Transcript of Debt Spiral or NEW Golden Age? Super Bowl Insider Trading, Booming Token Budgets, Ferrari's New EV

All right, everybody. Welcome back to the number one podcast in the world, The All-In podcast with me again. The Core Four, the original quartet, David Sacks, David Friedberg, Chamath Polyhapatea. I'm Jason Calacanis, and we have a very full docket today. All right, topic one, gentlemen, AI acceleration. It was a big week for AI. New study published on Monday, February ninth in the HBR, Harvard Business Review, suggesting that AI tools intensify work but do not reduce it. Two UC Berkeley researchers spent eight months embedded at a 200-person tech company. So this is one company's experience. What they found, employees who use AI worked at a faster pace, took a broader scope of tasks, and extended work into more hours of the day. Workers reported feeling more productive, but they also felt a little more stress and burnout. Sacks, your hot take here, your quick take on this study. Obviously, it's just one company, but it does track, I think, some of my experiences.

All right, well, a few points here. Number one, as you may recall on the prediction show for this year, my most contrarian belief is that AI would increase demand for knowledge workers, not put them out of business. And I think you see in this UC Berkeley study, the reason why that might be the case is because the employees who use these tools, like you said, they work faster. They took on a broader scope of tasks. They actually ended up working more hours in the day, so they did more work, not less, and even more effort rather than less, not because they were required to, but just because they were more motivated. And I think they were more motivated because their work was getting up-leveled, right? They're able to offload more menial tasks to AI, and it made their work more purposeful and meaningful. So I think we're moving from what some people, I think maybe Jensen has called task-based jobs to purpose-based jobs. And I think a key skill of employees is going to be the ability to structure work for themselves and their AI agents. And the employees who can do that are going to be far more productive than those who can't.

That brings me to point number two, which is that I think there's a tremendous opportunity this year for employees who are early adopters of these tools or so-called AI natives to demonstrate their value to their employers. They're going to be able to get a lot more done. They're going to appear to have superpowers. They're going to be the people in meetings who can take an assignment that would have taken days before and get it done in 2 hours, whether it's a presentation or a spreadsheet. People are going to be shocked at how quickly they can get these things done because they're going to be fast all at working with AI. So I think there's a big opportunity there. And there was an article that went viral this week by Matt Schumer called Something Big is Happening, where he talked about this career option that's going to be available to AI early adopters. And I think that brings me to my third point, which is I think that you're going to see massive enterprise adoption of AI, not just chatbots, but agents this year. But I think it's going to be driven by the bottom up.

It's going to be driven by these early adopter employees coming in to their workplaces, bringing in these consumerized AI tools, start using them at work, as opposed to top-down initiatives. I think there's a lot of top-down company transformation initiatives that are happening in large enterprises where the CEO has tasked a team with figuring out how to use AI, how to transform their business with AI. Those initiatives are going to take months. They're going to be studying what tools they should use. They're going to be doing RFPs. And I think it's ultimately going to be very slow low. And while those things are trudging along, I think there's going to be these early adopter employees who just make the transformation of fata complet by, again, bringing these tools into the workplace from the bottom up. So I think in the same way that you saw consumerized SaaS tools spread from the bottom up in enterprises. I think you're going to see consumerized AI tools spread from the bottom up in enterprises. I think it'll ultimately be one of the big themes this year.

Couldn't concur or agree more. Nick, throw off that tweet I did. I did a tweet and it got 2 million views. Basically, I said, Listen, if you got laid off by Amazon or Microsoft over the last two years. Just wear an open cloth and automate your previous job. Show you know how to use these tools. Go back to your boss and say, Hey, I want to come back and automate everything, or go to startups. Every startup I know is hiring for this position position, which is somebody who knows how to build and manage agents. There is no job rec for this yet or a title. We should come up with what this person does. But it used to be called prompt engineer. It's no longer just prompt engineering. It's managing and educating and offloading work to an agent and then making sure they're actually doing it. Right now, it feels like the people in my organization have four of them who are focused on this out of 20. I would say that their leverage is between 10 and 20 X the other 16. So now I'm going down the slope of employees from most technical to least and trying to get each one of them to adopt and create an agent for them.

It's going to probably take six months. But when we do, I think our leverage versus a competing firm is going to be 10X. As an example in the podcasting space, Sacks, we now have it going through podcasts, looking for the best moments, or you can just give it a moment, and it will clip the clip for you and put it in the Google Drive. Imagine we're all in, I don't know, our little group chat and you said, Oh, from the last episode, can you get me a clip of minute three to minute six? And then it's just on your iPhone. It's just in the group chat. Boom. Nobody has to go find it. It just clips it. That's the work it's doing. And then we have it looking at our YouTube stats. We have it looking at our Instagram or TikTok stats, and then trying to tell us which clips are going the most viral, which ones have the most comments, and then giving us strategies to how to make them go more viral. It's really weird because it's coming up with really great suggestions and eliminating all the reporting work that knowledge workers do.

Shemab, do you have a take on this? I know you've deployed the software factory, which is, I think, aligned with obviously this revolution happening in real-time. Last couple of weeks have been pretty big with Clawed Opus 4. 6 coming out, ChatGPT, Codex coming out. A lot of advances, and obviously the open Claw revolution that I've now done seven on in a row. What are your thoughts, Jamal?

I think there are two open questions that I find really interesting right now. The first question is, I created it this morning, but is on-prem the new cloud? Which is weird to think that that could even be possible. But we've spent since 2008 migrating everything to cloud because there were these economies of scale, and it created better margin and lower OpEx and lower CapEx because you could essentially share infrastructure with other companies. That's how AWS and GCP have built such gargantuan businesses. The counterpoint to that, though, is that in the AI revolution, companies, I suspect, will be fighting for their lives. I think it's very much unclear whether it makes sense for a company to allow the natural leakage of their edge and their confidential and proprietary information out into the wild versus the control that they would get if they ran on-prem. That's a really important question. What do I mean by all that? Once you use these tools, it is very difficult for a company to be able to control how their data is used subsequently thereafter. Meaning, if I gave you, Jason, a PDF of some really important strategy document or a PowerPoint deck or a really critical model, and you're interrogating it with one of these models, If you're just using ChatGPT, the mainline instance of it, you're leaking all of that prompt and response metadata back to ChatGPT, back to Gemini, back to Claude.

And there's nothing a company can do about that. If you're using a set of agents to act on all that information, all those agent traces are going back to these model builders. That may or may not be a problem for some, but I suspect it is a deep problem for others, and they just haven't uncovered it yet. When they realize that that is a problem, the enterprise will have to decide, do I just give up and keep running all of this stuff in the cloud in a shared experience, or do I bear the incremental cost of running this stuff in a more coordinated manner that I control on-prem. And that would be a crazy shift just to completely go back to where we were 20 and 30 years ago. That's a non-so obvious thing that may happen. So that's number one. And then number two, I I also treated this, there was this really interesting ruling around what happens inside these cloud environments, which was a judge saying there is no attorney-client privilege and confirming that once you start to use those tools, All of that stuff is complete public domain material. If you put these two things together, it creates a very interesting set of questions for enterprises.

