E33: Apple’s hypocrisy, America fails math, crypto’s regulatory correction, Clubhouse, UFOs & more

freeberg free bro what's up it seems like you have a piece of [ __ ] on the side of your mouth or is that a birthmark oh no that's a birthday catcher did you record that yeah absolutely jesus look at this guy he takes his shirt off for one [ __ ] selfie and now everybody who's fat and pal on the show the other three of us is gonna be ridiculed i'm having steak tonight s-t-e-a-k tonight i'm lifting twice a week now oh come on sacks come get some let's [ __ ] go three two let your winners ride rain man david sources to the fans [Music] hey everybody hey everybody welcome to

another episode of the all in podcast with me again the dictator himself trump paulie hapatia rain man david sacks definitely with us definitely a great driver his dad lets him drive in the driveway and of course everybody's favorite the queen of quinoa the science conductor himself david freeman queen the queen a lot of activity online it's been a little bit of chaos since we all got together here i guess we should talk about this apple story with antonio garcia martinez you may have heard that he was hired by apple to i guess run their ad efforts and i have a little bit

of information on kind of what he was going to do there in terms of ads which is really interesting um but uh tell us tell us tell us tell us okay well anyway you know how we're basically start at the beginning and assume people don't know who antonio garcia so antonio garcia martinez was a facebook developer he is some really smart guy who uses a lot of big words and wrote a book called chaos monkeys which is a great book where he takes um a very jack kerouac kind of you know a lot of pros and uh he wrote this book about his time at facebook

the problem is he said some things in the book that would be five years later problematic at the time they were actually considered problematic by some folks and in the full quote maybe uh less problematic but he was essentially ousted because of the following problematic quote um the quote is most women in the bay area are soft and weak costed and naive despite their claims of worldliness and generally full of [ __ ] they have their self regarding entitlement feminism and ceaselessly vaunt their independence but the reality is come the epidemic plague or foreign invasion they

become precisely the sort of useless baggage you trade for a box of shotgun shells or a jerry can of diesel and they shorten that quote to be that most women are soft and weak and uh full of [ __ ] so in context in context in this book he was contrasting the bay area women he had dated with the mother of kids who he describes as strong and tall and tough and amazing but still the quote's a little gnarly and the quote out of you know when it's out of context becomes particularly gnarly and of course um this led to

a petition at apple which then led to him being fired uh which now is going to lead to him probably getting a 10 million dollar settlement uh of course there's a lot of hypocrisy being brought up here because apple has allegedly been using or apple's supply chain has slave labor in it from the uyghurs and other ethnic minorities um and obviously apple gave dr dre billions of dollars uh for uh beats by dre and uh he has a even more misogynistic um series of lyrics and was also accused of physically assaulting um i believe his wife and other people he dated who dr dre dr dre yeah

uh so anyway uh what do you think okay there you go next story no i'm happy to jump into this um i think jason i think you're you're you focus a little bit too much and i saw your your pod with zach coleus on this um a lot of good takes but i think you're a little too focused on what agm as i think it's easier to call him by his initials what he did as opposed to what the employees at apple did and um there's at least four things that apple did or five things that apple did wrong i mean number one i think there was a really good reason not to hire this guy which is that he wrote a best-selling tell-all book about the

last big tech company he worked at so why if you're a big tech company why in the world would you hire him so that was stupid decision number one but they did decide to hire him and once they hire him they gotta treat him like any other employee and give him a chance to show what he can do and so that leads to mistake number two which is these 2000 employees who signed this petition really distorted and took out of context that passage and i know the passage is cringe okay um and gnarly and and it could you know certainly appear sexist but you

have to put it in its context and the the larger con this is a work of literature this is a best-selling uh book it's 150 000 words they're taking 150 words out of context and the context was like you said he's describing the mother of his children the love of his life in as this sort of linda hamilton-esque in terminator type figure or charlize theron in mad max and this passage is not in there to describe all women it's just basically a literary flourish to contrast the the the woman that he loves uh being such a badass compared to every other woman and and you know when kara swisher interviewed

agm five years ago she bought this passage he explained it and she said yeah okay i get it so you know it it certainly the case that people can understand the context if they choose to and they simply are not choosing to understand the context which brings me to mistake number three which is these 2000 employees lied in their petition by claiming that their safety is threatened by apple hiring agm that is simply untrue it's physically impossible in the era of zoom when everyone's working from home but this guy is not a threat to anyone's safety but they you but they use that

claim they make that claim because they know that if you accuse someone of threatening your safety it will trigger the machinery of hr to remove that person from the workplace this is the language of safetyism and it's a specific tactic to basically get somebody canceled and removed from the workplace okay and then that leads to the the next mistake i think mistake number four which is the bosses apple caved into this pressure they were total cowards they never even gave agm the chance to explain himself they never asked him what did you intend by this passage what were you trying to

do and by the way they knew about this book when they were saying it's even worse they knew about the book they had vetted and they talked to many people as when a big time when a big tech company hires somebody for a major position like this they call all the references of course this is uncovered and dealt with of course they knew about it and then when the mob complains they fire him summarily without subjecting the decision to proper hr processes this is hr by mob rule it's totally unacceptable no company should be run this way and then finally that brings us to number five

is that in explaining their decision and trying to justify their cowardice and giving it to the mob they said that they fired him because of his behavior agm never had a chance to engage in any behavior he barely started at the job this wasn't because of his behavior this is because of the book that he wrote five years ago so what they're saying is that if you ever publish a written work at any time in your life years and years ago that that can somehow constitute present day behavior and that other people in the workplace can have a problem with that be that this is not behavior and this is

why he's going to have a giant um defamation suit and settlement because they are making him unemployable in the tech industry by claiming that he was fired for some some sexist behavior he was not what do you think he'll get paid in a settlement i put it at 10 10 million well i was just thinking he's a half million dollar a year employee to a million with his rsu so let's just put it at a million unemployed for 10 to 20 years because of this or the damages to his reputation and he doesn't value that back yeah so and yeah so i think 10 million is the number my curiosity in this was just um did those 2 000 employees feel the same way about dr dre

of course or did they do they feel the same way about some of the movies that they sell uh in the itunes store or do they feel the same way about some of the games that they enable um into the app store or some of the subscriptions that are sold um right do they care do they care that much about what's happening in their chinese supply chain um i mean i think it seems at least on the outside the answer is no but it would be interesting to get an explanation of that from the same hr people i don't know whether the guy should have been fired or not but i do think that

you should have a predictable standard and every company is allowed to do what they want if the standard at apple is that we are going to hold you accountable for everything you've done in the past irrespective of whether you've disavowed it or not so be it that's their right and i think that the employees of that company have a right to do that i think is that if you start to arbitrarily enforce it you go down this weird place which is like basically i think what they're saying is if it's good for business we're going to ignore it if it's not obvious that it's good for

business we'll act because it's a low-cost way of keeping the masses um you know that the medicated and i think that's what's even scarier to the 2000 people it's not that you know maybe they should feel proud that they got their pound of flesh but they really should figure out how they want to stand on all these other points because to cherry pick puts puts the whole company in just a weird posture that's that's not scalable freeberg uh i'm less interested in the hypocrisy and the values debate which is obvious that's kind of the first order point with all this stuff it's like do

the employees have the right values is there hypocrisy by management is there hypocrisy by the employees what strikes me though is um a failure of leadership at these organizations you know you guys think back to brian armstrong's kind of purging of the woke mob and the political discourse that was happening at coinbase a few months ago he took a point of strong leadership um to a new level and i think it highlighted when the leader steps up and says this is how we're going to operate these are how we're going to make decisions and puts his foot down people will leave and you evolve the

culture and i think it indicates to me that certain companies as they've gotten really big and really successful like apple and even alphabet and various other kind of large tech companies the leaders no longer lead the employees lead the narrative on culture and the narrative on values and um you know it speaks to two things one is that there perhaps aren't founder leaders running those organizations anymore that there are managers whose jobs are critically important whose job is to keep the wheels on and keep the wheels from falling off so they have more to lose

