00:00:00
do we have freeberg is he did he drop
00:00:01
off oh here he is okay free Berg's back
00:00:03
okay three two I just had to take a leak
00:00:05
I just I go outside my office and then I
00:00:08
come back oh you like a nature PE you're
00:00:10
a nature PE guy me too I love a great
00:00:12
nature I have this great office at home
00:00:14
which is like a building outside of my
00:00:15
house so I like to go in the garden take
00:00:17
a breath of fresh air and just yeah you
00:00:19
don't sit down to
00:00:23
pee no I'm I'm serious I'm not joking
00:00:25
around you guys I have so many jokes I'm
00:00:28
not going there that's a soy estr point
00:00:30
joke is no we can cut this out but my
00:00:32
pediatrician said hm I think it's really
00:00:34
important to teach your boys to pee
00:00:37
sitting down and even for for you as you
00:00:40
get older I what are you talking about
00:00:42
it's good for the it's good for the
00:00:43
prostate and there's like a materially
00:00:45
different percentage in terms of
00:00:48
prostate cancer rates when you pee
00:00:49
sitting down because you expel all the
00:00:52
pee that just kind of gets caught there
00:00:54
what the little the dribble swear to God
00:00:57
bro I swear to God you about wait wait
00:00:59
what about Shake Nick you can cut all of
00:01:02
this no the shake doesn't do this is
00:01:03
great sitting while urinating AIDS and
00:01:05
muscle relaxation benefiting men with
00:01:08
tight pelvic floor muscles or symptoms
00:01:10
of an enlarged prostate sitting to PE
00:01:13
enhances stability rces the risk of
00:01:15
Falls oh God and minimizes messiness
00:01:18
especially sa SX has a urinal whenever
00:01:21
sax gets a new home he puts urinal in
00:01:24
that's how much of a man he is he how
00:01:26
does your staff how does your staff hold
00:01:28
your body while you pee like do they
00:01:29
hold you
00:01:32
history of the world Mel Brooks this
00:01:34
study is like the vasectomy truck at the
00:01:36
DNC I mean it's meant to emasculate men
00:01:39
that's the only interpretation of it
00:01:41
it's total
00:01:43
nonsense let your winners
00:01:46
ride
00:01:50
Ravid and in said we open source it to
00:01:53
the fans and they've just gone crazy
00:01:56
[Music]
00:01:58
with all right the labor department has
00:02:01
revised down the job growth numbers as a
00:02:05
number of members of this panel
00:02:07
predicted the uh BLS updated its nonfarm
00:02:11
payroll stats downgrading actual job
00:02:13
growth to around 30% versus what was
00:02:15
originally reported this means the US
00:02:18
economy created around 818 th000 fewer
00:02:22
jobs over the 12 months leading up to
00:02:23
March
00:02:24
2024 number was originally reported as
00:02:27
2.9 Million new jobs created and it's
00:02:29
more like 2.1 one uh the labor
00:02:31
department updates and revises its stats
00:02:33
frequently it gives disclaimers but this
00:02:36
is the largest and most significant
00:02:38
revision since 2009 after the great uh
00:02:42
recession and so the biggest downgrade
00:02:44
came in the field not surprisingly of
00:02:47
professional and business services with
00:02:50
358,000 jobs lost over the last year we
00:02:54
see that in all the stats of different
00:02:56
tech companies and businesses finance
00:02:58
companies doing layoffs
00:03:00
other fields that revise their numbers
00:03:03
Leisure Hospitality manufacturing retail
00:03:05
makes sense and a little bit in
00:03:07
transportation here's a couple charts
00:03:08
for you before we go and get some
00:03:10
feedback civilian unemployment rate
00:03:13
seasonally adjusted as you can see since
00:03:16
the great financial crisis we went from
00:03:18
10% all the way down to well below four
00:03:21
and that's where we sit Today USA Today
00:03:25
chart here of gains and losses since
00:03:27
1980 obviously that massive drop you see
00:03:30
there of minus 9.3 million jobs was
00:03:33
covid with the big quick rebound of 7.3
00:03:36
so overall the country is in great
00:03:39
shape saak your thoughts on the revision
00:03:42
you obviously made note of this when we
00:03:45
went through the numbers well yeah I
00:03:46
mean I predicted this this would happen
00:03:50
and I didn't know exactly how we would
00:03:53
get the correction but now it's come out
00:03:55
by the way it's not just the this
00:03:58
88,000 jobs if you look at the last 12
00:04:01
months and add up all the restatements
00:04:03
it's been something like 1.2 million I
00:04:06
can share the chart on that but this is
00:04:09
quite remarkable about a year ago I
00:04:13
tweeted really fairly casually that
00:04:16
there was a hot jobs report this was
00:04:18
around June of
00:04:21
2023 that I I didn't know where they're
00:04:23
finding all these jobs I mean all I see
00:04:25
is layoffs that was my reaction based on
00:04:28
not just what what I was seeing in Tech
00:04:30
and all of us you know especially last
00:04:32
year we seeing nothing but layoffs in
00:04:33
Tech it was also feedback from Real
00:04:37
Estate Investors that I knew I mean all
00:04:39
new real estate projects that basically
00:04:41
stopped because the cost of borrowing
00:04:43
was so high and there was a credit
00:04:45
crunch so new construction projects had
00:04:47
stopped refi were very hard to get it's
00:04:50
just that everywhere I was looking in
00:04:52
the economy and the feedback I was
00:04:53
getting from people things looked pretty
00:04:55
dismal and yet the media was
00:04:58
continuously putting out stories about
00:04:59
hot jobs reports and we've been getting
00:05:01
this now for roughly a year and then
00:05:04
what happens is that there's a revision
00:05:08
and the revisions have always gone in
00:05:11
One Direction there always a revision
00:05:12
down I mean if the revisions were
00:05:16
completely sort of neutral and arbitrary
00:05:18
you'd expect it to be like a coin flip
00:05:20
you know you might have 10 revisions and
00:05:22
five would be up and five would be down
00:05:23
but they've all been down yeah so what I
00:05:26
saw was a pattern of revisions down
00:05:30
and now we've seen the biggest one so
00:05:33
it's not altogether surprising to me and
00:05:35
in hindsight you know when I tweeted
00:05:37
that a year ago I got this like
00:05:40
hysterical reaction I mean like it was
00:05:42
one of these tweets that all of a sudden
00:05:44
everyone was like quote tweeting and
00:05:45
telling me to stay in my Lane I'm a VC
00:05:47
and I don't know the numbers and it was
00:05:50
like I hit some sort of nerve and you
00:05:53
know whenever that happens you're
00:05:54
usually over the Target in some way yeah
00:05:57
and it's generating it's triggering
00:05:59
people is what you're saying yeah yeah
00:06:00
so the question is like why were they so
00:06:02
triggered and I think the reason is that
00:06:04
on some level people were intuiting that
00:06:06
the numbers didn't really make sense it
00:06:08
didn't really match up with what we're
00:06:09
seeing in the economy and now a year
00:06:11
later we have the proof of that so
00:06:13
chamat let me go to you next because you
00:06:16
you pointed out that these numbers
00:06:17
seemed a little fugazi
00:06:20
fugazy but we have 162 million people
00:06:23
record employed in the country this
00:06:25
number if it's 162 you take out 800 it's
00:06:28
161 this is what the Fed was been trying
00:06:31
to do to cool off inflation right we
00:06:33
needed to see a little bit less
00:06:35
employment and that's part of it so I
00:06:37
guess the Silver Lining here is if we
00:06:40
are revising these numbers down that
00:06:43
would give more of an indication that
00:06:44
we've slowed the economy
00:06:46
correct yeah I mean I think the economy
00:06:49
is a lot slower than what people thought
00:06:52
which to your point the Silver Lining is
00:06:54
that it probably Now
00:06:57
tips the balance of action in September
00:07:00
to a cut and if it was 25 basis
00:07:04
points there's probably going to be a
00:07:06
lot of folks
00:07:09
lobbying the FED to cut
00:07:12
50 and I think that they probably have
00:07:15
enough numerical justification now to
00:07:18
cut
00:07:19
50 I think the bigger problem though is
00:07:24
if you don't have an accurate sense of
00:07:27
where employment really is and and sax
00:07:30
did mention this you will also then have
00:07:32
an inaccurate sense of where GDP is and
00:07:36
I think the one two punch could be very
00:07:39
problematic I think what we're learning
00:07:41
more than anything else is we have a
00:07:42
very sophisticated economy we have a
00:07:45
very sophisticated Capital Market System
00:07:47
we have very sophisticated actors in
00:07:50
those markets all of us included who can
00:07:53
react to realtime data and make the
00:07:55
right decisions the problem is we have
00:07:57
bad data and the bad data
00:08:00
I think is something that is fixable but
00:08:03
we need to make an effort to do it
00:08:05
because it's insane that the largest and
00:08:07
most sophisticated economy in the world
00:08:11
is this unpredictable and I think that's
00:08:13
like the big question that I have which
00:08:15
is how is it possible in 2024 that we
00:08:17
haven't just made this a priority to fix
00:08:19
this and with all of the systems that
00:08:21
exist and all of the SAS tools that
00:08:23
exist and everything that's used to like
00:08:25
hire and fire and pay people we don't
00:08:27
have an accurate sense of this number
00:08:29
and it could easily Cham that's a real
00:08:32
head scratcher to me this could easily
00:08:34
be crowdsourced or we could pull data
00:08:36
from a lot of different places obviously
00:08:38
they pull some data from employment
00:08:39
roles but I remember you had a startup I
00:08:42
can't remember the name of it but you
00:08:44
had crowdsource people were going around
00:08:46
and taking pictures of the price of
00:08:48
tomatoes in different places and then
00:08:50
putting it into a database and
00:08:51
organizing it I think funds and other
00:08:54
folks yeah yeah so what that company did
00:08:56
was it was an agent that you would
00:08:57
download on your phone and we would task
00:08:59
you to go and collect certain kinds of
00:09:01
information and yeah there was some
00:09:04
socioeconomic data that was collected a
00:09:06
lot of it now is with three-letter
00:09:10
agencies and the like so without getting
00:09:13
into details that company's doing quite
00:09:14
well but it's just moved in a different
00:09:16
direction if you just created some kind
00:09:18
of like a a darp a challenge like
00:09:21
equivalent to this give it to stripe
00:09:23
give it to Gusto give it to a handful of
00:09:26
these Smart Companies to give it
00:09:29
estimate and see who accurately predicts
00:09:31
this number over the course of a year or
00:09:34
two that's more reliable and frankly
00:09:37
more useful to the market than what the
00:09:39
BLS is doing my first job out of college
00:09:41
by the way was not in Tech but it was in
00:09:44
finance I was a driva as Trader and what
00:09:47
was so incredible is I remember sitting
00:09:48
at my desk in front of my terminal on
00:09:50
the trading floor when non-farm payrolls
00:09:53
would hit and people would just go crazy
00:09:56
there would just be literally tens or
00:09:58
hundreds of billions of dollars that
00:09:59
would start flying back and forth based
00:10:02
on what that number was and now to think
00:10:05
about that much
00:10:07
velocity in a totally random way because
00:10:10
those numbers are unreliable seems just
00:10:12
crazy okay freeberg here's a chart for
00:10:14
you to comment on maybe we open the
00:10:16
aperture here total employment and
00:10:19
unemployment here in the United States
00:10:21
as you can see you know since the 80s
00:10:24
population has grown and the number of
00:10:27
people employed has continued to grow
00:10:29
labor participation it kind of peaked in
00:10:31
the '90s in the Clinton era and it's
00:10:33
come down a bit since then but overall
00:10:36
what do you think of the health of the
00:10:38
economy and
00:10:41
employment I mean I think the fed target
00:10:43
is 4% which is kind of where we're at I
00:10:46
think we're at 4.2 or 4.3 now and so the
00:10:48
FED tries to
00:10:50
balance inflation unemployment and rates
00:10:55
that's kind of the three things that
00:10:56
they're
00:10:59
looking at so they make adjustments to
00:11:02
rates obviously if you take rates too
00:11:05
low too fast you have an increase in
00:11:07
inflation so they're targeting
00:11:08
inflation's 2% they're targeting
00:11:10
unemployment 4% so if you take rates too
00:11:12
high you can certainly reduce inflation
00:11:14
but then the economy can contract or
00:11:16
slow down and job Cuts start to come
00:11:18
through so now with inflation kind of
00:11:22
supposedly approaching 2% and
00:11:25
unemployment over
00:11:27
4% the market if you look at the the
00:11:30
trading markets are now estimating a
00:11:32
100% chance of a 3
00:11:37
quarter of a percent rate cut by the end
00:11:40
of
00:11:41
2024 and a 70% chance of a onepoint rate
00:11:44
cut by the end of
00:11:45
2024 so the question is are they going
00:11:48
to do three quarter point cuts by the
00:11:50
end of the year or are they going to do
00:11:51
a 50 basis point cut and then a 25 or a
00:11:54
50 and a 50 the next couple of weeks
00:11:56
will determine which direction and then
00:11:58
obviously chairman pal has his big
00:12:01
speech happening on Friday freeberg what
00:12:04
are the what do the betting Market say
