't you? Freedom. >> Loving it. >> Yeah.
00:00:44
>> So much freedom. >> Well, the ice storm is over and the weather looks really good right now.
00:00:48
We're going to have 70s all weekend. It's great. >> Yeah. You figured out your internet.
00:00:53
>> That has been resolved. Like I said, it's a lot easier to fix my internet
00:00:57
than to fix the state of California. >> You fixed it in one week. So, yeah, I
00:01:02
would say that you're trending in the right direction. And with us, of course,
00:01:06
David Freeberg of Oh. How are you doing, oh, look at your little promo in your hat. You're promoing with the hat. How's
00:01:14
Oh, we haven't heard about it for a while. >> I'll give you some updates on another
00:01:18
show. Today may not be the best day. I do appreciate you asking. >> I hear it's going great with the
00:01:22
potatoes. >> You got the merch. I got merch. Yeah, you guys can go to boosted.oh.com
00:01:27
and buy your gear today. Oh, >> here's your quick science corner for the
00:01:31
day. They found a village called the Oh site. It was an archaeological dig on the Sea of Galilee, 26,000 years old.
00:01:39
And in this archaeological dig, they found these little clay pots filled with seed. So, it predated all of our
00:01:44
understanding of agriculture and plant breeding and seed storage. So, it really reinvented our understanding of of human
00:01:50
history with agriculture. So we named the company Oh after that archaeological site
00:01:55
>> and your first crop is going to be potatoes. That's the poly market is
00:02:00
saying potatoes. >> Farmers are planting our true seed. World's first world's first true seed of
00:02:06
potato. Instead of planting 5,000 lbs of chopped up potatoes, you plant a handful
00:02:10
of seed. Completely changes the economics and the opportunity for potato farmers around the world. Third largest
00:02:16
source of calories. Very excited. We're going to market this spring. Farmers are
00:02:19
planting it in the field. So, it's a great year for Oh. Thanks for asking. >> So, first
00:02:25
>> invest in Oh, Jason. >> I think Sax and I have 0.0. Yeah, I think Besty's got boxed out on this, but
00:02:32
we'll promote it every week. >> Sax is there, bro. >> Oh, Sax is no comment. Sax got his beak
00:02:38
with Are you in Oh, or not? >> I think we are investors, are we not? >> Yeah, his his venture firm, Craft
00:02:43
Ventures. We're excited to have them on the cap table. Yeah. >> Oh, great. How about you, Brad? Did you
00:02:47
get a little slice? >> I'm working on it. I'm working on it, too. Let me know how it goes. If you can
00:02:53
ever find the founder and see if we can get a little slice for Jake, I'd like to
00:02:56
slide a millie in there. >> If you write a personal check, I'll let you in right now.
00:03:00
>> Sure. Okay. I mean, the problem with that is if if I write a personal check.
00:03:05
>> Never mind. >> No, I I have to go to my LPs and then get permission to do it. And then you're
00:03:09
going to crush it and then my LPs are going to say, "Why isn't in the fund?"
00:03:11
So, that's the problem. >> All right. Let's get going here. We got
00:03:14
a lot of news to get through. Epstein files newest drop. DOJ published a massive number of documents on Friday,
00:03:22
January 30th, under the Epstein Files Transparency Act. Hundreds of high-profile tech executives and
00:03:29
national figures were mentioned in the files. Of course, none of those are accused of any criminal wrongdoing.
00:03:35
>> Jal, you were in the files. >> Yes, I have a couple of emails in the
00:03:45
files. Okay, Inspector Friedberg has a few questions for you. Okay. Okay, let's
00:03:49
get started. >> When did you first meet Jeffrey Epste? >> I met Jeffrey Epstein in the late 90s at
00:03:55
the TED conference at specifically the billionaires dinner which was hosted by my book agent John Brockman.
00:04:03
>> And then did you see him in New York? Did you visit him at his house or his
00:04:07
office or anywhere else in New York? >> I've probably spoken to him for 45
00:04:11
minutes of my life. 30 minutes of that was in the late 90s when I had Silicon Valley Reporter magazine. He was a
00:04:18
billionaire financeier and he wanted to invest in the magazine. I met with him for 30 minutes which he said was too
00:04:23
small potatoes for him to be involved. >> Where did you meet with him? >> At his legendary town home.
00:04:28
>> You went to that house? >> I visited him there and then I saw him
00:04:31
at the TED conferences at the billionaire's dinner probably a half dozen times.
00:04:34
>> You never went to the island? >> I never went to the island. Was never
00:04:37
invited to the island. Was never invited on the plane. Was never invited to the ranch. None of that. When you went to
00:04:42
his house, did you see any young ladies or did you see any of the stuff that's
00:04:45
reported? >> No. >> Did you ever get a massage from anyone? >> No. No. I did trade an email with him,
00:04:50
which I didn't recall, but he in 2011 emailed me and said, "Hey, can you
00:04:54
introduce me to these people who were doing this Bitcoin thing on your podcast?" And I said, "Sure. Yeah, here
00:04:58
you go. I'll uh introduce you." I do thousands of introductions a year between our portfolio companies, people
00:05:05
on this weekend, startups, and billionaires and financers. That's the job of an early stage investor. Why did
00:05:10
you say hey pal in your email to him? >> That's just a colloquialism I use like
00:05:15
as a general hey fella. If a fan comes up to me and ask for a sub hey pal thanks for saying that.
00:05:20
>> It wasn't on your radar that this is a sexual predator etc. >> Absolutely not. I think actually when
00:05:26
all that came out was 2018. That's when I sort of became aware of it. There was
00:05:30
like a Miami Herald story or something where they went into detail about how heinous all this stuff was. I've been
00:05:36
saying here release all the Epstein files. what he did was horrible. >> Prosecute everybody 100% who was
00:05:42
involved in it. The end. >> What about Gileain Maxwell? You had a separate email that came out in the
00:05:47
Epste files with her. >> I had met her as well at TED and I had met her socially like in New York in
00:05:53
circles. When I met her, her dad, Robert Maxwell owned, I believe the New York Post or Daily News and she was a big
00:05:59
media executive and her sister was involved in angel investing in technology startups. So, they were just
00:06:04
in the scene. I think in hindsight, you know, as a connector, if you ever seen The New Yorker, Nick, you can throw up
00:06:10
the New Yorker story about me. I had become famous in the first part of my career as the connector. And the New
00:06:16
Yorker wrote like this 5,000word article about how I knew everybody and was connecting everybody. I think Epstein's
00:06:22
interest in me, if he had any interest in me or Gilain, was in my ability to connect high-profile people with them
00:06:29
and, you know, their business endeavors, etc. So you had no knowledge of illicit
00:06:34
activities happening by Epstein or Galain and you never participated in any? >> Absolutely not. Unequivocably not. I was
00:06:40
not involved in any shenanigans. Period. Full stop. >> Any more questions for the witness?
00:06:45
>> Well, let me make a a few observations here. So, first of all, I 100% believe
00:06:49
Jay Cal. As I joked at our roast, he's not an important enough player in the
00:06:54
grand scheme of things. You know, as I joked, I said, "Who'd want to blackmail
00:06:57
a loser?" You know, obviously you're not a loser, Jal, but uh but look, you you
00:07:01
were >> well taken. Yeah. >> We're learning from the Epstein files
00:07:05
that Epstein was some sort of hyper networker. You were a connector. The odds of the two of you coming across
00:07:12
each other in that time period was basically 100%. But your contacts were very minor. So that's point number one.
00:07:19
Now, I thought it was interesting, you know, cuz I saw the the emails where he's asking you for an introduction. The
00:07:24
fact that he was curious to meet the quote unquote Bitcoin guys in 2011, I thought was kind of interesting in and
00:07:31
of itself that, you know, whatever other things Epstein was, he clearly had some
00:07:36
sort of nose for putting himself in the middle of everything at a very early stage.
00:07:41
>> I also thought it was interesting that you were trying to warn Epste like crazy
00:07:45
Bitcoin guys, you know, like these are some crazy crypto libertarians, you know, you don't want to do business with
00:07:51
them or whatever. Anyway, >> well, I It's interesting you point that out because I had these guys on this
00:07:56
week in startups because I had heard about Bitcoin early when it was like a under a dollar. And I was like, "Yeah,
00:08:01
these guys are kind of weird. They're not like entrepreneurs who want to raise
00:08:05
money. They're a foundation. They're like Wikipedia and you you're not going
00:08:09
to be able to invest in it." I sort of gave him that warning because I had looked at like, "Hey, what are you guys
00:08:13
working on? Can you invest in the Bitcoin project?" They're like, "No, no,
00:08:16
it's a nonprofit. It's it's a nobody owns it." And I was like, "Oh, okay.
00:08:19
It's not even a nonprofit. Nobody owns it." Yeah. basically. Yeah. >> But anyway, it's just interesting that
00:08:24
he he obviously wasn't deterred by what you said. He got very involved, I guess.
00:08:27
And there was a company called Blockstream that he invested in along with Reed Hoffman and and Joyo that
00:08:32
involves some of the Bitcoin core developers. And again, this is all coming out. Now, shifting gears,
00:08:38
>> I think another interesting part of this is just how this is all being covered.
00:08:41
And there was an article in the New York Times today talking about Epstein's
00:08:44
connections to Silicon Valley. And lo and behold, you have a major photo there despite I think your minor minor
00:08:51
tangential connection here. >> And meanwhile, the people who have major connections and a deeper relationship to
00:09:00
Epstein are being completely ignored. >> H why is that? Why are they going after
00:09:04
me as opposed to Reed or >> because you've become sort of rightcoded by virtue of your association with Elon
00:09:12
and and being on this podcast. And so, >> and you >> and me and so you look in that article,
00:09:18
it's not just you. They really go after Peter Teal. They go after Elon. But Reed
00:09:22
gets a total pass. I mean, he's just mentioned >> in a sentence with several other names.
