Transcript of In conversation with Mark Cuban

All right, everybody, welcome to the number one podcast in the world. Here we are on the all in podcast. We have a fifth bestie with us today. Joining David Freiburg, Chamath Pai Hapatiya, David sacks and myself is the one and the only Mark Cuban. How you doing, buddy?

What's up, guys? I'm doing great. Thanks for having me on.

Of course, of course.

Good to have you here.

Thank you. I've been practicing my virtue signaling, so I'm ready.

You ready to go?

All right, let's go.

I think we're gonna have twice the virtue signaling as normal in this episode.

Double the virtue signaling.

Do I don't virtue signal. I'll say you to anybody.

Let your winners ride rain man.

David Saxon.

And instead, we open sourced it to the fans, and they've just gone crazy with it.

Love you, queen of Quinoa.

I'm going on.

You have gotten very vocal about politics during this cycle, and you seem to be, I don't know if it's official, you know, speaking on behalf of the Kamala ticket. So why. Why are you this active? What. What is the reason that you've decided to get this active during this election?

Because I'm proud to be an American. That's exactly why. I mean, you know, we all make choices and think what's best for the country and show our patriotism in different ways. And, you know, I'm not a Democrat. I'm not a Republican. I'm an independent through and through.

Oh, my God. Like J. Cal, he's an independent, too.

Doing.

Why is it that all the Democrats are afraid to call themselves Democrats?

Well, look, I've said this many, many times. If it wasn't Donald Trump running, it was a non MAGA candidate, particularly if it was Joe Biden. Still, I'd vote Republican. I voted Republican before. If it was a non maggot candidate versus Kamala Harris, it would be, you know, let's look at the policies, let's look at the character of the people involved, and let's make a decision. It's just, Donald Trump is not a Republican. Republicans are Donald Trump. You know, the Republican Party is now the family business for Donald Trump. And to me, I just think Kamala Harris is a better choice for the country.

On a percentage basis, how often have you voted, just a level set, Democrat versus Republican, would you say out of ten elections, presidential?

Probably. I voted for George W. Twice, then I voted for Obama twice, and then I voted for Clinton and Biden. But before that, I voted for Ross Perot junior. My first vote was for a guy named something, John Anderson. So, I mean, I literally worked on Ross Perot Junior s campaign way back when.

Tell us about that. That's fascinating. He got 19% of the vote as an independent candidate.

Yeah, I was living out in LA, and this was 92, and this is when computers were relatively new. I had sold my company, and I was taking acting classes and just living by Manhattan beach and just loving life. And being from Texas, I knew people there, and they were like, look, we need somebody who understands PCs and computers and software. Can you help us? And I was like, definitely. I mean, I wasn't to the point where I was involved in his decisions, but I actually hadn't met him. My first company was a company called Microsolutions, where we did systems integrations, local and wide area network. I wrote software for single, multi user app, wide area network apps, and we literally helped Perot systems get into local and wide area networking. And so, you know, one of my favorite stories from back then is, you know, I'm terrified. I'm a 26 year old kid. I'm in Dallas. I'm going into Perot systems. I get to meet Ross Perot senior, the man, right? And I'm walking through, and he's got the original. The model for the. No, he had the original magna Carta, one of, like, the 13 Magna Carta's.

And he had the original model for the iwo Jima statue, right, with the flag up and everything. And I'm just terrified I'm gonna trip and just wipe out american history. And I walk up to him and I said, hi, mister Cuban.

Reverse that.

Yeah. You know, I was so nervous, and he, like, made fun of it and, you know, got to be friends and did a lot of business, helped those guys a lot. I made them a lot of money. They made me a lot of money.

Did you have any more interactions with them when you were on the campaign, did you get a sense of.

No, did not. No. I was just a little plebe, just trying to do little plebey stuff in Ladenhouse.

I didn't know that you took acting classes. That's interesting. Did you want to be an actor or before a businessman or what? Oh, no, no.

This was after I sold microsolutions. I bought a lifetime pass on American Airlines, moved to LA, got a place right in Manhattan beach, right on the beach. Get two flight attendants as roommates. And I was just loving life, and I was like, how else can I meet women? I'm going to take acting classes. And it was like, one of the best things I've. One of the best things I've ever done. Because, you know, being a business guy, it's always, right brain, right brain, right brain. And acting is like, don't think. Just be. Don't think. Just be. Just let it go. So it was a totally different experience, and that's why you see me do all these cameos and stuff, because I like to do it because it's the one place where you just have to completely let go, and it's a completely different approach to life. So, you know, little backstory.

Yeah, yeah. You got a good character arc on entourage. I think that was probably the best one.

Seven episodes plus the movie.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

That was.

That was a pretty memorable. So, Sachs, lead us off here. I don't know if you've been following Mark Cuban on social media at all or if you guys interact.

I can't resist asking. So is your acting as a surrogate for Kamala, is that acting, too?

No.

When they go lie. When they go low, we go high.

No, no, no. Obviously, I truly believe in it. And look, it's always relative. It's always relative to the other candidate. And so, obviously, as you guys know, I'm not a big fan of Donald Trump. I gave him a shot eight years ago. Didn't work out.

Okay, wait, wait. We get into this because you obviously have, like, a love hate relationship with Trump going back 20 something years. So let's just go through the timeline here. I'm just very.

If he was running for president and we all got together and, you know, just shot the, like we are now, he's a blast. He's fun to talk to. You know, he's got charisma, he's got personality. He's easy to like. I mean, you know, he's used to schmoozing. He's a, he's one of the world's best schmoozers. And so he's easy to get along with. It's not personal. But that doesn't mean, like, you guys with each other, it doesn't mean you can't, you know, as different things happen over time, you can't go back and forth. And, you know, he did the same thing. So the whole history of it was back right when I. We went public@broadcast.com. no, right after we announced the sale in 2002. Yeah, after we announced the sale. And January 2000, he threw a Super bowl party at Mar a Lago, and one of my buddies who knew him invited me, and I was like, cool. I'll go Mar a Lago. I hadn't seen it. Donald Trump, maybe I'll meet him. And so you guys have seen Mar a lago and beautiful pool, beautiful view. There's a veranda up there. And he had like a bunch of hooters and what's the suntan lotion?

That always had girls, whatever.

Oh, Tropicana.

Tropicana. But you.

Sun tropics.

One of those, right? And so they were all dressed in orange and they were walking around and it was just like a big deal. And it was funny as hell. And so not that that's a bad thing. It was actually kind of entertaining. And I, so he comes up to me and I'm with the vp of visa, my buddy, and Jerry Yang. I think it was, maybe it wasn't.

Jerry, but co founder of Yahoo.

Yeah, co founder of Yahoo. And he was like, hey, guys, nice to meet you. And I'm like, hey, I'm Mark. Donald. Da da da. And he just, not to be mean, just in a flipping way, he was like, hey, someday you'll be able to sit up there with the rich people pointing to the veranda and walked away. And I'm like, okay, fine, you know, whatever. And so then not long after that, through my friend, he got back in touch with me. And this is the early days of the Internet, early two thousands. And I guess still 2000. And I get an invitation to go to his office in Trump Towers. And I'm like, this is cool, of course. And he wants to talk to me about business. And I'm like, you know what? I'm Donald. I'll help you all I can. He's getting donaldtrump.com and he wants to sell tchotchkes and merchandise. I guess some things never change. And so, you know, so I'm in there trying to tell him about what you can and can't sell online and what works. And that was all fine and good. Met Ivanka. It was all really cool.

But the one thing that left me, if you've ever been or seen pictures of his office, every inch of his office is covered with pictures of him. Every single inch of the office.

What's it like meeting celebrities, right? Stuff like that?

Yeah, yeah. Or, you know, whatever covers he was on and just whatever, right? And I just remember walking through there and afterwards, you know, it was a nice meeting and we had some follow up calls and everything, but it never went anywhere in terms of the online stuff. But I just remember thinking to myself, if I ever become visible or famous, to that level. Don't let me get so caught up in just having pictures of myself. And, you know, I'd had conversations with my buddies about it, just like, you know, you guys would. And so then in 2004, I got a chance to do a show called the benefactor.

ABC called me and said, okay, let's show this. We have this. This was got tweeted. So.

So this is.

You did oppo research, Sachs. You got oppo research.

This is on Twitter.

Every.

Stuff. So anyway, so when I got the gig, he was like, congratulations, good luck, and everything. I was like, thank you, and whatever. And then when I got canceled, he sent me that letter basically saying, you suck. And so.

Well, he was. He was dancing on the grave of your show, but. So you're saying you didn't have beef with him before that letter?

No, it's not a beef. No. Yeah, it was not a beef, but it was just like, that's what it was. And so it was just like, okay, whatever. And, okay.

But then when he ran in 2016, you were supportive. Can we show that? Let's show the.

Wait, wait.

There's more in between.

There's more in between. There's a lot more between.

Okay. Okay.

So that's 2004, 2007. Eric reaches out to me and goes, hey, there's no hard feelings with my dad or anything. And I'm like, no, I don't care. He goes, we're working with these russian MMA fighters, this guy named Fedor Emilianko, who was, like, one of the best ever at that point in time, and Josh Barrett. And kind of the irony of all this is we were competing with Danae, Dana White, and the UFC in some respects, because a lot of fighters felt like they weren't getting paid enough. There was no healthcare. There was no nothing, right? And so I had a tv network. We had started the first all high definition tv network called HDNet back in 2000, back when tvs cost $20,000. And everybody thought we were idiots, but slowly but surely, it was taking off. And so they came to me and said, we like to put. We're partnering with these guys who are putting on the. This MMA fight with Fedor and Josh Barrett and some other folks. And we'd like to broadcast it on HDNet because we had a show called this week in MMA. So we were promoting. We had fights that we were already putting on every Friday night.

So it actually was a good fit. So you'll see pictures of me sitting with them, and actually, I couldn't find it. I was so pissed because I was going to with him some more. What he said during the time we were sitting at that podium was everything Mark Cuban touches turns to gold. And so I was like, that would have been so great to have out there. And so in any way. So we were friends again. And so it's 2007 and we're friends, and nothing happens between then until whenever he started going crazy on Twitter and all the Obama stuff and everything and the birth certificate and the birth of stuff. So he's on Twitter, and he started with me. I say that. So let me just preface this by saying I golfed once in my life in 1989, and I hated it so bad. I was throwing clubs. Cause I'm one of those really super competitive guys. I'm like, never again. But I went and worked. I auctioned off myself to be a caddy at a golf tournament that he also was at. But he starts tweeting that I saw Mark Cuban, and he swings like your girl and this and that.

His swing is like your girl. Like, nobody saw me swing. Cause I don't golf. And so I started back with him. And so we went back and forth on Twitter for years. For years. And then he comes down the escalator in 2015, and I'm like, all right, this guy's got no chance to win. But I think it's great because I don't like traditional politicians. I'm not, you know, there's nothing about me that thinks that the way we do politics or the way the government is run is a good thing. Not at all. I mean, my heart is libertarian, but I realize you can't. Libertarians are not problem solvers or ideologues. You know, like, you look at Rand Paul, everything's only one way. He doesn't try to solve problems. So anyways, I digress. So he comes down, I'm like, that's cool, right? He doesn't have a chance to win. But I'm like, he's the best thing to ever. You know? You know how, you know, I forget where I was, but I was like, he's the best thing that ever happened to politics. He's not a politician. He's not going to be a step forward candidate.

I may not agree with his positions, but, you know, just the fact that he's not a politician is a good thing. And so from there, he called me and we talked a lot, probably ten to 15 times on the phone. He would call me, you know, any tweeted. One time Mark Cuban was trying to come. I never had a number. There was no way for me to call him. Right. He would, you know, and you know the way he emails, he refuses to send an email because he doesn't want any proof of anything he's done. Right. And so, you know, he would write it up like you had one of those pictures. So bring up the one on the CNN where he says what happened? So right there, CNN nasty, what happened? See, see what he does there? His email. He writes on a piece of paper and then someone scans it and sends it as an image via email. And so what happened?

Just so the audience can understand. So the email is from you to him saying tell the boss I said congrats on his sweep. And then his assistant printed it out and then wrote back to you. And like this is one of many.

Emails that we went back and forth on.

But just to be just as a weird point, he literally prints out his emails, writes on them, has them scanned in and sent as an image to you, mark. Wow. So are you on CNN nasty? Whatever.

How did he send this to you? He mailed this to you or what?

It an image.

He doesn't use email. I mean the guy, no, no, it's just a different generation.

Held it back right as, so he.

Writes on the piece system, prints it out. He reads it, writes on it. She scans it. She scans the, sends the image to me. Officially the big question there. But you can't just let that slide. Why do you think he does that?

Is this a different generation? No, that's my interpretation.

No, absolutely not.