00:12:06
for specifically for September 50 or 75%
00:12:11
chance of a quarter point cut 20% chance
00:12:14
of a 50 basis point cut and then 6%
00:12:18
chance of no cut which is kind of
00:12:20
strange because the the trading markets
00:12:23
this is a obviously a prediction Market
00:12:25
but the trading markets are showing
00:12:26
effectively 100% chance of a three4
00:12:29
point cut by the end of
00:12:31
24 and uh saaks here is the dramatic fed
00:12:35
we always talked about them kind of
00:12:37
getting on this a little bit late but
00:12:40
you can see here man what a ramp up in
00:12:43
uh 2022 where we were basically at a
00:12:46
quarter point and they just added a
00:12:47
quarter point or 50 bips all the way up
00:12:50
to
00:12:50
5.33 where we've been flat inflation
00:12:53
obviously we have the two- handle now so
00:12:56
now we start the process of going down
00:12:58
and I think people generally believe 25
00:13:01
bips at a time will be their pattern
00:13:03
coming down you think that seems wise
00:13:06
well I think the FED isn't sure that
00:13:07
inflation is a solved problem I mean I
00:13:09
think that pal is a little bit reticent
00:13:11
to start the rate cutting cycle because
00:13:13
he doesn't know for sure if inflation
00:13:15
could tick back up this First Cut is in
00:13:18
a way the most important one because it
00:13:19
signals a regime change that we're
00:13:22
beginning the rate cut cycle and what he
00:13:24
doesn't want to do is cut any amount and
00:13:27
then be proven wrong and we get a bad
00:13:29
inflation report and then all of a
00:13:30
sudden he has to raise it again so he
00:13:32
doesn't want to be caught in that
00:13:34
position but I do think that the economy
00:13:36
is obviously showing significant
00:13:38
weakness inflation is not completely
00:13:40
solved but it's down to 2.9% at least it
00:13:42
has a two handle on it now and so yeah I
00:13:46
think the the market is pricing in these
00:13:48
rate cuts for a reason so either mission
00:13:51
accomplished or we'll see if we have a
00:13:53
soft Landing or hard Landing or
00:13:55
something in between most people feel
00:13:56
like it's going to be soft with a little
00:13:58
bit of bumps
00:13:59
seems direct I think we're already in I
00:14:01
mean now that we know that the jobs
00:14:03
picture was inflated by 1.2 million jobs
00:14:06
over the last call it roughly a year or
00:14:09
14 months I think we know that this is
00:14:11
not like a perfectly soft Landing I mean
00:14:14
I think that the economy is a little bit
00:14:18
shaky and it's being propped up by
00:14:20
massive amounts of government spending
00:14:21
like we talked about on a previous
00:14:23
episode we're running unsustainably high
00:14:25
levels of deficit and debt we're running
00:14:27
what $2 trillion year Deb deficits right
00:14:29
now and what are we getting for that
00:14:31
we're not getting a super robust economy
00:14:33
we're getting an economy that's narrowly
00:14:35
staying out of recession so it's a
00:14:38
little bit of a scary picture I think
00:14:41
that the economy is is so shaky and
00:14:43
we're spending so much money to profit
00:14:45
up uh we'll just have to see what
00:14:47
happens yeah and it doesn't seem like
00:14:50
either of the incoming
00:14:52
administrations really cares about
00:14:53
spending seems like we're going to be in
00:14:55
still big money spending mode
00:14:57
independent of who wins
00:14:59
we'll see how long that can last as a
00:15:02
country and then uh we talked a little
00:15:04
bit about the Supreme Court decision
00:15:07
last year around affirmative action
00:15:12
and it turns out now MIT has released
00:15:15
their data it's getting a lot of Buzz
00:15:17
online here's a chart basically what you
00:15:20
can take from this chart and this is
00:15:21
people self-identifying at MIT and the
00:15:25
buzz uh is that asian-americans have
00:15:28
gone from 41% to 47% and those gains
00:15:33
came uh on a percentage basis from a
00:15:36
decline in the number of black and
00:15:39
Latino students coming in here's the
00:15:42
chart as you can see so people are
00:15:45
wondering about I guess the fairness of
00:15:49
this and I guess you could have either
00:15:52
one of two positions chth Asian students
00:15:55
were being penalized for a long time or
00:15:58
now I guess you could believe that Latin
00:16:01
and black students are being impacted
00:16:03
negatively about this so I'm not sure
00:16:05
what your take is but it's obviously
00:16:07
moving to more of a meritocracy
00:16:10
according to the people at MIT it's not
00:16:12
even clear how they were making
00:16:15
decisions before nor
00:16:18
now but you know I tweeted about this
00:16:20
yesterday I think the thing that matters
00:16:23
more than anything else is to make sure
00:16:27
that the people that they are letting in
00:16:30
are in love and obsessed with the things
00:16:33
that MIT is supposed to be great at so
00:16:37
if you are a
00:16:39
great creative thinker designer
00:16:42
architect you should be at Ry I'm just
00:16:45
I'm giving an example if you are a great
00:16:49
musician you should be a juliard you
00:16:51
should not be going to MIT because you
00:16:53
think it's a check mark you should be
00:16:55
going there because you think that there
00:16:56
are professors in organic chemist istry
00:16:59
in physics in these disciplines that are
00:17:04
really important who are experts in
00:17:06
their fields that you can learn from and
00:17:08
become an expert yourself and I think
00:17:11
the problem with all of this other stuff
00:17:13
is once you make it a credential there
00:17:15
are some folks that are only going to
00:17:19
MIT because they could get in and
00:17:22
because it's a great credential in their
00:17:23
minds and they shouldn't go there either
00:17:27
so I think the thing is you have to get
00:17:29
back to what matters which is there are
00:17:32
all of these industries that have not
00:17:34
progressed that much and in order for
00:17:36
those Industries to advance you need
00:17:38
really talented young people who can
00:17:40
learn an apprentice and then take over
00:17:42
and I think MIT is one of these rare
00:17:44
places that focuses on this part of the
00:17:47
physical world that hasn't had as much
00:17:50
progress and so I just want to make sure
00:17:53
that the people that go there actually
00:17:54
want to be there for that reason gender
00:17:56
race all that other stuff shouldn't
00:17:58
matter
00:18:00
and that is uh what the Supreme Court
00:18:02
decision did you cannot take race into
00:18:04
account Harvard had some weird thing um
00:18:08
freedberg where personality was one of
00:18:10
the vectors uh and hard I would say no
00:18:14
no offense to everybody at Harvard but
00:18:16
like Harvard is more of a pure
00:18:17
credential like MIT I buy more that you
00:18:20
go there for certain kinds of
00:18:21
specializations Caltech you go there for
00:18:23
certain specializations sure if you're
00:18:26
really into wine you go to UC Davis my
00:18:28
point is is these schools exist for
00:18:30
reasons other than just as
00:18:32
a a collector coin that you put in your
00:18:35
pocket H I'm not sure Harvard is really
00:18:38
known for anything other than for being
00:18:40
quote unquote Elite but even that's
00:18:43
questionable now but in the technical
00:18:47
areas I really do think that that MIT
00:18:50
was an important place where people
00:18:51
would go to train and I just want to
00:18:53
make sure whoever they're letting in
00:18:55
actually cares about the thing they're
00:18:56
studying what's your take on this you
00:18:58
know moving back to a meritocracy and a
00:19:01
color blind application
00:19:05
process not being able to use race in
00:19:07
admissions I don't think
00:19:12
that someone's genetics should
00:19:16
determine whether or not they go to a a
00:19:20
school and I think that their
00:19:23
socioeconomic background experience set
00:19:27
values uh successes failures are the
00:19:31
things that they could have affected or
00:19:34
that I think probably better define
00:19:36
whether we want to take a moral stance
00:19:39
on giving other people opportunity so I
00:19:42
think that that's a a kind of good and
00:19:45
reasonable place for us to end up sax
00:19:47
any thoughts for you from you on this
00:19:49
well I mean I I support the idea of
00:19:52
color blind meritocracy I mean I agree
00:19:54
with jamath and freeberg that the traits
00:19:57
that you're born with are not skills or
00:19:59
qualifications they're just the
00:20:01
accidents of your birth and what we
00:20:03
should be trying to create is a is a
00:20:05
society where those things don't matter
00:20:07
and everyone has the same ability and
00:20:10
opportunities for advancement based on
00:20:12
how hard they work and their skills and
00:20:15
this concept of Merit and I think that
00:20:18
Supreme Court decision gets us closer to
00:20:19
that remember that the reason why that
00:20:23
Supreme Court decision happened or or
00:20:24
what the plaintiffs were arguing is that
00:20:27
the previous regime on College es was
00:20:29
unfairly discriminating against
00:20:31
asian-americans because whenever you try
00:20:33
to engineer the classes to a certain
00:20:36
proportion of the population somebody
00:20:38
has to win and somebody has to lose and
00:20:40
the students who were losing were
00:20:43
asian-americans and in many cases the
00:20:46
these asian-americans were first
00:20:49
generation immigrants or they were
00:20:50
coming from disadvantaged backgrounds
00:20:52
and yet their population was engineered
00:20:55
to a smaller number than Meritt would
00:20:57
otherwise suggest and now you're seeing
00:20:59
it in this new class at MIT the
00:21:02
percentage of asian-americans has
00:21:04
increased somewhat so I think it's good
00:21:06
I mean we're reducing um a form of
00:21:09
discrimination that discrimination may
00:21:12
have originally started for good reasons
00:21:15
to try and create a remedy against a
00:21:18
different kind of historical
00:21:19
discrimination nonetheless it
00:21:21
discriminated against talented Asian
00:21:23
students and I think now that that's
00:21:25
been that's been fixed what do you guys
00:21:27
think about
00:21:29
creating a leg up for people that came
00:21:33
from a disadvantaged socioeconomic
00:21:36
background so put race
00:21:39
aside but an you know an individual that
00:21:41
grew up in a difficult
00:21:43
circumstance that didn't have the
00:21:45
privilege of going to a good school or
00:21:47
having a good education worked hard
00:21:49
tried but didn't end up with the best
00:21:51
test scores or didn't end up with the
00:21:52
best GPA because of the conditions they
00:21:55
were born into do you think it's
00:21:56
appropriate to give those individuals a
00:21:59
leg up in the application process
00:22:01
putting race aside but just call it
00:22:03
socioeconomic
00:22:04
disadvantages to some degree I do I mean
00:22:07
look if you have a student who gets a
00:22:09
for let's call it a 1450 on the SAT but
00:22:12
they've got tutors and classes yep and
00:22:14
they're growing up in envir school in
00:22:16
they went to school in Atherton right
00:22:17
they're getting the best teachers the
00:22:19
best schools the best environment then
00:22:20
you take a kid who grew up in I don't
00:22:22
know like a dangerous part of the inner
00:22:24
city where there's shootings happening
00:22:26
or a rural district with no education
00:22:28
appala both both are kind of
00:22:30
equivalently disadv or different
00:22:32
differently but both disadvantaged y
00:22:33
right they don't have access to the the
00:22:35
best schools best or best funded schools
00:22:38
best teachers and let's say that person
00:22:40
gets a400 on their sat which one is
00:22:43
better I mean yeah if certainly if they
00:22:44
got a 1450 and you're comparing two
00:22:46
equal scores it's really clear that the
00:22:48
disadvantaged
00:22:51
student probably has more Raw Talent
00:22:53
totally I 100% agree and I I feel like I
00:22:56
feel like we've used race as heris for
00:22:59
that conditional background and that's
00:23:01
what makes it hard because race is not
00:23:04
necessarily it certainly there's a
00:23:06
correlation but it's not necessarily
00:23:08
indicative of the socioeconomic
00:23:11
disadvantage that someone may have faced
00:23:13
and had to overcome in order to perform
00:23:15
and succeed at the level that they could
00:23:16
have given their conditions and so I I
00:23:19
certainly think that the incorporation
00:23:22
of one's socioeconomic background should
00:23:25
should be a critical part of the
00:23:26
application process and certainly in the
00:23:29
same in the job setting ultimately I
00:23:31
think I think what would be much more
00:23:32
valuable than all of this is for
00:23:34
companies to hire from a whole bunch of
00:23:38
different schools than they do today and
00:23:41
to break the back of
00:23:44
this elitist culture we have around
00:23:46
certain schools all of the things that
00:23:49
you guys are talking about to me sound
00:23:52
kind of
00:23:54
crazy and the reason is because you
00:23:57
could go to Iowa State or you could go
00:24:00
to Harvard and you could make a claim
00:24:04
and I would buy it that in some random
00:24:07
social science maybe there's an
00:24:09
advantage in the people that you meet
00:24:11
but there's not necessarily an advantage
00:24:13
for studying physics at any of these two
00:24:15
schools it's not like one's teaching you
00:24:17
