E49: Coinbase CEO reflects on controversial blog, state of the markets, 1000 unicorns, tax reform & more
01:29:00 Share

Guys, my king of jail jokers and a joker got in jail again. Okay, so he's been jailed in italy. He was jailed in the autumn.

When will that dog learnt? I've spent quality of control.

He jailed because because he went his running, the the we we send him to like a little like the dog Walker where he goes runs around and they come pick up but then they the guy opened the the door anyways, he gets found they they're trying to call me um because I guess my numbers on the thing which I hadn't realized you don't pick up, can't reach me. Well i'm in i'm in D C. In new york and they put them in the canal and we get this picture neck. You compose the picture. But you know because I senate you or poor joker n dog job.

he is a great dog. He, but he's back.

he.

I mean, the grape IT doesn't stop .

him from escaping that dog wrong.

That dog jack came over. Yeah and the dog was like growling and in the quarter.

like it's the only dog that doesn't like me. Every other dog. Every other dog. No.

he's not been trained. He's not been trained. We have to try, but he's so te.

Did you try their dog to hate White?

People.

a dog is a little .

racing, i'll say. IT .

we, man, give.

We open sources to .

the fans and.

But everybody, welcome to another episode of all in the podcast that you've been listening to for forty eight episode de, here we are on the precipice of greatness. Forty nine episodes in with us again today, the queen of kenya, your science ambassador, David friedberg, also on the pod, the rain man himself, definitely his dad, lets them drive in the driveway, dead acx. And that in clean up the dictor of to math, Polly hopeth, what do we all think of last week's pod with biology? I felt I got cut off too soon.

I was getting into a group with ology, and i'm trying to figure I had to pick that up with him because I thought we were getting to some pretty interesting discussion towards the end that we obviously rain out the time to buy at the hop off. So, uh, I would I would have been great to keep that conversation and apology. I really do think there's a big remark. And like how does the decentralized web or decentralized social networks in particular work with respect to kind of that you know recommendation application layer, which is effectively what search solved on the internet? Um and so i'm curious to keep the conversation going and seeing you know what this means.

I made the decision to end the pod because dramatic had to go sax. There was a hard stop and I was like, I I don't want to keep this going without the other best ties. And people were very upset.

They thought I um shut IT down a rule, but we had a certain number of time and we can always have them back. Everybody relax. But I did look at the stats, which came in with our you know whatever percent parada and he had double, so he had forty percent.

And we for a guess, I think I felt right. Didn't I feel right? I think it's important to hear what when folks come on, what they have to say um he's a really smart guy and you know you can kindly just let them go and look for a while um and then just react to him so I think it's it's lovely to hear such a deep thinker think out loud quite honest yeah and even if .

you don't agree with them, I don't agree with among a lot of his points about know dealie ed everything I think centralized works for you know many things Better i'm curious sex you know looking back on IT where the moments that you felt maybe you disagree with him more or agree with him more and want IT to lean into a conversation of its very hard to five people on a pod and only get a certain amount of time we set well.

Look, I think I think pology is a great guest. Have on once in a while. I mean, that does kind of turn the part a little bit more into a ted talk. Definitely have that vibe. But the fans you liked IT and I mean, pology, I should have his own show. I mean, he can go for a while and he's to and he has, he has and I think he should do his own show because there's sufficient a huge find base for IT. And and if people want morbidity, I interviewed him for about hour on purple pills, which is kind of the the but if you were called solo pod solo show that I do, where I occasionally .

interview people on call calling, go check up purple pills so yeah, you know I gave, uh, biology a little pet tok coming in saying, hey, listen, it's a roundtable discussion and i've before and you can kind of tip into the mono logging and explaining very big picture thing so just try to pass the world a little bit here um and and I think he he did a justice game a little bit but it's you know it's hard to have somebody like that on. I think you pointed out sex that it's more like a ted talk for him.

We are having a conversation and he used to being interviewed and I think that is that a transition? But you know um IT was fine.

Let's move on. Yeah okay. So I think will start off with something we talked about on episode nine, which was coin basic CEO. Brian on strung wrote a very control blow, very, very controversial blog post A A exactly a year ago coin basis emission focus company at the time he was dealing with and never ending debate inside his zone company about black lives matter, about social justice and any number of issues. And he said, listen, the company is mission focus.

Our mission is to, you know, make people more financially independent, literate eta, and we're going to ban any discussions on our electronic communications. You can do things on your own time. And I was quite controversial the time we had a good discussion.

I will listened to our I relist n to our discussion on that pod. And we all univerSally felt like I was the right move. Well, he went ahead and picked up the horn, its nest. He did not have to talk about this ever again. Everybody had forgotten about IT, and he grabs the horn in that ran into the enzo and Spike IT.

Jason, can you well, before you do that, can you say how many people left as a result of his blog post and all, do you know those states?

Because I think that, but was there .

was five percent ended believing there was a big article about IT. You I think, I think IT was worth doing a follower post. This was the one year universities blog post.

He was kind of giving us the status update and what he basically said is that the policy had worked. So you ve got so first all so we just review what the policy was ah the policy was that they were going to declare the workplace to be politically neutral. People would leave their politics of the door.

They would not have sort of extremist political conversations at work. That doesn't mean you couldn't support whatever causes you wanted on your own time or tweet whatever you want on your own time. But while you're at work, they were declared red to be sort of a political dmz.

I could demo, try a zone. Basically all he was doing was asserting the old center, the old adequate of, hey, when you go to work, you you're not engaging. You're paid.

Yes, you're paid to work. You're not there to engage in political activism. So that was the policy.

And of course, the woke mob became completely history about IT as IT turns. And so then what happened is that brian offered everyone a very generous service policy. If they didn't want to stick out out for the polite, yes, it's really generous.

They made really.

they made a really easy for check out. They want to check out, well, only five percent. The policy, yes. And then on the heels of that, there was a gigantic new or times hit piece against the company, the usual disinformation lander's against the company. And then now we have this follow piece. And I think what brian base are reported is that today, coin basis, a more line company because everyone whose there wants to be there for the mission, that's what they focus on when they go to work. He talked about how they had hire top talent away from other companies, and basically he put out the bad signal and people .

came running because to voting with their feet to.

yeah, they're fed up with the politics and distraction and and I think the employees were secretly relieved that he declared red this policy. Basically, he took the heat on himself for the larger benefit of all the employees who just want to be there and work and not have to wonder whether they're doing something right or wrong because they're on the wrong side of a political issue.

Freeburg now didn't when he said, uh, in our episode nine, which go back to free burguet may not remember your comments but you said, what about the employees who just wanted come to work and don't want to engage in postal species? Now you're infringing on them to force them to be participate in these discussions and they don't have a choice because they need to feel the families need to go to work.

And so freeze are going going to take a little Victory lap there, he says in the tweet storm. I'll just read the third part of IT. One of the biggest concerns around our sense was that IT would impact our diversity numbers.

Since my post, we've grown on our headcount, about a hundred and ten percent, doubled IT, while our diversity numbers have remained the same or even improved in some metric. So all of the hand ringing and Pearl clutching that this would have a negative effect. The company has turned out to be wrong ahead to baten.

And I mean, if you want IT like I think it's important to set the context for what this is. There is a um a productivity war going on inside of um institutions around the world. And what's happening is that um people's personal beliefs are bumping up against what the mission and um goals, Operational goals of uh a company are or a university or all these other places.

And so this is probably the first big example. This is what is a fifty, sixty billion dollar public company, fifty billion dollar public company, that basically said, enough, enough, this is our mission. Everybody else basically just needs to shut the fuck up. And I think that that's very important.

Now if they then go off and actually crush their goals, that's the one missing peace and all of this, because when that happens, then you can write a through line through all of this and say, okay, this is in part what allowed them to do IT. So I think that the the the folks that, you know, uh, were really open arms still have a one small straw in the fight, which is that if these guys don't achieve their goals, they'll point to this as one of the reasons why. But university of strength, you're suppressing free speech, you know, that argument. But I think if brian then goes and delivers a couple of knockout quarters and a couple of knock years, then um you know what he will be able to say definitively wish no one can refuse is we leave our politics at the door. We define our OK rs and then we go and we build things that people need um as a company and then you go off and you can do what everyone and I think that that's very powerful for uh, many companies and institutions.