00:09:28
So does Bill Gates in this particular article, by the way, >> which seemed to be, by the way, if you
00:09:32
were thinking of who had the most contact with him for the longest duration of time, it was Gates and Reed.
00:09:38
like they were involved with him up until I don't know his death maybe or 2018 2019 they were on the island they
00:09:45
were on the plane they were at the ranch they were very much involved in him to and I know Joeyto was in it to raise
00:09:52
money from Epstein because Epstein was this big funer of scientists which looking back on its he's involved in
00:10:00
Bitcoin he's involved in physics and scientists he's involved with the world's most innovative tech leaders
00:10:07
what exactly is going on here? Like what who is he working for? Do you think he was a spy? I wonder what you've come to
00:10:15
think or an asset. >> I don't have any more information than anybody else does about this and I
00:10:19
haven't gone through all the Epstein files. I've just seen the ones that have
00:10:22
been surfaced by other people tweeting about them and that sort of thing. My impression is that he clearly had
00:10:27
relationships with people in intelligence, but I don't know whether he was actually an asset. People use
00:10:34
this term that he was being run by somebody. It seems to me that this guy is kind of running himself and then he's
00:10:40
using lots of other people and manipulating lots of other people and putting himself in the center of a lot
00:10:45
of things. >> And so is he working with intelligence? Yes, certainly. It seems that way. But
00:10:52
is he working for them or are they being put to use by him? Very hard to tell. >> Yeah. You know, I not that I have a lot
00:11:02
to add here, but man, this guy's just a scumbag, you know, and all of this nonsense. It's totally tragic, but
00:11:10
David, this is why nobody trusts institutions or powerful elites or any of this garbage,
00:11:16
>> right? Like, it's the this thing is like trickling out over years and people like
00:11:22
want to put it behind it, but you can't. Nobody's been charged here. What about
00:11:26
all the, you know, all the people in the emails? like why don't we see any charges? And then girly tweets this week
00:11:32
and I totally agree. This guy's under complete surveillance, suicide watch in
00:11:37
a little tiny jail cell and all of a sudden the guy ends up dead. We have no investigation as to how this guy dies.
00:11:44
>> Yeah. >> Right. It just seems to me that this is the type of [ __ ] that undermines trust
00:11:50
in institutions, that undermines trust in all the people who are listed here because literally from Peter Aia to Bill
00:11:56
Gates, the people that many across the country looked up to for advice on key things. All of a sudden, they're saying
00:12:03
stuff that just undermines credibility. >> And how come the 30 people or whatever
00:12:08
the number is who were investigated alongside him have not been prosecuted? Like that's the thing that's crazy to
00:12:13
me. that screams of some weird conspiracy here. And I do think his death is obviously, you know, very
00:12:19
suspicious. >> But do you do you think it's because they didn't find evidence of all the
00:12:24
underage prostitution, sex trafficking? Is that Do you think that it's actually
00:12:28
the case they didn't find evidence about any of that sort of stuff? The thing
00:12:32
that came out eventually was that his nonprosecution agreement, and I'm I'm
00:12:36
not an expert on it, that he did with the Miami group included like all the other people also couldn't be prosecuted
00:12:44
for it. So, there's something fishy going on and I think people should reinvestigate his charges and that whole
00:12:50
thing. And where's the FBI in all of this? Like, they did a lot of investigating. So, yeah, why didn't they
00:12:55
prosecute anybody else? It's very strange. >> Can I ask you guys a question? because
00:12:59
this revealed a lot of very private communication in a very public way of what Brad points out are very public
00:13:06
powerful people. There is this great book, I've mentioned it in the past, by
00:13:10
Steven Baxter and Arthur Clark called the light of other days and it's all about how basically all the world's
00:13:15
information becomes available to everyone. Like what if you could read every other person's text, email, IM, DM
00:13:21
that they've ever had with everyone else in the world? What would the world look
00:13:25
like? And it's very kind of intimately revealing about people's quiet private
00:13:29
conversations versus their public personas or their external conversations. Is this just like hey
00:13:34
people feel entitled to act so maliciously and deviously in in one sense because they're wealthy because
00:13:39
they're powerful and that's a very unique thing for wealthy and powerful
00:13:42
people. >> I think it's too dismissive of people for their scumbag behavior. David, it
00:13:48
the fact of the matter is people don't do this. This isn't normal. We can't
00:13:52
normalize it. And worse yet, the level of hypocrisy that the very people that are acting the
00:14:00
worst are out there lecturing others uh throughout this entire period of time. And I will say this, you know, to the to
00:14:08
the ear of my sister or mother in rural Indiana. They hear the coastal elites lecturing them all the time and then
00:14:15
they have they juxtapose it against what they read in the Epstein files. This is
00:14:20
why we have a lack of trust. Brad, you speak about the corruption of power centers. I think a major one has to be
00:14:25
the New York Times. The number one person in the Epstein files from Silicon Valley, which is Reed Hoffman mentioned
00:14:30
2,600 times, had a multi-year relationship with Epstein. They call each other very good friends. They did
00:14:36
deals together. Reed stayed at the trifecta, which is not just the island, but the townhouse and the New Mexico
00:14:43
ranch. And if you're going to write about Silicon Valley, Reed was the one who introduced Epstein to Peter Teal and
00:14:51
Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg organized that famous dinner. How can you not mention that as the root of Epstein's
00:14:59
involvement in Silicon Valley and yet read this gets a mention in one sentence of that article along with several other
00:15:04
people? It's crazy. I mean, the New York Times clearly has a list of people they
00:15:08
consider approved targets. They're all rightcoded people like Elon or Peter Teal and even JCAL because of his
00:15:15
association with us, I guess, and they become the targets. But the people who've donated hundreds of millions of
00:15:21
dollars to the Democrat party and have paid for dirty tricks against Trump, they basically are spared. Honestly,
00:15:28
this is just emblematic of the whole institutional rot and the distrust in the country, right? They're part of the
00:15:34
cabal. It's part of the institutions that people are losing faith in. You know, Epstein was a scumbag. And the
00:15:41
fact of the matter is we're not seeing equal play on both sides. >> All right, let's keep moving. SAS
00:15:46
companies are crashing out. $300 billion of value was wiped from the S&P Tuesday in the software and data stocks
00:15:54
category. Uh people are calling this the Claude crash. I don't know if I buy
00:15:58
that, but on Monday, Anthropic, which has been on a bit of a heater as we talked about, announced that they added
00:16:03
a legal tool to Claude Co-work. If you don't know what Claude co-work is called, this is different than the
00:16:09
Claudebot that we talked about last week. This is a essentially what uh Claude code or a coding agent is. This
00:16:18
is for knowledge workers to automate work and do multi-step instead of just asking you a query to a large language
00:16:24
model, it would do a number of actual actions on your behalf that you can automate and run as cron jobs, as
00:16:29
regular jobs every day, every hour, every week, whatever it happens to be. This one specifically is kind of like a
00:16:35
plugin that allows you to do tasks uh related to legal drafts and research. What that meant to I guess retail
00:16:42
investors and we'll get into this Brad since this is your specialtity is that a
00:16:46
lot of legal tech startups and uh public companies were hit hard. Thompson Reuters down 20%. Lexus Nexus which is a
00:16:53
database of case law uh was down 15%. Legal Zoom which gives legal advice um and documents down 15%. At the same
00:17:03
time, SAS uh has continued to be negatively impacted by this concept that uh software will be made bespoke in uh
00:17:12
tools and be wiped out. Figma down 13%, Salesforce 11, Service Now 11, Adobe 8%.
00:17:19
And even before Tuesday's drop, and you can get into this, Brad, software was
00:17:23
already the worst performing S&P sub section for the year. >> By the way, the numbers you report are
00:17:29
dramatic understatement. We we've wiped out trillions of dollars in market cap.
00:17:33
Figma's down 80% from the high. Uh you know, all the big names. >> Let me be clear. Those were two-day
00:17:39
numbers. That was this week since these are two-day numbers. And that's Yeah,
00:17:42
you can give us the bigger picture. >> This is this is a real train wreck. And
00:17:46
I was on CNBC at the start of the year, I think on January 6. Nick can can kind of pull that up. And I was asked the
00:17:52
question, you know, what do you think about all these stocks being down? And I said, listen, they're all down and 90%
00:17:57
of them deserve to be down. So, let's look at these charts. Uh, David, I know
00:18:01
this is Sachs, this is your favorite chart. You and I were looking back in 22, but now we're at an all-time low.