that gravity goes up and the other
00:24:18
teaches you that gravity goes down so I
00:24:22
think the bigger problem is that we
00:24:25
don't value enough the fundamentally
00:24:29
important skills that we need for
00:24:30
Humanity to evolve and then number two
00:24:33
we have fallen to this trap of saying
00:24:35
that these schools these highly
00:24:37
credentialed schools that cost 60 and 70
00:24:39
and $80,000 a
00:24:41
year graduate the best kids and I don't
00:24:44
think that that's true either so the
00:24:47
thing that we could all do because we're
00:24:49
all hirers we hire thousands of people
00:24:52
is we should be going to all kinds of
00:24:54
different schools today I just gave an
00:24:55
offer to a guy that went to Virginia
00:24:57
Tech and
00:24:58
this kid seems awesome kick ass and when
00:25:04
we put out job postings for 8090 we Veer
00:25:07
towards these schools that are like
00:25:10
hardcore technical places where none of
00:25:13
all of this random credential nonsense
00:25:16
gets in the way and so they're hungrier
00:25:18
as a result they're more Earnest and you
00:25:20
can cut through the BS the other thing I
00:25:22
would say is that it's even more capable
00:25:26
now of getting through the filter of
00:25:28
these credentials and knowing the
00:25:29
quality of a person you can look at
00:25:31
GitHub reos if you're a developer you
00:25:33
can look at all of these things that
00:25:34
allow you to understand so I don't know
00:25:36
I disagree with your guys's thing of
00:25:38
like let's go figure out all these other
00:25:40
things how about we stop
00:25:41
hiring and
00:25:43
valuing random non-specific degrees just
00:25:47
because they come from a good school
00:25:49
well I think long way because we do
00:25:51
still have a college application process
00:25:53
jamat so there are still going to be a
00:25:55
set of criteria used to determine
00:25:57
whether or not our kids
00:25:59
end up getting into a specific school if
00:26:01
we and they all kind of say hey it makes
00:26:03
sense if your son or daughter were to go
00:26:06
and study computer science at North
00:26:07
Carolina State the biggest thing that
00:26:10
that you could do is be okay with it
00:26:13
another example of a school that does a
00:26:15
great job of recruiting from
00:26:16
non-traditional places why would I not
00:26:18
be okay with it no no this is my point I
00:26:20
think it's a decision I'm I'm saying
00:26:22
that I'm not saying that you are but I'm
00:26:23
saying that if you make it a big deal
00:26:26
that North Carolina state is somehow
00:26:28
worse than some other credential school
00:26:30
because our social cohort says that
00:26:33
those other schools are better we're
00:26:35
part of the problem well in my work
00:26:36
cohort North Carolina State's a great
00:26:38
school we hire a ton of people from
00:26:39
there so that's a great school actually
00:26:42
to be honest I think schools like that
00:26:44
are better I mean I think probably
00:26:46
Virginia Tech is better than Harvard and
00:26:48
the reason is because they're less
00:26:50
infected with the whole woke Dei
00:26:52
ideology that now pervades these like
00:26:54
top schools so the students are more
00:26:56
likely to learn something but you should
00:26:58
stop saying top they're not top schools
00:27:00
they're not top schools anymore they're
00:27:03
not the smartest kids they're not the
00:27:04
hardest working kids so we should stop
00:27:06
saying top schools these Ivy League
00:27:07
schools are not the top schools I agree
00:27:09
with that yeah there might be the most
00:27:11
notable schools historically but they're
00:27:13
not necessarily the ones that are
00:27:15
they're the biggest brands and they're
00:27:16
not new brands they're old Brands and
00:27:18
we've seen that these old Brands
00:27:20
depreciate over time and people read way
00:27:23
too much into
00:27:25
them I think the the the structure
00:27:30
Monopoly is that they then get and have
00:27:33
the most Capital which they can then use
00:27:35
to build and facilities and support
00:27:37
staff that can come and do core research
00:27:40
and so you then get all these research
00:27:42
staff in particularly in technical
00:27:44
fields in science and medical fields and
00:27:46
so on that want to come and be on campus
00:27:49
and that then creates the network effect
00:27:51
of undergrads getting a better uh
00:27:53
education because they're getting
00:27:54
exposed to the best talent in the kind
00:27:57
ofar I don't H think that benefits the
00:27:59
undergrads I mean first of all these
00:28:02
campuses tell us about your experience
00:28:03
at Stanford I think you're the only IV
00:28:05
leager here wait Berkeley's ivy league
00:28:07
you went to Berkeley that's St
00:28:09
technically is not in the ivy league the
00:28:11
ivy league is like an East Coast Club
00:28:13
whereas Stanford was kind of the West
00:28:14
Coast disruptor look did you get exposed
00:28:17
I mean I know when I worked when I went
00:28:18
to Berkeley I worked at Lawrence
00:28:19
Berkeley labs I got to be exposed to
00:28:21
Nobel laurates it was actually like I
00:28:24
think a particularly my field like I
00:28:26
majored in astrophysics and phys physics
00:28:28
like that was a great school to get
00:28:31
exposure and you actually had that
00:28:33
opportunity I think that's part of the
00:28:34
challenge schools with really great
00:28:36
graduate programs and research uh that
00:28:38
goes on on campus actually can give a
00:28:41
better educational experience to the
00:28:43
undergrads it's almost like you're
00:28:45
getting these internships and these
00:28:47
fellowships uh and these Tas and
00:28:51
professors well that's that's a
00:28:53
different thing I I actually think what
00:28:54
America needs is what I benefited from
00:28:57
at the University waterl which is an
00:28:59
active and vibrant Co-op program yeah
00:29:01
that's great yeah I really disagree with
00:29:04
you I don't think that there is a
00:29:05
incredibly better way to teach
00:29:08
thermodynamics I think that's a bit of a
00:29:10
joke thermodynamics okay I think that
00:29:12
that's that's a why tell our talking
00:29:14
about applied work J so I'm talking
00:29:15
about you go up to Lawrence Berkeley lab
00:29:17
and you work in an actual lab that does
00:29:19
really interesting research okay so my
00:29:21
point is if we both agree science
00:29:24
definitely yeah yeah yeah that's what
00:29:25
I'm pointing out yeah so then like the
00:29:26
universities in America that have these
00:29:28
co-op programs I think are incredible
00:29:30
institutions again they're not the
00:29:31
typical ones they're places like Drexel
00:29:33
and other places but now you allow these
00:29:36
kids to be in the trenches with people
00:29:39
building things and I just think that
00:29:41
that's an incredible gift for them but
00:29:44
it's also an incredible opportunity for
00:29:46
these organizations to understand the
00:29:48
quality of the person Beyond some
00:29:50
credential well I do think in a digital
00:29:52
era core education has commoditized and
00:29:55
I think most people can get most of the
00:29:57
way there without necessarily paying 60
00:29:59
to 80,000 a year and then being
00:30:01
partnered in some way with that on the
00:30:04
ground internship or integrated kind of
00:30:06
program where you get actual hands-on
00:30:08
experience so I don't know like I mean
00:30:09
the university model maybe does not make
00:30:13
sense for most Fields jcal what do you
00:30:15
think yeah it's very interesting the
00:30:17
where did you go to school J I don't
00:30:18
even know I went to forom University at
00:30:21
night I got in three weeks before did
00:30:24
you get an undergrad degree from forom
00:30:26
yeah forom I was going to either I had
00:30:29
taken the New York what was your degree
00:30:31
in what did you uh psychology I was
00:30:34
going to go into the NYPD I had was
00:30:38
about to get accepted at 18 years old 17
00:30:41
years old 18 years old and then I
00:30:42
decided the last minute to go to forom
00:30:44
at night I had to work in order to pay
00:30:46
for it so it took me four and a half
00:30:48
years but I did like almost a full
00:30:49
credit load at night and then I was
00:30:50
going to go into John J for Criminal
00:30:54
Justice and um get my forensic degree
00:30:57
and then join the FBI so I was in the
00:30:59
process of applying to the FBI and then
00:31:01
the internet happened and I started a
00:31:02
magazine about the internet and it went
00:31:04
in a totally different direction but the
00:31:06
co-op stuff I remember when we went to
00:31:08
waterl uh we did a speaking gig there
00:31:10
years ago jamath
00:31:12
and I was very taken with the students
00:31:14
there and like their like drive and so I
00:31:19
think that's the key piece and what I
00:31:20
did in Venture Capital because I needed
00:31:22
to have a team of about eight people
00:31:25
screening all the companies we get and
00:31:27
the application so I just made my own
00:31:29
training program and I hire a lot of
00:31:31
people in Canada to do it and basically
00:31:34
they do five meetings a day they write
00:31:36
up coverage I made an entire framework
00:31:38
and I'm doing professional development
00:31:40
because I found a lot of the top people
00:31:42
from these brand name schools were
00:31:45
entitled they didn't want to do 25 35
00:31:48
meetings a week with Founders and I just
00:31:50
found these other students from waterl
00:31:52
and other colleges like that and I've
00:31:54
trained them in my framework for these
00:31:57
are the 13 qualities we look for in
00:32:00
investing in a startup and these are the
00:32:01
25 red flags and I've now got seven
00:32:04
people we did 110 120 meetings one week
00:32:08
recently and so it's just much better to
00:32:09
train them ourselves and make your own
00:32:11
training program I believe and so it's
00:32:13
even didn't Malcolm didn't Malcolm
00:32:16
Gladwell write something which was
00:32:17
roughly the equivalent of like you're
00:32:19
better off getting the top 10 student at
00:32:24
a non- Ivy versus like the 50th student
00:32:26
at an ivy or something
00:32:28
I don't know there was like something
00:32:29
like maybe maybe it was like a chapter
00:32:31
and what was his reason because of
00:32:34
motivation yeah it's like these kids are
00:32:36
excellent when they're when they're
00:32:38
achieving and they're excelling in
00:32:40
things that
00:32:41
are not subjective you want to go get
00:32:44
those kids yeah you know well they've
00:32:47
performed yeah I mean I think one of the
00:32:49
one of the problems with the whole Dei
00:32:53
policy and whether you want to do it
00:32:55
based on race or socio economics or or
00:32:58
whatever it is that you're doing is it
00:32:59
keeps happening at every layer of the
00:33:02
stack and at some point you just need to
00:33:04
say look we've made up for whatever came
00:33:07
before and now it just has to be about
00:33:09
that person's performance we need to
00:33:10
stop putting our Thumb in the scale and
00:33:12
just hire the best person my view is you
00:33:14
could probably do that after undergrad
00:33:16
like there's no need to
00:33:17
keep artificially adjusting the weights
00:33:21
of how you hire people after undergrad
00:33:25
but yet you have all these like programs
00:33:27
that
00:33:28
trying to make the decision based on
00:33:30
something other than Merit and I think
00:33:32
that that's the part that needs to stop
00:33:34
I mean we had Coleman Hughes on and you
00:33:36
know I think he had a very good
00:33:37
perspective on it which is like maybe
00:33:40
starting with earlier education is where
00:33:41
you could probably solve some of these
00:33:43
problems a little bit more effectively I
00:33:45
will say I I feel like my experience in
00:33:48
the workplace is that one's college or
00:33:51
university is completely decoupled from
00:33:54
one's performance or ability to succeed
00:33:55
in the workplace in an amerit workplace
00:33:58
and when I say meritocratic I mean
00:34:00
excluding nepotistic workplace settings
00:34:03
and excluding demographically biased
00:34:05
workpl and if you if you exclude those
00:34:08
two it honestly does not matter what
00:34:10
school someone went to they could be
00:34:11
brilliant they could be hardworking they
00:34:13
could be passionate they could be a
00:34:15
leader the school doesn't matter and in
00:34:17
fact perhaps the coral are is true which
00:34:20
is the people that went to the schools
00:34:21
that determin success generally have a
00:34:23
very hard time succeeding in the
00:34:25
workplace because anytime they face
00:34:27
failure it is a challenging circumstance
00:34:30
for them that they are unable to
00:34:31
overcome and that's particularly true in
00:34:33
entrepreneurship that's been my
00:34:34
experience perhaps in the broader
00:34:36
workplace setting they could work well
00:34:38
where they're told all the time if you
00:34:40
do this then you get that they do this
00:34:42
they get that they feel good they
00:34:43
succeed in that model but in the in the
00:34:45
real world that's not the model and I
00:34:48
think that that's a like a really
00:34:49
important fact that's colored my point
00:34:51
of view on how the higher education
00:34:53
system actually does perform with
00:34:55
respect to improving the quality of our
00:34:57
Workforce the US separate of that I will
00:34:59
say that in technical Fields the
00:35:01
research environment on certain college