Fried berger heard my recap of what you said last. I'm sure if you remember, you released what are your thoughts today. I think it's .

um it's worth just noting less about the particularity of what was said in the particular issue at hand here. And I would look more to kind of brians um leadership style as an excEllent example of defining and creating strong culture. Culture in an, uh, organization can give that organization what he needs to succeed.

IT puts everyone aligned in a specific way on how we make decisions, how we Operate. IT doesn't matter what his particular believes and opinions are, what to exclude, what to include in the dialogue, in the discourse, in the model for discourse within the organza. I think what matters that he put, uh, a line in the sand and he said, this is what we're gona do, this is what's in and this is what's out.

And organizations that do that and do that effectively generally win. They win more, they do Better. The teams are a line. The teams are are more unified. And I think that definition may sometimes be controversial. And you'll notice that these companies get bigger, go public, the larger they bring in professional managers and the founder, C E, O steps out.

They generally don't do that right? They they generally try to not do that definitional work because they are trying to minimize loss um and not kind of take the bet on maxi zing long term gain and doing the things that they think culturally define or will enable success long term. So I I think it's a great example of leadership generally on how you kind of um can be very vocal about to finding a strong culture. Elon, cause that I think elon calls IT corporal speak, you grab, meaning most companies .

when they get bigger, they gravitate towards corporal speak. And then what happens is some cohort of employees who are really good just feel trapped in this kind of moras .

of mediocrity. And by the way, look at elution, right by the typical large scale public company corporate metric of, like how many people are leaving per year. You d say, oh my god, this is up with that organization. But IT really speaks to a strong culture. There is a company that's famous for this called bridge water associated, you know, run by great value, hundred billion dollar hedges, fine, one of the best performing investment officers of all time, and they have incredible culture, are talking about rydal OS book principles before.

And some of the work keeps done on this, where he is so adamant about getting culture right within the organization, how you Operate, that they almost have, I take a thirty percent attrition, an rate after the first year of people that come in because they not only trying screen for these elements of what they consider to be the right cultural fit for the organza up front, but then they also screen people the heck out of the door if they're not a good fit. And and I think elon has a similar sort of model. And you know, I think bryan, the way he speaks about your organization is a similar model. And it's about defining the lines. It's about being very Christal clear about what's in and what's not.

whatever as a CEO and a founder, whatever you believe you need to believe in, it's strongly and command and then communicated and then let people vote. They vote with their feet. They don't get to vote whether they change IT. They just get to vote whether they get to stay, whether they go. And I think that that's a .

really smart I think said.

I think there's one of the issue here. Jack, this goes back to your point about why did brian have to bring this back up. Was that unnecessary to be Spike the hornets in the enzo? Here's why I think he was necessary. If you go to point seven and eight of his tweet storm, he says he was the most positive reaction i've gotten from any change.

I've mean the history of the company, which saying something, how could something be so negative in the press that turned out be in incredibly positive with every stay holder or ninety five percent of of employees privately, all the investors are telling him was a great thing. And then what he says is, the only sense I can make of IT is there is a huge mismatch right now between people stated and reveal preferences. And we're Operating in an environment of virtual signal and fear of speaking up.

So to me, this is the point of this tweet. So on bringing up now is without people like brian standing up and saying, what the truth is that, look, everybody wants this, just afraid to articulate the principle. Uh, we keep, we keep encouraging this climate of fear.

And the alternative to coin base, one of the other companies who you talked about is apple. I mean, you can basically choose to be coin base or apple. What is apple done? They booted out tonio Martina because of a passage, but that they knew about. And ever since then, the companies been roiled by boy cots and petition writing from the employees about .

some new cause every couple of weeks. And eventually that'll show .

up in the Operating results of the matter of sure. Most employees that apple don't want to be, you know, constantly roiled by these like petition campaigns, but they have to put up with that because everyone so RAID to speak up. And that's why it's important that what brand do we have to basically recognize that this woke mob who's called everyone to silence is maybe five percent of these companies. And if everybody just act like brian, the problem will be over.

Well, we know we know what the trailer bread crum is right now. And I think we should probably, you know shine a light on IT, which is that that five percent is uh exactly the same as Donald trump to just exist on the left, you know. And there there's more and more research that shows that just as much as we thought they were right authoritarians, there are also left authoritarians. And this is what we're seeing, that that the craziness that you know, everybody decries on the right actually also exist on the world.

And they just put A A button m up before we we put the story on strong was very clear that the mission is about global wealth inequality. So staying focused on that in his mind is the the higher a bit and will result in the most great change. So paradoxically are, ironically, all these old people attacking coin base. Coin base might do more for wealth inequality and justice in the world if they stay focus, then if they try to tackle everything. And you know, this is a road to nowhere for apple.

I think, sax, you pointed this out about how if you were running apple, you would fire anybody who does a petition, because i'll tell you where apple is about to to basically land by enabling all of this work mob inside their own company, by coddling them, addressing them and not keeping them focus, they will eventually get to the fact that china is, you know, has three million wagers in a concentration camp. And those wagers are proven to be providing, through slave labor, equipment and components, two companies that eventually make their way to apple products. argo. Apple supports slavery and that's what the employees will eventually get to and that will cause chaos. But there's .

something even closer to more closer to home that that's probably true or could be true. I don't know that is true um but you know the fact that apple had the the most important security league in their entire software career just a few months ago is also quite important. Like you had a .

because .

why note you at zero? So the I I O S fourteen that IT exists because of why? Because a researcher or A A set of researchers in toronto discovered that there is a zero click x point in IOS that allowed you to basically turn on the mack phone, turn on the camera, you know, grab anything you needed for iphones.

I was the most secure device until two months ago, when I turned out IT was actually the most insecure device. I tend to think, I tend to think those kinds of technical mistakes happen when people take their eye off the ball. And I think people take their eye off the ball because they are the moralized with dealing with distractions.

sex yeah .

I mean, I think the whether it's the wagers, the security issue, it's a good example of the employees at apple see the spec and somebody else is I, but not the log in their own. I mean, that's that's the the principle and and they would be much Better off focusing on dealing with their own internal issues. But but let's go can we go back to that article that matter.

reference about you?

No, I thought this is a really great article. You would explain a shako .

just you give me a quick over you and then you can dive since you put on the docket. Psychiatrist author Sally satire, hopefully impressed in the correct road and article for the atlantic entitled the experts somehow overlooked the thornton arians on the left.

The main point here is that trumps presents y Spark a ton of research coverage of authority anim on the right, but mostly ignored the laugh, with some researchers even suggesting that the left wing, that the left wing authoritarian m isn't real. In an email to detail, uh, a social psychologist from record said the following, uh, for seven years, the law, the law in the social sciences has been that authoritarian m has been found exclusively on the political right. Why is that? One reason leving author authority ism barely showed up in social psychology research is that most academic experts in the field are based at institutions, or prevAiling attitudes are far to the left of society as a whole.

Sex the dock you to introduce what what you like about IT. The reason I saw .

this and I thought that was so interesting, was basically we had an entire body of research trying to understand why some folks are attracted to um these authors arian figures like trump and overwhelmingly all the research at the time said they only exist on the right and you know you will end all of this started after hitler and so they resolve this research around the you know social and attitude reactions to hit.

Learn how he came to power and then all of the iterations of folks like him on the right afterwards and so people put trump in that category and then they said they can only exist there but as IT turns out, when this person did this research, and SHE surveyed seven thousand people in all of the data was very well summarized in this atlantic article, which i'm sure we can post in the show notes that folks should read low in the hole that actually exist on both sides. So as IT turns out, the extreme right and the extreme left are exactly the same. They are moral absolutists.

They believe in themselves and themselves only, and they believe anybody else that, outside of where they are, is fundamentally in the wrong. And if you actually look at that and see how trump behaved in his presence, cy, and now how you see how the left names and shames, you actually find a lot of commonality. So the reason I found that article interesting is that IT actually says, again, what we've been saying, which is coming down the middle and finding in a reasonable compromise is the only way forward, because the minute you start moving in either direction, you are the same and that person is an ugly person that we don't want around.