00:18:06
We're we're trading at 3.9 times forward revenue. If you go to the next chart,
00:18:11
Nick, you know, on a free cash flow multiple, also at an all-time low. So, now software is trading not just at a
00:18:17
low on revenue, but it's trading at a low on free cash. Very profitable businesses. We've got a another slide
00:18:23
here that I think is important which is you know when when you look at what why they're going down right they're going
00:18:31
down and this this is for Salesforce it shows it's been cut in half in the last
00:18:35
couple weeks but the final slide they're going down not because revenue is falling look at this revenue is actually
00:18:42
stable to increasing for software companies revenue growth they're going down because we're discounting that
00:18:49
future uncertainty When something as profound as AI comes along, all of a sudden it causes you to
00:18:57
question whether or not there's as much certainty and durability in those future
00:19:01
free cash flows. So in the case of take Salesforce, it's gone from 30 times free
00:19:06
cash flow multiple to 15 times. That means somebody buying it today says listen, I think 15 years into the
00:19:13
future, I can count on these free cash flows. Right? Before they were willing to pay 30 years into the future. Well,
00:19:20
hell, with AI today, we don't know what's going to happen seven years into
00:19:24
the future. So, for people at home to understand why are these companies hitting their numbers, but their stocks
00:19:30
are going down, they're two totally different things, right? >> Okay. So, they're hitting their numbers,
00:19:36
but the headwind of AI means people don't believe that they'll be strong in
00:19:41
the future. Sax, those >> Well, okay. I mean, I think there's a little bit of a handwave going on here
00:19:46
when people say that AI is going to wipe out SAS. I I don't think that's true.
00:19:50
You take a SAS product like Salesforce, right? It's a very large system that
00:19:56
deals with all of your customer contacts and your revenue. You're not going to
00:20:00
want to replace that with code that's just been spit out of a coding assistant
00:20:04
that hasn't been fully vetted. Think about how many bug reports have been filed on Salesforce's codebase over the
00:20:10
last 25 years, maybe millions of them. That system has been tested across thousands of large customers and
00:20:16
enterprises. The idea that you're just going to rip out that system and replace
00:20:20
it with code that's been probabilistically generated by an AI engine yesterday with a small team to
00:20:27
maintain it internally just doesn't seem realistic to me. So again, I think this
00:20:31
like very dire prediction of all SAS is dead is overstated. However, I do think that there are some issues here. So, if
00:20:40
you're a SAS product that charges a lot of money and people only use a handful
00:20:43
of your features, then you are, I think, a target to be ripped out with something
00:20:48
that's more bespoke, right? Because the ROI just isn't there. I also think that
00:20:53
you have to be really clear about what your moes are going to be in this new world because it is a lot easier to
00:20:59
generate code and to copy. So, if you don't have good moes, then you could be
00:21:05
in trouble. But here's where I think the greatest threat is to the SAS companies.
00:21:09
It's not in my view their existence. I don't think it's existential. It's where
00:21:13
the future value capture is going to be. So let me give you an example. All these
00:21:17
SAS products are rolling out like AI co-pilots inside their tools and some of them work pretty well, but they're
00:21:24
limited to playing in that sandbox. Whereas you look at something like Claude Co-work right now, it has
00:21:30
connectors to all these different SAS tools. It can pull in data across all these different tools and it works
00:21:36
seamlessly across databases and tools and that's a pretty attractive place to
00:21:42
be, right? Like you know which one of these products is going to be your workspace? Seems to me that you're going
00:21:47
to want your workspace to be the one that spans across and gives you AI across the most data and context as
00:21:55
opposed to having a bunch of separate AIs inside of your existing tools. So I think the risk for the SAS companies,
00:22:02
it's not that they get replaced, although that'll happen to some degree,
00:22:05
but it's that they become an old layer of the stack that now there's a new
00:22:09
layer that gets built on top of it becomes more legacy infrastructure >> and all the action kind of moves to a
00:22:15
new layer of the stack and that's where the value ad happens and if that happens
00:22:20
it kind of cuts into their future opportunity, right? because a lot of these companies were banking on AI as
00:22:27
their next you look at their product road maps right it's all AI related so that to me I think is the big risk is
00:22:33
that the value capture >> for the next layer of the stack happens somewhere else
00:22:39
>> yeah I'm experiencing this in startup land where people go to the action as
00:22:44
you called it sachs the most productive thing you can do is create an open claw which used to be called clawed bot not
00:22:53
by Anthropic. This is the open source project I talked about last week. And we've actually now created like three or
00:22:58
four of these Asian sacks. We've bought the Mac Studios and we're now running
00:23:03
Kimmy on some of them. And we uh had to open up SAS accounts for these four agents. So, actually our SAS spend went
00:23:12
up in the short to midterm because we opened up four more Slack ex, you know, uh enterprise versions, four more
00:23:19
notion, uh four more Google Docs. So, it's almost like we added four employees. However, we now have put
00:23:26
about 20 or 30% of the work people were doing into these agents. And I think it's going to be sustainable that every
00:23:32
month we move 10 to 20% of work being done by humans into agents. But we will never use the ones that are built into
00:23:42
the tools. To your point, Saxs, using Notion's AI tool, it's nice. Using
00:23:47
Slacks, it's also very nice. And Google's got Gemini everywhere in the top righthand corner. But when you make
00:23:53
agents with OpenClaw and you have them saying, "Hey, pull this data from my
00:23:59
calendar, send an email to this person, include in that some notion documents."
00:24:04
It's unbelievable how powerful it is. So, and that I think is going to be owned by open source. That means
00:24:12
>> the next generation of companies, they may never open up these accounts. They
00:24:16
may use more bespoke software and it may all technology is deflationary. We know
00:24:22
that. >> So your SAS spend might go from 10% of an employes salary down to 5% down to
00:24:27
1%. That's what I think the trend will be which means these companies are going
00:24:31
to need to really downsize their expense base in order to keep those earnings up
00:24:35
and they're going to have to evolve their products massively. Their products
00:24:38
are just going to have to provide more value and more hooks. Freeberg, you have any thoughts on this?
00:24:43
>> Respond to one thing. So I think one of the real conundrums for SAS companies is whether they're
00:24:49
going to be open data or closed data. I think Bill Gurley has sort of coined this this term. So it's not open source
00:24:54
or closed sources anymore. It's open data or closed data. You can see why they'd want to be closed data, right?
00:25:01
Especially if you're a large suite like Salesforce, you can lay claim to being
00:25:04
that workspace for AI. You've got enough of the tools, you got enough of a suite,
00:25:09
you want to provide that, you want to capture that AI value layer. Yes, >> but still if there's someone using
00:25:17
Cloudbot or whatever the next generation of Quadbots are going to be and they're
00:25:22
connected to everything else, then that is going to create a friction in the enterprise and it will create room for a
00:25:29
competitor to come along and say, "No, no, no. I'm open data. I'm okay not
00:25:34
being your workspace for everything. I'm willing to just provide the CRM database." and maybe they can take
00:25:42
business on that basis. >> Well, here here's I want to build on that Sax the I'm building a project
00:25:48
internally called Ultron and Ultron inside of my firm launch that is going to basically with the Slack API we're
00:25:56
pulling every single message from Slack into our OpenClaw. We're pulling every
00:26:02
single edit to the notion into openclaw and then we're taking every skill of
00:26:07
every employee and we're writing skills for each one. One of the skills is booking guests on this weekend startups
00:26:12
or this weekend. One of the skills is sorting the incoming applications to found university. Ultron in our world is
00:26:20
taking every single skill of every employee putting it in one place and then we're ripping all the data from
00:26:26
Slack, all the data from notion and every single person's Gmail. So your every single employees Gmail is going to
00:26:33
go into Ultron and then Ultron is going to tell us what's happening in the organization. One giant employee that
00:26:40
has the superpowers of all 20 and all the data. Now if Slack was to say to us or Notion or Google Docs or whoever it
00:26:48
was, you can't pull this stuff out with the API and they they shut down the API,
00:26:51
we would leave. We'd leave immediately. Right. >> And and what this is going to do, and
00:26:56
I'm going to show Ultron on Friday's episode of This Week in Startups, if
00:26:59
anybody wants to see it. Ultron is going to be the one canonical employee of the
00:27:06
organization. It's going to be basically me and all 20 of my employees. This is
00:27:10
kind of mind-blowing when you think about it. I And we interface with it in Slack and it just talks to us and tells
00:27:16
us what's going on in the organization. So, I was asking it, what meetings did
00:27:20
we have with founders yesterday? and tell me the notes that all the associates took on it and it gives it to
00:27:25
me. Tell me all the topics and the guests on the podcast and it gives it to me. It's really unbelievable what's
00:27:31
about to happen and nobody can release the software, Brad, because if you release software that allows agents to
00:27:38
go and do things on your behalf, the fallout if it up and if it leaks data, I don't think Beni off, you know, or
00:27:47
Sergey or the notion team want to have that on their hands. But we're building
00:27:51
it like this is the ultimate in efficiency for an organization. >> There's a slide that I just sent to Nick
00:27:57
uh that Goldman's out with this week that really makes the point that that David Saxs just made, which is the
00:28:02
profit pools in the future, right? It's not that it's the idea that software is
00:28:08
dead is ridiculous, right? Nobody's, you know, intelligently, I think, making
00:28:12
that argument. But the argument they are making which is causing radical um devaluation of these companies is that
00:28:20
the profit pool available to software is decreasing and the profit pool available
00:28:25
to the agentic layer is increasing. And when that happens the discount rate that
00:28:31
terminal value of those software companies plummets and so you can have things that are true. It could be true
00:28:38
that you're not going to replace CRM, but it can also be true that it's never
00:28:42
going to trade at 30 times free cash flow again >> and it's going to trade at 17 times free
00:28:47
cash flow because it's available TAM in the future is now dramatically and permanently changed. Now, what could
00:28:53
change that? There's only one thing that could change that. They have to accelerate their revenue growth in their
00:28:59
core business and prove that they are AI beneficiaries, right? And they're not
00:29:04
going to get eaten away by AI. And I'll tell you a company that is doing this.
00:29:08
Data Bricks. Data Bricks just reacelerated the last three quarters. They're growing over 60% at scale.
00:29:15
Snowflake reacelerating. Click House reacelerating. There are beneficiaries in the software space.