and they are constantly trying to protect the downside than they are trying to be aggressive about growing to the upside um and then i think it's just uh you know secondly this kind of um you know failure uh to kind of define what your values are from a leadership perspective and the void gets filled by the employees the void gets filled by the mob and so while it's this one kind of you know debatable point today and this one kind of hypocritical point today it's really interesting to see that this isn't happening at other companies that are founder-led and if it is the you know the culture gets reached

would have handled this completely different steve jobs would not have let his employees tell him who or she would have stopped concerned let's have a discussion a really clear point of view about who we hire why we hire them and how we make decisions and not let the democ democratic kind of rule or the you know um it's not even democratic it's not like all employees took a vote how much of this chamoth has to do with the coddling of silicon valley employees for two decades vis-a-vis you know you get driven to school on your school bus you sit on you know you get your lunch prepared for you we do your dry cleaning

every friday you get to come and ask challenging questions to the leaders and this concept of like you know everybody has a voice at work as opposed to this is a company controlled by shareholders and or a founder and you work for it and there is a trade of services here vis-a-vis what toby had to say at shopify which is this is not a family this is a sports team you are here to perform we are here to perform for our customers the end so the in fact if you if you had a chance and maybe nick we can post it in the show notes but the email that toby lutky wrote to shopify employees was unbelievable that to me is like

that's a tour de force that should be basically like that should be minted and sold as an nft what's an nlt we forgot about those and it was it was it was just an incredible email adjacent to your point and the way that that started if i i may be getting these facts wrong but there was an emoji of a noose inside of a slack channel um and then and then folks got quite upset with it and so i think toby's response was to basically shut down the whole channel and say hey guys you know we're losing the script about why we're here and you know i think brian armstrong's essay was a version of that

the question is why are we here if i had to guess i think it's because we've pumped so much money into silicon valley companies they didn't know where to spend it and so i actually think that what we've really done is over hired far too many people into many of these companies and so they kind of are very smart people sitting around twiddling their thumbs and so obviously they're just gonna get distracted meaning um i remember like you know at facebook there was barely enough people to keep the lights on for a while then i remember by the time i was leaving i was like wow there's way too many people

here a lot of them and most of them were all really really smart but it wasn't obvious to me what many of them did and you know people would look at me and then say oh you know that's a really arrogant thing to say and that's not true and everybody's valuable i don't know um you know if you look at google i've always thought like that company could probably run by 2 000 people but you know there's 200 000 people so the 198 other thousand of them need to find something to do it's probably the same at apple it's probably the same at all these big tech companies and that's the leverage that you get

from technology it's naturally massively deflationary so but if you keep pumping billions and billions and billions of dollars into these companies where the app experience is written by 50 or 100 critical people or managed by 500 or a thousand critical people um this is the natural byproduct i think which of all of that by the way freeberg said organizations want to grow right like how many organizations say you know we should be smaller we don't see something sir you're saying something really important not enough founders and boards understand the difference between growing a business

and growing an org those are two totally different things and the reason is because we've lost sight of very simple financial metrics in silicon valley meaning if you go to any other industry where there is a cost of capital people understand what return on invested capital means they know how to measure it yeah they know what operating leverage means they know what margin expansion means we only have evaluation and they seek that out here we think about exactly as you said valuation and so this idea that having a hundred people do the work and see margins lift is antithetical to the

silicon valley culture it's oh as margins go up let's just keep running the same profitable business but instead have a 500 people a thousand what do you think you're an operations machine people would say on a co basis you're one of the top three to five in the history of the valley what do you say coo man um yeah i mean look chamath is right that in a company that's well run and well led where uh people people don't have time on their hands to engage in these shenanigans so yeah i mean i think i think that's absolutely right i think companies and startups are increasingly have to choose

whether they want to be apple or whether they want to be um coinbase or shopify for that matter and just this this week at apple there's a new petition circling now there's a petition called by thousands of employees calling for tim cook to denounce the israelis and endorse the palestinian side of the conflict yeah how's that gonna work well does he have a position on abortion is there an abortion position at well but but now that they've given in to the the woke mob there's no reason for the mob to stop they're gonna be circulating a petition every week and that's kind of the point is

so and actually agm himself had a really good quote about this he did a great interview with um matt taibi and um he laid out the choice that companies face like this he said it's interject this is um antonio garcia martinez saying is interjecting the whole [ __ ] twitter cesspool with all the dog piles and all the performative signaling and all that crap into a corporate setting and replicating those dynamics and calling it work that's basically what happened is what's happening is you your these employees are performing twitter at work on slack and they're pretending like

it's really work and it's not and i think you know founders are going to have to make a decision do you stand up and take a uh brian armstrong-like position or a toby position or you would eventually degenerate into some sort of or a baseball cap by the way or even base camp the most woke virtual signaling founders on twitter decided to take that's right the most libertarian or spartan approach you know stoic approach of toby to give you uh toby's well base camp just to finish the base camp thought so so base camp try to accommodate this sort of like woke mentality

and what they found is that they got pushed so far it became so distracting they eventually had to move to the armstrong position and that's kind of my point is once you yeah everybody's gonna move to that yeah that's my point i mean and if you don't believe what i what i said was like listen if you believe that a organization that allows political speech and this kind of stuff as a primary function inside the company well then go build a competitor to base camp and show that that system works better here's toby's quote to help you make this more clear to team members here are some pointers about

what shopify is not shopify like any for-profit company is not a family the very idea is preposterous you are born into a family you never choose it and they can't un-family you it should be massively obvious that shopify is not a family but i see people even leaders casually use the term like shoppy fam which will cause the members of our teams especially junior ones that have never worked anywhere else to get the wrong impression the dangers of family thinking in quotes are that it becomes incredibly hard to let poor performers go shopify is a team italicized not

a family we literally only want the best people in the world the reason why you join shopify is because i hope all other people you met during the interview process were really smart caring and committed this is magic and it creates a virtuous magnetism on talented people because very few people in the world have this in themselves people who don't should not be part of this team i mean when i was um when i was at facebook strong when i was at facebook we used to convene the senior team and you know i was like i want i really want to fire the bottom five or ten percent of the company and we would force stack rank and we did

it for about three or four years and then the excuse was it's too big and there are too many people and the rules are too diverse and you can't rank i actually don't believe that even to this day i think it's pretty obvious who the real 1000x kind of employee contributors are and by the way they exist in every function there's thousand x sales people there's thousand x you know product managers there's there's the thousand x people that work in facilities they exist in every job function and companies i don't think do a good enough job of figuring out who they are and so instead what happens is people that are not even 100x or not even a 10x

are really more like a 1 or 1.1 x can basically hide in all of that noise and i think that if you could separate hr into two things or there's really three things one is like benefits which is critical the second is actually like safety and the ability to whistle blow if there's something really nefarious or bad that's happened and then the third that's really valuable i think is organizational design right how do you put people in good jobs and how do you allow them to have a huge amount of autonomy to run and build a career but all of this other policing stuff to me just seems like um it cuddles to the lowest 25 percent i

don't know if that and this is my intuition to the lowest 25 percent performers of course of course it does and just to uh close this story up and wrap to our next uh and tone agm announced that he is going to take a year wait for it to write for sub stack so he is going to get paid 10 million dollars i i would guesstimate in a settlement by apple he's going to get a half million dollars i'll take it over on this oh i set such a good line we can bet on it yeah we can bet on it i'll take the over who okay anybody want the under i'll take you'll take the uh well go go give it give it a different

bed not then oh yeah you got a different line and you can set it down a different line set a different line i think ted's a good line because you got to think like if they offered him seven or four i mean it's gonna that's not a good line good thing eleven would have been a good one it's a good line okay let me give you 11.5 what do you take jamal can afford the book against all three of us okay 11.5 takes the over 11.5 free brook sacks yeah i don't know under can i just tell you why if you look at the last four-year compounding of apple stock