Let me give the money quote, and then get your feedback, feedback. g. The similarities in the study included, quote, similarities between authority, an ism mobile side, left, right preference for social uniformity, check prejuges toward different, different others, willingness to wheel group, authority to cohorts, behavior, cognitive rigidity, aggression and until ess toward perceived enemies outsize concern for higher arty and as trial pointed out, moral apple absolutism .

of freebies. I think authoritarian figures resolve um uh a population feels uh insecure so I mean, we talked about this last pod, but I do think that um you know the notion of freedom emerges after the comfort of security has been provided and I think the absence of security drives people wave from the drive towards freedom. Like when you have a feeling of insecurity with respect, kind of your ability to get a job.

I mean to remember a hitler rose to power when unemployment um you know post the whale republic was skyrocketing. People you know couldn't get jobs, they couldn't afford food and the authoritarian figure was going to provide the security needed, I think, to resolve the concerns that the population had. And then, you know, people watch on to that.

So, you know, there are moments in time when I think authoritarians m can emerge with different forms of resolution. IT doesn't necessarily mean that the authoritarian actor needs to take A A left or right point of view. They're just gona give you a path to security when you're feeling insecure. If you don't feel insecure, you're going to say that ridiculous. So countries that are wealthy, countries that are privileged with the opportunities that maybe the united states has are less likely and less and client to fall you know in favor of authoritarian .

leaders .

and as we slip backwards economically, unemployment wise and said ah we're more likely to be a to be in favor of of of those sorts of actors um and so I think that you but don't you think it's crazy .

that we actually uh didn't think IT could exist in one into the political spectrum and now that does you have a point in that .

or I never really understood the whole like hr purely a right way guy like he was a as you know, socialist and he was trying to enable, like you know, socialized services and socialized systems for people know in a lot of political circles that would be argued as being a very kind of left point of view um and so I don't know if that yes.

let's go beyond just go beyond hit but you're right the nasty party was a national social party, the name the party was this also a stolen poll pot maw. I mean, if you're paying attention in history, you know that there's been authority gismo on the left, not just the right and but you know in the universities and in the media, they only want to focus on the right version of IT.

And I think what the study does is IT up and seventy years of dogma that that the authoritarian m is only to be found on the political right. I mean, this obviously can be found on the political left as well. And you can see that in cancel culture, in speech restrictions, in these very aggressive covent Mandates that are now happening.

You can see IT in the um this sort of the the goolies ess anytime somebody in the right dies from covet I mean, there's there's always some torturing on the part of the left about this. The harsh penalties are not compliance. I mean.

right virginity is the one that stands out for me like there is just on the left. They make a decision. Amazon is bad and they cannot move off of that right, David?

Like about willingness ss to wheel group authority, of course, behavior. And what about aggression and putative veness towards .

perceived and culture?

That would be culture. Me IT begs a good question, which is um what socialist regimes have come to power without an authority and figure has a na the revolutionaries and actually .

the study has a really good point about this which is the say that um the researchers describe what they called to anti hierarchical aggression so one of the traits of authority ism is they called in an outsize concern for hierarchy. But you left just think that they don't believe in high archy, but actually they do.

They believe in an anti hero archer hierarchy, which is they want to turn upside down the social hierarchy and they're willing to justify the end, justify the me. In other words, if you can turn the hierarchy upside down, they'll let you do anything. And it's actually pretty scary. That's where the sort of the revolution comes from.

Here's a practical thing, jl, about what you said, which illustrates this point even further. Right now we have a three and half trillion dollar bill um kind of me entering um through congress and you know it's very much a question mark about whether he is passionate. And one of the elements that in there is free community college.

Now when IT passes if IT passes um there's a lot of support that that's something that the government should do. It's a good thing. But if you're a private company like amazon who just announce that they will give you free college, they're still a bad company. And and this is the example of this intellectual rigidity that doesn't actually see the force from the trees.

What do you really want? Do you want the process where you control and you meet our progress? Or do you actually want the outcome where somebody can get a job where they make fifteen or twenty dollars an hour and also now get college paid for? Yes, I do much, much later.

Yeah, we much Better, if I want, didn't to provide. I'd love that if the government could pay for, but i'm really glad that amazon is in a position to pay for as well. But if you start to become absolutely and say, well, no IT, this needs to be top down and metered out this way. And any private organization that wants to try to do IT is still bad. I think that's where that rigidity holds us all back.

It's unnecessary. Here's where I see the rigidly moth is. They keeps saying, gig workers or bad, nobody should be allowed to be a gig worker.

And David had a great interview with the right sharing guy on Colin in which they talked about the fact. And this is somebody who is super proactive cate of drivers at, listen, eighty percent of people do not want to do shift word. They do not want the government dictating how they work.

And I talked and a totally with an uber driver studies, making like seventy box an hours are during peak hours. They were fighting to get minimum wage for drivers. Now drivers are making twenty, thirty, forty, fifty dollars an hour. Uber rights have gone and lift rights have gone.

Message is a massive competition. Ary market works .

well and and they can take the win. They still are so rigid on the left that they are demanding whatever that woman's name is, who, you know, in the pocket of the, in the pocket of the the unions. How cynical are they? The Victory is upon them here. People are getting paid five times more, three times more wage. And they still want to .

do them to take away for a lot of people, should be that your spider senses should go up when folks present solutions as a choice of one source only. You know, things can only happen in one way. And it's the way that I feel the most comfortable your spider sensor should go up.

And you should think yourself, really, is that, is that really the only way I can't we have choice. Can we have different ways of solving this? Can we experiment and see what happens?

Good sex. I think you should also go up whenever somebody is basically saying that species needs be sensor for some higher purpose, whenever people are trying to a bridge and take away our rights and our sort of long held values, our freedoms, you have to start getting concerned. And there's always a reason why they wants to do IT.

In the study, the quote that the left ling authoritarian an agreed with was ganging rid of inequality is more important than protecting the so called right to free speech. So there is always some higher reason that means always justify the the ends, always justify the means. But that's what you have to look out for, is when they're taking away.

you're right to speech. Another fun proof point fun because it's dave shapely, uh uh, that you can listen to or watch to see a flavor of this leftwing authoritarians. M is called redemption song, which is little clippy put out recently. And the the entire clip is more about him getting his body of work back from uh comedie central but the part in the beginning talks about um focus on the left that really tried to dunk on him when he got covered and you should just listen to his reaction and how he frames IT um because I think it's pretty powerful and IT again IT explains that extremism on both sides they actually end up looking in the same yeah .

agressive and put in the tour perceived enemies and I think that applies to anyone who ah anyone who defines whatever the commercial ism is on covered. There's another another example of the study of that that the people who the left fing authoritarian ans agreed with the statement. I cannot imagine myself becoming friends with a political conservative.

So you ve got these social groups that are completely uniform and by the way, they're been like studies for a long time showing that liberals are twice as likely as conservative to be upset if their son, daughter were to marry someone of the opposite party. So this has been, this has been turned up and pulls for a while. But this and you have seen on universities and college campuses, right but this is an idea that you know anybody of the other political side is just suspect morally suspect, needs to be shunt, needs to be expelled um like those are the people who have to be concerned about .

yeah you can be friends. I can't be friends with the ux because you voted for trump. It's just ridiculous. People have no but it's I think it's the dragon to give the other side of this. I think trump was so extreme and so trolling and so great. I mean, if you think about his super power, IT was control the left and put them into such a dragged mindset that they did actually become that which they hated most.

right? But he did. He did roll the left. But, but, but here's the thing is that we only hear in the media about the author ism of the trump administration how many times where they streaming fashion during the trump years and and now today and and of course you if you go to mm bc, it's jane six all day, all the time. That's all they want to talk about.

But there's a total blind spot with respect to the authority talian tendencies of the left, which we see right now in covet policy. I mean, he is getting so. Right now and I mean, freeburg, you posted the breaking news that just announced Y A press conference governance is now implementing Mandate a cover vaccines for all public k through twelve schools in california starting this fall.

Where are these students?

Yeah all all logic kids in all.

in all public people, in order to go to school in california, you have to have a vaccine.

I mean, kinder garden, the garden. I mean.

they're not eligible. Yeah.

if it's they're eligible there.

there can be eligible very soon. I mean, look so so we have a thirty year old and seven year old and a five year old. The thirty year old got vaccinated.

SHE wanted to. We supported IT. The eleven year old was an eligible SHE didn't get a vaccine.