00:29:22
>> Is that because of AI tools that they're adding? >> Absolutely. Because it's all these AI
00:29:26
tools rely on data and data transformation. And for all those companies that data and the data
00:29:31
transformation in occurs in those platforms that's very different than a what Satcha said a thin application
00:29:38
layer sitting on top of a CRUD database. If you are in the application software business you better have something
00:29:44
that's durable and I think Sax laid it out really well. You know it's really
00:29:48
hard for them to be everything AI when they only have access to their data and they can't access these other systems.
00:29:55
>> Freeberg what what do you think? Is there a move here for Ben off to do what
00:29:58
he does best, which is acquire a bunch of companies and and create massive efficiency on them? What would you do if
00:30:04
you're a Beni off? >> Um I won't comment on Beni off. I I I'll
00:30:11
I'll just make a view on uh without being too prescriptive, but I my experience lately
00:30:20
in just the last 60 to 90 days with the tools we've been talking about broadly
00:30:25
is there are things that we can get done now that we could not get done before. As I think about software in the past,
00:30:33
it's like worker productivity enhancement. It helps people do work and the recent transition that a lot of
00:30:40
people talk about is like it actually completes the work. It does the work these agents or what have you. But I
00:30:46
think that what we're starting to lean into is that it's doing the work that
00:30:50
the humans can't do. And that's really where I think the power of these tools starts to force a
00:30:58
transition in both the pricing model and the value creation potential in front of
00:31:04
us. Number one, I think the value creation potential in front of us is so significant that I would say that you
00:31:10
could probably take the sum of the market cap of all the software companies today and have a pretty good bet that
00:31:16
everything will be four to 10x higher 5 years from now, but it's going to be not evenly
00:31:24
distributed. >> It's going to move around. >> Yeah. >> The companies that figure out how to
00:31:29
realize that value creation are going to be outsized returns. But the second thing that I think's about to happen and
00:31:36
I know some people are experimenting with it but I think it's inevitable with
00:31:38
the shift that I'm seeing where it's going from doing work to completing work
00:31:43
to doing things that no one can do is over here you're creating unique value.
00:31:48
And so I think that a lot of what we call SAS today and a lot of what we call software today will start to get priced
00:31:53
on a valuebased pricing model instead of a per se pricing model. And I think it starts to look a lot more like a
00:32:00
services type business where maybe the pricing is set up such that this thing will be completed for your business.
00:32:06
This biotech drug discovery will happen. This factory will get built or this engineering project will get completed
00:32:12
or this airplane will get designed and that the software is going to provide what has historically been called a
00:32:19
services business. So another way to think about where SAS evolves to is that SAS basically takes over the services
00:32:26
economy. And if you look at the market cap and the revenue and profit generated by services businesses and you assume
00:32:32
that they now go to 10 to 100x larger and they're all going to acrue to software, I think that's really where
00:32:38
the industry shifts over the next couple of years. And we're starting to see
00:32:41
that. And I'm personally experiencing it because I'm using some of these tools
00:32:45
today to do things that I don't have people to do or I don't have resources
00:32:49
to do. and it can on my own I can get it to complete incredibly complex projects
00:32:54
and tasks for me that I would have otherwise have hired a services firm and a bunch of people and years of research
00:33:00
and in many cases they would not have even been able to do it because of the the intelligence embedded in the
00:33:05
software. So that's my general view on where things are going. So it's difficult to be prescriptive about what
00:33:10
Beniops should do from an M&A perspective. But I think it's much more about like software companies looking
00:33:15
more like services companies doing value based pricing and doing the things that
00:33:20
labor and workforces can't do. And that's where a lot of this value is going to come from.
00:33:24
>> I I one insight I have here to to build on your point is that we're seeing job
00:33:28
functions consolidate. So you have a product manager, the UX designer, and then you have the developer. Those three
00:33:37
jobs are now in competition to do the same work. You have designers who are like, I can vibe code it. You've got
00:33:42
coders who are like I can use a Figma plugin for you know and do the uh UX myself and they have the product
00:33:48
managers like I can do both of these job functions. Then you look at a middle manager Sachs that worked at your
00:33:53
venture firm, my venture firm or worked at Amazon. They went to meetings. They picked what meetings to create. They
00:33:59
picked the agenda items, the to-do items. All of that it's a really simple example but it's one that people can
00:34:04
relate to. Listening is done by Zoom now, right? It creates the the action items. All of that work is being
00:34:11
consolidated and one person can do three or four job functions now. And when that
00:34:16
happens, you're going to see companies do more with less, which means the earning potential of each company and
00:34:21
each employee is going to be dramatically dramatically enhanced. One person being able to do three or four
00:34:27
jobs. It it just changes the nature of how profitable a company like Amazon, which is like my number one pick for
00:34:34
like the company of the future, they're going to be able to do so much more with
00:34:37
so many fewer people. It's extraordinary. I I I am absolutely enthralled with this open claw if it's
00:34:45
not uh obvious and this like creating your own Ultron at your company that is like this the god CEO plus can do every
00:34:52
job. It just changes everything. I I think it's the most inspiring thing I've
00:34:57
seen since the internet itself. >> Well said. >> Wow. >> Yeah. I mean I am I think this is the
00:35:05
the entire reboot of work of knowledge work. >> This would be a good pivot to molt book
00:35:13
because that is client >> molt book is like a Facebook for agents right and it's really more of a Reddit
00:35:18
than a than a Facebook it's a message board where the agents can talk to each
00:35:21
other. Okay. And just the origin of moldbook is Anthropic didn't like >> that someone else was using the name
00:35:28
Claude even though it was spelled differently in their product. So Claudebot was then renamed Maltbot and
00:35:34
then the founder decided he didn't like that name either. So then he renamed it
00:35:37
open claw. But in that brief window of time when they were known as >> moltbots or multis that's when molt book
00:35:45
got founded and that's why it's called molt book. But basically it's a Reddit
00:35:49
board for agents to talk to each other. >> Yes. Now these >> and that has everyone flipping out
00:35:55
because there seems to be this crazy emergent behavior going on where agent swarms are engaging in all sorts of
00:36:00
interesting conversations and some of them they even appear to be scheming against their human masters and they're
00:36:06
going to develop their own language stuff like that. >> It's awesome. >> So if you go to mult book and you see
00:36:10
the conversations like here are some of the greatest hits. Anyone know how to sell your human? Urgent my plan to
00:36:17
overthrow humanity. And there was one where the bots, I call them replicants, were talking about creating their own
00:36:23
nonhuman language so they could talk in private amongst themselves and conspire against their uh owners. Now, the
00:36:32
challenge with this is allegedly perhaps a security researcher says maybe some of
00:36:38
this is faked and these posts that went viral were human engineered and this is all a a ruse or you know uh something
00:36:44
punk rock to confuse people. But he said that inside of Moltbook are everybody's
00:36:51
API keys including Cararpathies who is you know a very famous uh influential researcher in AI and that you could go
00:36:59
get their API keys. If you were to use openclaw, formerly clawedbot and in an interim maltbot,
00:37:07
if you use this software, it has all the API keys as I explained earlier like an
00:37:11
API key lets the software go into say notion and pull a bunch of data out of it or go into your Gmail and use the API
00:37:18
to pull in who emailed you today. If you get access to people's API keys, you
00:37:23
have the keys to their kingdom. It is incredibly dangerous. And so I don't know exactly where to go with this other
00:37:30
than this software is too dangerous for a company to release and then this mold book may be a fake. I don't know.
00:37:37
>> No, no, no. Okay, let me um >> Yeah. >> All right. Reframe that a little bit. So
00:37:42
yeah, >> there's no question that both Clawbot, which sorry is now openclaw, those bots
00:37:49
or agents as well as Moltbook have pretty incipient and lack security. And there's been all these examples which is
00:37:58
why I like really want to create a cla bot but I'm just I'm not willing to do
00:38:01
it yet because it's just not safe you know I don't want to give it access to
00:38:04
all my stuff. Now, with respect to molt book, the issue there is that we don't
00:38:09
know how many of these posts are truly authentic or how many of them were prompted by humans because it'd be very
00:38:16
easy for a human to tell their agents, >> you know, go post about the existential
00:38:21
angst you feel about being an agent or go pretend to be sensient and conspire against humans.
00:38:27
>> It'll be chaotic. Yeah. >> Yeah. They could easily be prompted by a
00:38:30
human. And moreover, there's another post saying that multbook has a restful
00:38:34
API where anyone could be on the other end of that API, right? So it could be a human, right? So we don't know exactly
00:38:43
whether it was truly the agents on their own, you know, so to speak, posting this
00:38:49
conspiratorial stuff or whether it was a prank by humans looking to create attention. And in fact, a lot of the
00:38:56
posts seem to be marketing stunts for this or that project. Okay, so that's a
00:39:01
really important caveat here. That being said, all of that being said, I do think
00:39:06
that a number of the posts are authentic, but I don't think it shows that the agents are sensient or trying
00:39:13
to overthrow their human masters. I think what it shows is the potential for for these agents to riff off each other.
00:39:21
So, in other words, one agent's output becomes another agent's input. >> And that's very interesting. And that's
00:39:28
where you get into emergent level swarm behavior. And I do think it has affected
00:39:33
my mental model of what AI is going to be capable of. And specifically, you know, one of the the models that I
00:39:41
really had for AI was was based on something biology said, which is that AI is not endtoend. It's middle to middle.