right and so if you think about reasonable number of grants as his level of seniority plus the imputed compounding plus whatever he would have you should be part of his team somebody said in this clip because that's the argument is i i do think you end up getting to probably sure yeah you got to include the information yeah you get to buy it now price at 15 and call it and they've also also you could make the argument they've rendered him unemployable in the industry so he needs to foregone mental suffering what about suffering he is going to suffer

he's going to need to be on meds my client is suffering he's in therapy twice a week he can't get out of bed he's not going to be able to be in functional relationships and he's too scared to leave the house he should wait on the sub stack because he's going to make so much money on sub stack it's going to mitigate his damages yeah don't take the sunset wait just wait on the subject do you guys know what apple's market cap divided by employees is apple is apple's marketing seven million in employee anyone else wait a second this car is a hundred thousand employees and it's

worth two trillion okay there's 150 000 employees 2.1 trillion so it's 14 million an employee so the other way to think about it is if apple's like gonna lose one or two good employees over this um you know they'd happily pay up to get uh to get the guy to be quiet so it's worth one employee to pay 14 million dollars wow no i mean well you're you're not dividing by all the slave labor in china and i'll recalc i'll recalculate they actually caused zero so that was bad sorry for all the power it's dark but it's true i mean this is the hypocrisy of apple they've literally got slave labor in

their supply chain not that they wanted in their supply chain how do you know that how do you know that let's just go through this because like this is a common narrative but has anyone actually like gotten to the bottom of well that's why i said reported i mean yeah it is it is known again like i don't know pushing i don't like pushing narratives i tweeted something that well i retweeted something that came from i think a pretty valid source um that author from the atlantic who i think is pretty legit also i just think just in terms of his quote if he had taken the word woman out of the

quote most people in the bay area are soft and weak in a zombie apocalypse i don't think you're recruiting from the bay area but related to this story uh in terms of chamat's point about you know uh 1000 next performers uh america is uh really doing a bad job at math and gary tan the venture capitalist retweeted and participated in a tweet thread about immigrants um who know that standardized test is probably your best shot at getting somewhere uh your money social status can't take you the rules are well standardized and he tells this story about this

but there was a persuasion article um about us failing math and that they're going to be in california getting rid of the gifted programs for math because it's unfair to the kids who are not gifted as a kid who is was not gifted uh and to the three kids on the program who were in gifted programs or at least two of you were i have no problem with there being a gifted program but any thoughts on this i think it's shameful yeah it really is i mean like we are we are really doing our level best to just completely [ __ ] our population why i mean why is

this even how could this even be possible it's like like just as like it's it's kind of like the equivalent it's the moral equivalent of actually saying you know what we're going to eliminate welfare for the bottom five percent like our job as a society is to kind of like find the broadest set of solutions for the most number of people and solve for both extremes so when you're dealing with education you both need to understand that there are folks that need some kind of structural support look when i came to canada i had esl right english as a second language you take that so that you can learn the

native language of a country it didn't mean that i was stupid it just meant that i was behind you know if i had dyslexia or something else i would need some kind of support one of my children had a speech impediment we had a speech therapist this is what you do but on the other side if you have a kid who's an incredibly high performer who has the potential to just completely crush hey like you should be able to give that kid a pathway to achieve and give back so the idea that you would eliminate anything at the extremes is kind of completely uncompassionate and

stupid just totally [ __ ] stupid well it's in the name of having a more equitable math class again i hate that word don't use that word that is that is the least this i mean this goes back to the point i made a few episodes ago that you know you can have progress or you can have a quality but it's very difficult to have both and you know if you want to try and make everyone equal and give no one the opportunity to have more or get more than anyone else because of whatever the circumstance may be whether it's earned no or whether it's no but this is my point like you know

you limit the ability for everyone to to progress as a group because we're now limiting the ability for folks to take calculus i know equality look i'll use a video game example equality means we all get to play grand theft auto not that we have a somebody who actually plays for us and gets to the same answer and just gives you a ticket yeah so so that's that is what equality means is that we all get to play and we all get a chance versus equity which is leveling everyone equity is leveling everybody and saying here's your result right by the way but the notion of leveling everyone where no one can be ahead of anyone else

by too far uh obviously limits as a group our ability for the top decile to to increment or the top quartile to increment i gotta think look let's let's again use our friends because instead of ours but you know we know a lot of really smart people um who have really really smart kids we also know people in general that are in tough circumstances who also probably have really smart kids just purely selfishly for me i want those kids doing the best they can to figure out what the hell they can invent for us in the future why would you slow those kids down you

know it's kind of like saying you know what like how about a black athlete would you would it be preposterous to say you know what you don't have a right to go to the nba and make money for your family i'm gonna slow you down because there's another white kid that's gonna go through four years of college so you know what you're gonna have to go through four years of college and you're gonna have to pay for it well actually what i would propose uh is when i go up to dunk that we just the rim automatically lowers two feet yeah yeah so i can dunk and then when you go for a layout we'll

just raise this six inches it would be more equitable for me that's more equitable yes more accurately let me let me let me add another layer to this so i i agree with you with you guys that what we should be thinking about is opportunity we should always be asking what increases opportunity for the most people and that's how we should measure political programs and we're not doing that here we are sort of leveling down but i would say it's even more nefarious than that which is i think what's happening is that the education establishment is completely failing our kids in our schools and what they're

trying to do is destroy the evidence of that failure and and so they're hiding they're hiding the results now this persuasion piece yes this persuasion piece lays out the statistics which are pretty grim okay so according to these like global measurements by oecd okay math proficiency in the us we rank 37 in the world okay and there's only 37 developed nations in the world according to the development so we're last among developed countries china which is our main global competitor is number one okay and we achieve these horrible results despite ranking fifth in the world and per people spending so it's not a spending problem okay and

as we know to extend we do have high performing math students in the us a huge majority of them are actually foreign born and so we're actually kind of cheating our numbers a little bit it's even worse than it appears now what is the education establishment doing about this how are they hiding the failure well when school comes back in the fall they're planning to eliminate accelerated math okay that means that there's no more algebra for eighth graders who are ready to take it on there's no more calculus for high schoolers who want to you know do like the ap classes and get

a jump on stem you know for college the entire idea of gifted students is now under attack like we talked about in the name of equity it's become a catch-all for every bad idea and the university of california system has now abandoned the s.a.t and act so they temporarily got rid of those requirements during the pandemic but now they've used the crisis crisis and now they say they're not bringing back the requirements until at least 2025 and you can bet it's never going to return at all and so here's the thing they're trying to get rid of measuring how bad we are at math so we won't have to think about it

they just want to give everyone a gold star and a pat on the back and just say how you know what this reminds me of saks is when you threw away the um the uh digital scale i got you right i'm not i'm not fat because i'm not measuring it great perfect oh my god it's like we really it's it's the movie idiocracy it's literally we are doing the movie idiot have you guys seen it why don't we just uh why don't we just eliminate all admissions programs at every university and just have one global admissions board where every campus is the same what is the difference between mit um and stanford and caltech and the

university of arkansas in my opinion there shouldn't be it's more equitable to just have somebody go close to home because you can save money you know carbon emissions are lower right you can just take the bus to the local competition you're gonna have one centralized place teach you why have anybody give a basic course i mean if i said this you you'd think that i was a crazy person except that's basically what we're now telling all of our high schools i'm also getting rid of michelin stars and i'd like yelp to take off their review system because it's not equitable like we should not have michelin stars anymore every show

just restaurant's the same every restaurant you get three quarters of a star we should not the health department should not give ranks of letters and they should not be forced to post it because that's inequitable absolutely you know yeah also you can game you can game the health test you could literally just follow let me just ask the um the counterpoint question which is uh uh standardized testing for example benefits people that can afford tutors and special you know classes to get ahead and provide more tutors yeah therefore well therefore it's higher income people that can always