You will need AI to survive. But if you use the tools as they exist today at a public endpoint, you will give up all control, all security, all confidentiality that you today have, and the ability to follow through and control what your employees do with it. The only solution is to have the pendulum swing all the way back and have private provision networks, which increases cost. But then if you save a bunch of money because of AI, maybe it all balances out. That is the big question that I'm wrestling with right now.

Good insights there. I have some thoughts on the on-prem because I'm actually doing it right now. Friedberg, your thoughts on this moment in time when we have people saying it's happening faster and it's become recursive. Recursive, obviously, fancy word for those in the audience who haven't heard it before. Just these models and these agents can go out and improve their own work. So after they do some work or a job for you, you can have another agent say, Hey, here's how to do it better, or, Go learn these new skills. Go use this skill last 30 days to go find the last seven days or 30 days of best practices with this tool and make yourself better. And do that every night at 1: 00 AM. What are your thoughts, Friedberg, on the moment in time we are in right now?

Well, I think the thinking historically was that it was going to be about recursive model development, where we were going to continuously improve the actual model. We were waiting for a context window where you could feed the model back to itself. You're effectively retraining the model continuously. It may be the case that the output is with the recursive. That, it turns out, is having the effect that everyone was waiting for. It's a surprise. I saw a lot of computer scientists that have worked in AI for some time, I think, be a little bit surprised about this moment that we're in, that we're seeing such incredible strides in model performance just by making the output recursive. Let's see how far it goes. Are you still obsessed with OpenClaw, J. K. L?

I am. We have now seen that every week, 5% to 10% of the work we're doing inside of our is being moved over to open-claw. We call them replicants. You can think of them as personas. We now have three or four of these. We give them a Notion account, a Slack account, and we give them a Google Docs account. They have their own email. I think all of this technology was here all along. It was really, or maybe for the last six months, let's say, really good models out there. But no company would give the keys to the kingdom to allow these agents to actually act on your behalf. Why? Why? Because they don't want to be responsible if it ships your Bitcoin keys or your passwords to somebody else. So in order to use these, you have to trust them. And if you trust them and then you are monitoring them, the results are unbelievable. We have also, to your point, Chamath, fired up Mac studios. We have Kimmy on them. We are moving all of the work onto these, and then they'll use Kimmy for most of their easy jobs, which is free.

Then they We use Clawed 4. 6 opus to augustrate things. We also, now that we have four of them, Friedberg, we've created OpenClaw Ultron, which is one meta-replicant that is managing the other four. And it checks their work, it talks to them all day long about what they're doing, and then summarizes it. And we're building skills into each one of these. So one of the skills is like doing deep research. One of the skills is being able to go into our sales database, which is in Pipedrive. The gains we're getting, I was able to go through everything my Athena Assistant was doing, and I was able to take about... And I know Chamath, you have an Athena assistant, too. I was able to take maybe 30 % of the Athena assistance work and give it to the replicant. That let the Athena Assistant work on higher-level stuff. I would say on the average investment team individual, we now have probably 20 % of their work being done by agents in real-time. And the best part about it is they don't forget to do work. They don't make mistakes. So once you put this in, you don't need to have checklist.

They just do it perfectly every single time. Crazy. And they work.

It's crazy.

It's nuts, Chamath. So now I'm building, and I've been talking to Benny off a lot because he's got Slack bot, Claude's got co-work, but none of them have the keys to the kingdom. So what I'm doing is I'm upgrading to the enterprise version of Slack, Chamath. I think probably your number two investment in your career. What an amazing investment that was.

It's number Number four.

Number four. Okay, listen. You keep grinding. Top five investment for you. I'm upgrading to the highest level, and I'm ingesting every single Slack message, and then I'm upgrading and giving the API key for every single email in our organization to Ultron. They will know everything going on in the organization. It is mind-blowing how fast this is going. And then finally, just a plug, I'm investing in 10 startups in open-claw space, 125K each. You come to the Accelerator. If you're doing work on this, openclaw@launch. Co, email me what you're doing, because we want to invest in at least a 10 or 20 of these companies right now. This is the 100% focus on our firm. It is insane.

When do you guys think enterprises have a huge freak out around all of this and say, Wow, we're leaking all of our most important information out into the wild. But Sacks, to your point, the industrious person trying to get ahead all of a sudden is using an open endpoint to make a deck and somehow all of that stuff is out in the wild. They find out people are going to have a freak out moment here soon.

I think there's a big opportunity to take something like OpenClaw and make it enterprise-grade and secure and all that stuff. One of my partners at Kraft actually created a new tool called lobster Tank, which is a version of open call that's got some enterprise security wrapped around it.

This is what I mean. On-prem is back. It's going to happen. It's going to happen.

It's cost savings plus, do I want to give Give all of the secrets in our organization, every piece of intellectual property to Sam Altman, who's got to make a billion dollars a year to keep up with his spend. He's going to build every application.

Let's not make it about Sam. Do I, if I'm Guido, want to have all of my actuaries using all of our proprietary, private, and confidential data on risk pricing in an open instance of an LLM? The answer is no. That's obvious.

Yeah.

So now the question is, how do you adapt to that? How do you actually generate tokens in that a situation? How do you reason in that a situation? That is a very expensive technical problem. It's not necessarily complicated, but it is technical. That will bloat the OpEx because you're going back to a place that you had said didn't make sense anymore. It felt very antiquated if you ever heard a company was on-prem. But AI may be the reason where you can't afford to be not on-prem.

Yeah, and it's going to be on your desktop, too, because one of the solutions to this is just giving each employee a really powerful desktop that is capable of running a local large language model, which right now takes a Mac Studio with 500 12 gig or daisy-chaining, two of them. I think that's the opposite. That's what people are doing.

Remember these Vax Terminals? I think that you could actually see a resurgence of that idea. So you have a centralized computer and you have a bunch of dumb terminals, and you have a CLI, and so you can interact with it that way. But again, it keeps everything inside the boundaries of the corporation.

But you could also fire up your own instance in the cloud and just run it.

Too expensive at scale. For example, 80, 90 is a top 20 customer of Bedrock. It's too expensive already as it is, you pay for all this overhead.

Because of their margin.

Because of all the nonsense that's inside of AWS that you have to pay for in order to just get access to bare metal. So then you go to Coreweave. Okay, fine. But what does Coreweave tell you? They're an excellent business. A, it's all training. B, you have this situation where too much of what you have has to be guaranteed into the future because for them, it makes no sense to price it on spot. And if you buy on spot, you just get these surges, you can't deal with it. So there is no solution today that makes any sense.

It's absolutely correct, Shemal. I'll just put some numbers behind it briefly. We, with our agents, hit $300 a day per agent using the Claude API instantly. And that was doing maybe maybe 10 or 20 %. That's 100,000 a year per agent.