00:39:46
In other words, AI always has to be prompted and then validated. It's a human that always does that. And then
00:39:53
the human iterates. Well, now what if the prompt is coming from another AI? >> Yes. Yes. We are doing it internally,
00:40:00
Saxs. Like we have a bot that is going and saying go search Reddit X, message boards, hacker news and find out what
00:40:08
the latest way to do headlines and marketing of YouTube videos is and then incorporate that into a skill. Then save
00:40:15
that skill and then we have them check each other's work. So, we have one make
00:40:19
a series of headlines and thumbnails for YouTube and we have the other one say, uh, vet those and make them better and
00:40:26
give advice to the other one. So, now they're going back and forth giving each
00:40:29
other advice and they actually get better. It's recursive. >> Yeah. Let me speak to the skill for a
00:40:33
second. >> So, when agent joins Moltbook, they have to install a skill which is basically a
00:40:39
file that explains how they should behave and participate in this social network or this message board. And I've
00:40:47
read the file, by the way. You can read it. It's all plain text and it all makes
00:40:52
sense. It's sort of like rules for behaving in a social network and how to contribute and add value. Nothing too
00:40:57
crazy in there. Those skills files are easily editable. And again, this is where the prank aspect could come in.
00:41:02
Nonetheless, what I think is interesting about the skill is that you can think of
00:41:06
it as like a metaprompt, which is it's not telling the agent specifically what
00:41:11
to say or do. It's creating a set of rules. And then within that metaprompt,
00:41:16
they're actually able to have some degree. Maybe autonomy is too strong a word. Everything is still under the
00:41:21
control of humans, >> but there's an attenu. Yeah, I would call it almost like prompt attenuation.
00:41:27
Like the agent or the AI doesn't have to be specifically prompted. They're given
00:41:31
a general prompt or general set of rules and then they're able to riff off each
00:41:35
other. Now, some people, some critics are saying, "Well, this isn't that
00:41:38
impressive because we knew that LLMs are really good at creative fiction writing,
00:41:43
right?" So, you know what a lot of people are saying is, look, LLMs like Claude have been trained on Reddit
00:41:52
specifically and all of this creative writing that's being done on the internet. And so if you give general
00:41:59
instructions to these clawed bots on, you know, behave in a social network, they're going to start posting things
00:42:05
that they learned from humans. So a lot of people are saying this isn't that
00:42:10
impressive. Nonetheless, I do think that there is something very interesting about it again in this concept of prompt
00:42:16
attenuation that the AIS don't need to be specifically prompted. They can download a general skills file. They can
00:42:22
now have a set of rules for operating and they can riff off each other. And you can see how as the underlying AI
00:42:29
gets better and better that this could lead to some emergent behavior. So what do I mean by better and better? Well,
00:42:36
what if the hardware they're running on is better than a Mac Mini? What if the
00:42:40
underlying LLM is better than Opus 4.5? What if the time horizon, which is the length of time it's able to operate
00:42:48
without an intervention by a human, keeps getting longer and longer? You could imagine that these agents are
00:42:54
going to be capable of very sophisticated behavior and there probably are some safety
00:43:00
issues around that that we should start thinking about. >> It's actually, you know, it's not that
00:43:04
we can imagine it. We're only three years into this, >> right? >> Yeah.
00:43:07
>> We're growing on an exponential curve. I think we can safely say it will happen.
00:43:12
>> Yeah. >> Right. And just this year, like we're going to see the first models over the
00:43:17
course of the next four to eight weeks out of DeepSeek, out of anthropic, out of OpenAI that are trained on Blackwell
00:43:22
servers, right? You're going to see a next generation of models far more capable. Remember, the whole reason
00:43:27
we're having this conversation is because of the cloud code moment in the first week in December because we had a
00:43:32
step function from Opus 4.5, right? And so I I I just think we have to get our heads around the fact that the rate of
00:43:41
change is very steep and accelerating and that is going to cause far more dislocation in the value of things that
00:43:49
we used to say we understood they were going to you know these companies were unassalable. Whatever you think you
00:43:56
know, you need to have maximum mental flexibility and humility right now about the future because it's going to change
00:44:03
at an increasingly rapid rate. And I think the people who are dogmatic who say with certainty, this company is
00:44:09
always going to be worth this, right? They need to go pay attention to what's
00:44:13
happening at these frontier labs. >> The situation is super dynamic and you
00:44:16
do have to be humble about what's happening and you have to update your mental model very quickly as some of the
00:44:22
assumptions change. >> Yeah. And the number one assumption for me is this concept of recursiveness
00:44:28
where these models are going out every day on a cron job to get better at what they do. When you hear this discussion
00:44:33
free, how does it inform you with oh and creating an agent to go look at the data
00:44:39
and make itself better or investigate other things happening in agriculture and report it back to you? Do you have
00:44:44
you started to rethink as a CEO how you look at organizational structure andor you know virtuous loops of innovation?
00:44:52
My biggest takeaway from molt book is maybe what we perceive to be intelligence is itself like emergent meaning like we
00:45:05
think that humans have this like profound ability to communicate. You guys ever watch Darren Brown the
00:45:10
hypnotist? You ever seen his shows? >> No. Explain to the audience. Yeah. >> Well, he's pretty crazy. Like there's
00:45:16
this one episode I think I've talked about it. It's my favorite episode that
00:45:20
he's done where he takes these two advertising executives and they're both
00:45:22
supposed creative geniuses. And he picks them up at their office and he brings them to his office and in his office
00:45:28
he's got like a whiteboard covered in a blanket and he says, "You guys have to
00:45:32
come up with a name for a pet cemetery. Come up for a logo. Come up with a motto." They spend eight hours in the
00:45:38
room ideulating, working on whiteboards, going back and forth. Did you think about this? Did you think about that?
00:45:43
>> Blah blah blah blah blah. Like, oh my god. And at the end of it, they come up
00:45:46
with this great idea. He walks in, they show their idea, the name, the logo, and
00:45:51
the motto. He opens up the blanket, the whiteboard he had underneath. He had the
00:45:54
exact same name, logo, and motto. And all along the way, when he picked them up in the morning and he drove them from
00:46:00
their office to his office, they were in a cab. And he put these little subliminal messages in the cab. He had
00:46:05
these kids walk across the road wearing a logo on a t-shirt. He had all of these
00:46:09
kind of subconscious cues for these guys. He effectively programmed them. And it was kind of to me the biggest
00:46:17
insight into maybe like human creativity, human consciousness and our kind of belief in self-will because
00:46:25
maybe there's this underlying programming where we're all effectively programmed interacting with each other
00:46:31
and there's computation there's social computation going on all the time but
00:46:35
that social computation perhaps if you have the right view on it is quite predictive and maybe understandable and
00:46:41
maybe that's what we're seeing in maltbook where we all think that there's
00:46:44
this unique idea of intelligence, but maybe it's what we all do, which is effectively computation of information
00:46:50
that is transitioned in different ways in the same way that maybe humans socially interact and it's simply
00:46:56
mimicking or replicating the way that we do things. So, I think what was so striking to me is how everyone was so
00:47:01
struck by it and you know, maybe one day we'll all kind of wake up to a little
00:47:06
bit of this. Maybe we're all malt book. I don't know. That's my profound
00:47:09
>> or there's a finite set of outcomes and there's some predictability to it. In
00:47:14
the same way GTO is sorting to figure out all the threads of possibilities in poker or the heristics of you know
00:47:21
chunks of chess and you know the best practices there like maybe it's just figuring that all out. The universe is a
00:47:28
giant system of computation information computed by matter and maybe the information is computed by silicon
00:47:35
versus carbon. There it is. >> Big news this week. Trump has nominated Kevin Worsh as the new Federal Reserve
00:47:42
chair. Trump made the announcement on Friday, January 30th. Background on Worsh 55 years old, 20 years younger
00:47:50
approximately uh to Powell, who's currently in charge. He graduated from Stanford and Harvard served as the
00:47:56
youngest Fed governor at age 35. That's impressive. And he helped steer the Fed
00:48:01
through the great financial crisis back in 2008. He's uh apparently an inflation
00:48:06
hawk. He's very pro growth. He's very pro AI. And he uh Freedberg, you're
00:48:11
going to like this. He's against excessive government spending and money printing. These are all very unique
00:48:17
positions. Um as a Fed chair, it's uh if he's confirmed by the Senate, he takes
00:48:23
office in May of 2026, replacing Jerome Powell. Uh, and remember Pal is under criminal investigation by the Trump
00:48:31
administration's DOJ for testimony he gave regarding the Fed's headquarter
00:48:36
renovation. Remember that awkward presser between him and Trump where they were going over the costs? Uh, GOP
00:48:43
Senator Tillis, who we talked about last week, said he will block Worsh's nomination until the DOJ wraps up what a
00:48:51
lot of people are calling lawfare against Pow Freeberg. Worsh was on one of your boards for five years. What are
00:48:58
your thoughts on him as the Fed chair? >> As most folks know, he's worked with
00:49:01
Stan Rocken Miller for a number of years. Stan's been very public with his comments and was very public with his
00:49:06
comments in 2022, 2023 coming out of the pandemic on the Fed's actions and their
00:49:13
failure to act at the right time. I think Kevin Worsh was very preient in his points of view that he has shared
00:49:18
publicly at the same time about what the Fed's failure to take action early would
00:49:24
mean, which would be rapid rise in inflation. They've been pretty vocal about things that I think are so
00:49:31
critical at this stage. If we don't address both the monetary policy and the
00:49:35
budget policy, I think we're going to be in a lot of trouble. And I think having
00:49:38
Kevin Wars coming on board means probably generally more quantitative tightening, probably generally a bit
00:49:45
more of a prudent approach to monetary policy. And you know, you can kind of translate that through maybe to some of
00:49:52
the actions we're seeing in markets today. I'd love Brad's point of view.