well the point is they can always layer on additional tutoring they can always layer on additional classes and there therefore number of math is a finite score freedberg you can only get 800 on the math i'll i'll be somewhat um flip-floppy here i don't believe in standardized tests that much i never did well particularly in standardized tests i do think that they can be gamed but that's different from what we're talking about what we're saying is if kids show aptitude we are explicitly choosing to not give them a chance to develop at their potential and the problem is we do this in other areas we do it in athletics

we do it in music we do it in the arts but we're not going to do it in stem that's what we're choosing to do that is what's crazy so choose to get rid of the sat or act whatever you want i don't care but if you are the lebron james of physics jesus christ like let that kid become the lebron james officials tell you like i i am i got into uc berkeley because i had great standardized test scores because i had an aptitude what was your s.a.t freiburg let's do this um i got a uh let's do this an 800 math and i think it was a 720 verbal okay so you got a 15 20 out of 1600 at

the time i got 11. i uh 750 math um 720 verbal 14 are you writing this down this is pretty the inflation there was a big uh i was a i was 15 10 on the sct oh we were okay so i woke up 400 points 500 points behind each of you in canada it was just kind of like we didn't even write it but i went and i wrote it just for shits and giggles and i didn't do well you just said you weren't good at standardized tests so what are you talking about you're in the top three percent yeah yeah i know but generally like i wasn't a good test taker i was in probation and college academic yeah but look the the reason why these tests

got invented was actually to prevent discrimination um i think it was back in like the 50s right um yeah i think it was like at that time it was jews being kept out of the ivy league and one of the ways that they corrected for that was they made everyone take the same test and so you could see the scores and it would shine some light on you know making sure that people didn't just get in because they were legacies that they got in because um you know they had their good good scores and there's been decades of work since then to try and eliminate bias in the test

and so the the the claims of bias now and the tests really aren't supported now right to freeburg's point obviously that if you take some rich kid who lives in the suburbs who gets a 1400 and you compare that to a kid in the inner city who doesn't have who grew up poor doesn't have the advantages and that kid gets to thirteen hundred well which score is better probably the thirteen hundred and so you can take that into account in my view in the admissions process but eliminating the scores all together why would you want to have less information to make a decision there's no reason not to get rid of

these i would just think more holistically about how you accept students and i mean is it more competition and having better teachers what we should be focusing on here as opposed to even standardized testing or god forbid canceling programs let's just invest in more competition for schools well so in canada we had this thing where when i was graduating we had specific different kinds of math contests and computer science contests and other things that you could write the putnam etc and uh those things were actually really instructive because they were purely

verticalized things that could test your aptitude and the school that i went to university of waterloo would look at a lot of those things and adjust for it because my grades were decent but my some of those one this one specific math test i took was pretty good i remember and then they would adjust it exactly as david said to what is this kid's background and his circumstances and they called it a french factor they would just adjust my marks and that's how i got into waterloo and i didn't think i was going to so there's all kinds of ways where you can be smart about it but again

we're talking about guys don't lose sight of what you're saying we are actually going to cut all these kids off at the knees starting in grade 8. so forget about all of this stuff by the time that these kids graduate they're going to be i honestly they're going to be like really dumb the problem ultimately isn't just measurement it's the denial of opportunity to learn it's about it's about getting rid of the learning in the classes that's the biggest problem you have to move to a state with a gifted program now if your kid is really smart out of public education um which doesn't help anybody i mean

literally schools don't have to t we put it n we've now designed a system to summarize schools don't have to compete for students teachers don't have to compete for jobs or for their employment and now we're saying students don't have to compete so if you remove competition from the human condition you're just not going to have any performance there's going to be no progress and as a species we need progress we need to solve global warming we need to solve a lot of issues and don't we want to live longer and better lives like where is the

optimistic nature of the human species competition is at the core of excellence and to just take it out of everything the whole staff that's the smartest thing you've ever said way smarter than 11 20 sat score thank you thank you he's only 11 20. how clean is it that we're still talking about our s.a.t score it's like 30 years hundred was the average so in brooklyn when you're 320 points above average david it's a bfd what's lame is the four of us all remembered down to the number what our score is that's what's lame i think i was 11 20 11 50. i gotta i gotta look it up um all right uh do we wanna go to the

crypto meltdown or talk about inflation or do we should we dovetail those together or just wanna go straight to ufos well bri biden just uh they they just a press release just hit the wire and they just cut the infrastructure bill from 2.3 trillion to 1.7 trillion so we're doing our job here at the podcast and uh i i had heard from somebody that there just is not the broad-based support um for uh the capital gains tax so that's not going to happen um and it looks like the corporate tax will probably go to 25 not even up to 28 and interestingly i didn't realize this but

one of the biggest features of the bill that has the most popularity is that they're closing this loophole around ip that sits outside the united states and that more than the corporate taxes will raise almost a trillion dollars of revenue i agree with that one why should you put your why is apple i mean you want to talk about hypocrisy putting their ip in ireland so they don't pay taxes google does the same it was everybody's doing that why does that exist it's so un-american well it's a subsidiary that has different taxation on it and you know to kind of that capital and that uh and that earnings sits outside the u.s that ip was made in

california it was not made in dublin no offense to you know my home country i remember facebook we did that we did this exact thing we signed over all the ip and then the irs sued facebook and i remember like i was called either to i was subpoenaed and we went through like a whole multi-year trial it may still be going on and it was around this issue which was the irs said hey facebook how come you you know you ported this over there and i think facebook's answer was yeah we paid the tax and i think they did they don't think they did anything wrong because the laws allowed it but it effectively helped shield then

tens of billions of dollars of future taxes i i mean i remember reading about this and i'm like how does this pass the sniff test well it's where the revenue is recognized recognize jcal so you basically can produce the ip here and then transfer it to your subsidiary when you transfer to your subsidiary you can recognize the earnings in that subsidiary and that subsidiary pays taxes in its local jurisdiction the i think the issue facebook had was that they transferred the ip and they undervalued what the future value would be from that ip transfer and that's why the irs sued them

is this accounting snafu in terms of like what did you value it out at the moment you transferred it here's another idea what does why don't they look at as part of this ip licensing where does the consumption of that ip occur and where do the employees who maintain that ip live jkl it's a very smart idea the problem is that's the slippery slope that then gets to local taxation you know the thing is we have all these global tax treaties where these large corporate entities can basically play this game and they're not subject to local tax

but that's the thing that's going to really start the undoing of the big monopolies because if you start to abandon these global tax treaties and you're starting to see it france is trying to do some stuff the uk is trying to do some stuff states individually in the united states are trying to sue these companies or tax them more that's the that's the first way to chip away at these monopolies is to basically say [ __ ] your global tax treaty you need to pay x amount of dollars to be here and it already exists because of these you know uh real estate sorry the retail tax nexuses and uh how e-commerce companies have to

pay local tax in the areas um but once it sort of touches a whole bunch of other industries um and countries uh i think that you're gonna have that that's why i think yellen janet yellen yesterday said that you know she's in support of trying to have a global minimum tax of 12 basically trying to get to the end state and tell every country let's all circle the wagons and agree that we'll all just charge everybody 12 and then we won't go all our separate ways the problem is that if you have a lot of usage in a country you know that country doesn't care what the taxation is in

zimbabwe right or canada they're like if i'm the uk or france i'm like i look at the top 20 apps in my country and i'm like wait a minute these guys would be paying me 50 billion dollars a year in tax it's hard to get away from the incentive to to not want to tax these companies right now sacks any thoughts yeah i don't have a huge thought on the ip issue um it seems like i know the the republican proposal on the infrastructure was six to eight hundred billion um biden's proposal initially was 2.3 chmath is right now they're down to 1.7 i think that the markets have been choking on the size of all of this tax

and spend and the there's been all these reports of inflation spiking and so the growth stocks have just been hammered because we're all expecting big interest rate increases to control this future inflation so um buying has been horrible for growth stocks so far and it really i guess that what it shows is that you know what are growth stocks growth stocks are future investment and it shows the way that the government can crowd out when you have excess government spending i guess you can call it investment if you want but when you have excess government spending it starts to crowd out private investment because it raises