SHE got code for me. IT was a mod case. And our five year old isn't out before the vaccine. He never got coffee.

Now if even when a new vaccine comes out that our five year old is eligible, I don't think he needs IT. I mean, i'm not anti vx. I mean, i'm glad I got vaccine.

I'm glad going to school vaccine. yeah. Question is, do if IT is safe.

do you want them going to school catching IT, spreading IT and you want them to not have to wear a mess?

And how can you say conclusively at what's say for a five or six year old at this point?

It's a little hard. Bodies are developing and yeah.

you need some time parent decision because of other .

people in society who would be impacted as.

I mean, you want to see this. Look, I think I think vaccines maybe are complicated debate because vaccines do actually provide protection. Let's talk about these mass min dates, which I supported at the beginning of the pandemic, because is all we had to fight IT. But you take an example, like service disco o still has the stringent mass man dates. The mayor london breed .

was caught out at dancing, singing liming.

But first to her, I was tony, tony, tony.

Yes, I was his friends. He was, he was basically like.

is tony.

tony ony guys which .

is ready to .

give IT out what I do? Risk, if you want to.

to play poker or .

see .

your favorite thing.

What he said when he got caught was actually correct, which is we should be out supporting restaurants. We should be out supporting nightlife. Adults should be able to make their own decision about the rest going to take. The problem is, he is not only going to give the rest of us that choice, right, and we can all make our own choice. And by the way, look the idea that the cover is not onna get you once you take off your mass when you get to the table you we've talked about this right ah you wear the mass in the matter distance to the table, then you take IT off to eat and drink and the cover somehow not going to get in and he .

was saying he was like, I listen, they were like, you weren't eating we have you on video you aren't reading SHE like it's unrealistic for adult to put the mask on and off in between sips and bites. And I was on a flight, and I was flying coach as opposed to business class recently. And when I was in business class, I was eating and drinking there.

No an entire foreign guage. So are you speaking what are like most .

people pay for a .

plane ticket and then they get on an airplane.

So but the interesting thing was when I was in business class, I was eating my male. I was drinking no issues, had the mask off for whatever, twenty minutes eating and drinking when I was in coach. Same situation.

The flight attended IT was going up and down the air. And while people are eating and drinking, if they have the gone, SHE was kind of being like a whole mother. Think, please put your mass in between bites and I was like, okay, yeah. And when we supported this mass, man.

and they wait the beginning of the vaccine, we all thought the government can distribute ninety nine, or at least, and ninety five high quality three and mass, right? We never those, we never got that.

I know people.

people are like walking around wearing these cloth mh, these loser and clothes ass. It's ridiculous. The copa goes you through the bottom, over the top to you to decide. Go right through IT. I mean, like IT doesn't do anything .

that you are the one ranger.

yes. I mean I look if you worry, if I high quality like you know P P E type mask, I think IT might be helpful. But you know it's a marginal benefit once we have vaccines oh.

by the way, just as we end this, what do we think of um Andrew wagon? You can comment on this maybe because you're an owner in the team, but a number of N B A players, uh, high profile ones in fact, in new york, in california where you're not allowed in the arena if you're not accelerating now deciding to sit out their home games. So Carry irving being the highest profile.

One is refusing to get the vaccine and he will be begetting pay. He's got to two hundred million dog contract max player. I think it's forty, fifty million a year. He's going to give up half of his salary, uh, to not twenty million a year to not get the vaccine at least, and leave his team to not play with them in home games. What our thoughts on Mandating N B A players who are playing inside an arena to be vacant ated D C.

draw on interview I .

did what what a data of say about this. He is strong .

and he was like, this is ridiculous .

that we don't like respect each other others like we made this so political and it's all like antagonist opposed to matter, recognizing that there are differences and people have differences of opinion and respecting them and embracing each other for those differences rather than like attacking each other and finding fault .

in each other and forcing them.

It's a great point, but I don't know. I mean, I don't think that this point is any different than the point about, you know, Mandating a vaccine for anything at any workplace, any school. I mean, if you're know if you going to man a vaccine for workplaces and many vaccine for schools, you know the M B A is gonna. You know not be kind of excluded. Here is what IT is right.

just helps to be a bigger paycheck in a higher profile stage.

I think a matter of policy, the right policy here, let private employers decide whether they're gonna require vaccination or not. I think I think private organza have the right to do that. If if a restaurant tour wants to say that we are going to be in all vx restaurant you want to and they're only going to take cin, tell where vx that should be their right to do IT.

If another restaurant says we don't care, you can go to that restaurant if they want. I think that the free market can sort this out. I don't know that we need the government imposing IT. If the MBA .

decides this is what they want to do.

they said, well, I mean, what I wonder about is how sir IT is um I mean, given the fact that you know all the players are Young and healthy and if they want the vaccine, they can get the vaccines. I look i'm really glad I got IT you know I think IT but but I just given that everybody is vaccinated now, who wants IT? I just know what is the point of forcing that last ten percent of hold outs to do something they don't want to do? I mean, this is where I think the authority, I would resist the authority, an .

freeburg. Is there a new pill that's coming out? Uh I saw story today about this. I don't know, want to cover that to go you know transfers a mark.

published some results uh on this um basically um uh anti viral pill IT effectively uh inhibits R A replication uh in viruses and it's kind of uh IT was designed to be kind of broadly applicable. IT was you know discovered at my university years ago and they were testing IT for influenza and then even cover they were testing IT on other kind of chronic viruses, a SARS and MERS um and so the the data that they just published shows that there's a fifty percent reduction in hospitalization.

fifty percent uh .

in hospitalization uh for people that are the test positive uh for SARS copy to infection. And then they start the pill within some number of hours.

You take a few these pills and .

they said five. I think they the like IT was effectively four five days. That's right. Um when you end .

up reducing the number .

the percentage of people that end up in the hospital, fifty percent now you know uh so the idea is that for countries that don't have access to vaccines you can very cheaply make this chemistry is a cheap molecule that you could be radically produce at scale and you could chip IT all over the world and the countries that don't have, you know broad scale of vaccination programs that can make these pills available quickly and cheaply.

And then you know people get uh, infected with sarce cov too. They just pick up this pill, you know put in every pharmacy, go grab a couple and then the hospitalization rate goes down. Uh, we don't yet know if IT reduced the transmission rate.

So there's a lot of question Marks. And like does this actually solve the problem of the pandemic? And certainly another instrument to blunt the you .

know the impact pronounce the name of IT.

It's manual .

upping the government. A lot of .

people in the study, no one that took the pill, right? People that didn't take the pill did die, uh in the in the infection, in the infected population because they split them, right? They gave some people to people and some people the pill.

The people that have the world debt. No one in the group that had the pill um the actual pale died. And so um you know so so theoretically we don't yet have enough data to know, but there's also a big question on the side effects.

Typically these uh anti uh uh viral the R N A kind of a blocking drugs have other side effects. They're usually pretty mild. But um you know so so there will be a little bit more studying. But generally people view this is a super big positive. Another instrument .

i'm going to make.

i'm going to make a prediction.

Here we go. I think that the combination of vaccines and what is equivalently tamiflu for covet, which is effectively what this is, is the one two punch we need so that this basically is rendered um you are missing .

the you're missing a key ister the testing. You must have testing to know that you have to take this ah.

but I I I think that that H I think like the testing is it's not efficient, but the solutions exist. My point is if you have a combination of all these things. This is like a flu, which means that they'll be less sibling for folks to not show up to work, which means that most of the economy, we will get back going.

And I think then we can get back to really addressing what are all that ten or twelve trillion dollars, how does that show up in the economy? That's where the inflation comes from. That's for all the other stuff.

So uh, i'm i'm pretty excited by what I read today. But now my mindset is going to eighteen months from now midd term inflation. I think that's going to be what I S all about.

We are at one point seven million courses of this. Alcohol is a we just call basic. This is the equivalent of A Z packs and call us the impact.

Um if this um hini taken probably one point seven million.

seven that's just on the way back from vegas. So um so I mean, this feels like the end game and they are going for most. see. So let's keep our fingers for ss. This would mean in the stock markets gna rip you move.