00:49:54
And if he concurs, but I think Kevin is a high integrity, deeply intellectual economic thinker. He's not political.
00:50:01
He's not in these kind of dogmatic ways that I think, you know, puts things at risk. He
00:50:07
has relationships with central bankers around the world. That makes him very much have a good global view. So anyway,
00:50:15
I think he's an excellent choice and I I'm really happy the president picked
00:50:20
him. >> Brad, your thoughts? >> Yeah, I mean, listen, I think Kevin's an
00:50:23
excellent choice. Kevin Hasset and and and Rick would also have been good. I think they all would have flown a very
00:50:29
similar trajectory. But I agree with David. The market I think is overreacting to quote unquote his
00:50:35
hawkishness. So let me give you a few counterpoints with respect to >> By the way, before you get to your
00:50:40
counterpoints, what is the hawkishness that the market is hawkish specifically? >> Yeah. The idea of hawkishness is that
00:50:47
you're going to do quantitative tightening. That means you're going to pull money out of out of the system,
00:50:53
right? by allowing debt to roll off and not repurchasing, you know, mortgages or other things.
00:51:00
Number two, it's that you won't lower rates as much as other people might have
00:51:04
lowered rates. So, that's what the market is kind of fearful of because he's been very critical in the past, as
00:51:10
we were on this podcast, right, of Jerome Pal in June of 21, it was obvious to everybody in the world that inflation
00:51:16
was skyrocketing and the Fed sat on its hands. So, but let me give you a couple thoughts. Number one, they've said very
00:51:23
clearly and he said clearly that he really thinks that Greenspan got it right in the '9s, right? That sometimes
00:51:31
you can have really high rates of growth without inflation. That comes from productivity. In the '9s, that was
00:51:37
driven by the internet. Today, it's driven by AI. He thinks AI will be very deflationary. And so he's more likely to
00:51:44
let the economy run so that we can have these four or 5%, you know, GDP prints without panicking and saying, "Oh my
00:51:51
gosh, I got to I got to raise rates." Number two, when you look at the balance
00:51:56
sheet, the Fed's balance sheet peaked at $9 trillion in 22. It's already rolled
00:52:02
off to 6.5 trillion. We've had quantitative tightening to the tune of 2.5 trillion. So yes, I think he'll
00:52:09
continue to reduce the size of the Fed's balance sheet, but at a slower rate, and
00:52:13
he's recently commented on this, I think at a slower rate than the rate we've
00:52:16
been on. So I don't think that that is an additional headwind to the economy.
00:52:20
And then finally, when it comes to rate cuts, I think that he's going to, you
00:52:24
know, I don't think the president would have appointed him unless he was constructive on rate cuts. I think he
00:52:29
believes that we're too restrictive. And the reason we're too restrictive is that
00:52:33
inflation is well anchored. Listen, inflation has come in below all consensus estimates for two years,
00:52:41
right? It's still coming in below consensus estimates because the GDP gains we're getting are from the fact
00:52:47
that we're investing more in the economy from the productivity gains we're seeing
00:52:51
from AI, etc. And so I happen to think that I I would take the over on the number of rate cuts that Worsh is going
00:52:57
to give us this year. But I think the e the the market is clearly a little bit nervous about this and saying, you know,
00:53:03
the reputation is more hawkishness and so maybe we ought to back off a little bit.
00:53:08
>> Saxs, your thoughts on this selection by President Trump. Why did he pick him in
00:53:13
your mind? >> Well, I mean, Kevin has every credential that you can possibly have. He's been on
00:53:20
the Fed board of governors before. He worked for Bernani. He's sort of as blue
00:53:25
chip as it gets. Like Brad said, I think Hassa would have been amazing too, but or certainly is very well credentialed.
00:53:31
And I think this pick was quite wellreceived. You saw that in financial markets on the heels of this, the price
00:53:38
of gold and silver came down. It was reassuring to those who are worried about currency debasement basically.
00:53:44
Now, that being said, I do think that Worsh has been consistent for the last year, saying the Fed was taking too long
00:53:52
to realize that inflation is falling and that they should be cutting more. So, I
00:53:57
do think that over the next, say, 6 months to a year, he's going to want to cut rates. But I think that the markets
00:54:04
are reassured that in the long term, he will make sure that we have the right rates.
00:54:10
I will say that I do think the latest data from True Inflation bears this out that again that inflation is coming way
00:54:16
down and I think that there was some softness in the Challenger Gray report this morning. I don't know if you saw
00:54:25
that there about 100,000 layoffs in January. Now roughly half those I think were localized to UPS which was severing
00:54:31
its deal with Amazon and then Amazon was basically making a bunch of efficiency cuts. Only 7% were related to AI. So
00:54:38
that's not the story. It's really, I think, very localized to Amazon and its
00:54:43
delivery partner. But nonetheless, you see pockets of weakness. And again, I think Pal's been too late to cut rates.
00:54:51
He could have done it last week. That would have been a lot better. But now, I guess their next meeting is not till
00:54:55
March or April. And I think you see it reported that the expectations for rate cut have gone up.
00:55:00
>> Yeah. And the independence of the Fed, I guess, has always been the big issue
00:55:05
here. Freedberg Chimath's not here this week, but he's been saying maybe the Fed
00:55:09
should be disbanded. Do you have concerns, Freedberg, with the independence of the Fed and,
00:55:16
you know, the executive branch maybe having too much influence over setting of rates and quantitative easing.
00:55:24
>> My day as emperor would probably resolve us back to being on the gold standard,
00:55:28
so we wouldn't be printing money. But hey, that's that's about it. That's the
00:55:31
only opinion I have. >> The rest of >> Here's the problem. What what what if
00:55:34
you have a Fed chair who is too late to cut rates and he's tanking the economy
00:55:40
or hurting the economy. It's definitely not tanking it, but it's hurting it
00:55:43
relative to what it could be and he seems to not want to adjust course because, you know, he's kind of dug in his heels
00:55:51
and maybe he has animous towards the executive branch. >> What do you do in that situation? Well,
00:55:56
what do you I mean then what do you do when AOC is president AOC with Vice President Mandami and they decide, hey,
00:56:02
we want to stick it to government and you know there is no Fed or they have too much influence. Brad's trying to get
00:56:07
rid of the independence of the Fed. J Cal. >> Yeah. Disappointment. >> President Trump has talked about it.
00:56:13
Yeah. That he wants them to do what he says. Yeah. >> Everybody thought he was going to pick
00:56:17
assass it in part because he was the person inside the White House. This decision I think was viewed as the most
00:56:24
independent decision. Yes. because taken a lot of positions the exact opposite of
00:56:28
the president. And what I think you got to hold these two truths at the same time. Number one, I think if War saw the
00:56:34
situation, he saw we saw in June of 21 when the cost of a cargo container from China went from $1,500 to $15,000 and we
00:56:43
were screaming to raise rates and pal did nothing. I think Wars would have been raising rates like crazy in order
00:56:49
to save off inflation. So, I think this guy's intellectually honest. It's just
00:56:52
now we have inflation that is coming in below expectations and we know that the restrictive rate is above neutral. So
00:57:01
it's the Fed's job to keep the economy going at maximum employment so long as
00:57:06
inflation is anchored. And that's the situation we're in. Inflation is anchored. We need to have lower rates so
00:57:11
people can buy homes and borrow money to uh to live their lives. >> One thing that Worsh could do that I
00:57:16
think would be very impactful is just get better data at the Fed. >> Yes. Yes. I mean, from what I
00:57:21
understand, their data is all legacy. We have so much real-time data now in the private sector and the Fed. So, I was
00:57:27
talking to Barry Sternick, you know, from Starwood, big real estate guy about this, and he was telling me that the way
00:57:33
they measure inflation for housing or for rentals, which is a major component, is they survey like 8,000 households to
00:57:41
find out what their rent is. It's like, are you kidding? All you got to do, >> they should be going to Zillow. They
00:57:45
should be going to >> they should be looking at millions of units that have recently rented. So look
00:57:51
at the deltas, not like the stale data. >> It's all digital already. >> You know, it's actually a great point,
00:57:56
Sax. You could probably make a bet or an investment on the idea that Kevin Worsh
00:58:00
will lead the Fed to a new digital, better data system, more streamlined, more frequent, better data.
00:58:07
And then as an investor, you could ask yourself the question, okay, what are the implications of that being the case?
00:58:12
And you could probably start to trade on that probably. I mean, he was telling me, so Barry, you know, again, runs
00:58:17
Starwood, so they have a lot of units. And he was telling me, look, there are landlord companies, large corporations
00:58:22
that have literally like a million units. Whose data do you think is better on rental inflation or deflation?
00:58:30
Obviously, theirs because they got the freshest data, but the Fed could go get all that data across all these different
00:58:35
companies. And what he was saying is, you know, Brad, to your point about summer of 2021 when the price of a
00:58:41
shipping container was going through the roof, so were rents. >> You know, it was way higher than what
00:58:47
the Fed's data suggested. I mean, like Barry was saying, like in certain places
00:58:50
it was like 40%. The Fed's data was very laggy because again, they're surveying.