interest rates and that you know decreases the the value of gross stocks and there's less money that flows into that yeah it does seem like the market reaction to the infrastructure bill and to inflation has made biden reconsider his approach and maybe he just came out too hot is that i don't know i don't think biden's reconsidering i think it's people like joe manchin um remember it's a 50 foreigner mark warner christian cinema the the moderate there's a three or four moderate democrats in the senate who i think are receiving the message your mouth put it really well the last pod

that the markets are sending a message to washington i think some of those centrist democrats read the message i don't think biden's aware of and i don't know what he's aware of he doesn't seem to aware of anything to me but i think the moderate democrats are getting the message and they're telling they're telling the white house the package is too big and they they're um and i think that's why it's coming up the other thing that i think people um may be getting their heads around here's what's changed since last week there's a growing body if i had to say like you know the beautiful thing about the

the markets is that it is an extremely elegant voting mechanism in the short term right i mean buffett says it's it's a voting machine in the short term and a weighing machine in the long term but if you look at sentiment and how things are voted on in the public markets in real time it's incredibly illustrative so there's a body of people now that are voting a very different scenario than inflation what they're voting for now is this idea that by the fall a lot of this short-term pent-up demand will have worked its way through the system and instead we'll be back to this realization that we've had for the last

20 years which is hey wait a minute people don't actually want to buy more of these physical goods they're going to go back to consuming the way they did before it's going to reflexively push towards technology companies again and we're going to have this rebirth of growth and you would say well how would you know that that vote is likely and this one incredible thing happened this last week which i just want to throw out here um one thing that i look at is this thing called 10-year break-evens which is basically a thing that the federal reserve of st louis publishes and what it basically shows is like what

people think collectively trillions of dollars what the 10-year break-even interest rate's going to be and it peaked last week at 2.54 and it's fallen 13 uh basis points uh just in the last week down to 241 and i don't know whether it's sustained or whatever but there is a growing idea that the worst may be behind us and if you layer on top of this now biden pulling back right on stimulus because he can't get it done pulling back on cap gains pulling back on corporate taxation and a more measured policy of investment we we could all be back so we're

basically taking the medicine and getting back to where we were but we still have massive asset inflation we're seeing in houses cars and other things well we may have just pulled forward demand meaning you know people are like okay i'm flush with money the savings rate in the united states has been you know going at an incredible clip people may pull forward all that spending and say i was going to buy a car 18 months from now or i was going to buy a house two years from now [ __ ] it i'm going to do it now because prices are going up too fast i don't

want to miss out but then they're out of the market now for the next many number of years and this is what i'm saying where you see this short-term spike of demand and then things get back to normal if that's what we see good times are back in growth stocks all in podcast sentiment levels go high again i've literally i did like two or three early stage deals recently and i had members of my syndicate say like how does this valuation make sense and i said to them you know it actually doesn't make sense um if you're looking at it with the traditional metrics but all valuations are higher at all stages

so i'm going to selectively you know overpay compared to what we were paying a year or two ago you know if i really love a company but i will sit out a lot of i'm sitting at a lot of rounds right now that i just can't get my head around the valuation so hopefully some well there's always a trickle down there's always a trickle down from gross stocks in the public markets to venture right because the the last private investors like the big funds who do the super late stage stuff they're just doing an arbitrage on what they pay versus what the company's going

to list for publicly so when they see those valuations go down they adjust and then it works its way all the way down the stack so you know growth stocks have just been hammered and especially all the recent listings the ipos and spax and everything and and that's going to trickle its way down i think to venture i think we have the yeah and i think we have the lead indicator on that as clubhouse right which will be the canary in the coal mine i don't know how you guys recognize explain explain what's going on with clubhouse just for those of us explain what it is okay so clubhouse is a casual audio space you go into a room

and you're immediately taken to a live conversation with people speaking on stage and an audience audience members can be promoted to the stage and start talking so wait wait hold on it's in an app and it's all audio so there's an app audio there's an app you go in and it's all audio yes so it's like amateur night at a strip club but for words uh or more comedy club or whatever you just bring pupil on stage yeah it's kind of like a champagne room but a little different um so anyway apple 2000 signatures from apple to remove all in from the podcast we just lost three ranks in the apple podcasting app

so what's very interesting about this app is that it had a massive number of downloads during the pandemic because people were home and people were not doing anything at night because they were sheltering in place and um they had in you know 2 million downloads in january 9.5 million in february of this year and then came crashing down 2.7 million in march and 922 in april but at the same time their valuation over 18 months went from 100 million in their seed when they had like three or four thousand users to a billion to four billion in the last round of financing for a company with zero revenue and

let's call it a couple of million people using the app and what's really interesting is the same venture firm led all three rounds a la sequoia's investment in whatsapp where they did all the private funding so you have no outside capital marketing this valuation a four billion dollar evaluation four billion dollars well they got a they got an acquisition offer from twitter for four billion and they they turned was that ever confirmed i've heard it was real so so but so basically the reason why the 4 billion private round happened was so they would keep going as an independent company they could basically

take some chips off the table through secondary and kind of go for the bigger outcome but yeah they could have just sold to twitter for 4 billion so they may end up regretting that but like is this really a function of a broader um inflation evaluation inflation or is this just a function of there was a company that was a social network with hyper growth and then it turns out that the product had no stickiness and the hyper growth went away the souffle collapsed the souffle collapsed can i can i can i just point out like and and forgive me if any any of you guys are investors in this

company or anyone that's listening and cares but like if this thing came out before youtube people would say you know this is interesting but it needs an asynchronous killer it needs a thing where you can like record a conversation post it online and people can come and watch it listen to it when they want it was always so crazy to me that you had to be logged into the app to listen to what was going on and if you didn't you missed the conversation and there was no way to like go watch the recording of the conversation like am i crazy to think

that this was just like silly i think you nailed it that they don't have async in there and actually i've got a little bit of disclosure to make here what what the beat got wet but it's [ __ ] special breaking news story okay so i think i understand what clubhouse did wrong async is a huge part of it but rather than tell you exactly i'm going to show you because i've been incubating a new what what what that we're we're on test flight right now and you guys after this pod i can i can demo it for you and if you guys if you guys want to invest

i'm going to close around uh this week before it's getting wet and so if you guys want to what's your evaluation what's the value yeah what's our insider all in what's the best eval yeah what's the best event i'll talk to you guys about it offline how much how much money do you want to raise we're raising 10 million bucks and we already have commitments and but i'm creating room for you guys yeah yeah so 500k each okay sounds like 500k each where is it let's talk about it offline but um but the apps on test flight i think we'll be ready to launch in a few weeks

can i can i say what's the point wait what's it called can you see that yeah no i'll say it it's called call in colin colin i thought it was i thought it was going to be called club mouse does this have a podcast after all like are we going to do the podcast on it we absolutely could do the podcast on it and it would be awesome nick would be out of a job so i don't think he would like it i wouldn't have the quality level but i think it's good for call-ins if we wanted to do a call-in show so it would be good for that yes it'd be great it'd be great to do exactly and that's why it's called call-in is because the ability for you to take callers

is obviously a huge feature but also like we could host after parties for our fans to like you know chop up the latest episode and talk about it yeah these fans are getting crazy do you guys see the all in stats twitter handle i don't know the twitter handle off the top of my head but somebody's these kids are doing um uh they're using machine learning or something to know what percentage of time we each speak on the pod and how many monologues and they're doing all these statistics it's crazy that's really cool um i was gonna say uh in defense of clubhouse for a second i

don't i don't know the app per se but i think like why andreessen did all of that in my opinion is because they're pressing a hot hand which makes a ton of sense from their perspective it's like you know i think that they're going for the kill shot because i think they are basically set up they're basically set up to become sequoia if if they really i mean i think if you think about like which two firms are really crushing on all cylinders right now obviously sequoia has always been the perennial number one but if you think about the the heater that andreessen it's on it's incredible