We're getting to a place where we have to basically now say, what is the token budget that we're willing to give our best devs? And then if you aggregate it across all people, you can clearly see a trend where you're like, well, hold on a second. Now they need to be at least 2X as productive as another employee. That is actively happening inside my business because otherwise I'll run out of money.

Yeah, this is a very interesting trend that you're not going to hear anybody else talk about. But when do tokens outpace the salary of the employee? Because you're about to hit it. I'm about to hit it.

I think Superstar developers are already there. I think the rank and file is probably 10, 20 % max. More than likely, they're spending a few thousand. The average non-technical employee is probably in the hundreds to low thousands. But to your point, the trend is what matters. So unless we have some gigantic leap forward in generating output tokens at one-tenth the cost of what they are today, which Which I suspect we will have. So bear with everybody for a while, because I think NVIDIA and Grok and Google and AMD, they're all incentivized to massively ramp up the energy density and massively push down the token cost. That's going to happen, but it doesn't change the trend, and it doesn't change the incentives on confidentiality.

Let's talk about prediction markets, gentlemen. They hit critical mass this past weekend at the Super Bowl. More than a billion bet on Cal sheet, 700 million on Polymarket, almost $2 billion in wagering. The media has been obsessing a bit about market manipulation, insider trading, and all these issues that are totally valid to discuss around prediction markets, which are something new in the world, at least at this scale. Two specific examples from the halftime show. A day-old anonymous Polymarket account correctly predicted 17 out of 20 halftime show bets, including the special appearances by Lady Gaga, Ricky Martin, but it He only profited 17K, a tiny amount. And then another account created less than 24 hours before the game, correctly bet on Bad Bunny's setlist. Wall Street Journal this morning with an article titled Israeli soldiers accused of using Polymarket to bet on strikes. Israel arrested several people, including army reserves, for allegedly using classified information to place bets on Israeli military operations. The account in question raked in more than 150,000 in winnings before going dormant for six It resumed trading last month, betting on when Israel would strike Iran. Polymarket data shows the name of the account, Ricosuave 666.

Also- Suave, Ricosuave.

Ricosuave, the name of the account, Ricosuave 666. I think That was also the alias that you were using in Vegas for a little while there at your hotel. Ricosuave 666. The platforms are regulated, of course, by the CFTC. But questions here about society getting used to this new platform. Here's Kal she's CEO talking about this on CNBC.

Let's say there's a cameraman happens to be in the stadium during the rehearsals. You could argue that would be like somebody at a hotel who sees a rehearsal of a CEO given a presentation prior, those guys would have normally probably had to sign NDAs by the company because they would be worried about these issues. But in the context of this, they probably wouldn't. It's either one of two cases. It is information can be public, and that's okay, or it's information that cannot be public beforehand, and that's communicated to the staff, the cameraman or the dancer. The reason why you don't know what song is going to be played first, even if it's not public and not everybody knows beforehand, it's a little bit of a surprise Super Bowl.

Yeah, but it's not material information that can't be shared.

You're making it that by putting it on this betting platform, but they have no obligation to say, We're not going to tell anybody our opening lineup because there might be money made on this other place that's now betting on this. The responsibility is not on them.

Friedberg, your thoughts just broadly on what I consider society getting used to these new platforms and what they represent in the marketplace of ideas?

I think the question is, is it really insider trading? If you and I were making a side bet and I knew something about you and I had some edge or some advantage and I made a bet with you, Is that fair? Should the government have a role in regulating that? This goes back to securities regulation that everything needs to be registered. Then there's this concept of insider information. It's a real challenge and a real question on keeping the open platform of opportunity for trading on anything while also trying to mitigate the risk of what people call insider information in these trades. There's a good chart that I think we talked about in our group chat that shows the distribution of accounts. There's a few accounts that have a huge amount of money and make almost all the profits, and then a lot of accounts that have a very little amount of money, and they get burned through very quickly. They actually don't have an edge. The accounts that have a lot of money, they generally only trade in things where they have an edge, where they make markets, where they actually have an arbitrage, or yeah, Sharps, and they eat up all of the capital.

If you're a marketplace like this, you probably also want to be thoughtful about the fact that over time, you could churn and churn through all of your customers, all of the users on the platform, if they're constantly going to be making trades where they simply don't have an edge, and all the capital, all the liquidity is coming from the accounts that do have an edge, and effectively trade off of inside information. So just be that these things end up eating themselves up.

Shabbat, man, we had in Trade, I'm sure you remember that, and I don't know if that was in the early 2000s. This idea has been out there, but it has clicked right now for some reason. What are your thoughts, broadly speaking, on the value of these platforms to society?

Let's define some terms first. So in betting, there are two kinds of people. There are the sharps who know what's actually going to happen with a better edge Then there are the squares, which is everybody else, and they are grist for the mill. And in a traditional market, like a sports betting market, there have been edge cases where you try to throw a game or throw a fight or shave points, and the sharps are involved in that. But it's increasingly harder and harder to do because the sports league, analytically, are studying these things so closely to make sure that that never happens. But what you get are people with a smarter sense of what's going to happen and people with less of a smart sense of what's going to happen. The thing with prediction markets is it's not just that. There will be those things, but then there are going to be these fundamental markets that are purely about inside information. The question is, what can a regulatory body or a society do about that? I think the answer is not much. The reason is, is that if you try to regulate this, it looks like a securities market.

I think the problem there is that these things are too fluid and too dynamic and too ephemeral for them to be legislated like a security. Why are these things happening? It's because there's too many of these prediction markets that can be manipulated this way. Somebody knows something that somebody else doesn't know, and there's no way to arbitrate that. This used to exist in the securities market, too. This is where now I'm going to get a lot of people really upset with me. In 2000, we introduced the law called RegFD. What was the point of RegFD? It was basically that if you're a CFO, you cannot talk to an individual stock manager and tell him something that you then don't tell everybody else, essentially inside information. That used to be not illegal. I won't say that it was legal. I would just say that used to be not illegal. You call your buddy, he says, Hey, how are you doing? He goes, Man, Corder was a blockbuster. You would go and buy the stock. And starting in the 2000s, it became illegal. And there used to be these networks of information arbitrage that took advantage of this.

Now, this is an example of Warren Buffet's returns, pre and post RegFD. Now, what do you see? His returns were double the market returns when this information sharing was legal. And the minute that it became illegal, Ego, and you had to basically act on the same edge as everybody else, his returns went to the market return. He generated zero alpha. In fact, he probably on the margins lost a little bit. So this is the single best investor in the This is what happens when you have information symmetry. So it's just meant to explain that markets thrive when there's asymmetry. Billions and billions of dollars will be made in asymmetry. The prediction markets today, unless they are regulated out of existence or shut down, will look like the stock market free Reg FD. And there's nothing we can do except choose not to bet it. Because otherwise, what you're going to have are a A ton of sharps taking advantage of a ton of squares. And I think that's the end state.