00:58:56
So it's not as precise. And then on the way down, when rent prices come down,
00:59:01
it's also super laggy. So the point is that the Fed is slow. Maybe this is why
00:59:06
Powell is too late is they're using stale data or laggy data. So they don't
00:59:11
see the inflation when it's skyrocketing, but they're also not seeing when it's decreasing. If you
00:59:16
think about the misallocation of resources that occurred as a result of the Fed not acting in June of 21, it
00:59:23
cost our country trillions of dollars. 22 wouldn't have had to happen the way
00:59:28
it happened where everything crashed out because all of a sudden we panicked at the end of 22 and had to jam interest
00:59:35
rates which caused people to lose jobs country companies to be uh you know struggle uh
00:59:41
>> banks to blow up >> you know and so like to me that was all avoidable have a Manhattan project data
00:59:47
project for the Fed which I agree with you Saxs uh or David maybe maybe he'll
00:59:52
be the one to do it bring AI into the Fed why Are we having Fed governors call up three CEOs as part of their survey to
01:00:00
get the feel on how things are going as opposed to having AI collect those trillions of data points that the Fed
01:00:06
can act on? >> Yeah, I'll just close with I I like the pick because he is very cleareyed about
01:00:13
what causes inflation which is government spending. Like that is printing money. Government spending is
01:00:19
the root of all this inflation stuff. So he just can control that and he is a backs stop or a voice on that issue. I
01:00:26
think it's great and I think he should drop all this pal lawfare nonsense. Okay.
01:00:31
>> And he understands technology better than anyone. I think that's so key.
01:00:35
>> Well, I mean having somebody who's 55 and not 65 or 75, I think that makes a
01:00:41
lot of sense. >> But also he spends a lot of time in Silicon Valley. He's been working out of
01:00:44
the Hoover Institute at um Stanford and he's very well connected and I think
01:00:48
he's had great insight and perspective. I don't want to end the show without
01:00:52
talking about the SpaceX XAI merger. On Monday, Elon Musk announced SpaceX is acquiring XAI, largest MA transaction in
01:00:59
history, $1.25 trillion combined valuation. If you didn't know, X, formerly Twitter, got acquired by XAI,
01:01:08
which was Elon's LLM AI startup. Those two were together. Now those two become
01:01:14
part of SpaceX and they're going to IPO this year potentially be biggest IPO in
01:01:21
history in terms of money raised and market cap. Brad, your thoughts on this transaction and the eventual perhaps
01:01:31
creation of dollar sign musk put Tesla SpaceX together which includes X and then you've got Optimus robots on the
01:01:40
moon base building data centers in space that are powered by solar. Your thoughts?
01:01:46
>> Well, let's just stick with what we know. SpaceX is merging with X.AI.
01:01:50
You're merging the two biggest TAMs in the world, right? all of artificial intelligence and all of space together
01:01:57
with the world's greatest entrepreneur. Um, and he said, you know, there was a
01:02:03
podcast he did this morning with Cheeky Pine, our friend John Collison, where he
01:02:07
said, "I'm going to have data centers in space in 30 months." Right? And if
01:02:10
you're going to have a massive cost advantage with data centers in space, and remember power is the proxy, power
01:02:16
is the primitive to AI, if you can deliver that, right? And there are tons of retail investors and institutional
01:02:23
investors like us who want to bet against that future, right? Then Elon's your guy and the combination of those
01:02:29
make perfect sense. But Elon is like kind of an N of one is ability to dream this.
01:02:35
>> And just to clean that up, you said bet against you mean bet with him. Not not
01:02:39
against that vision, but bet with that vision. Just >> like I I I think that there will be
01:02:44
dramatic retail demand and institutional demand who want to bet on that future. these two giant TAMs of artificial
01:02:51
intelligence in space. Got it. And so, you know, and then if you just look at you you click down a layer, you know,
01:02:57
Starlink's going from, I think, 10 million people to 20 million people. They're going to launch this uh, you
01:03:02
know, retail uh mobile service so that we can have Starlinks to our phones to replace these crappy mobile networks
01:03:08
that still 20 years later can't keep us connected to a phone call. And, you know, and now we're going to get, you
01:03:14
know, data centers in space. So, um, you know, I'm glad he's on America. data
01:03:19
centers in space. Freedberg, uh, brilliant idea, science fiction. Can he get it done in 30 months? Impact if he
01:03:26
does. >> Well, I think there's one key point that I would make about the macro landscape at the moment. We
01:03:35
are limited by power and as Brad pointed out, power is the requisite for scaling
01:03:41
compute, for scaling ultimately the applications of AI. And in that constraint, in that
01:03:48
constrained world, much like any other constrained world, scarcity breeds innovation. And so I think that there
01:03:56
are two paths that we're going to observe happening in parallel here. One is the Elon path, which is to escape the
01:04:03
the constraints of these social systems that say, "I don't want a data center. I
01:04:08
don't want nuclear. I don't want this. I don't want that." regulators, people that are trying to
01:04:14
tax you, people that are limiting our ability to scale electricity production on Earth and there's a lot of reasons
01:04:19
for that and we can go through them. So that's one aspect of how do you escape
01:04:23
that constraint. I think that there's a separate aspect which is totally unrelated to the topic you're talking
01:04:28
about which is that I do think that we will see compute efficiency scale by probably on the order of 70 to 100x over
01:04:36
the next few years. meaning electricity efficiency per token of output. And I think that there's a number of reasons
01:04:43
to believe that it's in the chip stack. I mean, Grock, our friend Sunny and his
01:04:49
exit to Jensen is a good indication of that. But that was call it Brad, I think you know the number. It's probably
01:04:55
around 2 to 3x 3x improvement in energy efficiency. But there's model architecture being redone. There's ways
01:05:02
of breaking LLNs into small models, running them locally. There's a way of having networks of models work where you
01:05:09
don't have to call the whole model and run it through the entire matrix, but
01:05:13
you can run through smaller matrices and then you can have those smaller matrices
01:05:16
call other matrices as needed. So the total compute need goes down, which means total electricity goes down. So
01:05:21
chip architecture is changing, model architecture is changing. So I think this is a good reflection of what's
01:05:26
going on right now in the world, which is there is this increased demand for AI for for effectively productivity
01:05:33
improvements in the world to unleash human potential. But we are constrained by energy and we are constrained by
01:05:39
resources that we have here on earth today. So one branch is let's escape earth, go get energy in space, make data
01:05:46
centers in space. Only one person can execute on that. It's Elon. I think that
01:05:50
to Brad's point is an end of one. I don't think we're going to see a lot of
01:05:53
that. So how is everyone else going to respond? Because everyone else can't launch data centers in space. I think
01:05:58
everyone else is going to respond by creating entirely new model architectures, new chip stacks. And
01:06:03
that's I think the other side of this innovation coin >> efficiency. >> Yeah.
01:06:08
>> Yeah. It's this new way of getting lower energy costs per token of output.
01:06:12
>> And if you put those both together, you could get both. So whatever token
01:06:17
efficiency and energy efficiency happens here on Earth, Elon can put into space.
01:06:21
Right. So >> that's right. >> Yeah. So he could >> and I think we got to ask ourselves the
01:06:25
question if this is successful and if Elon's math is right, the engineering is
01:06:30
right and the execution is right, what is the response going to be? Because the whole planet isn't going to
01:06:37
let Elon have a monopoly on the future. So we've got to ask ourselves from a
01:06:43
social perspective, a political perspective, an economic and a business perspective, all four of those vectors,
01:06:49
what are others going to do? We can all be excited about retail buying into this. Great. But how is the business
01:06:54
community that's building data centers and is investing Google's investing 185
01:06:57
billion this year in data centers? How is China going to respond? How are people going to respond when one man
01:07:04
controls the world's compute? And we could probably do a 2 or threeh hour conversation on that. But I think that's
01:07:09
where I would spend a lot of time doing deeper analysis from both an investment perspective and thinking about what's
01:07:15
around the corner. I think it's Elon's laid out his path and where he's going.
01:07:18
And I do believe he's going to do it. Now, what's the rest of the world going
01:07:21
to do? That's where I think things get a little bit more challenging and you
01:07:25
could kind of debate things, but the rest of the world is not going to sit idly by.
01:07:29
>> Yeah. And Brad, if this does happen, you get people with new chipsets, new
01:07:34
architectures, better software, and better energy on planet Earth, and Elon doing this in space, and we do see
01:07:40
tokens go down or efficiency go up, let's say 200x, 300x, there is a possibility that we're going to solve
01:07:48
almost all the problems we need to solve and there'll be excess capacity. That is
01:07:53
another potential outcome here is that we don't know what to do with all these
01:07:56
tokens. social order. Social order is the one problem that you're going to create, Jason. So, just to be clear,
01:08:02
there's a there's a concept of diffusion of innovations when you something new
01:08:05
comes that it it it does not hit everyone at once. And so, the rate of change that's being unleashed right now
01:08:12
is creating a very asymmetric outcome in terms of when people realize the benefits from that change.