00:35:03
campuses can be incredibly to chim's
00:35:07
point opportunistic for getting exposure
00:35:10
to to Hands-On work that you might not
00:35:13
otherwise get in technical field so and
00:35:15
a lot of this comes down to motivation
00:35:17
you know at a certain point a person has
00:35:19
to be motivated to put in a lot of hours
00:35:22
and become excellent at whatever their
00:35:23
chosen profession is I think I talked
00:35:25
about it previously when we started
00:35:26
talking about macro economics here I
00:35:28
took a macroeconomics course at MIT on
00:35:31
their website or on YouTube rather right
00:35:33
like there's incredible that this stuff
00:35:35
is all out there and anybody can take
00:35:36
any of these courses for free that's
00:35:38
what I mean by like the Bas The Base
00:35:40
education has been commoditized you know
00:35:42
it's the hands-on experience that one
00:35:44
gets that makes a huge difference MIT
00:35:46
1401 principles in microeconomics uh
00:35:50
supply and demand I mean it was like
00:35:51
incredible and you know this is stuff I
00:35:53
just didn't ever get exposed to and I
00:35:55
was able to do it for free I listen to
00:35:57
the course actually twice and I took
00:35:58
notes on it I really got a lot out of it
00:36:01
all right listen more stuff on the
00:36:02
docket anybody else have final thoughts
00:36:04
here before we go into the election
00:36:07
stuff and taxes let's all commit to
00:36:09
hiring as many people as possible from
00:36:11
non-traditional schools absolutely I
00:36:13
mean that's what I do already I mean
00:36:15
it's it's working all right decision
00:36:18
2024 uh get ready for a bit of chaos
00:36:20
here
00:36:21
folks the DNC is underway as we tape we
00:36:25
tape on Thursdays as you know I think
00:36:27
kamla
00:36:28
we'll give her acceptance speech tonight
00:36:30
DNC pulled out all of their All Stars
00:36:33
Michelle Obama Barack Hillary Bill
00:36:35
Clinton Oprah and uh Tim Walls spoke
00:36:39
last night most people felt he had a
00:36:40
pretty strong showing our guy Nate
00:36:42
silver friend of the Pod
00:36:45
has the election as essentially neck and
00:36:49
neck we're in coin toss territory here I
00:36:52
think it's going to be come down to the
00:36:53
debat so I'm interested to hear what my
00:36:55
besties think here is the silver
00:36:57
bulletin his new publication he's not at
00:37:00
538 anymore just comma at 47 Trump at
00:37:04
almost 45 and uh this all will come down
00:37:07
to the swing States I think as we all
00:37:10
know he's got a really great interactive
00:37:12
chart over there he's got Harris with
00:37:14
clear leads in Pennsylvania Michigan
00:37:16
Wisconsin Arizona and Virginia I think
00:37:19
those were about 68 Electoral College
00:37:21
votes votes Trump with clear leads in
00:37:23
Georgia and Florida my Lord Florida is
00:37:25
29 or 30 electoral
00:37:27
votes that's a lot the toss up States
00:37:30
Nevada with the Tipping and no tax there
00:37:34
but that's only six North
00:37:36
Carolina is been flip-flopping back and
00:37:39
forth from Harris to Trump those two are
00:37:42
worth 24 so we swung from many paths to
00:37:45
Victory basically a certain victory for
00:37:47
Trump with versus Biden to now a toss up
00:37:52
this is an interesting chart here sax I
00:37:53
want to get your take on which is the
00:37:57
polling averages I think you said last
00:37:59
week or the week before that we would
00:38:00
see the Harris bump reverse and that's
00:38:03
exactly what's happened the month over
00:38:04
Monon change is dramatic as you see in
00:38:06
this
00:38:08
table but the week over- week change so
00:38:10
in the month change you have Democrats
00:38:13
from running the table in all the swing
00:38:15
States then you look at the weekly
00:38:17
change the opposite in the last week the
00:38:19
Republicans have not caught up but made
00:38:23
significant gains all between a half a
00:38:26
percentage point and a point the
00:38:27
exception of North Carolina which as I
00:38:29
stated earlier is a toss up your
00:38:32
thoughts on the um on the election right
00:38:35
now sax before we get into the uh issues
00:38:38
just on the numbers
00:38:39
here well the the the election is going
00:38:42
to be on nailbiter and it's going to
00:38:43
really come down to a few thousand votes
00:38:45
or a few tens of thousands of votes in
00:38:47
swing States I think we've we've known
00:38:49
that now for a while I would say since
00:38:52
Biden abdicated and they did the hot
00:38:54
swap I think the most interesting
00:38:58
poll numbers over the past week is if
00:39:01
you look at Poly Market that it has
00:39:03
swung back to Trump being in the lead
00:39:05
over the past week as opposed to Harris
00:39:07
last week I think Harris was favored to
00:39:10
win by quite a bit and you have to ask
00:39:12
the question well how does this happen
00:39:14
during her own Democratic invention
00:39:17
which is supposed to be you know nothing
00:39:18
but a 4-day infomercial for the Democrat
00:39:21
candidate yeah it's a coronation yeah
00:39:23
it's a coronation so she should be
00:39:25
getting nothing but a bump and instead
00:39:27
it's to be the opposite and I think the
00:39:29
reason is is because the more substance
00:39:32
her campaign puts out the more policies
00:39:35
it reveals the wor she does first they
00:39:38
had her give that economic speech last
00:39:41
Friday on price gouging and price
00:39:44
controls and we spent a lot of time last
00:39:46
week talking about why price controls
00:39:49
would be a disastrous Economic Policy
00:39:51
subsequent to that there were stories
00:39:54
that came out about her campaign
00:39:55
supporting these huge
00:39:58
tax hikes that were in the the original
00:40:00
Biden Harris budget including a 25%
00:40:03
unrealized gains tax which we can talk
00:40:05
more about yeah but I think just to boil
00:40:07
it down I think the more the public
00:40:10
learns the more we learn about what she
00:40:12
would do as president the wor she does
00:40:14
and they've now got to run out the clock
00:40:17
for another I don't know what 70 80 Days
00:40:20
in terms of running a campaign that's
00:40:21
substance free that's just completely on
00:40:24
Vibes that's about Joy without answering
00:40:26
any question questions without doing any
00:40:28
press interviews and I think we
00:40:30
predicted some time ago that that just
00:40:31
was not going to be sustainable that at
00:40:33
some point they're going to have to tell
00:40:34
us what they think and as they do that
00:40:36
the more they do that I think the more
00:40:38
her polls will correct what do you think
00:40:41
Cham you trust these betting markets
00:40:43
because there's so much at stake at this
00:40:44
election right I mean people are pouring
00:40:47
money into both campaigns it's really
00:40:50
contentious people see it as existential
00:40:52
on both sides and then you have you know
00:40:54
these prediction markets that you know
00:40:57
have low tens of millions or hundreds of
00:41:00
millions of dollars being bet could
00:41:03
these not be you know influence do you
00:41:06
trust them because we are seeing this is
00:41:09
the first time these prediction markets
00:41:11
have become a major discussion point
00:41:13
because they're businesses
00:41:15
obviously but people are really getting
00:41:18
into them and I wonder if they could be
00:41:21
manipulated or if you think you trust
00:41:23
them I guess is the way I'm asking you
00:41:25
because we've had this discussion a bit
00:41:27
offline I mean I think these are really
00:41:30
good businesses but they are some
00:41:33
combination of entertainment and
00:41:35
gambling I don't think that these things
00:41:37
are as
00:41:39
useful directional indicators as they
00:41:42
are just really interesting businesses
00:41:45
that allow people to bet and wager on
00:41:48
all kinds of random things so I would
00:41:51
not look to these sites for that
00:41:54
necessarily okay I think that people
00:41:57
like Nate silver do a pretty reasonable
00:41:59
job in his specific case I think he does
00:42:02
a very good job of threading together
00:42:04
and doing this meta analysis of
00:42:07
polls but I think we've learned that the
00:42:10
that this polling is pretty brittle and
00:42:13
not super reliable so the the betting
00:42:17
markets are exactly that they're just
00:42:18
like it's like sports betting but just
00:42:20
wasn't the betting Market we talked
00:42:21
about this two weeks ago Shapiro was
00:42:22
like 80% or something so yeah it's
00:42:25
fairly obvious freeberg maybe these
00:42:28
betting markets are a little bit
00:42:29
entertainment but maybe directionally
00:42:31
corrected because they also did start to
00:42:32
predict the hot swap you know so what do
00:42:34
you think freeberg about these betting
00:42:35
markets prediction markets you and we
00:42:37
keep everyone keeps trying to reduce
00:42:39
this down to some deterministic binary
00:42:42
system which is like it works or it
00:42:43
doesn't and the truth is that the
00:42:46
conditions of the world are changing all
00:42:48
the time the news is changing all the
00:42:51
time people are taking action all the
00:42:53
time there's a shift in current events
00:42:54
all the time as a result the forecast is
00:42:58
changing all the time and so what a
00:43:01
betting Market or a poll does is provide
00:43:04
a probabilistic forecast of the future
00:43:08
there is a probability of something
00:43:09
happening it is not trying to say I as a
00:43:12
poll or I as a market am right 100% of
00:43:16
the time or not it is saying here's the
00:43:19
estimated distribution of outcomes in
00:43:21
the future so there's a 20% chance or an
00:43:24
80% chance of Shapiro 20% chance of not
00:43:27
being the case turns out that that 20%
00:43:30
is where Harris ended up going based on
00:43:32
some meeting she had in some room with
00:43:34
some group of people that we aren't
00:43:36
privy to and that the market in that
00:43:38
case was not privy to what Nate silver
00:43:41
does and I think people need to
00:43:42
understand this a little bit when you
00:43:45
gather polling data that poll has some
00:43:48
predictive power based on how the
00:43:51
pollers conduct their poll who they call
00:43:53
how they screen candidates for the poll
00:43:55
etc etc so different polling companies
00:43:58
it turns out are better or worse at
00:44:01
making that directional probability bet
00:44:04
than others and what Nate's models do is
00:44:08
they account for the historical
00:44:09
performance of different pollsters and
00:44:12
weake them differently to create a
00:44:14
basically a multi-pole prediction and so
00:44:17
that's what his system is set up to do
00:44:19
and remember he similarly doesn't give
00:44:22
you one outcome he gives you a
00:44:24
distribution of outcomes I think his
00:44:25
simulation model has probably a thousand
00:44:27
or 10,000 simulations that come out of
00:44:30
it and those simulations he says look
00:44:32
there's a 29% chance of this happening
00:44:34
70% he's not trying to say here's what's
00:44:35
going to happen he's trying to give
00:44:37
everyone a point of view on the
00:44:39
distribution of things happening in the
00:44:40
future just like weather forecasting is
00:44:42
not perfectly predictable it's very
00:44:44
predictable for tomorrow it's less
00:44:45
predictable for 3 days from now and it's
00:44:47
very unpredictable 12 days from now and
00:44:50
that's how these polls also work out and
00:44:51
that's also how these massive Mega
00:44:53
models of polls and it's also how
00:44:55
prediction markets work and freeberg
00:44:57
people have a lot of emotion in these
00:44:59
models when it comes to politics whereas
00:45:01
if you were looking at gambling or the
00:45:04
odds of winning a poker hand we all
00:45:05
would be like oh you have a 30% chance
00:45:07
of winning or a 10% or an 8% you're
00:45:10
going to hit two ouers there's emotions
00:45:11
both way jcal so basically when I read
00:45:14
those polls or I read the summary of the
00:45:17
polls I have a bias based on my interest
00:45:20
in the outcome that says that thing is
00:45:22
BS that thing is right oh look at this
00:45:24
and everyone points to the stuff for
00:45:26
confirmation bias of their opinion yeah
00:45:28
and to denounce the other side and so it
00:45:31
all gets caught up as kind of a media
00:45:33
angle when people use polling data and
00:45:36
and also fundamentally when people kind
00:45:38
of get involved in polls and create
00:45:40
polls there's also the risk of bias and
00:45:43
part of what Nate silver and others try
00:45:44
and do is figure out does that bias come
00:45:46
out in the polling performance
00:45:49
historically and that's how they kind of
00:45:50
wait whether or not this poll is going
00:45:52
to be a better or worse indicator than
00:45:54
other polls of the distribution of
00:45:56
things that might happen the future and
00:45:57
Sack if people were to lose you know a
00:46:00
poker hand that they you know were 60%
00:46:04
to win or two thirs to win you know they
00:46:06
would be like okay that makes total
00:46:08
sense when Hillary Clinton lost to Trump
00:46:11
the first time people lost their mind
00:46:13
and he was pretty clear right he was I
00:46:15
think 65 35 and people are like wait you
00:46:17
said it's 65% yeah your thoughts on just
00:46:21
the accuracy of polls generally and then
00:46:23
what you heard here in terms of the the
00:46:24
betting markets how do you look at at