I know I think the stock market um is a little bit of precarious position because if you have to if you have to reposition yourself for inflation, there's a lot of tax talks that will get just absolutely obliterated like well when when you you when you have inflation. So the the order Operations inflation means Prices go up.

The government sees Prices going up and they say, how do we control that? They raise interest strates so that the cost of borrowing goes up so that then less money is being spent, right? So that we become a little bit more restrained when you do that, then all of a sudden, people have to think about how much money you're going to make in the future.

Because if you're not investing as much in the future, you won't make as much in the future. And when you discount all those dollars back, there's less of them. And so all of a sudden you start to think about, oh my gosh, well, I want dollars today, not dollars ten years from now.

That really, uh, puts a lot of pressure on tech talks because we trade on multiple valuations in the future. So inflation is very bad for technology stocks. Inflation tends to be good for companies that make money today.

why? Because if I get a dollar today, I can put you in this in the menu bond markets, or I put them into a savings account and I can get more interest than I would have otherwise. And then separately, you also want to own things that are physical and real because those have more value.

So all of that has to then get worked out into the economy, and we have to make a bunch of economic decisions. So we so now the solution for that in all of those cases, though, is still if you're a hyper growth company, you'll be OK. If you're growing more than fifty, sixty percent year, you're fine, but if you're growing twenty or thirty percent in your kind of a middling business and rates are going up and inflation going up, you're in a very, very, very precarious spot. And sex, what do you think?

okay. Well, there was a great article in the walter journal over the past week called me diversity and domsie ment billions in the golden of venture capital talking about mean these these university dams are like getting fifty percent every year. There's been like nothing like IT before.

There's so many etuc ns being created. There's and if there's a separate article, I think pitch book as well about the rate of unior crunch base at that, the rate of unique creation. I think last year, IT was like one every few days.

Now it's it's more than one a day bankers and so were getting multiple unicorns now created every day. This year is just this golden era VC, this engine of wealth and prosperity creation. So that's a good news.

And to connect this some point we are talking about earlier, if the radical on the left, which just allow the golden goose to keep playing golden eggs, we're going to have enough wealth and prosperity to pay for all these progressive programs in the long run. But they're not willing to wait. And so you have a washing, for example, I think a political program that really could upset the apple car.

You know, you're talking about a three and a half trillion dollar reconciliation bill. It'll probably get brought down to someone between one and A F two. Then you got at one point to build truly dollar infrastructure bill. They have already spent one point nine trillion on a covered relief bill. This is after the six trillion.

What would you you advise you should be the amount spent.

Well, okay, a good question. So last year, the federal government generated record tax receipts. The most revenue is ever raised, and that was about one thousand hundred and a half percent of GDP.

When bill clinton left office, he boast about the fact that government spending was only eighteen and a half percent of GDP last year, IT was about thirty percent of GDP. My theory on this is that if you have government spending as a, you share of the economy at around twenty percent from a tax spending standpoint, things basically work, okay. But as you try to go, up to twenty five and thirty percent starts to break.

You have too much deficits and debt, too much money printing, too much taxation, too much inflation, you become more brittle. And you start to, you basically are one health. You're killing the golden goose.

And so, you know all we have to do is let the economy keep ripping. Twenty percent of IT is is going to be government share and you'll be able to fund more, more progressive programs over time as society gets richer. And by the way, this this um prosperity that's being created in the tech ecosystem, it's available to everybody who has a good idea.

I mean, this is not so so as we all know. So it's not the government that's creating advancement and economic opportunity for disadventure ge people. The tech economy is creating IT as well. And what I worry about IT is, is why are we taking so much risk and up ending this whole system that is working quite well?

Well, the other thing is this is all in the face of there being a eleven million open jobs. There is one point four jobs for everybody who's unemployed. So the idea that in some way societies broken and people can be employed now this .

might not be the only four, the only million people looking for work. There's eleven million .

outstanding jobs. Yeah ah I mean, IT is bonkers. Freedom or do you think this is sustainable? What are your thoughts on spending and turning over the apple .

court as the longer you guys have me on this podcast, the more likely is you guys gonna mask me as a die hard libertarian um I will not let my tendencies um you know come at and full force uh spending is ridiculous and there's a lot of weight. So I mean, I just leave at that. What I think is interesting is this uniform creation system, uh, this union corn creation machine, it's worth highlight because I think that that crunch base article show that these court and aggregate were worth like what one and a trillion dollars or something um and so those .

are all private companies three fortune .

dollars is that the amount of both bills three .

point four trillion is the total market cap of all the private uniforms, not just in the user of the world and right now and washing and they talk about three and half trillion dollar reconcilement bill, same size. Can you imagine government spending basically the entire value of the tech ecosystem in one year? It's Bakers, right?

And so by the way, I mean, like I think that that three point five trillion you can kind of think about that is being the future economy of the future of global economy, right? So the entire, uh, I just pulled up the latest quarterly start but the entire uh market cap of public U S. Companies uh today stands at forty seven trillion dollars.

The top five hundred are about thirty eight trillion dollars. So you know these private companies that are kind of the emerging tech companies are you know call IT ten percent or you know eight percent uh of of all today, of all public companies today. And you know IT used to be the technology company started in silicon valley sole technology to traditional industries.

What's happening in silicon valley today, and over the last ten years or so, is that technology, quote, quote, companies are becoming the next industrial companies they are replacing. And this is like what we saw. L, B, N, B is a hotel chain without hotels.

Uber is, you know, a transportation company without vehicles, ord, sh. orders. But but even more importantly, there is an entire emergent class of life sciences companies of novel companies.

And these businesses are leveraging their core technology competence to create an advantage in replacing an old model of doing the industry. They're not selling into the old school. And so I think that and people are freaking out about seventies big investors like tiger global coming in and writing crazy checks.

If you take an index of the three and a half trillion dollars today and said, you know what these guys today are gonna be worth more than the forty six trillion dollar market cap of all the other public companies. That said today in the next twenty or thirty years, that's a pretty good way to cut a place your money over a thirty year horizon. I'm going to go ahead and put as much money as I can the index of the private companies and expect they're going going to be worth more than forty six trillion and thirty years.

I'm going to make a ten baggar. That's a retirement fun for my family. So IT makes a ton of sense.

I think that these um you know these uniforms, given the advantages that are not a evolving from software and like scientists and so on, do end up kind of playing out, uh it's going to be ugly. But what happened is you end up seeing the a cemex. You'll see the like, oh god, this is something that's a about and you know hundred x return. You will become a hundred billion of public company or two hundred billion public company and they'll be about when they are gonna die um and people GTA focus on the deaths and say this was over hipe the bubble is over. But the reality is the index of companies today I would be willing to bed twenty to thirty years from now, is worth more than the forty .

six billion dollar of all the is. So math, one of the things we're seeing here, and we are playing a small partner or a large part, depending on to detective, we now have over six thousand probably traded companies on us exchange.

We have less than four thousand. We have about thirty eight hundred.

okay? Ah no, we have thirty six hundred and twenty sixteen, according to the research I have here, according to market watch.

six thousand U S. exchanges. So the.

Which we're seeing dramatically more publicly traded companies, many speculative ones or ones where you're getting to buy in, in your four, five or six. Obviously, you're part of that with you know all the different IPO s through. What are you up to now?

What's the yeah we have six text backs. We have four biotech backs. You know I mean, i've started and were invested in a bunch of others that have gone public.

So let's forget this through the lens of the the public market as well.

My macro view is exactly what feedback ke said. We are much Better off with as many technology companies being birthed and being viable because over the long ark of time, those companies will rebuild things that are today inefficiently broken in a Better way and the world becomes Better. Um the question is for a lot of people, well, what if the wealth isn't Better because it's only in a fraction of the number of people with a very specific skill said that many other people don't have that I think is a valid argument.

But then there is a different way to attack this problem, which is you could actually do something really meaningful around corporate interest rates and corporate tax policy that would then get IT, right? So like even if those those thousand companies, if you assume that that three point four trillion dollars, ten aces, that's thirty four trillion of eventual market cut, right? That's gonna supported by trillions of dollars of earnings, but maybe those things only have a million or two million employees, but there is a million od people in the world.