and so from their perspective the four billion dollar valuation is less important than what is their real capital at risk and that's probably 100 or 150 million which in the grand scheme of having 40 or 50 billion dollars of aum if you consider the value of all their public positions as well that's a really reasonable risk to take so i think if you're sure in that way it's kind of like they're taking a shot to try to just you know go if it does become worth 10 billion or 50 billion also if it only gets sold for 500 million they get their money out first so what does it matter what does it matter

they're going for the 100 billion outcome i mean they've seen that instagram sold too soon they saw that snap turned down a three billion dollar offer from facebook and now it's worth 80 billion so they're going for the 100 billion dollar youtube 1.6 billion yeah and now it's worth hundreds of billions so they're hoping it's going to be like that um but chamath is right look if they had taken what say 20 of a 4 billion outcome 800 million that doesn't even pay back their fund right but if it ends up being 100 billion outcome they make 20 billion now it's like a coin base for them what

do you think they gave to the founders well to keep them in the game because four billion if they owned 80 yeah they took off they took chips off the table but here's the thing all those decisions were made before the recent collapse in engagement at clubhouse i'm not sure anybody would be paying 4 billion for it now given everything that's gone wrong but you know who knows it's still pretty early just for people who are curious there is a twitter handle all in underscore stats and um yeah it's all in stats.com i don't know we're not affiliated with these maniacs but um we we love the stands and we're going to

do something in person in september congratulations to the stands for losing their minds i think it's a pretty good uh way for them to capture a bunch of uh attention on the twitter all right um crypto is getting absolutely hammered uh and i it's the chinese have once again said that uh they're basically saber rattling about cryptocurrency they're obviously going to do their own um uh jason i think i think you have to talk about china in a in a slightly broader lens than just what's happening in crypto because like this is the same week where

they basically they forced you know zhang yaming to resign from bike dance i mean you know last week last week it was or last month it was the ceo of pinto duo and just guys mia they're going for the jugular i mean it's like why are they taking out all their top ceos this would be like putting elon and jeff bezos on the bench is that they just don't want any heroes i don't know i mean i i guess maybe the speculative part in me would say they're showing them who's really in charge of these companies i mean it would be crazy to your point if the government of the united states forced sundar pachai and tim cook and

mark zuckerberg and elon musk to resign it's like hey sorry i'm sorry you need to leave right now and put somebody else in and do you have to debate their badges yeah we just we just relentlessly criticize them right but but yeah yeah we just demonize them we just try to cancel them but look but they deserve that level of scrutiny because the amount of power they have but but yeah that we don't we don't put them in jail or house arrest or drive them out of their companies and that is a big advantage for the us economy the treasury department here in the united states is doing a little saber rattling

they want to know anytime there is a 10 000 transaction in any kind of digital token and uh they're talking about a cbdc to do their own cryptocurrency so they're putting out a white paper for feedback this summer um and uh we are now seeing a pullback on bitcoin from you know mid 60s to uh you know now into the 36 37 000 per bitcoin do you think this is the end of the beginning beginning of the end it's the beginning of the beginning david rubinstein was on cnbc today and david rubinstein for those you guys don't know is um was a co-founder of carlyle group you know more blue chip and blue-blooded you cannot get and very

connected in washington and you know he said it best where he said you know effectively people want this and the government will have no choice except to support it because you can't take something like this with this much institutional and retail demand away so we have to go to the place where now crypto needs to be like everything else and maybe the crypto stands get upset with that because they don't like it that you know a bunch of their parents are all of a sudden going to be buying tokens and stuff but they got to get over it um then this stuff should be you know transacted in the same way you transact

anything else you buy it you sell it you get a tax return you pay your taxes and you move on this reminds me of the transition that we all went through with i don't know if you remember kazaa and napster and bittorrent like everybody all the we a lot of our contemporaries in their 30s you know whatever 10 20 years ago were like you can't stop it you can't stop it and it got stopped you know like you made it illegal and you prosecuted people and then you came up with solutions that were regulated like spotify or you know netflix and you gave the

consumers what they wanted so david do you think this is a similar path right now that we're going through which is the crypto zealots and the and the and the stands are gonna basically have to get used to as chemat saying their parents buying it and crypto not being this underground thing but being regulated in a major way in the united states and is that a good or bad thing i i think the thing that that's happening quietly behind the scenes is that major wall street players institutions endowments and so forth over the past year have decided that bitcoin and crypto is a legitimate asset class and they've

been allocating to it huge huge pools of capital balance sheet capital have been allocating into it i don't think that's gonna change this is probably a pretty good buying opportunity we've seen these crashes in bitcoin many many times over the years it plummets down and then it goes back up and it eventually goes back up and reaches a new peak so this is probably a pretty good entry point for the next rally we don't know when that's going to be but the whole point of bitcoin is that it's censorship resistant and china can do its best to try and stamp it out but i don't think they'll

be successful at that you don't you're so wrong about that that is the most naive take worst take you've ever had how's china going to stop bitcoin uh how do they stop vpns they put people in jail how do they stop religion they put people in jail they may make it incredibly hard for chinese citizens to get a hold of bitcoin i agree with that but they're not going to be able to stop bitcoin they're not going to stop bitcoin in the west but they will stop it in china 100 full stop and you know how many servers are in china i mean go talk to the people who were in

tiananmen square about the miners will have to move out the miners miners are done and then if it'll be an underground thing it'll be like having a vpn which is five years in jail for selling vpns what do you think about the irs requirement that you have to report any bitcoin transaction over ten thousand dollars do you think that that and americans can be prosecuted for not reporting right so i i don't know i don't know fine okay so what do it so yes get over it but i do think you'll get rid of 20 this is the silk road fallacy that you know that the only legitimate use for

crypto or i said 20 percent i didn't say okay fine but so maybe that makes it that small fraction of illegitimate or illicit use cases no sex i think the point is um that they're trying to chase down it's not about illegal use cases it's about not reporting a taxable gain on your bitcoin before you use that money to buy something so sure of course it's about tax evasion but look but that's not that's not going to stop bitcoin usage um you know smart people who've been trading bitcoin been paying taxes on it for years that's not i don't think that's really

an issue if you were in china and you created your wealth in china or many many other countries all over the world and there were currency restrictions and controls and the government was asserting more and more power and we're putting business leaders under house arrest and and seeking to put them under their thumb you'd be trying to convert as much of your net worth into bitcoin as possible so that all you have to do is if you ever had to flee the country you wouldn't have to have dollars in your suitcase or gold bricks or diamonds you'd simply have to have a password in

your brain that you could access at any computer terminal when you got out of the country and so that i think that sort of digital gold is a phenomenal use case of bitcoin and the more oppressive all these countries become the more they increase the value of that use case what do you think is the black swan event in crypto and bitcoin in particular taxation in the united states traditional taxation like you do on cigarettes that would be for me the united states putting a tax on it that makes it less competitive with our our national coming cryptocurrency the cbdc that the

united states will launch in the next two or three years they're going to say if you want to use any of these other currencies there's a 10 tax on them we want you using ours the legitimate one there's there's a very negative black swan that obviously has never occurred um but if anyone ever manages to counterfeit a bitcoin yeah or this is the double spend problem right if you could ever if you could ever double spend or figure out a way to create bitcoins um or counterfeit them whatever that weren't in the blockchain if the number of bitcoins

ever grew beyond the 21 million that's just built into the way that the whole thing works if that ever happened bitcoin is instantly worthless that would be the black swan on the negative side i think the black swan if it didn't happen in the first eleven years what do you think the likelihood of a percentage basis that it happens in the 20th exactly it's too expensive now and it's too it's too visible like the way that it would have happened it would have happened in the first two or three years or the argument could be made the opposite that now it's so valuable that