00:46:27
these two things that are taking up a
00:46:29
lot of space right now so well I would
00:46:31
consider prediction markets to be an
00:46:32
additional tool that we should consider
00:46:35
side by side with polls and they both
00:46:38
have their pluses and minuses the
00:46:39
advantage of of polls is that you're
00:46:43
actually talking to real people as
00:46:45
opposed to betters however they're very
00:46:48
dependent on sampling and getting the
00:46:51
sampling correct I mean most of these
00:46:53
polls talk to maybe a thousand
00:46:54
respondents these are people who are
00:46:56
willing to pick up the phone from a
00:46:57
unknown number that right there is
00:46:59
probably a huge source of bias because I
00:47:01
don't do that and then based on that
00:47:04
sample they're going to predict how
00:47:05
millions and millions of people are
00:47:06
going to vote well everything depends on
00:47:09
the composition of that sample which
00:47:11
thousand voters do you talk to do you
00:47:13
wait them based on likelihood of voting
00:47:16
or demographic characteristics and so on
00:47:18
so the polls can be notoriously
00:47:21
inaccurate we've seen that many times
00:47:23
and that's why there's a margin of error
00:47:25
sometimes a margin of error is is even
00:47:27
wrong so in any event it's a tool but
00:47:30
it's a tool that almost by definition is
00:47:32
going to be wrong because of sampling
00:47:34
problems you look at prediction markets
00:47:36
and it's a totally different type of
00:47:38
voting mechanism where betters are
00:47:40
willing to put their money where their
00:47:41
their mouth is and they've got real skin
00:47:44
in the game and they're able to make a
00:47:46
prediction based on their willingness to
00:47:48
lose money now there can be problems
00:47:50
with that too number one the betting
00:47:52
Market can be very thin you know
00:47:54
sometimes there's just not a lot of
00:47:54
money that's trading hands so I think
00:47:56
with a lot of those VP picks you can
00:47:59
move the VP Market by putting just a
00:48:01
very small amount of money because the
00:48:02
market wasn't very liquid so you have to
00:48:05
kind of look at how deep and liquid the
00:48:06
prediction Market is and then I'd say
00:48:09
second the issue with prediction markets
00:48:11
is they and this could be an advantage
00:48:13
is they move a lot based on small things
00:48:16
because people are just constantly
00:48:18
updating their forecast I would argue
00:48:20
that maybe that's an advantage is that
00:48:22
you could see the the trend more easily
00:48:25
in a prediction Market
00:48:27
so for example I have some numbers here
00:48:30
too if you want to hear them $653
00:48:32
million in political bets are currently
00:48:34
being placed across the top 10 betting
00:48:36
markets and all of the markets on poly
00:48:39
Market which includes things outside of
00:48:41
politics are 320 million so they they
00:48:44
are the big fish in this I think they're
00:48:46
the leader but it's still a very thin
00:48:48
amount of money to your point sex yeah I
00:48:51
would mostly use the betting markets as
00:48:53
a measure of how sentiment is shifting
00:48:57
so for
00:48:58
example on Election night the betting
00:49:00
Market is going to converge to 100% in
00:49:02
favor of one candidate or another
00:49:05
whereas the actual votes are not going
00:49:07
to converge to 100% you could have an
00:49:09
election in say Pennsylvania where one
00:49:11
candidate gets 50.1% of the vote the
00:49:14
other candidate gets 49.9 the betting
00:49:16
Market's going to converge to 100 Z
00:49:19
because it's predicting who's going to
00:49:20
win it's a binary yes or no as opposed
00:49:23
to where the actual vote totals come out
00:49:25
the polling is trying to approximate
00:49:28
where the votee tools are going to come
00:49:29
out right with a huge margin of error so
00:49:32
the the polls are just are are never
00:49:34
going to give you as crisen decisive an
00:49:36
answer as the prediction markets but the
00:49:38
prediction markets can also be wrong as
00:49:40
we've seen they're only as good as the
00:49:42
people making the bets chamat where do
00:49:44
you put the third category here which
00:49:46
would be the odds makers in Vegas
00:49:48
because they're looking at everything
00:49:50
what do you think about the odds makers
00:49:51
in Vegas would you give them any
00:49:54
Credence I don't even know why any of
00:49:56
this matters why are we talking about
00:49:57
this well I mean because people are
00:49:59
looking at the Tea Leaves there there
00:50:01
are reasons it matters you know the
00:50:03
these markets do have an impact on the
00:50:05
voting public because the media covers
00:50:09
them donors cover them voter turnout is
00:50:12
impacted by the polls and then there's
00:50:14
these like you know various
00:50:17
psychological phenomenon like the the
00:50:20
underdog impacts or bandwagon so you
00:50:25
could have if people perceive at one
00:50:27
point Trump is the underdog maybe more
00:50:29
people turn out and then people who you
00:50:32
know if Trump was winning versus Biden
00:50:34
so much they might become complacent and
00:50:36
you get some sort of surprise there so
00:50:37
they do have actual impact on the voting
00:50:40
public I suspect though that I suspect
00:50:42
that a lot of that is really at the
00:50:45
edges the I read an article recently
00:50:48
that just talked about the enormity of
00:50:51
the investment that both the Democrats
00:50:52
and the Republicans are making to get to
00:50:55
these critical areas in these five
00:50:57
critical States and if you live in one
00:51:00
of these zip codes that really
00:51:04
matter I think that there is just no
00:51:06
room for anything but what each side is
00:51:10
saying I don't think you're looking at a
00:51:12
betting Market or a pole or any of this
00:51:15
stuff and I think the reason why these
00:51:17
places have become so critical is that
00:51:19
they are very balanced they are people
00:51:22
that have
00:51:23
a good way of making sense of the world
00:51:27
and they change their minds a lot right
00:51:30
because otherwise they're they're people
00:51:32
that underwrite and rewrite their
00:51:34
decisions and to me that's actually a
00:51:37
really wonderful thing to know that
00:51:39
there are these call it million people
00:51:41
in these ZIP codes in five states that
00:51:44
are actually quite thoughtful and I'm
00:51:47
I'm I'm actually okay that in the end
00:51:49
that those folks will decide I would be
00:51:51
much more worried if it was
00:51:58
lies whoever tells them are
00:52:01
uncovered the way that it's set up today
00:52:05
all of the crazy ideas get run to the
00:52:07
ground all of the lies get
00:52:10
uncovered and I think that that's a
00:52:13
really healthy place and I think it's a
00:52:15
much better place so I'm I'm generally
00:52:17
like really glad that things look like
00:52:20
quote unquote a question mark because I
00:52:22
think it creates much more pressure for
00:52:25
the candidates to be precise and I think
00:52:28
that that's very important so I'd love
00:52:29
to talk about some of these crazy policy
00:52:31
things as well yeah policy sxs I wanted
00:52:34
to get your take on this Trump's VP pick
00:52:36
JD Vance is now the least popular VP
00:52:38
pick in modern history people said the
00:52:40
same thing also about walls that that
00:52:42
was a terrible pick here's your chart on
00:52:45
JD and here's the historical chart John
00:52:48
Edwards man I remember him uh he was
00:52:51
plus two in net rating Tim Waltz plus
00:52:53
five Mike Pence plus five Camala when
00:52:56
she was VP plus three but JD Vance is
00:52:59
absolutely uh he's below Sarah Palin
00:53:02
which I guess takes ever what's your
00:53:03
take on the VP picks and the impact
00:53:06
they're having here because it's it's a
00:53:08
major topic of
00:53:09
discussion I think what history shows
00:53:11
the VP pick doesn't matter that much
00:53:14
people vote for what's happening at the
00:53:15
top of the ticket and I would argue the
00:53:17
reason why JD has the polling he does is
00:53:19
because there's a couple of reasons
00:53:21
number one is just media bias and there
00:53:23
was an interesting report showing that
00:53:25
the media coverage of the Harris
00:53:27
campaign was 84% positive whereas the
00:53:29
coverage of the Trump campaign was 89%
00:53:31
negative that actually seems to
00:53:32
understate the bias that I see out there
00:53:34
but look this is the number one reason
00:53:36
why JD has a negative rating is because
00:53:38
the media is defining him I would say
00:53:40
furthermore JD is out there talking
00:53:43
about ideas and I give him credit for
00:53:46
that but because he is an idea man and
00:53:48
he's also a writer and he's said
00:53:50
interesting things in the past and Al
00:53:53
sometimes occasionally a sarcastic thing
00:53:54
or two in the past the media has been
00:53:56
been take able to take those things out
00:53:57
of context and harp on them relentlessly
00:54:01
on the other hand you take someone like
00:54:02
Tim Waltz and he's out there he's not
00:54:06
really talking about ideas I mean every
00:54:07
time he goes up there and speaks it's
00:54:09
like a pep talk I mean if I wanted to
00:54:11
hire a guy to give the halftime speech
00:54:14
to my team he'd be the guy you know if I
00:54:17
wanted him out there puffing up a team
00:54:19
talking about we got to all give
00:54:21
110% he's he's the guy for that but he's
00:54:24
not really talking about ideas he's not
00:54:25
going on the shows you look at JD I mean
00:54:29
I've watched a couple of his campaign
00:54:30
stops I mean the guy is really sharp and
00:54:34
when he goes on the Sunday show they are
00:54:35
pitching nothing but fast balls at him
00:54:37
and he's hitting it out of the park
00:54:38
every time and Harris and Walt are just
00:54:42
not doing that they're not even
00:54:43
appearing on those shows I don't think
00:54:45
they could survive 20 minutes of harsh
00:54:48
questioning the way that the the media
00:54:50
pitches at JD every time he goes on a
00:54:53
campaign stop and takes questions or he
00:54:55
goes on a Sunday show I love the JD pick
00:54:58
you know Venture capitals business guy
00:55:00
well written well spoken you're picking
00:55:02
up on something that I think is really
00:55:04
important that I think has been under
00:55:06
reported it really is a tale of two
00:55:09
different
00:55:10
tickets the Republican ticket whether
00:55:13
you like them or not are very
00:55:17
financially astute
00:55:19
actors and if you look at the Democratic
00:55:22
ticket they are underinvested to not in
00:55:26
invested at all in anything that would
00:55:28
normally resemble the United States
00:55:31
economy and I find that a very
00:55:34
odd distinction
00:55:37
meaning the way that I would think
00:55:40
people would want to see their
00:55:42
candidates is folks who have a very
00:55:45
sophisticated understanding of the parts
00:55:48
that they are going to govern and in
00:55:50
this case if you're going to sit a top
00:55:51
the economy one would hope that you're
00:55:53
invested in the economy in some way so
00:55:55
that you know how it works
00:55:57
and it's a little surprising to me that
00:55:58
nobody's really questions how how
00:56:00
underinvested the Democratic ticket
00:56:02
is and it's almost as if the the
00:56:05
Republican ticket for their financial
00:56:08
sophistication is looked down upon to
00:56:10
unpack what you're saying here there was
00:56:12
a report Tim Waltz has no Financial
00:56:15
Holdings he has no stocks no bonds no
00:56:18
mutual funds no real estate nothing no
00:56:21
cryptocurrency this is what you're
00:56:22
referring to yima yeah the level of like
00:56:25
literally owning nothing and I guess
00:56:28
freeberg to your I'll let you take it
00:56:30
from there so I think it's actually a
00:56:35
step a little bit deeper than that kamla
00:56:38
Harris and Tim Waltz have only ever work
00:56:43
for
00:56:45
government Trump and Vance have worked
00:56:48
in Private Industry it's not just their
00:56:51
perspective being colored by the the
00:56:55
lack of participation in the private
00:56:57
economy but the lack of employment in
00:56:59
the private economy they've never worked
00:57:01
for a private business they've never
00:57:03
been employees of a private business
00:57:05
they've never built a private business
00:57:07
I'm not trying to be disparaging but I
00:57:08
do think I'm just trying to underline
00:57:11
the point here chth which is the voter's
00:57:13
choice is do you want candidates that
00:57:16
are not typically government operatives
00:57:19
or do you want candidates that have
00:57:21
spent their whole career as government
00:57:22
operatives and that is effectively what
00:57:24
the voters are going to be voting for
00:57:26
and they're going to make a decision
00:57:27
they may want to have someone that's
00:57:29
going to lead the biggest government in
00:57:31
history because they've spent their
00:57:33
whole careers in government or they're
00:57:35
going to say you know what the biggest
00:57:36
government in history needs to be
00:57:38
significantly altered and we want to
00:57:39
bring someone in from the outside that's
00:57:41
worked in Private Industry and that is
00:57:42
the voter's Choice that's one way to
00:57:44
view the voter's Choice here that's an
00:57:45
interesting Framing and another framing
00:57:47
might be freeberg I love that framing I