Jemimah, why is it good or bad for society that these exist? Do you have a take on that?

There are a certain percentage of these prediction markets that are about the well-functioning of society, and the use of inside information gets to the truth faster. And I think that has value, especially if it uncovers corruption or misdeeds. And so if people make money along the way, and that's the incentive that it takes for folks to work around what would otherwise be whistleblower laws or something else, to get to the truth and get it out there faster, that probably benefits society. Now, there's a bunch of other things where some people will just set up a market that they know about and that they can control that other people aren't unaware. That's not good. But unfortunately, there's no way to discern when a prediction market gets created, whether it's A or B. And so you have to decide whether it's more important that you can understand these current events faster with more accuracy or not. And I think that's where this decision has to come to. And that's what politicians need to decide and society needs to decide. All right.

We're really excited that we're doing another event. Yes, a new event from your friends at All In. The besties are hosting a new conference, a retreat, a summit in wine country. May 31st to June third. It's called Liquidity. This is for capital allocators and LPs and GPs. Chamab, maybe you could talk a little bit about the vision we have here for the event.

There are a handful of conferences that happen every year where money is made. I'll give you a couple of examples. All the top Market traders have been invited to this thing called Irisone every year, where you go in front of a large audience, present your best long or short idea. You can be a debt trader A credit trader, you can be an equities trader. I've done it several times. Ackman has done it, David Einhorn has done it. Cliff Robbins has done it. These are incredible places. And you pay $10,000 a ticket. And if you take those portfolios, they tend to do really well. Separately, there are conferences that investment banks organize that are off the record, not publicly accessible, where they ask their biggest traders to come to a room, and they'll give them each a few minutes to present their best long and short ideas of public Then there are these equivalent conferences that investment banks do for private companies, where the best fast-growing private companies show up, and the CEOs get on stage, and they give presentations. All of these things have been closed. I would like to blow that wide open. So what will we do?

We will convene the best investors in public markets, the best hedge fund managers, the best private market investors, the best growth investors, the best credit investors, and the largest cohort of LPs representing trillions of dollars of capital, and the CEOs of the fastest growing and most important companies in technology. What we will do over the course of a few days is we'll have some presentations, we'll have best ideas, we'll build relationships. There may be some investments that may happen as a result of that. We're going to shut down all of the landfill. We're going to shut down the French laundry. We're going to shut We're going to spend all of it, and it'll be ours for a two-day playground where we will build relationships, allocate capital, and maybe make some money as a result. You need to apply. We will make some allocations to some folks that may not otherwise get in. We'll make some allocations to emerging managers who may need to raise capital and scale up but can show us good returns. Over time, we'll find a way to increase a lot of this and make it more more publicly accessible. But we are going to essentially take all of these things that I've been a part of that have been enclosed rooms, and we're going to put them together and open it up.

Yeah, well said. It's going to be a wonderful event. Friedberg, anything you're excited about? In terms of the event?

No, I love Younfield. We're going to Younfield, so I'm looking forward to that. It's going to be great.

I mean, beautiful location, and I think there's going to be ample time for meetings, networking. J.

Kal, if you're an investor, you can go to the website to Allin.

Com/events, and you can submit your application. We can't have everybody there, and this is not a general admission type event. It is specifically for this group of people, capital allocators. So apply at the website allin. Com/events. It's going to be wonderful. And Shamaf is putting his focus on it. I can tell you because I brought him my first five ideas, and he was like, no, no. Yes, but better. Yes, yes. So he is engaged, and he's going to make it super tight.

And tight is right. I'm being judgy.

Good. I I like it. I like it. All great events, all great art has some perspective behind it, and we're excited to have your sharp perspective behind this one. Liquidity, May 31st to June third. Allin. Com/events. Okay, let's move on to our next topic. The new CBO report is out. Friedberg, you said we are in a debt-death spiral. The Congressional budget offer released its long-term budget forecast on Wednesday, February 11th. Here are the numbers. 2026, deficit is 1. 9 trillion. That's nearly 6% of GDP, much higher than the 3% GDP target we heard from Scott Besson on this podcast. Social Security. Talked about that before, Friedberg. Trust runs out in 2032, one year earlier than previously expected. That's obviously going to trigger all kinds of discussions around austerity measures that folks will not like. The debt will now grow from 31 trillion today to 56 trillion in 2036. So it is not stopping, folks. We are looking at an average of 2. 5 trillion per year from 2026 to 2036. Also, currently we're at 120% debt to GDP. House Committee on Budget expect it to be 135%, so slightly up in 2036. For comparison, Japan is 237, Singapore 176, Venezuela 164, the Greeks 154, UK 94.

20 years ago, our debt to GDP was but 60%. Here's a direct quote from the report. The Fiscal trajectory is not sustainable. Okay, Dr. Dome, what do you think, Friedberg? This is your story, your chance to shine.

Well, there's no outlook to 3% deficit to GDP. There he is. There he is. If you look at the assumptions, one of the key assumptions is that the short term interest rate, which is largely how a lot of the debt is getting refinanced, is modeled to be around 3. 1%. But if rates climb closer to 5%, as I mentioned in the past, just using the current debt levels, it adds another $650 billion a year of interest expense, which takes interest expense almost up to 2 trillion a year, just paying the interest on the past debt. Because we're running a deficit, that new interest expense increases the debt every year. So the debt goes up and up and up just by adding interest on past debt. So this becomes the death spiral that we've highlighted many times. There's nothing in this report that I think changes the outlook. It's pretty scary. I'll say that the trigger point that I'm getting more and more concerned about, if the Democrats win the midterms and you end up with a Democrat in the White House in 2028. I think that there's a bigger problem at foot, which is all of the state and local obligations.

We've talked about Social Security. It looks like it's going to run out of money in a few years They're going to need to print a lot more money to fund social security obligations. It's very unlikely they're going to make a massive cut to social security because no one will get elected if they did that, and no one will get elected if they promise to do that. There's a similar problem at the state and local level, which is that there's pension obligations. We've talked about this extensively. California has nearly a trillion dollars of unfunded pension obligations to its public retirees or public employees that are going to retire. If you end up with a Democrat-controlled house and a Democrat President in 2028, you'll very likely see a federalization of that obligation, meaning that the federal government will step in to bail out or support those state and local governments because otherwise there's going to be a real economic crisis afoot. When you add that liability coming to hit this CBO report, which doesn't include any of that in the next 5 to 10 years, I think that could be not just the straw that breaks the camel's back, but the concrete that breaks the camel's back.