Nope. I'm with Mark. You don't want paper trials. No, because he portrayed so much shady stuff, man.

I think you're reaching there. Obviously there's a paper trail. If he writes it on a piece of paper, hold on. If I write right now on a post it notes, scan an email to you, there's a paper trail.

No, no, there. You can't search for it and it's not his, you know. Yes. To your point, he's, I'm just telling you he won't send emails at all.

He doesn't want anything created an electronic record. What's the difference?

You have to ask him on that.

But he's generational. This is my interpretation.

I think he has literally said it out loud that he doesn't want a paper trip. But anyway, so let's go back. So now we're talking back and forth and we're having legit conversations. I remember asking him, you realize as president you're going to have to make decisions where people can die. And he really wouldn't respond. Yeah, I get it. I get it. I'm like, donald, you don't have a ground game. What are you going to do? How are you going to get through this and beat him? Yeah, I got the evangelicals doing all that. I'm not worried about it. I'm like, Donald. And I would bring up things about, there was this one thing where the FBI used this device to break into an iPhone and there was a big thing about privacy. And I tried to engage him on a conversation on it, and it's just like, I don't know, just didn't want to talk about that at all. And that would happen multiple times where I would try to engage in conversations about some type of policy and it never got anywhere. And there was never a conversation. And I said to him, I'm saying there's another email where I said, donald, at some point you have to learn these things.

You literally have to learn these things in order to be president. And he didn't respond to that. And that's when I went on CNN and I said, basically, look, I liked guy, but he's not learning. He doesn't make any effort to learn anything. And I think that carries on till this day because you can't look at things he says and say, that's really an in depth response or that's a nuanced response. And so that's what I said on CNN. And that led to the image that you guys posted.

So that was the falling out of.

That was the falling out?

Yeah, or maybe, but it wasn't a complete fallout.

Just to finish this up.

You want me to continue? So it's not a complete falling out because after that, he gets elected. I sent him a congratulatory message and I say, congrats, you know. You know, if I can ever help, I'm happy to. And so when they were starting to look at replacing the ACA, I was starting to get into healthcare and being excited about healthcare. And so they invited me to the White House. And I spoke to Jared, I spoke to this woman named Brooke Rollins, I think her name is. And I spoke to a whole group of people. I went to CMS and I spoke to the head of the agency, I spoke to the head of CMS, all talking about this thing I created called the ten plan, which is a means tested ability to support anyways. And so they brought me back in. And then when the pandemic hit, I sent them some ideas on backstopping bank accounts and credit card accounts so everybody doesn't just default and he had Mnuchin call me. And then when they had with the pandemic, he connected with Peter Navarro. And I worked with him and actually found a company here, actually outside of Fort Worth that I put together with them.

And I helped that company increase their output. And Peter Navarro worked with them closely, and we really made a dent in all the PPE issues. And he invited me to the White House, and then I went to the White House one time, went into the Oval Office, and there's pictures of me talking. And again, I tried to explain the healthcare stuff. He just wasn't having any type of in depth conversation. He wanted to tell me about how much money he saved from Boeing, how many billions in this and that. And then it was a short conversation. And then Al was leaving, he goes, look, are you still on that show? And he goes, I'm like, yeah, shark tank. He goes, yeah, that's Baron's favorite show. And then as I'm leaving further, he goes, wait a minute. I really like that suit. So, you know, and, you know, he's called me since, not since he left the White House, but, you know, in the, you know, later in his tenure at the White House and invited me to dinner. I mean, and so it's not like we left as foes, and it's not like I don't like him.

I just don't think he's the best person to be president. I don't think he was a good person.

So let's just test that. How would you think about the four years that he was president? In hindsight, what would you say was done well? What would you say was done poorly? Just those two things.

I think the way he dealt with the zeitgeist isn't the right word. Just the vibe of the country was really, really, really bad. I think the hate that he conveyed, I think the fact that what he tweeted negatively so companies didn't know what was coming next. You know, he tweeted negatively about me. He tweeted negatively about other people. I thought that was a real bad thing. When the BLM protests happened and turned into riots when they went into Minnesota, he was like, when the looting starts, the shooting starts, who the says that as a president? And so we had more people die during riots during his term than Biden by a long shot. And I think he misrepresented where he stood in terms of being anti war. If you go back to 2019 and look at the war in Yemen, there were hundreds, at least 100,000 people plus died. And there was a bipartisan resolution to say, we're not selling any more to the Saudis, we're not selling any more weapons to the Saudis. And a bipartisan resolution, including Mark Meadows and Rand Paul and others said, passed it. And it went to his desk and he said, we're still going to sell these munitions and these weapons to Saudi Arabia even though these people continue to die.

So when we talk about it's not all that much different than Ukraine in some respects, only Saudi Arabia got the Glengarry leads and Ukraine got our old stuff and we replaced it. And so when he comes out now and says, look, you know, I'm against all wars. There were no wars. That's bullshit. Right? The mainstream media.

Well, okay, so there's two things there. So just on the 2020 riots, I don't know how you blame Trump. Trump for the BLM riots of summer, for the riots.

What I said was how he dealt with it.

I get you don't like the mean tweets. I get. I totally get.

No, don't diminish it, David. Don't diminish it is just mean tweets. People pay attention. What happens. And when you are have people whose.

Lives are, I think it's far worse to actually have riots going on in the streets. That's what needed to be controlled. How many people wanted to hold on? He wanted to send in the National Guard to Minnesota. It was actually waltz who rejected the National Guard.

He had no problem.

And there were plenty of ties between, there were plenty of ties between democratic activists and the BLM organizers of those riots. Time magazine did my story on that.

I'm not saying he's at fault that.

The riots happened, but I can't believe they're using the riots throughout the summer of 2020 as an argument against Trump when it was the left.

No, I think what he's saying is the leadership that he shows is of low moral character.

Did he do anything right? Mark?

Speaker one. Well, I'm not done with the wrong stuff. Okay, but wait, there's more, right?

Let's go back to the foreign policy for a second. Trump is correct that he did not start any new wars during his presidency. You agree with that, right?

That no new war started or he didn't start any.

He didn't start any. He was like the first president in 20 years not to start a new war.

Well, he inherited some for sure.

And he inherited Syria and Afghanistan and he wanted to get out and the generals didn't let him.

And there wasn't really a war that happened in Turkey. And then when we got shut down, he didn't know there wasn't really a war. I'll agree with that.

He did start, that's his argument, is that he did not start any new wars.

Has Biden started, Eddie?

Well, I would argue that Biden provoked the proxy war in Ukraine. Yes. I mean, you can disagree whether he provoked or not, but there's no question the US has been deeply involved, involved in a war with Russia in Ukraine.

And what I'm saying is the corollary that the analogy to that is what happened in Yemen and that we had a chance to get out of Yemen and reduce the death in Yemen, much like they're talking about getting us out of the, out of Ukraine now. And we had the opportunity to stop selling weapons. But he looked the best I could tell he looked at it as a sales opportunity to sell to MBS all these weapons, and he thought that was a positive. A lot of people died and we're still in there today. So it's not. He had a chance to get us out and he did not. So I'm not arguing that he's perfect and Biden's perfect and it's tit for tat. It just is what it is. I'm just saying, making this statement of fact, you know, and that's it.

Yeah. Okay. Well, look, we did support the Saudis in their war with, with, with Yemen.

So wait, let me give you the.

One last thing and then we'll keep going.

So then I'll go to some positives. So the next thing. And you can actually trace that Yemen war. I can't say you actually, I'm a little bit hyperbole, but I can trace that from that Yemen war to the start of inflation. And here's how I explained that. And so in Yemen, he did a deal for his boy in Saudi Arabia and sent them all the weapons. In 2019, fast forward one year and you're in May, no, 8, April, let's say, of 2020, and you're looking at the price of gas, the lowest it's ever been. The price of oil just collapsing. At one point, people were paying you to take their oil. And so there was an opportunity. He made a decision because there was a situation that came up. The oil companies came in and said, this price of oil being so low is killing us. Right. We're losing a lot of money. We anticipate losing more because with the pandemic now starting, demand is dropping like a rock. And so he, and that was coming from the oil companies. And so what he did, he said, okay, MBS owes me a favor over in Saudi Arabia.

That's the connection. And Putin's my boy. I'm going to go to them and ask them to reduce production. Now, what happens to the price of gas when the largest producers of, largest producers of oil and energy decrease their production, the price starts going up and up and up. And so you can track the increase in the price of gas and how that impacted the price of goods the entire time that the production from the 10% reduction until they increase it like 300,000 barrels a day for two years.

What is your argument here? You're saying Trump caused the inflation?

Yes. And I'm explaining to you I'm getting the mainstream media.

First of all, by the way, the war in Yemen started on March 26, 2015, according to chat DPT, which is under Obama. No, I started under Obama.

That's fine. But he had a chance. He was asked to end it by Congress. He was, that we were sending, he was selling $660 billion, I don't know the number, I can't remember exactly, in weapons to Saudi Arabia.

And he, there was a, the fact that we had 9% inflation in 2022. So two years after Trump loses office, how in the world is Trump responsible for that and not biden?

HaRris so glad you asked that because the mainstream media never talks about this stuff. And so she had a little dig there. So Trump goes in and says, we're going to cut the production by 10%. Demand is still relatively low. But, you know, in April, may, June, as people start venturing outside their house into the end of 2020, the end of this term, that there's an increase in demand. But the increase in demand, the increase in production doesn't match the increase in demand. They limited as part of this deal that Trump put together between Russia and Saudi Arabia. And that led to other people in OPEC plus participating, they only increased the production of oil by 300,000 barrels a day, which didn't keep up with the amount of demand that was happening. That started increasing the price of gas. That price of gas, gas continued to increase for the two years this program was in place. This program wasn't like, let's just cut it for 60 days and go back at it. It wasn't, let's just do this for 90 days. Let's just do this during the Trump administration. No, no, no, no. This deal went before they got, it took two years before they got back to pre pandemic levels of production.

And so listen to what Trump says. About drill, baby, drill. Why does he say, drill, baby, drill? Will lead to lower costs, because oil and energy costs are part of everything. And you know what matches up perfectly? What matches up perfectly is that 9.1% in 2022 and the day that that agreement ended, where MBS and Russia limited production, that agreement ended it like this. If you did your little Venn diagram at like. And increased production, decreased production, bam. That is the answer to your question.

So, just to summarize what you. The argument that you don't like about him is you got to know him like many people do. You worked with him on projects, and, like Pence Barr, Mateus Tillerson, Bill Barr and Mike Cohen and the Mooch Omarosa, you realized, this person is out for themselves. They don't care about the people they work with. And you fell out of. Of friendship with him or whatever. There's a long list of people who don't. Who worked with him, who think he's an idiot and don't like him. Now you're on that list.

Yeah, I mean, I don't think he's an idiot.

I'm not saying that's my position. I'm just summarizing it.

Look, I don't think he's an idiot.

Your position.

No, he's one of the greatest salespeople ever. He's one of the greatest, you know, motivators in terms of crowd motivation ever.

But can I just.

Junior. He's Roy Cohn Junior. That is who he is. If you read books about Roy Cohen, everything Roy Cohen says to do, tracing back to the McCarthy hearings in 54, everything Roy Cohen says to do, that is exactly what Donald Trump does.

I just want to paint this thing, and then I'd like to hear the glass half full version to the extent you have one. But basically, I just want to understand. So, my understanding was, in 2020, what happened was not that Saudi Arabia and Russia were cooperating to cut prices, but they got into a fight because it wasn't really Saudi, but it was OPEC, which includes OPEC plus, OPEC plus versus Russia. And we initiated against them, which they counteracted a price war.

They initiated against. So Saudi Arabia initiated against Russia.

But what I'm. So what I'm trying to understand is there's a war in Yemen.

Right.

We don't stop the armaments of Saudi. And I guess what you're saying is that then triggered an OPEC.

No, no. What I'm saying is Russia, yes. Owed Trump one. MBS owed Trump one. So MBS starts the price war with Russia one year later, and the oil companies come to Donald and say, look, were getting destroyed. Demand is dropping. Theyve increased because of this price war between Saudi Arabia and Russia. Saudi Arabia decides to take it to Putin and increases their production significantly. So in order to keep their revenues up, Russias got to do the same thing. Meanwhile, all the demand is dropping because of the pandemic. And so Donald gets asked by the insurance company, the oil companies, to go to MBS and to Putin and say, we need to stop this price war. We need to reduce production. And to his credit, if you think that's a positive, to Trump's credit, he did it. And so by reducing production over a plan of two years, and you can go look at the production numbers. Right? And when that stuck, by doing that, that increased the price of gas, the price of oil, the price of energy. And that was bad for american consumers who utilize gas, pay for gas for their cars. Really bad for him.