00:57:50
love that it's an interesting framing
00:57:51
here's another
00:57:52
framing I don't you're a young person I
00:57:55
can't own a home they're too expensive I
00:57:58
don't have any Equity I'm getting ground
00:58:00
down I own a I owe a bunch of student
00:58:02
loans Tim Walls feels more like the
00:58:06
experience I'm having as a millennial
00:58:08
where I can't afford a home where I
00:58:10
don't have Equity where I'm constantly
00:58:12
trying to pay off my bills and the finan
00:58:15
what we'll say is like hey this guy's
00:58:17
not very financially astute he because
00:58:19
he's
00:58:20
never it's because he's never maybe
00:58:22
maybe it's because he's never had a
00:58:24
private sector job well he's been a
00:58:26
teacher right so maybe people say you
00:58:28
know what I feel I identify more with
00:58:30
Tim Walls and I think that's actually
00:58:32
what might be happening here public
00:58:33
school teacher right yeah but right
00:58:36
which is a noble thing to be and I think
00:58:38
there's probably a large percentage of
00:58:40
the country who feels like they're not
00:58:42
part of the equity economy they don't
00:58:44
own a home they don't own equities and
00:58:47
they have been shut out from this and
00:58:48
all these rich people like Trump and JD
00:58:51
Vance and venture capitalist are running
00:58:52
the table on them and I think that might
00:58:55
be why we're seeing
00:58:56
even if the four of us disagree with it
00:58:58
we might be seeing someone like Tim
00:59:00
Walls actually being a feature it might
00:59:02
be a feature to to their and I think
00:59:05
that there's a perception of experience
00:59:08
in government that is deemed to make a
00:59:12
government leader more appropriately
00:59:14
suited to be a government
00:59:16
leader politician yeah well not even a
00:59:19
politician just career experience either
00:59:21
being employed by or working within the
00:59:24
government within a government local
00:59:25
state or Federal and remembera started
00:59:28
her career at the DA's office in Alam
00:59:30
County before moving over to San
00:59:31
Francisco DA's office and then she was
00:59:34
Da of San Francisco and then attorney
00:59:35
general and so on and so forth sex what
00:59:38
do you think of this framing you have
00:59:40
two candidates who are career civil
00:59:42
servants who have dedicated their life
00:59:44
to that but who in one case has doesn't
00:59:47
own his home doesn't own any equities in
00:59:49
the other case comma does have a bunch
00:59:50
of equity and and some private wealth um
00:59:53
versus the capitalist it looks like this
00:59:56
actually is an interesting framing
00:59:57
socialism versus capitalism what's your
00:59:59
thought on that framing well I think
01:00:00
just because someone has served in
01:00:02
Government doesn't mean that they truly
01:00:04
even understand what the problems are or
01:00:06
that they're even the master of
01:00:07
government I mean you saw this over the
01:00:09
past week we talked about the
01:00:11
88,000 jobs that didn't exist they asked
01:00:14
Gina rundo the Secretary of Commerce
01:00:15
about this and she just said that's a
01:00:17
trump lie and they said no actually it's
01:00:19
the Bureau of Labor Statistics report
01:00:22
that like is under US Secretary of
01:00:23
Commerce she said I'm not familiar with
01:00:25
that so you have people running the
01:00:26
government who don't even know what
01:00:28
their own departments are doing now I
01:00:30
think it's just a function of the fact
01:00:31
that the government is so big and out of
01:00:32
control that no one even understands
01:00:34
what it does I think it's more important
01:00:37
to have someone who at least has some
01:00:38
experience in the private sector who
01:00:40
truly understands how jobs are created
01:00:42
how wealth is created what causes
01:00:45
inflation okay we've talked about this
01:00:47
before yeah what causes inflation is the
01:00:49
printing of too much money it's
01:00:50
government spending too much yeah
01:00:53
shocking it is not corporate greed
01:00:55
because corporate agreed as a constant
01:00:57
it's not price gouging and how the free
01:00:59
market incentivizes the creation of
01:01:02
improved productivity which over time
01:01:05
translates into improved prosperity for
01:01:08
the society within which that is taking
01:01:10
place that is so critical and we saw
01:01:13
that happen even in China in the last 30
01:01:16
years when the government allowed
01:01:17
entrepreneurship to flourish in certain
01:01:20
parts of the country as a result there
01:01:22
were significant productivity gains and
01:01:24
they brought a billion people out of
01:01:26
poverty they created a middle class I
01:01:28
mean M never had a middle class I think
01:01:31
it's important to not color this as
01:01:34
because you worked in government you
01:01:35
can't be invested or you can't own a
01:01:37
home or you can't actually have built a
01:01:39
nest EG right because that's also not
01:01:40
true and we have there's some extreme
01:01:42
examples of people who've been
01:01:44
essentially yeah career civil servants
01:01:47
essentially and it built multi hundred
01:01:48
million dollar portfolio now we can we
01:01:51
can question in specifically in the case
01:01:54
of all house Representatives whether
01:01:56
they're getting access to a kind of
01:01:58
information that other people don't get
01:02:00
access to but taking that off the
01:02:02
table I think that there are people in
01:02:04
all kinds of
01:02:07
jobs who are able to save and invest and
01:02:11
then acquire things that they believe
01:02:14
will give them security for themselves
01:02:15
and their children in the
01:02:17
future and I don't think that it is
01:02:19
because of a kind of job that you do I
01:02:21
think it's a kind of mindset that you
01:02:23
have and I think it's very important to
01:02:25
make sure that whoever we
01:02:29
pick we understand the mindset I really
01:02:33
believe that like you know there are a
01:02:34
couple things that are really critical
01:02:38
to thinking about the future and wanting
01:02:41
to make the future better I think one
01:02:43
obvious one is when you have kids when
01:02:45
you have kids you're making sacrifices
01:02:47
every day you know you're you're
01:02:48
forgoing things today because whether
01:02:50
it's saving for college saving for
01:02:52
school saving for a class saving for a
01:02:55
sports thing that you want your kids to
01:02:56
go to music whatever it is you're always
01:02:59
finding ways of thinking about what is
01:03:01
better for in the future for that other
01:03:04
person not me and the second is I think
01:03:08
being an
01:03:09
investor actually makes you care about
01:03:11
the future in a really productive way
01:03:14
because you're foregoing often cases
01:03:16
when we all invest we're forgoing
01:03:18
short-term gains on the hope that we can
01:03:22
help shape a much longer term outcome in
01:03:24
the future that makes all of
01:03:26
worthwhile and so I like it when I can
01:03:30
see people that have those things at
01:03:32
play and that they even in whatever
01:03:34
small way they can are manifesting
01:03:37
that and I always have a question mark
01:03:39
like how is it possible that at no point
01:03:42
you have tried to be invested in your
01:03:44
own and your children's future that way
01:03:47
it's just a it's just a question mark
01:03:48
for me yeah 58% of American own equities
01:03:51
and that includes like retirement
01:03:53
accounts so it's not like they're
01:03:54
actively day trading and so you know
01:03:56
that that does actually Sachs paint an
01:03:59
interesting picture where maybe the
01:04:00
Democratic party now which they referred
01:04:03
to themselves Bernie and Elizabeth
01:04:04
Warren as a socialist as socialist
01:04:06
Democrats maybe this is like part of
01:04:08
their feature is to appeal to that large
01:04:10
swath of people who don't own their
01:04:12
homes who don't have kids and you know
01:04:15
to jg's point about cat ladies and to um
01:04:19
you know who don't own homes don't have
01:04:21
kids and don't have equities what are
01:04:22
your thoughts on that sax is that maybe
01:04:24
how these parties are starting to shape
01:04:26
up in the modern era actually I think I
01:04:29
think that's right I mean I think that
01:04:30
Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are
01:04:33
now the thought leaders and really the
01:04:35
Beating Heart of the Democrat Party I
01:04:37
think what's happened is the Republican
01:04:38
party has moved to right-wing populism
01:04:40
and the Democrats in response to that
01:04:42
have concluded that they need to
01:04:45
basically move to left-wing populism in
01:04:47
order to compete with that and so both
01:04:48
parties are becoming fairly populist now
01:04:52
what does what does left-wing populism
01:04:53
mean it basically means soak the rich
01:04:55
right right it's it's a strong element
01:04:57
of class Warfare to it we're going to
01:04:59
make the rich pay for everything and the
01:05:00
rich are the problem it's this
01:05:02
fundamental unfairness of the economy
01:05:04
that's causing all these problems and I
01:05:06
think you've heard that over and over
01:05:07
again at the DNC I mean just the clips
01:05:10
that I've seen this has been a
01:05:11
reoccurring theme is the the hatred
01:05:14
towards you know billionaires and and
01:05:16
rich people tax the rich is a
01:05:18
reoccurring theme and that that's
01:05:19
actually a great jump off point here
01:05:21
because the big news in our circles this
01:05:24
week and on social media was and some of
01:05:27
the group chats is that Harris has
01:05:29
reportedly backed some of Biden's really
01:05:32
out there tax plans which include a
01:05:35
proposed 25% wealth tax on people with
01:05:38
over a $100 million in assets important
01:05:41
to note that this would be very hard to
01:05:42
pass because getting these tax increases
01:05:45
you'd have to get through Congress Etc
01:05:46
but let's just talk about what the
01:05:48
proposal is because it's out there in
01:05:50
Biden's 2025 tax plan which the campaign
01:05:54
has said to semi for which is a a niche
01:05:57
publication like a newsletter company
01:06:00
that uh and I'll just give the quote in
01:06:01
a little notice portion of its Friday
01:06:03
analysis of Harris's New Economic plans
01:06:06
the committee for a responsible federal
01:06:08
budget wrote that her campaign said it
01:06:11
endorsed the suite of Revenue options
01:06:13
included in president Joe's recent
01:06:16
budget and that cfrb report said quote
01:06:19
the campaign has communicated to us that
01:06:22
vice president Harris continues to
01:06:24
support all of the revenue raising
01:06:26
Provisions in the president's 2025
01:06:28
budget so there is continuity confirmed
01:06:31
between Harris and Biden's plans I'll
01:06:34
just explain as simply as I can what
01:06:37
this uh extreme plan says and then I'll
01:06:40
get chath your take on it Biden's
01:06:42
proposed 2025 tax plan includes the
01:06:45
following 25% unrealized cap gain tax on
01:06:48
those with over 100 million assets 28%
01:06:51
corporate tax rate right now it's 21
01:06:53
Trump had proposed a 15% rate and
01:06:56
quadrupling the stock buyback tax to 4%
01:06:59
that's when a company uh buys their own
01:07:01
shares as opposed to putting it to work
01:07:04
in the market the stock buyback tax was
01:07:06
created as Biden's inflation reduction
01:07:07
Act of 2022 it's just 1% if you want to
01:07:10
buy back your shares like apple and some
01:07:12
other companies do but let's unpack the
01:07:15
25% unrealized cap gains because that
01:07:17
seems to be you know the most let's say
01:07:22
I don't want to say triggering but the
01:07:23
one that's triggered the most number of
01:07:25
people there's 5,000 people who fit into
01:07:27
that category what do you think jamath
01:07:28
of this proposal Fair
01:07:32
unfair crazy socialist
01:07:35
anti-American it's less about fair or
01:07:37
unfair but I think that we are in the
01:07:40
part of the cycle where enough
01:07:44
people don't feel the positive aspects
01:07:47
of capitalism that they want to push
01:07:49
back against
01:07:50
it I just put a little image in here
01:07:53
Nick if you want to just throw it up in
01:07:55
the chat but when when you look from
01:07:58
1913 onto today the reality is we've had
01:08:03
many different forms of political
01:08:05
philosophy that have governed the
01:08:07
country and what you can see is that tax
01:08:09
rates have varied wildly at the federal
01:08:14
level and I think it's because that at
01:08:17
certain times there was the political
01:08:20
will to go to
01:08:21
extremes and this may be a moment where
01:08:24
we are going to
01:08:26
explore the extremes that we had in the
01:08:30
40s and the 50s and I think the reality
01:08:32
is that if that does happen you're going
01:08:36
to see people behave in ways that
01:08:38
weren't possible in the 40s and 50s in
01:08:40
the 40s and 50s everybody was more
01:08:42
geopolitically constrained I don't think
01:08:45
that that's the case anymore and the way
01:08:47
that people start companies where they
01:08:48
start companies the flexibility of
01:08:51
citizenship have changed really
01:08:53
dramatically so if it's the will of the
01:08:55
people that they want to explore these
01:08:58
mechanisms I think other people will
01:09:01
react in kind and you know the die will
01:09:03
be cast so um you know I don't have much