it's worth investing to figure out a bigger target yeah yeah and and it's and and rather than have it be about a diminishing probability it could be an increasing probability over time which is that the pathways to get there start to get resolved whereas in the past you didn't have enough time to resolve those pathways speaking highly theoretical here but like certainly it doesn't take into account that it's open source and that everybody can see it so you would think that everybody would discover the vulnerability at the same time right in an open source project well no i think the i think the issue practically speaking in this would be

that you would see those resources getting organized meaning you'd see silicon being bought in volume by some centralized player and then you'd have to see water and power come together as well and this is where i think it's just not realistic where today that i think the horse has left the barn because if you try to basically capture enough hash rate to kind of like overpower this network it's it's it's like the scene in austin powers where he's screaming in front of a a steamroller but the steamroller is moving at like one foot a minute right you see it coming it's just like

you just see it coming well would you have a black swan freeberg you asked the loaded question so do you have one i think about it a lot i don't really i mean it's a black swan it's because it's a black swan so you don't really see it coming but like you know the the thing about bitcoin which has always given me pause is the fact that the only way it works is if everyone believes that more people are going to believe in it tomorrow than believe in it today well that's the only way it appreciates yeah but the for a variety of reasons it's also the only way that it works because

um if it starts to depreciate it becomes almost like this unwinding circumstance and there are moments where it unwinds but then people kind of say well you know what more people are going to get on this there's the chinese argument there's the argentinian argument there's all the reasons why people will try and store wealth in this system and that becomes a rationale for continuing to bet on it and my observation is so many people that are active in bitcoin compare bitcoin to the price of the dollar which to me seems like it doesn't make sense relative to the intention of bitcoin

which is to not be part of the monetary system that uses the dollar as kind of the de facto you know system of value and so why have the comparison to the dollar as the objective for bitcoin why is the objective not transactions use cases number of people that are active on the network et cetera et cetera and nobody buying it is buying it as a subsidiary they're buying it as a lottery ticket so yeah that's that that's right and so then it becomes this rationale that it's like it's an investment that you put money in in the form of dollars or your local currency with the intention that you

will be able to get more of your local currency out at some point in the future and the only way that works is if you expect someone else will buy it from you at a higher price in the future therefore it's all about propagating the uh you know the marketing around the bitcoin whereas if your objective was really about making this become a replacement currency system or replacement monetary system you would ultimately care less about you know what's the dollar value per coin and you would care more about how many people are using it you know how active let me build on that question so saks or chamoth if the cbdc

and americans currency you know starts to move towards a bitcoin blockchain-like experience what would america start to look like if 10 or 20 of your dollars instead of being held in a bank we're on a blockchain with an american a government a government-backed blockchain doesn't accomplish anything it's still people are it's centralized and not only is it centralized but also it's still prone to debasement right yeah and so look human beings have used everything from gold coins to seashells as money we can make anything money that's easy to transact if we all agree on it that's the sense in which bitcoin

is the bubble that becomes true if everyone believes in it that provided provided the number of bitcoins today at 21 million and that the technology enforces the scarcity the problem we have with the us dollar is the government can just print as many of them as they want yeah you change the denominator problem yeah and so i think there's a positive black swan as well for positive for bitcoin which is stanley druckenmiller thinks that the next 15 years the u.s dollar will no longer be the world's reserve currency well what's going to replace it the positive black swan would be that bitcoin becomes if not the a world reserve currency

an unofficial world reserve currency why because people trust it they trust the decentralization more than they trust any government and that would that would be absolutely is that in is the united states and china are they going to let bitcoin become the world's reserve currency well it's not a choice that they have you sure so yeah there's nothing they can do but what about the law and guns in jail and tax i don't i don't know what that means there's there's nothing that they could there there was nothing that they could do to stop it before there's nothing that they can do to stop it now

well you can't get the new york times in china and you can't practice religion there so they have a pretty easy system they put you in jail they want to stop bitcoin they could just put you in jail how by finding out that you have bitcoin and just well because they have a hundred percent uh view into the internet there they have how on because they have routers that's how they capture all the uyghurs is they know their location because they have mobile phones and when they use signal or any other encrypted technology they catch them no i don't i don't think that's how it works but that's how they catch all the dissidents

there as they they have them and they also have apple's entire data center is controlled by the chinese government there's no ledger somewhere that says this specific wallet address equals david sacks and there's not going to be one anytime soon and so you'll have these centralized wallet authorities that actually you know have a lot of account information but the reality is the sophisticated actors you know use tumblers they they washed sort of like their their paths in a way where it's very difficult to figure out who these people are now if you if you don't if you use a site

that doesn't have kyc that's always going to be the case and you know people with huge amounts of bitcoin are sophisticated enough to know how to stay anonymous if they want to for everybody else who doesn't care because for them it's sort of an investment asset class and an in you know a hedge then they're not going to care either and the point is when enough people own it governments aren't in a position the track record of them just waking up one day and pulling the plug on anything is zero that's not how people do things you have to have like centralized policy and support

and i don't see it one way or the other of all the things that china and the united states will face over the next 30 or 40 years this is like 50th on the list hmm saks what do you think any closing thoughts i mean i think we've said it so yeah i mean look i think i think if you're going to stay in a place like the united states you need to comply with tax law you're absolutely going to report your bitcoin holdings if it's required but if the reason you're buying bitcoin is because you're fleeing a country or you're worried about fleeing a country you're obviously not going to report it and that's the that's the advantage of

it is that it's a portable money supply that again you can just um you don't have to carry anything with you you just put a password in your brain wallet tell me about ufos before we leave i mean can you believe this thing this is the craziest thing i i so there was a yeah there's a 60 minutes episode that just happened uh deputy assistant uh secretary of defense for intelligent literally said the crafts we're seeing are and then in quotes far beyond anything that we're capable of there's nothing we could build that would be strong enough to endure the amount of force and acceleration

imagine a technology that can do 700 g-forces fly 13 miles per hour evade radar and has every no obvious signs of propulsion and yet can clearly defy the effects of earth's gravity that's precisely what we're seeing from the director of advanced aerospace threat identification program i mean is this real like how is what what do we do what our government says there are crafts that outstrip our arsenal by at least a hundred years to a thousand years at the moment and we're like meh what do you think fredberg you're the scientist here there's a if you read the original um

uh treatment written by arthur clarke for the movie 2001 as space odyssey which was written before the movie and then the book was written after the movie um he makes a really compelling point and the point he makes is that when civilizations achieve um a sophisticated enough level of technology there's no longer a need to physically transport yourself from start a star and transport yourself around the universe think about this for a second take what we have from virtual reality today and fast forward 200 years and then take what we have in terms of you know the ability to print and create anything we want on demand and fast forward two or three hundred

years those two conditions alone might give us the ability to strap on something to our brain and literally and remember our brain is simply sensing what our body is given and if you can control what your brain is sensing through some strap-on device or whatever you don't actually need to physically be in the place where that happens so if we can remotely sense what's going on somewhere else in the universe or some other part of our planet and we can remotely pick up those signals and view them or experience them you don't need to physically be there and then secondly all this sorry all this via strap-on

okay yeah and then secondly i shouldn't use it i shouldn't use the term and then secondly if you could print it you'd be honest yeah but think about if you guys ever watched the tv show star trek next generation which i would guess maybe one of the replicator or the replicator or the holodeck and you could watch it number three on my list of star trek yeah seriously if you walk in and you could literally recreate the physical space that you want to be in to accomplish anything the holodeck and then you could print anything why would you use all the energy and all of this work to transport

physical matter from one part of the universe to the other when all matter is transmutable and the only thing that differentiates things is the photons coming off that matter which is just to sense it so if you can sense things remotely while you're physically here why do i go through the trouble why go through the trouble and so these are the same reason that we go to hawaii and not just watch a movie no because we don't have enough of the sensing capabilities today to truly recreate being in hawaii but imagine if we did and and we are very much on the path to doing that and in two three hundred years we have