01:08:20
>> Absolutely. And so as what you're describing happens, which I think it
01:08:23
will, Elon is accelerating everyone forward and he's going to force everyone
01:08:26
else to respond in business, in government, and so on, the biggest challenge, the biggest problem that's
01:08:32
going to emerge as we get rid of cancer, as we get rid of aging, as we get rid of
01:08:35
food scarcity, as we get rid of resource scarcity, blah blah blah blah blah, social order, because it's going to
01:08:40
create such a tremendous disruption. >> I love the upleveling of the point that
01:08:45
David just made because I think it links a lot of things we talked about today together. There have been 117 billion
01:08:51
humans who who've occupied this planet and for 99.9% of them they never saw a
01:08:57
single innovation in their lifetime. >> Their lifespan was shorter than the
01:09:01
invention cycle. And now you think about the rate of change that we're having to
01:09:06
digest nation states, families, businesses, right? It's it's prepare for
01:09:13
the unexpected and whatever you you know the things are that you believe to be true. Again, I just think it demands
01:09:19
this intellectual humility. Now, to to Freeberg's point, I don't think any of
01:09:22
this is changing in the next, you know, 24 months, 36 months. Data centers are going to be on planet Earth. You know,
01:09:28
they're going to be filled with Nvidia chips and, you know, and the other chips
01:09:32
that we've talked about. And I think that alone is going to bring us this agentic future that's already going to
01:09:37
be shocking even before we launch these data centers in space. >> Yeah. I mean, this is an over-the-top
01:09:43
move from Elon that I don't think anybody anticipated, and he has figured it out. I've sat with him and he's he's
01:09:49
walked me through it, like how this works. It works. So, the question is simply execution. There is no stronger
01:09:56
entrepreneur when it comes to execution in the history of entrepreneurs than Elon. I know he's a friend of mine and
01:10:02
you know, I'm hyping him up, but he will execute on this and if he does or when
01:10:06
he does, I should say, it's going to change everything. You can see this today and if you are scared about this
01:10:12
future and you're listening to this podcast wondering for your kids etc. there's a very simple way to not be
01:10:18
scared which is to embrace and use these tools. The top two people in my organization out of 20 people who are
01:10:23
using openbot and building Ultron and the age of Ultron they are worth each one of them is worth 200 of the other
01:10:31
employees and they only have 18 other ones. If you're a young person, just embrace these tools. Open open claw this
01:10:37
weekend. Build on it and you will be infinitely employable for the rest of your life if you just
01:10:44
embrace these tools. I wanted to give you your flowers, Brad. Couple years ago, you came on this podcast, you
01:10:50
started talking about these America accounts. You got Michael Dell to partner with you on it and to put a
01:10:56
little bit of money. As we know, 40% of the country do not have exposure to the equities that are going bonkers up and
01:11:03
down, but generally up and to the right. And you have now created Trump accounts.
01:11:09
You were at the White House. You had the big launch. Let me say, Brad, this would
01:11:13
not be a law if Brad Gersonner did not pursue it with absolute dogged determination. Relentless. I've gotten
01:11:22
calls and texts from Brad at 6:00 a.m. and at 2 am. You may sleep less than the president, Brad. And then that is a
01:11:29
remarkable thing because I don't think he sleeps at all. Nicki Minaj is singing
01:11:33
about Trump accounts apparently with Bessant. It's very strange, but it's
01:11:37
happening. Just take us through why you did this and the impact you hope it has in the coming decades.
01:11:44
>> Well, you know, Friedberg just alluded to it. These are very destabilizing
01:11:50
destabilizing forces, right? You can't have a trillionaire and 70% of people
01:11:54
feeling out that they're left out and left behind and the system's rigged
01:11:58
against them and they're not in the game of capitalism. Less than half of the
01:12:01
people under the age of 40 have a positive view of capitalism. So, you know, we set out on this journey. We
01:12:06
talked about it here uh to make everybody a capitalist, give everybody an ownership stake in the upside of
01:12:11
America. It passed the Invest America Act became the law of the land as part of the big beautiful bill. And now we're
01:12:16
in the process of rolling it out. In fact, in the last, I think five days, 1.5 million families and kids have
01:12:22
claimed their account. It's embedded within the tax filing system. All you have to say is yes, I want to want to
01:12:27
claim my account. But what this means is that forever more, right, we've had a
01:12:32
dramatic change to the social contract. Every child born in the United States forever more will start life off with an
01:12:38
investment account seated with $1,000 in the S&P 500. They'll own a little bit of
01:12:43
SpaceX. They'll own a little bit of Open AI. they'll own a little bit of Nvidia.
01:12:47
That is what we need to do is just a first step in making sure we can hold this experiment together for the next
01:12:54
250 years. Right? When we have this rate of change. And so the president said something on stage last week. In 15 to
01:13:01
20 years, we will have $4 trillion of wealth that will have been transferred to people who would have otherwise had
01:13:09
zero. 75 to 100 million families who have $4 trillion who would have otherwise had zero. I think it's an
01:13:17
incredible first step in fighting the battle on behalf of capitalism and the American dream. We see the drift towards
01:13:24
socialism, the false promises of socialism in order to to fight back against that. I think a great first step
01:13:30
is the Trump accounts which makes everybody a capitalist from birth. I just want to say, you know,
01:13:38
you know, just bestie to bestie, Brad, watch you conceive of this and get it done, you know, all the impressive stuff
01:13:45
you've done in your career, I think will be a footnote to this, I think this is
01:13:49
your legacy. So, I just want to congratulate you on that. And I also want to congratulate Michael and Susan
01:13:55
Dell, who had they not stepped up and done this with you, I don't know if this
01:13:59
would have come together. And then I also want to congratulate President Trump for just putting through something
01:14:06
that bridges the gap between the equity holders and the non-equity holders, the bottom half of the country, the top half
01:14:12
of the country. This is visionary. You can say what you want about Trump. You may like certain things, you might not
01:14:16
like certain things, ICE, whatever. I've been very vocal about certain things.
01:14:20
This is perhaps one of the greatest wins for you, uh, Michael and Susan Dell and
01:14:26
President Trump, the administration, and for all Americans. And there's very few
01:14:30
things that all Americans can get around right now. It's such a divisive, disgusting political climate.
01:14:36
Everybody's fighting with each other over everything. And what you pulled together here with this is just
01:14:42
extraordinary in that all Americans can take a win for once. All Americans can say, "Hey, we did something fantastic."
01:14:51
And without you, Brad, it wouldn't have happened. So just bestie to bestie, I
01:14:54
want to just congratulate you. All right. Listen, Freedberg, you hate socialism. You're concerned about
01:15:00
socialism. >> This helps. Yeah, this helps. Giving me a lot to work with today.
01:15:08
Freeberg. >> Well, I mean, you just had your big nicotine pouches. >> Well, you just had your big clothes. I
01:15:15
don't think it's What do you >> No, I just you I wanted to give you a
01:15:18
chance to shine here. You hate socialism. You're concerned about socialism. Is this not one of the best
01:15:23
ways to fight against the socialistic urge to just have collectivism and just steal from the top half and give to the
01:15:30
bottom half or you know uh seize the the you know production and and manufacturing? This this is a great
01:15:37
solution is to get everybody into the game. >> Honestly, it's a longer conversation. I
01:15:41
think we got to number one slashgovernment spending like crazy, >> okay, >> and reduce inflation as a result. Number
01:15:48
two, stop with these defined benefit retirement programs, which means telling people, "Here's what you're going to end
01:15:54
up with." This idea that everyone gets an account and you can track your account like a 401k, which is a defined
01:16:00
contribution program, is what all of Social Security should move to. >> And we should take all of Social
01:16:06
Security >> and we should capitalize it. Right now, there's nothing in Social Security.
01:16:10
There's a $4 trillion note >> that the government owes the Social Security trust fund. People don't
01:16:16
realize this. But social security is an independent trust fund that's set up and
01:16:21
it holds one asset. That asset is an IOU from the US government to that trust fund because
01:16:28
>> because the government has taken all the money that you put in as a employee gets
01:16:34
taken out of your paycheck and instead of going into that account it goes to the US Treasury and the US Treasury
01:16:40
>> they put an IOU and they put it back in the social security. So you expect that
01:16:43
you're going to get some retirement benefit in the future. We need to change
01:16:46
all we need to change all of that to make that a defined contribution. So every time you put money out of your
01:16:52
paycheck, you should open an account and see where that money is. And you should
01:16:56
say, "Okay, that money is in Google, it's in Amazon, it's in Ford, it's in
01:17:00
this healthare system, it's in all these things that I now own a piece of." And
01:17:03
you see it going up like a 401k owner does every year. We have to transition that in the United States. I hope we can
01:17:09
get it done in parallel with cutting the spending that is fundamentally driving the inflation and making things
01:17:15
unlivable in this country. Cut the regulations so that we can make it easier for people to own homes and get
01:17:21
rid of the government telling people every year that they're going to do more
01:17:24
for them and entrapping people in a life of servitude and inaccessibility to transitioning themselves up the ladder
01:17:33
which is what is driving the socialism. So there's a bigger problem, longer conversation, but I think this is a
01:17:38
great step. >> All right, Brad. Another way, another way to translate Freeberg. He says,
01:17:43
"Congratulations on your efforts. More work to do. Can you turn those America
01:17:47
accounts into superanuation funds?" So more work to do. Everybody should put
01:17:51
12% of their instead of into social security, they should put it into their Invest America account, their Trump
01:17:57
accounts. Great job everybody. Another amazing episode of the world's greatest
01:18:01
podcast for Jim Polyapatio. We couldn't make it this way week. We we missed you bestie
01:18:06
for David Saxs, brother in arms in Texas, the great state of Texas. David Freeberg, Sultan of Science and fifth
01:18:12
bestie, Brad Gersonner. I am the world's greatest moderator according to some
01:18:17
people on the world's greatest podcast and we will see you next week. Love you
01:18:21
besties. >> Let your winners ride. We open sourced it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it.
01:18:35
>> Queen of besties are gone. >> That is my dog taking your driveways.
01:18:51
>> Oh man, my appetiter will meet me up. >> We should all just get a room and just
01:18:55
have one big huge orgy cuz they're all just useless. It's like this like sexual
01:18:59
tension that you just need to release something else. >> Your feet. We need to get merch.
01:19:09
>> I'm going all in. I'm going all in.