Well, the way you get the money into the government's coffers that they can reallocate to everybody that doesn't work at those thousand companies is through sensible tax policy that goes after the companies because those companies will still do the job, right? It's not like you're going na choose the network, a world beating start up um in admission that you care about because of the corporate tax rate. Nobody he's gona do that, right? So I think this is where like if you if you if you actually um take a step back and think of the bigger picture, the answers is right in front of us.

We just choose not to listen. This is why you know again, what prompted was kind of stupid you know he focused on corporate tax policy cutting IT unnecessarily. Um and now what we're doing is we're fighting over tax policy.

And part of the reason why this bill is going to get passes because of corporate tax policy and try to rise IT. But really what we should do is actually raise IT, leave personal rates roughly where they are. You know, elan even said when when asked by kerrs wish, er this week is like I pay fifty three percent taxes.

What about you? Yeah, it's going to fifty seven and fifty three.

fifty seven, sixty one. Who cares here? whatever.

And he has to. The he made was, listen, the proper article was really just ingenuous. They said he got a tax refund and they didn't.

They never explain. Well, that's because he overpaid his taxes, massey, the year before. So they're selectively pulling information. And the fact is he said, I will be the first money into space sex and test. I'll be the last money out. That is something we want, uh, more founders to do, which is never sell their shares and we have more skin in the game.

Sorry, I sorry, I disagree with that. I think that's a that's a bunch of fucking in mali.

why? If you choose .

to not sell, so be IT. Okay, but look at the good that bill gates is done by selling down microsoft. So I think shouldn't exist.

The bill gates foundation shouldn't exist. The reproduction CT that he had to be paid some. He did when he is old.

sure. no. He started to do IT when he was four years old.

And he he on sold paypal and he was able to use that money, but to reinvest in tesla. And I think putting .

all the money back into two companies that are solving two major issues.

he won't able to do that if he and sold in the first.

My point is let's not conflate the problem. If you generate wealth, I think that you should be bound, morally bound by society to put the money back to work. He chooses to put the money back to work by reinvesting so aggressively into the things that he's doing.

That's loadable virus, I agree, but it's not the only way bill gates took a different paths, which is to basically take all those profits, sell IT down to then be able to go put them into the gates foundation. People will take multiple pats. The point that the same among all these people there is a moral obligation, they feel to do the right thing for the future. And so let's to celebrate that. Not some tactical thing about buying.

And so i'd you said we tax the the wealth creation distributed. There's another way to get that redistribution of wealth, which is to enable access to the investments earlier by public funds, by the endangerment, by the places where people, by the retirement funds, where, you know, a broader set of the population, you know, have saving, sitting and the creditors of historically kind of force.

The narrative that everyone in the united states needs to have a home and have the eighty eighty percent of their wealth tied up in a ece of real state, and then we end up with these massive kind of inflationary bubbles to keep that value, that book value, of growing for them. The reality is if that money was put more productively into building businesses via retirement funds that had access to venture capital, the public pension funds already do, but they should be probably under licit adventure capital today. Relatives to are putting.

we think about the endowments .

looking and turn the model in. The brilliant .

provisions in this reconciliation bill is they're actually disabling retirement funds to invest in alternative, including startups e ital.

So wrong, what wrong?

Yeah what that's literally are .

taking pension funds and saying you can't to have access to them.

You as an individual through a four O N K or ira cannot invest. Put the s partly in response to that.

Well, they should just make IT a cap. Don't you think they should cap Peter tels?

I think I that's .

why why cap anything because he was .

against the spirit of IT. The spirit of the rough was discusses a specific shops, but i'll teat up for you sex. Uh, Peter.

T. O, put his facebook sock in his rough. And yeah, you're supposed to get that tax free so you can have a great retirement. He did that as an end run around paying taxes on the facebook investment that became worth billions of dollars reportedly another saying you can have a rough but anything about fifty billion you ve got to pay tax on because the goal here isn't for you to use that as a shelter against some massive uh, venture gains. Sex.

I don't have a huge problem with them putting a cap on the benefit of these accounts. However, my my issue with what's in the bill, there is a couple of issues. What is like we said they're discalced investments and alternatives, which I just think is bad for savers. Why would you want to do that? Second is the treatment of what happens when you exceed the cap. And right now, what they're saying is you have to distribute out all of those funds and then subject subject them to immediate taxation at ordinary income rates, which is confiscated ory, because you could have made the investment outside the retirement account and paid locked long term tax if you do go over ship.

get long term tax, of course. Yeah and and furthermore.

even worse than that because what they're saying is, let's say that you do have an alternative like an investment in the start or a venture fund, you've ve just striped IT out and pay tax on that even though that investment is not liquid.

So you should be able to take that out and just be true of Normal cap gains and not have to liquidate.

Do you think it's going to get it's going to give people incentive. It's going to work the incentive for saving because what is to say to people is you want to do well, but not too well, right? Because if you hit the cap.

you think I think.

Way to work is you have a cap at any distribution ove that you basically that becomes the basis for future taxation.

We don't know.

All of this can be summarized more simply. I think that we have unfortunately gotten so confused that we've decided to fix the finish line and staggers the starting line, right? Because all of this still doesn't apply to rich people.

No, this is very rich people. Rich people can do all of these different things. They can set up these outstate trust.

They can set up generations skeeters ing trust. They can be you know qualified um investors. They can have Q S P S deductions.

And so what this will do, unfortunately, is entrenched the kind of wealth gains that Peter tio was able to generate in a very visible way that will just pissed everybody off. And I think instead you got to go back to a different um to the different letters task. So I Jason, you have been the strong as advocate for letting people participate in the economy.

I have always agreed with that. We need to figure out how we can make sure that IT isn't abused. But that's the best way to educate folks about financial, literally, so that they can actually be a part of IT. Even the starting line, let everybody be able to put stuff into this stuff and learn about IT.

I mean, what Peter did essentially was put lottery tickets into his non tax retirement fund, lotter tickets, being buying stocks in private companies early. But regular americans are not allowed to do that. So rather than retroactively try to penalize Peter because you disagree with this politics or because he did IT too well, I think it's Better that everybody be allowed to be in a credit investor and do what Peter did, which is everybody should be able to take their four one k or their rough and be able to buy the next linked in uber. So if you were a civilian and you took an uber, or you use linked in to hire somebody in your two, and you add an opportunity to buy those shares, you should be allowed to buy IT because you are human resources, person or uber drive, and you realize this is a great service that will change the world. Doesn't a genius to figure that out?

Uh freebody yeah look, I mean the the downside is you see speculative concentrated bets that White people out next, the reason the protective provisions are in there. So I think there are probably sensible ways of managing that. Um you know around uh you know qualifying you know pools of these investments in a way creating indexes against them a uh and maybe that's the right way to provide access, but you know giving individuals uh that maybe you know don't have the right kind of point of view a on a particular investment, the ability to put all of their capital into that investment generally, I would say go for IT.

The problem is we've socialized, you know, uh protection, right? So and this is the same with health care in a model for governing or model for a state where you have socialized care for people through health care, socialize healthcare or you provide socialize support for people through, you know the social security system and services like that. Um it's difficult to say, okay, the government gona be your book top and is gonna provide the support for you and we're also going to let you take risky behavior um and that's where I think the two have to go hand in hand. If you want to get rid of one, you've tt a get rid of the other um and so because others SE, we all end up paying the cost of the person that takes the you know outsides risk and then we all and having to foot the bill for that person taking that risk. If we're all going to be there to protect that person, we have to tell them you can take unnecessary risk.

Okay, hey um sex, let me ask you a transpiring y there here. Peter till supported trump when trump was teetering on the access hollywood tape and he went to back room. He gave him a big donation at that time. Then obviously did the republican and national convention, and was a key intellectual, a influencer in his election plan.

Now the democrats in, and suddenly the focus becomes this one outside rough I R A, we're gonna rewrite the law so that Peter til has to take five billion dollars or so is one of the estimates that I saw online on C B. C. Out of his I R A. Do you think this is specific vindictiveness on the part of the democrats to try to attack specific with Peter tail?

I know he's your best. Well, yeah.

I M just feel, and not a Peter till apologist, but this feels indicted and personal.

So yes and no. okay. So what I would say is there been proposals over the last, I think going back to maybe two thousand fourteen on providing some restrictions or caps on these areas in the north areas.