01:09:07
you're referring to removing you're I
01:09:09
think you're implying people might be
01:09:11
able to move to other places and create
01:09:13
companies there is is that what I'm
01:09:15
reading let's put it this way we have we
01:09:17
have a small microcosm of this going on
01:09:19
within the 50 states which is if you
01:09:21
said California was the United States
01:09:24
and
01:09:26
Texas and Florida were I'll make up two
01:09:29
different countries Malta and Dubai well
01:09:34
what happens when
01:09:37
taxation goes beyond the pale and what
01:09:40
happens when budget deficits and
01:09:41
spending go beyond the pill and when the
01:09:43
government plays too large of a hand in
01:09:46
the economy people leave with their feet
01:09:48
companies leave so we don't need to
01:09:51
guess what's going to happen because if
01:09:53
if it can happen between Califoria and
01:09:55
Texas it probably stands to reason it
01:09:58
can happen between the United States and
01:10:00
the UAE as an example yeah you already
01:10:03
have a bunch of hedge fund manners
01:10:05
moving over there right Shaman they have
01:10:07
people are starting to buy apartments
01:10:09
and there there's golden visas in some
01:10:12
great countries Portugal has a golden
01:10:14
Visa the UAE has a golden Visa Italy has
01:10:17
a golden
01:10:18
Visa the UK had this great program what
01:10:21
was called non-doms for a long time so
01:10:25
the um the point is that all of these
01:10:28
took advantage of countries that went to
01:10:30
extremes and they lost citizens as a
01:10:33
result and I suspect that if what the US
01:10:37
voting population wants to do is explore
01:10:39
that extreme these policies will get
01:10:42
enacted and then people will act in kind
01:10:44
the only thing that I would just again
01:10:46
reinforce is unlike when taxes went to
01:10:48
90% in the 40s and 50s people are much
01:10:51
much more mobile than they were then and
01:10:55
that was during World War II in the
01:10:56
postwar era uh freeberg your thoughts on
01:10:59
this proposal specifically which impacts
01:11:02
a very small number of people although
01:11:03
maybe a high percentage here yeah so so
01:11:06
just just to give a little more detail
01:11:07
to it jcal please and you can actually
01:11:09
see it I think Nick if you want to pull
01:11:11
up the page
01:11:13
8283 in the document so the wealth tax
01:11:16
is
01:11:17
25% of your unrealized capital gains if
01:11:20
your net worth is above 100 million and
01:11:23
the first time this happens you can
01:11:24
split up the payments over n years you
01:11:26
have n years to kind of pay down the
01:11:29
assets or sell the assets or borrow the
01:11:31
money you need to make those tax
01:11:32
payments after that you can actually
01:11:34
make those payments over five years
01:11:36
those payments are ultimately treated as
01:11:38
prepayments on taxes that will be due
01:11:40
when you realize the capital gains every
01:11:42
year you have to report to the IRS
01:11:45
separated by asset class the cost basis
01:11:48
and the estimated value of every asset
01:11:49
you have you then have to determine your
01:11:52
tax that you owe because of the
01:11:54
difference from last year you start out
01:11:56
with tradable assets so stocks those are
01:11:58
just valued at the end of
01:12:00
year illiquid assets like private
01:12:02
companies or real estate you don't have
01:12:06
to get a valuation if there's a
01:12:07
financing event or some other sort of
01:12:10
major revaluation you have to use that
01:12:13
value and if there isn't the number goes
01:12:15
up every year by some nominal rate that
01:12:18
will be set by the treasury so the
01:12:19
treasury is basically going to tell you
01:12:21
what they think the value of your
01:12:23
company has gone up on an annual BAS bis
01:12:26
and that's the determination valuation
01:12:28
you can file an appeal so for all the
01:12:29
entrepreneurs and startup people
01:12:31
listening there's a process that they're
01:12:33
proposing that is basically the
01:12:35
government saying if you didn't get a
01:12:36
new financing round done the price goes
01:12:38
up and if you disagree with the price
01:12:40
going up you go back and you appeal it
01:12:42
let's pause there for a second freeberg
01:12:44
because this is super important I think
01:12:45
to the audience here somebody has a
01:12:47
startup company it becomes worth $10
01:12:49
billion it has a 100 million in Revenue
01:12:52
it's doing well it's losing money 409
01:12:55
valuation comes in founder owns 25%
01:12:58
co-founders own 25% each they own2 or
01:13:00
three billion dollars in stock now
01:13:02
you've got an a liquid founder who owns
01:13:05
$3 billion in stock company's not going
01:13:08
public there's no secondary Market what
01:13:10
would happen to that founder would so
01:13:12
they've addressed this and that's the
01:13:14
final provision and what they said is
01:13:17
that if a taxpayer is treated as what
01:13:19
they're calling illiquid meaning that
01:13:22
their tradable assets the stocks that
01:13:24
they own
01:13:25
or the cash that they have is less than
01:13:28
20% of their total
01:13:31
wealth then they may elect to include
01:13:35
only the unrealized gain in their
01:13:37
tradable assets to determine their tax
01:13:39
liability however if you do this you
01:13:42
will actually have a deferral charge
01:13:44
which means you'll ultimately pay a
01:13:46
higher tax on the capital gains on your
01:13:48
illiquid asset when you do have a have a
01:13:50
realiz capital gain on it so they're
01:13:52
trying to cover the fact that people
01:13:53
might have all their assets up in real
01:13:55
estate or all their assets tied up in
01:13:57
private Company stock and again I feel
01:14:00
like we're we're kind of shouting into
01:14:01
an abyss here because this is only going
01:14:02
to affect such a small number of people
01:14:04
but they've really tried to write this
01:14:06
in a way that ultimately covers the kind
01:14:08
of push back that you're highlighting
01:14:10
I'll say one other piece of push back
01:14:11
that's been received and tested in the
01:14:14
Supreme Court a lot of people have said
01:14:17
that the 16th Amendment prohibits this
01:14:21
uh taxation a ruling from the Supreme
01:14:23
Court was published June of this year
01:14:26
and in that particular case there was a
01:14:29
repatriation tax for folks that left the
01:14:32
country it's the more versus United
01:14:34
States Tax case and when people left the
01:14:37
country the government under the tax and
01:14:39
jobs act which was passed under the
01:14:41
Trump Administration the government had
01:14:43
a right to go after people's assets and
01:14:45
tax them on their unrealized gains even
01:14:47
after they give up their us citizenry
01:14:49
this was challenged to the Supreme Court
01:14:50
and there was a number of amicus briefs
01:14:52
filed on this case that said the
01:14:54
government govern does not have the
01:14:55
authority and Congress doesn't have the
01:14:57
authority to actually tax on unrealized
01:15:00
capital gains and at the end of the day
01:15:03
the Supreme Court agreed to hear the
01:15:04
case and they did not overturn on the
01:15:07
position that the government actually
01:15:09
did not overstep their authority to be
01:15:11
able to tax unrealized capital gains so
01:15:14
there is some Supreme Court case
01:15:15
precedence here that indicates that this
01:15:17
will not get thrown out on an
01:15:19
unconstitutional ground basis so there
01:15:21
is a lot of conversation that this might
01:15:23
actually become a real case I'll pause
01:15:25
there and I actually have a theory I
01:15:26
want to talk about in a minute but it's
01:15:28
a little bit of an extension from this
01:15:30
point but that is this a seizure of
01:15:34
Assets in your mind is it constitutional
01:15:37
in your mind two questions there it's
01:15:40
certainly a confiscation I mean
01:15:42
basically this this tax is directed at C
01:15:45
Millionaires and billionaires to
01:15:46
basically take 25% of what they have I
01:15:48
mean that's basically what this is
01:15:51
about there's a good reason why
01:15:53
realization is one of the Core Concepts
01:15:56
of our tax code what real realization
01:15:58
gives you two really important things
01:16:00
number one you have a sale price right
01:16:02
realization means that you sell the
01:16:04
asset so we know exactly how much you
01:16:06
made number two you have the liquidity
01:16:09
to pay the tax bill because you've just
01:16:10
sold the asset the problem with an
01:16:12
unrealized gains tax is both those
01:16:14
issues number one we don't know what the
01:16:17
asset's really worth you know it's
01:16:19
easier to to put a value on a publicly
01:16:22
traded asset but a private asset it's
01:16:24
very hard to know exactly how much it's
01:16:26
worth the valuation is bouncing around
01:16:28
all the time what this bill would do is
01:16:29
create I guess a whole new process and
01:16:31
bureaucracy to try and put a value on
01:16:33
that but it's going to be really
01:16:35
complicated to comply with all of us are
01:16:37
going to need to hire a whole new Legion
01:16:40
of lawyers and accountants so I mean
01:16:42
you're talking about a whole new
01:16:45
essentially tax bureaucracy that's going
01:16:46
to spring up around this concept on the
01:16:49
um liquidity part you're being taxed a
01:16:52
huge amount without having the cash to
01:16:55
pay the tax bill and you know yes
01:16:57
they've tried to mitigate that by
01:16:58
creating this installment plan but
01:17:00
you're still going to need to go out and
01:17:02
sell large trugs to your company every
01:17:04
time you get an upu round in order to
01:17:06
pay the tax bill and that means that
01:17:08
you're losing ownership of your your
01:17:10
company all these assets are going to be
01:17:12
dumped on the market and you're
01:17:14
basically starving the market of capital
01:17:16
actually right because all these people
01:17:18
who who are owners of their company are
01:17:20
going to have to go out and and sell a
01:17:22
big chunk of them this is going to put
01:17:24
so much cold water on the
01:17:25
entrepreneurial Market it's going to
01:17:27
make people just have less liquidity to
01:17:29
invest in things I think this is going
01:17:32
to be disastrous this caus a lot of
01:17:33
people to retire early because they just
01:17:35
don't want to deal with all this well
01:17:37
freeberg what's your theory okay I've
01:17:39
got a theory oh Theory here we go good I
01:17:41
was trying to figure out why we seem to
01:17:44
be like embracing socialist
01:17:47
principles like why I keep seeing more
01:17:50
of this stuff become mainstream and
01:17:52
almost become
01:17:53
normalized and I was was looking at the
01:17:56
total
01:17:57
GDP of the United States is $25
01:18:01
trillion the federal budget for next
01:18:03
year is proposed to be 7.2 trillion and
01:18:06
state and local budgets combined is
01:18:08
about four trillion so if you look at
01:18:11
government spending it's about half of
01:18:13
GDP now State local and Federal which
01:18:16
roughly equates to about half of people
01:18:19
in the United States are employed
01:18:21
directly by government or indirectly
01:18:25
because the government is the primary
01:18:26
revenue source of their business um and
01:18:29
I think that that's why this this set of
01:18:32
policies and I'm not talking about the
01:18:34
tax on the senta millionaires as much as
01:18:37
a simple disregard for uh the fact that
01:18:41
the United States over time the
01:18:44
prosperity that we've realized has been
01:18:46
driven by a free market economy by
01:18:48
enterprising individuals going out and
01:18:50
saying there are people that are asking
01:18:52
for things I'm going to figure out a way
01:18:54
to build those things and make it for
01:18:55
them and sell it to them people will pay
01:18:57
for it they will work hard to do it and
01:18:59
the incentive structure in a free market
01:19:01
has enabled productivity improvements
01:19:03
and enabled ultimately Prosperity but
01:19:05
we've reached a Tipping Point and the
01:19:07
Tipping Point is when half or more of
01:19:09
the population begins to be employed by
01:19:12
the government at which point that
01:19:14
concept is lost because now it is the
01:19:16
government that is the employer not
01:19:19
one's own individual liberties and
01:19:20
ability to go out and be enterprising
01:19:22
and so I think that the budget of
01:19:24
government tipping to 50% of GDP is the
01:19:28
reason why these policies become
01:19:29
mainstream that's my theory and so it's
01:19:31
a relationship of government spending as
01:19:34
a percent of total GDP which translates
01:19:37
into employment you guys very reasonable
01:19:39
scary but reasonable well you know who
01:19:41
said something similar back when Mitt
01:19:43
Romney were in for president he was
01:19:45
caught on tape saying something to the
01:19:47
effect that
01:19:49
47% of Americans were net government
01:19:53
recipients y and if that number ever got
01:19:55
to
01:19:56
51% then basically the free market
01:19:59
system would be finished because it' be
01:20:01
more where we are than makers more
01:20:03
takers than makers and he was forced to
01:20:05
apologize for that but there is a
01:20:07
fundamental logic to it I wouldn't use
01:20:09
the term taker sax because there are
01:20:11
hardworking people that work for the
01:20:14
government it so it's not necessarily