But he decided to work with his oil company buddies and protect them. You can say that's a good decision or bad decision. Maybe it's strategic. He really felt they could go out of business, and he wasn't willing to give them money to help them. But the bottom line was that that matches up exactly to that 9.1% that David Sachs mentions. It also matches up to, okay, does he fully support the oil companies over the price of gas? And will that influence what he will do as president again? So when he says, I'll just get out of Ukraine, depends on who's making the money and where it is. When he says, I'm going to get people to drill, baby, drill. Well, we already learned a lesson.

Wait, hold on a second.

Wait.

Sorry.

Okay, so, like, this is very hard to. Hold on a second. This is very hard to fact check in real time, because I've never heard this theory before.

We can have a theory on the pod. Let me try to point.

The point is that, you know, this is, like, totally novel. I don't even think I've heard you make this theory on x before.

Okay. Hasn't been able to get involved.

Let's have freeburg ask a question, basically cite this nonsense. Then I don't get to interrogate it a little bit.

Nonsense, David.

You know, but I just wanted to include Freeburg in the discussion.

Let me ask.

Go chat, GPT, go google it. Go look it up however you want.

Okay, what about the fact that Biden's first day in office, he cancels the Keystone pipeline and a bunch of leases? Is he makes it harder to drill in the United States, so he reduces the ability for domestic producers to produce. You don't think that that would have an impact?

Yeah, but it wasn't on the price. It wasn't on the price of gas. Because the price of gas is a global phenomenon. Right. The price of oil, rather, is a global phenomenon. It's, we are the largest producer of energy in the world, but we're still only about 13%, I think it is. Don't quote me on that. But that's, that's a range. And so the other 87% has more of an impact. And even to that, there was still an unlimited amount of drilling available on public lands and leases available that weren't fully used. Now that said, I think Biden did mistakes, did make mistakes.

Okay.

Yeah.

So wait, okay, guys, hold on. Let's just finish one thing before the other. I would just like an answer of what is the good and the bad of Donald Trump? And then what I was going to ask you is what was the good and the bad of Biden? I just want those answers.

Just give me 1 second. Can I just ask, make one comment? I've been here for like 40 minutes. I want to respond to the inflation point. Mark, I just shared two images. First was the us crude oil production chart. And more than half of this oil is exported. So you can see the reduction in production. But the domestic oil production capacity remained high relative to our consumption. So us consumption, if oil was the biggest driver, it really would have affected the profits of the exporting companies, not necessarily the cost of energy domestically. I will, however, point out that the federal balance sheet, the Federal Reserve's balance sheet swelled during COVID from $4 trillion to $8 trillion.

Pull up.

And as we all know, there was significant fiscal stimulus, meaning the federal government.

Bought a tummy charge. David, I just think it was the only cause.

Well, I would argue that flooding the world with dollars, which is what the Federal Reserve did because they bought up all the bonds as the federal government started to issue money in lots of different ways, caused the supply of dollars to go up, which causes the cost of anything that's dollar denominated to grow up. And I think many economists would argue and make the case that the fiscal policy and the monetary policy of the federal government and the federal Reserve is largely to account. And I'm not going to use the word blame, but to account for the inflation we saw in the cost of everything from energy to production to labor to assets.

And so they're not mutually exclusive, they're not mutually exclusive.

They're not. But there was also significant, as we can all acknowledge, massive. In a dynamical system, global supply chains are a dynamical system. Stuff is made in one place, moved to another place. When one thing breaks or it goes down, it all breaks. And we had a massive shortfall. Goods around the world. And that was the biggest driver of the inflationary effect that we saw on the.

I agree 100%. But even if you go back to those, the first two charts you put up, it matches up with exactly what I said. Production went down, demand went up, and the net result was that price of gas went up. And price of gas is in everything. Is it the only cost?

No. Production went down. Everything. Not just energy, but everything. And not because of energy, but because of a lot of other reasons. And then we had a whiplash problem where we had over demand relative to the natural, and none of the production systems could keep up with demand stimulus.

I agree 100% with you. All I'm saying. You can try to trace it back to maybe it's 1% of the price, maybe it's 3% of the price, maybe whatever the percentage is, I'm not saying it's exclusive, but you can trace it back to the decision being made to support the energy companies and say we are going to reduce production rather than just letting the market play out and saying, well, let gas prices stay as low as they are based off of supply and demand. Now, do I agree with you that supply chain disruption, transitory.

Yes, of course. Monetary policy, like stimulating the world economy by pouring a ton of money out. That's never happened in history, right?

For sure. 100%.

The question is, and before Larry Summers was wrong, when in Q one, the first quarter of the Biden Harris administration, Larry Summers warned that if you pass another 2 trillion of COVID stimulus like they were planning to do, that could set off inflation, that we were on the brink.

He said that he did make that declaration again against his own party, Mark. And he said, this is the wrong thing as a Democrat, he said this is the wrong thing to do. And they went forward with what they plan to do for various reasons. Some would argue political, some would argue that they thought it was the right thing to do, and the effect was precisely as Larry had predicted.

Yeah.

Kamala Harris cast the tie breaking vote for that inflation Explosion act, otherwise known as the American Rescue, otherwise known as the American Rescue Plan.

Here's the.

Actually, I agree with Fredberg, 100%, the.

Cause of this massive 20% inflation we've had over Biden's four years is a secret deal between Trump and mbs. And, like, Putin's in there somewhere.

You can dismiss it all you want, David.

Just look at the data and look.

At the numbers, and they match up to Freiburg's point. Is it the only thing that caused inflation? Of course not. When you spend too much money, when you inflate the economy, when you have supply chain disruption, all those things contribute. But we're also not having the conversation to say, okay, how much of the supply chain disruption contributed to inflation? Was it 3% of that 20%? Was it 5%? Was it 7%? Was it 1%? We don't know. It's impossible.

It's all the funding. The supply on the supply chain was constrained during COVID and it was healing. It was getting better. And then they pumped all the stimulus and everyone got these levels set with.

Let me just level say, Marcus, opinion.

Let's leave the opinion. I'm just really curious. I just want the high level report card on the last two presidents. What is the high level report card?

Mark, to put a cap on this, just for the audience here, is our national debt over the two presidencies, the two terms. And as you can see, with the taking out, the bump for Covid, it's pretty much, they're both wild spenders. I think we can all agree they both are spending too much money and we need to have more fiscal discipline. We all agree on that. Now, to Chamath's point, it's steel, man. Anything you like about the trump presidency. And then we'll go to Kamala.

I mean, I think there was good elements of the tax cut. I think he went too far, but I think they needed to come down from 35%, whatever the corporate rate. 35%, I think, was corporate. That was too expensive. It made it difficult for us to compete globally. And I thought bringing down cap gains, again, I forget exactly what they were. Maybe 29%. I forget. Was also smart, but I think he went too far. But you can argue that there's no right answer on what that is going to be. It's a guess, right? You just put it out there and you hope what you. What you plan and what you propose and what is implemented works, and you don't know until it does. So I didn't. I didn't have a problem with him trying that.

Yeah. 35 to 21. You got it exactly right.

Yeah.

You've acknowledged that Kamala's unrealized gains tax is a disaster.

Well, I'll acknowledge that it's not real. And you're making it up that you've.

Never heard or say that I made it up.

Up.

Yeah, you made up her in the Biden, the last Biden Harris budget. It was in the Harris platform at the DNC.

It was the biden platform at the DMC. Talk about it.

They did a search place on his name and put her name in there.

But you're reaching, David. You're reaching, right? You've never heard her talk about it at all. She's been very specific that cap gains goes to 28%.

Speaker one, what has Biden done well? And what has he not done well? And then the follow up question is, if it were an open democratic primary, would you have voted for Kamala Harris?

I don't know. But then again, if Donald Trump participated in the debates on the republican primary, in the republican primary, would you have voted for Donald Trump?

You know, you're saying it's analogous. The Republicans had an open primary.

No, but they did competed.

Nikki Haley competed that an open primary.

Trump was 50.

Hold on a second. Trump, Trump. Trump was 50 points ahead. Maybe he should have debated. I don't know. I mean, look, I would have been in favor of him debating, but he was 50 points ahead and everybody had a chance to run it. Let me finish and you can get your response.

Okay.

The Democrats pretended that Joe Biden was just fine, that he was sharp as attack, that he was the best version of Joe Biden. And when the primary came and you had outsiders like Bobby Kennedy try to compete, not only did he, not only did Biden not debate, they basically used lawfare to keep Bobby Kennedy off the ballot. They did not allow him a fair shot at the nomination, which is why he had to leave the party and run as an independent. Then we find out after the debate that actually Biden is not fine. He actually appears to be in significant cognitive decline. So somehow Nancy Pelosi gets him out of there, and then Kamala Harris is anointed. She's never won a primary vote, ever. In 2020, she ran and dropped out before the first primary. And then this time around, she never had to compete in the primary. And so the question is, I don't think. Well, the question is, how can you liken this to what the Republicans did, having an open and competitive primary?

So, first of all, the Republicans did not have an open and competitive, keyword, competitive primary, because if one of the candidates refuses to participate because they have a lead, look what happened to Joe Biden. For all we know, Vivek. Vivek would have destroyed Trump as much as Trump destroys, destroyed Joe Biden. Nikki Haley would have destroyed Trump as much as Joe. Donald Trump destroyed Joe Biden.

I was supporting DeSantis at that time, and it was definitely DeSantis would have crushed him, too.

Right?

They, all their names were on the ballot. You're talking about a very.

Do you think DeSantis, Nikki, Halley or Vivek would have beaten Trump in a debate?

No, I think when. If you look them. Okay, well, hold on. I'm saying it's unclear. I don't think you can just say that they would have won. I mean, Trump.

So that means it's not a truly competitive.

Speaker one, Trump, when Trump was in a crowded republican field and debated, he crushed everybody. So I just don't know what would have happened.

Speaker one, that was 26 debate.

This is just debate. Okay, what about the point that the Democrats kept other contenders off the ballot? They used lawfare and moreover, they lied about Biden's cognitive condition, and then they anointed Kamala Harris through a process that is opaque and we still don't know what happened.

Okay, so here's my answer. Right, first, going back to Republic, it wasn't a competitive primary if the contender doesn't participate. And yes, he did well against 15 other candidates in 2016, but I'd be willing to bet that he's also had cognitive decline. Everything he says and does is reflective of that. If Joe Biden had said the same thing, we would be having a lot of. We would, we don't judge Donald Trump and his cognitive ability the way we did Joe Biden. Okay, so we'll put that behind. Now let's go to Joe Biden.

Do you think Democrats lied about Biden's condition? Let's just, I'm going to tell you.

My personal experiences with Joe Biden. Right. I didn't talk to him a lot, twice during that period. And I can tell you from the first time I saw him, a year before the last time I saw him, which was, you know, probably in March or April, I forget there was a decline. But the decline was in his sharpness. Right. His quickness of response. If you sat down and you listened to him speak about something, which I did, he wasn't forceful. He wasn't, you know, he looked like a walking corpse. He looked awful. Right. But in terms of content, it was there. And so I understand why they positioned him the way they did. It's just to sell. It was impossible. So that's part one. So I don't think the decline is nearly what you're saying it is, but I do agree.

Why did they get rid of him? Why did they get rid of him?

Okay, so now we're moving forward, right? His ability to respond in real time. You slow down. We all slow down. Right? I'm 66 years old, and I've slowed down versus where I was at 45, you. So, you know, at 81 and at 78, you are going to be slower. Joe Biden just was not as quick. That was a real problem. He got destroyed in the debate by Trump because of that. Not because he didn't know the. The materials and the content, but he just couldn't respond and think fast enough. So I think that's where the misunderstanding is. It's not that he had cognitive decline in the pure sense. It's that his ability to respond quickly was gone, and he looked like he had cognitive decline. So now let's go forward to the Democratic National Convention and right before that, where they replaced it, I was curious about just the mechanics of the whole thing. So, being the curious person I am, I went and pulled up the bylaws and the rules of the democratic party and the Democratic National Convention, and they reset those every four years prior to them pulling out. And it's very, very clear that the only mission and the only task, and it's pretty much the same in the Republicans.

I looked at theirs, too. The only mission is to win. You want to win the presidency, you want to have control of Congress. That's all they care about. And they give themselves every bit of flexibility to do whatever they damn well please to put themselves in that position. They are a private party.

Are they the party? Are they the party, then, of democracy, as they claim to be, or are they the party of winning it all?

So now you're trying to, you know, play branding games, right?

Is Starbucks saying that they're rhetorically did. There were 14 million primary voters in the democratic primary.

Speaker one. That's the mainstream media discussion of this, right? They say there's 14 million voters. I say Trump didn't debate at all. There was zero debates with Donald Trump.

Which one primary, though, people got to vote for their candidate, but it's not.