However, there's never been a proposal as puna tive and retroactive and confiscated ory as what they're doing here. And specifically, it's the fact that they're going to force Peter to distribute IT out everything above the cap and then taxi is ordinary income. I mean, that is changing the rules.

That part, I think, is directed at Peter, and i've actually heard that staffers on capital hilter calling this the Peter till provision. So let me just confirm that part for you. So what I would say is I think there is a sensible way to provide some restrictions on these retirement accounts. But the way they're doing IT is so punitive, I think IT is motivated by political revenge on Peter chemosh.

What do we think of the number of unique being created in the private markets? Obviously, when a company has unicorn status, I think they're going to start buzzing around and maybe knocking on your door. And facts and boards might be thinking about that these companies sometimes have ten million dollars, thirty million dollars in revenue, fifty million in revenue in becoming worth a billion dollars. Do these valuations make sense writ large? And are you could that this is a bubble.

but I don't think there is a bubble?

Okay, explain why there's not a bubble in early stage private companies?

No, I think it's because of what we just talked about, which is that these companies, by and large, are growing at incredibly fast rates and they are replacing legacy and compound that are growing very slowly or not at all with and who who have basically won for a long time with inferior products. And so as these superior products with more nimble gania's um get capital ized to go to market, they're just gona win.

And so I think what we're seeing is a wholesale replacement of the economy from the old to the new. And so that's why these companies will do well. And I think it's gonna A A A really powerful force in the world because like the world should be a little bit more efficient and fair when you have all this modern technology working on your behalf.

So i'm a real supporter of all of this. I think there's gonna even more. And I think you know the the thing that we have to be comfortable with this whenever something goes from a fring thing, which is what venture capital was, Jason, when all of us were, you know, first in silicon value twenty years ago to you know, today in twenty twenty one, we're sitting here.

Uh, this is gonna become a fundamental part of the economy. And when that happens, uh, they'll be more and more money. The returns won't be as good, that'll be OK, but they'll be a lot of progress. And so you know, we're going through the same transition that private equity did in the eighties and nineties that venture all the .

different venture capitalists who are retiring bijon from Spark, the kid from a light speed bunch of other folks.

obviously our friend build .

to a step.

I doing .

something wrong here. I'm like busy creating a venture form at age almost fifty .

one side of this.

So what are we thinks behind this? They just too much money. And I think I would say slightly .

different that I don't know I don't know I mean, I know all of those guys um but I don't know what their motivation is. But what I would say is I tend to think that the mindset of venture has a relatively short half life, and I think it's about fifteen years. And I think that there is a and because you know, company building is roughly attend your arc, you know like when you get into something early.

And so I I I think that there is like a annonce whenever you started. I don't think IT matters what your ages and a dentist this sort of like death march that sets in by year eight or nine. And then you try to see a through to returning the capital and making sure all the employees and, uh, founders you been invested with lander's and and I think what this guy's did was get to that place and say, okay, i've had this fifteen year beautiful arc.

Do I want to do another fifteen year arc? And for a lot of people, um IT won't make much sense. And then also, I think your patients to do IT goes away because it's like you you guys know what IT IT is exhAusting. It's exact .

amount of drama i'm dealing with right now in my portfolio is Bakers the the the bed. I don't know you're seeing the sex, but the amount of genetic an's bad behavior are fraud. A lying, backstabbing is at an all time that .

would be your portfolio check.

Yeah.

it's literally three companies. I'm literally dealing with three companies with drama out of three hundred fifty. I think it's one out of one hundred is probably fine. But I am seeing all kinds of entities even in the diligence phase.

I'm seeing A I been more tactical, which is like, for example, you know, yesterday, we're starting something really ambitious in batteries, and I have to sit there for now and we have to go through ordering the equipment, ting up the lab, getting you and there's only so much of that, that you have the energy to do after a certain amount of time. It's important work you have to do IT, right? But IT feels, uh, a little low leverage now for that.

C E, O, it's everything. And so you have to be on top of your game to help that person. And I think this is where I appreciate their honesty and basically saying, guys, I don't have that level of detailed focus in me anymore. And that's important because in the next generation of folks you want to put in that fifteen journey need somebody committed. You need somebody who super committed yeah.

And I do think there's a difference between being a partner in a large partnership where you going to have your portfolio of companies and to moh point, you're going to be on that arc with them and then kind of building a firm from scratch where like, quite Frankly, I would go crazy the way that you're dealing with Jason and chemotherapy. I would get burned out if I didn't have a team. So we now have like a pretty big team.

How many to? Well, not just on the investment team. I think we've about fifteen people and and then we now have a bunch of Operating partner. So you know, we are looking at what in recent horris done with services.

You know we had this big debate, the venture community, for a long time, about whether the venture firms should you should offer services and Operating partners and and jacon, you went hot while they got like two people doing IT. And I think they've proven that IT works in the same. I don't know it's not totally clear how much value they are delivering, but to clearly works in the sense that founders would like the services if they can get them.

It's great marketing, but it's it's great, mark, if you are great founder, when you were a great founder, you win, win in horror, telling you how to run your H, R, doing your marketing for you.

right? But so what we've done is what we've done is focused on bringing on not two hundred or people, but in expert in every functional area that access company might need. Because you do on access to an expert when you're safe, the department, you are going to talk to the digital marketing person or the legal person or or we have an executive brief ing center now. So we do believe that there is a version, the service mile, that makes a lot of sense, and we are building that. If I to do all of that value at myself, yeah, I I would burn out yeah I mean.

I think it's a very good point. I literally last week launched the syndicate docs like slack A S syndicate just for the same reason. So I can build a group of individuals who are focused just on that and who have that domain expertise. But the the great founders do not want you up in their business. So I am concerned with that's why we have .

like kind we call a teach him how to fish model where we don't want to do the work. We want to give them an expert as a resource who can meet with them and some best practices .

for coming to you, expecting you to do the work. Is that what I can happen sometimes, as can you find us to developer? And i'm like, no, but I could talk to about finding developers, but I don't have a great recruit on staff.

You have a recruit should have recruits on staff. So so you're paying .

a half million dollars in year two recruit for your companies.

That's a basically.

basically that's .

a big advantage.

Is IT working? Are you .

actually landing developers? Yeah.

I do to talk about people for a second. I just want to go back to this like golden era point when we're talking about venture capital because, look, obviously in the weeds were going to talk about our problems. But I really think that what's happening here with a thousand new uniforms being mainly every year is just unbelievable.

If you look at the number of billionaires in the U. S, I did google this. There were six hundred and fourteen billionaire in the U. S. As of october twenty twenty. And now there's probably more I don't know there's a thousand well, if you're within a thousand unicorns every year, how many billions is that creating?

I mean, how many millionaire, more importantly, how many people who are making fifty to two hundred and fifty thousand dollars year before they joined the ecosystem, in now worth millions, will buy homes, hire people.

start the next? Let me just give you guys the counter point to that, which i'm not necessarily arguing. But this is what I think the narrative is, which is that those businesses that are kind of accumulating wealth and accumulating revenue are effectively destroying the old economy and shutting down companies and shutting .

and with a million job opening that I .

believe is your osm game yeah, I think it's a roof is disruptive, right?

So there is kind of a temporal flux, and there is a flux of people across from the old economy to the new economy. And it's that's flocks that I could create, the great uncertainty and the great.

yes, headache that everyone's .

hering is why IT is so important to get corporate taxation right. Because if you're going to replace GDP dollar for dollar, don't focus on the fewer employees that worked there, focus on the largest number possible, which is the revenue that these employees are helping to generate for these companies. So if you had much, much higher corporate taxation, you can play around with all the personal taxation you want. But if a lot of people do get shut out of the economy, you're not going to make nearly as much for the government as you would buy taxing companies more chmagh.

Should there be a backstop because we know tax law is so sophisticated. And if you're intelligence, you could make IT seem like it'd make any money because you're investing, you're distributing audio. Ta, should there just be a, hey, listen, whatever you want to do, what your taxes is fine, but x percent of your top line revenue is your base tax and you cannot get around that. Should there be something like that?

There's a couple of things that this tax bill attempted to do, which could be really powerful if IT does get past. I think that corporation should pay a large tax. I think that they should be forced to spend a certain percentage on R, N D.