That's the thing I'm most worried about. There is a deep connection between what's going on with the socialist movements at a city level and now increasingly at a state level, and what we should expect to happen with the US dollar and how it relates to federal spending and federal deficits and federal debt. These are going to be dragging each other into a bad place in the next couple of years, one way or the other. That's what I'm more worried about at this point. It seems if it's very hard to cut spending or get Congress to approve budget cuts that we need to save ourselves from this debt-debt spiral, imagine how much worse it's going to be in the next couple of years if we have to bail out or federalize state and local debt and state and local pension obligations. It's going to be really nasty. That's the thing I worry about the most in my doctorate, Dr. Dumhat. I think that that's one of the things that no one talks about at the federal level, and everyone ignores it because they assume it's a state and local problem. As we've talked about, and I'll bring it up again, and I'll ask my colleague who works in the administration to think about this idea that if we can find a way to declare bankruptcy, to restructure the fiscal obligations or the pension obligations that sit at the state and local level, we may have a way out.

But short of that, that's going to pile onto this federal problem.

Sacks, your thoughts on the CBO report and this death spiral, debt-death spiral.

Well, We all agree about the problem of federal spending and the deficit and the debt. We're all concerned about that. With respect to the CBO study, however, I'll just note that one of the key assumptions here is that CBO projects that real GDP will only grow by 2. 2 % this year in 2026. That's a very low assumption given that we grew by over 4 % in Q3 last year, and the preliminary number for Q4 was over 5 %. And I think all of our predictions for GDP growth this year, when we did our predictions episode, was 5 % plus. So 2. 2 % is a pretty low number. And then they predict that it's going to slow to 1. 8 % after 2026. So again, these are very meager anemic growth assumptions. And if you believe that all of this CapEx is being invested in AI infrastructure, it's going to have a payoff, then the growth rates could be a lot higher. And that ultimately, I think, is the way to get out of the debt spiral is we need strong growth. Without that, we're not going to get out of this problem. Look, I think that if you believe in growth, then the situation is not quite as dire.

What would I do? Well, I If I could wave a magic wand, the two key charts you want to look at are federal net outlays as a % of GDP. This is from Fred, right? And then you want to look at federal receipts, which is tax receipts as a % of GDP. And you just don't want those lines to be more than call it three % apart. I think that's what Secretary Besson said is try to reduce federal deficits to three % of GDP. Historically, tax receipts have bounced around 17 % And the federal net outlays have bounced around 20 %. So if you get back to that, we'd be in pretty good shape. And we were before COVID, our federal net outlays between spending as a percentage of GDP was around 20 %. But then with COVID, it bounced all the way up to 30 % in 2020 because of both the function of all the stimulus, but then also the fact that the economy shrank because of COVID. And we've never quite gotten back to that magic 20 % number. Right now, it's trending around 23 %. So we're doing a lot better than we did under COVID, but it's still just a few % higher.

I mean, if it was up to me, I would just freeze federal spending until the economy grew to the point where federal spending as a % of GDP is 20 And then you could let federal spending continue to grow as the economy grows. And we're not even talking about cuts here. We're not even talking about shrinking the size of the government. We're just talking about limiting the rate of growth until the overall size of the economy can catch up with it. But look, as we know, it's very hard to get Washington to go along with that because there is just a lot of spending pressure in Washington. One thing I will say, though, just to give some credit to the administration here, is that the level of federal employment is at the lowest level since 1966. So during President Trump's second term here, we've gone from roughly 3 million federal employees to a little bit under 2. 7 million. Over 300,000 federal employees have been cut. I think that is a good start.

I mean, you've seen- 10% is a good start for you.

But by the way, I think that's really important to just pause on just so people understand this isn't some hurtful thing about firing people. They lose their jobs. But When people move from the government workforce into the private workforce, they become productive. They're making things that grow the economy, and theoretically, they should also make more money. So this is positive from an economic point of view to move the workforce from public to private. It also, to my point, historically, I think it's very important to avoid the socialist spiral that if you have too many people employed by the government, it becomes impossible to not employ people by the government, and that becomes ultimately de facto socialism.

Chamath, your thoughts here? Obviously, great thing that we're shrinking the size of the government. Those people are becoming more productive going into the private sector. That's a big win. We all agree. 10 %, great job in the first year. Hey, maybe 5 % the next two or three years would be even better. But the debt continues to be a problem. Are you worried? Do you think there's a solution here? What would you do if you were running the show?

I think you have to take a broader historical context of this. Does debt to GDP matter? It depends on many things, but mostly I would say it doesn't matter. It's very easy for people to get agitated about that. Now, there are things that matter when You print too much money, which is the value of the dollar, the value of exports, the cost of imports, and how to actually protect your earnings and your wealth. That's a different question. This is a historical look back from about 300 of debt to GDP of the largest functioning economies in the world. Now, what do you see? What you see is the trend where if you smooth it out for wars, which, by the way, has this weird effect of first escalating the debt to GDP, but then severely impacting it in a positive way. The Napoleonic War, the Franco-Prussian War, World War II, these things all had positive effects on bringing debt to GDP once the war was over. But the general trend since 1700 to now is up and to the right. And the key observation is that it moves in unison, that these things are relative problems.

So if the entire world moves in unison like this, there is an argument to be made, which is that you could end up at 300, 250, 200% of debt to GDP. But if everybody is there, nothing really changes that much. The real question is if one country is able to decouple itself and its economic output is so meaningfully different than everybody else's. So my first take on this whole debt to GDP thing is, I think you have to look at it together as a group. Separately, is it important to contain the debt? Absolutely. But for these other reasons, for earnings, for inflation, for all of those very practical reasons that impact your daily lived life. And what do we know there? We know that President Trump was elected on a massive mandate to secure the border on one hand, but to look at waste, fraud, and abuse on the other. And on that side, what did he do? He drafted the most important and prolific private businessman in the history of the world to be his tip of the spear. And what happened? They identified hundreds of billions of dollars, but when it came down to it and Congress had to act to solidify these cuts, they haven't done much of anything.

Which is a way of saying that if the most conservative Congress in the history of the United States has not done much to solidify these cuts that were identified by the White House and Doge, then as Friedberg said, it'll only get worse if there's ever a democratic house and democratic control. So what do we have to do? I think we have to just acknowledge that if debt to GDP continually moves in unison, the music isn't up for a very long time. That's just an observation. I'm I'm not saying it's right or wrong. It's just the observation. But you got to find ways of hedging and owning real durable assets, because the underlying currency that is used in these economies, even on a relative basis, will fluctuate wildly and just fall off of a cliff, which will mean that it will erode the value that you have created for yourself and your family. That, I think, is the most important takeaway from all of this, which is we probably see things like gold do much, much better over time because people will be afraid about the durability of their dollar-denominated resources. But it will also be true for all these other denominated resources.

But I think debt to GDP, quite honestly, if I had to be a betting man, will trend into the 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 100 on a relative basis for all countries. Because I just think the governments of these countries are addicted to spending and there is no reason to stop. Safe of some other planetary species invading on planet Earth.

A Black Swan event, yes.