An open primary because it's Donald Trump's family business. He controlled what happened in the.

Yeah, listen, I mean, I was, again, I was supporting someone different during the primary. And the reason why DeSantis loss is he didn't get enough votes. Okay.

They're missed an opportunity.

Donald Trump. That's why I bet you won the primary fair and square. Whether he debated or not, he was up 50 points on everybody else.

And I bet, and I don't know.

What happened with Biden. What happened is, David, let me finish. The democratic primary. He got 14 million votes. And then they threw at that, threw out that result and put in Kamala Harris because they didn't like his.

We were in a fraternity.

What's that?

We ever. In a fraternity? We ever ended.

No.

Okay. In a fraternity, they get to vote on all kinds of. But at the end of the day, if the chapter that the national organization says no. Right. Doesn't matter who won the election.

Right. So you're saying the Democratic Party is a click. I get it. It's just, I think we're talking.

Let me get, let me regain control here. Just to, just recap.

You're just talking branding. You can brand it however you want.

No, the Democrats say they're the party. The Democrats.

I'm not a Democrat. I don't care what they do. I don't care.

You're supporting them.

You're supporting Kamala Harris.

Acknowledge, hold on. Can you just acknowledge that their rhetoric is hypocritical?

I don't care what the rhetoric is. I don't pay attention. I don't pay attention to their rhetoric.

We're not going to get progress. I really want to hear what Mark thinks. Yes.

Ok, here we go.

Forward. Move forward.

Ok. Two things seem to be true at the same time. If I'm recapping your position here, Mark. One, you would have liked to see Trump debate. Two, I think you would have loved to see a speedrun primary. Perhaps, maybe Kamala, you know, battled it out.

I honestly didn't care. I went once. Donald Trump was the candidate. I wanted the best person to beat Donald Trump. That's what I cared about.

Let me go back to my question. So I'm just going to give you a succinct summary of Mark Cuban's position, his evaluation of the Trump presidency. The positives were tax cuts and warp.

Speed and Operation Warp speaker one, warp speed.

The negatives were continuing the war in Yemen when they had a chance to, and then this.

And actually, the negative wasn't so much that, sorry, Tramath. The negative wasn't so much. He continued it. The negative is the hypocrisy and his opponent.

Okay, right in the style.

Okay, now the tone and style of how he governed.

Can we do Biden? What are the things that Biden and Harris did well that have helped the country and what are the things that they could have done better did not do?

So I'll start with the negatives first. So just so you know that there's a lot of them. One, the way they handled the border was horrific. There's no way to, you know, to say it any differently now. I understand why they took the approach they did. Literally, if I were in a Central, a central american country and my family was at risk of getting shotgunned because there's a drug war, I'm doing everything I can. And I recognize, you know, that if I just set foot on american soil, I have a chance for asylum. And I get that and I get why Biden and his administration might say just for humanitarian reasons, we're going to increase the number of people that we allow to do that. I understand why he would do it, but at the same time, he opened the door too wide and he made it so that there were too many people that came through and that created cascading problems. Now, to his credit, back in June, I think it was, he signed an executive order, which he now has made permanent or as permanent as you can as president, that changed that.

There's no longer the option to just set foot on american soil and be eligible for a hearing for asylum. You can't do that any longer. And to her credit, she worked with the head of the mexican government, and they have taken steps to reduce the flow of people to the border. And so now the number of encounters at the border is about the same as what it was right before the pandemic under the Trump administration. So while he was too long to do it, while he handled it incorrectly, overall and messaging was horrible. I think they got to the right place. But now we have a problem, right, that he created where we have too many non citizens, illegal aliens, however you want to call them, however you want to brand them, and we have to understand how to deal with them. Them, I think that they have talked about, Kamala has talked about first, and even JD Vance said this first. We're going to get rid of the criminals, which makes sense. But Donald Trump says we're just going to deport everybody, any illegal. We're just going to deport them. Now, Obama was the deporter in chief.

He deported more people than Trump or Biden, over 3 million people. But he had a specific process in place that everybody could understand. And I think with Trump, remember that Orion Gonzalez kid, the six year old kid in Miami, Elian Gonzalez, right. Where all of a sudden you had these cops with riot gear on and machine ar 15s or whatever they use, pointing them at a six year old kid cowering in a closet. If Donald Trump does that, and that's not contrary to how he approaches things, we could have another series of riots and protests that go really, really bad. And so while I think Biden handled things completely wrong at the beginning, I think with Harris now, and she's saying she'll support the immigration bill that was bipartisan, et cetera, et cetera. You guys know that. I think she has a more common sense approach to dealing with deportations and getting people through the asylum system and the asylum. That bill, I think, said that it would reduce the amount of time to adjudicate asylum to 90 days, which means that there's a chance to get control of this before it turns into a rocket.

So that was border was bad. Anything else bad, or should we shift to the good?

I think the spending was bad. I think that we overspent. And I think we went through a period where, and I'm not trying to make excuses for him, I just think you guys mentioned this before, he did overspend. And I think the infrastructure bill was good. I think the broadband bill was good. And everybody says we spent $42 billion on broadband and got nothing. We should have gone to Starlink. But the reality is the money went to the states, and they could buy a starlink from Elon all they want. So that's just kind of the mainstream media poo pooing something they shouldn't poo poo. But the EV stuff, the EV chargers, that's a cluster, you know, and there's no way around that. And so I think that was bad.

So pork barrel spending, basically unaccountable spending.

Yeah. No, I think what they did in healthcare, you can take Linacon and say what she's doing for the mergers, Alberson's and Kroger's. I think it's too much. I think. And I even told her this. I sat on a panel sitting right next to her, and I said, the most important thing from a technological perspective in this country today is that we win AI. That is going to find everything militarily for us and economically for us, and that when you try to break up companies like Google and Facebook, you diminish our ability to compete globally with AI. And she told me now that she didn't impact her at all, that she understands that, and she's heard that before. I think their approach to that is wrong. I think that what she's done with the FTC against pharmacy benefit managers has been good. Right. Pharmacy benefit managers are ripping off more companies and costing and increasing the cost of medications more than anything else that's happening in healthcare. And she's called them on the carpet with a recent report and just sued them. I think that's good. I think in terms of other negatives, like Kamala Harris now, I think the filibuster, I think that's a mistake to try to get rid of the filibuster because then somebody else gets rid of it for something else.

And it's just cascading problems. On spending we talked about, I think.

He spent too much time and what have they done?

Well, I think he changed the tone of the country. I think that was really, really important. No one woke up. David calls it mean tweets, but not waking up concerned about mean tweets is important. Important. Not waking up concerned about there being some random tariff on your company that you didn't expect, not waking up being accused of doing something. I think those were all huge positives. I think supporting workers. I think just having just a sensibility of, okay, we're not in the middle of everything. There just wasn't this uncertainty, like every single day that every business woke up with Trump just removing that was the biggest positive of all.

So let's look forward now to a Kamala Harris candidacy for president of the things. So we know the Donald Trump track record because he gets the credit for the things he got. Right. And he has to take ownership of the things.

But how it's been defined. I'll use the Yemen example again. I'll use the price example on oil again. We have Trump, NASA. Right. We presume that what he did in terms of the economy and everything, and no wars, you know, no, everything was just rosy under Donald Trump. And I think that's another thing that's negative.

I'll be honest, I've never heard this specific theory. I'll take the time to look and figure it out for myself, and I'll let you. But what I'm curious about is that track record is there. Now, how much of the, and do you think it's important for us to give credit for the good things to Kamala and responsibility for the bad things to Kamala in that, so that you have an equivalent. Want a b comparison? Do you think about it that way or not?

No, I don't. And I'll tell you why.

Okay.

I'm assuming all you guys have had a boss at one point or another. Yes.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And do you all agree with everything that that boss did all the time? No.

No.

But you had to do what the boss told you to do. Yeah, and that's common as job.

But I like. I like to take credit for when the boss tells me I'm owning something and then I do it well, but.

At the same time, you get credit for doing it, but it doesn't matter. You know, if it turns out to be wrong, it's still the boss that's on the hook for it.

What about the border, Mark? Because you made a comment about the border and she was declared the border czar.

Yeah. Again, that's branding. I mean, we play branding games with politics all the time. If you look at what her specific responsibility was, I alluded to it earlier. Her job was to go to Central America and talk to the heads of the countries there and try to reduce the reasons why people were leaving their countries to go to the United States.

Why do you think they open the border so much? I'm wondering, Mark, there is a conspiracy theory or theory. You can pick how you want to frame it, that this is to increase the number of democratic voters. At the same time, we hear that a lot of the folks coming in who are the working class, that the Republican Party is now the populist party. So those votes would go to the Republicans. So I've heard this argument from both sides. What is more than that?

There's another theory, an economic theory, Mark, which is that it increases the base of workers when we're at our lowest unemployment rate in history and inflation is raging. So by bringing in low cost workers that you're able to get to work at a lower wage rate, you actually have a deflationary effect and a stimulatory effect, because then they end up being spending.

Yeah, and I get the logic there. I don't think they're. I think maybe they might have thought of that earlier and that's why they let too many people in. But I think they realize now that they screwed up.

And that shouldn't be an executive authority. Right. I mean, that should be like a legislative congressional authority that makes that decision and that determination on whether to change immigration policy. Do you think that the executive branch should be able to unilaterally determine who comes into the country without following laws?

No, I prefer that Congress does it. Unfortunately, that's just not what worked. Look at the SEC with Gary Gensler. The guy's a moron. And. But, you know, here we go, actually.

So that's an area we can agree on. But before we get to that.

So your claim on board, we finally found ground trust.

Here we go. But before. Before we do that. I just want to finish up on border here. So your claim is that Kamala Harris really wanted to seal the border, but she was prevented from doing so.

Speaker one.

David, you're really good at trying to position things, so you have, you know, you have talking points to go out with.

So I'm just. You said that this is a case of a VPN who was thwarted by her boss.

No, that's not what I said.

No. Okay, so the truth is she was on board with Joe Biden's agenda.

I don't know. She's doing what she was told.

Which one is it?

There's no. You're creating false choices, David.

You create it.

So, David, if you do the job your boss told you to do, does that you make a declaration before you do it. If I agree or disagree, how do.

You know she disagreed with Joe Biden about these policies?

Because I see what she's doing now.

Because she changed the policy. Right?

She has a different policy conversion. She realizes what a disaster it's been.

So. So when Trump does it, it's brilliant when you proof.

Okay.

Her own words, she flipped her position.

She called Trump's border wall un american and medieval and mocked it. And this is before she became Biden's.

Right? Around the same.

Hold on. When she was in the Senate and Trump was trying to build the wall, remember, democrats tried to thwarthenne that. They subjected him to years of litigation to prevent him from building that wall. And she multiple times was on record saying the wall was un american, medieval, mocked, and so forth. She also compared ice to the KKK. She said that images of border patrol agents evoked slavery. Okay, this is her rhetoric. I don't think Joe Biden made her say that. She suggested that we abolish ice and start from scratch. Okay? And now she wants to talk about how tough she is on the border.

Maybe she talked to JD Vance back then and was taking his positions. People changed their mind. For whatever reason. People learn your positioning as.

Okay, so for. So hold on. So throughout her whole time in the Senate, she was arguing against a border wall. Okay. In the strongest possible language. She then becomes border czar, or you could call it point person for the Biden administration. And for three years, they gaslit us that the border was not a problem, that was not an open, festering wound. Like, the videos were constantly coming out. I remember on the show, we talked about it, and I was told when I would raise the issue of the border, that was a conspiracy theory, that Fox News was just cherry picking videos. Remember that, Jason? In any event.

Yeah, well, people were actually, it was interesting to bring that up because people were sharing, people were sharing videos and playing them on Fox that were from like ten years ago. So there was a lot of misinformation.

Democrats, the whole Democrats, David, all those caravans never made it to the border. How many caravans did we hear about?

Something like ten. Over 10 million migrants have entered the country during the Biden Harris administration. The first thing they did. Hold on. First of all, we don't know when Biden went by. No, we know. No, no, we do know those, those 10 million are just the border encounters. Those are the recorded crossings that they led into the country. The number we don't know is whether, how many more were not recorded. Counters 20 or 30 million. Well, you can look up on why. Why did this happen? I'll tell you why. When Joe Biden took office, he repealed all of Trump's executive orders.

What is it?

Section 42. What's 90 of them?

Title, title 40.

Title 42 stuck around until the end of 23.

And in addition, they got rid of Trump's remain in Mexico policy and they changed the meaning of asylum so that anyone who went to the border and said that they were suffering economic hardship, which is basically the whole world, okay, could now qualify for asylum. And they were given like a ticket to appear in court one day, like three years, five years. And they were ushered into the country. And then there were, like, nonprofits working with the Biden administration to put them on busses.