And I think they should be forced to spend a certain percentage on basically benefits for their employees. And I think that would do a lot to level the playing field. Then I do think that you can have much higher individual taxation, but you need to make IT simpler because there's too many easy ways like that proper article showed for you to play games, for individuals to not pay taxes. And so you gotta simplify all of this stuff because it's too complicated. If you're rich enough to hire a fleet of lawyers, you will work out your way around IT.

Yes, period. And and they repealed IT as part of the the mt was for corporations was repealed as part of the tax cuts and jobs act. I think I don't know where that stands, but IT does seem like a lot of .

kind of know I don't know how that makes sense. J K. L, I mean, like some businesses run high margin.

some are low margin, some are losing. I don't of you, but one of the I think one of the optics issues here is, you know people like that company didn't pay any taxes. That company sells this many iphones. That companies .

because they they're doing what tax laws were designed to do, which is to encourage investment. How x IT give me a solution, prefer I I think that once business is our mature and they start dividends, cash making distributions and are profitable, that might give the time to .

tax them and not sure do that if they .

had an army of people saying here you don't .

have to the growth. They're jobs in the growing economy, growth in the because that's the effective proxy for .

taxing GDP. Yeah look, I would be all about I wear my liberator had again for a second but like I would be all about taxation if I felt like my dollars had a positive role where they ended up. And the problem right now is like government spending is set up in such a way that is, effectively, i've been gaming fied and people extract capital from the government, and my dollars are not getting a positive our life for me or for society. I would rather have them.

which is why you left. Let's be onest. That's why you left them first go. I mean.

it's just ending more. So i've got a family and .

and I need a .

backyard. So that's a little but is in .

part of IT that you just go a whole .

a whole other nights jack out like i'm just picking in a in you're large in general right now, whether it's the state level of the federal level, IT feels to me and I think IT feels to a lot of people that dollars aren't being spent in a way that generating a return for the taxpayer. Um and I think we all feel that way. And I think that's what's frustrated.

It's not about how much one's being, it's about how those tax dollars being spent and are they being spent in a way that secures the future of our nation, of our people, of our livelihoods at a and making you know giving everyone access opportunity. What's what's happened? What's happened is we've created things like student loan programs and you know housing programs and infrastructure programs that are literally just giving away money to private companies that are profiteering off of government spending, right? And it's croy service, as our favorite professor Scott way says.

It's one thing I really do agree with this IT, is that there is the notion of capitals and where the united states and state governments, even local governments, have seen its differences. Go california holiday to the central level are spending money in a way that I think we fiel um is benefiting some disproportionate to most. Now if there is a high degree of taxation and everyone was benefit in a meaningful way and those programs are well managed, capital flow meaningful? Ly, uh, to support everything we want to support, great.

I think everyone raise your hand, raise two hands and say, tax the heck adem, let's make that happen. But that's not what happens. And I think that's the primary of verging high taxation .

sacchi at the fun of word.

yeah. I mean, look, what i'm worried about is taxes are going up big time. No matter what happens in washington, spending is going up big time.

We now have peacetime deficits that are the biggest that they've ever been, the the the national that the peace of national debt service bin. Um we have A A looming deck crisis in china. We have supply chain shortages. I mean, you know what I there's a lot of things here that could upset the apple cart. And I, when i'm afraid of, was going to look back this year, the thousand unicorns being mended and say that really was the golden and everything happened after that.

we really screw you. Like the old guy at starbucks.

IT says that .

every generation .

and complaints about ten years ago, none of those uniforms existed. And IT is likely the case that three trillion dollars of value is created via private funding and private companies over the last ten years. So all these entrepreneurs is all these employees. Anyone working at these businesses, anyone involved in these businesses, should be thrown about the fact that you, from zero, created three a half million dollars of how you, in ten years. That's extraordinary.

Yeah not trying to create nostalgic about the past. I'm talking about the present and trying to preserve IT because i'm seeing .

some clouds on yeah, I would like to play the time from tony ony ony.

okay, everybody were heading out this once for you lend breed.

State, state approved entertainment. You can take off your mask for this entertainment.

It's so good. And you guys watch a sick game.

Anybody watches quit game? No, we have lives.

Nobody watch great .

game of my kids been talking about that. Should I be laying them?

What great game? No, it's the most violent korean horrod. Stop an a show ever watch you're going to be scarred for I.

Hey, sex as a follow up. Did you did you stop your kids from from tiktok?

Do you take your kids up tiktok?

They told, yeah, I went in there and like kids, what are you watching?

I'll say in a second, yeah so did you take your kids off tiktok?

Yeah I went in there is like, kids, were you watching that like that? And the hell of here .

tell us our names. He was like, OK. I'll be right back.

just if you can tell me to turn off to duck by my name, i'll do IT they see .

version was what I watching a tiktok I hear it's all sex and drugs like, no watching, sir. Okay, god.

the dance videos are literally like absolutely, uh, sex and drug base. Every single one of them .

is dev and is that is that .

literally if you list, take the most obscene lyrics to, uh, obscene hook to any raps on.

That's what trends of every generation, please. I am like you. I just want to pero jam know all the way back to the beach place. Yes, yeah, actually yeah.

But I mean, no, this, but I say it's explicit. IT is literally experience. You just don't get the youth. J, L, you don't understand them. I I think I understand a little bit too well anyway, do not you say I okay guys, are we going to do the all in or not the code conference? And I was like, this was amazing to .

get back talking about ideas, what .

you talking about .

we .

created just .

trying .

to get.

I need you in italy.

No .

room will do first .

in my .

second. Year italy, what?

Access two hundred fifty tickets, two hundred for purchase, fifty for scholarship, all in summit, three days. Miami sex.

And I, after more, keep exclusive to .

invert the top .

down higher to what I want to be a left doing authority ties, because I have to believe IT.

that is what you are, a left way of tea like.

I just want to be reaching beautiful. What party I am, just make money for this power.

Let me you tell this idea is because to the points are on about with coin base earlier, we have these conferences in the tech industry and they're Frankly run by people who hate tech in the tech industry. And people were successful tickets, right? exactly.

And so I see these tech founders going up on these stages and projecting themselves these interrogations by people who would hate them. And i'm like, what are they doing? Like, IT makes a sense.

I'm putting up the form. I'm going to let people take deposits. I'm going to pick a month.

and we're going to go. How many people went to the conference.

guys you want in this way? And I the a code conference, I think was probably three, four hundred by design. IT was a third or half ticket.

I didn't actually .

buy a ticket because I didn't want to be in the conference itself because I was concerned about a breakthrough virus. But I did host the poker game with sky and brook tickets.

I think are a thousand for code.

and I think that .

is up to or fifteen.

two hundred changes and then fifty scholarships for people .

who wouldn't be able to afford IT. So the gross revenue, five million, and what costs gna be?

Cost will be a million.

And so wait, so we so we're making profit .

on the still i'm making a profit hundred may be very clear. Excuse me.

excuse me, I and buying the wine and you will shut the fuck up.

okay. So then it's going to be it's going to cost two million. So it's going to make one point, no bug.

that everybody that comes is IT feels like theyve had an exceptional food and beverage experience .

to half a million dollars on wine.

No joke. So then IT has to be ten kata, but know the people who are coming afford that.

We're not privilege you with some profiteering.

I'm not for tearing off of IT. Honestly, the reason I want to do IT most is I want to play poker for three days, and I want to have us, the four of us, interview the most icon clastic interesting people. And I want to do IT for the fans, so that some number of fans get to come who would Normally be able to come to a conference at this level, and i'd think would be a blast to be fun.

to get together.

Make IT. Okay, I do IT right. It's want to make sure.

but he's bought in.

I need to get you today. okay?

Not the first week of february because I think I .

have a i'm in march, April, march, April.

Also not the third week of february is because .

I think i'm skiing in your p just like can you just give us can you give us the dates you not galvin, around europe in other places.

i'm grinding every day. Here you see what .

i'm in hard and it's crazy. It's like i'd never seen the market like this.

I mean, IT is bonkers.

Enjoy less.

What's that enjoy exactly?

alright. Everybody will see you next time for the dictator mopy hopeth a, for the rain man and the queen of David free. And we'll see you .

on episode .

fifty by .

ye rain men gait.

We open sources to the fans, and they .

have just got crazy with.

You should all just get a room big, huge, because sexual. 我。

一定 是。

给你。