There's also a question of what Fed action will do to the capacity for excess deficit spending. If Kevin Walsh really does want to tighten the Fed's balance sheet, and the Fed is effectively the first-in-line buyer of treasuries, meaning they are printing money to fund the government spending, and they slow down or actively slow down and stop doing that, then there is a real question on what action will Congress and the administration need to take. Because what will happen, as you know, if the Fed stops buying treasuries, treasury yields will go up. If treasury yields go up, that means the interest on the existing debt will start to go up. If that lasts for a period of time and you start going from 3. 5 to 4 to 4. 5 to 5% on the short end of the yield curve, then it starts to become way too expensive to fund this level of deficit spending because the interest expense will just start to climb and eat it all up. I think the Kevin Walsh question is, if he really is going to reduce the balance sheet, what's that going to do to rates? What's that going to ultimately force Congress force the administration to do with spending?

Jason, what do you think?

We are in a consumer-driven economy, and the employment rate in this country is absolutely fantastic. Just three quick charts here. This is the number of job openings we still have, even after we burned off in 2022 from 12 million to 7 million jobs. We still have a ton of jobs available. Then if you look at our unemployment rate, it's still at historical lows for our lifetime. If you were born in 1970, this is as good as it gets. 4. 456 is what it's been. It's ticking up modestly, but still lowest of our lifetimes. Then finally, the employment participation rate, number of people in our society are working and able to work. It peaked at 68% or so during the Clinton years. This is still low, 62%. We still have people who could be participating. All of these problems will be solved if more people were to participate and take those jobs. Why don't they take those jobs? Sometimes it's a geographic mismatch. Sometimes it is a skills mismatch. But very often it is the jobs are not paying enough. So if you want to give Trump his flowers, by closing the border, you've reduced the number of people taking the jobs off the books.

And then the businesses are going to have to raise their minimum wage. They're going to have to raise their offering wage, which then might get this 7% or so that are sitting on the sidelines to take their jobs. Crazy prediction. I wouldn't be surprised if we see Trump, who is obviously a populist, and I tweeted about this the other day, got almost a half million views or 400,000 views. What if When Trump decides he's going to raise the minimum wage, not saying I endorse this or not, but it's incredibly low at seven bucks an hour. Obviously, in different cities and states, it's 15 to 20. But what if Trump said we're going to add a dollar to it or $2 to it over each year of the next three? This would be incredibly popular, and it would get some of those people off the sidelines and maybe take these jobs. Just a crazy prediction there, but I think it's a possibility. I think they're going to lose the midterms as it stands right now, it looks like. I think that's the consensus opinion. And they haven't been able to do something with this affordability. Well, I think most Americans would say if you raise the minimum wage, that that would increase affordability.

You can make the counter argument, it's going to just be inflationary. But I think most Americans are going to believe in that. So I wouldn't be surprised if you saw Trump take action there because he does take populist actions like this from time to time.

Do you actually the economic literature on what raising the minimum wage does?

Yes, it can increase inflation and it can lower the... It can raise inflation, and it can lower the profitability of businesses and move stuff offshore.

No, what it does is it makes it illegal to hire someone whose labor is worth less than the minimum wage. And so it is shown to create higher unemployment in those segments of the economy. It's like one of those core findings of economists. So, yeah, it's true that some people will be a beneficiary of getting a higher minimum wage, but then there'll be other people who just lose their jobs. And it creates an incentive for those employers to shift more labor towards automation. So if you're already worried about those people losing their jobs to automation, that's a downside. So anyway, if the minimum wage were a panacea and it just increased everyone's living standards without having downsides, why wouldn't you make the minimum wage $100 an hour? Everyone would just keep raising it infinitely. Obviously, It doesn't work because if you raise a minimum wage too much, which is to say more than the value of someone's labor, then they just get unemployed.

Looking at what happened in the different cities or in Australia or other countries, they have a much higher minimum wage and they have much more happiness. Businesses and prices go up about 20%, 10 to 20%. In Australia, if you go to a restaurant or if you go to a Scandinavian country, things might cost 10%, 20% more, but you have a happier population. And yes, it could lead to more automation. We got rid of cashiers because it became too expensive in New York to pay 15 to 20 bucks for a cashier. Sure. But we have really low minimum. We have very low unemployment now, and the businesses can clearly afford to pay an extra buck an hour or two bucks an hour. So there's the theoretical academic argument, which you are correct on, and I understand it fully well. And then there's the reality on the field, which is Seattle, San Francisco, New York, Los Angeles, Australia, other places have a much higher minimum wage. They have higher happiness in the population. I don't actually think it will have any impact because I think it's artificially low. But that's just one man's opinion. I think it would change the game here in America.

I think it would actually do something to your concern, Friedberg, about socialism I think that if people felt that there was a backstop against this low cost of labor, it might actually make people pretty stoked that they could get a higher paying, hourly job, and it might take some of that edge off in the same way universal health care might do that. But again, just one man's opinion.

I got to say on all this economic data, I think we're missing the lead here, which is we are at the beginning of an economic boom. Again, we saw it in the GDP growth rates in Q3 and Q4 last year, over 4 % Q3, over 5 % Q4. We just had a January job report where the economy added 172,000 new private sector jobs. This blew away the expectation, which was around 70,000. At the same time, the government shed 42,000 jobs. The net of this was to bring the unemployment rate down to 4. 3 %. So I remember a few months ago, J. Cal, you were wringing your hands about the fact that the unemployment rate had ticked up. Well, now it's back down. And you're seeing a lot of jobs being created in construction, especially non-residential construction, has to do with the data centers, the AI boom that's going on, 33,000 new construction jobs in January. You've seen in In President Trump's second term, you've had 615,000 new private sector jobs have been created, while, again, like we talked about, over 300,000 government jobs have been cut, which increases the productivity of the economy, and it does what Secretary Besson says, which is reprivatize the economy.

So I just think that the overall economic news is really good. Again, we have this AI boom going on. There's a new chart showing that the CapEx for this year that's expected, just from the four leading hyperscalers, is $600 billion, just from four companies. That's a roughly 2 % tailwind to GDP growth right there. That is just the CapEx. That doesn't include all the ROI that you might get from that infrastructure on the software side, on the application side, the productivity side. So we have a boom going on, and I feel like everyone's blackpilling about this. They're focusing on this-I agree. Cbo report that has unrealistically low growth rates.

We're going to print 6%.

Right, or they're boom scrolling about Epstein or what have you. I just think when we look back on this period, it could end up being a little bit like the late '90s. Remember when we look back on the late '90s, we're like, wow, we had phenomenal economic growth.

Golden age.

Golden age. Labor participation period. The Internet.

.

Right. But if you remember what politics were like at that time period, all anyone talked about was whether Bill Clinton got a blow job from Lewinsky. So my point is just, again, I'm not sure we're focused on the right things. I suspect we'll look back on this time period as the beginning of a new golden age.

I agree.

I think you're correct. And just in terms of the hand wringing comment, anytime a statistic is 10, 15 %. I highlight it. I wouldn't use hand wringing. I would just say we generally look at that. When we went from 4. 1 %, which is where Trump inherited it, went up to 4. 5, it's about a 10 % increase in one year. If that trend were to continue, that would be notable. But to your point, it's gone down. And that is because the border, I believe the Southern border is closed. And as you're pointing out, we've got a lot of good news in the economy, so people are hiring still. And so we are in really good economic shape. I would say it's hard to deny that.