David, I agree that they screwed up on the country. I agreed they screwed up on the border. You're more than a screw up. No, fine, they screwed up. But now we are back defended it. So. Yeah, but she changed. Just like Donald Trump. Just like JD Vance. JD Vance called him Hitler. JD Vance in 2020. And after diminished Donald Trump, those in.

Private communications in 2016. And JD Evans explained, including last night, why he changed his mind about that. Right.

And that's fine. So he talked to people. So does she, representing the state of.

The position, like six months ago, and now all of a sudden she's the nominee. So she's.

No, you're, you're trying, you're virtue signaling like a mother, right? You're trying to put your train, you tried to brand anything that you disagree with that you think is a negative and just put it on her, which is politics 101. Right. But you're not looking at what she's actually doing, what she's actually for the administration.

Okay, look, when does it matter if.

She was, if she was in charge and she said, you know, what, what you want her to do is like JD Vance said about abortion, right? I talked to somebody and, you know, they proved it. Great. That was a smart move by him. Would it be smart for her to say I was wrong? Now I've learned more and I've picked up more information.

Now that's actually a good question for you. Sachs. If JD Vance can lobby and want a national abortion ban and then change his mind as the number two for Trump, Trump, can Kamala change her mind when she is no longer running for, you know, in the number two seat is Biden?

I think, I think JD explained why he changed his mind about that. He said that there was a referendum in Ohio and his side loss.

So he can change his mind. Can Kamala? And you have the grace for Kamala to change her mind or not?

On a second, he's taking a learning from that. Kamala Harris has never explained why she changed her mind.

No, it's not that she changed your mind.

Second, when will the media even ask her this question? She doesn't submit for interviews. And certainly the debate moderators, like on ABC, never asked her a question. Mark. If she's going to change her mind, if she's going to have this election year conversion, why doesn't the media ask her? What is the basis of this? When did you change your mind? Was it five minutes ago? Why then did you support Biden throughout your entire last three and a half years? Why don't they ask her these questions? If you were part of the Biden administration, why did you volunteer to be the border czar? If you disagree with Joe Biden about these policies, when exactly did you change your mind? Those are the questions that she should be answering. Why were you, those are the questions.

Those are the questions that you want so that you think you can put her on the defensive and get, and have no, look, you want to know, but let me just tell you what's important. Put yourself, put yourself in the shoes. Let's just call this a business, right? And the business of this business is getting votes and winning this election. And you came in and the product that you originally had, new coke, failed, right. Biden's new coke in this example. And you come in and you say, I'm bringing it back. This is the new new coke. And we're going to test to see if that's working. Well, when you brought in Kamala Harris, she had no favorable ratings whatsoever. She was behind in all polling, right, where Joe Biden was. And now she's either even or ahead or a little bit behind in every single poll. And why do I bring it up? Because it means what she's doing is working.

You know, I think we agree. I think we actually have found a point to agree on, which is I think Kamala Harris is just saying whatever it takes to get.

You can say the same thing about Jamie Baker.

Leave. Hold on. She stated her true belief years ago and throughout the Biden administration with is she never believed the border was a problem. She thought the border wall, Trump's wall, was un american and medieval, and she thought that ice needed to be abolished. I think that was her true belief. Now, if it's not her true belief, I would like her to explain when she changed her belief and why the same way that JD Vance did. And I think the american people are entitled to know that. And I think if the media was doing its job, they'd be asking her those questions. She's never been asked that. Stephanie Rule, latest interview, did not ask that. That. And the debate moderators did not ask that.

Let's just go outside of America for 1 second, because, Mark, you're jewish. You're of jewish heritage. I would really like your opinion on what's happening outside of America. There is some crazy pictures over the last few weeks coming out from the Middle east. There's still all this complicating stuff with China. Where do you stand on all of these things? Where do you stand on the Mearsheimer Sachs, Jeffrey Sachs kind of school of logic that there's a military industrial accomplice that tends to just push us towards these war zones and these forever wars. Where do you just stand on those issues, and how do you think about that?

I mean, honestly, I don't have enough information to give you a qualified response. I'm pro Israel to the core because I'm jewish. I'm anti Hamas to the core of think, you know, they're terrorists. They are terrorists. I want to see Israel to succeed. I want to see Israel succeed. I want to see the United States support them and help them in that. But, you know, when Israel was going into Gaza, I thought it was too blunt an instrument. But when they went after Hezbollah, I thought they did it the exact right way. And so, you know, I'm always only.

Going to respect opinion of this.

Yeah, yeah.

Ukraine. I don't want to see american blood spilled. And as long as there's a NATO, and I agree there should be a NATO, I'd rather see us spend money than put soldiers in harm's way.

And so does the Harris campaign agree on that point, or do they have a. I have one.

I haven't had that conversation. I haven't had that conversation with them.

So, Mark, let me ask you just a point on arithmetic, which I think is the most important arithmetic we should all be talking about. Today is the first. Yesterday was the first day of the federal fiscal year. Fiscal year, right. And here's a little image for us to all look at together as a group. An image that everyone should wake up every morning in the United States and look at the first thing they do. Instead of looking at Twitter, they should look at the image that I'm sharing on the screen right now, which is federal debt in the United States.

This is the first screen of you taking a bath.

This is on the first day of the new fiscal year. Federal debt jumped by $204 billion in one day. Federal debt now stands at $35.7 trillion. And the biggest challenge we have in the year ahead is that 10 trillion of the outstanding debt comes up for refinance. It's going to refinance at around 4%. So we're going to be adding another $300 billion in new interest expense next fiscal year. Plus, the Biden administration has proposed a $7.2 trillion budget for next year year, which will inevitably lead to another $2 trillion of deficit spending, which means that by the end of 2025, we could be staring at $40 trillion of federal debt. And if you do the math on that, at 4% interest, it's 1.6 trillion a year of interest expense a year just on interest expense on the outstanding debt, which effectively begins to eclipse the entire federal budget very quickly and gives us no ability to maneuver to meet the needs of all the policy demands that are being described and shaped in all of these elections and all of these debates and all the bullshit that's going on is really not fundable. What does the Harris campaign say about the situation with respect to deficit spending and debt?

And I don't know how high you can raise taxes and not cut spending to even make a dent in the challenge ahead without driving a massive recession. What is, what do you think? Like the Harris versus the Trump campaign's kind of intentions are as we look at this abyss that we're now kind of jumping?

I can't speak for them. I can only tell you the conversations I've had and what they've said to me. Whether or not they take these directions is completely up to them. And I don't know, but I've said the exact same thing. They know that the deficit's a problem. It won't be a budget. Biden budget. There's no Biden administration to happen. They've already, you know, just the tax rates are completely different than the Biden budget proposals, where there's no unrealized capital gains, et cetera. They went to 28 and 28%. So it's not going to be what was proposed by Biden.

There's a limit on tax, basically, that people will.

There's a point of diminishing returns and raising taxes, and they realize it. When we talked about unrealized capital gains, and I gave them a thousand reasons why not, they're like, we already know this, yada, yada. Now, to David's point, why don't they just come out and say it? Because the 1% of high information voters don't know the difference of unrealized capital gains or not and don't care. The 99% want to hear about the things that they're talking about. So that's why people like me can go out there and talk about it. But to your point, and the bigger point, David. Dave. That they realized that there's only a couple of ways to reduce the deficit. One, you get inflation under control and that reduces interest rates, and that's going to work in our favor. And I think that's happening now. If it's $1.6 trillion, then, you know, if interest rates go below 4%, that saves a lot of money and probably the most you can save. They realized efficiency is an important element. In her last speech in Pittsburgh, she talked about how long it took. It only took one year to build the Empire State Building that.

It's crazy. There's too much friction in the government to be able to do building the right way. They're going to reduce friction. I've had conversations with them about AI as a service and being able to. To optimize, integrating artificial intelligence into all these processes so that they don't have to keep on hiring people. I don't think their mindset, again, I'm speaking for myself and my perspective of my conversations with them. I don't think their mindset is to just go out there and just cut a ton of people. But I do think the mindset is how can we implement technology to become more efficient so that we can provide more value to the citizens of this country at lessen cost. And I think that's important to them. I think you're going to see a lot of reduction. I'm trying to think of the best way to say it. She knows that technology is the ultimate driver of success. And if she supports new technologies, and you heard that again in Pittsburgh, she wants, she mentioned blockchain. But more importantly, she mentioned AI and how AI is key to us being a dominant military, having our military be dominant and to have our economy grow, because the other way to get results isn't just to slash and burn like a Vivek wants to do, but to grow the economy and that there truly are ways to grow the economy without just more spending.

But do you support Elon Musk going in? If you're saying shed regulatory burden, shed inefficiency, improve productivity, don't we need an Elon Musk style model that Trump has talked about with Elon? Send someone in and let's go fix the inefficiency across all of the administrative efforts run by the federal government.

First of all, when you just cut, when you do a Vivek, Vivek type, just cut the Department of Education. Right. Whatever it is, we don't know what Elon would actually do.

Well, I think that triggers a recession, because then you got a lot of people unemployed, right?

Yeah, exactly right. And there's contracts. And so that means the United States of America is violating all these contracts with small businesses and medium sized businesses. This, and maybe Elana put doge in the treasury. Who knows? And that's how we make it all up. But you can't just crap, slash, and burn. To your point, Dave. I mean, it just won't work. And so what you can do, though, is introduce technology. We have yet to have a president that fully understands technology. I'm not here to tell you that Kamala Harris is a geek. She's not. But she understands the impact. And she has a lot of people who truly are geeks around there, around her. And she truly believes that implementing technology is a way to improve efficiency. But the whole idea is you can't take the libertarian approach. That's ideologic. You have to take a problem solving approach. How do you look at any specific problem we're trying to solve? How can you apply technology to that? I think you will get that from the Harris administration as opposed to Donald just talking about the AI and how much energy it consumes.

Mark, you, you said of all the roles, if there's a Harris administration, you said you want to run the SEC.

I was just trolling Gary Gensler. Yeah, I was just trolling Gary Gansler because it's fun to do.

Okay. Okay. So. And particularly wise, Gensler has he done a particularly bad job?

Are you just trolling? Are you just trolling? Are you just trolling David sasserling me now?

Right.

I can't keep up with the trolling. I think I need to add traffic control.

The trolleye area where I agree with Mark.

Nested trolling. Nested, no.

So Mark is actually supporting Trump. He's just trolling sachs and coming on the show. He's been going on for weeks.

But I tell you, one, one Republican that, as I understand that you are supporting is John Deaton, who is running against Elizabeth Warren in the Massachusetts Senate race. So I'm curious about this because I think this is an area we could agree on. You're not a fan?

I didn't know. That's pretty interesting.

Yeah. I mean, I'm not a fan of Elizabeth Warren's. I've talked to her about crypto. I mean, I understand her position. Her basic position is bad nation states use crypto to fund their operations, the bad stuff. And she just wants to throw the baby out with the bathwater as opposed to using, you know, like, I proposed a blacklist from OFAC that can be implemented in all kinds of. I need to get into the details. Right. But it just, it wasn't going to happen. And so when John, not just being pro crypto, but, you know, his background, his character, I thought really was a positive. And so even before he got through his hat in his ring, I was talking to him, supporting him, giving him feedback and helping him. So again, I'm not a Democrat. I have no problem. And I think John Deaton will be better for the country, better third of the citizens of Massachusetts than Elizabeth Warren would be.

What would be common sense crypto regulation. Obviously, you don't want people bilking people out of their money. Yeah. So what would be a way to balance accredited investors versus the populist, non sophisticated investors, if that's even a thing. People are running amok.

Right. So I've got a company called lazy.com dot. And like, if you go to lazy.com Mcuban, you'll see all my nfts. And all it is is a way to display your nfts. It's hardly makes any money. But I wanted to see if we could release a token. So first thing I did was I had one of our people call the SEC and say, hey, what steps do we have to take to release the token? They went through this whole rigmarole about getting securities lawyers and this and that. There's no way a company with $100,000 in revenue is going to be able to afford to do that. So then I said, okay, I'm going to go right to the SEC dot gov and see about reggae and see if I could just fill out the forms myself and, you know, just see what. So you start filling in name, address, and then you get to the type of business, and the only category is other. And once you follow that other connection, there's just no way to put the round hole. The just, there's no way to make it work. You can't. You can't make it work.

And I actually said that directly to Gary Gensler and I. So, to answer your question, you have to make it easy to follow the rules and you can't. And in terms of everything being a security, Gensler says everything applies to Howie. Right. There's a Howie rule and everything. But the reality is there's also a rule that came after ruling that came after called Reeves, Reeves versus Ernst and Young, that had to do with interest. And if you think about it, if you guys ever shorted stocks or done stock loan, where you can make some money off of stock loan, a borrower.