the ability to physically recreate what it's like for our body to be in hawaii in every form smell taste color everything about being there physically and our body experiences it why the hell would you fly to hawaii you could meet people you could socialize so in a world short hawaii in a world where that technology exists which could by the way be neural link right where you can you know put these signals directly into the brain etc moving physical matter from one part of the universe to the other makes zero sense all matter is transmutable you can convert one atom to another using a technology locally so you wouldn't do

that and so that's the premise of 2001 is that you've got these local communication pods that just transmit information from different parts of the universe you don't need to physically transport yourself so that's the that's the the macro kind of argument against this notion that ufos or aliens are in a physical spacecraft visiting it's so old-school technology that it makes no sense it's like saying you know oh my gosh all these people are coming over to the united states on horses from europe you know like it just like why would they do that why would they use a horse

uh so so i think that's the argument against ufos being aliens and spacecraft now is there a really cool technology that has this advanced capability and there are these crafts that are in our sky and someone has that technology maybe um but i'm not sure about this general thesis i mean you blew my mind with that so yeah saks uh i i you obviously don't care so we i just i have no way for this to increase the irr of my fund or to get me another home beep boop bop boop on planet earth why would i want to go i just somehow feel like if they're really ufos it'd be like an even bigger story like we'd all know it

you know it's not going to be some like weird fringe conspiracy thing here's the here's the thing i do not care about emotions like humans tell you why would i care about the emotions of others every single photograph that's been taken in the last year is absolutely recognizably better than the one taken 10 years ago and every single photo or video of these aliens looks like it was shot in a on a camera from 1950 on the film that was left in somebody's basement and meanwhile meanwhile pixar movies can recreate literally the ocean

glimmering get me a clear shot there's not one clear shot of this show me the alien in 4k high def and then i'll believe it okay by the engine and we can see the engine like why can't we get a shot of the until then i will be traveling between my homes i am living my best life not in san francisco we will get chesapeaden recalled i will tell you sex i don't think you need to harp on the chessa point anymore because i don't hear anyone making the case on the other side anymore dustin moskowitz yes what from us yes yes nick pull up the tweet so you know i'm basically because look

there oh we fired him up here we go then we can take off so insert quarter here and now my range upgrade before the station inserted yes run rage function now no look we're taking all this heat from these stupid reporters who are talking about our donations you know like asking what are we up to uh look we're very public about what we're up to but this is a terrible tweet from dustin there there have been these tech billionaires dustin mossovitz reed hastings and mike krieger and they've been donating money to to chase a boudin and gasco that's disappointing yeah horrible so i

asked i just said why are you donating money this insanity and dustin's still defending it and he said i'm going to mute you now because you know you didn't want to you didn't want to wait wait just in fairness let me pull this up dustin's quote is i live in the city and i'm not going anywhere crime happens to me too trust me we write extensively about why of our grants here you know here's the thing i think dustin reed hastings um and their spouses are very involved in criminal justice reform and what we have to do is give somebody like dustin or reed hastings to benefit the doubt here and say we understand your donations were

meaningful to you and you wanted to maybe lower the incarceration of black people in jail for crimes that were not violent and we agree let's reverse this conversation because we're not giving them the benefit of the doubt let me explain why okay so read it so this is a good example this read hastings thing is a good example by the way just today was announced that he donated three million to gavin newsom um in any event so you know he keep he look he's on that side of the spectrum by the way there's a little back story there

i don't know if you guys remember when there was pressure uh on the facebook board to kick peter thiel off but back in 2016. it was really nice that was from reed hastings okay so the guy is very close-minded i think it's his wife is actually handling this one he was the board member who pushed to get peter off because he couldn't handle the fact that there might be another board member who disagree with him politically so it's a very close-minded point of view but let's take let's take this example of crime in la okay so we had this uh election where george gascon who was a failure as

d.a in san francisco he goes down to la and runs against the the veteran d.a down there jackie lacy who it happens to be a black woman a veteran seasoned d.a compton nobody had a problem with her i think she's a democrat okay it's not like this is a right-wing person and so george gascon basically fails his way out of san francisco goes down to la and he basically um dislodges her from that seat with 15 million dollars an unprecedented amount spent a day election where did that money come from 5 million came from source 5 million came for reed hastings 5 million came from blm now you know in any other context the idea

that you're gonna fire a talented competent seasoned veteran black woman and replace her with an incompetent white male that would be seen as institutional racism but nobody complained about it at all but it's outrageous yeah what is there what is the most charitable what's behind that what is the most charitable view of why they're supporting gascon and chesapeake well there's this decarcerationist agenda and so yes you're right that they see mass incarceration is a problem but the problems it is but the solution is not mass decarceration that we need something in between and

the problem with gascone and chase of boudin they just want to let everybody out they don't want them they also don't want to add anybody so i think if their agenda is to lower the number adding people is against that there are people who need to go to jail murderers now people dying every day in san francisco by at the hands of repeat offenders who chaser boudin has made the decision to let them out of jail even though they should be in jail these are dangerous violent felons the problem with this is i think chamath i would like to get your feedback on it

is you know you when a person gives these kind of donations and they make it their public persona and it doesn't go well how does one you know i don't know disentangle or reconcile they made a bet that had a bad outcome because this is obviously a bad outcome you don't want the city to devolve into chaos i don't particularly care about san francisco and i think i think the two the two of you guys can talk about it all no i'm done i'm going to get rid of my place in this one colin but i i could i couldn't care less about how that sounds well closing i got nothing to say okay i want to add

just one thing look i so i care because i live there but but this trend this is not just san francisco this whole idea of these radical decarcerationists they are running for d.a in every major city this is going to be a national trend and they're going to cause a lot of carnage a lot of death and destruction until the people realize and there will inevitably be a backlash to this and hopefully just not too many people fair enough i i don't want to be too flippant my point is it's a really important debate it's going to happen in every city

but folks need to get engaged in those cities and do something about it if if you want to hear the argument of why this is happening you can go watch the ted talk on youtube of adam foss foss he was the original like proponent of the da's coming in to drive the incarceration decarceration movements um and you know i just think it's important to be informed of the other perspective uh uh in evaluating where folks are coming from that are that are their proponents for this movement yeah i'm trying to be charitable towards their position dustin and reed if you want to come on the pod and be a bestie guestie i guess maybe

dustin doesn't respond to me and said listen we don't know what the counterfactual is if we had a more aggressive d.a that was his arguments we don't know the counterfeits so i of course so i posted a list of people of innocent victims who've died okay because directly because of a decision that chase abu deen made that's your counter factual yeah that's your counter factual all right listen it's been an amazing episode and uh no plugs no ads no nothing if you like the show great and if you don't like it how the hell did you make it to the minute 75 for the queen of quinoa the dictator himself

chamoli papatia i'm having steak tonight [Music] eggplant tonight you've never eaten fish in your life never had sushi and saxons jack can we even talk about saks as hell where's your first second and third dinner tonight i'm on a seafood diet i eat i see the food this is your twilight zone episode i just bought i'm going i decided i'm going twice a week with the trainer and i just bought the hydro so now i have tonal peloton tread and i got the hydro i'm going from smart machine to smart machine hey are you spa oh i got it oh good question no no no no comment comment okay sorry i

just want some tweet people have other things to do guys i gotta go i gotta go all right everybody love you guys yeah get a salad okay we love you bye besties and of course the dictator [Music] it's hard to make good investments it's hard to build a company [Music] people think money is free and it's not i pick up [Music] billionaire has brought the french i just can't stand them it's hard to make it it's hard to make good investments it's hard to build a company because if it was easy everybody would be doing it all the time [Music] this one man for yourself it's all about you you can figure it out

the rugged individualism that's just not realistic anybody who want who's listening to this who wants to go to the french laundry stay at home pour a bunch of salt on whatever you're gonna eat okay it's hard to make it it's hard to make good investments it's hard to build a company because if it was easy everybody would be doing it all the time [Music] this one man for yourself it's all about you you can figure it out the rugged individualism that's just not realistic like