All the job creation has been enjoyed by native-born Americans as well. All the job loss has been on non-native-born Americans, which is pretty remarkable. So that, I think, is also going to accrue to the benefit of more Americans. By the way, just on the unemployment thing, there was a slight tickup in October because of the October 1 buyouts. Remember, DOGE created the buyout program?

Yes. September or October, when did they hit?

It was October first was the deadline for that. And so we had a tickup in unemployment related to that. But remember, all of those were voluntary buyouts. They all chose the DOGE option. That's what created the tickup in unemployment. But again, it was all, I think, a good and voluntary tickup. And now the unemployment rate has ticked down. So again, the job creation right now is strong.

And to just put a finer point on it, the top two areas where illegal aliens are working in the United States, most people don't know this, construction, number one. And the second one is leisure and hospitality. So you got two and a half million people working in those two categories, which is why I said, if you want to see more Americans take jobs and you want to see wages go up, if you went to those businesses and you find those businesses for hiring illegal aliens, which is the easiest thing in the world to do. You just show up at a construction site, you take pictures of everybody who is working illegally, which is what they used to do in the ICE agency. They would then do surveillance of construction sites, and then they would go and find the construction person, and then they had to hire Americans or that construction company would get in serious trouble. There's been multimillion dollar fines done over the last 20 years, specifically on construction sites, and that would drive more people to raise the wages of construction workers, which would even lower unemployment more and increase labor participation. That's where the big win is.

Go to construction sites, go to hotels.

You want ICE to randomly raid employers, construction sites, farms?

I wouldn't use the term raid. No, ICE surveil.

And just check everyone's papers. You want Surveil. You want an eye showing up everywhere, checking people's papers.

You want a police state. Number one, they're doing this already, gentlemen. This is well within their purview. Look up the legal. They have been doing this for 30 years. This is actually the technique they used before raiding cities in a chaotic They went, they surveilled, which is their right to do. They have the right to do that. I didn't say raid. I said surveil. That is a peaceful, quiet thing to do. And then they find business owners. The business owners are the people who are causing this problem. If there If there's not a job available in construction for 20, 30, 40 bucks an hour off the books and not paying taxes, those immigrants who are crossing illegally would not be here. If they couldn't get a $30 an hour off the books job working at a hotel, or as a dishwasher, they would not come. And the businesses need to stop hiring them. Exactly.

How do they, with a camera, figure out if someone's illegal? What's the camera figuring out?

Okay, so you guys, it's very simple, and I You have to read this scan first.

No. And so then you'll know who's a citizen.

I want to hear the surveil.

If you want to hear the answer and how to missinformed the three of you are and biased, I will tell you. You're all missinformed and biased.

This is what surveillance is. This is how you're going to surveil someone to figure out they're illegal.

It's It's super simple. You go to the construction site. Everybody checks in there in the morning. They have a truck. This has been done for decades, gentlemen. They take pictures of everybody. Then they go in at the end of the day after survelling for weeks, Chamal. They have done this already. This is all facts. They've had multiple cases where they go to the construction site, they take pictures, they take a video. Then they go to the business owner and say, Show us these people's pay stubs. And the business owner goes, I don't have pay stubs for these people. And they say, Okay, here's a video of them working for eight hours a day. Where's their pay stub? Show us their taxes. The businesses are paying people off the books. That is tax evasion. And then they got multimillion dollar fines. Here's a very important case. This is from back in 2017. The Justice Department and ICE went after a group which was hiring illegal aliens. This is the largest payment ever in an immigration case. 95 million recovered, 80 million criminal forfeiture, 15 million in civil payments. That represented, according to our Justice Department, in 2017, the largest ever levied immigration case.

We can solve almost all of the immigration issues, with the exception of maybe criminal gangs, just by doing basic surveillance, basic detective work, asking these businesses to show the pay stubs of the people working for them. Ice has been doing this. They've already been doing this.

Your suggestion is to do this for every company in America?

Okay, so again, you're being hyperbolic and you're not in negotiation. Which company do you choose? I said this at the top. You picked the number one employer of illegal aliens, 2. 5 million people working in construction. You start with the largest construction sites, and then you work backwards. Then you start with the largest restaurant and hotel chains and work backwards.

If Steven Miller were doing this, you'd say he's not compassionate enough.

You call him a fascist. No, I have. No, incorrect. Once again, incorrect. I have stated publicly here on the I have stated publicly on Twitter, that this is actually what Steven Miller should do, because this would go after the people who are causing the immigration problem. The people causing the immigration problem are the- Well, guess what? Hold on, let me finish that. The people causing this problem are the business owners, they are providing the incentive to come here. Steven Miller should stop doing the crazy raids, and he should go and just- You don't think it's the government benefits that are incentivizing people to come? I think that's far down the list. Two, three, four.

Far Are down the list? Yes. Is the free healthcare and the free food and the free housing?

I actually have statistics. I can give you a statistic. According to this LA Times survey, 75% of immigrants come here for better job opportunities. People coming to America illegally are coming here for economic reasons. They are not coming here to commit crimes. They are not coming here to get benefits. That is way down the list. That is a small percentage.

How is this going to deport all the gangbangers, the rapists, the murderers, the ones who aren't working on a farm? They're not doing that.

That's a total separate issue. They should go do that. That's a separate issue. They should go do those and go after anybody committing crimes.

But that is what ICE was doing. They're trying to round up the known criminals for whom they get warrants, and then they capture them and deport them. That's a separate problem.

Yeah, those are two separate problems. I'm not talking about the problem of a gangbanger.

Okay, but yeah, but we're not going to- A gangbanger.

You could do gangbangers. I'm talking about if you actually want to move big numbers, the gangbangers are a small number. The people working in construction, the people working It tells it a big number. Yeah, they're both equally important. Sacks, we're in agreement.

Okay.

Yeah. The thing we're not doing at scale is going after the businesses that are creating the incentive for the majority of people who come here. Ferrari has a new car coming in. It's going to be their first all-electric vehicle, very polarizing. Here's an illustration of the vehicle from Car and Driver. This is not the accurate one because it's going to be revealed in May, but this is what they think it's going to look like. 1,000 plus horsepower, four electric motors, zero to 60 in under 2. 5 seconds, 330-mile range. It's the heaviest Ferrari ever, 5,100 pounds compared to the iconic F40, which was but 3,000 pounds. It's going to launch in May of 2026. But we got to see the interior, and this is what everybody's buzzing about. It's gone viral on the intrawhebs. Former Apple design chief, Johnny Ive, on his team with his partner, Mark Newsom, who also designed the iconic Ford 021C concept car. We're involved in this.

What is that?

This is like if you're a car nerd, this was like this incredibly innovative moment in design that never happened, that Ford did. It looks very similar to an Apple product. Here's the key for the new Ferrari.