Yeah, yeah.

So, but you know, you can make a share, you can make one of your shares of stocks available to the borrower and get paid a vig. Right. You might get ten or 12%. And so doing that is the exact same thing as loaning out bitcoin for somebody else to borrow. And there's no. They don't call that a security. So I asked, I asked Gary Gensler, if it's not a security to loan out a share of stock, and why is it a security to loan out a bitcoin to somebody else that didn't have an answer? And the point there is he has an approach that is regulation through litigation. He's going to sue you first, ask questions later, and hope that the result of that litigation becomes a rule that everybody else has to follow. What's that?

Well, I was going to say, wouldn't a more common sense approach here be to say if we had an accreditation test, a sophisticated investor test? We've talked about it here on the program. Well, there's not one for the populace to take, like a driver's license where they could say, hey, I've taken this test. I understand diversity, diversification, etcetera.

If you were able to register with the securities and Exchange Commission for your company for the release of your token, then depending on how many people you were trying to sell it to, you would only be able to do that with qualified investors.

Right.

But what happens is, is Gary Gensler is making it so difficult to register, and what he should be doing is saying, here's the bright line. Regulations. If FTX wants to loan out all their ethereum, you have to do what they did in Japan. You have to have 95% collateral and 95% of anything needs to be put in cold storage. If he had followed the same rules for crypto that Japan did, FTX would still be in business. Sam Bankman free might still be in jail, but FTX, three arrows capital, they'd still be in business because he did the wrong thing. Now, I've literally talked to Kamala Harris at lunch about this specific topic of litigate regulation through litigation. And as a lawyer, she got it immediately. And she knows it's a problem. And they know, and she's even mentioned in one of her speeches that that's something that they're going to deal with.

Can I get your reaction to the story from the Washington reporter? There was a story. I don't know if it's true or nothing, but no Washington reporters. So according to some Senate sources, Kamala Harris was considering Gensler for treasury secretary.

I would call that bull.

Okay, what's the Washington report?

I haven't asked her about any position at all, but what I was told. And look, talking to people who are, like, always in the same room with her, the response to me about Gary Gensler was, have you heard anybody say anything positive? Positive. That's intentional.

Well, I mean, the reason he's in that role is because he is Elizabeth Warren's ally, and she has been enormously powerful during the Biden administration.

Have you heard her say a word.

Mark, boil it all up. Like, what's your general sense of her? Like, how should we all think about her?

So here's the way I look at Kamala. Right? She is open minded. She's smart. She does the work. She digs in and learns. She's ethical, she's honest. She cares. She wants to bring the country to the middle. She knows that when she was far left, that might have been great for the state of California, but it doesn't solve the problems of the United States of America, of America today. And that's why you've seen her go to the middle. And that is truly, I know, David, you might not believe this. It is truly honest and through and through her when she gave speeches. Now she says, I'll take ideas from independents. I'll take them from republicans. I don't care. We have a lot of problems to solve in this country. I would be shocked. If she wins, she talks to Elon Musk. If Elon would talk to her. She doesn't care where the iPad is.

Why would she do interviews with unfriendly or challenging folks? This seems to be, like a really valid criticism. We've had JD Vance here.

Yeah.

I don't disagree. Look, it is not.

Why does she hide, do you think?

I don't think she's hiding. There's two elements there. One, I think she understands the assignment, which is to win the election, and the best way to reach the most number of people and get them to change their mind is not the 1% of people who are high information voters. It's all the people who are showing up at rallies and screaming and yelling. Those are the people's who, people whose mind she has changed so far. And that's how she's caught up up and who she wants to change. And that's where she's putting her focus. And two, and this is brutally honest, she has too long a windup in answering every single question, and that makes interviews difficult. She wants to inspire everybody with everything that she answers and tries to get people all excited about what she's going to do. And so she takes too long to get to that. If you cut out the windups, her answers aren't so bad. Her answers are absolutely legit. But that wind up makes it seem like the whole word salad thing.

You don't think it's relevant that she was born to a middle class family as the answer to that?

She's got to drop that. Yeah, but on the flip side, I mean, if you listen, I literally, because I knew I'd be talking to you guys. I listened to Donald Trump's speech in Milwaukee. Did any of you guys listen to that?

Yes, I was there.

Okay.

You were there, Sachs.

That was last week.

No, no, not Milwaukee.

No, no, no. Not the RNC two days ago, this weekend ago.

Two days ago, talking about the RNC.

So Kamala might have a long wind up. Donald Trump has an eternal windup where all he does is get to his slogans and talking points and then talks gibberish the rest of the time. Let me fill you in. And some of the gibberish.

I'm at a rally. He will speak extemporaneously for over an hour.

Yeah, but what he says should matter.

Any day over someone on a teleprompter for 19.

So what, you're saying it doesn't matter what he says?

No, I think it does matter. But I think I've watched enough Trump rallies, including his speech at the convention where I was there listening to understand what he, what issues he stands for.

Okay, well, tell me what issues he stands for when he diminishes Jimmy Carter, who just has his hundredth birthday. Tell me what issues he's standing.

I've heard him say good things and bad things about Jimmy Carter.

Okay, so let's put that aside.

Everyone makes fun of Jimmy Carter.

Speaker one. Okay, so let's put that aside. Let's just say it is what it is, even though it's a aside. We'll go that, put that under the character. He started talking about apartments with no windows, that builders under Kamala Harris are going to start are being forced to build apartments with no windows.

I haven't heard that bit yet.

Yeah. Oh, I listened to this today. And then he also said that, I.

Also know that people take a lot of what Trump says out of context to make it seem a lot worse. If you listen to what he says and you don't try to, you know, shaded it in the worst possible way, a lot of what he says makes sense. I believe that. If you want to know why I support Trump. Number one, the border. Okay. Unlike Kamala Harris's election year conversion, he has been very consistent ever since he came down the escalator. Yes, he had that we needed to have a wall. And that really, that was just the first part of our border security. We needed to have a border. Democrats, not just Kamala. Pretty much all the Democrats. Democrats fought him on that for the last eight years to the point where.

So the board is one thing.

You got that? Okay. So I think that he, and only he has credibility in this election on that issue. Number two, on the, on the foreign wars. We talked about this. I mean, I don't think his record on foreign policy was perfect, but it is true that he did not start any new foreign wars. And the set. No.

Speaker one, what word is your Biden.

Sorry. The Ukraine war. We could have ended that war.

He invaded Ukraine.

I've argued on the show many times. He provoked it.

Okay.

He provoked it.

Okay, so you're assigning whatever to Joe Biden.

So he got, he forced Putin to invade Ukraine.

Come on, stop acting dumb. You understand that we tried to convert Ukraine into a giant NATO base. That was, the Russians said over and over again that that was a red line to them. It was the brightest of all.

But to blame it on Biden, Burns.

Our current CIA director, said it best is the brightest. All red. Lot of all red lines for the russian elite, not just Putin. Okay?

Okay.

That has been a consistent Russian. Moreover. Hold on a second. Even if you don't believe, even if you disagree with me and you say that Biden didn't provoke it, we had the chance to end the war in its first month with a deal at Istanbul, okay? And, you know, the mainstream media denied it for a year. It was only an alternative media. And then finally, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal wrote stories about it. It is the truth. Victoria Nuland just admitted it. We could have agreed to a deal in the first month. The Biden administration shot that down. That is why we have the war going in Ukraine.

Okay?

So let's just say, remember, and that also got destructive and by the number, care about Israel. Hold on, Mark. If you care about Israel, you should be really concerned about the fact that the United States has significantly depleted its stockpile of weapons and artillery ammunition in Ukraine on a war that is futile.

We send some money, David. We didn't give them anything new. We sent them our old.

Israel gets the.

Gary leads.

155. 155 millimeter artillery shells are 155 millimeter artillery shells. It's not about new or old, okay?

The Glengarry lead. Israel gets the Glengarry leads. Right? And look, and on top of that.

Zelensky, there's only so much air defense. There's only so many patriots to go around.

All right?

We don't make it.

Do you agree that Zelensky could have said yes to that deal?

The one in Istanbul?

Yeah.

He could only say yes to it if the US supported it, and instead we encouraged him to fight. We threw cold water on that deal. We blocked it. We should have told Zelensky. You know what? Just make that deal. We don't need another war right now, okay? This NATO thing's not happening anyway. Anyway, okay, because we're not letting Zelensky into NATO.

Well, no, the guy from Norway, the guy who just took over NATO, says otherwise.

We're not going to let in. Zelenskyy was just here in the US last week with his so called victory plan. You know what his victory plan was? Let us into NATO immediately so that you can fight our war for us.

No, I get that with the Biden.

Administration, to its credit, rejected that. Okay, I give Biden credit for that.

The good news is Biden is not running in this election.

Whenever it's inconvenient, you want to pretend that Harris has nothing to do with this. I'm not giving you reality.

I'm giving you reality. When I've had people who worked for me and started, went out and started their own companies like Shamath and Facebook. Right. They're not. People have different opinions. The people who work for me do what I say, period. End of story. Maybe they do what I say.

She was just following orders, basically. That Nuremberg sense.

Do you think JD, do you think JD Vance is going to do anything contrary to Donald Trump if he wins?

There's an abundant record. I know what JD Vance stands for. There was an abundant record. That's not the question. Before she even, that's not the VP job, she was rated the most liberal member of the Senate.

But why don't you answer Mark's question?

It is. The question is, what does she really stand for? What?

You ignored his question.

Sorry. What's your question? I'm happy to answer it.

Speaker one, would JD Vance ever go against Donald Trump?

No. Obviously, I understand that a VP cannot go against a nutshell.

That's it.

Period.

Speaker one. Now we can cut half the episode out now.

Moving on.

Hold on a second. That fact does not prove that Kamala Harris has a different policy than Joe Biden. Whenever it's inconvenient for you to admit.

No, you, you're doing the exact thing you say you're saying that I'm doing. You're trying to position her so that everything from the Biden administration is she has ownership of it. And what I'm saying is just look at what she's doing. Look at what she's saying. You're would see, here's, here's the Trump derangement. Deranged. Here's the antithesis of the Trump Derangement syndrome. Syndrome, right? You tell, whenever Donald Trump says something stupid, everybody explains it for him. When Kamala Harris says something smart, everybody tries to explain why it's stupid and not true.

When did she say something smart? I mean, seriously, what was the last thing she said that was smart? Just curious.

Jason, you want to fact check the windowless, by the way? The windowless. The windowless thing, Mark, just so you know, because Nick's shared it with us. It's an architectural digest article. Apparently, Eric Adams, the mayor of New York, proposed windowless bedrooms as a way to change the building codes to incentivize more apartments being built. I think it's also fix the housing crisis.

Converting the problem with converting the place.

In commercial, this is the gaslighting they try to make.

Well, I mean, he also, I mean, Trump lies constantly.

Let's find out that there's a real.

Basis to is some cases, he just lies anyway.

Trump can't ever explain it himself. Why is it that the guy that you, like can never come out and say, hey, you know, this is crazy? This is the most ridiculous thing Eric Adams suggested. Everybody else has got to do the research and explain what Trump really means, because he is losing it. He is cognitive.

You're the one who raised it as some cognitive design. As an example of Trump.

Do you think it's incognito client sex?

No, I think he's very sharp. We met him personally. So let's.

Let's wrap the politics section with just final question, because.

No, wait, I have a question. Yeah, let's leave politics mark. Very, very pointed question. Why did you sell the Mavs at this moment?

So I sold three quarters of them, not the whole thing. I still 7.7% for a couple reasons. One, when I first bought in, in 2000, I was the tech guy in the NBA. I was the media guy. Broadcast.com just sold it. HDNet just created the very first ever high definition television network. I had every edge in every angle. Now, fast forward 24 years later. In order to sustain growth, to be able to compete with the new collective bargaining agreement, you have to have other sources of revenue. And so you see other teams and all sports, for that matter, you know, talking about casinos, talking about creating, doing real estate development. That's just not me. I wasn't going to put up $2 billion to, you know, to get an education on building same. So that was one. That's part one. Part two is my kids are now 1518 and 21. And over the next ten years, that's a lot of pressure on them to have to take over the team or deal with the trust. You know, God forbid something happens to me, deal with the trust fund issues. And so by selling three quarters of it, I took all that pressure off of them, because you guys see the hate.

I mean, Jason can tell you all day long about Jimmy Dolan.

You know, he's MIa right now, and the Knicks are doing great.

Do you think valuations peak, Mark?

I don't think they've peaked yet, because it. For the reasons I just mentioned, if we're able to build a venetian type casino in Dallas with an american airline center in the middle of it, the valuation is $20 billion. But I own 27% of that.

Well, and you bought it for under 325. Keeping the records, I think, chamath, you bought a 300 and sold at 3 billion as well. So congratulations, boys.