01:20:16
about just taking a free check or
01:20:18
there's certainly an aspect of that to
01:20:20
some degree but it is about the
01:20:22
government becoming the prim
01:20:25
supporter of individuals in this country
01:20:28
through employment or through subsidies
01:20:30
or through checks or through through
01:20:31
what have you yeah I think that's fair I
01:20:34
think that's totally fair I'm not
01:20:35
disparaging the efforts of legitimate
01:20:38
government workers because you do need a
01:20:40
government or private company workers
01:20:43
that just happen to have the government
01:20:44
as their only customer right but the
01:20:46
point the point is that when you become
01:20:49
a government employee you have a vested
01:20:51
interest in government you should have a
01:20:53
vested interest in the private sector as
01:20:54
well because that's what generates the
01:20:55
tax revenue to fund the government but
01:20:58
as a practical matter government workers
01:21:00
vote massively in a block for the
01:21:03
Democrat Party and in many ways the
01:21:04
Democrat Party is the the party of
01:21:07
government workers you look in
01:21:08
California for example the the various
01:21:11
government workers unions are the most
01:21:13
powerful players in California what's
01:21:15
the political affiliation of like has
01:21:17
there ever been surveys done of
01:21:19
employees at the federal level and what
01:21:20
their political affiliations are oh yeah
01:21:23
vastly vastly more Democrat I mean look
01:21:26
the Democrats are the party of
01:21:27
government
01:21:28
absolutely I'm surprised by that because
01:21:30
I would think that within the ranks of
01:21:32
the military if you look at the enlisted
01:21:34
military there's a lot of Republicans in
01:21:37
there a lot of military families
01:21:38
especially Republican but you look at
01:21:41
just government
01:21:43
workers vastly more Democrat I think
01:21:45
there's other things happening as well I
01:21:47
mean look American capitalism requires a
01:21:51
robust middle class and in many ways I
01:21:54
think globalization has hollowed out the
01:21:56
middle class there used to be a large
01:21:58
middle class in this country of
01:22:01
bluecollar workers who worked with their
01:22:03
hands they were not knowledge workers
01:22:05
and they worked in factories and they
01:22:06
did kind of blue collar work and they
01:22:08
could still make a middle class living
01:22:11
and I think that over the last 20 to 30
01:22:14
years as a result of globalization
01:22:16
millions and millions of those jobs went
01:22:17
away I mean millions of factories shut
01:22:19
down so the middle class of America
01:22:22
that's not you know again that's not
01:22:24
knowledge workers were really pressured
01:22:26
by basically throwing open American
01:22:28
markets to foreign Goods now you could
01:22:30
argue that that lowered prices and that
01:22:32
created consumer surplus and the
01:22:34
benefits of trade do you support the
01:22:36
Trump tariffs as a solution there Sachs
01:22:38
because those are fundamentally going to
01:22:40
be inflationary which is going to make
01:22:41
the cost go up for everyone well I don't
01:22:43
know but I'm just I'm just pointing out
01:22:45
that there was a real price in terms of
01:22:48
having this free trade that led to huge
01:22:50
trade deficits which is this vast
01:22:53
American middle class
01:22:55
people who worked with their hands got
01:22:56
put out of work and I think that removes
01:23:00
a huge incentive for people to be
01:23:03
invested in to have invested interest in
01:23:05
the free market system sax let me ask
01:23:08
you one more question do you think that
01:23:09
the Biden administration's bills the
01:23:12
inflation reduction Act and the chips
01:23:14
act both of which were meant to
01:23:17
revitalize that middle class kind of
01:23:20
industrial economy through Government
01:23:22
funding of developing new facilities in
01:23:24
the US to onshore manufacturing is that
01:23:27
not a good reasonable solution to that
01:23:29
problem well those are two very
01:23:31
different bills I mean the inflation
01:23:33
reduction act just the name itself
01:23:34
should tell you that it doesn't do I was
01:23:36
joking it should have been the inflation
01:23:38
maximization act the IM yeah look who
01:23:40
benefited from that our friends who are
01:23:43
energy investors who you know who I'm
01:23:45
talking about in our chat room easy easy
01:23:49
stray bullets
01:23:50
everywhere going to his take it easy
01:23:52
over there take not going to say his
01:23:54
name taking a stke but his nickname is
01:23:57
deep state but but he's an energy
01:23:59
investor he said that this bill was the
01:24:01
biggest Bonanza that they've ever seen
01:24:03
he said these these guys were running
01:24:06
around like uh you know it was like The
01:24:09
Beverly Hillbillies where they struck a
01:24:11
gusher and they they're running around
01:24:12
with pans trying to collect the oil
01:24:14
that's where he basically said this was
01:24:16
but it was a bunch of energy investors
01:24:18
at the Mana the Mana was coming down
01:24:21
from from heaven and they're just going
01:24:22
to collect as much of it that was a huge
01:24:24
boondoggle and payoff for these green
01:24:26
energy investors that's who it went to
01:24:28
it did not benefit at all what about the
01:24:31
chips act the chip Act is more
01:24:32
complicated because it does create
01:24:36
incentives for manufacturing in America
01:24:38
and moreover there is a National
01:24:39
Security
01:24:40
El because we need these Advanced chips
01:24:43
we can't be totally dependent on chip
01:24:45
makers who are in foreign places within
01:24:49
100 miles of the Chinese Mainland right
01:24:51
so that that one's a little more
01:24:53
complicated while Intel is imploding you
01:24:55
know they can't manufacture so well just
01:24:58
to finish the thought I mean the the the
01:24:59
issue with the chips Act is that there's
01:25:01
a lot of good reasons to believe that
01:25:04
even if we incentivize this we're still
01:25:06
hopelessly behind and the chip faps that
01:25:09
we're building are just they're still
01:25:11
years behind what they have in Taiwan
01:25:12
for example so it's not clear it's going
01:25:14
to work is my point but but I think the
01:25:16
motivations make a lot more sense all
01:25:18
right everybody this has been another
01:25:20
amazing episode of the Allin podcast
01:25:24
socialism is garbage and it turns into
01:25:28
communism no I'm exacerbated I mean if
01:25:32
Kamala doesn't get out there and start
01:25:33
doing some interviews and explaining
01:25:35
herself I'm out um I mean I'm
01:25:39
out making news at the end just
01:25:43
I'm I'm just frustrated I'm I'm
01:25:46
literally going to smash this
01:25:49
laptop right when jcal was about to
01:25:51
become CTI millionaire she shut the door
01:25:54
I mean I mean it may have already
01:25:56
happened
01:25:58
anyway H my God that's so funny yeah u r
01:26:02
to what's the what's the price now 80
01:26:05
bucks or something you're G to get a
01:26:07
much different answer we need someone to
01:26:08
generate we need someone to generate a
01:26:10
meme jcal at $40 a share
01:26:14
demat $80 a share
01:26:17
Republican no I mean I just we need to
01:26:19
get Hala on this program here face the
01:26:22
music let's go you want to run for
01:26:23
president come on all in and let's talk
01:26:25
about it if she's not going to answer
01:26:26
basic questions it's disqualifying for
01:26:28
me who's trying to get her is anyone
01:26:30
trying to SPS on it I mean on it but I
01:26:33
mean we we'd love to have her on we'd
01:26:34
love to have JD on we'd love to have
01:26:36
Waltz on let's go let's have some real
01:26:38
conversations about this stuff by the
01:26:39
way can can I make one final point of
01:26:41
that whole uniz gains tax is best case
01:26:43
scenario what the um CBO estimated is
01:26:46
that would raise about 400 billion a
01:26:48
year for all these tax hikes that's only
01:26:51
20% of the deficit we're running right
01:26:53
now we don't get anywhere close to
01:26:56
closing the deficit with all these tax
01:26:58
hikes what that means is you have to cut
01:27:00
spending moreover she's got a bunch of
01:27:02
new programs to increase that deficit
01:27:04
and we know that that 400 billion number
01:27:06
is an optimistic scenario because like
01:27:08
jamath was saying the rich people are
01:27:10
going to flee they're going to try and
01:27:12
move their wealth into structures or
01:27:14
places where it's harder to tax I think
01:27:16
it's actually more than that I think
01:27:18
what'll happen is funds governments etc
01:27:21
for the right entrepreneurs with the
01:27:23
right assets will help you pay the exit
01:27:25
tax so that you can just leave the
01:27:27
United States and that's going to be an
01:27:29
investment class that's going to emerge
01:27:31
in my opinion which is these
01:27:33
organizations that will pool Capital
01:27:35
Sovereign wealth funds specifically and
01:27:37
when an entrepreneur shows up and they
01:27:38
have you
01:27:40
know 50 hundred a billion dollar tax
01:27:43
bill to expatriate from the United
01:27:45
States they will pay it for you and the
01:27:47
reason is they'll bring the jobs and
01:27:49
they'll bring the knoow and they'll
01:27:51
bring the future capital investment into
01:27:52
that country it's it's a very easy
01:27:55
investment to underwrite actually so I
01:27:57
would I I would just pay a lot of close
01:28:00
attention to the fact that Capital flows
01:28:03
are very fungible in 2024 and they'll
01:28:05
only become more fungible over time
01:28:07
buenos era beautiful beautiful this
01:28:09
happened by the way this happened in
01:28:11
France I
01:28:12
mean they did they literally did this
01:28:14
they tried it a lot of French citizens
01:28:16
all of a sudden became
01:28:18
citizens I think I think it's important
01:28:21
though you have to now go to the logic
01:28:23
if this is what people want I think it's
01:28:24
important for people to see the impact
01:28:27
of it and then for them to have to
01:28:28
change their mind or stay with what
01:28:29
they're doing because it's working yeah
01:28:32
it's not going to work you're you're
01:28:33
right Jal in France and Norway this was
01:28:35
tried there every time wealth taxes get
01:28:36
tried it what happens is the wealth
01:28:38
flees and you never raise as much as you
01:28:41
think you're going to and then what
01:28:42
happens is in order to raise that money
01:28:44
they have to apply it to more people
01:28:46
Elizabeth Warren already wants to apply
01:28:48
it to Americans with a net worth of 50
01:28:49
million not 100 million so this whole
01:28:52
idea that well this won't affect me
01:28:53
because I'm not of those rich people the
01:28:55
IRS was created and they when they
01:28:56
created the income tax it was originally
01:28:58
only supposed to apply to to less than
01:29:00
the top 1% okay I got to go love you
01:29:03
guys so everybody thanks for coming to
01:29:05
the all-in podcast episode 193 we'll see
01:29:07
you next time bye-bye take care
01:29:10
boys let your winners
01:29:13
ride
01:29:17
Ravid and instead we open source it to
01:29:20
the fans and they've just gone crazy
01:29:21
with it love you queen of
01:29:25
[Music]
01:29:30
going besties
01:29:33
are that's my dog taking
01:29:38
driveway oh
01:29:40
man we should all just get a room and
01:29:42
just have one big huge orgy cuz they're
01:29:44
all this useless it's like this like
01:29:46
sexual tension that they just need to
01:29:48
[Music]
01:29:53
release that's we need to get merch
01:29:57
[Music]
01:30:06
our and now the plugs the all in Summit
01:30:10
is taking place in Los Angeles September
01:30:13
8th 9th and 10th you can apply for a
01:30:15
tickets summit. Allin
01:30:18
podcast.co and you can subscribe to this
01:30:21
show on YouTube yes watch all the videos
01:30:23
our YouTube channel has passed 500,000
01:30:25
subscribers shout out to Donnie from
01:30:27
Queens follow the show x.com thee all
01:30:30
inpod Tik Tok the Allin pod Instagram
01:30:33
the Allin pod LinkedIn search for Allin
01:30:35
podcast and to follow chth he's x.com
01:30:39
chth sign up for his weekly email what I
01:30:42
read this week at chat. substack
01:30:44
docomond sign up for a developer account
01:30:46
at console. gro.com and see what all the
01:30:49
excitement is about follow saxs at x.com
01:30:52
David saxs and sign up for glue at glue.
01:30:55
follow freedberg x.com freedberg and
01:30:58
ohal is hiring click on the careers page
01:31:00
at ohal genetics.com I am the world's
01:31:04
greatest moderator Jason kakanis if you
01:31:06
are a founder and you want to come to my
01:31:09
accelerators and my programs founder.
01:31:11
University launch. closeapply to apply
01:31:13
for funding from your boy jcal for your
01:31:14
startup and check out Athena wow.com
01:31:17
this is the company I am most excited
01:31:19
about at the moment Athena wow.com to
01:31:22
get a virtual assistant for but $3,000 a
01:31:25
month I have two of them thanks for
01:31:26
tuning in to the world's number one
01:31:28
podcast you can help by telling just two
01:31:30
friends that's all I ask forward this
01:31:33
podcast to two friends and say this is
01:31:35
the world's greatest podcast you got to
01:31:36
check it out it'll make you smarter
01:31:38
it'll make you laugh laugh while
01:31:39
learning we'll see you all next time
01:31:41
bye-bye