It looks like an animated character in cars. It does.

You have this beautiful square glass key, like an iPhone. You put it in and the yellow Ferrari yellow drains out and goes into the shifter. That was one nuance that people thought was very beautiful. The screen looks very Mac-inspired, except unlike Tesla, which is no buttons and removing buttons, they're adding buttons here and making the buttons very tactile. All the sports car enthusiasts love tactile, memory-based buttons that you can just have fun with and flip and feel like you're a fighter pilot. Finally, the turning the car on is like starting up a jet. You have a launch button, you twist and press, and it makes the whole car turn Ferrari orange or red. And yeah, that's the inside. Sacks, you're buying one? You like it? What do you think?

I saw everyone just shitting all over this design, and I thought it was a little bit unfair in the sense that I actually overall like the interior. I thought it found a compromise between, let's call it the all-glass cockpit of a Tesla versus a totally analog old Ferrari interior. Like you said, it had a combination of screens, but then also buttons. And they made a point of showing that the buttons were not only nicely tactile, but they also made pleasing sounds and that stuff. It seemed very heavy duty. So I thought the interior actually was pretty good. Again, nice balance between the interior of a race car, the simplicity of that iPad screen, but also having enough buttons that you develop muscle memory around where all the controls are. You don't have to go hunting for them through a menu. I thought the miss here wasn't on the inside. I thought it was on the outside. I hate the look of the outside of this car.

It looks to me like- By the way, just to be clear, that look is what people are projecting It's not the final version.

I think this is terrible. This, to me, looks like a Corvette, maybe, or even like a Friance AM. It looks like a Model 3. I don't like the... What's that? The black part of the front? Or even the grill. The grill, it looks and the things going on on the sides. And then the back almost looks like a hatchback or something. It's just a Ferrari should look swoopier. It should look curvier, and there should be fewer different pieces to it. A hundred %. So I don't know. It doesn't look right to me as a Ferrari, but I thought the inside actually was fine.

I like it. Chamup, you buyer. When's the last time you actually drove yourself, Sax? Have you actually used a steering wheel in the last decade? When's the last time you actually used this steering wheel?

Full The full self-driving has made me a driver again because I just set the full self-driving. Wow, you're driving yourself. It's such a game changer. Well, with FSD.

Yeah. Okay, so you're now driving around Texas.

I like it. With FSD.

Okay.

Because the Uber takes forever, so now I'm just like...

You've always liked to drive, Chamath, I think. Are you driving yourself these days?

I drive myself in a Model Y with FSD, or I take a Waymo, one of the two.

Yeah, Waymo is in the valley now, on the Pissant.

I've had Ferrari. What I would tell you is that there's just something that's very unique. There's a Ferrari experience that's different from every other car. I think that the new CEO, Benedetto Vina, is a very talented executive, and I think that he's probably going to land something beautiful. The thing is that we are racing against time, and I've said this before, but FSD and autonomy is going to shift the number of people that even know what it means to drive. It will feel like when we look at somebody who really embraces thoroughbed racing, it's just going to happen in smaller and smaller places and less and less often. And that's not because these cars aren't beautiful, but it's because the risk will not make any sense for most people under most conditions. And I think that's the big thing that's going to change. The car culture in America was a profound part of the American culture. It was driving from A to B on vacation, the sense of freedom, the building of the interstate highway system, these were huge parts of what made America great. The rails on which all this productivity sat on top of.

And now I think it's all going to change. I don't know. I think the car will probably be beautiful. Like, Ferraris are beautiful. There's a Ferrari dealership in Redwood City. And whenever I drive by it, I slow down and I look out- The They make beautiful cars.

Piece of art.

I think in places like China and India, they're always going to have a market. But I think in places like the United States, it's going to become so expensive to pay for the insurance. If you are driving yourself, that the idea that you would buy any car is going to feel tougher and tougher just because I think the math is going to be tough. But the experience inside of the Ferrari is second to none. So it probably The reality is that there's going to be a bunch of high-end cars like Ferrari, where you pay for the experience, you're in a position to pay for the car, you'll pay for the insurance.

The luxury.

All of it. And then the rest of us will be using FSD or Waymo.

A hundred %. We have two Model Ys, and we have to get another car, and it's like, Well, what else can we buy? We have no choice to either buy one of the last Xs or buy a Y.

I'm so mad. Well, deprecating the X really bought... I have a real problem now, which is I have five kids, so Yes. The X is the only car that can manage seven people. So I need a new- There is a three-row, by the way, Model Y, but it's a bit tight. It's a bit tight.

It's not good. It's a bit tight. I wish Iran would have made the minivan or the three Rho SUV. And who knows? Maybe he does someday.

When I was in Abu Dhabi, I saw my dream car. It is this Lexus minivan. And the doors open, and it's like first-class airline seats.

Yes.

And the front is completely blacked out. So you have total privacy. This car. Yes, this car. Yes.

It's not for selling US.

It's not available in America. Why is this car or minivan, whatever, not available in the United States.

I think it's the Lexus LM, and then there's the Alphrein in Japan.

Oh, my God.

It's in Sacks. It's incredible.

My favorite cars. This is the car. Can we see the interior? This is the interior.

It's two captain's chairs. It's got a full screen and divider between the two, the drivers in the front. And then you have this. Those aren't the captain's chairs. Show the captain's chairs.

There's the captain's chairs.

See those beautiful captain's chairs? They're gorgeous. It's basically like an executive van.

These are like Etihad first-class airline seats. It's unbelievable. Look at these. Look at these two seats. Un Unbelievable.

Gorgeous. You have a full monitor in front of you, David. You press a button and the monitor rises and falls so you can talk to your driver or have CNBC on.

I like getting in and out of SUVs or minivans. So easy. The height is good for me.

So easy to get. The Alfred is the other one. None of these are available in the US. These are the number one cars in China, Singapore, the Middle East. They're the best. For chauffeur-driven cars. They're incredible.

It's called what? An Alfred? What's that?

Alfred is the Toyota version, and then Lexus is obviously the higher brand of Toyota. And they make, I think it's called the LS, is the name for these. Can I get them in the US?

All right, boys. I love you very much.

That's another amazing episode of the All In podcast, 261 Weeks and Counting. Wow.

Episode 261?

It's 261.

All right, back at you.

Let's get out of here.

Love you, boys.

Love you, besties. We'll let your winners ride. Brain Man, David Sacks.

And it said, We open source it to the fans, and they've just gone crazy with it.

Love you, besties.

I'm doing all it. I'm doing all it.

What? What? What?

Your winner's Besties are gone.

That is my dog taking a relationship drive. Wait a minute.

Oh, man.

My avatars will meet me at place. We should all just get a room and just have one big huge orgy because they're all just useless. It's like this sexual tension, but they just need to release somehow.

What you're the B.

What you're the B.

We need to get merches.

I'm doing all in. All in.

I'm doing all in.