Actually, let me ask you a question. About that. When you did it, did you just do it for fun and it worked out to be a great business, or did you think it was going to be a great business?

No, I did it for fun. So it's a great question, Dave. From 2000 to 2010, the actual valuations went down. And in 2010, we were not even able to sell the New Orleans Hornets. The league had to buy it. And it was right around then that the Sixers got purchased for 200 for the same price I paid. And the cap, the NBA salary cap, is a reflection of the total revenues of the NBA. There were multiple years when the salary cap went down, meaning our overall revenues went down, which was great for me competitively because I would buy first round picks for $3 million. I would buy players from other teams that couldn't afford to run their teams. And that's why we went on this, you know, 15 year streak of never having a losing season and winning 50 games in a row for ten years in a row. So, you know, it worked against me, worked for me competitively. But that just shows you that things can change. And so I did. What's that?

What for?

Tv deal. So when cable and satellite and over the air became very competitive of and they started to grow and subscriptions grew to 130 million people, or subscriptions. That's a lot of money. And they had to compete for content so that there would be less churn. And I literally remember in 2001 when we first signed a first cable deal, NBC had the deal and they were going back to David Stern saying, we need fewer games. And I sat there in one of our board of governors meetings and I'm like, look, TBS just signed a deal to pay a billion dollars per episode for repeats of Seinfeld. If you do that on a valuation per hour, ours is fresher. Our ratings are actually better. Don't think of it as less product will lead to more demand. It's the exact opposite. We're so inexpensive, we can charge more. And that led to the next tv deal, and that led to the expense explosion.

Mark, you have a lot of fingers and a lot of pots in other businesses. You have a really important thing you're doing in drugs that you may want to talk about.

Yeah, thanks for bringing that up. Tomorrow.

If you look at the next ten years of your life, so you're 66 between now, 14 years between now and 81, what's your goal like? What are you working on? What are the things that you care about? Where are you putting your capital? What are you trying to do?

The number one is family, obviously, but beyond that is costplusdrugs.com. we're up the health industry like you wouldn't believe if you've seen.

Just explain it for the folks that don't understand it.

So let's just say guys our age, or you guys are close enough to my age, we use a drug called tadilafil. Hey, for those of you who know what it is, and you, it's generic Cialis.

We gotta double click on this.

Heard from Saks?

So you've heard from Sachs. Are you a cialis or a Viagra guy? Sachs, what's going on here?

Both.

So Cialis just seems better value for money.

What are those? Never heard of him.

Zach's like, what is that?

Never heard of him.

He's turning red, actually. So if you go to costplusdrugs.com and you put into dilafil, when it comes up, we show you our actual cost and then we mark it up by 15%. And if you buy it via mail order, then we add $5 for a pharmacy fee to review everything and $5 for shipping and handling. The net result of that is you guys have a general idea of what the price is. Now from all the ads, you can buy a 90 pack of todilofil for about $9.90 plus shipping and handling. So for less than the price of a bag of M and MS, you could put up a little cup or jar next to your bed of either M and Mh.

What is the name of this website?

$9 for 90 days.

Right? We're like, let's go, poor chama.

That seems free. It's incredible deal.

So, but you apply that to the 2500 drugs that we have, and now all of a sudden you see what's wrong with these things called pharmacy benefit managers and the problem of an industry that's opaque. And I'll give you another example. There are drugs that are called specialty generics, and the only thing special about them, they're actually just pills, is that they're, they were traditionally more expensive. So there's a drug called imatinib, which is a chemotherapy drug. If you just walk into a cv's as an example, and a big, big pharmacy and just, you were a cash payer or high deductible payer and you just needed it, they'll charge you anywhere from $200 to $2,000. You have no idea what you're going to pay if you get it from cost plus drugs. Depending on the number and the strength, it might be $21. To $30. There's another drug, Droxydopa. One of my buddies came to me and said I'm losing my insurance. They want to charge me, the pharmacy wants to charge me $10,000 a quarter for this medication called Droxodopa. All right, Landon, let me check. Then. Initially it was $64 a month. Now it's in the dollar 20 per month because as our cost goes down, we pass it on.

And that's just changed the industry because think about what happens when you get a prescription.

Whats the pushback? But mark, I mean, what is the pushback you get? Because thats none, its counter to the trend. Right. So is it just infinite growth or how does the industry respond when you create that price differential?

Mike. So its the innovators dilemma. They cant just give up all of this margin. Most of the business of pharmacy benefit manager, not most. A big chunk of the businesses comes from corporate, from corporations, right, and self insured companies. And they go to them and they put together the thing called the formulary, which is all the drugs, right. That's available to them. And they say we're going to price this so that we get rebates and we'll pass on the rebates we get from the manufacturers to you. Now, they say they're going to pass on 100% of that rebate. They don't. They create all these subsidiaries and everything that skim 10% or whatever off the top. But they know that they can continue working with these companies because the core competency of a CEO is not to know their health care costs. And literally for any CEO's that are out there, audit your PBM contract. Audit it right now. I promise you that that PBM is going to tell you you don't need to audit. And then you can say, we want to add cost plus drugs to our pharmacy supply contract and they're going to say, no, you're not allowed to do it because they know our prices are so much lower that is disrupting their industry.

Are you doing this as like a for profit business? Are you losing money on this and doing it just to help society? What's your plan here?

Right now I'm losing money. And most of that was because we built a factory, a whole robotics driven factory that manufactures sterile injectables that are in short supply. So now, like with the hurricane, you know, we're using our robotics to switch over to sterile water, of all things and some other things so that we can manufacture it and get it to them at, you know, a reasonable price as opposed to price gouging, which Kamala has talked often about. So you know, because there will be price gouging in pharmacy and we're here to be an alternative. So to answer your question, I've spent a whole lot of money on these robotics and putting this together, but our path is hockey stick, double, triple hockey stick. And so we're taking business from them and I think the traditional legacy companies in.

But did something happen to you or somebody around you that motivated you to go after the PBMs or would just this clinical business analysis of like this just doesnt make sense and it can be done better.

So both what happened was I got an email from my partner, co founder doctor Alex Oshmayansky and he wanted to create a compounding pharmacy in Denver that made drugs that were in short supply because theres always, for whatever reason, some generic drug that is on a shortage list, like you're thinking too small. And this was right around the time that the pharma bro was going to jail. And I asked him how is it that this dude buys up a one year supply of Daraprim, the drug he bought, and just jacks it up? And how does that happen? And he goes, it just happened. I'm like well let me do some homework and dig in. And the reason was obvious, the industry was completely opaque. The first line in every single pharmacy contract and healthcare contract for that matter is you're not allowed to talk about it. You are restricted from talking about this to anybody, anybody at all. So we had a completely opaque market. So we put together the website called costplusdrugs.com. but really the smartest thing that we did, and it was unintentional in terms of impact. We created a full price list so you can get our 2500 drugs, the actual price list and we release it every week because we're on a roll now where we've had since last, a year ago, more than a year ago, every weekday we've lowered a price on a drug.

And so we just put that out. And what's happened as a result is now companies can just get the price list and do comparisons to approximately what they're paying because their PBM won't tell them exactly what they're paying.

I have one suggestion for you there, Mark. You can make this a nonprofit. When you sell the Mavs, you could donate money to this. Then like six, seven years later you could flip it into a for profit and take it public. There's like a strategy here.

This could work out exactly the point. And, you know, Sam Altman is an investor. No, I'm just kidding. And so we put out this price list, and all of a sudden, Harvard Medical and Vanderbilt and all these research institutes took our pricing and compared it to what Medicare was paying for the same drugs. And it was like, well, this is.

What I was going to ask you, because CMS is now empowered to negotiate.

Yeah.

And this is sort of maybe ties together with the governmental efficiency and just do the obvious right thing. But shouldn't they just work with you as an example? And. And why don't they?

They are. And it's just starting.

They are.

Right. So here, again, I can't speak for her to say what she's going to do, but here was the conversation I've had with her team. When it comes to reducing out of pocket costs to deal with inflation, what I have told them is one key area that, in fact, most families at some level, nobody dies healthy is the cost of healthcare and pharmaceuticals. And by working, by requiring transparency in all contracts signed by anybody anywhere, in terms of pricing, you are going to see the same impact on across the board pricing of a decrease of 30, 40%. And so all that is going to reduce out of pocket spending for everybody, reduce government spending for everybody, and have a net positive impact. They see that.

Have you had the. Had that conversation with the Republicans as well? So that seems to make sense for everybody.

I had a similar conversation, like, as I mentioned to you in the White House when I went there, and it just didn't resonate.

Boys, any final questions for Mark here.

As we Elon and why troll Elon and any of that good stuff?

Well, I want to know about, are you investing in AI technology? Where are you investing in the stack? How do you think about that? Are you an active venture investor, Mark? I mean, I know we've obviously, obviously we done some stuff together, but I'm curious, like how you look at stuff.

So now I've kind of slowed down. I invested in Grok with Schmatt. Right. Shaman is. Yeah, let's go. Right. And he can tell you all the reasons.

I think we all have a piece of that now.

Okay, well, good. So you guys know the whole story, right? And so I think that that's great. Picks and shovels, I think, are important. I think the problem, and this happens with all new technologies, is we're seeing the gold rush right now, where everybody calls everything AI, particularly with agents. And I think, think you can put all these vertical agents together to do all these different things, but agents are just going to be a feature, not a product, because inherently in AI, as it advances and gets smarter, then it's going to be able to create its own agents for its users and go forward from there. So I've been really hesitant now because you're not going to invest in the foundational models. I mean, through a fund I have part of OpenAI and some others, but that's just so expensive, you don't know who the winners are going to be, but yet everything that happens is going to be a derivative of.

What's your business intuition tell you about that, actually? So you have this crazy capital race between closed and open. How do you think that plays out?

I think there are going to be tens of millions of models. Everybody's going to have a model. Your kids are going to have models. Their little invisible friend is going to be a model that's in a teddy bear that they grow up with. So there's going to be an unlimited number of models. But we don't know who the winners are going to be to host those models. I have no idea. And if you go back over the history of technology, that's always the case. Everybody. There's always a race to be the winner for the foundation, whether it was broadband, whether it was networking, whether it was whatever, it's streaming, and everybody battles it out. And so it's okay. And for me now I'm just like, let me just wait.

You think there's going to be or a chance at job displacement? What do you think of, like, this universal basic income? Cataclysmic?

I think it's the exact opposite. Okay, so I think that in order to train a model, you need access to information, and the Internet ain't what it used to be in terms of being a source of information. And so IP is becoming more valuable. Valuable. You're not. I think everybody, but this time expected all the foundational models to have all this healthcare information. But if I'm Mayo clinic, I'm not giving Microsoft or Google or OpenAI my IP, because that's what brands me. And so there's going to be a lot of money available there, and I think that has got to be a way to. There's got to be a way to figure that out, right? First, how does IP work and how is it distributed, and then how are we using it? Just in general, we really don't know how we're going to implement it or use it or what the interface is going to be and all that will be figured out by some kid somewhere.

So maybe just to wrap. Mark. So these next ten or 15 years, is it about doubling down on these current things, making cost plus thing huge, like harvesting essentially, or are you going to do new things or does just.

The bar getting when I'm gone? I wanted to say, mother, he did. It was expensive when we were sick and ain't expensive no more. And to me, that's the ultimate mission. Now it's fun to learn AI and build models and do all that stuff. Right? But when it's all said and done, to me, that's where you want.

Jamar, let me ask you a final, final question then. That's great. You've done a reality show, just retired from that. Cashed out of three quarters of the mavericks check. Did that. Helping people with this cost plus drugs and saving people money. It's a pretty noble mission. Kind of adds up to you're going to run for president.

No. There's no way. No.

Why not? It would be a great thing to do. You've checked off all the boxes.

Why wouldn't you hold now, right.

20 years younger than Trump and by.

The media is wrong. I changed. I'm a sock publisher it in my spare time. I changed the spot.

No.

Four years from now, eight years from now, would you, would you even consider.

It or if you were going to consider it.

Yeah. Right on our era. Right?

Yeah.

How would you process making that decision?

My kids hated the idea. My wife hated the idea. They want, you know, it's hard enough for them to have a normal life as it is. And that just takes it to a whole nother level.

Plus, you'd have to run as a Republican because Democrats hate billionaires like you. No, actually, Bloomberg. Right. You saw it happen at Bloomberg. Yeah, but that $100 million made it to the first question of the first debate.

Boom.

Elizabeth Warren knocked him out.

But let me just tell you this, and we don't have to talk more about politics. Parties don't exist anymore. They don't. There's fundraising vehicles and they have procedures in place. But this is Donald Trump. He took over the Republican Party. They do what he says. And Kamala Harris has learned from Donald Trump. Give him credit. She has learned what worked for him. They're not stupid. She has learned that she has got to be that personality that takes over and they have got to do what she says. You haven't heard a word from Bernie or Elizabeth Warren. And that's not unintentional. She is doing it her way. Now, whether or not you agree what she's doing or her approach to win. Everybody can argue, and that's what makes a market. But there are no political parties anymore, and the idea of the ideology of a party on the democratic side is no more in place than on the republican side.

All right, so with that, my knicks got a shot this year. What do you think?

Yeah, I thought the trade was great. I think that was.

Trade was great.

Yeah, I think that's great.

I mean, he's a little on the defense, but he's.

But with KP, right? That's what they're doing. How do they match up with Boston? And so KP and Kat match up.

And that's why we got a shot. You're saying there's a chance my Knicks might get there?

I'm saying you and Jim Carrey have a lot in common.

There's a chance. All right, everybody, this has been another amazing episode. Thank you.

Thanks, guys.

Come back anytime, Mark, and we'll see you all next time. Bye bye.

Thanks, guys.

That was awesome. They'll give you instructions on upload, and I'll see you a game soon.

Appreciate it. You guys are awesome.

Cheers.

And I don't mind arguing. David, I love to argue this stuff, right?

I know, I know. Look, I give you credit. You're fun to talk to, argue with, and you obviously don't take it personally, and I appreciate that. And, yeah, I give you credit for having fun with it. I know. Too many depressed billionaires, so I give you a lot of credit.

Yeah, I don't get that. But you know what? If you were. If you were. When you were poor, you're up when you're rich, right? And just doesn't change anything. I was hoping we talk about Elon, actually.

Well, we could still go there. Where's Jake?

We can still go there. You can ask the question if you want.

All right. Two of my besties last 25 years, you and Elon. Is this. You guys just goofing on each other? You got an issue with Elon that's sincere, or is it just playful, fun trolling?

So, two things. One, as an entrepreneur, Elon's like the shit of the. Of the sh. Right? Yeah, there's. I'm a huge fan. What he's been able to accomplish is insane. It's incredible. I would never diminish anything he's done as an entrepreneur, as a Twitter user. He's a troll, and, I mean, he just trolls to troll, to troll. And every good troll deserves a foil, right? Somebody to troll back, back. And it's just so easy and so much fun. Now I get some of the underlying principles, I think, at least in my mind, like, when he talks, what do.

You think about the first amendment principle that he's doing here of, like, radically changing Twitter from, like, it's pretty controlled to, hey, anything goes?

I think that's almost anything goes. I think that's a fear of losing users. So I think that within the conservative community, they are more joiners and heavier social media users.

Participants.

Yeah, participants. So they subscribe to more things, they listen to more podcasts, they're more active. And I think he recognized that. And that was a fundamental underpinning of why he kind of connected to them on the free speech thing, because he still has its limits. Obviously, it's his platform, and what he doesn't want doesn't get shot own. So I think that's why. And I can't blame him. I wish he would call me, I'd help him on his, his revenue and all that. And then I think, on the immigration side, here's my theory, and you guys can tell me if you agree or disagree. I don't think he's anti immigration like he says, you know, anti illegal immigration, where anybody who's in the country should be deported. I think as an immigrant himself, and I'm second generation, you guys are, you know, immigrants at some level. We all are. But I think as an immigrant himself, he thinks that the number of illegal immigrants in this country and the hate that's pushed towards them carries over to illegal immigrants, including himself. And I think he believes that by diminishing the illegal or the non citizens in this country and asking for their removal, it improves the standing of the legal immigrants, including himself.

And so that's kind of my theory on both of those things.

Interesting. Yeah, it's a, it's certainly different.

I don't think you need much of a theory to explain Elon's views because he's just so transparent about what he believes. I truly believe that his core conviction and the reason he bought Twitter X is because he wanted to unlock it as a free speech platform.

Yeah, I don't, I don't think so.

I don't know how much more money he can lose in pursuit of that goal.

But see, here's why. Here's why. I just agree. You don't take other people's money to do that. If he put.

He knew. He didn't know that he would get boycotted by all these advertiser. Advertisers.

Yeah, but he knew. He knew that. I think he went in open eyes, carried the sink in the door to run it with some improvements operationally, which he did a great job of, and.

To taking out a huge amount of the cost structure, which he did. But Jason and I were there on the first day. First day he took over, there was an organized boycott of advertisers. They called him anti semitic, which is ridiculous. Before he even had a chance. You know, I've heard about that site.

So I've heard from a lot of those folks. And it's not so much, look, when you talk about free speech, free speech applies to advertisers as well. They get to associate with whoever they want to, no matter what. So there are, are repercussions.

Unless there's a collusive effort going on to sort of organize.

No. And I get that organization just resolved immediately. So there weren't. But look, I could for my own self. Right.

I don't understand why you won't give them credit for believing in free speech. That's clear.

I have no problem with free speech. Look, I've always said people are like, get rid of the anti semitic people. You get anti semitic tropes. I get, you know, zillions of anti semitic tropes, you know, in my, in my replies, just a non stop. I mean, I'm not white. My grandparents changed their name from Jabisky to Cuban, not even intentionally. And so it's always, your real name is Jabinski White. There's just the hate. There is insane. And my attitude has always been, I want to know who the morons are. I have no problem with them still being allowed on the platform. But the trade off is for advertisers. They don't want to be associated with that. There is no upside for being on Twitter right now or Exxon right now. And you add to that the porn kids, 13 years old, can go on that site and you can find any insane thing you want on X right now. And that also is a problem for advertisers. That's part of free speech. But you got to pay the bill when you're willing to accept that. I don't think he realized just how deep users will go in order to use their free speech.

And I think that really surprised him. And so that's why I don't think that he bought it specifically for free speech, because I think he's always one of the things I really admire.

I don't know. I mean, he said, he said before he bought it that he was going to open it up as a free speech. Platform. Hold on. This is why the left immediately started boycotting him before he even changed one policy. Jake, out. Help me out. You were there. Well, first freaking day.

No. For a fact free speech mission for him. I do think multiple things can be true. Mark, you are correct that if you have spicy content, advertisers don't want anything to do with it. And they have choices, and it's also one of the smaller platforms. They have choices that have more scale. So that makes it even easier. And it's also true that they're boycotting him and specifically targeting. But all these things are happening at the same time. That's fair. And I think when you look at what he's done there, we'll look at it historically as this place that was very controlled and clean and owned by the press and the elites became this chaotic thing. But also ultimately, the one place where at scale, you cannot be canceled. And if you look at cancelation as a concept, the number one place to get canceled was twitter. You said something even slightly off, man. They came DOwn on you. They destroyed. You do. And now that we gotten RId of cancel culture and people can say what they believe and people can make themselves.

I don't know why it's necessary to find.

I do think.

Just finish the thought. I do think that that will be looked at as a beautiful thing that he gave to society as a gift, and it will be looked at as a really challenged business because it was an ad business that lost its advertising base. And apple and disney have choices.

I don't see the need here to look past or to look for an ulterior motive in what ELON's doing. Elon believes in free speech. It's very clear. Clear. He's run the platform that way, and it's cost him money. So what else could the motivation be except his principles, obviously.

But he was also addicted to it. I can tell you that. As the person who got.

I know, but that's not why he's running.

Let me give you my calendar to that. You know him better than I do. I.

Why are we even having this debate? Who cares? I mean, yeah, he has a free speech platform.

Yeah. And that's fine. Obviously, it's his choice. That that's free speech by definition.

Actually, to me, this debate is kind of pointless. But let's, let's talk about. Actually, there's a new story this week where OpenAI just raised, was it 6 billion at $150 valuation. They originally started that enterprise with 50 million or so from Elon. It was a nonprofit then they became a for profit. Now there's a report saying that they're telling investors in this round that they can't invest in any other AI companies. So they're actually like, I mean, they've gone from nonprofit philanthropy to Piranha for profit company.

That's pretty sharp elbow Sam.

Yeah, sharp elbow Sam said he wasn't going to take compensation. Now he's getting compensation.

Yep.

10 billion.

I mean, what do you think about this?

I mean, look, it's their company. They get to do what they want, period.

False pretenses. I mean, but don't invest.

I mean, they didn't invest.

He gave him a donation.

Which leads to something I want to say, very positive about Elon. Put aside his genius in coming up and running these companies. The one thing I respect the most about Elon Musk, and he does more than anybody I've ever seen, and that is he goes all in. He doesn't just, he takes every cent he has and he believes in it and he goes all mother in. He never hedges his bet at all until Twitter. That's why I say he brought in investors. Investors. He brought investors to Tesla and everything. But initially he went all in himself. I think with Twitter, I think he was surprised. But going back to OpenAI, I wouldnt do business with people like that. And there are people who just look for what they think is the next big thing. I certainly could have given him money. Didnt give him money. I said one of our funds that Im in did give the money originally, didnt give them money. Another time, to me thats just wrong. And that catches up to you when people over investors and whatever, it always comes back. Karma is a bitch in business too. Now Gemini with Google, I've done a lot of stuff with them.

Notebook is insanely good, Gemini 1.5 is insanely good, meta as open source and what they're doing is getting better and better. There is no, you know, there's nothing that says that OpenAI is going to win. Nothing at all. And so I don't feel bad about what they're doing. And to me it tells me they're more scared than anything by trying to restrict what people are doing.

Yep.

That's perspective is it says it's more a reflection of Sam than anything else is what you're saying.

Yep.

Well, I mean, that would be reflected in the fact that so many people who are the co founders have left. Yeah, that, that's a really big red flag if this thing is going to change the world and all the co founders leave.

I heard 40 of the 44 co founders left.

Yeah. The original employees. I mean, I don't know if that's true, but that's. Well, I mean, if you also think about this business, chamath, and where it's headed.

Sorry, there were 44 co founders around.

The Donald Trump cabinet members thing.

Yeah, no, but I mean, we did a joke about it last week. But if you just look at the competition set that they're up against, they're losing 5 billion a year. They're making three and a half. They put this thing at 150 billion. It's 40 times, 50 times revenue. To fill in that valuation on a price to sales basis. It's crazy.

Here's the one thing that I'll say, and I think Mark said this in a different way, but I don't think you can underestimate how companies like Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Apple, Amazon will react when they feel cornered. And I think in the last 20 to 25 years, what you've seen is those companies, when their backs are against the wall, they use money, they're sharp elbowed, but the consistent thing is they've won. And so the real question is, do people look at the chart of the users? Because typically what happens is it's users what tilts these companies. When something, some upstart. You remember when Snapchat was about to explode, there was a decision, we're going to decapitate this company. Facebook effectively did that. They relegated it to Zynga. Yep, Zynga. There's many cut likes that. So the real question is, when they see that this app is going to be at three or 500 million Mao, and they appear on some list where they're bigger than, I don't know, pick your favorite app inside of meta ever.

Yeah.

Well, they freak out. And if they do freak out, what do they do?

Oh, I can tell you they're freaking out now.

Oh, yeah. It's an ex. It's an existential risk to them.

Right.

And the crazy, I mean, look what Microsoft did. They bought Three Mile island, the nuclear reactor. They bought it. Everybody is looking for the angle.

And the crazy part, it's really crazy.

Yeah.

There used to be Moore's law that everything followed, right. The price, performance curve always went like this, you know when power goes up now, because you don't know. You don't know what you don't know and what you need to do next. That's part of the challenge that Elon has with Tesla in terms of full service driving. You don't know what you need to do next to get there to solve the problem.

Do you have a Tesla mark?

I do, and I do also, I also have a Kia ev. I have a Tesla ev, and I have a Kia ev.

Do you use the FSD? And if so, how is it?

I have, but I stopped using it just because it terrified me, because it doesn't know what adversarial things. It doesn't know because, you know, you know anything that's adversarial, that something it has to train on something that's seen, and it's not smart enough to figure out what it hasn't seen and whether or not it's a risk. And I've said this before, my. My four year old mini australian shepherd. I can put it in a risky situation to cross the street and trust it'll get across the street no matter what it is. It doesn't have to be pre trained. You can't do that with full service driving yet. And so until that gets to where it needs to be, where adversarial issues aren't an issue, I'm not going to fully trust it.

I have the 12.5.

Mark.

Thank you.

You've been really fun to talk to. So good talking to you.

This has been overtime with the all in podcast with Mark Cuban.

We'll see you all next week. You got it, guys. Thanks so much.

Love you, boys. Bye bye.

Let your winners ride, rain man David sack.

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

Love you.

At night, queen of Quinoa besties are gone.

That's my dog taking it off.

Oh, man.

My appetizer will meet me at play.

We should all just get a room and just have one big, huge orgy because they're all. It's like this, like sexual tension, but.

We just need to release our mouth.

Wet your feet.

Be.

Wet your feet.

We need to get merchandise.